Video Summary
The City of London and British imperial networks have long shaped global conflicts and financial levers, according to Susan Kokinda.
Kokinda links Trump’s Iran blockade to breaking a 300-year British oil and insurance monopoly centered in London.
British intelligence historically manufactured movements (e.g., Muslim Brotherhood) to destabilize nationalist rivals, the guest claims.
The American system (industrial, sovereign economics) is presented as the counter-model to British imperial control.
Lloyd’s of London and London banking are framed as instruments of imperial financial power; recent policy moves challenged that status quo.
Kokinda argues a long-standing British imperial network—rooted in the City of London, banking, and intelligence—has shaped wars, financial flows, and political manipulations since the 19th century.
Kokinda claims Trump’s blockade and pressure on Iran are aimed at dismantling a centuries-old British oil and insurance monopoly centered in London, thereby undermining imperial financial leverage.
The conversation references British intelligence involvement in the Middle East (e.g., origins of the Muslim Brotherhood), alleged British links to U.S. presidential assassinations, and financial institutions like Lloyd’s and London banks facilitating global control.
Lloyd’s is presented as part of a historic British shipping-insurance monopoly; recent insurance actions are framed as a break in that monopoly tied to changing U.S. policy.
LaRouche’s political influence and prosecution are cited as part of historical efforts to suppress alternatives to imperial frameworks; Mueller’s involvement in LaRouche’s indictment is noted as evidence of high-level political targeting.
"How much of this comes down to money? How much of it comes down to power?"
The discussion opens with the exploration of the relationship between money, power, and long-term objectives. There is an emphasis on the belief that those in power regard the rest of the population as no better than animals, simply because they possess wealth and status. This raises questions about influence and control among various power players.
It is suggested that the current global dynamics differ from those of past imperial powers like Britain, which no longer wield the same level of control.
"I think they're not losers. I think they're winners, but the system is broken."
The guest, Susan Kokinda, is introduced, highlighting her unique background and past roles in significant political events. Her experiences during the RFK campaign and the Ronald Reagan assassination attempt provide a historical lens through which the current political climate is assessed.
Kokinda reflects on the prevailing sentiment during the late 1960s and early 1980s, noting a sense that something was amiss in the country following notable political assassinations. She recalls a loss of mission-oriented national pride which transitioned towards a more hedonistic culture.
"If we were talking about the things we're talking about today, people would be putting tin foil hats on us."
The conversation touches on how political awareness and public perception have evolved, particularly in reference to the MAGA movement and its experiences during significant events like Covid, the 2020 election, and January 6th.
There is a recognition of a growing population willing to critically examine systemic issues rather than accept mainstream narratives, as shown by Kokinda's observations of how lifestyle changes have impacted family dynamics and socioeconomic stability since policies like NAFTA and the financial bailouts.
"If you look at the history of assassination attempts in the United States, it is the British who murder our presidents."
Kokinda draws attention to Britain's historical role in U.S. politics, particularly regarding assassination attempts. She argues that the perception of global threats narrowly focuses on nations like China or Russia, while Britain's influence remains overlooked.
She posits that understanding Britain's involvement is crucial, as it suggests a deeper, more intricate fabric of international power dynamics rather than simplistic villain portrayals.
"The two systems in the world were the American system versus the British imperial system."
The discussion begins with a reference to assassinated American presidents, highlighting the consequential nature of their leadership and their connection to the broader geopolitical narrative. The American system is portrayed as a counter to the British imperial approach, which relied on control through power, wealth, and perpetual conflict.
The British imperial system focused on exploiting resources and ensuring countries remained dependent, while the American system emphasized productivity, health, and prosperity of its population through sustainable, long-term policies.
By the end of the 19th century, the American system was gaining international admiration, with nations like Russia, China, Japan, Germany, and France attempting to adopt its principles. However, this knowledge has been largely omitted from educational content due to its perceived threat to British interests.
"If you look more carefully at the role of British intelligence throughout the 20th century, you'll find they were behind many movements."
The conversation shifts to the creation of the Muslim Brotherhood by British intelligence in the 1920s, positioning it as a tool for destabilizing nationalist movements in countries striving for economic independence.
Historical figures, such as Lawrence of Arabia, exemplify the British involvement in shaping political radicalism in the Middle East, with figures like Lord Cromer playing key roles in promoting political Islam as a strategic asset.
Discussions mention significant literature that details these historical interactions, indicating the depth of British intelligence’s involvement in the development and manipulation of political Islam.
"It's like a corporation; everyone plays their part in the British elite's strategies."
When speaking of the British elites, the talk encompasses not only the royal family but also the financial power centered in the City of London, implicating the influence of entities like the Rothschilds and the banking sector in facilitating global politics.
A newly released book titled "Queen Elizabeth and Her Presidents" is introduced, revealing how Queen Elizabeth maintained close involvement with national security and intelligence, thus showcasing the monarchy's significant influence over political matters.
The discussion connects financial power in London, particularly in oil pricing and the strategic maneuvers related to the Iran conflict, to a broader system of influence that encompasses both intelligence operations and media manipulation.
"What the president is doing right now, especially with this cabinet, is extraordinary."
The speaker emphasizes observing the actions and communications of the current administration, suggesting that the dynamics within cabinet meetings and executive orders are significant and historic.
They indicate that distractions in media, like debates about specific countries, obscure the more pressing issue of larger global systems at play.
"You create a system where people get paid, where they get influence."
The discussion shifts to how a system is designed to create dependencies among individuals, suggesting that people may be manipulated or coerced based on their fear of losing financial stability or their positions.
It's noted that this system involves psychological manipulation akin to Stockholm syndrome, where individuals may unconsciously align with the very influences that restrict their freedom.
"The method is to keep people sort of in the world of perceptions where all you're doing is just reacting."
The speaker describes a playbook used by influential powers to frame narratives and trends, keeping the public engaged with superficial aspects of issues while ignoring deeper implications.
They assert that the mainstream media plays a critical role in maintaining these perceptions, often controlled by global elites.
"They are pitting nations against each other, constantly fighting, so that the imperial game masters at the top can continue to play their games."
The concept of the “Great Game” is introduced, referring to historical and current practices where powers manipulate conflicts to sustain their overarching control.
The speaker cites how the British Empire historically divided nations to ensure ongoing conflict, which has led to modern-day geopolitical tensions, particularly in regions like Iran and Central Asia.
"It's this historic fight between imperialism and the idea that nations have the right to develop for their own betterment."
The conversation highlights the clash between imperial interests and the rights of nations to self-develop, framing contemporary conflicts as battles against colonialist legacies.
They suggest that a true understanding of world conflicts requires moving beyond binary labels and recognizing deeper historical power struggles.
"Imperial systems believe that we're no better than animals; they want a world where people are stupid and backward."
The speaker argues that historical imperial systems devalue human capability and strive for control over uneducated, dependent populations.
They contrast this with the American system, which espouses the belief in the productive powers of human creativity and individuality, presenting an ideological battle between manipulation and empowerment of individuals.
"The empire uses power, money, ideologies, and wars, but it's for the purpose of keeping their system protected from upstart sovereign nations."
The British Empire utilized various tools to maintain its influence and suppress potential challengers, such as sovereign nations that could disrupt their system. This historical understanding highlights how power is wielded not just for expansion but for preserving a status quo that favors imperial interests.
Historical analyses show that many countries, including Japan and Russia, were influenced by the American system, which began to take shape in the late 19th century. Prominent figures from various nations studied this system, suggesting its impact reached beyond American borders, challenging the dominance of British narrative.
The idea that the British rewrote history is critical in understanding the obscuration of significant influences like the American system from mainstream historical narratives.
"When you look at King Charles, his history is quite unique, including his connections to Qatar and the money he received for charity."
King Charles's relationships and influences, especially with nations like Qatar, are under scrutiny. His reported acceptance of substantial donations raises questions about the nature of his affiliations and the political motives behind them. Such dynamics suggest an interplay of power where nations seek influence over influential figures.
The discussion revolves around who truly holds power—whether King Charles and the British royal family are the influencers or if external forces like Qatar dominate the narrative. This reflects broader concerns about global elites controlling political landscapes, particularly in America.
"Donald Trump laid down the law to the Saudis and said, 'You're going to stop your support for Islamic fundamentalism, for ISIS, and al-Qaeda.'"
In contrast to previous administrations, Trump's approach marked a significant shift in U.S.-Middle East relations. By directly confronting Saudi support for extremism, he sought to redefine the relationship, advocating for sovereign national development and moving away from imperial manipulation.
The implications of these new dynamics included fostering relationships based on mutual benefit rather than exploitation, exemplified by the potential for trade deals that support the autonomy of Gulf states.
The responses of Gulf nations to the Iran conflict illustrate a pivotal realignment, indicating a shift away from traditionally held alliances and toward partnerships with the United States against perceived threats.
Trump's approach contrasts sharply with historical British manipulation in the region, suggesting a reconfiguration of longstanding geopolitical strategies and alliances.
"By the time of the turn of the 20th century, you have the British explicitly outlining... saying we have to bring the United States back under our way of doing things."
After the American Civil War, despite the assassination of Lincoln, there was a resurgence of the American political economy. By the 1876 Centennial Exhibition, the United States showcased its industrial prowess. However, British interests aimed to undermine this progress by assassinating U.S. presidents and corrupting institutions.
At the turn of the 20th century, figures like Cecil Rhodes were advocating for a return to British dominance over American politics and policies. For much of the 20th century, the U.S. was seen as a "dumb giant" that unwittingly supported British policies without maintaining a strong military force.
A recent report by the House of Lords acknowledged that the U.S.-British relationship benefitted Britain, claiming, "we couldn't enforce this system without the United States."
"I think he got a much deeper understanding of how evil what he was up against was."
During his first term, President Trump faced unprecedented challenges and became acutely aware of the institutional forces opposing his agenda. His experiences, particularly with events like COVID-19 and the January 6th incident, contributed to this understanding.
Observers note that Trump's second term has shown a stark difference in approach, marked by more decisive actions against perceived threats, including actions against countries like Venezuela and Iran.
The evolution of Trump's strategy may stem from a realization of who his true adversaries are, leading to a more focused and coherent policy agenda.
"You don't revive the American system randomly."
Effective leadership within the current administration demonstrates a deep understanding of historical principles, particularly the "American system" which has roots in the economic philosophy of figures like Alexander Hamilton.
The administration’s coherence and competence indicate a deliberate mission, contrasting sharply with those previous governments marked by internal leaks and factions seeking advantage.
Key figures within the administration, such as Jameson Greer and Scott Besson, possess insider knowledge about economic systems and strategic policies that are actively being utilized for national benefit.
"When you rediscover the American system, it gives you the power to be economically sovereign."
The U.S. is transforming from a “dumb giant” into a more aware and powerful nation, as its rediscovery of the American system enables greater economic sovereignty.
Policies aimed at energy independence are pivotal; by reducing reliance on foreign resources, particularly oil, the U.S. can regain control over its strategic interests and economic stability.
This newfound independence allows the U.S. to navigate global markets without being at the mercy of foreign powers, signaling a significant shift in the global power dynamics.
"The market is not seeing to our national defense, so we have to step in."
The recent executive orders issued by the president highlight the administration's approach to national defense by invoking the Defense Production Act. This act aims to address vulnerabilities in the energy sector, including production, generation, and transmission of energy.
There is a notable concern regarding the United States' reliance on foreign sources for critical infrastructure components, such as transformers, which can take two years to procure from countries like South Korea if needed.
This situation reveals the vulnerabilities exposed during COVID-19, prompting government action to ensure that basic necessities are met as a sovereign nation.
"We're not dumb any longer... The invisible hand is picking your pocket to feed the city of London."
The discussion touches on the need for government intervention in securing investment in vital industrial areas when private financial institutions fail to do so. This includes creating mechanisms to protect producers and facilitate local production, especially in the context of strategic minerals.
Examples were given where companies faced challenges due to onerous regulations and competition from countries like China, leading to bankruptcies. The intent is to develop policies that create a domestic environment conducive to production without global undercutting.
"We just broke a 300-year monopoly on shipping insurance."
The conversation shifts to the implications of Lloyd's of London withdrawing insurance services, marking a significant shift in the historical dynamics of shipping insurance, traditionally a stronghold for British interests.
The cancellation of insurance is contextualized as a reaction to the Trump administration's policies, which aimed to disrupt long-established power structures.
This bold move by the administration challenged the expectations of the British establishment, leading to an unexpected turn of events in international relations.
"I think there's a good chance of [withdrawing from NATO]."
The dialogue reflects concerns about European countries overextending themselves while lacking the military strength and energy independence necessary for robust security strategies.
The administration's withdrawal from various international organizations underscores a strategic re-evaluation of alliances and commitments, suggesting a possible reevaluation of the U.S. role within NATO.
The emphasis is on President Trump’s calculated approach; rather than overtly condemning NATO, he leverages diplomatic strategies that force allies to reassess their positions and contributions, compelling them to expose their weaknesses.
"They did not expect a president to do any of these kinds of things."
The ongoing analysis critiques the mythos surrounding the U.S.-British relationship, highlighting historical conflicts that contradict the notion of an unwavering alliance.
The discussion emphasizes how the current administration's approach is reshaping perceptions of alliances, particularly the American view of Britain as an ally.
The conversation illustrates the unexpected consequences of American foreign policy that dismisses traditional loyalties and prompts re-evaluations of long-standing allegiances.
"NATO just proved that they're a problem by refusing to step forward."
The discussion highlights the growing perception that NATO is becoming problematic, particularly in its unwillingness to engage in certain conflicts. This reluctance raises questions about the traditional special relationship the United States has maintained with Britain, particularly in the context of current geopolitical tensions.
The speaker emphasizes that institutions like NATO are being compelled to reveal their true nature as some leaders refuse to play by established rules, leading to a critical examination of the post-war order.
"They're losing $12 to $15 billion a month... how sustainable is that?"
The blockade imposed on Iran is discussed as a crucial factor contributing to its economic decline, with estimates suggesting substantial daily financial losses for the country. This aggressive economic maneuvering puts Iran in a precarious position as they can only rely on their oil reserves for so long before facing severe operational challenges.
The dialogue also mentions key figures like Abbas Araghchi, the main negotiator for Iran, who has shown hesitance in engaging with U.S. representatives, opting for meetings with other nations instead, such as Pakistan, Oman, and Russia.
"There’s a lot of moving pieces in terms of this... a unified government in Iran does not exist."
The internal political landscape of Iran is portrayed as fragmented, with various factions including the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) and the civilian government acting independently. This lack of unity complicates predictions regarding Iran's future actions.
The speaker reflects on Donald Trump's unique approach, implying that he understands the tangible realities of economics rather than merely engaging in diplomatic discussions, positioning him to potentially leverage Iran’s circumstances effectively.
"If the relatively sane people in Iran can make the decisions...they are just up against it."
The urgency for Iran to negotiate meaningful solutions before facing irreversible economic collapse is emphasized. The implications of losing access to their oil reserves could send Iran's economy back to a dire state, which would have broader ramifications for the region.
The willingness of the U.S. to engage with this crisis without resorting to outright military action is noted, indicating a preference for diplomatic resolutions in the face of escalating tensions.
"I don’t think they have too many places to go at this point."
The possibilities for external assistance to Iran's IRGC are pondered, with skepticism about support from nations like Russia or China. The speaker argues that these nations may not be inclined to help the IRGC, as both possess their own political intricacies and interests.
The conversations surrounding international strategies reveal that while factions within larger nations like China may show interest in supporting Iran, decisive leadership may prevent any substantial aid, leaving the IRGC in a precarious position in the global landscape.
"They’re not replacing their population... a very stratified society."
The discussion shifts to China's demographic challenges, highlighting a declining population and the implications of a stratified society that experiences uneven economic growth.
We examine the greater narrative that paints China as a looming global power, while drawing attention to the internal struggles that could undermine this perception, questioning the true robustness of their socio-economic system.
"The social credit system has to be a damper in terms of the ability of your society to actually develop."
The creation of a stratified society inhibits independent and creative thinking among its population, leading to vulnerability and stagnation.
This mentality resembles challenges faced by the Soviet Union, where a skilled military sector existed in isolation from a failed civilian economy, ultimately contributing to its collapse.
Mind policing obstructs curiosity and creativity, essential components for societal advancement, and can lead to a deadlock in cultural and scientific progress.
"If the Trump revolution succeeds, in 50 years there won't be any empires."
The potential for future global power dynamics hinges on whether the United States can maintain its status as a sovereign and prosperous nation while allowing others to replicate this model.
Advocates for a world of sovereign nations may diminish the prevalence of empires, enabling various nations, including those traditionally oriented towards imperialism like China and Russia, to adapt.
The discussion emphasizes the importance of principles laid out by historical figures within the American system that could guide nations away from imperial domination to foster independence.
"He was a universal genius, whose passion was the divergence between the physical economy and artificial systems."
LaRouche's ideologies greatly influenced perspectives on the relationship between human creativity and economic development, encouraging a re-examination of historical economic practices.
His work prompted a movement to rediscover the American system, recognized for its success, particularly during moments of national reflection like the American Bicentennial.
Individuals gravitated towards LaRouche’s philosophy due to his intellectual rigor and challenge to conventional economic systems, arguing that human creativity should dictate economic policies.
"His influence is not always understood, but he played a vital role in Ronald Reagan's strategic defense initiative."
Lyndon LaRouche maintained consistent principles and policies throughout his career, despite media portrayals suggesting a shift from left to right. His strategic involvement met with influential figures, notably Ronald Reagan, emphasizes his significance in shaping key political initiatives like the Strategic Defense Initiative in the 1980s.
The prosecution of LaRouche was linked to powerful figures, with Robert Mueller involved in his indictment, illustrating the high-stakes nature of political opposition he faced.
"Following LaRouche's passing, his widow took the organization in a direction which we completely disagreed with."
"He claimed Queen Elizabeth II runs the international narcotics trade."
LaRouche made various controversial assertions about global affairs, including allegations about Queen Elizabeth II's involvement in narcotics and the orchestrations behind major historical events like Hitler’s rise and key geopolitical conflicts.
His beliefs often fell into the realm of conspiracy theory, yet some of his statements about the financial undercurrents of the international drug trade point to deeper historical realities concerning money laundering and banking systems established by British financial institutions.
"The key element of the international narcotics trade is not the cigar boats with drugs on them; it's who laundered the drug money."
The complexity of the international narcotics trade revolves around financial mechanisms, particularly the laundering of drug money by prominent banking institutions. Historical accounts link British financial operations in offshore locations to the facilitation of drug trafficking.
Research presented in past works, including a book titled "Dope Incorporated," provides evidence that major financial institutions, like banks based in London, played pivotal roles in the drug trade, which was portrayed through caricatures and oversimplifications in mainstream media.
"All the claims which LaRouche made could be thoroughly historically proven."
LaRouche's ideas about British imperial influence extend to various historical narratives, suggesting that the roots of many conflicts and ideologies, including communism, can be traced back to British interests.
Considerations of the historical process beyond surface-level interpretations reveal how geopolitical strategies work, particularly in the context of British policies aimed at weakening rivals like Russia throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries.
"A book by Richard Poe entitled How the British Created Communism and Blamed It on the Jews is an amazing book."
Richard Poe's work provides substantial research that challenges conventional understandings of historical events. He posits that communism was strategically developed in London for geopolitical purposes, particularly against Russia.
Poe’s documentation encourages readers to shift their worldview by examining rigorous historical accounts, which encompass primary sources and verifiable claims rather than relying on secondary narratives.
"Stop getting your ideas from social media unless you're reading Trump himself."
Emphasizing the value of primary sources, the discussion points out the necessity of consulting original documents and statements from involved parties, rather than summarizations or interpretations found online or in mainstream narratives.
Engaging directly with primary materials, such as executive orders or official speeches, grants a clearer picture of political dynamics and decisions, allowing for more informed opinions and analyses.
"You just have to look for it as opposed to taking Fox News's or the Washington Post's version of what is going on."
The discussion emphasizes the need to consult primary sources rather than relying on mainstream media interpretations. This approach encourages critical thinking and independent analysis of current events.
The dialogue mentions the importance of informed individuals in Congress and highlights a recent incident where a Congresswoman mistakenly referred to "World War 11," underscoring a lack of historical knowledge among some public figures.
"Before there was Trump, there was LaRouche."
The conversation draws a parallel between Lyndon LaRouche and Donald Trump, noting that both figures represent a particular fight against the establishment, albeit with different historical and philosophical foundations.
LaRouche is described as a profoundly knowledgeable individual in various disciplines, suggesting that Trump's approach, while instinctual, may lack the same depth of understanding.
Trump’s wealth and the existence of new social media platforms provided him a unique opportunity to influence politics, a stark contrast to LaRouche's era.
"If you don't have a leader with that kind of courage to stand up and fight, you're never going to get to these deeper levels."
The necessity for leadership with courage and conviction is underscored as essential for tackling deeper societal issues. Without such leadership, meaningful progress is unattainable.
The risks faced by Trump, including multiple assassination attempts, are noted as evidence of the intense opposition leaders like him encounter when challenging the status quo.
"The fixation that Donald Trump is somehow the beating heart of the Epstein files is extremely corrosive."
The segment discusses pervasive misconceptions surrounding high-profile figures, specifically regarding the Epstein files, and criticizes both right and left wings for creating and perpetuating these narratives.
It highlights that focusing on sensationalized claims can distract from more significant issues, such as the dismantling of corrupt structures linked to the Epstein case.
The dialogue further elaborates on misunderstandings related to Israel and the British imperial system, suggesting that a deeper examination of these topics reveals interconnected roots that complicate public discourse.
"It's very useful for people to read right now because it goes through the history of Lincoln, McKinley, Kennedy, and the attempts on Trump."
The discussion mentions a resource available on the Promethean action website, which includes a valuable eBook titled "Police Dossier: It Is the British Who Murder Our Presidents." This eBook provides historical insights into the assassinations of notable American presidents, exploring connections to British influence and action.
The podcast hosts indicate their intention to share useful links related to this eBook and additional background material to aid listeners in their understanding of the subject.
"This whole thing with VIN and the PBD podcast started with a phone me and Mario. That's it. And it grew today to 15 million subscribers almost and 164 full-time employees."
Patrick Bet-David reflects on the incredible journey of the PBD Podcast, highlighting how it began from humble beginnings with a single phone call and has since evolved into a substantial platform with nearly 15 million subscribers and a team of 164 full-time employees.
He emphasizes the importance of the audience's support and engagement, revealing that a significant portion of viewers (51%) are not subscribed to the channel. He encourages these viewers to subscribe, as it would greatly help the channel's growth and enable the production of even higher quality content.
