← PBD Podcast
PBD Podcast
British Imperial Expert: The Force Behind King Charles, Iran & Every War Since 1900 | PBD #788
01:37:42
Loading summary
Transcript136 lines
- [00:00]
Susan Kokinda
I've never seen anything like this.
- [00:02]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
What do you mean by that?
- [00:04]
Susan Kokinda
In terms of competence, coherence, singularity of purpose?
- [00:11]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
How much of this comes down to money? How much of it comes down to power, and how much of it is if you got money, you got the power Anyway, So how do you view what they're solving for long term?
- [00:22]
Susan Kokinda
They really believe that we're no better than animals. They just happen to have bluer blood, so they get to run us.
- [00:28]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
What I'm trying to figure out is who's influencing who, who's elevating who, who has control over who.
- [00:36]
Susan Kokinda
These binaries are out there to keep you from looking at again, what's generating the shadows on the wall.
- [00:44]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
I have a very, very hard time thinking Britain has the same kind of control and influence like they did before.
- [00:50]
Susan Kokinda
I think for long term, it's even more evil. I mean, they use the money, they use the power, but ultimately it comes down to an.
- [01:05]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
Today we have a special guest with us, Susan Kokinda from Promethean Action, whom I get text messages of from my sister saying, you have to see what she has to say. So, Susan, it's great to have you here on the podcast.
- [01:19]
Susan Kokinda
Thanks for having me.
- [01:20]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
So for some people who don't know, can we just qualify one thing that you're not right? Because, you know, some people may look at you and say, is this. Is this Q from James Bond? Can you just qualify that you're not Q from James Bond? It's very important.
- [01:35]
Susan Kokinda
I'm definitely not cute.
- [01:36]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
Okay, well, thank you for doing that because we don't want, you know, people to go out there, start saying, why is Pat talking to Q from James Bond? But your analysis, the way you break things down, very, very interesting, very different. And, you know, your story is very unique because you were. Is it true that you were at RFK Seniors Campaign, you were working with them in 1968 and you were there when the assassination happened, working with the campaign? Not physically there, but you were on the campaign as well as at the White House press pool at GW Hospital in 1981 after Ronald Reagan, the assassination attempt at the same hotel that the President just had, the attempt a few days ago. Are those two true that you were there at those two events?
- [02:21]
Susan Kokinda
That's true. I was in San Francisco with the campaign in 1968. And then when the president was shot in 1981, I was covering a hearing on Capitol Hill. And all of a sudden I the call, head over to GW Hospital and find out what's Happening. So, yes, I was there for both.
- [02:40]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
Now, at the time, where were you at politically? What was your cause? Because was it, I want to help America because of these three issues. What was important to you at the time? Both in 68 as well as 81,
- [02:55]
Susan Kokinda
really both was the same thing, which is that I sensed, even at the young age, which I was then, in 1968, I sensed that something had gone very wrong, obviously, with the assassination of jfk, that there was a change in direction in the country. And I didn't understand what it was early, but I knew there was just something that was going on that was taking us in a direction that was different, which had characterized, especially the early JFK period, which was progress, which was science, which was technology. I was a child of the space program. I wanted to be an astronaut. And somehow all of that began to change. You began to see the emergence of the rock, drug, sex counterculture, which just seemed very strange to me, this kind of hedonistic approach, as opposed to this sense that the nation has a mission and you should devote yourself to a mission, not to what makes you feel good. So, again, it was unformed for a while, but then as they become more politically attuned and astute, I began to dig more deeply into what is causing this. And by the time I was in Washington, D.C. in 1981, it was pretty clear that there was a deeper historical fight going on than I think most people were aware of. And I think they are now with Donald Trump. Now you see the globalists. Now you see that there's. It's more than the newspaper headlines. It's more than the way the mainstream media portrays things.
- [04:31]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
Susan, what's different and what's the same
- [04:36]
Susan Kokinda
from when? What's different?
- [04:38]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
Give me both of them from 68. 81. What's different from today with President Trump, with the three different assassination attempts he's had in 68 and in 81?
- [04:49]
Susan Kokinda
Very, very different. I mean, because, look, the MAGA movement has gone through a series, shall we say, of Walls of Fire. You know, they went through Covid, they went through the Stolen Election, they went through J6. They went through the, you know, the Butler assassination. I think there's a layer of the American population which has really grown up, you know, which is increasingly looking behind the curtain and saying, this stuff just isn't random. It's like lone assassins. I mean, give me a break. People are ready to dive more deeply into it. One of my friends that I do podcasts with, Blaine Holt, says if we were talking about the Things we're talking about today, people would be putting back then, people would be putting tin foil hats on us. But now you've got millions, if not tens of millions of people thinking more deeply about what is actually driving these forces. Again, you want to make the comparison, look at the comparison between how people have to live today and how people lived, say, in the middle 1960s. In the middle 1960s, a blue collar income like here in Detroit could raise a family of five or six comfortably. One income, and have the confidence that your children would have a better life than you did if they worked hard. What have we gone through since NAFTA, since the 2008 bailouts and everything that comes with that globalist system? You need three or four incomes and you still can't make ends meet. You know, you're giving half your income to daycare because mom has to work two jobs and dad has to work three jobs. And I think the support for Donald Trump, especially his recorded victories in 2016 and 2024, were a very clear response from a broad swath of the American population, including people who didn't used to vote Republican, like blue collar workers here in Michigan who said, I don't wanna live like this any longer. I want that world where you've got progress, where you've got stability, where you've got opportunity and you don't have to scramble like a rat to figure out how to get to the end of the maze. So I think that's sort of the foundation of the fact that that then opens a lot of people's minds to the fact that there's a bigger picture here. And I always go back to a quote from Scott Bessen where he gave an interview about. It was actually about a year ago, and he said, look, the Democratic Party is to come. The Democratic Party's strategy is to compensate the loser. He said, but I don't think the lower 50% are losers. I think they're winners. But the system is broken and we're going to fix the system. I think that's extremely important because once people realize that it's systemic, the problems that have ruined their lives or made their lives incredibly difficult, it's an entire system. It's not their fault. It's an entire system. And this administration is committed to changing, creates a different kind of environment, I think, where people can think more deeply. Okay, well, what was wrong with the old system and what is it that President Trump is trying to do? That's what we do at Promethean Action. We try and translate for people hey, here's something that looks new. It's frankly not used to be called the American system, but here's what the President is doing, and it actually is transformational, and maybe you need to calm down and hold on while this transformation takes place.
- [08:44]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
Now, question for you. That's very interesting when you're breaking that down, and I wanna go a little bit deeper into that as well. But a lot of times today, if you were to look at different podcasters or influencers, if you watch mainstream media, the enemy's gonna be, you know, China or Qatar or Russia, right? That's gonna be the enemy that they'll talk. Not even Qatar, it's more gonna be China or Russia. If you look at podcasters, streamers, independent content creators, you will hear Israel and you'll hear Qatar. But when you listen to you, you say Britain. Even one of the videos you recently did, you said, the hidden hand behind Trump's assassination attempt, and it goes to Britain. And no one is saying that, so nobody is even talking about Britain. But you are. Tell us, why Britain? Why are you thinking Britain's behind the third assassination attempt?
- [09:38]
Susan Kokinda
Well, if you actually look at the history of assassination attempts in the United States, and we actually have an E book on the Promethean action website, which is entitled It Is the British who Murder Our Presidents. And if you look at President Trump's comments after the assassination, both in the press briefing and then in the outtakes from the 60 Minutes show, he says it's only consequential presidents who get assassinated or there are attempts. And he cites Abraham Lincoln and he cites William McKinley. And that's extremely important because those are probably the most important American system presidents in our history. Now, why do I say that when you ask me about the British? Because if you look at the 19th century and the decades of our own founding, there were two systems in the world, and it wasn't capitalism or communism. Those phrases didn't even come along till Karl Marx. The two systems in the world were the American system versus the British imperial system. And the British imperial system was based on power, money, perpetual wars, controlling resources, keeping countries backward so that they could extract raw materials or whatever from them was based on free trade. And the American system was based on a different set of principles, which is that your economy is not measured by money. Your economy is measured by what are you producing, are you advancing, is your population getting healthier, is it getting more productive, is it getting more prosperous, does it have more opportunities? Is that a durable policy that is going to continue in the Future. Those were the two systems. By the end of the 19th century, the American system was really the wonder of the world. You had Russia, China, Japan, Germany, France. You had leaders in all of those countries explicitly following the American system. Now I ask your viewers to think, were you ever taught the American system in school? Of course not. It's been written out. Why? Because the British imperial system recognized it was a threat. One of the things they did is they assassinated our presidents, like Lincoln, like Garfield, like McKinley. By creating an environment, creating anarchists, creating radicals, where you don't necessarily have to give them the marching orders directly, but you create an environment in which people are out there ready to take out a president. Does that sound familiar? That's the environment that we're in today. But the purpose of it, the reason for it, was to crush the American system from spreading. Because the American system is based on Donald Trump's stated policies. I want a world of sovereign nations working with each other as individual nations working out their differences, but based on actual economic development. If you have a world of sovereign nations, then this globalist financier parasite, which is simply a modern day version of the British Empire, is not going to function. They have a feral hatred of American system policies. That's where it comes from. Then once you put yourself in that setting of this fight between the two systems in the world, you discover a whole lot. If you look more carefully at the role of British intelligence, British policy throughout the 20th century, let's just take the crisis in the Mid east, who created the Muslim Brotherhood? That was a direct operation from British intelligence in the 1920s, and you look at a whole array of different policies, you simply start pulling the string where you're no longer blacking out this idea that there is a British imperial system still functioning. Once you entertain that hypothesis and you start looking at the world, a lot of things seem to make sense, which is why I think a lot of people respond to our work by saying, oh my gosh, you've put the pieces together for me.
- [14:05]
Sponsor Announcer 1
When you need to build up your team to handle the growing chaos at work, use Indeed sponsored jobs. It gives your job post the boost it needs to be seen and helps reach people with the right skills, certifications and more. Spend less time searching and more time actually interviewing candidates who check all your boxes. Listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit@ Indeed.com podcast. That's Indeed.com podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need a hiring hero? This is a job for Indeed Sponsored jobs.
- [14:34]
Sponsor Announcer 2
Trading at Schwab is Now powered by Ameritrade. Unlocking the power of thinkorswim. The award winning trading platforms loaded with features that let you dive deeper into the market. Visualize your trades in a new light on thinkorswim desktop with robust charting and analysis tools all while you uncover new opportunities with up to the minute market news and insights. ThinkOrSwim is available on desktop, web and mobile to meet you where you are. It's built by the trading obsessed to help you trade brilliantly. Learn more@schwab.com trading you can't reason with the sun. Trust us. We've tried. This summer, it's time to put that angry ball of fire on mute. Columbia's Omnishade technology is engineered to protect you from the sun's harsh rays that can burn and damage your skin. The sun is relentless, but so is our gear. Level up your summer@columbia.com to spend more time outside and less time slathering on aloe lotion. You're welcome Columbia. Engineered for Whatever
- [15:35]
Sponsor Announcer 1
Starting a business can seem like a daunting task unless you have a partner like Shopify. They have the tools you need to start and grow your business. From designing a website, to marketing, to selling and beyond, Shopify can help with everything you need. There's a reason millions of companies like Mattel, Heinz and Allbirds continue to trust and use them. With Shopify on your side, turn your big business idea into Sign up for your $1 per month trial@shopify.com specialoffer can
- [16:04]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
you go a little bit deeper on the Muslim Brotherhood being started by the Brits in the 20s?
- [16:08]
Susan Kokinda
Well, you even, you know, you can go back even to the 19th century. I mean if you look at the question of radical and political Islam, you'll find the hand of the British all over it. I mean one of the more famous figures in this, this gets into the 20th century is Lawrence of Arabia. You know, T.E. lawrence who was British intelligence? I can't remember his first name. Kim Philby, the famous, you know, double, triple agent spy in Britain. His father was one of the key handlers of these kinds of networks in the Mid East. In an earlier period in the 19th century, the British proconsul of Egypt, I think it was Lord Cromer, but he was a bering from the Bering Bank. He was one of the people who built up political radical Islam. And it was always used as a tool against the nationalist forces in countries like Egypt and elsewhere who were trying to develop independent, economically strong nations. People like Nasser, people like Mubarak for Example. So, I mean, there have been some excellent books written on this one called the Devil's Game by Robert Dreyfuss and the other one, whose name escapes me at the moment, but it's called Secret Agents, where they go in depth into the role of British intelligence in creating radical and political Islam, which then becomes a very convenient tool for them.
- [17:41]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
Now, how much, when you say the Brits, are you saying the royal family? How much is it the bankers? How much is it the wealth? How much is the Rothschild? Who specifically was playing these games? We know the story of what Rothschilds did during war to say, hey, you know, Napoleon is losing the war. And then everybody started selling off the bonds and they came in, they 10x their fortune overnight. So we know those games they play to create a lot of wealth. This is before there was regulation. But when you say the Brits, who specifically are you saying has the power to do some of these assassination attempts? Is it the money or is it more politics or royalty?
- [18:18]
Susan Kokinda
It's like a corporation and everybody plays their part. In my show yesterday, I referenced a new book which has just conveniently come out just as King Charles is arriving in Washington D.C. you referenced it. It's entitled Queen Elizabeth and Her the Hidden Hand Behind History. And the author documents Queen Elizabeth was more thoroughly briefed with daily intelligence briefings, national security briefings. She was on top of the nuclear contingencies. You could bet she had her hands all over the. There it is, the five eyes operation. And this author. I haven't read the book yet. I've just read the blurbs and watched a couple of interviews because I just discovered it two days ago. But I don't know if this author is saying this is a good thing or she's neutral. I don't know the particular political take in terms of this, but she describes how the monarchy uses what they call soft power to influence presidents. But then, yes, you have the City of London, you have the financial power that's embedded in the City of London. And this is one of the things which I think illuminates what the Iran conflict is all about. Because the City of London, Lloyds of London, the people who set the oil prices with Brent crude, which is set in London and has nothing to do with the delivery of a barrel of oil. It's just speculation. They've used the instability, the choke point of the Strait of Hormuz, to extract what the President's Trade advisor, Peter Navarro, calls a, a terror premium, basically a terror tax where the price, if you look at the Price of a gallon of oil here in the United States, about 20% of that comes from the pricing from the Brent Futures market, which is in London, which has nothing to do with the physical production of oil, unlike West Texas pricing. And it has to do with the insurance of Lloyds of London, which basically had a monopoly prior to this. So that's sort of the financial end of the thing. Then you get the intelligence side of things, which is MI6 and MI5, which are pretty legendary and which I think up until the Trump administration were pretty much joined at the hip with the CIA. And then you have much more of the soft power, which is the media and the way that they shape the political environment. And one of the things that this British elite have mastered and been masters of for decades is psychological warfare. The way that they shape narratives, the way that they, well, look at the war going on inside MAGA from the people who used to be maga, like Tucker Carlson and MTG and others. This is just pure psychological manipulation in order to divert the MAGA movement from the task at hand, which is that everything that this administration is doing strategically and economically is aimed at breaking the power of this modern day British Empire, or what this administration bluntly says is the globalist system. This is big. I mean, the last president who seriously threatened the global reach of this imperial system was William McKinley. Now, if John Kennedy had lived long enough, might that have been a serious threat? Probably. But what the President is doing right now, especially with this cabinet, this team, is extraordinary. And I always tell people, turn off your social media feed and just watch the cabinet meetings, read the executive orders, read the presidential directives, pay attention to what they're actually saying and doing. It is historic and they want you diverted. You know, is it Israel or is it Qatar? You know, that is not the issue. The issue is these two systems before the world.
- [22:34]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
Wow. I mean, you have to know if you say that to the average consumer of content on social media today, no one's pointing at the Brits. So if you're saying Tucker and MTG and others, what. How would the Brits get a hold of them? How would MI6 do that? What would be their methods? I mean, that's a. You know, I don't see any connection there, but maybe you're seeing something that we're not.
- [23:00]
Susan Kokinda
Well, I think it's more of this question of you create a system, you know, which is the system where people get paid, where they get influence, where they live their lives. You create that. Sometimes I compare it to Stockholm syndrome, where You've lived in this system your whole life. If you buck the system, you're going to lose money, you're going to lose your job. With Tucker, honestly, I think Tucker was terrified after the assassination of Charlie Kirk. You also play on people's psychological vulnerabilities. So again, it's not like you get a phone call from the head of MI6 saying, Tucker, this is what you're going to say today. That's not the way it works. You create a system that people.
- [23:47]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
I'm actually really curious. I'm actually really curious how it works. Because if, let's just say the Brits have been doing this the longest, you have to know that automatically others are gonna duplicate what they're doing. So Russia's gonna be paying attention, China's gonna be paying attention, Qatar's gonna be paying attention. Everybody else is gonna be paying attention at the propaganda game that Brits have played. And the Brits played it against Iran as well. So Irans are paying attention to see what they're doing. So. But what is the playbook, if you were to say the playbook of doing, first you do this, then you do this, then you do this, then you do this? What would the method be?
- [24:22]
Susan Kokinda
Well, the method is to keep people sort of in the world of perceptions, where all you're doing is just reacting to what you know, the narrative is, the institutions. I mean, obviously one of the critical elements in the United States is the mainstream media, you know, completely controlled by. By the globalists. And again, it doesn't have to be a direct tie to the city of London, although a lot of times, if you dig deep enough, you'll find it. But it's to the powerful, what the President has called global financier elite. Well, they run the mainstream media. You know, they run entertainment. Entertainment and culture is a big part of this. Again, because it's. Once you shape how people think, then you don't have to go in and specifically say, well, then think this, think this, think this. You've got them trapped in a world where all you're looking at is the shadows on the wall. And that's what the media does, that's what the culture does, and so on. They create the shadows on the wall, and all you do is react to the shadows. What we do and what I'm pretty sure some people in the administration must understand, because they wouldn't be doing the kinds of things they're doing strategically and economically, is you're looking at what's generating the shadows, and that is this fight between these two systems. You mentioned the Russians. They get it. Read what the Russians say about who's keeping the war with Ukraine going. You know, they're very clear. It's not only the Europeans, it's specifically the British. They are very, very clear that it is the British who are keeping this going. They're no longer saying the United States is the great warmonger. I mean, yeah, you have a few hotheads in Russia who still say that, but the official, you know, Putin, the people who speak for President Putin, they're not pointing the finger at the United States any longer. They're pointing the finger at the British. In the 19th century, this had a name, and they're still playing it. It was called the Great Game. The Great Game was to make sure that nations stay pitted against each other, constantly fighting, so that the imperial game, masters at the top, could continue to play their games. There you go. The elements of the Great Game, which Rudyard Kipling outlined in Kim. Central Asia has been Afghanistan, Southwest Asia, Central Asia, the Mideast, all of this. You look at the way the British and the French, but primarily the British, rewrote the map after the Ottoman Empire broke up after World War I. It was to keep these. They divided countries up in the craziest ways that made no sense in terms of the different religious or ethnic or political groupings. They shattered it in such a way it would always be a cockpit for war. And that's how they do it. You mentioned Iran. It's like the classic case. You had a nationalist leader, Mossadegh, who nationalized the oil industry. Well, believe me, the British Empire was not going to tolerate that. So he was overthrown and the Shah was put in. Then at a certain point, the Shah began operating from the standpoint of what is good for Iran. He wanted to use the oil revenues to build nuclear power to actually develop the country as a modern nation. So he gets overthrown. The British are really quite. Kermit Roosevelt was in on that. And if you actually look at the history, Eisenhower was not exactly happy when he realized what was going on there, because Eisenhower was somebody who actually had an American outlook, which is why he stopped the British and the French from taking the suez Canal in 1956. But, you know, again, when. When you. When you sort of just shift the way you look at the world from these binaries, you know, communism versus capitalism, the west versus Islam, right versus left. These binaries, these binaries are out there to keep you from looking at, again, what's generating the shadows on the wall and it's this historic fight between imperialism and the idea that nations and people have the right to develop for the betterment of the nation and the people, not for the betterment of some global financier elite.
- [28:51]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
So you don't look at it right now, that's interesting because it's globalist versus what we're trying to do, right? So you don't look at it as west versus Islam. You're not looking at it as Qatar as the rest. That's just a distraction to you. You know, how much of this to simplify to the average person, how much of this comes down to money, how much of it comes down to power, and how much of it is, if you got money, you got the power anyway. So how do you view what they're solving for long term?
- [29:20]
Susan Kokinda
Well, I think for long term it's even more evil. I mean, they use the money, they use the power, but ultimately it comes down to an image of man. I mean, if you go back through history, what do you find with these very evil imperial systems? They really believe that we're no better than animals. They just happen to have bluer blood, so they get to run us. But they want a world in which people are stupid and backward so that they can control them and they can loot them. So they don't want people ultimately educated, independent, sovereign. That's what they don't like. That's why they fear the American system so much. Because while obviously this question of the image of man, man in the image of the Creator as opposed to man, is simply an animal to be manipulated by his senses, which by the way, is the basis of all of British liberal philosophy. John Locke, Thomas Hume, John Stuart Mill. It's all based on the idea that we know the world only through our senses, not our minds. And so they create institutions to keep us trapped in that kind of thing. But the image of man is man in the image of the Creator. Obviously that's been around since the time of Christ, and in some respects. Well, actually in very real respects in earlier religions and movements. But what do you get with the American Revolution? You actually get an economic system based on the idea that the productive powers of a nation is. Is the human mind, is human creativity. That was a breakthrough, that was Hamilton's ideas, and that actually forms the basis of a completely different kind of way of organizing your society, where you're maximizing creativity, you're not maximizing money. The empire uses power, they use money, they use ideologies, they use wars, they use all of these things. But it's for the purpose of keeping their system protected from upstart sovereign nations who are likely to challenge them mortally if they get off the ground. And when again, I go back to the end of the 19th century, where this idea of the American system was consciously understood in many countries. Japan's Meiji Restoration was based on the American system. Count Sergei Vita, the last economic advisor for the last czar in Russia, was a student of the American system. There were people in Italy, in France, in Germany who were students of the American system by name. People just have to ask themselves the question, well, this is what was dominating the 19th century. How come I've never heard of it? Because the British rewrote our history.
- [32:20]
Sponsor Announcer 1
Chronic migraine, 15 or more headache days a month, each lasting four hours or more, can make me feel like a spectator in my own life. Botox Anabotulinum toxin A prevents headaches in adults with chronic migraine. It's not for those with 14 or fewer headache days a month. It's the number one prescribed branded chronic
- [32:36]
Sponsor Announcer 2
migraine preventive treatment Prescription Botox is injected by your doctor. Effects of Botox may spread hours to weeks after injection causing serious symptoms. Alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems or muscle weakness can be signs of a life threatening condition. Patients with these conditions before injection are at highest risk. Side effects may include allergic reactions, neck and injection site pain, fatigue and headache. Allergic reactions can include rash, welts, asthma symptoms and dizziness. Don't receive Botox if there's a skin infection. Tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions including als, Lou Gehrig's disease, Myasthenia gravis or Lambert Eaton syndrome and medications including botulinum toxins as these may increase the risk of serious side effects.
- [33:14]
Susan Kokinda
Why wait?
- [33:15]
Sponsor Announcer 1
Ask your doctor. Visit botoxchronicmigraine.com or call 1-844botox to learn more.
- [33:20]
Susan Kokinda
Tomorrow morning is knocking. Stock your fridge now. How about a creamy mocha Frappuccino drink?
- [33:25]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
Or a sweet vanilla smooth caramel maybe?
- [33:28]
Susan Kokinda
Or white chocolate mocha?
- [33:29]
Sponsor Announcer 1
Whichever you choose, delicious coffee awaits.
- [33:32]
Susan Kokinda
Fine star Frappuccino drinks wherever you buy your groceries.
- [33:37]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
Because the British rewrote our history. Okay, so when you're going to the British rewriting history, King Charles is gonna be coming in town. And when you go and you look at stuff with King Charles, his history, it's a very unique history on what things he's done. It's just nasty. Diana, you got him taking money from Qatar. $3.2 million document saying that money was given to me when he was a prince to go to a charity and his affection to Islam and how he complimentary there he'll speak on that day, Ramadan, but not on Easter. What role? Cuz what I'm trying to figure out is who's influencing who, who's elevating who, who has control over who. Some will say, you know, the Israel elites are controlling politics in America and through that they're getting things done elsewhere. Right. You'll hear the criticism there. Some will say Qatar right now you saw the number $6.3 billion they put into US universities, officially more than China. China's at like five and a half billion cutters, number one at 6.3 billion. And then, you know, you'll see China by controlling manufacturing that we learned during COVID Oh my God, we are so reliant on China. They controlled it in a complete different way. We have the strongest military. But who is, who is really? Cuz I have a very, very hard time thinking Britain has the same kind of control and influence like they did before. I have a hard time buying that. But I'm always open to being wrong. So I just want to know with King Charles and influence, is Qatar and them influencing him or is it the other way around?
- [35:14]
Susan Kokinda
I think it's the other way around again, because if you go back and you look at some of this history, Charles in particular was a big supporter of the Saudis and I would say in their earlier pre Trump incarnation, where the Saudis were notoriously supporting Muslim extremism, especially the whole Wahhabite side of things, you look at the history of Wahhabism and again, this is another case where you go back to the 19th century or the 20th century. How did the Saudi family end up being the family that was ruling everything? Because that was not a done deal at the beginning of the, at the end of the 19th century, in the early 20th century, straight British intelligence. I mean, again, that's documented by some of the books that I referenced earlier. But what you have today, and that's sort of where you see the Charles question. And yeah, he's been a major supporter of setting up Islamic centers. And again, I'm not doing this from this. I'm not assessing this from the standpoint of Islam. Bad west, good. I'm looking at this from the standpoint of what the British created in terms of political radical Islam to use as a tool to keep the world divided. Think, for example, the fall of the Soviet Union at the beginning of the 1990s. All of a sudden, we no longer have the Communist boogeyman. From the standpoint of the Soviet Union as the way of dividing the world. Samuel P. Huntington, who's an author who has got extensive ties to British institutions and British intelligence and so on, what does he do? He writes the clash of civilizations. All right, now, the dividing line in the world is the west versus Islam. Now, what Samuel P. Huntington isn't going to tell you is everything he's attacking in terms of Islam, which is dangerous, is this particularly created political radical Islam, which the British Empire has its hands all over. That is the game that the British have played. Now, Donald Trump, I think, has judoed a lot because unlike the way the British approach, say, the Mideast, the way British intelligence played a major role in shaping the policies in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and. And again, in terms of the king, I mean, I think you have different levels in terms of competence of monarchs. I think Queen Elizabeth was extremely competent, extremely intelligent. I'm not sure how far down Charles falls on that rating system, but I don't think he's quite at the level of his mother. But that doesn't mean, you know, he doesn't have his hands in a lot of things. But that's sort of been the role, the relationship between the British and these particular movements and tendencies in the Mid East. But along comes Donald Trump and remember his first administration where he really didn't have control of a lot, which I think he discovered pretty quickly. But in his first administration, what was his first foreign visit, it was to Saudi Arabia that was highly unusual, and other Gulf states, but he basically laid down the law to the Saudis and he said, you're going to stop your support for Islamic fundamentalism, for isis, for Al Qaeda and so on. And they did. He basically said, we're going to have a different relationship. You don't have to now only be a pawn of these imperial forces, which you've largely been. Now you can start to develop as a sovereign nation. And we're going to work with you from that standpoint. And then that was the basis on which he could then move on to the Abraham Accords. I mean, Saudi Arabia hasn't signed them yet. They were on the verge of before October 7th. But where he started with other Gulf states, other nations, and say, you're no longer pieces on the imperial chessboard, you're a sovereign nation. I'm going to treat you that way. Let's work out trade deals which mutually benefit us, not where you're just a gas station for British Petroleum or Royal Dutch Shell. We're going to work out nation to nation economic deals which are going to help your nations. And nations started to buy into that. And then he wasn't able to finish it with his first term, came back with his second term. And again, all the reports are Saudi Arabia was very close to joining the Abraham Accords, which means you recognize Israel. And then October 7th happened and everything we've seen play out since then. But look at the response of the Gulf nations to the Iran conflict. They're not on Iran's side any longer, whether they wanted to be or whether they felt they had no choice because of this crazy Muller IRGC run regime. Now they say, all right, there's a different world we can have something to do with. Essentially, they're lining up with the United States against the insanity in Iran and creating a completely different environment. Again, when you look at what the President and his team have done from the standpoint of stopping the great game, stopping this imperial manipulation which especially in the Mid east has given us perpetual wars, and saying, no, we're not going to do that any longer, and it takes time, you have to take pieces off the chessboard to stop this. But I think that's what this administration is doing. And it's completely contrary to the policy of the British, which is why the British and the rest of the European Union didn't support what the President is doing in Iran.
- [41:26]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
But don't you think uk don't you think Britain's gotten weaker and weaker and weaker? Don't you think when you see their influence, their wealth, you know, the immigration that they've opened up, the crime, you know, they no longer are seen by the world the way they did maybe 20 years ago, 40 years ago, 60 years ago, you know, like, yeah, yeah,
- [41:49]
Susan Kokinda
you can take that back 100 years because that was the whole point of the pivot. When the British recognized that they were no longer a match for the United States. You know, coming out of the Civil War, we weren't destroyed. People should look at the hand of the British in terms of the Confederacy, the reintroduction of the slave system and all of that. We weren't destroyed. After the Civil War, Lincoln, despite his assassination in 1865, had set into motion the revival of the American system of political economy. By the time we had the 1876 Centennial Exhibition, we were the wonder of the world in terms of what we were doing with industry and so on. What did they do? They started assassinating our presidents and then they started corrupting our institutions. So by the Time of the turn of the 20th century. You have the British explicitly outlining people like Cecil Rhodes and the Rhodes Scholarship, or the British Roundtable explicitly saying, we have to bring the United States back under our way of doing things. So that for almost all of the 20th century, not all of it, but for a large part of the 20th century, we were the dumb giant to their policy. They don't have to be strong, they don't have to have a strong military. In fact, the House of Lords just published an extremely important report where they review the US British relationship. They also premiered it at Chatham House, which is their primary think tank. A number of the Lords were very, very clear that we have benefited by this system that we set up, but this system only exists because the United States enforced it. They say that that's the report, or that's the Chatham House forum, which was just last week. But throughout, they admit we couldn't enforce this system without the United States basically doing it for us. So they don't have to be strong. They just needed us going along. And especially with President Trump's second term, they ain't getting it. We're not going along. So, you know, they kicked Charles over for his charm offensive, which I don't think means much.
- [44:20]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
What do you think happened? Because the first term, the president seemed like he was trying to do things, but it wasn't fully creating momentum. What do you think happened on the break that he had for four years when Biden came in? I wonder what adjustments you think he made to his approach. Because, you know, he was determined to get back in there. Because everybody that was asking him, are you gonna run again? He said, yes. He says, I've never had a more exciting job than this one. I have to get back in there. He really wanted to get back to becoming a president again. It wasn't like he was contemplating not doing it. His words. What changed with them? What adjustments you think he made? Did he go from thinking who was the enemy in 2016 to realizing that's not really the enemy, this is the enemy? Because on the second term that he's had, his sequencing has been very interesting. He first gets Canal, Panama Canal? No, he first gets Venezuela. Then he goes and finds a way for Panama's president to turn against China to say, ck cannot have this control of these two ports, and then he goes and attacks Iran. And then what changed? What do you think changed? Did he figure out something? You think he realized who the enemy was on the second term versus the first term?
- [45:37]
Susan Kokinda
I think he always had a Kind of general idea. I mean, you know, I'm not gonna venture too far in terms of what he knows and what he doesn't know. Cuz I don't know what he knows and what he doesn't know. What I see is the effects of what he does. And I think one of the things that happened in the first term is he was just hit across the face with how evil and how deep these institutional forces were. How much does he understand their origin? I have absolutely no idea. But I look at the way that as you say, this second term has been completely different. And I think once he recognized what Covid was, once he saw what happened on J6, he saw the steal, then of course you get the assassination attempt in Butler. But I think he got a much deeper understanding of how evil, what it is he was up against, how much, again, the history is there. I can't believe that somewhere in this administration you don't have some very deep institutional knowledge of what you're up against. Because you don't make the changes that this administration is making by accident, randomly.
- [47:03]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
I agree.
- [47:03]
Susan Kokinda
You don't revive the American system randomly. And I should reference the fact that Jameson Greer, the trade ambassador, when he went to Davos, he gave an amazing speech. His speech was entitled the American System that Nobody Knows About. And he literally went through Alexander Hamilton and how the American system had been the economic philosophy which guided this country in the 19th century and made it great. There are people who know this kind of hidden history which we're all supposed to forget about. You know, so we all just sit there and react to the shadows on the wall. So you know, who has the deeper institutional historical knowledge? I don't know. But somehow this combination of people is really extraordinary. Especially when at J.D. vance Scott Bessant. I mean, I've been following administration since 1976. I've never seen anything like this.
- [48:03]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
What do you mean by that?
- [48:05]
Susan Kokinda
In terms of competence, coherence, singularity of purpose? One of the things you probably noticed, there's no leaks. You know, this is not a government which is, you know, where some faction is trying to, you know, get factitious advantage by leaking this, that and the
- [48:23]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
other thing, you had a little bit of that with Michael Waltz and you had a little bit of Joe Kent. And yet some of those stories, guess
- [48:30]
Susan Kokinda
how long they lasted. That's true, right? You know that this is, this is a different animal. You know, this is on point. They have a mission. They certainly understand that the enemy is globalism. They say that. They said that they went to Davos, they said it, you know, Jameson Greer said the policy is the American system. So you know, it's there, you know, and then you have people like Scott Bessant who know from the inside how this British financier system works. I mean he did work with George Soros, you know, and he did crash the British pound. So you know, he's got some skills.
- [49:06]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
He's got some skills.
- [49:07]
Susan Kokinda
You know, those skills are being used for us now for a change.
- [49:11]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
That makes sense. And by the way, if there's a guy that knows how to mess with the currency very well, it's George Soros. So to be with him, I think he worked with him once for nine years, second time for five years as his chief investment officer or chief, I don't know what it was, but chief. He was a heavyweight with Soros, so he has that experience. But to finish up with uk when you see this chart here, this is from a paper that came from the Institute of Economic Affairs. When you look at this, it says what Americans perceive for UK to be in ranking of how wealthy UK is versus US for GDP per capita. And they said Americans believe UK would be right behind Jersey. Okay, meaning New York first, California second, Washington third, Massachusetts, Texas, Jersey, then UK, then you have everybody else. Which actual ranking UK would be 51st. You know, this whole thing with value Tim and PBD podcast started with a phone, me and Mario, that's it. And it grew today to you know, 15 million subscribers almost and 164 full time employees. And that relationship. Are you watching us and supporting us? Wouldn't happen without you. But did you know 51% of you that watch the content are not subscribed to the channel and it would mean the world to us if you could press that subscribe button and notification. Why it allows us to grow, hire more, do bigger interviews, have a bigger team and deliver a better product to you. So if you haven't yet, if you don't mind, press that subscribe button. It would mean the world to us. So how much of their control that they have, the actual control and the actual wealth that they have is falling apart. You know where America is just getting because you said something, you call them the dumb giant, right? The UK sees the America as the dumb giant. Is this dumb giant becoming so giant that you can no longer control it?
- [51:04]
Sponsor Announcer 2
Now streaming Disney invites you to go behind the scenes with Taylor Swift in an exclusive six episode docu series.
- [51:12]
Susan Kokinda
I wanted to give something to the
- [51:14]
Sponsor Announcer 1
fans that they didn't expect. The only Thing left is to close
- [51:17]
Sponsor Announcer 2
the book the end of an era, and don't miss Taylor Swift. The Eras Tour, the final show featuring for the first time the tortured Poets Department, now streaming only on Disney plus.
- [51:34]
Susan Kokinda
Yeah, well, and it's also becoming way less dumb. I mean, that's the point when you rediscover the American system and the power that that actually gives you to be economically sovereign. Look at the question of energy. What is one of the premier policies of President Trump? Energy independence, which means you're no longer at the mercy of the Strait of Hormuz. Unfortunately, we're still at the mercy of, you know, Brent futures pricing, but I think that may recalibrate at some point in the not too far distant future. But you create independence and energy so you're not reliant on their markets or their strategic choke points or their Lloyds of London insurance cutoff and so on and everything. This administration has done a lot of it quiet. Where you look at something seemingly boring, like the recent executive orders that the president promulgated on April 20, where he invoked the Defense Production act for a whole gamut of aspects of our energy sector, not just energy production, but generation and transmission, where we're incredibly vulnerable. We don't build transformers in the United States, and if we had to order one from South Korea, it'd take two years. So let's say you had a bunch of transformer accidents, the lights go out for years, and the President said, no, this doesn't work. And in this order, he says, the market is not seeing to our national defense, so we have to step in. And there's all sorts of government financing institutions under the Defense Production Act. In the Energy Department, you have things like the Export Import Bank. I think there's one called the International Development Finance Corporation. But these government corporations where this administration is saying, hey, Wall street has not. And the magic of the free market has not seen to our basic needs, we are vulnerable in all these areas. You mentioned it during COVID We discovered this. Well, we have to use the full array of government power to make sure that we're producing the basic things we need as a sovereign nation. One of those things is tariffs. But another of those things is how do you actually get credit into these sectors? If JPMorgan Chase would rather speculate than invest in some vital industrial area, how are you going to get the money in there? Well, you use these government financing agencies to make sure that the credit goes to people who want to produce here in the United States. J.D. vance described it in terms of Our strategic minerals weaknesses. He said, look, companies would come in and want to invest in a processing facility here in the United States and they'd go through the onerous regulatory policies and they put a lot of money into this and they're just about ready to get going. And China would come in and undercut the price and wipe them out and they'd go bankrupt. So we didn't have anything in the United States. He said, that's crazy. He said, so we're going to create new kinds of mechanisms where the producers are protected and they can produce. So what I mean by we're not dumb any longer. Dumb is blindly following the British free trade system, blindly believing in some mystical invisible hand is gonna make it all work out. No, the invisible hand is picking your pocket to feed the city of London. And Donald Trump isn't playing that game any longer. And that's the problem that the British have right now.
- [55:28]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
And how much of that did we see when we all of a sudden saw Lloyds of London pulling out? Was that a, was that a mistake on their end?
- [55:37]
Susan Kokinda
I think it was a mistake on their end.
- [55:39]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
Tell me why.
- [55:40]
Susan Kokinda
I don't think they expected this administration to do what it did, which is to step in and say, okay, you're not gonna do it, we will. So we essentially just broke a 300 year monopoly on shipping insurance by them pulling out. Because of course that's the first time they had ever canceled insurance. Through all the other conflicts in the last 30, 40, 50 years, if you have a conflict in the region, they jacked the prices up. That was their business model. They did quite well from that. They never canceled. And the fact that they canceled was their way of saying, we do not agree with Donald Trump trying to end this game. So we're gonna call his bluff, we're gonna cancel. And Trump counter bluffed and said, go ahead, make my day.
- [56:29]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
How important was that? The average person didn't pay attention too much to that when that happened in the power structure. How important was that move? And what do you think behind closed doors, UK sitting there saying, wait a minute, what did he say? He said he's gonna insure. Yes. Oh, shit. What do you think their reaction was to his move?
- [56:47]
Susan Kokinda
No, I think you hit the nail on the head. They did not expect a president to do any of these kinds of things, which is why they've been so flat footed in terms of all of their responses right now. And it's out in the open. I mean, suddenly the country which was our oldest and dearest ally Which I always found completely hysterical. People would literally say, britain is our oldest and dearest ally. And I said, excuse me, do you remember the American Revolution? Do you remember the War of 1812? They're not our oldest ally. Right. But people were sort of in this, you know, this fairy tale and, you know, the soap opera of the Royal Family and all the rest of that. And I think this, this experience where they've. Where in essence, the British are outing themselves by responding to a president who will openly not play their game.
- [57:40]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
So I think I, who came from UK to the White House and gave an invitation to the President that's never had before. That's we've never had before. And his reaction was very complimentary. I don't know if you remember this or not. This was about a year ago, maybe 14 months ago, he got an invitation to do something that. Never in the history of America has that happened. Do you remember that?
- [58:04]
Susan Kokinda
Yeah, sort of about as much as you do in terms of. I don't remember the specifics.
- [58:08]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
Yeah. But it seemed like it was a big deal to the President. It seemed like the President was very honored by it, and he was very, you know, taken by. It's not too many times you see him going through it where you kind of see, oh, this is interesting. This has never happened before. But at the same time, I, I know he, the, the vibe he gives me is he doesn't want to be the man where anybody thinks they can control him. He'll deal with everybody. He'll do the team of rivals. And a lot of people will say, well, he's owned by this, he's owned by that. They control him. They tell him what to do, and he does it? I, I don't know if I fully buy into the fact that he's controlled by anybody. I think he's his own mandate. He's making the decisions. I mean, one of the things that he did that I want to get your thoughts on, where they withdrew from 66 international, you know, organizations. 31 was UN entities, 35 was non UN one of them being the World Health Organization, the other being the UN Human Rights Council, the Paris Climate Agreement. He did that in 2016, 2018, and then Biden went back and then he redid it again. How important is it for him when he comes out and says, look, we're withdrawn from all these organizations that you guys claim are important to us? You know, do you think he does that to kind of make NATO or some of these guys realize, well, what happens if he. All of A sudden withdraws because the way they handled the war with Iran, they almost made it seem like they didn't care if he withdraws or not. The way they handle, we're like, no, we're not going to let you do this. Spain. No, we're not going to let you fly over. No, you can use our military base and say, okay, no problem. This is how far you want to go. Here's what I'm capable of doing as well. Do you think it'll ever get to a point that he withdraws from NATO?
- [59:49]
Susan Kokinda
I think there's a good chance of it. I think all of these European countries right now are definitely punching above their weight class. What do they have to bring to the table? They bought into the green nonsense. They've destroyed their ability to produce energy for their populations. Most of them don't have serious militaries. They're dependent on. They left themselves dependent on oil from the Strait of Hormuz. So I think he's called a lot of people's bluffs, and I think he's ready to call NATO's bluffs. But, see, this is the way the President operates. People should read the art of the deal. It's much better to get your opponent to expose himself than for you to stand there and say this, that, and the other thing. So, you know, take the question of NATO or take the role of, you know, the British in terms of the bases and so on. You know, Donald Trump could have, you know, said, I don't like NATO. I don't like these people, and one of these days I'm going to break with them. Instead, you know, he pursues a policy which is the American policy, which is in the, in what he believes is in the interests of the country. Country. And by doing so in a way that these institutions have not seen. The last person, I think, who seriously challenged them strategically was Eisenhower in the Suez crisis, and before that, it was Roosevelt. That's another story. But here he is seriously challenging them, and he's forcing them to expose themselves so he doesn't have to go out and give some kind of, you know, expert briefing to the American people about why NATO is a problem. NATO just proved that they're a problem. He doesn't have to go out and give some expert briefing about why Britain is not, you know, we should no longer have a special relationship with Britain. Britain just proved it by refusing to step forward. You know, so he's, he's, he's forcing these institutions, and I would call them adversarial institutions, to increasingly show their true color. Whereas previously, presidents, Congress, other nations, political leaders, they all play by the rules of these games. The post war rules based order is the favorite phrase of a lot of people like Mark Carney, who's still trying to save it. But if everybody plays by the rules of the game, nobody sees those rules. It's only when somebody says, no, I'm not playing by the rules of that game, that the people trying to enforce the game end up exposing themselves. And I think that's what's happened, especially with NATO, with Iran and the response of Europe to all of this.
- [62:42]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
Let's talk about the blockade, because this kind of bleeds into that, right, with the whole NATO saying, we're not gonna, we don't wanna fight this war. This is your war, this is Israel's war. We want to have nothing to do with it. With the way he set up the blockade and Iran being stuck, you know, to, they can only sit on the oil for so long before they start, you know, being losing money. And we've seen the number four to $500 million a day, they're losing 12 to $15 billion a month, they're losing how sustainable that is. And the Abbasi, who is the main negotiator right now on their end, he didn't want to meet with us, he didn't want to meet with Witkoff, Kushner and JD So then he went to Islamabad, he had a meeting there, then he went to Oman, then he went to Russia to have a meeting, I believe, with Putin and his leaders. What do you, what is your impression of what's going to happen with Iran and how that ends?
- [63:30]
Susan Kokinda
Well, you know, I don't want to get too far ahead of my skis in terms of, you know, predictions, because there's a lot of different moving pieces. And obviously you do not have a unified government in Iran. You know, you've got the irgc, you've got the civilian government, you got a whole. And who knows how much is going on in terms of Israeli intelligence, you know, how much is going on in terms of British intelligence and so on. So there's a lot of moving pieces in terms of this. But, you know, I think what characterizes Donald Trump in a very unique way, which is where you can hypothesize an outcome to this, is he operates in the real world of physical economy. And you hit the nail on the head. The fact that you've got this blockaded, the fact that once the storage facilities in Iran are filled, and I've heard I think Scott Besant said May 2 is the point that that hits, which we're getting pretty close to, maybe it was a little bit after that. And then they have to stop pumping. And once you stop pumping, you lose the wells. Right. You know, it just doesn't work any longer. If you stop pumping, you're going to have to start from scratch and drill all over again. The president does have them over a barrel. You know, he's not just operating in the world of moving diplomatic chess pieces around. He's dealing in a world of physical reality where I think he's got him by the throat. And they're going to play it till the, I think they're going to play it till the very last minute. And I think if the relatively sane people in Iran can make the decisions, and that's where I think you have a wild card yet, I don't know the answer to that. But if they can make the decisions to finally negotiate the fundamental questions in time, they are just up against it. I mean, their economy will, if they lose those oil wells, and that's going to set, that will set them back to the Dark Ages much more in a certain sense than bombing bridges and electric energy plants, which clearly the president doesn't want to do. He will if he has to. But clearly he doesn't want to send the Iranian people back to the Stone Age, but he is not going to let this cancer exist any longer. But I think this, the way that they're doing this in terms of dealing in the world of physical reality as opposed to diplomatic machinations and money machinations and so on, this gives the president. And when he says, I've got all the cards, that's what I think he's talking about.
- [66:08]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
Yeah, it'll be interesting. Now, who do you think could bail out Iran? Who could help him out? Who could give him a, extend their life of saying, hey, we'll be a customer of yours, let's do a deal this way. Can Russia or China or anybody else help them out?
- [66:24]
Susan Kokinda
Well, I think Trump wants to help them out. I mean, you know, from the standpoint of the people, the people of the nation.
- [66:31]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
I'm not talking, I'm talking about irgc. I'm specifically saying irgc, who can help out the irgc?
- [66:36]
Susan Kokinda
Who can help out the irgc? You know, I don't really believe that either Russia or China is all that enamored of this regime. I mean, there again. And when I'm talking about any nation, I'm not also presuming that they're completely unified. I think there's a lot more factions in China than there probably are in Russia at this point, at least in terms of their actual influence. So are there factions in China that would like to bail out the irgc? Probably. Is Xi Jinping going to let them? I don't know the answer to that, but if I had to guess, I'd say probably not. So I don't think they have too many places to go at this point, because, again, what has Donald Trump done with these other countries? What has he done with Russia? What has he done with China? He's created a different kind of relationship with them. If you read the National Security Strategy, which came out in December, or read the National Defense Strategy, which came out in January, these are very, very interesting documents because they're written for the layman, they're not written in bureaucraties, and they're relatively short. And they just establish a completely different parameter in the world where you do not see either Russia especially, you don't see Russia treated as some kind of immutable enemy. And you see China treated as a competitor who could cause problems in Asia, but we're going to be powerful enough that it won't. And believe me, the Chinese and the Russians have read those documents. You compare the US National Security Strategy document to the new British defense document, Their hair is on fire in terms of Russia, perpetual enemy, World War three around the corner, and so on and so forth. China, they have a more complicated approach to, which is how can we somehow still maneuver China in our world and use it against the United States? But the Russians and Chinese can read these documents, and I think they understand at least the people calling the shots right now, certainly in Russia. And, you know, and with Xi Jinping in China, they see the United States is something very different than they've had to deal with for decades and decades. And, you know, in that world, do they still need to play assets like the IRGC to maintain their position on the chessboard and so on? I tend to think not
- [69:12]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
really. So then when it comes down to China, I guess maybe the other thing for us to be thinking about with China is we saw the reports that came in. I think it's four or five consecutive years of a declining population. Four years, I believe it's declining population. Looks like they're going to have their fifth year here in 2026, and they're at 1.01. Their birth rate and, you know, the replacement number is 2.1. So they're at 1.01. And what are things that China is going through that they've been very good at hiding, that they're internally having to overcome. Because from the outset, China's going to take over, China's going to be the powerful, China is going to be this, China is going to be that. I don't know where you subscribe to that mindset as well. And if not, what challenges are they having that the world is not seeing because they're keeping it private?
- [69:59]
Susan Kokinda
Well, I think you hit the nail on the head. I mean, they're not replacing their population and they've got a very stratified society and you have a whole lower level of society which is not really participating in the kind of development and economic growth that you're seeing in terms of the way they play. Look, they played the free trade system, right? And as President Trump has said, I don't blame them. But honestly, they didn't set up the free trade system, they just played it. But they created a very stratified society. The social credit system is clearly, I mean, I think that's one of the big aspects of it. The social credit system has to be a damper in terms of the ability of your society to actually develop because you're basically exerting a certain level of mind policing. And once you have mind policing, people are not going to think independently, they're not going to think creatively. So the durable basis for a future society, which is population replacement and a generalized population which can create and produce and participate, I think they've left themselves incredibly vulnerable because they just sort of plugged into this world free trade system and milked it for what it was in the context of the way they were running their society. It's not unlike the problem that the Soviet Union faced back in the. Before the end of the Soviet Union, they had a very highly skilled sector which built and supported their military, but it was totally closed off from the rest of society. The rest of their civilian economy was just a complete disaster. It was that tension, that collapse of the civilian economy because the population again, was in this kind of mind policing world where you're not allowed to think independently. And if you do, you're going to be punished. Ultimately, that's what's going to kill any society. Now with the fall of the Soviet Union and with Putin's several presidencies, but especially this latest round, they put enormous impact on education, science and technology, cultural expansion and so on for the whole population. And that's what's key. You can't have a stratified society and be successful. That's the ultimate failure of empires or any system which is based on that kind of idea that we have the elites and then we have the peons.
- [72:59]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
It's funny, I had a guy on a podcast a couple of weeks ago, Xiang, and he's made some interesting claims that In July of 2024, he says, President Trump's gonn he's going to go to war with Iran and he's going to lose. And he made those comments. Those videos went viral. I don't know if you saw that or not. And we had him on. We had a good conversation together. But when I asked him about China, he said, in China, there are certain things you just can't talk about. You know, you just have to accept. You're like, no, we don't even debate it. We don't have, you know, you can't push back on the following ideas that they have. If you do, they'll come knocking on your door, and it's just an accepted thing that they have. So you're right, because what that prevents man from doing, if I can't question, then I become. I lose the creativity of questioning. And then what happens? Nope, Just follow the rules. Mom, what do I do with this? Nothing. Just listen to what the government says and move on. But I don't agree with them. Honey, be quiet. They know what they're talking about. It's not sustainable for creative minds. Creative minds will get in trouble. Like Jack Ma got in trouble and other people got in trouble. But long term, I don't know if we're really going to see the consequence of what China is doing today for 50 years. I don't know if I'm going to be around to see what happens to China, because the case study you need not just a decade, a year, definitely a lie. A decade is maybe a little bit, but you kind of need a few decades to see what's going to happen to Those guys by 2076 who are going to be the players. Who's going to be a big empire today that's going to fall. We don't know, you know, what things are going to happen. But what key factors you think will determine which empires are still in power 50 years from now, not. Not 10 years from now?
- [74:45]
Susan Kokinda
Well, you know, the question is, will there be any empires? And that's up to us here in the United States. You know, if, if the Trump revolution succeeds and continues, you know, which means one of his successors, J.D. vance Marco Rubio, continues this. And we establish these principles which are Ensconced in the national security strategy, the national defense strategy and everything. What all the Trump people said when they went to Davos, we want a world of sovereign nations. If the United States is able to play that role, which is what the British have been afraid of since certainly the time of Abraham Lincoln, but absolutely since the time of McKinley, if the United States maintains itself as a sovereign, independent, prosperous nation, if other nations are allowed to replicate that, and you have, as the President said so many times, a world of sovereign nations, then there won't be any empires. And I think China will adopt to that. Look, there's an older tradition in China. I mentioned the countries that were advocates of the American system. Chiang Kai Shek was an open advocate of the American system. He wrote about the American system of Alexander Hamilton and Henry Carey and others. That tradition is still there somewhere in China. I mentioned Count Sergey Vita. In Russia, you had the Soviet Union, you had Communist China. Soviet Union is gone. Russia is going back much more to its tradition as a sovereign nation based on Christian principles. China isn't necessarily Christian, but there's a lot in Confucian principles which cherish the kinds of things you're talking about in terms of creativity, what I would envision. And again, it's entirely up to what happens here in the United States, that if the Trump revolution sustains itself and continues in 50 years, there won't be any empires. And in fact, we'll have sovereign nations. And who knows, we may have sovereign colonies on the moon and Mars.
- [77:02]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
Well, I mean, listen, that is very ideal, if you believe that. And so it'd be good to see that happen. By the way, walk me through the influence that Lyndon LaRouche has had on you. Very interesting character. No matter how much I read about him, this guy's a very unique character. You know, he went from, you know, when I see him politically, he was a socialist worker for the Trotskyists in the 40s and 50s. Far left, you know, and we know what happened to Trotskyists. They got kicked out of Russia. They were so Communist, they got kicked out that I think the guy ended up getting killed or died in Mexico. I don't know what it was, but something like that. Yeah, he was assassinated. And then he ends up joining the labor committees in the National Caucus of Labor Committees in 69, founded in US Labor Party in 73 and then shifted to far right politics in the mid-70s. He got himself a little bit of. In trouble with mail fraud and tax evasion. The $30 million, whatever it was that he ended up having to do 15 years. I think he only did five years. Married a girl 27 years younger than him. He ran for president many times. Interesting guy. Why did he inspire you? You know what. What about him interests you?
- [78:14]
Susan Kokinda
What interests me is I ran into his movement a couple of years after the Bobby Kennedy assassination, which had obviously affected me pretty dramatically and was sort of spiraling into hopelessness in terms of what are we going to do to turn this country back around again? And I ran into somebody espousing his ideas. And it. The one thing with him which has never changed. And these descriptions of him are again, like the shadows on the wall, where you take a noun or an adjective and you act like that's what he was. He was a universal genius. And his passion was always this divergence between the development of the physical economy based on the creativity of the human mind versus all these other kind of artificial systems based on money or systems analysis or whatever. And what attracted me to him is that he was an intellectual who forced you to constantly hypothesize and rethink the way you thought. And we did rethink the organization which I joined, which he founded, Rethought everything. When we discovered the American system and nothing had changed from the standpoint of our fundamentals, we were trying to find what is the policies, what are the institutions, what is the philosophy that exists in the world that will do what we wanted to do and when literally we had to rediscover the American system. And it was actually right around the time of the American bicentennial in 1976 that then everything kind of locked in, and we could take the same principles that we had always espoused. But we're trying to figure out, well, socialism work? Does this work? Does that work? What works? We said, here it is. The American system has always worked. The media will then say he went from left to right. He didn't change his principles and his policies always stayed the same. His and his influence is not always understood, but he played a vital role in Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative. He met Reagan on the campaign trail in 1980. They talked about this, and LaRouche was brought into the Reagan administration for intensive discussions on what Reagan ultimately announced as the Strategic Defense Initiative. I was there in Washington, and at that point, this same imperial elite, which went after Donald Trump, said, okay, LaRouche is getting too big for his britches. Among the people who prosecuted Lyndon LaRouche were Robert Mueller. So, you know, it's a small world.
- [81:07]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
Wow.
- [81:08]
Susan Kokinda
What year we got 87.
- [81:11]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
Interesting.
- [81:12]
Susan Kokinda
Yeah, I think the Mueller indictment was either 86 or 87. Maybe it was a little bit. It became a blur because it was just like Trump. There were so many indictments at the state and the federal level. Now, one thing I have to say, which I would want to say anyway, following LaRouche's passing, his widow, Helga Zepp, LaRouche took the organization in a direction which we completely disagreed with. And so those of us who form Promethean actions split off and we have nothing to do with her, which we need to say legally, but as I say, I would want to do anyway.
- [81:43]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
Very interesting. Yeah. Because when I see some of this stuff, look, people like this are very interesting to study because. Because you want to know why they say what they say? Some of the claims he made. He said, Queen Elizabeth II runs the international narcotics trade, okay? He claimed Hitler's rise was orchestrated by Rothschilds, Warburgs and Oppenheimers, which we know Warburgs were very powerful on what they did. They were even involved with Jekyll Island. The meeting at Jekyll island of beginning of building Federal Reserve. Then he said, British rules Israel as a zombie nation. Okay? British intelligence and a Queen circle control the US Economy. Queen Elizabeth II framed Bill Clinton. British intelligence orchestrated the Russia gate. The CIA, KGB and British intelligence conspired to assassinate Lyndon LaRouche. The IMF deliberately created and spread AIDS. The CIA and KGB brainwashed and kidnapped LaRoche aides into assassins. I mean, when you go. And I can go on and on and on, this guy had some very unique takes, you know, on. On what happened. So did you ever spend time with him one on one? Were you around him?
- [82:59]
Susan Kokinda
Oh, yeah.
- [83:00]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
And. And what was he. These are things he literally believed in on what happened.
- [83:05]
Susan Kokinda
Well, those. Those are kind of cartoonish type characterizations of some of the things. But take, for example, the question of the international drug trade. The key element. This is something that Besson and the Trump administration are taking on. The key element of the international narcotics trade is not the cigar boats with the drugs on them. It's who launders the drug money. And there all you have to do is go back to the 1960s, when the British, the City of London in particular, set up the entire offshore banking operation in the Cayman Islands, Isle of Man, Isle of Wight and so on, where you have these black boxes of complete and total secrecy in terms of moving money. This is where the financial flows which finance international drug trafficking come from. You also have very premier institutions like Hong Kong Shanghai in the 1970s we wrote a book entitled Dope Incorporated. Some of the research we used came from the. I think she was the bank commissioner of New York who had filed a brief against Hong Kong, Shanghai being able to charter itself in New York because of their role in international drug money laundering. So all we did is we just started to put all the pieces together. Now this was then caricatured. I think there was even a Saturday Night Live skit which shows somebody playing the Queen of England with nickel bags handing them off to Henry Kissinger who by the way at one point gave a speech at Chatham House where he said when I was Secretary of State I kept the British Foreign Office more closely informed than I did the State Departments. So, you know, confessions essentially. But when you look at the institutions in terms of drug money laundering, in fact it was about 10 years ago, I think it was the fellow who was the anti drug czar for Russia, I think his name was Costa or Khota, gave a speech at the United nations where he pretty much said everything we had said in doping. You know, that it's these big London based banks that finance international drug trafficking. So you know, again the media will put a kind of cartoon version of this. But you know, or you look at Hitler, look at the role of his finance minister Hjalmar Schacht who came straight out of London, Wall street networks, who was deployed back to, to Germany to basically set up a financial structure in Germany to keep paying the war reparations debt and then later to have the money to militarize Germany and so on. He came straight out of these Anglo American financial circles. So when you bother to look at the, you just get below the circumstances, surface level of history, which is what you get if you look at Wikipedia usually and again just dive a little bit more deeply you'll find that all of the claims which LaRouche made could be thoroughly, thoroughly historically proven. Not in a two sentence simple minded version, but if you actually look at the historical processes behind this and up until recently there's really been very little serious history that people have done. It's all been this, you know, this really simple minded soap opera cartoon version of history. One historian who I think has done extremely important work and I always take the opportunity to highlight is a book by Richard Poe entitled How the British Created Communism and Blamed it on the Jews. Now that is an amazing book.
- [87:11]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
How the British Created Communism and Blamed
- [87:13]
Susan Kokinda
it on the Jews and Blamed it on the Jews.
- [87:16]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
How did they do it? What does he say?
- [87:18]
Susan Kokinda
What he shows is that Communism was created in London. I mean, actually Karl Marx was on the payroll of the. Of. Yeah, there's. The book was through. Urquhart was basically on the payroll of the British East India Company. They wanted to create an ideology which they could use largely against Russia. I mean, what he documents in the book is that so much of British policy, well, British policy was largely aimed in the 19th and the early 20th century against their great rival on the continent, which was Russia, and whatever they could do to weaken Russia. And then of course, they were worried about what was going on with the United States. But what he documents is how these movements were completely synthetically created and they were all created for geopolitical purposes. And that the claim that it was the Jews was also straight from British intelligence. This is a short book, actually. Like, I don't know, 20% of it is the footnotes. That's how well documented it is. It's an easy read. He's an excellent writer and I think people will just find their entire worldview begin to shift when you work through something like this.
- [88:39]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
So Richard Poe is alive. So he's a cuz. It just came out two years ago.
- [88:44]
Susan Kokinda
Yeah.
- [88:44]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
Rob, can you go on Richard Poe's link just to see what is his background?
- [88:50]
Susan Kokinda
I don't quite remember. He might be an investigative journalist, New
- [88:53]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
York Times bestselling author and award winning journalist. He has written bestselling books on many subjects. Shadow and Fire. Interesting. All right. Interesting.
- [89:01]
Susan Kokinda
Yeah. No, he's just a really competent historian and there have been so few of those out there who actually just do the work, do the work, as opposed to taking a bunch of secondary sources and pasting them together. I mean, that's the other thing I will say in terms of my time with Lyndon LaRouche, which is it was all primary sources. You don't read somebody's description of what something was happening, doing. You went back, read the primary sources. And I would say that the same thing is true of the Trump administration today. Stop getting your ideas about what Donald Trump is doing from social media, unless you're reading Trump himself. Go to the White House website, read the executive orders, read the findings. One of my favorite pastimes is watching a Cabinet meeting. These Cabinet meetings are amazing because you actually see a team and they're not rivals. A team of people who are working with each other in sync to carry out an actual revolutionary policy. It's actually all there. You just have to look for it as opposed to, you know, as opposed to taking Fox News or the Washington Post's. Version of, you know, what is going on. Just go to the primary sources yourself and start thinking.
- [90:23]
Sponsor Announcer 2
The right window treatments change everything. Your sleep, your privacy, the way every room looks and feels. @blinds.com, we've spent 30 years making it surprisingly simple to get exactly what your home needs. We We've covered over 25 million windows and have 50,000 five star reviews to prove we deliver. Whether you DIY it or want a pro to handle everything from measure to install, we have you covered. Real design professionals, free samples, zero pressure. Right now. Get up to 50% off with minimum purchase plus get a free professional measure@blinds.com rules and restrictions apply.
- [90:54]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
Yeah, I mean if you don't do that, there's we have congressmen and congresswomen who think there's been 11 wars. I don't know if you saw that yesterday with Ilhan Omar talking about World War 11. And because she thought the, you know, when they put the two, she thought it meant 11. She was reading off a paper and she said World War 11 and she was destroyed for it. I'm sure it was an innocent mistake, but she was destroyed over it. But that's a good point. By the way, last thing with LaRoche, who would be a modern day Lyndon LaRoche today? Do we have one? Because he ran for president, I think six, seven or eight times. I don't know what the number is. He kept running and the highest he ever got was 2% as a Democrat in the mid-80s on 84, something like that.
- [91:40]
Susan Kokinda
Right, right. I mean, we were probably starting to get some traction when all the attacks began against us. But, you know, I don't know if Donald Trump will appreciate this or not. But, you know, I say that before there was trump, there was LaRouche. And what happened with Donald Trump is he picked up same fight, probably not with the same historical or philosophical depth because larouche was really a genius in terms of economics, in terms of science, in terms of philosophy. He was just conversant in everything. I mean, if you listen to one of his discussions, you know, he's talking about, you know, philosophical fights which nobody has heard about, but which nonetheless were really foundational to the development of civilization. Does Trump have that kind of depth? I don't know. Again, but it's essentially the same instinct. And with Trump, what did you have with Trump? You have somebody who had the money to do this. Could Trump have become president in 2016 if he weren't a billionaire? No. And also a new social media platform which didn't exist when LaRouche was running. I mean, we got material out by leaflets, by pamphlets and so on, which had a certain effect and at certain local levels before we came under the kind of attack again that you've seen with Trump and all the attacks against him. We were beginning to win primary elections in local and state races and so on. We were beginning to build up a certain kind of traction. But they hit us with a ton of bricks and figured they would wipe us out. They didn't wipe us out. They basically severely damaged us. But basically we could hang on as an institution to keep these ideas alive. LaRouche did live long enough to see Trump get elected, and he saw that as an extension of the kind of fight that he had fought. Because the key is, 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. It's only because Trump has stood his ground and fought and it's forced the enemy much more into the open than they ever have been. Not one assassination attempt, but three very visible ones and a few others that quite get to the level of the three that we're talking about. But I think LaRouche's approach was always, we need many Donald trumps or Lyndon LaRouche's. That is, you need people who will think, who will challenge and will then have the courage to act on their convictions. And that gets back to what we've talked about in terms of creativity and independence. That's the corduroy republic. You know, if you don't have people who have the courage of their convictions, and, you know, that's one of the horrible things about DEI and, you know, I mean, DEI and, you know, all this social, you know, enforcement is really no different than social credit in Britain that will cripple your society. Your average healthy society should have a whole bunch of people who are like Donald Trump. They may not express themselves in the same way as Donald Trump, but people who have the courage of their convictions and who think that's when a republic is secure.
- [95:20]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
Did LaRoche and the President ever meet? Was there ever a document and meeting between the two?
- [95:25]
Susan Kokinda
No, I don't believe so.
- [95:26]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
I don't believe so because, you know, the President will listen to anybody and everybody and he always like, well, what is the ideas he has? What does she say? You know, he's not one that wouldn't listen to anybody. I mean, he's met with some of the most controversial people that will come to mar a Lago. And he's like, yeah, I'll sit down and talk to you. What do you have to say? And then he'll get heat for it afterwards, like, oh, okay, yeah, I just had a conversation with a guy, I just had breakfast with a guy, just had a meeting with a guy. So I do like that about him a lot. Last thing I'll ask you before we wrap up, what is one storyline that influencers, podcasters, content creators are that's very popular, that does very, very well, that is extreme by far, not accurate, and has brain rotted a lot of people. What do you notice that you look at and say, what are you saying? That's a lazy position. And we all fall for a lot of different things at times. And you go do research, you're like, well, what was that all about? Why did I believe that for a year or two, two years or three years. And you try to snap out of it by taking a cold shower and reading books and hearing different arguments. But what's one or two ideas that you see spreading? Like that's a full on lie and it's propaganda?
- [96:40]
Susan Kokinda
Well, on the one hand, probably the one which is most widespread at this point is the whole question of the Epstein files. You know, and when you get to the, when you get to the far left, you know, you have these obscenities of, you know, Trump is a rapist and a pedophile and he eats children, which is part of what created the environment around this latest assassination attempt, clearly. But there's also part of the MAGA movement which is also, you know, heavily invested in this. And, you know, when you look at how much, look at who the Epstein files has actually brought down, brought down Peter Mandelson, they brought down Prince Andrew, no longer Prince Andrew and so on, you know, but this, this fixation that Donald Trump is somehow the beating heart of the Epstein files is extremely corrosive because people who are just living in that world have literally stopped thinking. And that spans both the left and the right. Obviously the question of Epstein is his intelligence ties. You look at Mandelson, what was he feeding Epstein top financial information during the 2008 crisis and so on. So people who are completely fixated on the island are ignoring the fact that this is a much larger intelligence operation. And guess what? It actually is being dismantled. So I think this question of I'm not going to support Donald Trump until I see people in handcuffs and the Epstein files and so on, they're really not paying attention to what the President is actually doing to Bring down the structure that created Epstein. Sometimes they say, look, there were evil things of that same kind of quality in the Roman Empire. What was the solution for society? Put everybody who ever did that in Rome in handcuffs or bring down the Roman Empire? And that's what I think the President is trying to do. The other big one, of course, is the Israel question, which Tucker and Candace and the rest of these things have gotten onto. That's a longer question, but it's completely parallel to the British role in creating the Muslim Brotherhood. They created radical Zionism, which is not Judaism, just like political Islam is not Islam. And that's a larger, longer story. But that has clearly. I mean, I see it in the. Those are the two things I get in the comments in my videos from people who disagree the most, Israel and Epstein. And if you actually look more seriously at what is behind both of those, it takes you back to the same place that we're talking about, which is this British imperial system, a system which the President is taking down.
- [99:34]
Sponsor Announcer 2
Got it.
- [99:35]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
Yep. Well, Susan, great having you on. Where can people find you? Is it the Promethean action site?
- [99:43]
Susan Kokinda
Yeah, Prometheanaction.com that's it. That's my latest video up there. And we have a YouTube channel which you can link to through there, and a lot of other material, including background material on the Promethean action website, including, if you want to go back to the website, we have an ebook on there under the toolkit, which is called Police Dossier. It Is the British who Murder Our Presidents. Very useful thing for people to read right now because it goes through the history of Lincoln, McKinley, Kennedy, and the attempts on Trump.
- [100:21]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
Let's put that below, Rob, if we can, both links. Susan, thank you for making the time to come on. And I look forward to our next conversation as more things will happen under Trump. I have a feeling there's going to be many more things happening that we'll probably invite you back to have a conversation with. In the meantime, keep creating, creating great content. You got a lot of people thinking and looking for things they weren't looking for before. And by the way, that video that's there from 17 years ago, did you really have this YouTube channel 17 years ago?
- [100:52]
Susan Kokinda
We did. It was when we were still LaRouche PAC.
- [100:55]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
Oh, so that's. So this YouTube channel used to be called LaRouche Pacific.
- [100:59]
Susan Kokinda
Right? Interesting. That's actually that 1932 is a great history.
- [101:04]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
It really is. It really is. I was looking at them like it's an hour and 40 minutes. But it was from 17 years ago and yes, that's. Oh, okay. Very cool. Well, thank you Susan. All the best to you. Appreciate your time.
- [101:18]
Susan Kokinda
Thank you for having me.
- [101:19]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
Anytime. You know this whole thing with Valley Tim and PBD podcast started with a phone, me and Mario. That's it. And it grew today to you know, 15 million subscribers almost and 164 full time employees and that relationship. Are you watching us and supporting us? Wouldn't happen without you. But did you know 51% of you that watch the content are not subscribed to the channel and it would mean the world to us if you could press that subscribe button and notification. Why? It allows us to grow, hire more, do bigger interviews, have a bigger team and deliver a better product to you. So if you haven't yet, if you don't mind, press that subscribe button. It would mean the world to us. Thank you so much.
- [101:55]
Susan Kokinda
Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. I don't know if you knew this, but anyone can get the same Premium Wireless for $15 a month plan that I've been enjoying. It's not just for celebrities. So do like I did and have one of your assistant's assistants switch you
- [102:09]
Podcast Host (possibly Mario or Pat)
to Mint Mobile today. I'm told it's super easy to do@mintmobile.com
- [102:13]
Sponsor Announcer 1
Switch upfront payment of $45 for 3
- [102:17]
Susan Kokinda
month plan equivalent to $15 per month
- [102:19]
Sponsor Announcer 1
Required intro rate first 3 months only,
- [102:21]
Susan Kokinda
then full options available, taxes and fees extra.
- [102:24]
Sponsor Announcer 1
See full terms@mintmobile.com Some follow the noise. Bloomberg follows the money.
- [102:31]
Susan Kokinda
Because behind every headline is a bottom line.
- [102:35]
Sponsor Announcer 1
Whether it's the funds fueling AI or
- [102:37]
Susan Kokinda
crypto's trillion dollar swings.
- [102:39]
Sponsor Announcer 1
There's a money side to every story. And when you see the money side,
- [102:44]
Susan Kokinda
you understand what others miss.
- [102:46]
Sponsor Announcer 1
Get the money side of the the story.
- [102:48]
Susan Kokinda
Subscribe now at bloomberg. Com.