GOLD: Recognizing Palestine, No Peace in Israel I Douglas Macgregor
Summary
Geopolitical Tensions: The podcast discusses the ongoing geopolitical tensions, particularly focusing on the role of the United Nations and the US's stance on global conflicts, highlighting skepticism about the UN's effectiveness.
Middle East Dynamics: There is a significant focus on the Middle East, including the potential recognition of Palestine as a sovereign state by countries like the UK, Canada, and Australia, and the implications of the Saudi-Pakistani security deal.
US Foreign Policy: The conversation critiques the US's foreign policy, particularly its unwavering support for Israel, and questions whether this approach contributes to peace or exacerbates conflicts.
China's Influence: China's strategic moves in the Middle East, including its financial and military partnerships, are discussed as part of its broader goal to establish itself as a global power, challenging the US's dominance.
Economic Shifts: The podcast highlights the potential shift away from the US dollar as the global reserve currency, with countries exploring alternatives like gold-backed trade systems, influenced by China's economic strategies.
European Financial Stability: Concerns are raised about the financial stability of European countries, particularly the UK and France, and the potential societal and economic upheavals they may face.
NATO's Future: The discussion touches on the future of NATO, questioning its cohesion and effectiveness in light of recent geopolitical developments and internal European challenges.
Investment Implications: The podcast suggests that investors should closely monitor geopolitical and economic shifts, particularly in Europe and the Middle East, as these could have significant impacts on global markets.
Transcript
The UN General Assembly is meeting in New York as we spec speak. Donald Trump just gave his remarks uh in front of the whole assembly questioning the validity of the UN and in regard or in in in light of the US sort of owing $3 billion to the UN. It's some interesting commentary. Half the audience expected that the US might pull out of the UN uh at at that meeting, but it it didn't happen. Of course, that was way too much and way too far. But I think some interesting questions were raised and I'm curious uh what my guest guest has to say about those uh th those questions and whether the UN is actually an institution that we should be relying on on a geopolitical front. Um I've invited Douglas McGregor, Colonel Douglas McGregor to the show. Really looking forward to catching up with him on all things geopolitics. We've earmarked quite a few topics and we only have a very few a very short time to get through them. One of them of course is Russia provoking NATO as we can read in Western headlines. Uh we will recap a little bit of the the speech Donald Trump just gave here in front of the UN General Assembly. And of course we we'll talk about Canada, UK, and Australia wanting to recognize Palestine as a sovereign state. And if we can squeeze it in, we're trying to figure out like what is happening in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan just signed a security deal as well, which could have massive implications on the geopolitical front as well. Before I switch over to my guest, hit that like and subscribe button. Helps us out tremendously. We much much appreciate the support. And did I mention it doesn't cost you a thing? So, thanks so much for doing that. Now, uh Doug, it is great to have you back on the program. It's good to see you again. Thank you so much for joining us. >> Sure. >> Yeah, really looking forward to this. We have lots to go through. And maybe let's let's start with something that just happened a mere 60 minutes ago. Um it's the UN General Assembly is happening in New York right now. President Trump uh gave gave his remarks and gave his speech uh complaining about a non non- workinging teleprompter and broken escalators. But uh what one one thing I took away and it reminded me a bit a little bit of JD Vance's speech in Munich almost seemed a bit of a wakeup call to the UN. Uh it didn't sound like a threat that the US was pulling out but it was it felt like it was trying to rattle at least the um the foundations of the institution of the UN. And uh let me just quote one one thing real quick and he he he said what is the purpose of the United Nations? The UN has such tremendous potential but it's not even coming close to living up to their potential for the most part. All they seem to do is write really strongly worded letters and never follow up on those letters. Um, what do you make of that and the role of the UN in general there? >> Well, a man named Vinhold Neore, good German name. He's an American from the Midwest and a brilliant scholar and he said hypocrisy is when vice pays tribute to virtue. And I think that describes Donald Trump. uh he wants the UN to do something, but he knows full well that unless the members of the UN Security Council do not come together and decide to act in favor of what is right versus what is wrong, nothing is going to happen in the world. It's not just a question of contributing money. It's a question of action. And the United States has placed itself firmly on the side in my judgment that is wrong of Israel. And as a result, the United Nations Security Council is unwilling to go to war with the United States in order to stop the mass murder and expulsion campaign being run in Gaza. So that that's point number one. The point number two is does the United States have the military power to intervene along with other members? Yeah, of course it does. But it's also in under financial constraints right now. So, it's not really willing to spend the money. So, I would sort of treat Donald Trump's uh comments with the complete contempt they deserve. >> Now, it's it was some interesting statements, especially given the fact that the US owes the the UN $3 billion apparently and making it really difficult for the UN to meet its funding um obligations here, of course. Um, but I mentioned like it sounded like the the language, although not as strongly worded as perhaps JD Vance's speech there in Munich. Um, that that shook the EU a little bit and woke us up seemingly because all of a sudden Germany spending on military now. But do you think it'll have the same effect that that speech? Will it wake up the UN or is it just, you know, storm in a water glass? >> No, I think we're going to be viewed as total hypocrites. You know, we're the ones that helped to found the UN founding members. Are we willing to cooperate with the other UN Security Council members to do anything? The answer is no. So, it's it's empty rhetoric. It means nothing. I would not be surprised if over the next few years the UN actually pulls out of New York City and goes somewhere else. >> Interesting because Donald Trump mentioned he'd build a new building or something for them as well during his speeches. Um, which takes all the like I really struggle like I was listening to the speech because the rhetoric overshadows the content which which is frustrating because because in the end I think we all want peace. I think that was one thing I definitely took away. Let's figure out a way to to establish peace in the world. Hasn't happened. Um >> but maybe coming back to the main topic like should the UN take a more active role? Maybe just zooming out a little bit. >> Yeah, but the UN to take a more active role needs to be supported. There's no such thing as a United Nations uh military establishment. Uh it's only when the the great powers are willing to contribute forces that something can be done to rectify what's wrong or what's uh immorally repugnant. That's what the UN was supposed to be about. Establishing justice, providing a clearing house for discussions that would avoid conflict. It can't do that unless its great power members are willing to participate. We're not. So, let's stop kidding ourselves. And I think he's just maintaining the facade that uh the UN, you go do something. As soon as the UN tries to do something, if we don't like it, we'll stop it. So, what's the point? I that's why I think the United Nations may well move somewhere else. And they probably ought to because they're not going to get anywhere inside the United States right now. >> Yeah. It seems like if the UN doesn't follow the US policies, like it's against the US. Like, you're either with us or against us. Is that a fair statement? >> I think that's Trump. I think that was George Bush. I I think it's everybody that we've had in power over the last 30 plus years since we embarked on this crusade to uh freeze the Cold War and and monopolize power around the world in every way we can. One one other topic that made headlines over the last 48 hours sort of as a as a as part of the UN General Assembly happening right now is that the UK, Canada, and Australia um want to accept Palestine as a sovereign state. Um interesting headline of course um we've had Simon Hunt here on the show about six months ago saying like well the easiest way to end the war in Israel and Gaza is just to accept Palestine as a sovereign state. Um, is is it as is it that simple? And what are the ramifications of accepting Palestine as a sovereign state here? >> The only way Palestine can exist is if Israel does not. And Israel has concluded that the only way it can exist is if Palestine does not. Those are the grim facts. Let's be frank. whatever potential there was for a a Palestinian state coexisting with the Israeli state, which I think was always unlikely, uh there is none anymore. So, this is a nice gesture on the part of the United United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. It's also equally meaningless. I think one of two things will happen. all of the Palestinians will either be killed or driven out of uh Israel, out of where they live right now, or they won't. And if they're not, that means that Israel has been defeated and faces its own form of extinction. >> Just just in that regard, like how do we achieve peace then in in general? Like of course, President Trump also during his speech says like, "Well, return the hostages, return the dead bodies, so we can even have a level disc or a meaningful discussion to a degree to end this." Where do you see or what do you see things what needs to happen to to get to that point? >> Well, I don't see peace arriving until there's a resolution of the conflict. And that I've told you what the resolution is. Either there's no Palestine or there's no Israel. The two cannot coexist. That's abundantly clear. The problem for the Israelis now is that there's a growing feeling across the Islamic world all the way across North Africa, the Middle East and all the way to India that Israel is a permanent menace. It's uh it's a basillus in the region and until it is eliminated there will be no peace in the region. And that's I'm afraid the principal problem right now. If you you ask anybody about World War I, the events that followed it, uh the Sykes Pico agreement and so forth, they'll look at you and say that's over. Israel's war of ruthless extermination of the Palestinian people has made that an impossibility. So whatever is said, it doesn't matter. The truth is Israel either dominates and exercises regional hegemony which it can only do with our backing and power or Israel faces elimination. It can be slow over a few years or it can come quickly. That's where where the region's headed. the recognition of Palestine as a sovereign state like other European countries have done the same like is is that more of a tren do do you see a trend and could that break the western consensus here because so far like the west still stands firmly with uh with Israel in in general um is that a trend that could lead to bigger cracks and maybe even a breakup of the west here over this topic? >> No, the west isn't going to break over that topic. Uh when you say the west, we have to look at the banks in the city of London and New York City. They're the controlling entities and there's no change in attitude or goal at this point. I mean, we could talk at length about what's really going on behind Israeli aggression and Syria, southern Lebanon, increasingly towards Egypt and lesser extent Jordan, but absolutely Iran. And it's the desire to get complete control of the oil and gas resources in the region. London and New York City absolutely vitally needed because they've lost the bid in Ukraine to strip Russia of its resources and steal everything that they could. That war is a complete and utter failure. It's a disaster for NATO and the West. NATO isn't going to survive it. NATO is also going to disintegrate as will the EU. That's already evident when you look at Hungary and Slovakia and look behind the the governmental facades and look at the attitudes of the European peoples. There's no stomach for or interest in going to war with Russia. So I think all of these things right now are on the verge of fundamental sweeping change. We just don't know exactly when and how and what could happen. But clearly what we've seen with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, this new mutual defense pact is really telling us where the region is headed. And that means that the region is also looking to China and Russia. And China in particular has come out and said they have will offer complete support to the Saudi and Pakistani defense pack. Remember the Pakistanis already have nuclear weapons. They have long-standing relations with Turkey as well as the other countries in the region. They have an interest in in seeing the global exchange system change. We can talk about pro gold and all this kind of business with the Chinese who are trying to hoard as much gold as possible. The the bottom line is everything is changing and what you're asking is who's going to win? I don't think we and and the English-sp speakaking world are going to win. I think we're going to lose. And I go back to Charles de Gaulle. You know, he says Americans don't live in Europe and Britain is an island. That was his comment on our position and NATO. He was right. And I think everybody's figured that out. So, we're the ones that are going to be edged out. And Donald Trump, I think, is in the business of trying in some respects to manage this decline of American power and influence. Although he may not realize it, that's effectively what he's doing. >> The question is, can he stop it? Of course, as well. Um, probably unstoppable. >> No, it's unstoppable. The forces of history are turning against us and we have to accommodate those forces if we're to survive. >> You mentioned a lot of interesting things that I want to follow up on. Um there's so many discuss like routes we we we could take now even just coming from the Israeli side but you you mentioned the Saudi and Pakistani defense pact maybe just elaborate real quick what what is included what does it mean and why is it so significant for the region in general >> well I think it's important because Pakistan which as you know is a Chinese client state that sits on the border with India on the other side of Iran has now gone into an agreement a formal agreement they've always had good relations with Saudis. They're both Sunni Muslim states. Uh they are both in the business of supporting a lot of things that we oppose and don't like, not just the Israelis. When we talk about Islamism, uh Saudi money has built Islamist Madras in Pakistan for years. And the Saudis are going to invest heavily in new infrastructure projects, which of course benefits China. It's one belt in one road. What what it really means is that the Islamic world is quietly coalescing with the help of the Chinese and their massive financial power into a more unified block against Israel. Now the Chinese have held exercises with the Egyptians. The Chinese have held exercises, military exercises with the Iranians. The Chinese are heavily dependent upon the oil and gas. And certainly that means the Persian Gulf. But this is also why they built all this infrastructure across Central Asia into uh the Middle East Africa because they know that we we have this thing called the United States Navy. It's not so much the service fleet as it is our submarine fleet which is unmatched and that submarine fleet can shut down trade overseas out of China overnight. So they've had to build an alternative. So they're they're doing everything in their power to to cultivate the emergence of alternative institutions and structures. Saudi Arabia is a big part of that. Saudi Arabia wants to do business in gold. This goes back to the dramatic precipitous drop in demand for the dollar on a global basis. People are trying to get out from under the dollar. Now why would you want to do that? Well, take a look at what's happened to the Russians. The Russians have been subject to terrible sanctions. is we've effectively stolen 300 billion in in Russian assets and cash from Russia through our global financial system. People look at that, certainly the Chinese have, and they've said, "I don't want to be in that position." And I think that's true for almost everybody that is a significant financial power. They they want to get out from underneath the dollar. We're fighting back to the best of our ability, but it's very tough because we've bullied too many people for too many years. And now that China is trying to build these gold vaults so that uh petroleum purchases could be settled in gold. They want to put a vault in Riad, another one in Hong Kong external to China, external to the Shanghai gold exchange. And this facilitates uh trade across borders with a system that's much more friendly to countries around the world than our Swift system which we use as a instrument of punishment. Well, China's role is really an interesting one. Um, we've discussed it here on the channel before as well because I'm trying to figure out like Russia suggests that China become a security guer in Iran in a potential deal with the US which was interesting because Russia was the mediator between the US and Iran here. A very interesting role. The two enemies sitting at the same table trying to achieve the same thing. But China said no to that role. So how do you interpret that? Like how is the dynamic like how is that affecting the dynamic there in the Middle East? China has been very reluctant for most of its history to engage in external uh military adventurism. Other words, if you go back to the history of China over the last 2,000 years, the only time China expanded at all was under Mongolian dynasties. They expanded under the Mongolian dynasty of Kublakhan. They expanded under the man shoes very briefly into what today we call singing jang or new province which was originally east Turkystan. The otherwise the Chinese have been completely disinterested in going anywhere because they see themselves as the center of the world and the measure of what really is civilized behavior. So China really is back to being what China originally has always been purely Chinese. No interest in occupying other people's countries. no interest in anything other than making money and increasing their prosperity. So to the extent that they can gain influence for their interests which are basically no war, no conflict, no crisis but stability because they know capital flees areas of conflict and crisis. Uh they will do it but they don't want to become a a belligerent or a co-elligerent in a war if they can avoid it. Now they could be drawn in to a war with us over the Persian Gulf uh over the halt complete halt of oil and gas to them. But then we would also be harming Korea and Japan and other countries that depend on that oil and of course India. Now India has turned increasingly to Russia. We're trying to punish them and of course that's driven uh India out of our sphere and they're marching towards bricks and cooperation with China despite their differences with Pakistan because they just don't see us as a reliable partner and I think that's really what China wants to prove to the world that it is a reliable partner. >> It's interesting because you keep coming back also to the financial side of things which now you know China wanting to be a reliable partner might be the tiein. it is lacking banking infrastructure at least that's what I'm being what I keep being told here on this channel um if it doesn't support on the financial side military is one thing of course and it it is building its military might um but it's lacking on the financial front um it is working on expanding that you we we've discussed and I think you mentioned it already um building gold vaults in Saudi Arabia just to have it its reach into or tentacles for lack a better term into into the Middle East here but is is that a missing piece and how close are is China to to reach sort of that tipping point when it comes to financial what do you call it like dynam not dynamicism like >> sophistication >> exactly that's >> if you if you talk to the Chinese they will tell you very frankly that their current banking system lacks the sophistication and the bandwidth to compete on the international level I mean this is why the Chinese are not interested in making the juan a convertible currency I mean they don't want to be at the mercy of the markets they're They want to strengthen themselves. Remember, China is all about emerging from this 100 plus years, century plus of humiliation. They're not completely ready yet. And they will tell you that uh they want to make themselves impregnable to future humiliation. Part of that is military as you pointed out, but if you look carefully at their military power, it's largely designed to keep us out. In other words, it's about denying us access to China. If we're dumb enough to go to war with China, which is probably the largest fortress in the world, uh then we'll lose because they can sit behind their coastline with great depth, multiple missile systems, launchers, as well as space-based and terrestrialbased surveillance, and they can sink everything that floats. They cannot yet find our submarines. That remains a permanent danger to them. But when you go to the financial side, they've seen what's happened to Russia. They've seen what's happened to other countries that that rebel against us or have presented resistance to us. And what do we want to do? They want to be in a position where they can resist that without being severely damaged. And of course, we keep talking about Taiwan. The last thing the Chinese want is a war over Taiwan. They just want a peaceful reunification, which I think incidentally will probably happen. Uh but we keep pressing for hostilities. Now, that may stop under Donald Trump despite the rhetoric because I know that President Trump doesn't see any value or any benefit to the United States of going to war with China. So, let's look at China as a very deliberate, carefully organized, programmed power that is not moving against us as much as it is simply trying to strengthen itself long-term for a future as a major global financial power. >> Yeah. The question is like why would we even attack China? They don't have any oil or any resources that we want. They got some rare earths here, but it's mostly the processing they have. It's not >> why did why did we go to war against Germany and Austria Hungary in 1917 when there was absolutely no threat and no reason to do so. If you're going to be rational about these things, you will never understand the United States. It is not rational. >> Yeah, I'm I'm way too pragmatic in my line of thinking. So you you might have a point there. You might absolutely have a point. Um but Colonel or Doug um we we need quickly need to talk one other news topic here as well that's definitely making headlines in the western media especially in in Europe of course is Russia provoking NATO um by by sending drones by you know flying their aircraft too close to the border or flying over borders like what what do you make of that situation? Help us put some context around it and is that anything of concern? Well, first this notion that the Russians deliberately sent unmanned aerial systems and we call them UAVs and the common parlance is now drone, which is a bad word because it it suggests it's stupid. You know, the drone doesn't think doesn't doesn't have any uh artificial intelligence. Well, the unmanned aerial vehicles do. And what we found is that uh the Russians opened up all the information and flight paths and origins and everything for examination to NATO. NATO has formally stated that what happened was not an attack on NATO. Period. That's the NATO headquarters issued that statement a few days ago. What happened is that likely some of these uh UAVs or drones were captured electronically and directed deliberately by the Ukrainians into Poland and Lithuania. Uh the Russian government has said the same thing as the Russians and opened up their their information to everybody. Uh so it that's just pure unadulterated nonsense to listen to Sorski try to build this into some sort of great threat and then threaten Russia is absurd. Uh, first of all, the Lilipuchian armies of Great Britain, France, and Germany, whatever Germany has, are no match for the Russians. There's not going to be any military intervention on the ground. The president of Poland says he will not allow any Polish soldiers to fight in Ukraine. And remember, they've already buried 10,000 dead Polish soldiers that fought in Ukrainian uniform in Ukraine. So there's there's no appetite for this nonsense. This is a tempest in a teapot. Absolutely unworthy of any serious attention. Now, on the other hand, the war in Ukraine is militarily at an end. What's happening now is that the Russians are just slowly advancing and annihilating whatever they come into contact with. Ukrainians have very little to throw back at them. Ukrainians still do have unmanned aerial vehicles, but the Russians have become extraordinarily good at shooting them down and disabling them. So I I think that what Putin is is waiting for to frankly is the government and you know as I call the government of the three amigos London, Paris and Berlin to fall for the populations there to finally get rid of them and for nationalists to take over the government because the nationalists in Europe today are completely disinterested in going to war with Russia. They see an internal enemy. That enemy was welcomed into the country by globalists in 2015. And that's what has to go home. And that is the growing consensus in European populations. They want these people to go back where they came from. I think it's probably going to happen. It's not going to be nice. It's going to be ugly and we'll be stupid. The usual suspects in the United States will condemn this, but we face a very similar problem. And we're going to hack have to act in the same way because it's our survival at stake as a republic, as an English-speaking people. Well, we're seeing the cracks already. France needs a new government. Germany, like we keep highlighting how our chancellor is failing us despite all the campaign promises. Uh I'm not sure that government will last its full four-year uh term here or five years. I think it's five years in Germany even. I should know better. Um so the the cracks are showing obviously. Um Doug, maybe as a closing question in general, like what area where where should we paying closer attention? like we just talked Russia, NATO, don't worry about it. Um, but any anything we haven't discussed yet that we should be paying closer attention to that the mainstream is maybe completely ignoring so far. >> Well, I would look carefully at what is going to happen financially in Europe, specifically London. Look at the guilt market, what we call the bond market. Look at what's going on in France. The these countries are in very, very dangerous positions financially as well as domestically in terms of societal cohesion. So I wouldn't walk away from that. I would look at those very care carefully. If you look at places like Poland or Hungary where you don't have millions of people inside the country that are fundamentally alien to it and are demanding special treatment or threatening the local population, societal cohesion is high. Uh and they're not foolish and stupid. They're not going to march on on Russia or anything else despite what Sakorski says. So, I think I would look at the West European states because where they're headed is probably the same destination we're headed to as well. They they simply may get there first. The other thing is that I really would watch what the Chinese do with the with the attempt in pro gold to effectively displace the petro dollar. And it's not something China dreamed up. The Saudis, the Emirates, they're all interested in the same thing. You have a a world in Asia that looks at the dollar and says the dollar is poison. We don't want it. You're not only passing your debt to us, you're passing crisis and conflict to us. We're not interested in it. So, I think ddollarization is the other thing that we need to to look carefully at. You know, in the final analysis, finance does matter. If you're broke, you can't go to war. Everybody says, "Oh, well, we'll go to war." Well, you can't go to war if you're broke and we're headed to being broke severely. So, no, I don't see, you know, war is an imminent threat right now. But those are the areas that I would watch and I don't know what happens in Venezuela. Uh, I think eventually we may just call it quits and and bring the troops back, the ships back. I don't see any benefit to attacking Venezuela. We don't understand how volatile Latin America is. Uh, I think Venezuela would end up having thousands of paramilitaries come up from Brazil, come in from Colombia. It could turn into the uh poster child for opposition to the evil Yankees. I think as that becomes clear to people, we may change our minds and and go elsewhere and do business differently. >> No, fantastic. Really, really good overview here. Um, Doug, really appreciate you joining us. Of course, a very comprehensive overview of geopolitic the geopolitical landscape, but uh you're mirroring what Simon Hunt's been telling us for years now. The bond market is the root of all evil. Uh it doesn't matter where you're at, but money controls the world and uh money controls everything. So really, >> really, really appreciate your your comments. Where can we send our audience in case they don't know where to find you yet? >> Well, there's an event on for October in Dallas, Texas. uh it's called the national conversation. It's a new nonprofit that I and some others started in the attempt to uh raise these kinds of questions and and answer them in a public forum. Uh because of the Charlie Kirk tragedy, we could not secure the area that we wanted for several hundred people. So, it's now a VIP dinner and reception. We're expecting uh 50 people. We we've got 15 slots left. Uh, I would encourage anybody who wants to address these kinds of questions with me, with Natalie Brunell, whom I'm I'm sure you know, and Judge Napoleano, and ultimately Dr. Olga Raazi, who teaches at the university level. She's going to be moderating our panel discussion, but we will interact with the audience. It's an opportunity. It's more like an investment seminar only on a strategic level. and we hope that we'll get 15 more people to fill out the 50 that we could accommodate. But I would encourage anybody serious about these things. You know, get a ticket, show up in Dallas, and uh we'll tell you exactly where the dinner is going to be held. We're we're keeping that close hold for a few days for for security reasons, as you can imagine. >> Absolutely. Yeah. Been following the news here uh sadly. So, um Doug, really appreciate you joining us. Um, we'll definitely link to the dinner and everything else down below as well. Much appreciate your time. Thank you so much. And everybody else, thank you so much for tuning in to sore financially. Hope you enjoyed this conversation. It was it was really important to get an update on the geopolitical landscape. Hence, we invited Douglas McGre or Colonel Douglas McGregor and I really appreciate his insights. Let me know what you think. What is happening? Is is the NATO is NATO already dead? What do you what is the role of the UN? How do you interpret it? Let us know down below. We do want to hear from you and much much appreciated. Thank you so much for tuning in. We'll be back with lots more. Take care out there. [Music]
GOLD: Recognizing Palestine, No Peace in Israel I Douglas Macgregor
Summary
Transcript
The UN General Assembly is meeting in New York as we spec speak. Donald Trump just gave his remarks uh in front of the whole assembly questioning the validity of the UN and in regard or in in in light of the US sort of owing $3 billion to the UN. It's some interesting commentary. Half the audience expected that the US might pull out of the UN uh at at that meeting, but it it didn't happen. Of course, that was way too much and way too far. But I think some interesting questions were raised and I'm curious uh what my guest guest has to say about those uh th those questions and whether the UN is actually an institution that we should be relying on on a geopolitical front. Um I've invited Douglas McGregor, Colonel Douglas McGregor to the show. Really looking forward to catching up with him on all things geopolitics. We've earmarked quite a few topics and we only have a very few a very short time to get through them. One of them of course is Russia provoking NATO as we can read in Western headlines. Uh we will recap a little bit of the the speech Donald Trump just gave here in front of the UN General Assembly. And of course we we'll talk about Canada, UK, and Australia wanting to recognize Palestine as a sovereign state. And if we can squeeze it in, we're trying to figure out like what is happening in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan just signed a security deal as well, which could have massive implications on the geopolitical front as well. Before I switch over to my guest, hit that like and subscribe button. Helps us out tremendously. We much much appreciate the support. And did I mention it doesn't cost you a thing? So, thanks so much for doing that. Now, uh Doug, it is great to have you back on the program. It's good to see you again. Thank you so much for joining us. >> Sure. >> Yeah, really looking forward to this. We have lots to go through. And maybe let's let's start with something that just happened a mere 60 minutes ago. Um it's the UN General Assembly is happening in New York right now. President Trump uh gave gave his remarks and gave his speech uh complaining about a non non- workinging teleprompter and broken escalators. But uh what one one thing I took away and it reminded me a bit a little bit of JD Vance's speech in Munich almost seemed a bit of a wakeup call to the UN. Uh it didn't sound like a threat that the US was pulling out but it was it felt like it was trying to rattle at least the um the foundations of the institution of the UN. And uh let me just quote one one thing real quick and he he he said what is the purpose of the United Nations? The UN has such tremendous potential but it's not even coming close to living up to their potential for the most part. All they seem to do is write really strongly worded letters and never follow up on those letters. Um, what do you make of that and the role of the UN in general there? >> Well, a man named Vinhold Neore, good German name. He's an American from the Midwest and a brilliant scholar and he said hypocrisy is when vice pays tribute to virtue. And I think that describes Donald Trump. uh he wants the UN to do something, but he knows full well that unless the members of the UN Security Council do not come together and decide to act in favor of what is right versus what is wrong, nothing is going to happen in the world. It's not just a question of contributing money. It's a question of action. And the United States has placed itself firmly on the side in my judgment that is wrong of Israel. And as a result, the United Nations Security Council is unwilling to go to war with the United States in order to stop the mass murder and expulsion campaign being run in Gaza. So that that's point number one. The point number two is does the United States have the military power to intervene along with other members? Yeah, of course it does. But it's also in under financial constraints right now. So, it's not really willing to spend the money. So, I would sort of treat Donald Trump's uh comments with the complete contempt they deserve. >> Now, it's it was some interesting statements, especially given the fact that the US owes the the UN $3 billion apparently and making it really difficult for the UN to meet its funding um obligations here, of course. Um, but I mentioned like it sounded like the the language, although not as strongly worded as perhaps JD Vance's speech there in Munich. Um, that that shook the EU a little bit and woke us up seemingly because all of a sudden Germany spending on military now. But do you think it'll have the same effect that that speech? Will it wake up the UN or is it just, you know, storm in a water glass? >> No, I think we're going to be viewed as total hypocrites. You know, we're the ones that helped to found the UN founding members. Are we willing to cooperate with the other UN Security Council members to do anything? The answer is no. So, it's it's empty rhetoric. It means nothing. I would not be surprised if over the next few years the UN actually pulls out of New York City and goes somewhere else. >> Interesting because Donald Trump mentioned he'd build a new building or something for them as well during his speeches. Um, which takes all the like I really struggle like I was listening to the speech because the rhetoric overshadows the content which which is frustrating because because in the end I think we all want peace. I think that was one thing I definitely took away. Let's figure out a way to to establish peace in the world. Hasn't happened. Um >> but maybe coming back to the main topic like should the UN take a more active role? Maybe just zooming out a little bit. >> Yeah, but the UN to take a more active role needs to be supported. There's no such thing as a United Nations uh military establishment. Uh it's only when the the great powers are willing to contribute forces that something can be done to rectify what's wrong or what's uh immorally repugnant. That's what the UN was supposed to be about. Establishing justice, providing a clearing house for discussions that would avoid conflict. It can't do that unless its great power members are willing to participate. We're not. So, let's stop kidding ourselves. And I think he's just maintaining the facade that uh the UN, you go do something. As soon as the UN tries to do something, if we don't like it, we'll stop it. So, what's the point? I that's why I think the United Nations may well move somewhere else. And they probably ought to because they're not going to get anywhere inside the United States right now. >> Yeah. It seems like if the UN doesn't follow the US policies, like it's against the US. Like, you're either with us or against us. Is that a fair statement? >> I think that's Trump. I think that was George Bush. I I think it's everybody that we've had in power over the last 30 plus years since we embarked on this crusade to uh freeze the Cold War and and monopolize power around the world in every way we can. One one other topic that made headlines over the last 48 hours sort of as a as a as part of the UN General Assembly happening right now is that the UK, Canada, and Australia um want to accept Palestine as a sovereign state. Um interesting headline of course um we've had Simon Hunt here on the show about six months ago saying like well the easiest way to end the war in Israel and Gaza is just to accept Palestine as a sovereign state. Um, is is it as is it that simple? And what are the ramifications of accepting Palestine as a sovereign state here? >> The only way Palestine can exist is if Israel does not. And Israel has concluded that the only way it can exist is if Palestine does not. Those are the grim facts. Let's be frank. whatever potential there was for a a Palestinian state coexisting with the Israeli state, which I think was always unlikely, uh there is none anymore. So, this is a nice gesture on the part of the United United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. It's also equally meaningless. I think one of two things will happen. all of the Palestinians will either be killed or driven out of uh Israel, out of where they live right now, or they won't. And if they're not, that means that Israel has been defeated and faces its own form of extinction. >> Just just in that regard, like how do we achieve peace then in in general? Like of course, President Trump also during his speech says like, "Well, return the hostages, return the dead bodies, so we can even have a level disc or a meaningful discussion to a degree to end this." Where do you see or what do you see things what needs to happen to to get to that point? >> Well, I don't see peace arriving until there's a resolution of the conflict. And that I've told you what the resolution is. Either there's no Palestine or there's no Israel. The two cannot coexist. That's abundantly clear. The problem for the Israelis now is that there's a growing feeling across the Islamic world all the way across North Africa, the Middle East and all the way to India that Israel is a permanent menace. It's uh it's a basillus in the region and until it is eliminated there will be no peace in the region. And that's I'm afraid the principal problem right now. If you you ask anybody about World War I, the events that followed it, uh the Sykes Pico agreement and so forth, they'll look at you and say that's over. Israel's war of ruthless extermination of the Palestinian people has made that an impossibility. So whatever is said, it doesn't matter. The truth is Israel either dominates and exercises regional hegemony which it can only do with our backing and power or Israel faces elimination. It can be slow over a few years or it can come quickly. That's where where the region's headed. the recognition of Palestine as a sovereign state like other European countries have done the same like is is that more of a tren do do you see a trend and could that break the western consensus here because so far like the west still stands firmly with uh with Israel in in general um is that a trend that could lead to bigger cracks and maybe even a breakup of the west here over this topic? >> No, the west isn't going to break over that topic. Uh when you say the west, we have to look at the banks in the city of London and New York City. They're the controlling entities and there's no change in attitude or goal at this point. I mean, we could talk at length about what's really going on behind Israeli aggression and Syria, southern Lebanon, increasingly towards Egypt and lesser extent Jordan, but absolutely Iran. And it's the desire to get complete control of the oil and gas resources in the region. London and New York City absolutely vitally needed because they've lost the bid in Ukraine to strip Russia of its resources and steal everything that they could. That war is a complete and utter failure. It's a disaster for NATO and the West. NATO isn't going to survive it. NATO is also going to disintegrate as will the EU. That's already evident when you look at Hungary and Slovakia and look behind the the governmental facades and look at the attitudes of the European peoples. There's no stomach for or interest in going to war with Russia. So I think all of these things right now are on the verge of fundamental sweeping change. We just don't know exactly when and how and what could happen. But clearly what we've seen with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, this new mutual defense pact is really telling us where the region is headed. And that means that the region is also looking to China and Russia. And China in particular has come out and said they have will offer complete support to the Saudi and Pakistani defense pack. Remember the Pakistanis already have nuclear weapons. They have long-standing relations with Turkey as well as the other countries in the region. They have an interest in in seeing the global exchange system change. We can talk about pro gold and all this kind of business with the Chinese who are trying to hoard as much gold as possible. The the bottom line is everything is changing and what you're asking is who's going to win? I don't think we and and the English-sp speakaking world are going to win. I think we're going to lose. And I go back to Charles de Gaulle. You know, he says Americans don't live in Europe and Britain is an island. That was his comment on our position and NATO. He was right. And I think everybody's figured that out. So, we're the ones that are going to be edged out. And Donald Trump, I think, is in the business of trying in some respects to manage this decline of American power and influence. Although he may not realize it, that's effectively what he's doing. >> The question is, can he stop it? Of course, as well. Um, probably unstoppable. >> No, it's unstoppable. The forces of history are turning against us and we have to accommodate those forces if we're to survive. >> You mentioned a lot of interesting things that I want to follow up on. Um there's so many discuss like routes we we we could take now even just coming from the Israeli side but you you mentioned the Saudi and Pakistani defense pact maybe just elaborate real quick what what is included what does it mean and why is it so significant for the region in general >> well I think it's important because Pakistan which as you know is a Chinese client state that sits on the border with India on the other side of Iran has now gone into an agreement a formal agreement they've always had good relations with Saudis. They're both Sunni Muslim states. Uh they are both in the business of supporting a lot of things that we oppose and don't like, not just the Israelis. When we talk about Islamism, uh Saudi money has built Islamist Madras in Pakistan for years. And the Saudis are going to invest heavily in new infrastructure projects, which of course benefits China. It's one belt in one road. What what it really means is that the Islamic world is quietly coalescing with the help of the Chinese and their massive financial power into a more unified block against Israel. Now the Chinese have held exercises with the Egyptians. The Chinese have held exercises, military exercises with the Iranians. The Chinese are heavily dependent upon the oil and gas. And certainly that means the Persian Gulf. But this is also why they built all this infrastructure across Central Asia into uh the Middle East Africa because they know that we we have this thing called the United States Navy. It's not so much the service fleet as it is our submarine fleet which is unmatched and that submarine fleet can shut down trade overseas out of China overnight. So they've had to build an alternative. So they're they're doing everything in their power to to cultivate the emergence of alternative institutions and structures. Saudi Arabia is a big part of that. Saudi Arabia wants to do business in gold. This goes back to the dramatic precipitous drop in demand for the dollar on a global basis. People are trying to get out from under the dollar. Now why would you want to do that? Well, take a look at what's happened to the Russians. The Russians have been subject to terrible sanctions. is we've effectively stolen 300 billion in in Russian assets and cash from Russia through our global financial system. People look at that, certainly the Chinese have, and they've said, "I don't want to be in that position." And I think that's true for almost everybody that is a significant financial power. They they want to get out from underneath the dollar. We're fighting back to the best of our ability, but it's very tough because we've bullied too many people for too many years. And now that China is trying to build these gold vaults so that uh petroleum purchases could be settled in gold. They want to put a vault in Riad, another one in Hong Kong external to China, external to the Shanghai gold exchange. And this facilitates uh trade across borders with a system that's much more friendly to countries around the world than our Swift system which we use as a instrument of punishment. Well, China's role is really an interesting one. Um, we've discussed it here on the channel before as well because I'm trying to figure out like Russia suggests that China become a security guer in Iran in a potential deal with the US which was interesting because Russia was the mediator between the US and Iran here. A very interesting role. The two enemies sitting at the same table trying to achieve the same thing. But China said no to that role. So how do you interpret that? Like how is the dynamic like how is that affecting the dynamic there in the Middle East? China has been very reluctant for most of its history to engage in external uh military adventurism. Other words, if you go back to the history of China over the last 2,000 years, the only time China expanded at all was under Mongolian dynasties. They expanded under the Mongolian dynasty of Kublakhan. They expanded under the man shoes very briefly into what today we call singing jang or new province which was originally east Turkystan. The otherwise the Chinese have been completely disinterested in going anywhere because they see themselves as the center of the world and the measure of what really is civilized behavior. So China really is back to being what China originally has always been purely Chinese. No interest in occupying other people's countries. no interest in anything other than making money and increasing their prosperity. So to the extent that they can gain influence for their interests which are basically no war, no conflict, no crisis but stability because they know capital flees areas of conflict and crisis. Uh they will do it but they don't want to become a a belligerent or a co-elligerent in a war if they can avoid it. Now they could be drawn in to a war with us over the Persian Gulf uh over the halt complete halt of oil and gas to them. But then we would also be harming Korea and Japan and other countries that depend on that oil and of course India. Now India has turned increasingly to Russia. We're trying to punish them and of course that's driven uh India out of our sphere and they're marching towards bricks and cooperation with China despite their differences with Pakistan because they just don't see us as a reliable partner and I think that's really what China wants to prove to the world that it is a reliable partner. >> It's interesting because you keep coming back also to the financial side of things which now you know China wanting to be a reliable partner might be the tiein. it is lacking banking infrastructure at least that's what I'm being what I keep being told here on this channel um if it doesn't support on the financial side military is one thing of course and it it is building its military might um but it's lacking on the financial front um it is working on expanding that you we we've discussed and I think you mentioned it already um building gold vaults in Saudi Arabia just to have it its reach into or tentacles for lack a better term into into the Middle East here but is is that a missing piece and how close are is China to to reach sort of that tipping point when it comes to financial what do you call it like dynam not dynamicism like >> sophistication >> exactly that's >> if you if you talk to the Chinese they will tell you very frankly that their current banking system lacks the sophistication and the bandwidth to compete on the international level I mean this is why the Chinese are not interested in making the juan a convertible currency I mean they don't want to be at the mercy of the markets they're They want to strengthen themselves. Remember, China is all about emerging from this 100 plus years, century plus of humiliation. They're not completely ready yet. And they will tell you that uh they want to make themselves impregnable to future humiliation. Part of that is military as you pointed out, but if you look carefully at their military power, it's largely designed to keep us out. In other words, it's about denying us access to China. If we're dumb enough to go to war with China, which is probably the largest fortress in the world, uh then we'll lose because they can sit behind their coastline with great depth, multiple missile systems, launchers, as well as space-based and terrestrialbased surveillance, and they can sink everything that floats. They cannot yet find our submarines. That remains a permanent danger to them. But when you go to the financial side, they've seen what's happened to Russia. They've seen what's happened to other countries that that rebel against us or have presented resistance to us. And what do we want to do? They want to be in a position where they can resist that without being severely damaged. And of course, we keep talking about Taiwan. The last thing the Chinese want is a war over Taiwan. They just want a peaceful reunification, which I think incidentally will probably happen. Uh but we keep pressing for hostilities. Now, that may stop under Donald Trump despite the rhetoric because I know that President Trump doesn't see any value or any benefit to the United States of going to war with China. So, let's look at China as a very deliberate, carefully organized, programmed power that is not moving against us as much as it is simply trying to strengthen itself long-term for a future as a major global financial power. >> Yeah. The question is like why would we even attack China? They don't have any oil or any resources that we want. They got some rare earths here, but it's mostly the processing they have. It's not >> why did why did we go to war against Germany and Austria Hungary in 1917 when there was absolutely no threat and no reason to do so. If you're going to be rational about these things, you will never understand the United States. It is not rational. >> Yeah, I'm I'm way too pragmatic in my line of thinking. So you you might have a point there. You might absolutely have a point. Um but Colonel or Doug um we we need quickly need to talk one other news topic here as well that's definitely making headlines in the western media especially in in Europe of course is Russia provoking NATO um by by sending drones by you know flying their aircraft too close to the border or flying over borders like what what do you make of that situation? Help us put some context around it and is that anything of concern? Well, first this notion that the Russians deliberately sent unmanned aerial systems and we call them UAVs and the common parlance is now drone, which is a bad word because it it suggests it's stupid. You know, the drone doesn't think doesn't doesn't have any uh artificial intelligence. Well, the unmanned aerial vehicles do. And what we found is that uh the Russians opened up all the information and flight paths and origins and everything for examination to NATO. NATO has formally stated that what happened was not an attack on NATO. Period. That's the NATO headquarters issued that statement a few days ago. What happened is that likely some of these uh UAVs or drones were captured electronically and directed deliberately by the Ukrainians into Poland and Lithuania. Uh the Russian government has said the same thing as the Russians and opened up their their information to everybody. Uh so it that's just pure unadulterated nonsense to listen to Sorski try to build this into some sort of great threat and then threaten Russia is absurd. Uh, first of all, the Lilipuchian armies of Great Britain, France, and Germany, whatever Germany has, are no match for the Russians. There's not going to be any military intervention on the ground. The president of Poland says he will not allow any Polish soldiers to fight in Ukraine. And remember, they've already buried 10,000 dead Polish soldiers that fought in Ukrainian uniform in Ukraine. So there's there's no appetite for this nonsense. This is a tempest in a teapot. Absolutely unworthy of any serious attention. Now, on the other hand, the war in Ukraine is militarily at an end. What's happening now is that the Russians are just slowly advancing and annihilating whatever they come into contact with. Ukrainians have very little to throw back at them. Ukrainians still do have unmanned aerial vehicles, but the Russians have become extraordinarily good at shooting them down and disabling them. So I I think that what Putin is is waiting for to frankly is the government and you know as I call the government of the three amigos London, Paris and Berlin to fall for the populations there to finally get rid of them and for nationalists to take over the government because the nationalists in Europe today are completely disinterested in going to war with Russia. They see an internal enemy. That enemy was welcomed into the country by globalists in 2015. And that's what has to go home. And that is the growing consensus in European populations. They want these people to go back where they came from. I think it's probably going to happen. It's not going to be nice. It's going to be ugly and we'll be stupid. The usual suspects in the United States will condemn this, but we face a very similar problem. And we're going to hack have to act in the same way because it's our survival at stake as a republic, as an English-speaking people. Well, we're seeing the cracks already. France needs a new government. Germany, like we keep highlighting how our chancellor is failing us despite all the campaign promises. Uh I'm not sure that government will last its full four-year uh term here or five years. I think it's five years in Germany even. I should know better. Um so the the cracks are showing obviously. Um Doug, maybe as a closing question in general, like what area where where should we paying closer attention? like we just talked Russia, NATO, don't worry about it. Um, but any anything we haven't discussed yet that we should be paying closer attention to that the mainstream is maybe completely ignoring so far. >> Well, I would look carefully at what is going to happen financially in Europe, specifically London. Look at the guilt market, what we call the bond market. Look at what's going on in France. The these countries are in very, very dangerous positions financially as well as domestically in terms of societal cohesion. So I wouldn't walk away from that. I would look at those very care carefully. If you look at places like Poland or Hungary where you don't have millions of people inside the country that are fundamentally alien to it and are demanding special treatment or threatening the local population, societal cohesion is high. Uh and they're not foolish and stupid. They're not going to march on on Russia or anything else despite what Sakorski says. So, I think I would look at the West European states because where they're headed is probably the same destination we're headed to as well. They they simply may get there first. The other thing is that I really would watch what the Chinese do with the with the attempt in pro gold to effectively displace the petro dollar. And it's not something China dreamed up. The Saudis, the Emirates, they're all interested in the same thing. You have a a world in Asia that looks at the dollar and says the dollar is poison. We don't want it. You're not only passing your debt to us, you're passing crisis and conflict to us. We're not interested in it. So, I think ddollarization is the other thing that we need to to look carefully at. You know, in the final analysis, finance does matter. If you're broke, you can't go to war. Everybody says, "Oh, well, we'll go to war." Well, you can't go to war if you're broke and we're headed to being broke severely. So, no, I don't see, you know, war is an imminent threat right now. But those are the areas that I would watch and I don't know what happens in Venezuela. Uh, I think eventually we may just call it quits and and bring the troops back, the ships back. I don't see any benefit to attacking Venezuela. We don't understand how volatile Latin America is. Uh, I think Venezuela would end up having thousands of paramilitaries come up from Brazil, come in from Colombia. It could turn into the uh poster child for opposition to the evil Yankees. I think as that becomes clear to people, we may change our minds and and go elsewhere and do business differently. >> No, fantastic. Really, really good overview here. Um, Doug, really appreciate you joining us. Of course, a very comprehensive overview of geopolitic the geopolitical landscape, but uh you're mirroring what Simon Hunt's been telling us for years now. The bond market is the root of all evil. Uh it doesn't matter where you're at, but money controls the world and uh money controls everything. So really, >> really, really appreciate your your comments. Where can we send our audience in case they don't know where to find you yet? >> Well, there's an event on for October in Dallas, Texas. uh it's called the national conversation. It's a new nonprofit that I and some others started in the attempt to uh raise these kinds of questions and and answer them in a public forum. Uh because of the Charlie Kirk tragedy, we could not secure the area that we wanted for several hundred people. So, it's now a VIP dinner and reception. We're expecting uh 50 people. We we've got 15 slots left. Uh, I would encourage anybody who wants to address these kinds of questions with me, with Natalie Brunell, whom I'm I'm sure you know, and Judge Napoleano, and ultimately Dr. Olga Raazi, who teaches at the university level. She's going to be moderating our panel discussion, but we will interact with the audience. It's an opportunity. It's more like an investment seminar only on a strategic level. and we hope that we'll get 15 more people to fill out the 50 that we could accommodate. But I would encourage anybody serious about these things. You know, get a ticket, show up in Dallas, and uh we'll tell you exactly where the dinner is going to be held. We're we're keeping that close hold for a few days for for security reasons, as you can imagine. >> Absolutely. Yeah. Been following the news here uh sadly. So, um Doug, really appreciate you joining us. Um, we'll definitely link to the dinner and everything else down below as well. Much appreciate your time. Thank you so much. And everybody else, thank you so much for tuning in to sore financially. Hope you enjoyed this conversation. It was it was really important to get an update on the geopolitical landscape. Hence, we invited Douglas McGre or Colonel Douglas McGregor and I really appreciate his insights. Let me know what you think. What is happening? Is is the NATO is NATO already dead? What do you what is the role of the UN? How do you interpret it? Let us know down below. We do want to hear from you and much much appreciated. Thank you so much for tuning in. We'll be back with lots more. Take care out there. [Music]