TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

How concerned are you about the long-term impact of the dollar's status as the world reserve currency?

The discussion questions what NATO will contribute, especially in terms of deploying French soldiers to Ukraine, and then pivots to the broader military capacity of Europe. The speaker asserts that only a handful of militaries today can fight large-scale ground combat, and in Europe that group consists of the United States, Russia, and Ukraine. There is no European army today capable of large-scale ground combat. The speaker notes that Germany claims it will build the largest ground army in Europe, but cites a recent poll showing that only 16% of German men would be willing to fight and die for their country if Germany were invaded, and speculates about the willingness to fight if Germany were to take the fight abroad to invade somebody else. Regarding Britain, the speaker describes the entire British military as something that could be placed in a large soccer stadium, with 30,000 unsold seats, implying a perceived weakness or limited capability. The overarching point is that Europe is “a lot of huffing and puffing, but they can't blow the house down.”

It's time for a policy reversal on Maastricht like on the euro. The single currency could lead to chaos, resentment, and massive transfers of money. Unemployment and migration would rise, fueling extremist parties. Creating a European Federation could worsen extremism. Politicians need to pay attention, stop endless summits, and see the growing disconnect between people and government. The European train can be stopped.

At the end of World War II Asia and Europe were devastated, and the United States emerged as the last man standing, profiting hugely from the war. They ended up, due to isolation, the strongest economy in the world with more than half the world’s gold and half the world’s GDP, with standing industries that could shift from making tanks to making cars and trucks. They did extraordinarily well for a few decades, but then, as described, they began to financialize, and it became more profitable to speculate in investments than to actually invest. In recent years, companies with money often pursue share buybacks rather than expanding research and development or industrial capacity. We are in a stage where the underlying basis for markets is questionable: what are markets for, are they accurate at price discovery, and do they predict productive investment and returns on capital? We are in a transition phase where we’re not sure anymore. There is a huge bubble, and corporations creating these bubbles, with banks that loan money relying on the state because they are too big to fail. Bailouts have totaled trillions since 2008, as the US Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, and the Bank of Japan pumped trillions of dollars, with help from Gulf Cooperation Council countries to bail out banks in Britain, the United States, and Europe. It’s fascinating because China, since the financial crisis, has also created about 17 to 18 trillion dollars. China has actually been leading in creation of money, while investing that money in building 50,000 kilometers of high-speed rail, a space program, massive industries, and the Belt and Road initiative—real investment and so on. The enormous difference between the two is notable, but how far can states—the United States, Britain, the EU, and Japan—borrow and pump money into the market to keep this bubble going? We don’t know. Bubbles are hard to gauge in terms of expansion and when they break, which is why they can be sustained so long; the bursting of a bubble is painful, and no policymaker wants responsibility. China is interesting and is the only case in history of a property bubble being deflated without collapsing the real economy, deflating its property bubble over five or six years while the economy continued to grow—not at 8% but at 5%—and continued to expand. That is worth studying because other countries let property bubbles run until they burst, causing wider harm and deflation. Japan, for example, has had thirty years of zero growth since it began quantitative easing three decades ago, a growth killer because it protected existing companies, banks, and properties and never really recovered. Europe has had zero growth for about fifteen years since 2007. The United States sustains growth largely by buying it from the rest of the world—acquiring profitable companies or getting them to list on NASDAQ and then earning rents from profitable companies wherever they are—while the US economy has been largely hollowed out. It’s an interesting time to watch monetary dynamics, because this doesn’t go on forever.

Julien Ambert discusses the widespread impoverishment in France, with 20% of the population struggling to afford food. He mentions the devaluation of the currency, which negatively affects retirees. He argues that when the euro was strong against the dollar, retirees did not experience impoverishment. However, he criticizes the lack of individual freedom under the euro, as others decide what individuals can or cannot buy. He also mentions France's net contribution of €13 billion to the European Central Bank (ECB), which supports the French economy by lending money to French banks. He warns that if the ECB decides to suffocate France economically, the consequences would be dire. The conversation then moves on to the next topic.

Pharmaceutical companies claimed research and development costs had to be borne by America alone, which effectively meant American patients were subsidizing socialist healthcare systems in places like Germany and the European Union. The speaker believes the European Union is nastier than China and has treated the U.S. unfairly. However, the speaker asserts that the U.S. now holds all the cards and expects the European Union to concede.

I think the market sell off this week is driven by globalists. They see how rich our country is going to be, and they don't like it. The market is big, and they've been ripping off this country for years, but everyone's going to do great. We can't let this continue to happen to America, or we're not going to have a country any longer. Thank you.

Islam will come when Europe, the Christian West, has completely fallen. This is a new experience for us, as we have always said that the excellence of the market will cost Europeans dearly. But you won't even have it, and you won't have it in the future, because all the harm you have done will come back to you today. That's why the headquarters of Christianity, which is currently in Estav, will disappear. It's certain, it's the famous Islam. Islam is the palace of Israel, know that.

We did not ban the use of the dollar. The US decided to limit our dollar payments, which is absurd and harms their own economy and global power. Currently, we pay 34% in rubles and a similar amount in yuan, compared to the previous 3% in yuan. This decision can only be attributed to arrogance. They probably thought everything would collapse, but nothing did.

As a representative of Europe, a continent of great explorers, inventors and industrial revolutions, I want it to be great again. Currently, the continent is in decline and we owe it to our heritage and children to repair it. Europe's GDP was once larger than the United States', but is now 50% smaller. Industrial production in Germany has fallen, while Poland's has increased. Europe stands at a crossroads and cannot be the weaker partner of the United States. To rise again, we must abandon the outdated EU development model, as the Franco-German engine has stalled and Brussels cannot replace the real economy. Climate and migration policies have created chaos. If we fail to change course, Europe risks becoming a museum or a colony of Asian powers.

The speaker expresses concern about the state of Europe, despite their affection for the continent and family ties there. They believe Europe is currently "so degraded" but refrain from elaborating further or speculating on whether the situation could worsen.

We are not in trouble because of a lack of energy or amateurs. We need to talk about things. These people are great, but they are inexperienced. Macron has been here for 6 years and didn't think about all this before. We are dependent now, whereas France used to be a leader in electricity. We had the strongest nuclear potential in the world and could export electricity. But now we are begging because we followed Germany's lead. This is not Europe, it's German Europe. The Franco-German relationship is a disaster for France. We need to break free from this imperialism.

We don't want to be like the European Union, we don't care about them. We are French and we stick to French laws.

The speaker notes that they are not the pen pal but the phone pal of Poroshenko and Arseniy Yatsenyuk, and now the speaker themselves. For the last four years, they have been on the phone two to three hours a week with those folks. There is an overwhelming instinct in Europe to say, before you guys became president, this was owned by Russia anyway. They ask, what difference does it make? Why are you making us engage in these sanctions? The speaker recalls last year, they were authorized to say they’d do the second tranche of a billion dollars, and he didn’t fire his chief prosecutor. Because the speaker has the confidence of the president, they were there. They said, “I’m not signing it. Until you fire him, we’re not signing it.” They clarified, “We’re not doing it.” Until you form a new government and you actually bring in someone who will move on this, they’re not playing. It’s not because they’re trying to play hardball, but because they know if they give an excuse to the EU, there are at least five countries right now that want to say, wooah, want out. What they are putting together now is a basic detailed road map of who goes first and who goes second. There are two pieces: one is the security guarantees that are to flow from Russia, and two, the political steps that Ukraine has to take. Some of the steps are very difficult to take. They’ve already done the energy piece, they’ve done some other things, but the point is that when you say the dumb boss is gonna have a special status and you’re gonna amend your constitution, it’s like saying, okay, you know, Texas and Wyoming—Texas is gonna have a special status that we don’t want because we want Mexico to have more influence in Texas. And we’re gonna pass that through the United States Congress. So there are some really tough stuff they’ve gotta do. They’re willing, and the speaker is convinced they will do it.

I think the market sell off this week is driven by globalists. They see how rich our country is going to be and they don't like it. It's a big market out there, but they've been ripping off this country for years. Everyone's gonna do great, but we can't let this continue to happen to America. Otherwise, we're not gonna have a country any longer.

American patients were subsidizing socialist healthcare systems in the European Union. The European Union is nastier than China, but they will come down a lot. The U.S. has all the cards because the EU treated the U.S. unfairly. The EU sells the U.S. 13 million cars, but the U.S. sells them none. The EU sells the U.S. their agricultural products, but they don't take U.S. products. Because of this unfairness, the EU will have to pay more for healthcare, and the U.S. will have to pay less.

I think the market sell off is just being driven by globalists. They see how rich our country is going to be, and they don't like it. They've been ripping off this country for years, but now everyone's gonna do great. We can't let this continue to happen to America, otherwise, we're not gonna have a country any longer.

I recount a meeting I had with a board at Safeguard Scientifics, where a firm co-located with them had a board member present. I demonstrated what was possible if we reengineered the government money, arguing there was enormous opportunity to build vast financial equity gains and capital gains, and that pension funds could profit by reengineering how the federal budget worked to create a more productive economy. The president of the largest pension fund in the country attended and told me, “you don’t understand.” He explained that this is what they had tried to do when he was younger, working with a group of activists, and they were able to stop them. I naively said, “you didn’t have the Internet. You couldn’t get the learning speeds up locally high enough to jump the curve.” He froze, looked at me, and said, “you don’t understand. It’s too late.” I asked, “what do you mean it’s too late?” He replied, “it’s too late. They’ve given up on the country and they’re gonna move all the money out of the country starting in the fall.” He said, “you’ve got to get to Nick Brady.” Brady had been the chairman of the firm I was a partner at on Wall Street and later became secretary of the treasury in the first Bush administration, known as a leader in how the financial system runs. So the instruction was to get to Nick Brady. I thought the message meant we had been directed to reallocate equity in the pension funds to emerging market investments, which made sense because growth rates in Asia and emerging markets exceeded those in mature economies. But then, at the outset, he mentioned “they’re moving all the money out starting the fall.” That fall marked the beginning of fiscal 1998, when enormous amounts of money began disappearing from my old agencies, HUD and the Department of Defense. What I later came to believe, and we have a website dedicated to presenting documents and analysis on this, is missingmoney.salaire.com. I realized that what he was referring to was a financial coup—an attempt to end the system where bankers controlled monetary policy while the people’s representatives controlled fiscal policy, and instead move to a process in which bankers controlled both. Rather than pursuing new legislation, they would leverage debt, issue vast debt, and siphon money out the back door, effectively conducting a financial coup d’etat, which is what I think has happened.

This is a stupid and harmful sanction for the people. The Russians and Europeans will benefit from it, as the Russian oil we won't buy will be sold to others, increasing its price. This means Russia will become richer, and the European Union will be pleased. But the moral question is whether it should be the Europeans funding the war. It's a stupidity that doesn't consider the difficult situation of the French and other Europeans, especially the French. I focus on the daily lives of the French, which are very difficult.

We are preparing for the possibility of a new currency, but the decision won't be made until October 23. We don't want companies like Meta, Google, or Amazon to create a currency that takes over Europe's sovereignty. Currently, in Europe, cash payments above €1,000 are considered on the gray market, risking fines or jail time. The digital euro will have some level of control, but we are considering allowing no control for very small amounts, around €300 or €400.

They're coming. Something bad is going to happen. Evil is behind it all. It seems like an effort to destroy certain countries. More extremists and terrorists will emerge. People are questioning the future of Germany and France.

Glenn (Speaker 0) and John Mersheimer (Speaker 1) discuss the Iran war and its trajectory. Mersheimer asserts the war is not going well for the United States and that President Trump cannot find an off ramp because there is no plausible endgame or decisive victory against Iran. He notes that if Iran can turn the conflict into a protracted war of attrition, it has incentives and means to do so, including a strong bargaining position to demand sanctions relief or reparations. He argues the United States and Israel are not the sole drivers; Iran has a say, and there is no credible story about ending the war on American terms. Mersheimer cautions that even heavy bombardment or “today being the day of the heaviest bombardment” would not necessarily compel Iran to quit. He suggests Tehran will respond by escalating, potentially striking Gulf States and Israel with missiles and drones, given Iran’s capability with accurate drones and ballistic missiles in a target-rich environment. He emphasizes Iran’s incentive to avoid a settlement that yields no gains for Tehran while seeking concessions or relief from sanctions as time passes, increasing American pressure to settle. He warns that if international economic effects worsen, the United States may push for an end to the war, but that would constitute conceding to the Iranians rather than achieving victory. Glenn asks about escalation dominance, noting Iran’s potential vulnerability of Gulf desalination and energy infrastructure. Mersheimer confirms Gulf desalination plants are a critical vulnerability (Riyadh’s desalination plant servicing 90% of Riyadh’s water; Kuwait 90%; Oman 76%; Saudi water about 70%; desalination is essential). He reiterates that Iran can target desalination alongside petroleum infrastructure to cripple Gulf States and that such actions would also affect Israel and the wider economy. He asserts Iran has the option to damage the Gulf States and thus impact the world economy, making escalation unlikely to yield a favorable US-Israeli outcome. The energy dimension is central: 20% of the world’s oil and gas comes from the Persian Gulf. The Straits of Hormuz are unlikely to be opened easily, and destroying Gulf States’ infrastructure would make that moot anyway. He explains that even if Hormuz were open, damaged Gulf States would not export oil, and American naval escorting would be impractical due to vulnerability. He observes that the Iranians’ options threaten the international economy, and the United States’ off ramp is not readily available. Mersheimer provides a historical perspective on air power: strategic bombing cannot win wars alone, as seen in World War II and later conflicts. He notes that the present campaign lacks boots on the ground, relying on air power, but history shows air power alone is insufficient to achieve regime change or decisive victory against formidable adversaries like Iran. He argues that the decapitation strategy, followed by escalation, is unlikely to succeed and that the literature on air wars and sanctions supports this. They discuss previous warnings within the administration: General James Mattis (General Keane) and the National Intelligence Council warned before the war that regime change and quick victory were unlikely. Mersheimer highlights that only 20% of Americans supported the war initially, with 80% skeptical or opposed. He attributes some of the current predicament to Trump and Netanyahu's insistence on a quick victory, arguing that Netanyahu has pushed for a regime-change approach that failed. The conversation turns to Russia and China. Mersheimer contends that Russia benefits from the war by diverting US resources and relations away from Europe and Ukraine, strengthening Russia’s own strategic position. He suggests Russia may be aiding Iran with intelligence and possibly with weapons or energy, as well as improving its image in Iran. He asserts that this war distracts the US from Ukraine, harming Ukrainian efforts and potentially strengthening Russia economically by boosting demand for Russian oil and gas if Gulf supply is constrained. Europe’s position is examined. Mersheimer claims the European Union’s support is largely rhetorical; Europe’s elites fear a US departure from Europe and want to preserve NATO. He argues Europe’s interests will be largely ignored in a US-dominated conflict, with Macron’s stance portrayed as exaggerated power. He suggests Europe is hurt by the war and that their leverage over the United States is limited unless they diversify away from exclusive dependence on the US. In closing, Glenn and John reflect on leadership and propaganda. Mersheimer reiterates that leaders lie in international politics, with democracies more prone to lying to their publics than autocracies, and notes that Trump’s statements—such as Iran possessing Tomahawk missiles or the nuclear capability being erased—are examples of implausible or untruthful claims. He emphasizes the rational strategic thinking of Iranian and Russian leaders, but critiques the American leadership’s strategic understanding. The discussion concludes with reflections on Europe’s potential hardball approach toward the United States, and the need for diversification in European strategy to counter American leverage. The interview ends with appreciation for the exchange and a shared wish that the subject were less depressing.

We are now free, while the Russians are suffering. It was worth every penny. Thank you.

Many people are a little worried about what will happen to them with the digital euro. Can you encourage them? Why is the digital euro good for people like you and me? The digital currency, where it has been piloted, and there is only one which is clearly now launched in in a very small country, but it is piloted on a fairly large scale in in China, is of use and of service to all citizens. So it is not something that is good for the elite or is good for the young or is good for some versus others. If it is well done and if it is well implemented, it would be of service to all citizens.