“There’s NOTHING Left!” 600,000 Ukrainians DEAD! | Colonel Douglas Macgregor On The Ukraine War
01:03:41 Share

Hello you awakening wonders there on Spotify, Apple, Stink Whistle,

gurgle dot or wherever you download your podcast these days to remain at least peripherally connected to some tendril of truth in a bewildering miasma of lies and propaganda we appreciate you and we love you you're part of our community so that's why we're very happy to give you an audio version of our live rumble show five days a week it's on Monday to Friday we decipher the latest news stories we break down current topics that the mainstream media should be covering and if they aren't

then we critique why they're not and what they are covering. Every week as well, right, we do brilliant conversations with people like Jordan Peterson, RFK, Tucker, Carlson, Sam Harris, Vandana Shiva, Gabor Mate. These things are already up and you can listen to them now. So remember, this is an audio version of our daily live show. To tune in live, go to rumble.com forward slash Russell Brand. You'll find it easily and I hope that you will love it.

Now, please enjoy this episode of Stay Free with Russell Brand. Thanks. No, here's the fucking news.

Hello there, you awakening wonders. Thanks for joining me today for Stay Free with Russell Brand. I've got Colonel Douglas McGregor on the show. This is a significant and powerful conversation that I'm so excited to convey to you. We're talking to what I would call a proper military expert, a general. This is a person who understands the ins and outs of battle. There's moments in this conversation where you can see he's just blabbering.

burbling, bristling, bridling with desire to talk about military strategy, exactly how these things work, about how the ingenuity of war has been lost and replaced with a kind of mindless system of execution, that there is no strategy, that there is no glory, that the American military is being hollowed out

from within in the service of the military-industrial complex and globalists. To be a patriot now is almost to be a revolutionary. And we all remember how America began. This is going to make any of you that are interested in true change very, very excited indeed because I got the sense that we could be reaching the point where the military might side with the people against the government.

what could be more exciting? What could be more exciting than that? We'll be on YouTube for the first 15 minutes. You'll get to see a little bit of this conversation, but to see it in its entirety, and I recommend that you do, you'll have to join us over in that sweet stream of freedom that we call home. Now, many of you have seen Colonel Douglas MacGregor before when he's been on Tucker, but I love this conversation. We get deep real fast. So become an awakened wonder. Use the code ISURRENDER and you can join us when these conversations happen.

happen live, but not just that. We do exclusive videos. This week we've got a brilliant one on fluoride in the water that you'll just love. I can't get into it because I'm so excited to get to Colonel Douglas MacGregor, but we'll give you a month free if you use the code ISURRENDER. And also while we're on the subject, why don't you get yourself one of these farting crow mugs? 25% off this week and every penny of it that we get, we use to support people with addiction issues. Now, Colonel Douglas MacGregor is a US Army Colonel. He's a retired combat veteran and CEO of our country

ourchoice.com and I'll be joining him on his show soon. And it's a brilliant conversation. You will really love it. We spoke about Ukraine, Taiwan, Israel, how American vets feel. So if you want to see these conversations live when they happen, become an awakened wonder. But here it is now in its glorious entirety. You're going to love it. Colonel Douglas McGregor, thank you so much for joining us for this conversation on Stay Free Today. It's great to be with you.

One of the things I noticed in your country on a recent visit is when I was speaking to a lieutenant colonel, who's obviously a West Point graduate and several other members of military families, I sensed a great deal of discontent and dissatisfaction from, in this case, servicemen

that were deeply patriotic, as you might imagine, obviously, and yet have serious questions about the American government's activities, in particular, obviously, their military activities. What does it tell us about the state of a nation when those that we would assume to be most patriotic are at odds with the leadership of their nation?

Well, remember that soldiers normally, so we'll say for discussion purposes, soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, but I normally think in terms of soldiers, they're men of action. And men of action have as good as says very little conscience. In other words, they're people who are prepared to act quickly and decisively, you know, on the orders of their government.

And I think that that's been true for most of our history. The problem at this point is that I think we've reached a turning point where people are actively questioning, what the hell are we doing here? I mean, the average soldier gets off a plane in a place like Iraq. He spends about 15 minutes there. He looks around and he says, there's nothing here. Why am I here? And very shortly thereafter, he concludes, there's nothing here worth my life.

So I'm going to make damn sure that I come home because I don't want to die in this godforsaken place. That's not a good thing. You cannot maintain an effective military establishment with that attitude. But I think that's what most soldiers finally conclude in places like Afghanistan or Syria or Iraq. We're not social workers. We're not crusaders. And remember, our mission is to uphold and defend the Constitution, obey the orders of the president.

What's that got to do with social engineering in Iraq or feeding starving people in Somalia? Not a great deal. I mean, we could do those things, but that's not what we exist to do. So I think you're dealing with people who are questioning the very rationale for what they do in the military. Once the phrase support the troops, Colonel, was an easy way to silence dissent.

Now it seems to support the troops would mean to oppose the agenda of the American establishment and if I might offer the military-industrial complex. So what does that suggest has altered in the last 30 years? And I suppose intuitively I might imagine based on your answer and your citation of Iraq, although I'm sure much of that is based on personal experience,

Did something change around the time of that conflict or is this something that's been happening since the end of World War II? When did the idea that supporting the troops meant patriotism and shut your mouth and get behind the agenda, when did that idea start to disintegrate? Well, I think we've been through this transformation or evolution, whatever you want to call it, twice. We certainly went through this in the 1960s with Vietnam.

And I remember the violent arguments in my own home between my mother's generation and my grandparents' generation. And she would say repeatedly, "I don't like Lyndon Johnson, the president, but we have to support the troops." And my grandfather, who had been in the First World War, said, "Well, if you want to support the troops, get them the hell out of there and bring them home." But of course, he thought World War I was a complete waste of time and had been a terrible mistake.

So I think we've been through this several times. The difference now is that it's not just a question of what we're doing overseas. It's a question of what we're doing at home. Americans are coming back and saying, well, what's happened to my country? I went overseas ostensibly to defend the interests of the United States, and no one here is willing to enforce the law. Our borders are open. You know, every conceivable form of perversion seems to be tolerated.

And anyone who objects is branded as a criminal. So, you know, this is the ultimate expression of everything, I think, that is concerning in the United States today. Soldiers are no different than anybody else. They're probably more patriotic, as you point out. But they're saying, what are we doing to ourselves? What are we doing overseas? This is all insanity. Has, then, an evident fissure emerged,

not only has this been observable and palpable for a long time between the interests of the establishment and the interests of what you might call ordinary Americans, but a fissure has emerged between the interests of the American establishment

and the American military, which you've just indicated is something that's almost rhythmic, that it's happened before after the First World War, there was cynicism about subsequent wars. And I wonder now if in this age of information and instantaneous communication with the ability for dissent to be so widely spread and proliferated, if it's impossible to sustain the kind of

Dominion that was plausible before I mean many of the pieces that have impacted me involve, you know American servicemen are in Bushnell setting himself on fire I've seen active service personnel talking about mandated programs within the military medical programs that were mandated that were unpopular and understand with many service people so now

People are aware that because I suppose in your earlier example, somehow the dissent that arose from dissatisfaction in the First World War was able to be quashed and compliance was able to once again be achieved for subsequent conflicts. Now, it seems to me that there might be that dissent might reach a kind of tipping point. Do you agree? Is that possible, Colonel? No, I think we're reaching more than just a tipping point. I think we've

sort of walked off the cliff and are headed into an abyss right now at high speed. And I think lots of people in uniform senses. But keep in mind that the senior ranks are highly politicized. In other words, the ruling class in Washington, and you can call it whatever you like, this globalist neocon class, whatever you care to call it,

is effectively owned by donors. So we talk about donor occupation of Washington. In other words, Washington used to be a place where we said corporate interests occupied it. Today, it's donor occupied. We have our own version of oligarchs with billions and billions of dollars.

They are capable of buying up members of Congress and have effectively done so. I mean, on one of your previous shows, you had a gentleman on and you pointed out that only 21 people had voted against this latest legislation, sending billions of dollars overseas and at the same time disenfranchising us from the Bill of Rights, essentially saying that you can conduct surveillance without a warrant.

Well, how could these things happen? Well, it happens because there's no incentive for the people on the Hill in Washington, D.C., in the Capitol to respond to their constituents, to respond to the average American. They're responding to their donors. You know, there's a saying in Washington, voters don't get you elected, donors get you elected.

In other words, why bother with the so-called citizenry? It's the donor who makes or breaks you. And they spend all of their time collecting money from donors in order to stay in office. So they have to vote in a certain way. I mean, it's kind of the ultimate sort of corruption that Cromwell confronted when he tossed out the rump parliament. First he tossed out the parliament, then the rump parliament, and ended up dictating to the country.

Well, I think we've reached a similar condition in the United States. And it's just that people are looking around at the wars that we've been involved with. They're not wars on the scale of the Second World War, certainly, but military interventions. And they've concluded, what do we get from this? Where's the return on investment? And then, of course, they've seen very recently with Mr. Trump, who's been saying this for years, who did a 180 degree turn and supported this latest legislation.

which fuels the stupidity overseas in Ukraine, fuels the operations in the Middle East, fuels Taiwan, this conflict with Taiwan and China that is entirely of our making at this stage, has nothing to do with reality.

Now, we have to start this conversation before you hear Colonel McGregor's answer. Click the link in the description if you're on YouTube. We're just going to be here for about another 10 seconds. I want to tell you that the conversation gets deep and you will love it. Consider becoming an Awaken Wonder. Remember, you just have to use the code ISURRENDER. You get one month free. There's so much to it. You'll be part of the movement. You'll love it. See you in a few seconds. Click the link. I wonder, Colonel, do you feel...

like a kind of personal apostasy making such declarations of anti-war sentiment when previously it was assumed, if I think of that great American satirical artifact

Dr. Strangelove, like the military leadership are the most priapic and the most gung-ho and the most, as you indicated earlier, and I recognize this not as a pejorative remark, that soldiers are men of action and thank God that they are. But now it appears to me

that we are at the point where the rudimentary requirement that a state has for a military in order to conduct the kind of foreign exercises that you and I are both critiquing, criticizing and questioning here, that's one aspect of the military. The other one is of course to

and require that the domestic population understand that the rule of law is backed by violence. It's always seemed extraordinary, paradoxical, and an evident tension that government

broadly speaking, the majority of military personnel are drawn from the communities that they would be required to subjugate in the event of an uprising. Now you've evoked the memory of Oliver Cromwell and ultimately we're discussing

or at least circling the subject of revolution. It seems to me that with a donor class dominating Washington, with another $95 billion bill being passed concomitant with the C-702 unlimited and near unlimited surveillance powers that were granted by that, we are on some kind of precipice where even the idea that it's a

a national elite that are controlling America seems questionable. It might be transcendent of that. It seems that in a way the, the,

The idea that the political class represent the people, for some time people have suspected, no, they represent the donor class. The idea that the military serve and protect the people, no, actually, now it's clear that they are operating on behalf of these interests. Well, now all of this is starting to come to the forefront. Do you think we could be approaching a time where the military were supportive of a movement extraneous to the government?

or opposed to the government? I think what you've got now is the realization that's beginning to sink in with most Americans period whether they're in uniform or not that it doesn't make a great deal of difference for whom you vote you get the same bad outcome so that's that's number one beyond that I'm very few people in uniform think in terms of taking up arms against the government I certainly never have I never knew anybody who did no one ever thinks in those terms

I think if anything, the current ruling class has tried to populate the senior ranks with people who would try to order us. In other words, those of us who are not three and four star generals or admirals order us to suppress internal dissent. I'm not sure it would work.

So I think at this point, we can't even talk about anything that's military vis-a-vis the government. I think right now the American military, if it was asked to do very much, people would openly question it. Now, keep in mind, this may be one of the reasons why you have problems with recruiting. It's not just a question of people saying, well, I don't want to join an organization like, say, the U.S. Army. It's more than that.

There are several different problems. First of all, you can't turn around and tell some 19, 20-year-old male in the United States who wants to be a combat soldier that Susie or Betty or Mary over here who weigh all of 120 pounds can do anything he can do. He takes the position, well, if Mary and Susie and Betty can do anything, then you don't need me because...

I'm not going to be part of such a ridiculous organization. You've got to understand that it's just absurdity what we've done to ourselves in that sense. This is part of the social engineering that's been going on for decades. That's part of it. Now we're being told, you know, your performance doesn't count. Character, competence, and intelligence don't count. It's your ideological fervor, your commitment to diversity, inclusion, and equity. Well, most normal Americans look at that and say, well, that's crap.

You know, if I'm not going to be evaluated on the basis of my performance and I'm not going to be advanced inside a meritocracy, which the military more than perhaps most institutions in the United States has tried to achieve, then I don't see any point in becoming a member. So that's part of our recruiting problem. And then finally, you have this repeated abuse of people in uniform.

year after year after year on rotation after rotation in a hellhole like Afghanistan. Now, just what is it that we are in Afghanistan to do? That's what soldiers will say. Same thing in Iraq, same thing in Syria. You want me to do what? I'm saving these people over here. They don't want to be saved. They don't even want me in their country.

All of these people hate me and want me to leave. So what do you want me to do here? And that's when the soldier becomes interested preeminently in survival. And if a soldier is more interested in his survival than anything else, he's not much good to us anymore. So we've demoralized the armed forces on multiple levels right now.

And the best thing that we could do would be to bring our forces back to the United States where they belong because frankly, contrary to popular belief, there is no existential military threat to the United States. There are no massive armies gathering to invade us. No one wants to blow us up. We, frankly speaking, are provoking people everywhere. And we are very provocative in our policies, in our approach.

And every time you question this, people tell you, oh, well, the Chinese, look at them. They're building a big navy. Well, the Chinese navy has serious problems. They're hopelessly corrupt. They're putting people in jail left and right because they can't build ships that float properly. They can't maintain missile forces that can fire because people are draining the rocket fuel, the liquid rocket fuel out of the rockets. I mean, come on. This is ridiculous. China is a mess.

And now the problem is, well, if you want to defeat the forces of evil that are killing 110 or 120,000 Americans every year from fentanyl poisoning, you do that by attacking China. No, you don't. You do it by closing your border. You do it by rounding up drug dealers and executing them. I mean, we've seen this happen in places like Singapore and the Philippines. That works. We won't do those things. Congress doesn't care about those things.

You know, we have half a million children a year that disappear. We don't have a single federal or state agency that is dedicated to tracking the children that disappear. Just imagine that. You're losing half a million people every year, roughly, and no one tries to track them. Where's the database? Where have these people gone? How do they disappear? And I'm told that that number that I just gave you is probably on the low side in terms of an estimate.

But we won't stop human trafficking across the borders. We pretend it's not real or that we can't detect it, but you can ask the border patrolmen to look at these so-called families and they'll tell you right off the bat that a lot of these children don't belong to the people who are bringing them into the country. But we do nothing about it. We're not enforcing our own laws. So these are the things that people that come back from multiple deployments overseas look at and say, why am I in the armed forces?

The demoralization and social engineering are both fascinating aspects of this because it suggests that if there is a kind of entropy and decline within the American armed forces, it is part of a deliberate process. And it's interesting to speculate as to why an institution would deliberately...

undertake deleterious action against itself. And of course, we will cover the domestic issues that are affecting your nation, I hope, over the course of our conversation.

I am interested in the escalation of conflict across the globe and its apparent motivation. After the Afghanistan conflict, it appears that very little has been achieved by America's involvement other than the $2 trillion spent and what the eventual destination of much of that expenditure may have been, of course,

Obviously and notably the military industrial complex companies like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, who do, it appears, employ top military personnel who frequently appear on legacy media shows to endorse ongoing conflict. I wonder, is it your personal and obviously professional opinion that events in Ukraine

are significantly different from the version that is commonly rendered through legacy media. What is the significance of NATO impeachment on former Soviet territory? What is the significance of CIA involvement in the 2014 coup? How important is it that there are 10 or 12 CIA bases in Ukraine? And indeed, how...

Involved are the United States military in a variety of ways, whether it's through special forces or military advisers, obviously the provision of armaments, diplomatic advice, and of course through guiding and indeed sabotaging potential peace talks, etc.

Is it clear that the United States has an agenda or the United States establishment have an agenda when it comes to Russia? And is it essentially that the United States do not want regional superpowers like Russia or China up?

Are the American people and the world at large being sold a kind of unipolar power project as variously humanitarian or in support of democracy or a variety of other smokescreens? - Well, in answer to the three or 400 questions you just read, I would say the following. You have several things happening on different levels. On one level, you have a population in the United States

that admittedly likes to think of itself as the center of the universe. We're not very different from the British population before the outbreak of World War I. You know, the attitude was, we've got the men, we've got the guns, we've got the money too. In other words, we're the richest, we're the strongest, and we can effectively impose our will.

Britain, it took Britain 50 years to destroy itself through two world wars. I would even start earlier with a Boer War probably. But 50 years to destroy itself, we've done this in the space of less than 30. So we've turned out to be more efficient, perhaps that's part of the communications revolution that you mentioned earlier. So we've got a problem. Americans have been told repeatedly, we're the greatest, you know, it's a sort of a terminal case of national narcissism.

That we're the greatest, we're God's gift to mankind and so forth, and we have to bring liberty, justice, democracy in the American way to everybody. Most Americans are not interested in doing that at the point of a bayonet. And originally, Americans thought of themselves as a people where if we're good, if we're successful, if we're prosperous, others will imitate us. And that's a good thing.

Very few Americans ever thought in terms of we're going to use our military power to sort of export America. And that hasn't worked worth a damn, obviously. So that's one thing. The second thing is that Americans are waking up to the reality that you mentioned. In fact, somebody you should bring on and consider talking to is Nassim Taleb. Nassim Taleb wrote a book in which he describes in great detail this concept of the black swan.

The notion that you have black swans swimming around in the financial sector and it's only at some point the black swan shows up and destroys everything and you have a major crisis. He tries to explain how this happens and how people ignore it. His point is that the people at the top don't have skin in the game. And you've got to keep in mind, nobody has skin in the game in Washington. The only skin they're concerned about is themselves.

In other words, they're not going to be committed to anything overseas to fight for anybody under any circumstances. Those are other people's children. And after all, they were dumb enough to volunteer to do this, which is the attitude behind closed doors. So they make everybody feel good by saying, well, thank you for your service. And in reality, what they're saying is, thank God I don't have to be bothered doing this nonsense. It's more like the plumber who comes to fix the toilet that won't flush.

You know, that's what you are. Thank you so much for your service. You're flushing the problem down the drain for us. We appreciate it. They're not really interested in it. They don't care as long as the money flows. And they don't care how the money is spent. Now, why is this? Well, part of it is the fact that we haven't faced anybody militarily that we could not easily dominate for a long, long time. The last time we fought an organized enemy in the field, it was the Iraqi military.

And that military obviously was in no position to withstand us under any circumstances. But you've got to go all the way back to the Korean War, where you saw an American army almost driven into the sea by a North Korean force. We ended up in this thing called the Pusan Perimeter. And then, of course, MacArthur comes out of mothballs and ultimately retrieves our chestnuts from the fire with Inchon and so forth.

But we almost went out of business as an army at that point. We're very lucky that we survived. We haven't had that kind of experience for a long time. Instead, we've had an experience that says, well, here's a PowerPoint briefing, General. These are the targets for today. We're going to do X, Y, and Z. And the enemy sits there and waits for you to show up and exterminate him. And this is not war. So we are now in a different situation. We're looking at Ukraine, Russia, Ukraine.

in the last two and a half years has built up an enormously powerful and successful force. This is battle-hardened, well-equipped, well-led, well-trained, highly disciplined. The Ukrainian force has been annihilated. They've lost over 600,000 dead on the battlefield. There's nothing left. The place is falling apart.

And most of the money you were talking about will never get there. It's simply sent through the washing machine over to defense and then to the defense industries, and then the donations flow back to the Hill. So it doesn't, you know, it's not a question that we're sending $60 billion

And putting it into Zelensky's hands now. Now Zelensky and his friends will profit, no doubt about it. Let's not kid ourselves. They'll get some of it. How much, who knows? I mean, this is the most corrupt country in the world. This is a country that has missing children probably at this point in the hundreds of thousands.

uh prostitution out of control i mean you're talking about criminality on a scale that we in the west can't even begin to imagine it's a tragedy it's the worst of all possible outcomes the ukrainian nation has been destroyed why because it's mortgaged to our vanity in the west russia must be taught a lesson russia must be destroyed putin must be removed

Really? Why? Well, because we've decided that we want to strip Russia of its resources. So we turned Ukraine into a battering ram designed to stab Russia in the heart. The Russians woke up, not completely, but at the last minute and decided, well, we probably should intervene here and stop what's happening and signal just how serious this is in our estimation. So they did and they found out it's much worse.

than we thought. The force is much larger, much better trained, has much more equipment. This is a far more serious problem. And as a result, they had to step back, establish a defense, build up their forces, and now they're moving. And they're going to finish the job. Finish the job means everything from Odessa up to Kharkov is back in Russian hands. And those areas are originally Russian anyway, as has been pointed out.

Your question is what happens to the rest of the country that is west of the Dnieper River, this rump Ukraine? And I think it's going to become a giant demilitarized zone, a DMZ, similar to what we have between North and South Korea. There will be nothing there. There won't be any fighting forces of any kind. And the Ukrainians can live there and they may have some form of administration, but they're not going to be permitted to ever again present a direct threat to Russia. You pointed to the CIA attack.

stations and laboratories inside Ukraine. The Russians have overrun those. They know what's there. They know what we've been trying to do. They know that we've been experimenting biologically with various weapons that could be used against them. This is insanity. And it was never necessary. No one in the United States supported that. No one in the United States was consulted. So what do they do? They lie. They create a narrative.

Russia is a revanchist nation. Russia is the Soviet Union reborn. We must stop it and defend democracy. That's all crap. That's nothing to do with any of it. And of course, Kiev is not a democratic state. Zelensky is not a democratic leader. He makes Stalin look good.

So he's going to go out of business. He's going to vanish here over the next 30 to 60 days. Whether he succumbs to whatever the Ukrainians decide to do with him on the ground, I don't know. I'm sure that his foreign mercenaries that are surrounding him, special ops types from the United States and Britain and other countries will do everything they can to keep him alive. But at some point, even they may abandon him.

But the narrative persists because the media is an arm of the government. This is very similar to what Noam Chomsky wrote about during Vietnam. You know, manufactured consent creates the illusion that this is something we all want. No, we didn't want it. We didn't ask anybody to open the borders. We did not ask for millions of people that we don't know and know nothing about to come into the United States.

And what do we do with millions of people who can't find work, especially if we go into the serious financial crisis that every sane person on the planet is predicting is coming? I mean, what else can we say? I mean, I wish I could paint a positive picture.

Amidst the many staggering horrors that you beautifully, if somewhat gothically, illumined for us there, Colonel, this one stands as the Everest, is that what you lucidly and eloquently and with experience and understanding describe

aligns terrifyingly with my intuitive sense of what's been happening. The United States has provoked Russia into this war using as a playbook the understanding and now broken paradigm that had been deployed in the previous half century in proxy wars fought in

Southeast Asia or wherever, but this time it's a lot closer to home and the injury is a lot more severe and the consequences could be Catastrophic is not a word that does it justice and perhaps only apocalyptic is again I'm going to sort of heave in your general direction a battalion of potential inquiry if I may sir and among them

Among them, do you see a sort of a correlative, as plainly you do, between the lax border controls and these foreign adventures? And do you consider it to be a favorable advancement with the United States to alter their position thusly? We are not only going to not be involved in interventionism in Washington,

conflicts in the South China Seas or in Europe or the Middle East.

and therefore we are not destabilizing world populations and also we're not going to corporatize those spaces or allow organizations that are tethered or anchored in the United States to disrupt the economies or exploit the resources of nations included in these various regional disputes but also down in Central and Latin America which is obviously more closely connected to the border crisis

And because America is going to become, well, let's just use a word that detractors might, more isolationist, more contained, the idea that America doesn't have to bear a burden of an influx of migration makes more sense, that America will control their own borders and as part of that pact not disrupt economies and populations elsewhere. Because for a long time it seemed like the

the general consensus, and this may not have been the consensus, maybe media could be manipulated and managed differently, was that it was okay for America to get involved in Libya or Sudan or Iraq or Afghanistan. And then when it came to population explosion or migration or whatever, hey, what are all these people doing here? What's causing all this disruption and unrest? It's like not acknowledging that these two things are intricately

connected. I wonder if you'd take that on for a moment. Although I just want to acknowledge that when you said at the beginning of your last answer, the washing machine and Zelensky, it just was so vividly real that it kind of made me feel a bit sick.

Zelensky is a sort of a propped up contained figure, that money's not getting to Ukraine. It's just getting cycled through Washington. I thought, oh no, that's why I've always thought I can't back that up because I'm not part of any one of these institutions or machines or organizations. Terrifying. So what do you think about the relationship between border control and foreign, like IE, it could be a massive re-imagining of what America's role in the world is and what, yeah, you know what the questions are.

Well, we're in the grip of a suicidal ideology that we want to make America the first state without borders, without identity, without a discernible culture. In other words, this is the Trotskyite dream of the radical Bolsheviks when they came to power in 1918.

They thought that they could change the world, reform this world into an amorphous mass of sedated consumers who would march merrily in whatever direction they wanted them to go. That all fell apart, but that was the original idea. That goes all the way back to the French Revolution. They wanted to carry it across the world and do the same thing effectively.

It boils down to, I think, finance. Why do I say that? Oftentimes, I would ask when I did teach at the military academy, I would ask people, when did the British leave India? And everyone, you know, it was a sort of thousand mile stare from the average cadet who had no idea what the hell I was talking about. And I said, when the debt to GDP ratio reached 240%.

Churchill bankrupted the British Empire, bankrupted the country and destroyed its national power. So suddenly, after having theoretically fought tenaciously to defend the great empire, they abandoned it because they couldn't afford to stay. They had to pay bills at home. They had to restore some measure of stability and prosperity to Great Britain. I think we're going to face something similar to that, and that will cause

the public to make a radical reassessment of what's been happening. And then I think you will see a public ready to embrace harsh measures. In other words, to do whatever is required to quote unquote save the Republic. But when we go into this process of saving the Republic, remember, number one is the Bill of Rights. That's what really separates us from everyone. And that's the best feature of the American political experiment, the Bill of Rights.

Secondly, the Constitution was designed in the 1780s for a very different country from the one that we have today. We've got to change it. We ignore the Constitution on a routine basis, and everyone is very upset about that. But the truth is, it doesn't fit our needs any longer. How we govern ourselves is going to have to change. You know, this little 50-state paradigm,

where all these little 50 states make decisions. These borders were made, you know, 100, 150 years ago based on all sorts of considerations that have nothing to do with us today. We've got to sit down and look at the country from the standpoint of regions. You know, what makes sense economically in one region may not make sense in another. In other words, we've got to re-examine what we're doing. No one has wanted to do that for a very long time.

It's the financial crisis that will compel it. And there was a man named John Kenneth Galbraith who wrote a great book on financial crises. And he made the point over and over and over again that you go for decades in a bank and nothing happens. And then suddenly you discover the bank isn't solvent. Somebody has been cooking the books. The whole thing is an empty facade.

You go in, you clean out everyone who is there, you put in someone who's capable. Well that goes well for a while but eventually the capable people are replaced by do-nothings. Because do-nothings are usually preferable on most occasions to people who want to do something. Someone who wants to take action is never popular until it's an emergency. That's our problem right now. So we're on a Cromwellian path in my judgment.

I just don't know when the Cromwellian Revolution will come to fruition, but I think we're on that path. There's no question about it. Oh, God. All right. And that's a lot better, by the way, than the French Revolutionary Path, believe me. Okay. I'll tell you what. I wish we could do a conversation where we talk about military strategy, the nature of revolutions, the inevitable problems of revolution, how by your analysis, even that you...

conflated Trotskyism with consumerism when on the surface of it that would seem entirely antithetical to that model even though I acknowledge that Marxism even in its proposed egalitarianism places economics at the heart of all projects rather than some ethos, some divinity, something sacred, something that people can organize around. Contrast that with something like national socialism for all its evils of course placed folk

and the land at the core very mobilizing, were it not for the horrific genocides and bellicose nature of many of Hitler's, you know, well, I don't think we need to get into defending Hitler, but my point, now then, let's revisit. But I also wanted to say, on the point of India there, that when Nehru gave the sort of declaration of Indian independence, it was given in English.

And to me, the implication was that somehow, and this is a bit sort of maybe project paperclip, that somehow the necessary and relevant institutions are able to sort of withstand the sort of superficial narratives of victory

loss. If you're going to discuss that, then you're going to have to be prepared to deal with the Indian view, which is obviously different. It's almost the same as talking about the blessings of British influence and occupation in Ireland. That never gets a positive reception either. No, no.

No. By your reckoning then, a sort of a Cromwellian event, which is a sort of a, well, it's a military revolution where the oligarchs or monarchy are overthrown by a soldier risen to the rank of general becoming Lord Protector. It's difficult to look beyond Donald Trump for a candidate for that role. Donald Trump is not the man.

And there are a lot of people that are going to figure that out. I mean, the fact that he endorsed and supported this last bill is enough to drive away substantial numbers of his base. And remember this stalwart paragon of manhood, Senator Lindsey Graham publicly thanked Donald Trump for his support because without Donald Trump, this bill would never have passed.

That's frightening because it's antithetical to everything that the people that support Donald Trump believe in. So the suspicion now is that he too has captured...

by the donors. You know, sometimes we call it the swamp, then you have the deep state. Just view it all as essentially one amorphous mass of trouble. And he seems to have been infected by it too. I hope not, but it looks that way to me. So it's not going to be him. And remember that Cromwell was originally not a soldier. He was a civilian, very much so. He did something that most generals never do. He sat down and read all the books on military affairs and

And so he was self-taught, but he was self-taught because he had to be. And remember, he created an army of supporters, Puritans from scratch. And of course, you know, his event provoked a lot of people. And in fact, my ancestors that came to the United States in 1681 were former Puritans who were appalled at the excesses of the Cromwellian forces in this revolution. And so they became Quakers.

which is how I ended up here. So all these things are kind of interesting. I'm very much an American and I'm familiar with all the various streams of consciousness and thunderstorms and difficulties that have afflicted us over the years. I think we'll come through all of this because at the heart of the country is a recognition that we really are not interested in meddling in other people's affairs.

And we really want a government that's going to tend to our needs here at home, not to become a substitute for ourselves. In other words, not to become the ultimate nanny state, but to enforce the law, to create order, stability and an economy that is conducive to prosperity. I think that's what Americans want. I think they'll get it. But we're a long way from that right now.

Yeah, you talked about the potential regionalization. Do you mean a different take on federalization? Because when you talk about law and order, and you did sort of fleetingly mention that executing drug dealers, we're like, I thought, bloody hell, we're going...

Steady on, Colonel. I made some mistakes as a younger man myself. I don't want to be lined up against the wall. Hopefully you were not a salesman for the product. I may have, on occasion, in order to meet debt, made some choices that put me in a position of disfavour. I'm in recovery 21 years now. But what I wanted to ask you is, do you believe that for law and order to be observed and enforced, they have to be...

consensual and the will of the people rather than what we're experiencing now is authoritarianism increasingly being centralized in a sort of Huxley-esque nightmare where we're told for convenience and safety we have to become compliant, that God is not real, that nature is not real, and that the only things are real are these sort of ever-shifting sets of values often

oriented around the protection of the vulnerable when I sense that that is not the true motive. So do you believe that in order to diffuse certain aspects of what is widely referred to as the culture war, that some form of decentralization of power and representative democracy being precisely that, representative of the people rather than of a donor class, has to be part of this revolution that it appears you're advocating for?

No. Let me explain why. There is a growing consensus that opposes the things that you enumerated so well. In other words, there are more and more people that are coming to the conclusion that the state is sponsoring suicide for all of us. That's becoming clearer in more American minds than ever before.

But they are not going to argue initially for no power at the national level. They're going to argue for power at the national level to right the ship. In other words, you've got to save the ship. The ship is sinking. And that's the way people look at the United States right now. They see a sinking ship. They want to right the ship. They want to plug the holes, pump out the water, and if at all possible, change the ship, modernize it, make it better and more effective.

You can't do that if you're trying to decentralize everything. In other words, the pendulum has swung in one direction so far that to bring the pendulum back to the center, it's going to have to be shoved harder to the right. Then it will eventually end up where you are. There's a great book that explains this very well. It's called Anatomy of Revolution. It was written just before, I think, the Second World War started.

It doesn't get everything right, it gets some things wrong, anatomy of revolution, but it makes the point that what revolutions do is that they radicalize and push in one direction so far that there is a reaction to it. And the reaction pushes it back in the other direction until finally the pendulum again goes back to where it was to begin with. In other words, you get the status quo that you destroyed, albeit somewhat better and somewhat different.

And I think this is the process that we're now part of. This is going to take time. It's going to take a decade. Sir, but this pendulum motion that you describe is no doubt as a result of polarity. Indeed, you cannot even at the most basic rudimentary electromagnetic level create energy without polarity. Ha ha ha.

Enjoy that, did you? Well, my point being this, the reason that the transitions are so radical is precisely because of centralization. If you didn't have such a strong centrifugal force, the subsequent polarities would not be so radical. Ergo, what I'm proposing is, other than in certain municipal projects,

where centralization would be to a degree necessary, I suppose, border control, a transitionary preservation of law and order. Decentralization is precisely what's required. In fact, that pendulum motion, I know eventually a pendulum slows down, but that presupposes that there will be no external events that solicit further momentum. Well, that's right. And we don't know

what kinds of external events may occur between now and the restoration of what I would call a more moderate status quo. We may end up seeing more events that cause us to move in different directions. None of us can predict the future, and I'm certainly not a prophet, but what I'm trying to say is if you look at that book, Anatomy of Revolution,

Eventually you come through this process and you end up at the other side much as Great Britain did you have to look at what happened before during and after Cromwell you had a restoration but the restoration was different and ultimately what a lot of people don't understand is that Cromwell whatever his faults was the foundation for the United States of America. Whoa, that's cool. I mean he did yeah when you say his faults

I know that some of our Irish brothers and sisters who have been given a nudge already might not welcome this deification or at least attributing of the Great American Project to Cromwell along with Paine and the likes. I mean, that's pretty exciting and pretty interesting. Colonel, may I pass on one or two questions from our community? Sure.

You're pretty funny. This one's coming from someone calling themselves Hayat Taya. Seymour Hersh said he was told the Pentagon is acting on its own without consulting the executive branch. Do you believe that to be true? I think there's some evidence for that because Biden is judged to be infirm. And I think people in the Pentagon recognize that he is infirm. However, it would be a stretch to suggest that whatever happens in the Pentagon is not known to others in the White House.

We don't know who's really in control in the White House, let's be frank, because certainly President Biden is not. President Biden is told what to sign, he's handed speeches and told what to say. And when he's allowed to speak on his own, he talks about his uncle's brains having been eaten by cannibals in New Guinea during World War II.

So whenever he's off script, he makes remarkable statements that suggest that he is less than competent. It seems to me you are not paying proper attention to many of his visits to ice cream parlors where he is able to wear sunglasses with little to no external support.

I wonder then if you will answer this. This is from Earthling417. What recourse do, inverted commas and capitalized, we the people possess? Can we overthrow? January 6th has us all afraid to fight back. Who has everyone afraid? January the 6th, I suppose the entire January 6th. No, I think that's true. We have people sitting in jail.

for alleged crimes that I think serving sentences of many years that make no sense at all. We have, on the other hand, people that committed terrible crimes during 2020 in the name of Antifa and BLM and other things causing billions of dollars worth of damage and they were all let off scot-free. So the man makes a point. Our justice system is weaponized against us. There's no question about it. Having said all of that,

I think as we approach this election and it becomes increasingly clear that our hopes for this election will not be fulfilled, we're going to see cracks in this edifice. In other words, people on the inside of this structure are going to come forward and say, we can't do this anymore.

I've already seen evidence for that. And that's the first thing that happens in any revolutionary setting. People on the inside say, thank you, can't do this anymore, and walk away. We're not there yet, but we're getting there. So I would tell the individual that raised that question, I don't disagree with him and I understand the concern, but I would say keep your powder dry and keep your hopes up because I think things are beginning to move in new directions.

Over the course of this conversation, we've addressed the fissures that are emerging and the disparity between the governed and the governing. You've mentioned the necessity for amendments or transformation or changes to the constitution. I've been thinking throughout this that one of the things we have to consider is the end of the formally accepted taxonomies, i.e. left and right, to look at how peripheral ideologies might unite against this

corrupted center with a degree of urgency that comes neatly to the forefront with Drew Paloup's question. Can you ask Colonel McGregor if the U.S. will plan a real or fake nuclear attack? And I'd like to add to that, if the leadership of a nation are disparate and separate from the population, is it possible that nuclear war is a consideration that

Given the ongoing escalation, in particular between hostilities in the proxy war between the United States and Russia, do you think there's a contingency for a nuclear war? No. The one thing I would say about the people that are in the White House is that those with their fingers on the button, so to say, are sober-minded. They understand that it means Armageddon and total annihilation.

That's the best that I can say. Now, I'm not saying that no one has considered anything or there aren't any discussions about it, but I think the majority of the people that I'm familiar with and I've had some exposure to over the years, it is too terrible to contemplate.

Julian Assange is still in Belmarsh without trial awaiting potential extradition is wanted under the Espionage Act explicitly according to the Biden administration but also Trump and also Obama because

of the revelation of documents that could have put American personnel at risk, although no one has ever been able to prove that American personnel were put at risk by any of those revelations. What's your view on Julian Assange? Do you think he should be extradited or do you think his actions were that of a journalist? And if Assange is guilty of espionage, then the New York Times, The Guardian, The Spiegel and a whole host of other media organizations ought be in the dock with him.

I thought when Donald Trump left office that he would pardon Assange and end this travesty of justice. This man is not some foreign agent seeking the destruction of the United States or anywhere else. He received the information from others. This is not something he dug out personally in most cases. People provided things to him.

We went through this with Daniel Ellsberg. Ellsberg was provided with the information, he released it. And people were offended at the time more than anything else, and I think that's what's happened to Assange. If you offend people in power and they wield authority, they'll try to use it against you. And that's what's happened with Assange. So he should be released in any case. Hmm.

Thank you. Do you hold a similar view when it comes to the matter of Edward Snowden, whose revelations in a sense are somewhat heroic that revealed the degree of corruption and illegal surveillance of the American people, which is, of course, only being exacerbated, as we've touched upon with the updated version of C-702? Do you think that he shouldn't be in exile in Russia? Yes, I think that's another individual that has been treated badly and unfairly and should have been given a hearing.

I would end that isolation of Snowden immediately. Keep in mind that you're now touching on two areas beyond the scope of our discussion. One of those is the Central Intelligence Agency and the intelligence agencies in general. It's been effectively a rogue organization for a very long time.

And there are others who know a great deal more about it than I do. My focus for most of my life has been on the military and foreign policy, but not on the intelligence agencies. But there are others that you should consider bringing on. People like Ray McGovern, Larry Johnson, who are both longtime intelligence officers, worked with and inside the CIA, and they can talk about these things. And I think your audience would enjoy listening to them. They can also talk about MI6.

and its role in a lot of these things. I mean, these two agencies have played a very important role in Ukraine, frankly, a very destructive one that has resulted in the annihilation of the Ukrainian state, in my judgment. But I don't know enough about it to really talk categorically, but I do feel that both Snowden and Assange should be released, and I argued for their pardons.

Thank you so much, Colonel. It's been such a privilege to have your company and expertise today. I would love the opportunity to speak with you again and focus more on military strategy, revolution, and the potential of those old ideas being resurrected and deployed as part of the necessary transformation that we've been skirting around for much of this month. I think we made a pact where I would be able to interview you in the future.

You have a lot of fans in Our Country, Our Choice. We're up to 370,000 members. So you have quite a fan base. They're very pleased with what you've done with this program, Stay Free.

So we would like to interview you in the future, and then you'll have an opportunity to talk about what's really important to you in the context of Stay Free. Well, that would be fantastic when I'm a guest on your show, and you certainly won't be getting any announcements with the concomitant humility of, oh, well, there's a better expert, you should ask about that. That's not my field of expertise. If you ask it, I'll answer it, and I won't let a silly thing like ignorance stand in my way.

All right, sounds good. Well, you know what Lincoln said in Washington, ignorance and stupidity are no bar to advancement in politics. Then surely this revolution is a sure win for all of us. Well, we don't know, but I think, you know, and there are different kinds of revolutions. They're not always bloody. Some are bloodless, as you know, from 1688. So hopefully, you know, we can get through this. But I think we need some kind of convulsive event here.

to right the ship, if you will, because the ship is listing badly. Your naval friends in the audience will love that. Yes, they will. This is, after all, Great Britain, rule Britannia and all that. Thank you. Thanks, Colonel. Thanks for your time.

I hope you enjoyed my conversation with Colonel Douglas MacGregor. I found it illuminating and exciting, and I'm really looking forward to going on his show, Our Country, Our Choice, which is the movement he's the CEO of. You can visit ourcountryourchoice.com. That's what Colonel Douglas MacGregor would like that you do. I'm pretty excited to go on that show where I will toast sweet freedom in one of these glorious farting crow mugs. What could be more patriotic and more glorious? Remember, you get $25.

percent off these all week and indeed i can tell you that every penny goes to supporting people with addiction and mental health issues become a member of our community if you use the code i surrender you get one month free what are we offering you early access to interviews like the one we just had with colonel douglas mcgregor you notice that several community questions were put to him

There's a weekly book club. We're reading Mere Christianity at the moment. It's fantastic. And we do additional videos every week. This week, it's on fluoride. Is it a conspiracy theory? Or when you look at the facts, like people put pollutants in the water all the time, is it likely possible fluoride?

plausible that they do that. In fact, it reminds me a little bit of yesterday's guest, Dr. Nels. You should watch that show if you haven't already, and how he talks about how neurological toxicity is part of our programming and conditioning.

Members of our community that have already seen that include Timper72, Mgem12, Francis Pord, Gerard Fudd, Mole, an extraordinary Jabberwocky-like litany of guests right there. And next week will be even better. Join us then, not for more of the same, but for more of the different. Until then, if you can, stay free. No, here's the fucking news.