How To ACTUALLY Make American Great Again

I can understand that a a government that doesn't invest in its people that kind of views them as a burden parasites and you know these they're just they're they're the problem. I can understand and then that government doesn't doesn't

invest in the people and then the people end up um harmed ultimately and angry is kind of then what what the idea would be and then and then that leads to the elites feeling afraid of the angry

people which leads them to say well then we got to keep the angry people pitted against each other because we don't want the pitchforks coming for us. And that's

kind of what you're saying, the premise of your book, The Danger of an American Years of Lead. Um, now you do title it American Years of Lead. So, are there

other systems in existence right now outside of the United States system like maybe Scandinavia or other places that you'd point to that say, okay, they're not having they're not in a danger of

any years of lead. Uh, and so they're not they're not needing to pit their people against each other. they're not

needing to create these political the violence, the chaos, the uh demoralizing, you know, just the just the total division that we're experiencing here. Are there systems

experiencing here. Are there systems that you point to that you say where you say they're doing it actually the right way? And what system would that be? I

way? And what system would that be? I

would say that all over the world there are a number of countries that have broken out of this western system in their own way and that you know it started with with communism during the cold war uh you know with with the

Soviet Union right Lenin came to power he said we'll fight anyone we'll we'll back anyone who will oppose the British Empire they gave support to the Amir of Afghanistan a conservative monarchist because he was fighting the British um

but out of the cold war as a result of the Soviet Union you got a wave of you know independence movements on the African continent And nowadays there's a whole new economy in the world and you have China and the way they do things.

You have Russia that's kind of reestablished its independence with Putin and taking control of their oil and gas. Uh you also have the axis of

and gas. Uh you also have the axis of resistance in the Middle East. Very

conservative, very anti-communist, very traditional Shia Muslims. But if you look at what the Houthies believe, you look at what the Islamic Republic of Iran believes, they have their kind of unique interpretation of how we're going

to organize the economy uh for our people. You look at Olivarianism in

people. You look at Olivarianism in Latin America. Nicaragua is a country

Latin America. Nicaragua is a country I've spent a lot of time in and it doesn't fit this category of left and right, right? It's a socialist country,

right, right? It's a socialist country, right? The the leader Daniel Ortega is

right? The the leader Daniel Ortega is the leader of a socialist revolution. Um

but it has some of the strictest anti-abortion laws of any country in the world. And in fact, the slogan that you

world. And in fact, the slogan that you see painted everywhere is Christianity, socialism, and solidarity. Uh and you know, it's a conservative country uh in in a lot of ways. It's socially

conservative. and they cut ties with Israel over the crimes against the Palestinians. And you look at it, it's

Palestinians. And you look at it, it's an expression of the Nicaraguan people saying, "We don't want to be part of this, you know, maritime global system."

And so we've we've had a revolution. And

they're conservative in their own ways, but they're economically leftist in some ways. And the strength of the Nicaraguan

ways. And the strength of the Nicaraguan government has been their micro entrepreneurship program, which they use state funds to enable people to start their own businesses. And that's really

what the strength of China has been too is that you know you have a state a very powerful state that runs a lot of banks and runs a lot of industries but that state is actively finding skilled people among the population and giving them

money to start their own business right and that 21st century socialism is not the Soviet model of everything being run by the state. It's rather a state that kind of controls the o the economy but

then cultivates a business and a market uh that is is part of the overall vision of economic development and that's really kind of where things have been.

And the Soviet Union needed to move towards that kind of system in the 1980s. They needed reform. They weren't

1980s. They needed reform. They weren't

able to do it. And as as they started to reform with Pariska, they fell. They had

become so rigid, you know, they were like uh you know, if if you can't bend, you break. And the Soviet Union become

you break. And the Soviet Union become so rigid over the course of decades of war and and threats and sanctions and isolation that ultimately when it came time to change and reform like they needed to do, they couldn't reform. So

they broke. But if you look at what China has been able to do, they've been able to adapt and adjust their system.

that around the world. I look at Ibrahim Trorori, the leader on the African continent, the leader of Bkina Faso and the Union of Sahil states. What is he doing? Is he a communist? I don't know.

doing? Is he a communist? I don't know.

He he was leader like a Marxist group when he was in college, but he's a Muslim, a very devout Muslim. And uh you know, and he's also he's just a military leader who wants a strong Bkina Faso.

And so he's investing in his population.

And you know, he started a farming boom and he's you know, enabling all kinds of people to start fisheries, to start their own farms. and he's just investing in the population of his country to make them stronger because he understands to

have a strong country you need to invest in your people. Human beings are the source of wealth. They're not a cancer.

That Malthusian ideal that that human beings are are nonproductive consumers or useless eaters. That is fundamentally at the center of the western elite. That

is what they believe and it fits their overall antihuman perspective. Uh the

the the countries that are rising that have broken out of that system, they don't believe that.

So, we almost don't need to change the economic model. You're you're almost

economic model. You're you're almost saying it's not really about Well, I mean, I guess a little bit, but it's not necessarily about the economic model.

It's about what do you value and where you going to put the investment? So, we

could maintain, do you think we could maintain the particular the the economic model we have today? I mean, I think there would obviously have to be some adjustments because one of the biggest issues that we have in our economic

model is the fact that corporations are looking always at the profit margins.

It's not about humans or the people or the even the quality of the product.

It's always about how what are the profits like? Now, sometimes that leads

profits like? Now, sometimes that leads to quality products because they realize people aren't going to buy their crap.

So, they have to make a quality product if they want their profits to continue increasing. So there are some kind of

increasing. So there are some kind of benefits uh from time to time of just focusing on profit but but they are very very profit driven. I mean that is what

shareholders and stakehold right is give us just how much money are we making. So

uh maybe that part of it would have to change but I don't know because I think like in Germany and in Japan I always go back to those two models. They have a similar, I think, economic model as we do as far as capitalism goes, but they

also have an ethics around them where they don't, you know, like the CEOs are not allowed to make, well, they're allowed, but they just don't make fortunes like what our American CEOs

make because it's their culture kind of says, "Oh, that's unethical." I mean, it's it's nothing in the laws. It's just

culturally they say, "Well, we don't believe that. We don't believe in that,

believe that. We don't believe in that, so we don't do things that way." Um so so perhaps there would be a way of maintaining our our particular system

but changing what you're saying is the attitude of of you know the ethics the morals of I guess our companies of our elites our leaders I mean is do you think that's all that's needed or do you

think no we have to just completely change the economic system entirely?

>> Well I I'll give you two answers. My

first answer is that right now the government of the United States, a lot of people on the right very much hate the government of the United States and they want a free market because they see that the government of the United States is just working on behalf of the elites

and imposing degrowth. It's just

impoverishing people and they say, "I want to make money. I don't like this. I

don't want degrowth." And so I see the government going around doing this. They

want to get rid of it. They're going to learn eventually that's not enough. It's

not enough to simply get the government out of the way. You're going to need a government that does the opposite. a

government that breaks the power of the big monopolies, breaks the power of the big banks and forcibly uses state power to invest and oversee growth, right? And

they're gonna learn that it's gonna be difficult. And they've been pumped full

difficult. And they've been pumped full of all this Austrian school free market ideology that says you can't do that.

And they're going to learn that eventually what we're going to need is, and this is the slogan we've used in my organization, the Center for Political Innovation, we need a government of action that will fight for working

families. That is what we need more than

families. That is what we need more than anything is a state that will invest in the community and oversee growth and expansion and break the power of the elites who don't want that. That's my

first answer. My second answer though, I'll take you to the Old Testament uh of the Bible, the book of Jeremiah, right?

What let's go back, right, to the Kingdom of Judah, right? What was going on? Well, you know, the the the kingdom

on? Well, you know, the the the kingdom of Judah was based on a brilliant piece of social technology called the Torah, right? That held society together. You

right? That held society together. You

know, the the ancient kingdom was held together by the Torah, and they weren't following the Torah. The Torah said you have to care for the widows and orphans, and the widows and orphans were left destitute on the sides of the street.

And the Torah said you couldn't enslave people. But yet, these elites were using

people. But yet, these elites were using loopholes in the law to use people as slave labor. And one thing the Torah

slave labor. And one thing the Torah said is you can't do child sacrifices.

But the rich people were all getting up in the mountains and burning their children because they thought some god would, you know, golden calf god would give them good luck. And Jeremiah came along and he said, "If we don't get back

to the Torah, if we don't get back to the piece of social technology that our societyy's held on, we're not going to be together enough to withstand an invasion." And he went around preaching

invasion." And he went around preaching and saying, "We have got to get back to, you know, get back to our social technology. We got to start caring for

technology. We got to start caring for the widows and orphans. We got to stop these human sacrifices. Uh we've got to, you know, we've got to stop using people as slave labor. And if we don't do that, we're going to lose our country." That

was his message. And at first you had a king called Josiah who liked the prophet Jeremiah and promoted him. But then he died. And then the priesthood, the

died. And then the priesthood, the corrupt priesthood that was in bed with the rich persecuted Jeremiah and put him in a pillery and flogged him and tortured him and all of this. But what

happened? Babylon invaded. And everybody

knew that Jeremiah was right. that

Jeremiah, what he was saying was basically if we don't hold on to the principles uh that held our society together and if we allow the corrupt rich to just work blatantly in their own interest and treat people so badly,

we're not going to have the ability to be held together as a country to withstand foreign attack. And I I I look at that and there's a reason that, you know, hundreds of years later, right,

you know, when Jesus is in the temple uh in in Jerusalem, he shouts right as you shout when he drives out the money changers, "You have made my father's house into a den of feats." He's quoting Jeremiah, right? That's what the prophet

Jeremiah, right? That's what the prophet Jeremiah had said. And that Jeremiah became kind of the archetype of of, you know, of the prophetic tradition of somebody on the outside who's kind of

warning that we must care for people and we must have society coming together and being there for each other. And we can't let the the rich just rule ruthlessly.

And we can't let selfishness over trump our our collective need as a society.

And if we do that, we're going to fall apart. And so, you know, that might be

apart. And so, you know, that might be an archaic old example, but it's it's a good way of understanding the situation we're in. I think as a country, we have

we're in. I think as a country, we have we have let the rule of profits and the greed of a small group of people and the individualist culture get out of the point out of control to the point that

that we're falling apart as a country.

>> Yeah. It's very much just the teaching of right versus wrong. You know, I mean, we we do this with our kids. We'll say,

"Okay, this is what's right and this is what's wrong." And it's really

what's wrong." And it's really subjective. It's our morals, our ethics

subjective. It's our morals, our ethics that we decide to, you know, impart into our into the next generation. But, you

know, different societies have different morals and ethics and they choose to teach different rights and wrongs. And

it it's really a choice that the that the community has to make on what they decide together is right and wrong. And

right now, we have no real moral e or ethics against endless amount of making money at all cost. I mean that kind of seems to be okay in our system in our

morals and ethics and that is causing a massive problem in the in our system where yeah there's you know you've got the guy at the top of the company making you know hundred billion dollars while

the people at the bottom of the chain in that same exact company are struggling and living on food stamps. you know,

they're having to go to so to to welfare and then they're being told, "Oh, and you're a bad person because you have to do welfare." And they're sitting there

do welfare." And they're sitting there working, you know, 40 hours a week and they're like, "Well, you this is, you know, that's that was like the the thing with Walmart for a long time, people would point out that Walmart employee,

like when they would hire people, they would actually give them packets on how they could sign up for government welfare, you know, while they're being hired for a job." I mean, it's just like the most ridiculous thing. But it it

made the the Walton family really really rich, right? and and the other people

rich, right? and and the other people that were working there clearly were not. And so that is a moral and ethical

not. And so that is a moral and ethical issue more so than I would say it is a an economic one because again the economics are really only driven I mean

even in it like you said in a you know you do want some level of control you do want some monopoly busting you do also want some sort of government control I would think you know I know a lot of libertarians for example want to get rid

of the FDA I see a lot of problems with the FDA I understand but at the same time I also don't really want to be sold to any product that, you know, they're they're telling me it's okay, it's fine, it's and it's snake oil, and I have to

become a chemist in order to be able to read labels to make sure I'm not going to be poisoned by something on the shelf. I'd rather there be a government

shelf. I'd rather there be a government entity that is supposed to make sure I don't get poisoned by somebody's snake oil, right? [laughter]

oil, right? [laughter] So, there's got to be some level of government intervention and control and checks to keep us all safe so we don't have all have to become chemists or engineers or whatever it might be in

order to protect ourselves as consumers.

But that but that comes from an ethics and immorals, you know, of saying, well, you're not allowed to sell people snake oil and kill them, you know, that that's like we we as a society think that that's wrong, right? You shouldn't

poison people or murder people. Um but

but that is actually subjective. I mean,

there are societies that maybe it's totally fine to kill each other and it's not against the law. For example,

murder, rape, or you know, a lot of different things that are not against the law. So obviously these morals and

the law. So obviously these morals and values, you know, that is kind of the crux of it. seems like that we have to decide as a society that we value people and that we value investment in people

>> and I always try to tell people look that this is even just from a selfish perspective like if you just even if it's not about other people just think about if you want to be totally selfish about it just think about yourself do

you want to live in a society where when you're walking down the street people are drug strung out on drugs and they're wasting away and they're and they're crapping in the streets literally and

needles are everywhere and you're unsafe And I mean, do you know, do you want just from a selfish perspective, you should say, I don't want to live like that. So, I'd rather these people be

that. So, I'd rather these people be educated or in rehab or helped in some way so that I don't have so that I personally don't have to live like that, even just from a selfish level.

>> Well, I think you you hit the nail on the head when you talked about right and wrong because that's kind of what I've been pointing out here, which is that our elite don't think right and wrong

exist, right? Postmodernism. What is

exist, right? Postmodernism. What is

postmodernism? It is the belief that there is no real truth and that anyone who tries to impose a real truth is engaging in totalitarianism and that the

only righteous act is deconstruction, taking things apart. And these

postmodernists might use Marxism because it's useful in deconstructing some of the the beliefs we have about the West.

But they're not Marxists because Marxism has a clear right and wrong in it. And

Marxism does stand for a real objective reality and truth. Then they're not Marxists. And you know, you think about

Marxists. And you know, you think about Ein Rand, the virtue of selfishness.

This stuff is quite popular on the right. You think about Frederick Nichze

right. You think about Frederick Nichze and what he wrote about the blonde beast and might makes right. That our elite don't believe that right and wrong exist. And they believe that any attempt

exist. And they believe that any attempt to create a moral code to hold society together is just totalitarianism.

Yeah. They reject the very premise of right and wrong existing at all. Right.

And that is a problem. Right and wrong do exist. And if you don't teach right

do exist. And if you don't teach right and wrong, you can't have a society. I

think you're exactly right.

Well, how close to changing do you think we are? [laughter]

are? [laughter] I guess, you know, that's the final conclusion of this conversation. So, the

elites have been pitting us against each other on purpose. They want us fighting each other and not them. So they've got a variety of different tactics in order to make that happen from more mundane

and and uh small like oh the news just you know certain news channels just talking constantly you know against the other side to things more extreme like false flag or terrorist attacks to keep

us afraid and and uh confused. Okay. So

they're doing all of this. Uh we've got a system that's clearly broken. It

doesn't value people. It values the bottom line.

What we we know we need to change it. We

know that we need to have more ethics and morals in our society that cares about people and human investment, but are we really going to change?

Caleb, >> I would argue that things will come to a point that they are bad enough that people have no choice right now. Uh, you

know, you and I were we're here on the internet. A lot of people are listening

internet. A lot of people are listening to us because they're interested. It's

like a form of intellectual engagement.

But if you look at countries that have experienced big revolutions and changes, people get involved not because they're looking for intellectual intrigue. They

get involved because they have no choice. You know, conditions get to the

choice. You know, conditions get to the point that that people have to be involved in mass movements in order to survive. And that's the change. And uh

survive. And that's the change. And uh

you know, it's interesting Frank Kitson in his counterinsurgency writing, he talks about subversion uh and then he talks about terrorism and then from there he says the the next stage is

civil war. Um and uh it's funny because

civil war. Um and uh it's funny because Maoadong, you know, in his military strategy, he talked about strategic defensive and then strategic equilibrium and then strategic offensive. And you

know, they're almost modeled on each other. But basically what they're saying

other. But basically what they're saying is that you know in in a period where people are unhappy, right? You might

have subversion, which is people just kind of not being happy, right? They

have bad ideas that go against the system. But eventually things get to the

system. But eventually things get to the point uh that people have no choice and conditions are bad enough that real organizations emerge that are providing for people that are in need and leading them to advocate in their own interests.

And that's what Frank Kitson calls terrorism. That's what Maung called

terrorism. That's what Maung called strategic equilibrium. And that

strategic equilibrium. And that eventually out of strategic equilibrium uh comes a moment where the state itself that exists breaks into two pieces.

Those who are on the side of the insurgency and those who are on the side of the powers that be. And and that's how revolutions happen. And that's what that's what the counterinsurgency writers and the revolutionaries themselves, that's kind of how they lay

it out. And I would argue that

it out. And I would argue that eventually, yes, the USA is going to reach a point of strategic equilibrium where right now, you and I talking about, you know, we don't like Israel or we don't like the system or whatever.

It's an intellectual intrigue, but this is this is strategic defensive. This is

just we're unhappy. Things will get to the point that people have to be involved in some kind of mass movement in order to survive. And that's the game changer. And we haven't seen that in

changer. And we haven't seen that in this country really since the 1930s. And

that's when you got the rise of Franklin Roosevelt who aligned himself with a mass labor movement of people who desperately needed their lives to improve because they were struggling.

You got the rise of figures like Huey Long in Louisiana who people were desperately poor in the state of Louisiana. So he rose to power kicking

Louisiana. So he rose to power kicking the ass of Standard Oil and the Rockefellers and using state funds to build schools and hospitals and provide for people. And that uh that something

for people. And that uh that something like strategic equilibrium uh would ultimately be the point of change. And I

think that the way things are going right now, unless you have dramatic state action to stabilize the economy, you're going to get a further deterioration of things. And ultimately,

you know, that is what is needed. You

need state action to stabilize the economy. And no one's strong enough to

economy. And no one's strong enough to do that. So there you go. That's that's

do that. So there you go. That's that's

kind of where I think.

>> Yeah, I agree with you. I don't think anyone's strong enough to do that. But I

also think the people just aren't wanting that yet. I mean, it's like you've got to convince the the base, the public to to want dramatic state action.

And at this point, um, many are saying, "No, no, I don't want any of that at all." In fact, I want the exact opposite

all." In fact, I want the exact opposite of that. I want less state action

of that. I want less state action entirely. I want the state to get out of

entirely. I want the state to get out of everything. You know, we're seeing more

everything. You know, we're seeing more and more >> more and more of that. But yeah, unless it gets to the point where people are like, >> "Yeah, I have no choice."

>> Yeah. And there needs to be an apparatus in place that when conditions get to the point that they are desperate enough that people do desperately need state action to stabilize things. There needs

to be an apparatus in place to bring those folks into motion and to to guide them, right? Um you know and and that

them, right? Um you know and and that you know that right now, yes, we're unhappy, but it's just kind of intellectual intrigue. Conditions will

intellectual intrigue. Conditions will change. We will we will reach a turning

change. We will we will reach a turning point uh where there will be no choice.

But the question is, are we going to be ready when that happens? Will there be organizations? And that's what I would

organizations? And that's what I would argue all this years of lead stuff is about preventing. They don't want there

about preventing. They don't want there to be a stable axis that can oversee the push to stabilize things when things get bad enough. They don't want there to be

bad enough. They don't want there to be some solid block of opposition. Uh

because if that becomes the case, people will rally around it and that will be the transition and change that we need.

>> Yeah. Caleb Mopin, it's always such a pleasure chatting with you. You're

always so insightful and just a walking encyclopedia. I got to say I'm always

encyclopedia. I got to say I'm always impressed with how you're able to pull facts and quotes and books, you know, just out of thin air. I mean, it's some sort of level of uh genius that you got

going on there. Caleb Mopin, author, um, journalist, political analyst, founder of the Center for Political Innovation.

His book, The Danger of an American Years of Lead, is out. You can order it.

We do have the link down below. Caleb,

really appreciate your time here and giving us your insight. Definitely

appreciate it. Well, thanks for having me on and happy holidays.

>> Thank you for watching this clip from the full Kim Iverson show, which you can watch Monday through Friday, 5:00 p.m.

Eastern, 2:00 p.m. Pacific at kim iversonow.com.

iversonow.com.

See you there.