Michael Hudson: Trump on Greenland, Panama, and Canada / Technofeudal Ecstasy – The Grayzone Live (Economic perspective from Michael Hudson and ideological perspective from The Grayzone)

– YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

I highly recommend watching both videos in their entirety because they are excellent and contain a wealth of useful and interesting information. I agree with over 90% of the content in both videos, and they align with topics I have previously discussed. For example, I have written about the Americanization of Europe in posts such as:

Catherine Austin Fitts — Using Bitcoin and Stablecoins to Expand Dollar Dominance with Whitney Webb (Digital AI, Digital Money, AI, Economic Crises, and the Americanization of Europe)

This is essentially the same point that Michael Hudson is making. Additionally, Grayzone discusses the "Clash of Civilizations," a topic I have also addressed in posts such as:

The Myth of the “Clash of Civilizations”. Edward Said (Islam, Gramsci and ideology – so how our world is created)

Here is Michael Hudson with an economic perspective:

10:43

“These measures have to be made out of steel and metals. You can see that Trump is essentially boxing in Europe as a byproduct of using Greenland as a sort of wedge into Europe for NATO. If he said, "We're talking about national security, Russian ships and Chinese ships are crossing the North Atlantic, and we really need Greenland to protect this," then it becomes a national security issue. If European nations don’t agree to an American military occupation of Greenland with bases along the North Atlantic and the Arctic, then the U.S. might respond by saying, "We have no reason to be part of NATO. If you’re not defending us, we won’t defend you unless you cut back your social spending by 25% and shift that amount toward military spending on American arms."

That’s what it ultimately boils down to. What a clever entanglement—almost like reading a detective story, tracing events back to their origins, and asking, "How did it all begin? What was the opening wedge?" You can see that there's a comprehensive plan unfolding. This plan is discussed openly in the Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal editorial pages, and other similar platforms. Even the Danish Prime Minister remarked, "I'm sure we can help with American ambitions." But American ambitions are aimed at controlling the entire world.

The key point is that Trump understood and explicitly stated that the U.S. doesn’t need to control the world militarily—it can control it economically through economic threats. The U.S. doesn’t really have anything to offer other countries. Its only strategy is to issue threats. The only bargaining power the U.S. has is to threaten—whether by targeting their transportation systems, withholding support, imposing tariffs, or enforcing financial regulations. There’s nothing positive being offered, except an agreement to sell overpriced military hardware that doesn’t even work properly.”

15:09

“The European NATO countries are expected to defend themselves against potential attacks from the other side of the Atlantic. However, that’s not what the NATO leadership is currently emphasizing. The new NATO head has stated that they want to change how NATO spends money on arms. Previously, each country decided independently how much to spend on arms and conducted its own negotiations. Now, NATO aims for centralized negotiations so that all countries negotiate collectively, effectively surrendering to the United States and granting it whatever it demands.

Through NATO, the United States has presented an official proposal that removes the autonomy of individual countries and voters in Europe regarding decisions on arms procurement—what arms they buy, from whom, and at what price. These decisions will now be made by NATO in collaboration with the European Union, bypassing national leaders. This move by the U.S. essentially seeks to capture the European political system by overriding national democratic processes. NATO and the EU will dictate how governments allocate their budgets—whether on arms or other expenditures—to meet the objectives set by the U.S., which primarily involves buying American arms.

This policy forces European countries to cut back on social spending, including subsidies that help homeowners and renters afford heating, oil, gas, and electricity. It creates a severe political crisis in Europe. The U.S. can then pressure individual European leaders by warning them, "You don’t want a political crisis that could remove you from office, do you?" Thus, leaders are coerced into compliance. This is the opening move in a broader American strategy to weaken Europe economically and compel it to surrender under economic, commercial, and financial pressure.

The effects of this strategy are already visible. If you observe the euro’s exchange rate, it has plummeted. People have realized that Europe is no longer producing its own consumer goods, it has stopped importing inexpensive energy from Russia, and it faces trade restrictions with China. As a result, Europe’s trade deficit is increasing, and the euro is depreciating. A falling currency means higher prices since more euros are required to buy commodities priced in dollars—not only from the U.S. but also from other countries that trade and price raw materials in dollars. Additionally, foreign and domestic debts, particularly those held by governments and large corporations, which are denominated in dollars, are becoming more burdensome. This situation is creating a financial squeeze on Europe.

It appears that what Trump’s administration is introducing is a strategy of trade chaos, fiscal chaos, financial chaos, and exchange rate instability. If you are the largest and most self-sufficient economy, and you can prevent other countries from being self-sufficient or forming trade agreements that promote self-sufficiency—whether in energy or other key sectors—you gain control over them. That’s essentially what the United States is doing: asserting control and asking Europe, "What are you going to do about it?"”

25:45

“One obvious effect of the conflict with Russia is that America may risk losing Europe. You can already see growing nationalist sentiment in Europe as a reaction to being cut off from trade with Russia—and now, increasingly, with China. However, it seems that Trump and the deep state in America have anticipated this reaction. They likely understand the risks but believe that now is the time to solidify America’s economic and political leverage over Europe. Europe is being presented with a clear choice: either comply with American demands—whether it’s purchasing more American arms, buying American liquefied natural gas instead of continuing trade with Russia, or even relinquishing control of protectorates like Greenland—or face further pressure.

So, what can be done? The only countries actively seeking alternatives to this system are the BRICS nations and the broader global majority. Yet, Europe and its dependencies in Latin America seem unlikely to align with the global majority anytime soon—probably not for another 30 years, which is as far ahead as anyone can realistically predict. Europe appears resigned to its place within the current system, without seriously considering alternatives. It is trapped in a state of both mental and ideological stagnation, believing that no viable alternative exists. That is the core problem.”

36:04

“The United States has suggested that it can avoid disrupting Mexico's trade by imposing a wall, not just against immigrants but also against Mexico itself. What has changed the equation is that Mexico has recently elected a new president—a socialist leader—who is attempting to redevelop the country. Mexico now realizes it was a significant loser in President Clinton's NAFTA agreement from the 1990s. The agreement, framed as promoting free trade, resulted in a flood of low-priced, subsidized American grain into Mexico, which rendered domestic agriculture unprofitable. Consequently, Mexico lost its ability to sustain its own food supply and became dependent on American imports for feeding its population.

Food has become one of the essential categories in America's trade threats. However, Mexico could now counter this by saying that since the rules of NAFTA have been changed, it will no longer participate. Although it might lose trade with the United States, Mexico is considering its long-term future—it must start growing grain domestically again. Furthermore, Mexico has the potential to ban genetically modified seeds produced by companies like Monsanto and Bayer, returning to native Mexican grain varieties and reviving its agricultural sector.

America's greatest fear is that nationalist parties might unite and realize there is an alternative to U.S. domination. However, the problem is that this alternative often implies some form of socialism or mutual aid, while the nationalist parties themselves tend to be right-wing. How can these parties develop a unified front to protect their countries' economic interests independently of the United States? Over the years, the U.S. has effectively co-opted leftist parties across Europe, turning them into neoliberal entities. Tony Blair, for example, adopted policies that were more neoliberal than those of Margaret Thatcher, including measures like privatizing the transportation system, which even Thatcher hadn’t attempted.

Without a clear program, it’s difficult for countries to become independent of U.S. influence. Any such program would need to outline steps for economic self-sufficiency and contingency plans in case the U.S. disrupts trade. Unfortunately, Europe and America’s closest allies have failed to develop a "Plan B." They only have "Plan A," which relies entirely on the current neoliberal system. The absence of an alternative means that if Plan A fails, the only outcome is chaos.

How can these countries create a viable alternative to neoliberalism? If the only proposed alternative is a form of right-wing nationalism without a coherent economic program, it will not suffice. What they need is something akin to a social market economy—a system that doesn't have to be labeled as socialism, but rather focuses on social welfare and market regulation. The United States itself adopted similar policies during the 1930s with its New Deal programs, and even earlier, in the 1880s and 1890s, when it pursued protectionist policies that allowed it to become the world’s leading industrial and financial power.

Other countries could learn from the U.S. model of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Yet, there is little discussion of emulating the U.S.’s historical path to prosperity. Instead, these countries remain vulnerable to U.S. threats of chaos, which could lead to political upheaval and severe economic contractions. Just as Europe is now suffering from the disruption of its oil, gas, and trade connections with Russia, it may soon face similar disruptions in its relationship with China. Without an alternative plan, the threat of chaos remains ever-present.”

47:20

“Policy operates in the short run. Financial policy operates in the short run. Trump will be out of office in four years, as will most politicians around the world. Politicians live in the short term, and diplomacy also tends to focus on short-term objectives. America feels that if it can destabilize the world and make opportunistic gains, it can benefit in the short run. Yes, it might interrupt American trade and finance temporarily, but in the long run, America can be self-sufficient. Europe, Mexico, and Canada cannot. As long as other countries fail to create their own mutual agreements as a backup plan, they will remain vulnerable and dependent. In the short run, America can always win. In the long run, it loses if other countries act in their self-interest.

The key question is: how can the United States prevent other countries from acting in their own self-interest? This question raises doubts about the traditional materialist approach to history, which assumes that countries will act based on their economic self-interest and that the most efficient and productive economies will ultimately prevail. According to this logic, the most capable economies will dominate in a Darwinian struggle for existence. However, this isn’t what has happened. The United States is not the most efficient economy—it has de-industrialized and financialized its economy. Thus, the materialist approach to history applies only in the long term, but in the short term, America can maintain control by perpetuating a state of crisis.

America’s current strategy appears to be one of constant crisis management—keeping the world in a perpetual state of emergency, transitioning from one crisis to the next. Each new crisis allows America to seize additional advantages, ensuring its dominance by fostering chaos. This approach contrasts sharply with the earlier vision of post-World War I and post-World War II America, which was based on industrial and financial leadership. At that time, America was the leading industrial power, Europe’s industries had been devastated by war, and the United States was the leading financial power. By 1950, at the onset of the Korean War, America controlled 80% of the world’s monetary gold supply. It had industrial, agricultural, and energy dominance, as well as control over global trade routes.

Initially, America seemed poised to lead the world by fostering cooperation and prosperity. Other countries believed that while America would be the main beneficiary, they too could gain by being part of a system anchored by American finance and industry. Over the past 75 years, however, this initial promise has eroded. Today, America’s foreign policy appears to be guided by a “we win, you lose” principle. Each transaction seems designed so that the rest of the world must lose progressively more.

This approach is reminiscent of a "salami tactic," where advantages are taken incrementally—slicing away bits of sovereignty and self-sufficiency from other countries until they find themselves entirely dependent. Just as the U.S. has expressed a desire to divide Russia into multiple smaller states or to fragment China as it did with Yugoslavia, it seems to aim for a fragmented world. In Europe, the opposite strategy is pursued—NATO serves to consolidate control under U.S. leadership. Ultimately, the goal appears to be a world where the political choices of other countries are rendered irrelevant because they have no real alternatives.

American foreign policy seems focused on preventing other countries from forming any alternative economic or geopolitical strategies. This includes controlling access to raw materials, establishing military bases along key trade routes, and maintaining the ability to cut off trade at strategic chokepoints like the Panama Canal or North Atlantic shipping lanes. This policy ensures that America remains in a dominant position, capable of imposing its will on other nations.

Surprisingly, there seems to be no organized effort by other countries to articulate a coherent international strategy that counters America’s approach. This lack of a coordinated response is striking. Despite America's aggressive policies, the rest of the world appears reluctant or unable to act in its own self-interest. To do so, they would need a clear program and an economic model—a vision of the kind of economy and trade relations they want to build.

Without a shared economic theory or political strategy, other countries remain fragmented and reactive. They lack a vision of what an alternative to the current system could look like. If they reject the current World Trade Organization framework that America has paralyzed, what kind of trade agreements should they pursue instead? If they want to move away from the International Monetary Fund’s austerity policies, what new financial and credit systems could they develop to promote industrial growth and prosperity?

This lack of a coherent alternative—both economically and politically—is one of the most surprising aspects of the current global situation. The world seems unable to collectively counter America’s strategy, leaving it vulnerable to continued manipulation and exploitation.”

Here is Grayzone with an ideological perspective. While people understand that something is going on and that something is wrong, because they don't understand the broader issues, their discontent can be manipulated and stirred for the benefit of those who cause this discontent. All the horrible things we see around the world are the result of free-market capitalism, but through manipulation, they make people believe it's the fault of imaginary socialism and communism. In reality, socialism and communism are the biggest threats to the oligarchs who own the world, the very ones who have created the discomfort we feel. Now they want to use the lack of understanding to further their own agenda, benefiting even more by reducing regulation and welfare, and increasing military spending—essentially Americanizing Europe with the goal of increasing profitability for the capitalist oligarchs who control the world and cause our problems.

One person said people are waking up, and yes, they are, but their discontent is misplaced and exploited by the same oligarchs who created the problems in the first place. So, while people waking up is a good sign, it won't help as long as they fail to understand the true reality of the situation. To quote Orwell:

“Heavy physical work, the care of home and children, petty quarrels with neighbors, films, football, beer, and above all, gambling, filled up the horizon of their minds. To keep them in control was not difficult. A few agents of the Thought Police moved always among them, spreading false rumors and marking down and eliminating the few individuals who were judged capable of becoming dangerous; but no attempt was made to indoctrinate them with the ideology of the Party. It was not desirable that the proles should have strong political feelings. All that was required of them was a primitive patriotism which could be appealed to whenever it was necessary to make them accept longer working hours or shorter rations. And even when they became discontented, as they sometimes did, their discontent led nowhere, because being without general ideas, they could only focus it on petty specific grievances. The larger evils invariably escaped their notice.”

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

3:12

“I want to discuss Elon Musk and the megalomaniacal meltdown we've witnessed over the past two weeks. Before diving into that, can you explain what you think Elon Musk’s significance is in the incoming Trump administration and the transatlantic power structure?

That’s a very interesting question. First, it’s essential to understand that this has nothing to do with politics, and certainly nothing to do with Elon being a MAGA supporter or a conservative. Throughout his career, he has shown himself to be an adept shapeshifter, capable of aligning with any political position that benefits his business interests and vision of the future, as well as those of his backers. For all intents and purposes, Musk appeared to support Joe Biden in the last election. I would venture to guess he identified as a Democrat and likely participated in Democratic fundraising efforts. He has been a prominent advocate for carbon taxes, which is usually a red flag for MAGA supporters. Remarkably, they seem to have developed collective amnesia about this.

Musk has spent the past decade courting the billionaire Democratic donor class by positioning Tesla as a status symbol. In Washington, it became a badge of prestige for a certain type of person with specific political inclinations. Musk was fully behind that narrative. He is also a known World Economic Forum acolyte and a staunch technocrat. Notably, he is the grandson of the founder of Technocracy Inc., which indicates a deep-rooted alignment with technocratic ideals. His vision for the future is one of automation, where robots replace human labor. Interestingly, none of this is discussed openly, especially when he aligns himself with the "Make America Great Again" crowd.

In a sense, Musk's behavior mirrors that of George Soros, who styled himself as a liberal for many years. Similarly, Musk has recently fashioned himself as a conservative. However, fundamentally, they are two sides of the same coin. Now, Musk is venturing into the nation-building business, attempting to wield influence by offering financial backing and meddling in elections, much like Soros did. We’ve already seen Musk intervene in elections, such as in Venezuela and Bolivia, and if something similar happens in Argentina, he will likely be involved as well. Musk is a regime-change proponent, essentially a neoliberal—arguably an extreme neoliberal.

At present, Musk avoids discussing these aspects because it doesn’t suit his current narrative. Instead, we are seeing a darker side of him emerge, aligning with extreme right-wing factions, including figures like Tommy Robinson. Robinson, who has connections to far-right networks, is being positioned as a martyr, akin to Julian Assange. Behind Robinson are figures amplified by the likes of Musk, Barry Weiss, and others, along with significant support from the Israeli lobbying machine. The Washington Post once reported on a WhatsApp group involving about 50 billionaires and figures related to Israeli current affairs, and this seems to be a part of that broader network.

Musk has been hoisted by his own petard recently, tweeting a fake image and attributing it to politicians he accused of blocking the deportation of rapists. In reality, the list was from the Windrush scandal—a completely different issue with the reverse meaning of what he intended. He ended up being corrected by his own platform through a community note.”

13:46

“It’s really embarrassing. To me, this was a five-alarm fire for MAGA. Elon Musk, Bill Amman, and others mobilized to create a massive distraction around the so-called “rape of Britain.” A lot of this rhetoric, in my opinion, is just a ploy. Personally, I would go even further and say that this crazed talk about conquering Greenland, renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, and even conquering Canada is primarily aimed at activating the MAGA base—the QAnon wing of the movement—because that’s the segment the tech billionaires have essentially co-opted. This is all about appealing to the QAnon-aligned faction.

Elon Musk has become the ringmaster of this movement since he now controls the largest social media platform on the planet, with his thumb on the scales of virtually every discussion taking place there. He is actively shaping a clear narrative, and it’s obvious that he controls Twitter (now X) for this very reason. Since this contradiction was exposed, there have been countless distractions to divert attention. What it really reveals is an effort to establish a technocratic feudal oligarchy in the United States. Even Steve Bannon has called this out.

Alexander Coburn wrote a piece for Harper’s about the kind of project being undertaken in Silicon Valley, describing it as a caste system—a literal caste system—that reflects what they aim to impose globally, where most of us are reduced to serfs unless we can serve them as influencers. Andrew’s piece, titled The Hindutva Lobby, highlights that this isn’t just about Silicon Valley. It’s also about the powerful, emerging lobbies in Washington, particularly those aligned with AIPAC and the Zionist lobby. It outlines how Hindu nationalism is spreading in America and acting as a force multiplier for pro-Israel interests.

The first two paragraphs of the piece lay out the situation well. California legislators approved a bill banning caste-based discrimination. The bill defined caste as an individual’s perceived position in a social hierarchy based on inherited status. Caste discrimination is a central feature for hundreds of millions of people in India and beyond. The bill was championed by California’s Dalit community, historically known as “Untouchables,” who occupy the lowest rung in the Hindu hierarchy and have traditionally been relegated to menial jobs on the fringes of Indian society purely due to their birth. Dalits in California report that this ancient system has been imported to the U.S. and remains prevalent in the Indian diaspora, including within the tech industry.

Supporters of the bill pointed out that if caste discrimination didn’t exist in the U.S., there wouldn’t be a need for legislation addressing it. Despite fierce opposition from leading figures in California’s Hindu tech community, the bill passed both houses with overwhelming bipartisan support and was sent to Governor Gavin Newsom. However, in October, after deliberating, Newsom announced his veto of the bill, claiming it was unnecessary since existing civil rights laws already covered such discrimination. The article also notes that Ramesh Kapoor, a wealthy Massachusetts businessman and key donor to the Biden Victory Fund, donated a substantial sum to Newsom, allegedly to influence the veto and prevent the bill from being enacted.

Now, shifting back to Elon Musk’s involvement, he has been heavily criticized for pushing a tidal wave of anti-Muslim rhetoric on Twitter, particularly around Pakistani rape gangs. This is someone who follows pro-apartheid accounts in South Africa as a paid subscriber. His views on race are well known, and he has been amplifying far-right narratives. However, Musk recently issued a statement targeting MAGA supporters, saying, “The contemptible fools I’m referring to are those in the Republican Party who are hateful, unrepentant racists. They will absolutely be the downfall of the Republican Party if they are not removed.” Essentially, Musk is calling the Trump base racist and blaming them for potentially destroying the party—all because they challenge his business interests, which rely heavily on H1-B visas to undercut skilled American labor.

This is a huge moment of unmasking. Below Musk’s tweet, you can see replies from paid surrogates like Ian Miles Cheong, who is based in Malaysia, calling Trump supporters derogatory names. Cheong is now ironically one of Musk’s America First surrogates, despite being based abroad. Musk himself has a well-documented history of problematic statements. According to interviews with his eldest child, he reportedly told them not to speak Arabic because it was “the language of the enemy.” This has been reported in multiple mainstream outlets, including HuffPost. It underscores Musk’s deeply ingrained, extreme views on race.

Musk’s embrace of figures like Tommy Robinson, a career criminal and notorious race-baiter in the U.K., is telling. While Robinson is well-known in the U.K. for his far-right activities, many in the U.S. have fallen for the myth that he is a persecuted journalist exposing Muslim grooming gangs. This is false. Robinson has been repeatedly jailed for contempt of court, and his most famous documentary, which he uses to claim journalistic credibility, led to defamation cases against him. In one instance, he falsely accused a young Syrian refugee named Jamal of attacking others, which backfired spectacularly and landed him in prison.

Elon Musk is now perpetuating the myth that Robinson is some sort of martyr, along with right-wing influencers like Jordan Peterson. However, at the core of this network of influencers lies a strong pro-Israel agenda. Robinson has long been funded by Israeli interests. This predates his association with Ezra Levant and Rebel Media in Canada. In fact, when Robinson led the English Defence League (EDL) from 2009 to 2013, the group’s corporate status was tied to the Jewish Defence League (JDL). The EDL rebranded itself by aligning with the Zionist movement and promoting Israel as the bulwark against a so-called Muslim invasion of Europe.

Musk’s relationship with Israel is also noteworthy. He initially clashed with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), promoting the #BanTheADL hashtag and making controversial comments about Jewish influence on immigration policies. After stepping into this trap, Musk was effectively dragged to Israel for damage control and subjected to a propaganda tour alongside figures like Ben Shapiro. It’s remarkable that despite being the world’s richest man, he found himself forced into these humiliating “struggle sessions” because of his simplistic and reactionary approach to politics.

In summary, Elon Musk’s trajectory is astonishing. He has gone from being viewed as a forward-thinking innovator to a reactionary figure entangled in far-right and pro-Israel politics, with increasingly erratic and contradictory public behavior.”

Regarding ideology and Muslims and the recent pedophile scandal in the UK. It lasted 10 years and the UK was run by right wing rule for 9 years so why didn't they do anything about it? But of course it's framed this as the fault of imaginary Communism and Socialism in the UK. Also those Muslims because we Christian white people are so much better and lets not forget and remember the whole Vatican pedophile stuff or Epstein pedophile scandal. Only Muslims are pedophiles because their culture and religion are so bad while we white Christian and Jews are so wonderful am I right? I heard all this anti Muslim stuff recently blaming Muslim culture and Islamic religion for it. Yes because we white Christian and Jews are so great, when I hear people saying it I wonder if they have a hole in their head. I would argue our Western Oligarch and CIA which is responsible for most of the human trafficking including sex trafficking even including under age like Epstin case for example and our lovely Christian Church rapes far more kids than Muslims, but of course it’s all the fault of those dirty, uncivilized, savage, radical, evil and horrible Muslims while we are so wonderful am I right?

I wonder why people don’t see it and reality believes some poor simple Arab working class person is evil and inferior wanting to destroy us in the West. Simple persons in the West have more in common with a poor simple Arab working class person than with their own Oligarchs in the West and that’s why they need to be convinced their enemy is not Oligarchs but that simple Arab working class person.

If you see Arabs teaching kids to say death to America you need to understand you are not watching Arabs but the CIA. We the West, through the CIA created Islamic terrorism to suppress socialism or in other words economic nationalism. So when you see such a thing it’s not the fault of Korna, Islam, Muslims or Arabs but it's the fault of our intelligence agencies like CIA which work to serve capitalism and our neo colonial imperialism.

We make it impossible for them to establish a good socialistic/economy-national state that would serve their people. To achieve it we spread radical Islam and now we point finger our this Islamic radicalism we created and support as reason why we need to continue to oppress and expose them. 

We live in a capitalistic world run by capitalist oligarchy but according to the right wing all problems in the world are the fault of some imaginary State, Socialism, Communism, Muslim/Arabs and other immigrants. While all is good in this world is free-market, capitalism, private companies, Christianity/Judaism. So we need to privatize everything, remove all regulation and promote faith so that we can increase military spending, incarceration rates, increase the number of people believing angels are real so basically turn Europe into America in order to increase profits for our lovely Western Capitalist Oligarch. 

Here is your Muslim, whom we support and plan to use against China: