Keeping It Real: The Globalism vs. Nationalism War Behind the Headlines

SPEAKER_1 (0:01)

Welcome to Keeping It Real. Today we're diving into a conversation that's going to challenge how you see current events. Jillian Michaels sat down with Barbara Boyd and Susan Kokinda from Promethean Action, and their central argument is pretty bold: What looks like separate crises is actually one unified battle. They put it bluntly—"A war is underway between two economic systems: globalism and nationalism." And the stakes couldn't be higher. According to Boyd and Kokinda, the prize is American sovereignty itself. They describe globalism as this network of offshore financiers, elites, and bureaucracies steering trade, currency, and policy from above. On the other side? The American system—a nation that builds, produces, secures its borders, and uses government to strengthen economic independence.

What's fascinating is how they trace this fight historically. They argue America drifted away from the path associated with William McKinley and moved toward institutions modeled on British imperial power.

Now we've got private cartels in pharma, insurance, and big tech siphoning wealth from the public.

Healthcare's been turned from service into extraction. But here's where it gets really interesting— they say the real battlefield is propaganda. As they put it, "The goal of this conflict is the minds of the U.S. population." They connect that effort to foundations, elite messaging, and a Malthusian worldview that treats human beings as burdens rather than creative forces.

That lens shapes their view of AI too.

They argue panic about artificial intelligence is being weaponized to push selective regulation that restrains smaller players while protecting the biggest firms. When legislation carves out exceptions for companies already at the top—"That is the hoax," they say. They apply the same framework geopolitically. Ukraine, Europe's energy troubles, pressure on sovereign nations—all symptoms of a system under strain.

Germany's economic pain and political revolt? Part of that wider breakdown. Take Iran. They argue it's not simply about Iran itself, but the financial networks funding radical operations and keeping regions destabilized. Trump's moves, in their view, aim to cut those lifelines. On global finance, they point to 1971 when Bretton Woods ended and the dollar broke from gold. That opened the door to massive speculation—yen carry trades, mortgage-backed securities. They describe it as a giant bomb that must be defused carefully. So what's the alternative? They highlight energy independence, domestic production, and new capital channels outside Wall Street as signs the administration is moving money back into real economy work. But ultimately, Boyd and Kokinda say the deepest disagreement is philosophical. It's not capitalism versus communism— it's the American system versus the British system. As they frame it, "The fundamental disagreement in these conflicts is the 'image of man.'"