Did Trump just set a TRAP for the Deep State? (Uncut) 02-09-2025

Did Trump just set a TRAP for the Deep State?

You’re watching Capital Cosm. My name is Danny and today’s guest is Mario Ineko. Mario, thank you so much for coming back on the show, my friend.

You’re welcome, Danny. Thank you for having me on. Totally.

Let’s just dive right in, Mario. I want to ask you the same question I ask everyone at the start of the show. What is the lead story for you right now? What is occupying your headspace? What’s on the radar screen for you at the moment? The disruption that President Trump is bringing onto the world.

I see. I don’t mean to say it’s bad or good, but it’s changing the world, I think, massively. Yeah.

What are some of the bigger disruptions that you’re seeing? Well, how he’s going after the deep state. And some people might say, well, he’s deep state as well, but maybe there are two deep states. But yeah, how he’s pulling all the money out of USAID, how he’s exposing all of that.

And also, I think what he’s doing vis-a-vis tariffs is a huge part of realigning the world’s monetary system. It might not seem like it, but I think it’s a big part of it. He’s just playing chess with the other countries.

And because something has to be done about the world’s monetary system, because it can’t go on as it is. And I think him and his cabinet know that, especially the Secretary of the Treasury, Besant. Yeah.

How do you see him rearranging the monetary system through tariffs? What role do tariffs play in re-modifying the monetary system? Well, I don’t think he’s going to be the only one realigning the system. He’s going to have to negotiate, especially with the Chinese, because they’re the two biggest countries in terms of economy, the US and China. And the reason why I think he’s going the tariff route is because if you look at the US current account deficit, it’s been in the red since the late 60s.

And the US has run massive amounts of deficit. And if it wants to realign the system, it needs to be able to bring a lot of production home to the US. What the current system has done, it has allowed the United States to live beyond its means.

But at the same time, it’s also made the United States as a whole. And this is not to be offensive, but it’s made the US lazy, where they just borrow and buy from other people. And other people as well, other countries have benefited from that, because they’ve been able to develop their economies.

But that has been at the expense of the United States. I remember when I was a kid in the 70s, all the good things, really nice things were made in the USA. Nowadays, you hardly ever see that.

And it’s going to be painful in the short term. And a lot of people are going to think the world, you know, the sky is coming down, but it’s going to have to be disruptive if things are going to, let’s say, be able to change. But we’ve had so many years of this system that’s basically sucked out the wealth and the manufacturing out of the US into the rest of the world, and also into Wall Street.

This has been part of also financialization, I think, that reversing this is going to be huge. And a lot of people are going to be on the wrong side of it, in my opinion. You make a great point.

He does appear to be, for lack of a better term, weaponizing the US consumer base. I mean, think of it this way. If you’re a store owner, and you get customers from all shapes and sizes, but one customer, every time he comes in, he just buys like half the store.

Now, all of a sudden, that customer is, effectively, your revenue is being held hostage by that one customer. That is the United States consumer base, right? And moving production back into the United States effectively removes the consumer base, that big consumer base out of the world economy. What would that mean for the likes of China? What would that mean for the likes of Europe? I mean, everywhere else? Well, I think China is preparing for it.

Unfortunately, Europe isn’t. I think China has been diversifying, not just domestically. I’m sure the Chinese population is getting wealthier and wealthier, and they’re going to take up the slack, and other countries like in the BRICS.

But Europe, yeah, Europe is in bad shape. And the US as well, like you said, the customer. We’ve heard, Danny, over the last decade or so, or maybe even more, that the US economy is dependent on consumption.

And that’s going to change. And Americans are going to be producing more. Because like the Austrian School of Economics says that you can’t have an economy just based on consumption, because every consumer has to be a producer as well.

Not necessarily manufacturing, but just create value. And the way America has been able to not produce as much and have such huge deficits is because it’s been able to borrow its way into this situation by having the major reserve currency. But that’s ending, in my opinion, doesn’t mean to say it’s going to be the end of the dollar as a major currency.

But we’re seeing it already. BRICS nations and others are diversifying their dollar reserves into gold, and maybe even some other assets. Yeah, it’ll be very interesting.

Nonetheless, how do you view Europe’s current financial situation? You’ve alluded to it in our previous interview that you think Europe is on the brink of collapse. Can you go into more detail into Europe’s dire situation over there? Well, yeah, I mean, the problem with Europe is, there’s a couple of things. First is that Europe is really socialist, and they’re really into this welfare state, into regulations.

I think like in Spain, for example, if you hire someone, it’s almost impossible to fire them, because you have to keep compensating people. Here in the UK, the government is moving the same way. So I think the move to, well, the constant socialism, socialist policy and big government, that’s holding back Europe.

And the other thing is what’s happened since the Ukraine war in 2022. It seems like Europe has shot itself in the foot, especially Germany, by not importing a lot of the cheap energy from Russia. It’s ironic because before the Berlin Wall fell, West Germany, which was an ally of NATO, was in the West.

It depended on Soviet natural gas for its economy. So I think those, I mean, Europe collapsing, yeah, it is slowing down, but I don’t see it like the end of Europe, but it’s going to have, I think they’re going to learn the hard way, and it’s going to come through a huge crisis. And politically, I think, yeah, they’re in trouble, the mainstream, and we’re seeing a lot of populist parties come to the fore.

Here in the UK, we have reform, who are ahead in the polls already, ahead of the Labour government. In Germany, we’ve got elections on the 23rd of February, and the Alternative for Deutschland party, which is called by the mainstream far-right party, even though its leader is a former Goldman Sachs employee. I think that’s going to be worth watching if they do really well, AFD, on the 23rd.

It could be a turning point for Europe. They’re even talking about leaving the EU and adopting a lot more policies that are pro-market, free market, that is. Yeah, yeah.

As we all well know, and I’m sure you do as well, Mario, Germany is the engine behind the EU. If Germany were to leave the EU, that’s a huge vacuum. How could the EU still be viable after Germany leaves, should it occur? Well, it wouldn’t be viable anymore.

I’m not saying it will happen, but I think we’re moving closer and closer to that. Yes, it could. I think if it did happen, it would be huge in a couple of weeks’ time.

Yeah, but without Germany and without the UK, who already left a few years ago, the EU project would be over. A lot of people that have done some research and are considered conspiracy theorists know that the EU was actually a CIA plan to make sure they kept Europe in check. Yeah, to consolidate Europe into one basket, so it would be easier to control that way, as opposed to having to control each individual country.

You just have one entity to manage. Yeah, and you just saw now, I think Trump, the other thing he did, he offered all CIA employees eight months’ pay to leave. I think, yeah, this is a wave that’s going to change the world.

Am I saying I agree with everything that I’ve seen from the Trump administration? No. There are a few things, like Larry Ellison getting up there in the Oval Office and saying they’re going to develop mRNA, you know what, for, I don’t want to say the word, for treatment. I don’t like that.

But a lot of the things he’s done, and for example, the press secretary, Caroline Leavitt, she’s great, I think, is a breath of fresh air, the honesty that’s coming over. And yeah, let’s hope Europe follows the US. Speaking of Europe, there was this memo that was leaked, supposedly the Ukraine-Russia peace plan, which includes allowing Russia to annex the conquered portions of Ukraine, and West Ukraine effectively being sort of like a DMZ, with no NATO membership whatsoever.

It appears that this is what’s going to be rolled out in the next couple of months here. Have you heard about this? Yeah, I saw it this morning, actually, this is the Trump plan. And I think it will probably be accepted by President Putin, because it says that Ukraine cannot become a member of NATO, and that the eastern provinces that Russia occupies now are going to become part of Russia.

And basically, Ukraine is going to be a DMZ zone. And it also says that it’s up to the Europeans to keep the peace there, and that the US won’t be involved. So I think it’s great.

And I don’t think the UK, Germany, or France, or the EU are going to be able to counter that. And I don’t think Zelensky is in a very good situation, if he wants to keep his job, which actually, he’s not really a legitimate president, because he cancelled elections. So he’d be really lucky to accept that and still keep his job.

I think if I were him, I’d take it and count my blessings. And I believe Putin and the Russian government said that they will not negotiate with Zelensky on that premise, because he is not an elected president anymore. His term was over as of last year.

And the only negotiation that will be done will be done through the United States, which is the only player that matters, not France, not UK, not anyone else. So really quickly, it does appear that Trump really wants to disengage from the eastern hemisphere. He’s trying to end this war in Ukraine.

He’s very creatively trying to find a way out for Israel and Gaza to settle things. I’m not saying it’s the right way, but he’s trying something. We’ll see whether or not it succeeds.

It’s a powder keg over there. I don’t really understand what the overall strategy is. I guess we’ll see as we move forward.

But nonetheless, it does appear that he’s disengaging from the east towards the western hemisphere. I interviewed Chris McIntosh a couple of weeks back, a good friend of mine. He was the one who first brought this up on my show, that we’re going from an east-west axis to a north-south axis.

What he means by that is reprioritization takes place for the United States towards Canada, Mexico, Greenland, Panama Canal, potentially even South America. You can find that interview down below, guys, if you’re interested. Chris is a great friend of the show.

He does run the Capitalist Exploits Newsletter, where he talks about asymmetric stock picks, meaning stocks with very high upside and limited downside, how to spot these kinds of stocks. It’s not just in commodities. He looks across the world and in places that you would never expect.

For example, Argentina. Argentina was a stock recommendation back in 2021 before MeLay. Now, if you look at Argentina today, the ARG ETF, it’s gone up substantially.

I’ve been able to secure you guys a $1,000 discount. Save $1,000 on your annual membership with Capitalist Exploits down below if you’re interested. I highly recommend it.

It’s been my newsletter of choice. I’ve been a member with them for close to five years now. Back in 2020 is when I first joined.

It’s my newsletter of choice. Just wanted to share it with you here as well, guys. Mario, let’s go ahead and move on over to the Western Hemisphere.

What do you make of this reprioritization coming from Trump to a north to south axis? Is he trying to build somewhat of a fortress America, just trying to fortify the Western Hemisphere? Well, I think it’s more than that. I think he’s going back to the 19th century. It might sound weird.

He’s going back to tariffs like McKinley. Prior to 1913, the US didn’t have the income tax, so it depended on tariffs to run the federal government. Some people might say, well, but that’s going to cost consumers.

But at least under a tariff regime, you have the choice to consume or not. Under an income tax regime, you’re forced to pay over your income. And the other thing that he’s doing, I think, and it’s not perfect.

It’s not like exactly what George Washington said in his farewell address to avoid foreign entanglements. But it looks like he’s going back to the focusing on the Monroe Doctrine that basically said that North America and South America and Central America was the sphere of influence for the US. And I guess you can add Greenland to that now as well.

So it doesn’t mean to say that the US will detach completely from Western Europe. I think it will do that gradually. And I heard Trump say that he will negotiate with Europe, but not through the EU anymore.

So yeah, that’s how I see it. I think he wants to focus more on the Monroe Doctrine sphere of influence. And it makes sense because America is not supposed to be an empire.

That’s not what the founding fathers planned. And it might seem, well, it won’t make America great again. But I think it will.

Because the only reason America has been a put in the situation it is now with huge debts, and people not really liking America is because of the globalists. And if you go back to the 19th century, America was a well-respected country. A lot of nations around the world emulated the Constitution and try to do what America was doing.

Maybe it will lead more by example. So I think that’s what it is. Of course, it will take a while to come back West.

That’s the way I see it. Do you see him playing out this North American Union play? I mean, this was on the table back during the Bush years. The Bush years obviously weren’t very… He wasn’t very popular back in those days.

I believe he had one of the lowest approval ratings at the time. A lot of pushback against that back in the day. But Trump is very popular.

I mean, his approval ratings are still in the positives. And people seem to like what he’s doing so far. Do you think he has enough political capital to go for something like a North American Union or just maybe not in the same vein as a European Union where it’s kind of like power centralized in a non-elected, unelected bureaucracy, but more so centered in Washington, DC, kind of like a more of an imperialist play as opposed to a globalist play? Do you see that as being on the table for Trump, or is what he’s saying about Canada being a 51st state, Mexico, very ham-fisting Mexico there as well, is that just kind of like art-of-the-deal stuff to kind of throw him off balance to reframe the argument? Well, North American Union, European Union, let’s say Mercosur, which is like a union in South America and other unions, African Union, I think that was more of a globalist agenda to have regions and not nations.

And I don’t think Trump wants that. I could be wrong. He could be.

He seems like he’s more imperialist than he is globalist. Yeah, and I don’t think Canada is going to become the 51st state. It could, but I think it’s all part of, you know, Trump likes to be, he’s a bit of a, how can I say, he trolls people, right? And I don’t think he’s going to end up annexing Canada or anything, or the Canadians are going to vote to join the United States, but they’re going to have closer relationships.

And same thing for Mexico and also South America. And I don’t know about Greenland, maybe they’re only got like 57,000 population. They want to be basically independent, but you never know.

They could join the U.S. as a territory. I don’t think there’s enough population there, but that’s how I see it. I don’t really think he’s pro-North American Union, because that would mean that, yeah, that would mean giving up sovereignty to something bigger.

Like, just like in Europe, each individual country in Europe, European Union, gives up sovereignty to Brussels. If there were a North American Union, where would the capital be? It might not be Washington, D.C. So yeah, I don’t see that. I think that’s more of a globalist play.

Yeah. And if something like that were to happen, I believe that the U.S. would, he would try to position the U.S. at the top of the food chain. So kind of like Canada and Mexico and everyone else is being kind of assholes.

I’m not saying it’s the right thing to do. I’m just interpreting what I’m seeing from him. I don’t see him as a globalist.

I see him more as an imperialist, if anything, if I have to choose between the two. Yeah. I mean, I agree with you there.

I think, yeah, imperialist maybe, but he just wants to, I saw Marco Rubio, he did an interview with Megyn Kelly. And I could be, you know, this could be just for show, but he’s saying that America wants to respect every country and every country will try to uphold their own national interests. And so will America.

So yeah, America will always have probably more influence because its economy is the biggest in the world and it’s a rich, rich nation. So that’s the way I see it. I’m not sure, even though Trump is, seems like very aggressive about buying Greenland or taking over Canada, changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico.

I just think he’s just trying to, yeah, it’s part of his negotiation point. It’s shock value. It’s meant to kind of destabilize the opponent because it’s like, oh, I’m going to make you the 51st state.

And in some cases, he says these things live, like when the person is right next to him, similar to what he did with Netanyahu about, we’re going to take over, the US is going to take over Gaza. And as many people have seen, it’s Netanyahu was taken aback, like what? Like, yeah, he does that at times. Yeah.

Or if Canada, I mean, they could have a referendum and decide to join the United States, but that wouldn’t be a North American union. That would be a bigger United States. That’s the difference.

A North American union would be the United States and then Canada joining, but not becoming the same. Yeah. So there is a difference there.

Yeah. Yeah. I see what you’re, I’m kind of in the same boat as you are.

How do you see him tackling the debt trap of the United States? Obviously our debt to GDP ratio keeps increasing. We do have Doge in play, but it’s going to take a lot more cutting to dwindle down the size of government to a point where the debt to GDP ratio becomes a little bit more tempered down. I believe it’s at 130% at the moment.

How do you, how do you perceive the next four years or so when it comes to managing the fiscal policy and the monetary policy? Well, there’s only two ways to solve the debt problem. One is to default, you know, just stop paying it. But, and the other one is to default through the basement of the currency or through inflation.

I think they’re going to choose the latter. And they’re going to do that through the gold price, because ultimately the dollar can only be debased versus gold. Because since the Bretton woods agreement that’s the way it’s been, the dollar was as good as gold.

The other currencies were as good as the dollar. So they’re all derivatives of the dollar, but not of gold. So the only way to default through inflation is through currency debasement.

And that makes the debt a lot more manageable. It’s not going to, yeah, that’s how I think they’re going to do it. And yeah, it’s going to be painful because cost of living is going to go higher.

But at the same time, there will probably be a big move to more businesses starting up in the US, more manufacturing because of the tariff situation. So yeah, it’s difficult to say, but that’s the way I see it. That’s the only way.

Doge might help a bit, but I don’t think you can solve the problem anymore. We’re too far gone in terms of the debt. And that’s the, yeah, that’s the only way to do it.

Because yeah, the other option, as I said, you default, but then everything collapses and there’s no currency. The currency collapses and you get a great depression. So I think they’re just going to inflate away the debt and they’re going to keep, I saw Besson just said the other day that he wants long-term treasure yields lower, and they will probably get that, but it will be in a currency that’s worth a lot less.

So I think that’s how they’re going to keep it going. Just deflate away the debt. It’s going to what they did after World War II, but it’s going to be a lot worse.

I think a financial repression, that’s what we’re going to see. But at the same time, I think they’re going to deregulate a lot. They’re going to maybe abolish the income tax.

So yeah, it’s going to be interesting. I mean, I don’t think we’ve been in such a kind of a situation before. Yeah.

The income tax is a huge revenue stream for the government. He has been talking about it. He has been kind of throwing it out there.

Do you think we see a complete abolishment of the income tax or do we see like a flat 15% or just a flat tax all across the board? No, I think he’s going to get rid of it. And I mean, the income tax is only, I think they had it during the civil war and then it was rescinded. And then it was only 1913 that they brought it back.

And America did really well without an income tax, so it doesn’t need it. I think he’s serious about it. I see.

Do you see revaluing gold higher to kind of mitigate some of the debt burdens? Yeah, that’s what I said. That’s what debasement means. And the other thing is, well, other countries have been buying a lot of gold because I think they see this coming.

And this Bretton Woods like realignment of which Besson spoke about in an interview before the election, he sees it coming. The only way to settle accounts internationally between nations is with gold. And if you revalue the price of gold, you make that debt worth less.

And that’s why I think all this gold, physical gold is flowing into New York. I think it’s much bigger than just a few hedge funds or bullying banks bringing it back. It’s the US government bringing the gold back that they leased out probably from their reserves at Fort Knox.

Is he at war with the Bank of England? Because it does appear like he’s emptying out the LBMA. We deliver now, they’re having massive shortages reportedly. Yeah, the Bank of England per se, they hold that gold in their vaults.

But I’m not sure it’s going to war with the Bank of England. They just want the gold back. Yeah, it doesn’t look good on the Bank of England.

Yeah, the Bank of England is more of a custodian for a lot of foreign nations for some of the ETFs and for the members of the LBMA, which are the bullying banks, which happen to be some American banks as well, like JP Morgan, Citibank. So I don’t think he’s going against the Bank of England per se, but indirectly it is because we found out last week from an FT article that it’s taking four to eight weeks to deliver a spot gold, which usually takes a few days. Right.

Talk to us about the significance of the City of London. We hear this all the time. The City of London is kind of like the central hub when it comes to world finance.

What is the importance of the City of London? Why is the LBMA, the London Bullion Metals Exchange, why is that in London? Why is the Bank of England custodian of all this gold? What’s so special about the City of London that makes it the central hub? Well, let’s start a thousand years back. William the Conqueror, when he came over, the city was already quite an important trading hub and he gave them independence. He said, you can stay sovereign and it’s been ever since.

It’s the square mile, it’s called. So even though if you’re in the UK or in London, you can walk into the city, there’s no borders or anything. It’s a bit like the Vatican.

The City of London is kind of independent of the UK, but the LBMA is a London Bullion Market Association. It’s not really an exchange, it’s just banks dealing in gold over the counter. That’s been around over 150 years.

London’s been the center of gold trading and that’s why it’s been so important and still is to some extent. In the 19th century, we had the gold standard and that wasn’t a system that was set up through a conference or anything. It just grew out organically and Britain had the empire, a lot of trade went through London and that’s the reason why.

And also, during World War II, for example, a lot of European nations, they sent their gold to London because they were scared that Hitler was, well, Hitler was, he did invade many countries and take their gold. So being an island, it’s having the English Channel and the North Sea, the Irish Sea, it’s like a moat. So strategically, that’s why people in countries have kept their gold here and yeah, and it’s because of tradition.

And the other thing, I think London has been the center of foreign exchange because gold and silver have, they’re part of the foreign exchange market before we went off gold. That’s where the foreign exchange market grew up from. And the time zones help.

London is in an interesting spot that when London comes in, Asia is just finishing trading. Europe, of course, the continent is starting to trade. And then the US, when the US closes, we’re still kind of trading here in London.

So the time zone has helped London as well. So yeah, but it is an independent entity, the City of London. There’s something called the Lord Mayor.

He’s not the, and this is not Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of Greater London. The Lord Mayor is there for a year. And whenever the monarch, used to be the Queen, now the King, go into London, and they have like a procession every year, the Lord Mayor goes in front of the King.

So yeah, London is a special place in terms of sovereignty. It’s, some people say there’s London, Washington DC, and the Vatican. So London is the financial hub.

Vatican is the spiritual and Washington DC is the military. Fascinating stuff here. Does the UK still influence Canada to this day? Because oftentimes I’ve heard many people speculate that this attack on Canada is really an attack on the UK, given that Canada is still a Commonwealth of the UK.

Does Canada have sufficient independence from the UK or is it still in some ways attached to the UK? I don’t, I mean, they’ve got the same head of state, but the King, but I think it was Canada was given independence, became independent 1867. So yeah, I don’t think Britain has that much, well has some influence, but I don’t think they can. Can’t the King dissolve parliament in Canada? He could.

I mean, he did in Australia, the Queen in the seventies dissolved parliament in Australia. I think it was a prime minister there, Gough Whitlam. He wanted to look into the five eyes, the intelligence agencies, because he found out that they were around and he said, we can’t have this in Australia.

And the next day his government collapsed and the Queen dissolved parliament. So yeah, maybe ultimately it has some power, but I would say the King Charles III, he, you know, some people say it’s ceremonial. He’s a ceremonial figure, but I’m not too sure about that.

He’s been very political and very pro the world economic forum. So you could be right going after Canada could be a way of going after the UK. I wouldn’t put it past the Trump administration, but it’s just speculation.

Yeah. Yeah. And then you see Mark Carney leading the liberals now in Canada, and he was former bank of England as well as bank of Canada.

Yeah. And he’s a, he’s a Schwab disciple, isn’t he? His wife is a very pro environmentalist and climate change individual. Yeah.

I think it would be bad news to, if Mark Carney became prime minister of Canada, it probably would be even worse than having Trudeau. What’s up with all these bankers becoming environmentalists? Have you noticed this trend? Well, I can understand why it’s because it was the bankers who started the movement in the seventies, the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers. The reason they did it is because if you scare the world into believing there’s a problem that affects the whole world, it’s easier to build institutions that are like a control, not just nations, but all countries.

And I think that’s why Trump left the Paris accords and he’s saying climate change is a hoax and I agree with him. So that’s why a lot of the bankers are into that. Yeah.

Well, this is a fascinating interview here, Mario. Anything else you want to talk about before you wrap up? Not really. I think we covered the most important points right now.

Okay. Well, tell us where we can find you. Yeah.

On YouTube, at Monaco64. I’m also on Twitter or X. My handle is Monaco64, but you have to go to at Monaco1964. So yeah, that’s where you can find me.

Okay. We’ll have the links to both your YouTube channel and your X down below. So if you guys are interested, be sure to check them out.

Also, again, check out our good friends over at Capitalist Exploits with Chris McIntosh and Brad McFadden. Get your $1,000 discount right now. That’s exclusive only to Capital Cause and viewers of this channel.

You’re not going to find this anywhere else. And you’re going to get a plethora of information, education, stock picks, just in an all around great community to be a part of. So I highly recommend it.

I’m in there as well. Be sure to check it out. Link down below.

Guys, if you enjoyed this show, give us a like and subscribe to the channel so you don’t miss an episode. Write, go Mario, go. If you agreed with what Mario had to say, if you disagreed, however, do let me know.

I do read the comments. And check us out on SubstackCapitalCosm.Substack.com where you can get early access, ad-free versions, and uncensored versions of all my videos for those that warrant it. And so with all that said, thank you guys for watching and I’ll catch you in the next episode.

Bye y’all.