Steve Bannon: The League of Tyrants - How Global Leaders Are Pushing America to the Edge

So this is a revolution. The government will never go back, even if they were to win elections. The crushing of the administrative state. The kinetic part of World War II is here. That's why Trump's trying to stop this. You add the possibility of nuclear weapons with the Persians. You could light the world up. We're in the middle of a major war.

And let me be specific. It's the first 100 days of Trump's second term. I wanted from you the MAGA critique. You're not critiquing. All you're doing is mouththing inanities from the left. This isn't a criticism from the left. I would say this is a criticism from the right, which is the system is completely rigged by the elites to make as much money as they possibly can, funding our enemy.

When Obama did his JCPOA deal, I think there's credible evidence that even the Obama administration knew the uh Iran regime were bull. Stop for a second. You see, this is your thing. Hang on. Stop. Full stop. So, you're saying you want a deal with the Iranians? Yeah, but hang on a second. Tucker Carlson has said that Qatar are a great ally of America. Podcaster called Daryl Cooper saying that Churchill was the greatest villain of World War II. And he said, "You got to take mine camp with a pinch of salt." I wanted to know what your opinion was. We'll say that. Look, Winston [Music] Churchill.

Before we hear from Trump's former chief strategist and host of the wildly popular Warams show, Steve Bannon, I ask if you want to support this show, remember all you have to do is press subscribe. And if you head over to winston.co.uk, you'll get exclusive video contents and add free viewing. But without further ado, Steve Bannon, great to be here in the war room. You're here. You're in the You're in the You're in the heart of it right now. We are right in all of its Gonzo glory. Gonzo glory. Quite. We like to keep it people have always come to us said oh you got to get a better studio we got studios for you and like the CNN types of things you know very or like BBC so antiseptic the thing I wanted to ask about is the thing that everyone's talking about in DC whilst we're here or I should say what I want to start with is it's the first 100 days of Trump's second term I wanted from you the MAGA critique there's a you know in in in in what in the White House people are saying how great everything's been and trying to make the case why it's been a positive uh start. I want to hear the critique from the right of this 100 days.

Well, it look first of you got to put the project into perspective. It's a revolution and what's been accomplished. And if you look at all the different verticals, more has been done in a single day with President Trump to the positive than have been done in in whole administrations. I mean, the whole eight years of Bill Clinton does not match a week in the first 100 days of Trump. So you have to look at the scale of what he's trying to do both America first national security with changing the whole geopolitics of the world with then changing the world's commercial relationships um the whole thing of taking our sovereignty back closing the border remember just one item on the border we wrestled a couple years ago with a bill put up by Langford and McConnell this huge bill that you know Biden was going to sign they were going to do people forget in that bill it allowed 2 million illegal aliens to come into the country every year before anything kicked in. 2 million. Trump in 60 days with a handful of troops and just signing executive orders and get rid of Biden's organized plan for chaos. He to shut the border down. The border secure, right? I think we have what 100 or 50 people a day or something like that kind of straggle across. That is monumental. We've wrestled with that for 20 years in this country and gone back and forth and talking. I've been in the middle of many of these battles. In 60 days, he did it. 60 days. It's extraordinary. the the it's the scale, the depth and the urgency of what he's said things. So, this is a revolution. The government will never go back even if they to win elections, the the the crushing of the administrative state, the changing to American first national security, really to look at uh at hemispheric defense, and then this entire rearrangement of the commercial relationships of the world through the tariffs and trade deals, the world will never be the same again. And that's in the first 100 days. Now the second 100 days actually you could argue is probably more important but the first 100 days of the scale and urgency. The other thing I want to say is Trump himself look at look at yesterday when he's there at the at the at the in Michigan and look at today in the cabinet meeting. If you just look at him every day you're getting Pete Trump. This guy's 78 years old. Every day 18 20 hours a day. It's the same guy with the same humor, the same focus, just driving and driving driving the narrative. We've never had a president like this except for General Washington and Abraham Lincoln. That that is the level of Trump it is now. So, this is quite revolutionary and people should know it's just the it's the curtain. It's the curtain's just gotten raised. You're kind of in the you're kind of in the uh in the preamble right here. The big action is about to start.

So I'm going to then seeing as you've kind of making the case that it's been a positive 100 years, let me try and push back on some of those things. First of all, is there a counter to that? Has anybody said there's a counter? Is it is it is there a counterargument that? No. I mean, if you cut on mainstream media, they're in total meltdown. We've broken Rachel Matto. She's had a nervous breakdown on national TV. So what happened? Well, she Rachel came back and she's really the MSNBC and the New York Times are kind of the intellectual center of the of the resistance. She decided to come back after being on the beach for four years, Jordan Biden, just once a week. She decided to come back for 100 days every day. And I actually assumed that she would say at the end of that, hey, this fight is so important. I' I've gotten you guys out. I'm doing, you know, we're doing this resistance. You're in the streets. We're doing these judges. We're doing all this. This fight's so important. I'm going to be here every night, not for 100 days. I'm going to be here for the next four years until we drive Trump from office. And no, she came on Monday night and had this huge herang and announced that, you know, I think tonight's her last night. She's she's Yeah. Because it shows me that is one of the biggest victories we've had without Rachel Mata or someone like Amatoa kind of quarterbacking this thing in the media the way she does, way her show does, there's no chance for success. You can't phone this in. You can't do it one day a week. You can't. This is This is how we came back after the election was stolen. You have to dig in and you have to grind. This is a grind. You have to grind this seven days a week and be relentless. Victory and defeat are going to be decided by one thing. Who quits? Yeah. It's just like our revolution. It's who it's who surrenders first is is is for me to understand your mindset on it. But let me then make sure criticizing some of those things if I can make it. Um when it comes to the border crossing, yes, the numbers crossing the border has massively gone down and that's the numbers being presented. But if you actually look at the number of deportes, stop for a second. You see, this is your thing. Hang on. Stop. Full stop.

A quick interruption from our sponsor using ground news. Let's take a quick look at how the media is reporting on Trump's first 100 days back in office. Left-leaning El Pais ran the headline, Trump completes 100 days of revenge and consummated threats. Now, let's use Ground News to see how the rest of the media is covering this story. We specifically partnered with Ground News because their app and website allow me and my team to quickly see through media bias and get the full picture on any news story. There are multiple articles published on Trump's first 100 days, and we can access every single one on ground news with context on each source. Interestingly, only 15% of left-leaning outlets are covering this story. Meanwhile, right-leaning Daily Wire ran the headline, "Just getting started. Trump vows more action in a 100 days of greatness rally. A very different narrative from L Pace. Seeing all sides, regardless of political lean, is essential for making informed decisions and spotting bias. That's why Ground News's blind spot feed, which highlights stories under reportported by either side, is such a powerful tool. I genuinely believe in what Ground News is doing, and I encourage you to check it out by scanning the QR code or visiting ground.news/winston. If you subscribe through my link, you'll get 40% off unlimited access. Ground News is subscriber funded and by supporting my sponsors, you are supporting this show. Thank you. And back to the interview. Don't you find First off 10 million. Let me understand. 10 million illegal alien invaders came to this country in four years. 10 million. We had a Republican bill that came out in the best case they had, they're going to allow 2 million more in a year until we could even have any kind of controls. The mindset in this country for 25 years is you can't stop it. It's impossible to stop. Don't give me the deportation yet. Let's just talk about the guy in 60 days shut down the border. That in and of itself is worth an entire four years. Sure. Sure. Not not sure. Not sure. No, no, no. I I'm not I You are because you say, "Well, let's let's go to the deportation." I'm saying, "No, look, I'm sort of looking for the critique." You You're not critiquing. All you're doing is mouthing in inities from the left. That's just an This isn't an This was This isn't a criticism from the left. I would say this is a criticism from the right, which is he is deporting. He The number is something like 117,000 that he's deported in the first 100 days. If he would carried that on for a year, he would be under the amount that Biden deported in the first year. It's not a linear set of math. Let me help you out here. in the reconcili first off in the Biden situation this was not chaos this was an organized effort by the way that they worked with the NOS's the way they funneled some of the money through USAID the way that the both the the business interests helped them the corporate interests helped them uh this was an organized thing to get as many people into the country and some as deep into the country with the app and the flights and everything like as possible to make sure they're impossible to dig out we know we have and by the way we probably have 25 or 30 million as home and talks. I am just simply talking about the people that came in from the day Biden showed up to the day Biden left 10 million. Yeah. OB if you look at the reconciliation bill, it talks about $170 billion that we need to recreate the logistics network infrastructure of ICE. ICE has basically been allowed. It's like a muscle you don't use for four years. It's basically been stood down. So clearly you what you have to do is get the worst people out. And what he's done, I think smartly, and this is why he's uh implored the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to say, "Look, I'm going to have not just emergency powers, I'm actually have war powers here to get this criminal element out of the gangs from Venezuela and from Central America, and we're going to do that immediately. What we're going to do is try to smartly and humanely as possible remove those people." Yes, it's a couple hundred thousand. It's not huge yet because you got 10 million. But remember, you have virtually no resources to do this. The $170 billion package, which to me, my Yorkcas and these guys should be up on criminal charges for taking apart the infrastructure as it is. So, it's all rolling out. It's going to take time. It's 10 million people and you have to do it in a humane way. So, I think they're way ahead of the curve right here. And I am the biggest critic of saying, "Hey, are we hitting the path?" If you look at the critical path in the event horizon, I think they're doing a fantastic job, an amazing job.

Okay, so let me rephrase it then. Let's say let's take your number of 30 million. Is that what Hman said? JD Vance certainly said 25 million during 25 or 30. Hang on. I'm not worried about the 25 or 30 million. The only people we should be focused on right now are the people that came in here starting on the afternoon of the 20th of January, 2021. That is about 10 million people. 10 million people is enormous. The logistics of getting 10 million people back out of here is incredible. That is going to take and you got to do it humanely. That is going to take planning, money, resources, and logistics. I think what they're doing is fantastic. It's 100 days. What they have 138,000 people they sent already some of the worst of the worst. It's fantastic. It's getting better every day. Let me ask you about Is that does that answer your question? Uh you still see you still seem troubled. I think it's a fair point to say that it's the it's only the beginning and you know it's only 100 days. Uh but I think that if you're serious about even tackling the 10 million number like you suggest from 2021 at this rate at the end of this term is not going to put a dent in it. Hang over a second. Okay. The left smartly, if I was running the left, what they've done is go to court with all these radical judges and actually try to interfere with him as commander-in-chief. What they're trying to do is raise the stakes to make it so expensive and to take as many media hits as possible to slow down even getting the criminal element out of here. Okay? So that you never get to the 10 million. The 10 million is going to be a test of wills to the American people. What they're trying to say, the business community is going to come in and say you can't do the 10 million because they're adding one or two% to GDP because every penny they get they spend on consumer goods. uh Wall Street's going to come back and say, "Well, you can't take them out because they've actually lowered wages uh and for low-skilled workers, right? So, we can't we can't we can't move these guys." So, you're gonna have every element come in and argue for that. That's why this is going to be a test of wills of what happened. And right now, the left by using the courts and I think in using the courts illegitimate, and this is why I even saw a judge arrested the other day that uh they hope to slow us down. This is going to take money, resources, determination. President Trump reiterated last night at his rally and he re reiterated again in the cabinet that all 10 million are going home. They're all going to go. So this is it's monumental. Nobody in history I don't believe at least since in some sort of modern times has ever taken 10 million people that are in the country living and actually remove them. That's the process we're in. It's a monumental process and President Trump is committed as the American people are committed to do it in a humane uh you know firm yet humane humane way. Yeah.

Well, we certainly agree that it's monumental and uh I think that that's a fair enough response. I I I want to look at geopolitics if if if I may and um particularly interested because I I've really found your analysis of the sovereigntist versus the globalists fascinating and it's it's hugely inspired my outlook on on the world particularly your Oxford Union speech from a few uh years ago. So uh with that in mind I guess the what might be the fun question before I think the harder questions is Mark Carney has just been elected in Canada. Is this a victory for the globalists? You know, Mark Carney's the classic Goldman Sachs guy, right? Flits around country to country, you know, from England to Canada. I I think it's it's not I don't think look as a victory for the globalist. I think and look, President Trump may have been gaming the system. I just look at it as a lack of reality of the Canadian people. The Canadian people have a uh have a crisis that they're going to have to address. Uh number one, besides the breakoff provinces in the in the Alberta and Saskatchewan and others that are resourcerich and are not happy with the current arrangements, it's really about the situation about the integrated economy of the United States and what's really going to happen with tariffs and trades and and bringing things back, particularly so much of the automotive industry they have. They shouldn't assume that that's going to be there forever. They just shouldn't. Number two, and I think more importantly to avoid in the Arctic the new great game, right? The new power struggle of the great game of the 21st century. They should be very concerned visav Russia and the Chinese Communist Party that they're not the next Ukraine. They are going to have a territorial inte you know I think uh movement by the Chinese Communist Party at least into their northern territories in the Arctic. Right now, they're in a dominion status or align with the English-speaking com countries of the of the British Empire. There's nobody there's no money there to defend anybody. Britain can't defend itself. And so, they're going to have to make a decision over the next couple years. Mark Carney's the typical kind of gladhanding globalist that just gives you more of the happy talk. So, the people candidate, look, they they they made their decision and we'll see how it played out. You should understand also of when we talk about a populist nationalist movement that's expanding all the time with Balsanar in Brazil and and and and Orban in Hungary and Niger Farage in the United Kingdom and alternative for Deutschand. Uh Pierre is not really a populist. He's a career politician. He trash talk Trump. He's never a guy anybody's ever asked for to come to CPAC. I've never had him on the show. I've never had anybody come to me from Canada and say, "You got to get this." He's not He's kind of a phony populist, right? He even lost his own district. So I think in Canada it's a situation that can Canadian people are saying, "Hey, what's this new relationship with Canada? Why is Trump all over us?" I think it's a reaction to that. But I believe that you're going to see over the next couple of years a further rejection of the Trudeau type policies that Mark Carney and Carney is your classic, you know, Goldman Sachs globalist glader that's not going to be able to make decisions. So we'll have to see. But I would keep I would keep an eye on two things. number one, Alberta and Saskatchewan. I just don't think those western provinces, those western territories are going to there's something's going to happen in internally to Canada. And number two, this this Arctic great game is something they got to pay pay attention to. The the the the prime minister, the premier of China came 10 years ago or 15 years ago in 2010 to Canada and said, "Hey, we're in Arctic Power and you guys better get a heads up." I think the Canadians have their heads in sand for the territorial integrity of themselves in the Arctic. Yeah.

Yeah. With regards to Steve Wickoff because this is he the special envoy for the president and he's been talking to President Putin in Moscow's had several meetings. He's also the one in negotiations with Hamas. Uh Hamas of course have broken the ceasefire uh with Israel. And I'd also note, and why it's relevant to my original question about Trump, is that Trump promised he would have Ukraine s sorted before he got into office. He said if Hamas didn't return the hostages, all hell would be paid would have to be paid. Um, and it doesn't seem like uh that is being particularly successful. I think if you look at 100 by the way, Wickoff also I think the third hat and maybe more important than even the Israel is the is the uh negotiations he's doing or involved in with the Persians. So u by the way Iran to me is a fully that's a CIA derivative type. They're Persians. That's that's our ancient enemy Persia. Uh that's been our enemy for for 3,000 years. Although there many many Persian who's we the west. the west the Roman when when we did the change over in 16 what I did is make sure that I had a complete understanding with Flynn but a complete understanding of where all because it's like relieving the watch in the Navy at high noon it's yours up to high noon on the 20th it's the other sides anything goes wrong after that it's on your watch so it's very much to me like in a Navy ship you're taking the watch after that so I wanted to find out and understand what was going on the United States is deployed in 115 countries 115 countries. I thought I was pretty savvy about national security. I was actually shocked to see 150,000 troops, airmen or sailors in 115,000 entities. And people would be stunned where we had people. Now, President Trump's taken that down dramatically. But one of them at the time Syria in the Syrian civil war and you know all this we had the CIA between the CIA and other parties we had four or five elements that we were backing or paying for and close alliance and as I'm going through it one one was near Palmyra which is the great ru there's a beautiful set of ruins there I think in southern Syria and if you looked at it uh Americanbacked elements or westernbacked elements were like a thousand miles in Hezbollah or Revolutionary Guard from Persia were a thousand yards in the other side. The same place the Roman legions and the Persian uh legions were stationed 2500 years ago. In 2500 years, the battle line that that that that line of confrontation between east and west hasn't really changed. And this is why I put a mentality. You have to start thinking of Persia as Persia. It is an ancient civilization. It's a culture. This is not the better. This is not Saudi Arabia or the Gulf Emirates. Turkey, Persia and Egypt are three ancient civilizations quite frankly that do surround uh Israel's kind of the foothold of the Judeo-Christian West there. But people have to take it very very seriously and this is why all this all this light talk and all the neocons trying to push to a military confrontation are are very very much uh misapplied.

Well, then maybe I ask you about the deal because when Obama did his JCPOA deal, which Trump completely canned and I think rightly it was I think a deal. I think there's credible evidence that even the Obama administration knew the uh Iran regime were bullshitting. Yes. And uh yeah, that's a very harsh charge by the way. Is it? That's a very harsh I agree with you 100% but don't you it shouldn't be said lightly because that no I agree with you and I think we in the first remember we pulled out of it right away most of the people on our side would agree with you but that's a that's a very serious charge and it should serious there's some evidence no I'm saying but even even if there's a centilla of evidence they never should have signed the deal agreed we should now we're in a situation now we're in a very difficult situation right because what they allowed to go on didn't shut down the time of you having the Persians actually have the ability to make nuclear weapons and that's going to have to be dealt with. Now, my recommendation to the president, I think the way that the president's going down is we're not going to have a military confrontation about this. There's many other ways to get to this and we can't be dra we can't be and won't be dragged into another Middle East uh war. The president the president of United States, President Trump is very much a man of peace. I mean, he wants peace due strength. So, you're saying you want a deal with the Iranians? Yeah, but hang on for a second. There's two when you talk about deals, there's verification and then there's actually taking the thing apart brick by brick. That's that's why when people talk about a deal and everything like that, there's a lot of this stuff

Talk about verification, which to me is just another version, maybe even a tougher version, of the JCPOA or that line of thought. I don't think, number one, the mullahs that run this are the most radical, insane people probably in the world. Irrational, with an irrational belief structure.

Agreed. They're also totally untrustworthy. Right? If you think of Gaddafi, or Saddam Hussein, or other people that we've tried to do in the past, I don't think you can verify it. It has to be taken apart brick by brick. And to do that, you have to be serious about economic sanctions. You have to be very serious about economic sanctions. We haven't even begun. I mean, Obama gave him money. We haven't even started what the sanctions are.

Number one, uh, 2.5 million barrels a day of oil come through the Gulf, the Straits of Hormuz, heading to China. That's about 22% of the CCP's total energy demands. Now, people say, "Oh, you're wrong. Say it's only 1.6." 1.6 is the official number. It's about another million. They're doing black market.

Uh, as a young naval officer, I spent time in the North Arabian Sea in a carrier battle group, working up and preparing for the hostage rescue, the failed hostage rescue attempt back in 1980. Um, this, um, you can block the Straits of Hormuz. We should take one of the two carrier battle groups in the Red Sea, which is essentially keeping the Suez Canal open for the Europeans for no benefit to the United States. We should take one of those carrier battle groups away from shelling the Houthies. We should put it outside of Hormuz. We should shut down the mullahs immediately. There should be a complete naval quarantine of any oil and gas. You would cut them off. That's their principal cash flow. That 2.5 million barrels, two to two and a half million barrels.

Number two, in 1983, in the Beirut massacre, the US families—they just had on 60 Minutes on Sunday about Saudi Arabia and the families there of 9/11 still trying to get their money from Saudi Arabia. The families in the Beirut massacre, which was done by the Persians, have won federal court judgments and still have not been paid. We should have a complete—We should go to the West End of London and we should seize every asset the Persians have in the West End of London, which is tons of real estate. We should go to Midtown Manhattan where they own it. We should treat the Persians just like we treat the Russians, seize their bank accounts. If we seize the Russians' assets, which I think was inappropriate, we should seize the mullahs', which is appropriate. We should go to full economic war, bring them to their knees, see what their population does, and then see what tough guys they are at the negotiating table.

You cannot have a process. Two things you can't have. Number one, I don't think under any circumstances you can have any military conflict here, and you don't need it. Number two, I don't think you can have a verification program because you can't trust them. You have to see it taken apart, and it has to be taken apart under US eyes. Not Israeli, under US eyes. We have to take it apart. That's, I think, the brilliance of what President Trump's done here. The bilateral negotiations, not with Israel. They're not a party to this. This is the United States directly with the Persian government and the mullahs. And I think we just have to take it and drop the hammer. And I mean really go to economic war with them. And also it'll make the Chinese Communist Party a lot more amenable to really cutting a deal on trade and tariffs.

I'd love to come back to China, but let's stick to the Middle East for one moment. Of course, what the nation there that we haven't mentioned in all of that is the Qataris. Uh, Tucker Carlson has said that Qatar are a great ally of America. Uh, meanwhile, um, other thinkers, including myself, would say actually they're part of the axis of evil, uh, along with Iran and Hamas and Hezbollah, and they've been throwing millions, tens of millions, into America. It's not just Tucker. I have tremendous respect for Tucker, and Tucker is a serious person. It's not just Tucker, though. It's Washington, D.C. Let's be blunt. Qatari money is flowing through here like crazy.

Um, all I will remind people is that when President Trump, when we went to the, when we went to the Middle East to start the trip of Riyadh first, Jerusalem second, Rome third, to kick off the first term, we had Mnuchin; we worked on this. The key thing was about stopping terrorist financing, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood and others coming out of the Middle East. The very detailed deal that President Trump had worked out that Mnuchin was there. We show up in the Middle East. We show up and we understand that Qatar is not prepared to sign it. Hey, and they're not shy about getting up in your face. To me, Qatar is the railhead of the problem. Okay? Because of their money. They fund the Muslim Brotherhood. They're in league with Turkey, which I think is a big problem right now. They are, I think, helping to finance Turkey's expansion of the—you know, Erdogan is a dangerous guy, and and look, the president—I understand the people in the White House totally disagree with this; that's fine, they have their opinion, and President Trump's acting on it, I think, very smartly. I just keep warning that Qatar did not sign the, the, the stop financing, um, ter—you know, Muslim Brotherhood and other terrorist housing, harboring Hamas, not just harboring, harboring Hamas and underwriting Hamas. I mean, the whole coordination that Hamas attack, which leads to a whole another thing that you know, another unpleasant topic, uh, which is how did that take place over seven or eight months or a year with Egyptian intelligence, Saudi intelligence, British MI6, which is, by the way, British MI6 is dialed in in the Middle East like nobody's business; the CIA—nobody knew about it also in Qatar. I should—I'm not just poke—I'm not just pointing any fingers at Americans, the D—Tony Blair in the, uh—I think Tony Blair and there's a whole host of people in the United Kingdom are taking Qatari money also, I believe.

Absolutely right. And it's disgraceful. We should have nothing to do—nothing to do with them. Well, I, you and I are in agreement on that. There are people I respect that come to a different set of—a different set—you have facts, and they come with a different set of things, and I would tell people—Qatar—there was just a report the other day—in the great universities in our country, and I'm sure it's going on in England. Uh, the Chinese—I think it's over the last couple of years—the Chinese Communist Party in Qatar put 29 billion dollars invested in the top universities in the United States of America. It's outrageous. I want all that money—all that money out. I want all the Saudi money out. I want all the UAE money out. I'm a big proponent that right now, where the world's condition is, we have enough pension fund money here. We have enough capital here that we've got to be very careful about having foreign money in the situation, particularly as we're in these tough negotiations in Persia.

If you take the arc of instability coming from, let's say, Belarus or Ukraine, that part of the world, through the Balkans, through Turkey, Greece and Turkey, through that part of the Mediterranean over to Syria, Israel, down through, down through Persia, you know, Iraq, uh, you got Afghanistan, Pakistan, all the way to the G, you know, the Arabian Sea and the Red Sea, that whole arc of instability is, you know, it's already had it. We're in the middle of a major war. And let me be specific. If you go back and look at the beginning of World War II, the military part, not not the, the, not the Spanish Civil War, anything, but from 1939, the invasion of Poland to June of 1941, the invasion of the German army, the Wehrmacht, uh, in Operation Barbarossa into Russia. M. If you take that year and a half, almost two years—a couple hundred thousand people died—fall of France, fall of the West, Battle of Britain, uh, you know, Dunkirk, North Africa—some things happened in North Africa, even Finland, let's put Finland in there—around a couple hundred thousand people—let's say 400,000 combat casualties, maybe 500,000, just in Ukraine and in Gaza alone, we're at a million five to a million seven right now. I mean, this is much more brutal, but the world—because I'm giving Ian Bremmer's numbers. Ian Bremmer says there's about 800,000 Russians dead or wounded in Ukraine. And they say there's about 500,000, maybe 600,000 total dead and wounded Ukrainians. So you're talking a million two in Ukraine, and then what do you got? Another 40, 50, maybe 100,000 in Gaza. Let's throw it all in. You're talking a massive number. If you look at Ukraine, Ukraine looks like Dresden in 1945. Gaza looks worse than Dresden in 1945. People kind of sit back and say that this is much—we're in a much bloodier, in a much bloodier conflict on the Eurasian landmass right now than at the beginning of World War II. And people just kind of like, "Oh well," we may have World War II. The kinetic part of World War II is here. That's why Trump's trying to stop this. You add the possibility of nuclear weapons with the Persians, on top of the fact you have Pakistan and India right at the line of control right now in Kashmir, with both nations—I don't know—with 60 to 100 nuclear weapons each, you were talking about in that arc of instability, you could light the world up, and we could be fighting this thing for 50 years. This can—these wars spin out of control, why? Because of vengeance, and and and, you know, every war goes to—accelerates into a war of attrition and eventually a war of annihilation. We're in very dangerous, and that's why I think President Trump is—say—was he said he was going to be 24 hours. What he's accomplished so far in even getting a broad framework that we can have discussions and maybe even lay down the weapons like on May 8th, maybe have a ceasefire for a while in Ukraine, you know, and and and he moderates what he did because of trying to make a deal with—not, you know, not going after Hamas again with the hostages—what he's doing very smartly, I think, with the mullahs—he's juggling a lot of pieces of this equation, right? I think that's why I think the Russian part and the Russian gambit so important—important.

So when people say, "Well, he changed his mind the other day," I said, "Yo, dude, go back and look at the history of the Second World War. They were trying to get accommodation. They're trying to do things. You're trying to avoid these things getting out of control." And people should know we are so close to this thing spinning out of control. It's, it's, it's very dangerous. And that's why I think people ought to back the president, given how close it is.

Uh, do you are you consoled by the knowing that it's Steve Bannon, the former real estate mogul who—Here's why I'm—here's why I'm—here's why I'm—Well, first off, the diplomats have done—Let's pull back for a second because if you read the New York Times or the Times of London, the Financial Times, and you go to MSNBC or particularly the BBC—who's the worst.

Agreed. You would have to think that you've got to be, you know, a diplomat. Look at where the diplomats have put us. Correct me if I'm wrong. There was no—there's none of this happened when Trump was in the first time, 'cause nobody wants to cross him, right? Because they understand he's a savage. They don't want to cross him. So no, none of this killing was going on when he was there. We've had the diplomats. We had all the Atlantic Council. We had all the pundits that you see on MSNBC and on BBC and this constant thing. And all we got was death and destruction. Death and destruction and darker and farther down a conflict that was spinning out of control. So the last thing I want is a bunch of diplomats trying to negotiate this. What I like about Bannon is he—is he particularly skilled in every element of this? He's not. However, he's skilled at—he's got the confidence of the guy you need confidence in, that's Donald Trump. He is a deal guy. I think he's got a very good feel for this. I—I did—You refer him to Marco Rubio? I think Secretary Rubio is doing a fantastic job. I think it's a team approach. I think we have Rubio doing other things right now, too. Remember, Rubio's kind of taking a lead in a couple things. Rubio's the lead guy saying, "Hey, if we don't see some real movement on this Ukraine ceasefire, we're just walking away and you guys have at it." I think Secretary Rubio is doing an excellent job. I think he's been a great part of the team. I actually think the entire team's come together. I like having Bannon kind of in the room, and I've actually advised Steve—don't get too bogged down on some of the subsets of the deal. Focus on the overall—the rapport with Russia because that's central. If you get the rapport pushman with Russia, Ukraine, Gaza, and Persia all get settled kind of as a subset of that, right? As a condition precedent, those will all somehow be taken care of. So I think right now what President Trump needs is support and prayers because we're in a very dangerous situation, and none of this happened on his watch. He stepped into it. I think he's done a magnificent job if nothing else and to stop the brutal wholesale killing of just people. But remember, Trump is a very tough individual and kind of very martial in some of his aspects of how he comes across and how he comports himself. He's not a warmonger. The last thing he wants to do is pull the trigger and start killing people. And that I think the American people should be—We saw that in the first term, particularly with that out, you know, the—he's all about balance and reciprocity. When Bolton wanted to go in and blow guys up, send missiles into the, into, into Persia again for some sort of violation in, among our navy. I will tell people, having been a naval officer, having been on a destroyer in the Persian Gulf and in the North Arabian Sea, you do not understand—this is like being on the moon. It is so barren, so hostile, and it's such huge scale. Military activity is, is, is very tough for the United States. The logistics chain is—tr—you're at the ends of the earth to support this, and anything that would happen in Persia is not—this is not Iraq, and this is not Afghanistan. This is an ancient civilization. It is, it is so hostile and barren to even get there. If we get sucked into a shooting war there, we're going to be there for 10 years, and you're going to lose 50 to 100,000 American combat troops. And that's why—that's why there's so many other remedies to do it. And that's why I think President Trump, who's adamant about this, uh, has to be supported.

I'm really keen to ask you about China because I think it's—that answered on your, on your questions on it. Certainly colored in a lot of my thinking. Um, uh, I want to talk about China and what I see as rising an escalation in tensions, uh, since Trump's come back. To understand China, we probably have to talk briefly about the tariffs and what's going on there. I think you and I would probably agree on the motivations behind, uh, what the tariffs are trying to do. Give me that book right underneath there. This one? Uh, right underneath there. That one. That—Yep. That right there. Let me get you a copy of this so you can read it. Thank you. Can't give you this one. I think it's the last one I got.

Um, okay. The Chinese—this is on unrestricted warfare. This is the bible of the Chinese Communist Party. The Chinese Communist Party looked at the Gulf War—this is one of the most important documents is out there. This is a declassified version of it. The Chinese Communist Party realized in the 1990s, after the Gulf War, that for them to get into a kinetic conflict with the foreign devils, that would be the West, would be catastrophic. They didn't have the precision technology. They didn't have the sophistication. And they said, one thing foreign devils can do is actually fight modern warfare. So we will never do that. Our, our issue is to take—is become a hegemon in East Asia and eventually the Eurasian landmass and then move towards global domination. And the way we're going to do that is Sun Tzu strategy—that if you have to get to a kinetic conflict, you've already lost anyway. We are going to basically overwhelm the West, and we're going to do it through cyber, psychological, political, uh, cultural, and most importantly, economic warfare. And that is what the Chinese Communist Party has been engaged with us. Yeah. For 25 years of economic warfare. Let me be specific that we—and and and this is an economic war, and it puts the Thucydides Trap on its head because never before in world history have we ever had a, a, a potential rising or existential threat to an existing hegemonic power that was financed and nurtured by the elites of the hegemon. You have to remember the City of London, the British establishment, Wall Street, the American establishment, the global corporations headquartered in both the United Kingdom and the United States and Silicon Valley have been active partners of financing the rise of China and their military and their, and their u—their, you know, their rising military supremacy is what they're focused on, their kinetic supremacy. This has all come about in 25 years, and look, they—we got them into the World Trade Organization and most favored nation. They gamed the system totally, never lived up to anything. President Obama signed a massive cyber deal with them in 2015. It was actually an excellent deal. They never lived up to anything. Okay. President Trump then, then in Hong Kong, in, in 2019. Look what they did in Hong Kong, with having 70 years in Thatcher and a tight deal for freedom. Totally threw it out the window and have it turned Hong Kong essentially into a slave labor camp, uh, for the Chinese Communist Party. Right. Totally total restrictions. Uh, then President Trump takes two years, two years with Lighthizer to negotiate the most thorough deal that would incorporate—that would totally couple them to the economy of the West. Take care of what we call the, the phase one deal from 2018. Phase—no—phase—phase one deal came later. I'm going to get that. He spent two years. Well, we first got there. We had a meeting with Xi, and we let Gary Cohn and the globalists have a crack at it for 100 days, and President Trump was so furious about what they had come up with that he put Lighthizer and Navarro with me in support over a deal, and Bob Lighthizer took the lead. Took two years negotiating with Liu He, the vice premier, who was Xi Jinping's guy, to do this deal. This deal was incredible. I mean, it was detailed. It coupled the two economies. It took care of what we call the seven original sins of state-owned industries, excess capacity, the, the spreading of, of kind of deflation through the world, environmental issues, labor issues. They agreed to it in May of 2019. When this deal is basically getting ready to be presented and to be signed by some sort of big ceremony by President Trump and and Xi and maybe June or July of that year. They have a One Belt One Road meeting, I believe, was in Shanghai, and Putin shows up, and they go through this first big One Belt One Road meeting, and Liu He and Xi kind of come to the conclusion with Putin that—going—we're on a roll. We have a whole thing called the network system, right? We—we're—they're trying to destroy the nation-state. They want to look at China as the railhead of production. Take Germany. Everything become—those are component-part manufacturers. These are final markets. It's a brilliant late through, and they're going to use predatory, kind of British East India Company in reverse, predatory capitalism to do this. They come and they say, look, if we sign this deal, we're totally subservient to the West. We're not going to do this. We're going to actually decouple, and we're going to say no way. Ian Bremmer, who's no fan of President Trump's and one of the smartest guys out there for geopolitics. Bremmer says the most important year for geopolitics in the 21st century, the most important month was May of 2019, when Xi and the, in the, in the senior cadre of the Chinese Communist Party said no. About two weeks after they declared a people's war on the United States. It shouldn't be lost on people that, uh, 90 days later, in the military games in Wuhan is where the first diagnosis of the Wuhan, of the virus came for the pandemic. It came no later than December or January in 2020. They—we did a skinny deal after that. They did—haven't lived up to anything on the skinny deal that you just mentioned. None of the agreements that we either—they tore them up and walked away or they have not lived up to any of the things—deal is the phase one deal. The phase one deal—phase one that was 2018. No, no. Fa—fa—they had—we had a little memory saying the phase one deal was J—was January 2020. That's the what we call the skinny deal. 2018—2018 was a little interim. We're going to agree to agree to move forward. That—that's the big deal that they were working on was the Lighthizer deal in May of 2019 that they just walked away from. They essentially said, "We're going to decouple, and we will decouple from the Western technology 'cause we don't want the foreign devils to ever have the high ground." This is where Deep State comes from. Two things came out of 2019.

Have you ever wondered what happened to the legend Chuck Norris? I recently saw a video he made, and I was shocked. He's in his 80s and still, as they say in the colonies, kicking butt and working out and staying active. What's even more shocking is he's stronger, can work out longer, and even has plenty of energy left over for his grandkids. He did this by just making one change. He says he still feels like he's in his 50s. His wife even started doing this one thing, too, and she's never felt better. She says she feels 10 years younger. Her body looks leaner, and she has energy all day. Chuck made a specific video that explains everything. Make sure you watch it by going to chuckdefense.com/win or by clicking in the link below this video. It will change the way you think about your health. Once again, that's chuckdefense.com/win, and click on the link in the description below to watch the video now. You won't believe how simple it is. Just a reminder, the legendary Chuck Norris is a whopping 84 years old. He discovered he could create dramatic changes to his health simply focusing on three things that sabotage our body as we age. Watch this method by clicking the link in the description box below. Chuckdefense.com/win.

But back to the interview. Two things came out of 2019. Uh, Huawei's, uh, supremacy, TikTok and social media, in Deep State. They all—their foundational elements or they were being worked on—all come from May of 2019 when Xi and Liu He and the high command of the Chinese say, "Hang on. If we sign this deal, the foreign devils always have us. We're now locked into their system. Okay, we're going to actually think this through, and we'll go—going to go it alone, that including on the technology side. That's what all the roundup of the entrepreneurs—remember they went through this whole thing with, with, with all their different huge entrepreneurs, uh, to, to round them up—that all came from there. They, they had a very big lockdown, and that's when they decided with Huawei became supreme, uh, all the, they'd already started on TikTok, but that became the forefront of social media and to get it into the West also—that came out with, um—that came out with, um, with Deep State, the beginning of their artificial intelligence. Remember, go back in time, Made in China 2025, okay, which was their big initiative from back in that era. If you look, it was, it was to dominate by 2025. Um, it was dominated by 2025—10 industries. The top five industries are all related around the singularity. It's artificial general intelligence. It's regenerative robotics. It's quantum computing. It's advanced chip design. It's, it's, it's, um, it's gene splicing, right? Uh, so all—

You know everything with biotechnology. Those are the things that are verging on the singularity, and that's how the Chinese have thought this through. Like they've thought this trade war through, this trade war. They've been planning on this trade war for 20, 25 years.

Two questions then on what you've just said. Does that make sense? Is that clear?

Yes, I'm following you certainly. One is, if they are indeed an adversary, as uh, why would you want to have a deal like the first deal you tried to broker, which was for complete coupling? I think you just said complete coupling, um, and and since then Trump has said, uh, "We let's deal with that first, cuz that's a complicated question." If you go back, and I strongly recommend your viewers and and you, there's a book by a guy named uh uh Josh Rogan. And he is not Joe Rogan, but Josh Rogan is the most informed uh reporter in Washington with contacts both inside of both administrations and the Chinese. He wrote an excellent book about the first Trump term about the the whole relationship of Xi and Trump. It's called *Chaos Under Heaven*. And in there he lays out who the parties are and he goes through how the West has traditionally looked at them. You've had u you've had realist, the realist camp. You've had uh people that are um, you know, hardcore, you know, anti-communist. You've had realists that say, "Hey, we anti-communist, but you got to be realist about how big a power they are." Then you have the accommodationists. You have the Wall Street guys that say, "No, we got to make as much money with them as possible."

Those three camps have dominated both in in London and in New York or in DC for for ever since the late 1940s, those three camps, they said. However, what Trump had around him as his inner circle was a new camp that's never really come out before in American politics, and that's these people called super hawks. And they actually questioned the very legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party back to the beginning when the US government essentially gave China to the Chinese Communist Party in the late 1940s after the defeat, the military defeat of aspects of the uh of the Kang Tang and Shanghai. That is made up of Steven Miller, Peter Navarro, and Steven Bannon. And these guys absolutely don't think their whole thing is to support Lai Jing to sit there and overthrow these guys because you're never going to get to accommodation because this is a murderous dictatorship that is antithetical. They're as bad as the Bolsheviks and the Nazis and the fascists. So you're never going to get to accommodation. That's the camp that we're in. So whereas we would never agree that that's a smart thing to do strategically, at least for the time, you can take you can take so much of the problems that they have today, both for their own people and for the world by agreeing to that. President Trump spent an amazing amount of time in those two years. In fact, he was being attacked for Russia all the time. And I kept saying, cuz I was out of the administration, I said, "He's spending 80% of his time on the thing that matters, the main thing, which is this deal with the Chinese Communist Party, which will at least give the world for 50 years some sort of some sort of rapam, some sort of basis for peace." Uh, and they walked away from it. They tore it up. So, they are the ones that said they were going to decouple.

Yeah. So, that is the template. And it's it's spun in the media. The the happy talk here. Here's what's so this is why our elites in both England and the United States are not serious people. They're greedy and they're venal and they're also not serious. Given where we are historically with this great power that's been hijacked by a criminal gang that's run—remember your audience probably doesn't—of the one point, let's say, three billion Chinese, there's less than 100,000 communists.

You know this, official communists.

Yeah. No official communist party.

Chinese Communist Party has under 100,000 people.

Yes. If you ask the rest of Jing, they're not communists. They're just Chinese. They're living under a dictatorship. There's under 100,000, which never gets reported in the West. There's under 100,000. If you look who actually makes decisions and is meaningful because 100,000 includes—is I suppose you put that in comparison how many people were for the American government here. It's tiny.

No, but it's not. But this is this is an official party that runs everything. The US government is is, by the way, the people work in the government much more than 100,000, but to be—I'm saying people that—but the people that make decisions and actually run the government with no democratic process at all and no democratic process since uh before the war, the last person elected in China was back I think in the 19s or the 1920s, um, is uh we turn the government over to them. There's under a couple of thousand. The Chinese Communist Party is run by about five factions that are always constantly at war with each other because it's like the imperial throne of China, right? They're always at war with each other. You have one faction or in partnership with other factions that are up, and they're the most enormously wealthy. The one thing they fear is actually to to um to be exposed. There's a fabulous book published in England a couple of years ago called *Hidden Hand*. If you read that book, it totally exposes the British elite who are up to their neck with payoffs from the Chinese Communist Party. This is one of the reasons the infiltration in the United Kingdom and particularly in the universities is so is so deep by Chinese Communist Party, CCP nationalist.

Well, and I think it's the same here in in America. China have lobbied more than any other—the amount of money through China lobby is higher than any other nation. There's one tiny detail before uh coming to where we are today with regards to China, which is you mentioned TikTok in passing. Now initially it was the president's idea to uh force the sale of TikTok.

No, force. First it was shut it down.

Shut it down.

Shut it down 100%.

Uh, shut it down.

Exactly. And then when when it came to force, I'm—if any camp I'm in, I'm always in the most extreme.

Okay. Well, then why did you—What do you think of his turnaround on TikTok?

It's a weapon of war as far as I'm concerned. They're using it to manipulate Americans. It's It's tremendous. It's um—But I think you got to deal with the reality of where it is in society. I think what they've done, and particularly if you look at Frank McCourt and maybe some of the other groups coming together, the other American groups that you can actually see—look, I would love at the ultimate end of the day it'd be shut down, but I'm also a practical person that sees, hey, how is this actually going to get done? I think there is an avenue with western ownership and particularly western ownership that actually breaks it off totally and to make sure that none of the none of the data and none of it can get back to the Chinese Communist Party that you can run this and you can do it in a method that uh that is both reaches the objectives of the people here in the United States who use it because it's obviously a lot uh and reaches the objectives of not being a weapon, a psychological weapon or a data weapon for the Chinese Communist Party. I think that'll be very difficult. But I think that President Trump and people working on this from Secretary Rubio to uh to people in commerce and others are working at—if you see some of the potential bidders in the West, people like Frank McCourt and others who are very respectable people in the capital markets and also known to be good managers and he's adamant about that. I've had a chance to talk to him for a few minutes. Um, I think we have to see how it plays out. Right now there ain't no deal because Beijing says, "Hey, guess what? there's no deal." So, right now we're kind of in interregnum. I think there's going to be a major bargaining chip in this whole issue with uh this new current engagement in the economic war we're in. But people, it shouldn't be lost on people that with all the work the other parties did in arranging financing because the financing of this is quite tough. For all the work that President Trump did pre-president and now and with his team and people around him, the CCP just came out and said, "Hey, no deal." That's how central it is. I think they feel it is to um not just social media but also commerce going forward.

Yeah. So let's talk about where we are then. Secretary Besson, Secretary of the Treasury, has said what he wants is for the Chinese, the CCP, to restructure their economy and create a domestic consumer base. That's his way out for them. If you listen to everything, full stop. If I go to BBC today, BBC's lead story today as we're doing this is lays out the issues around China with the economic war. It is the BBC, I think, in a brilliant analysis. I thought it was so great I put it up on my social media like 2 a.m. this morning when I was finished reading it. The BBC goes through an incredibly detailed analysis of Xi's economic problem.

Yes. The central problem they say is Scott Besson's thesis, which the CCP has tried for years to get more of a consumer economy because they understand they can't continue to rape and pillage the West with what they're doing. They understand they have a problem. They have to change it. Why have they not been able to do that? Because Lai, old and und names, understands that they have no guarantee on a social safety network because they don't trust the government. The government can walk in and take their savings at any time. They've had this bank failure. They've already had the real estate collapse. Remember, right now there's probably uh there's probably three million, according to the BBC, I think it's 3 million extra housing apartment units in China today made by this kind of phony propping up of the banks and the construction companies that can't be sold. The real estate uh net worth, the real estate assets in the country of people's net worth have collapsed by 50 to 80%. These are people who are not communist. Remember, the Chinese people are not communists. They have a very thin layer of a gangster group on top of them that call themselves communists that are anything but. They are hardworking people that try to play by the rules. What do they do? They try to work their jobs with the little bit of money they get because there's no social safety net. They're not sitting out there running around spending every penny. Why? They're good householders. They—if anybody's seen rainy days, it's the ch—it's Lai Jing. So they sit there and go, "Hey, I have no guarantee that the government's ever going to be here for my for my uh for my retirement because of the one child policy. I don't have the old days where I had nine kids that could support me. I've got one child who's probably gone to the city. So I'm on my own. I've also played the game and I invested in real estate." Why? Because everybody in the western world, all the Goldman Sachs, everybody came over here said, "Hey, the way to get some net worth is just like in the West. 90% of the net worth of of your audience, if they're lucky enough to own a home, is in a real asset." The Chinese played the game according to the rules and put in a real asset. You know what they got for it? 50% less. So right now, internally to China, they have a massive problem. They can't get any consumer going. And so they still try to beggar thy neighbor with the pricing they do here. That has to stop because in beggar thy neighbor they have made paupers out of the working class in the United Kingdom and the United States. So I don't actually think that necessarily contradicts Scott Besson's analysis because I I think he kind of want—if he agre—agree with that and what he wants is the whole system to change. He wants the CCP out. So if if if that's the case, then what he's saying is not all of it out, but we—I would—I I would want it all out. We know that's not practical. What he's saying is that he says we are—he says they have a higher risk of collapsing than we do. People should understand as we sit here today, cuz I don't think people understand the depths of this war. That's why I really recommend people read this or a summary of it. We have a full embargo virtually in the United States from products coming from China and vice versa. When I say that we had truckers on, we we are a big supporter of our truckers. We've had him on for this executive order that was signed to stop—you have to speak English in the United States to kind of get the Mexican and Canadian truckers out of here, just back to US truckers. We asked the guys how's it going and say, "Look, it could be a terrorist," but there hasn't been a truck leaving San Pedro, California or the ports in LA in about three and a half weeks. So we're in an embargo right now. That's why Scott Besson I think is working with the East Asian countries, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, um the Philippines, Vietnam, and India to come to initial kind of terms agreed or the architecture of trade deals. It won't be trade deals, but the architecture of it to then use that as leverage against the Chinese to work out a deal. But he's very much agreeing what BBC's analysis is that that Xi's ticking time bomb is the domestic market. And here's—and just to go back and reiterate, Lao Bei Jing is in a terrible situation. If you think about it, in the United Kingdom, in the United States, and in China, the working-class people have all had the same situation. Their political leadership—them.

Yeah. Right. And Lao Jing's probably the worst because they have the least freedom. They played the game according to the rules that were set. And the rules that were set is husband your resources, right? Save for a rainy day. And what you want to do, because they tell us this in the West, is to get a real asset to buy real estate to actually have—is it's not going to be a white picket fence, but it's going to be an apartment in a building, right? And you do that and it's price is going to go up and you can sell it later and make more money, put some away, buy a bigger place. What's happened is because of the phony financing of the construction in the banking industry because the CCP guys, the factions run—were skimming it off the top. Okay, this is one of the things in the 2019 deal was supposed to stop the corruption of them lifting off state-owned industries 20%—to—this is how the Chinese Communist Party finances itself is the grift it takes off of the state-owned industries. It was the banking and the construction was the biggest. They grifted off it. The little guy in China, Lai Jing, old the you know old hund names, paid for this and now they're stick—sitting there with all that hard work in all those years with a real asset that's 50% less and a mortgage is still a ticking time bomb. China has some massive problems. Two years ago they put tanks in front of the Bank of China cuz people would come. You've seen those riots in lobbies where people come and say, "Hey, I want my money back from my bank." And the Chinese officials go, "Well, you got to come back on uh Monday. Come back next week and we'll talk to you."

Um, so with that in mind, can we gameplay from the CCP point of view what what they can do next? It seems that one thing that they seem to be trying to do, which makes sense, is broker deals with other trading blocks like they're talking to the EU and so B—I think they've got uh the gross export to the US is something like 500 million—something like that, 500 billion—500 billion net—I don't think it's the gross, I actually think it's the net 600, but hang on for a sec, you make a brilliant point and let me connect some dots here. So a huge headline the other day is uh is by the president of the EU and she makes—I just talked about the east—the East Asian companies. In fact, there's Financial Times. I can give you the detail if you just—um, hang on. Not that one. It's one I always keep near the near the top. Right there. There we go. Okay. To your—Okay. *Financial Times* of London, which by the way is the most important paper in the world and a paper I recommend. It's the globalist rag. So, you got to read this. I'm glad you give that caveat to the end.

No. No. No. You can't—you can't understand—you can't understand the world. One of the powers of the show is we walk people through what the *Financial Times* says. The *Financial Times* of London and *The Economist* are the two things you have to read on a weekly basis. You will understand the world from the globalist perspective. So is that—now what do they say? Beijing warns of retaliation against nations doing US deals. Okay. And the Chinese try to be subtle. This is—they're not subtle. I go back to what Besson's doing. Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, and India. That's the East Asian kind of block. We're doing deals that part of those deals are, "Hey, you're part of our block and we have rules of the game, etc. You're not part of their block." The CCP saw that and go, "Yo, if you do that, you're going to have a problem and we're here," and the foreign devils, we'll see how long they're here. It's a it's a huge effort in the middle of this because all the deals are going to have that. The EU. There's a huge headline in the in the in the British papers, in the internet, in the European papers. Uh, Von der Leyen says uh in their negotiation there will be no uh there will be no decoupling—anything the EU does with America—adamant there will be no decoupling from China. I said, "I go, interesting. That's one of the biggest trading blocks in the world and they're up in our—grow right away." And I sat there and I go, "That's interesting." I said, "As Von der Leyen says that because you don't see Japan coming out and saying no decoupling. You don't see South Korea coming out say no decoupling." You know, I'm not saying those negotiations are going to be perfect at the end, but you don't see any of these other partners who know what the stakes are and particularly India coming out and saying no decoupling.

Right. They may not want to get in Beijing's face, but they understand the Indians are now putting a trade tariff on the Chinese, haven't they?

Exactly. The Indians are—the Indians are really, "Hey, we get it. We—" And not just that, we love decoupling. Decouple more because Apple will come here. The Europeans are adamant and and actually public about one of the key conditions precedent to the deal, no decoupling. And I go, "Isn't that interesting?" We have two carrier battle groups in the Red Sea to keep the sea lanes open for the Suez Canal to for trading into Europe. In that two carrier battle groups, we have 24,000 American sailors. We just lost an F, I think 16, the other day rolled off the carrier deck. We have—we're getting hit by the Houthis all the time. We're keeping the Red Sea open from the Houthis for for so from the Gulf, Persian Gulf, and from China. The goods and oil and gas to fuel Europe or Europe would shut down if the Suez Canal was closed or their prices would go up 20% if you had to go around Africa. And in that entire operation, we have one British destroyer from the Royal Navy. We have one French corvette and we have one Italian frigate. It's to Von der Leyen, EU. Go yourself. We're keeping Europe uh so inflation won't explode. And this is what—when people talk about NATO and the anger of America to to the European elites, this is a perfect example. We're engaged in an economic war with the Chinese Communist Party. An economic war that the elites in Europe and the elites in the United Kingdom have made as much money as the elites in the United States to the detriment of their people. And look in Germany where they essentially the German elites walked away from all those little middle industries. That was the backbone of German precision engineering. Walked away and let the Chinese take all the intellectual property. And now almost all that's made in China. They have the German people. Okay. in the de-industrialization of Germany, and they sit there and have the gall to say, "Oh, we're not going to decouple." Tell her to go herself.

Okay, I I've been one of the biggest voices, having been a former naval officer in a carrier battle group in that part of the world to say we have to bring a carrier battle group home and the Europeans have got to start taking their weight. China is a collective action problem in in in that sense. But it's not a collective action problem. That's the problem. The European Union is not with us on this. You're going to see they're going to try to weasel into a deal. The elites in Europe are totally bought off. Everybody that reads the paper, you think you're dealing with honest brokers. The party of Davos is okay. Geneva, which is really the engine room of the United Nations. That's where World Health is. What you see in the United Nations in New York is all theater. That's performance art. The work of the United Nations is in Geneva. The work of the globalists or the conference is in Davos. Okay? Both in Switzerland. They are locked, stock, and barrel owned by the Chinese Communist Party. 80% of the managers and influencers in the big working operations right in Geneva are e CCP or CCP operatives, right? This is why we decided to cut all the money out of there. Davos is the same way. Davos—cross in the in—go back to the third week of January in 2017. Okay, we're going to go back in time. Uh, in that week, there were two speeches given, two historic speeches given on Wednesday. There was a speech given in Davos by a guy named Pre—President Xi. It's the only time he's ever been there to address the audience. He talked about the strategy of 2019. He talked about the network. He talked about essentially the end of the Westphalian system, the end of the nation-state, that the future was going to be a series of networks. It was really One Belt, One Road. They would connect markets. They were resources to component manufacturers to market to final manufacturing in China, then back out. The world would live in peace on the new Chinese model, and that Chinese model was called a network. The network—you know—was a network effect uh president and and and and knowing—knowing because what is Davos? Davos is a collection of uh hedge fund managers and investment bankers and private equity in media and marketing companies and Booz Allen and McKinsey uh and every accounting firm and law firm. They're all in the same business. What's that business? The information business. They're all in the information business. This is the insiders—insiders. They all knew about the Uighurs. They all knew about the h—the Catholic Church being suppressed. They all knew about the evangelical Christians being tortured. They all knew about Falun Gong. They all knew about organ harvesting. Everything of the brutal dictatorship of the Chinese Communist Party is known by every in this room. Okay? It's not private knowledge. And these are the best and the smartest people in the world. They gave that evil a standing ovation. A standing ovation, right? He was Davos Man. That is a program that Davos wanted. That's what Klaus Schwab wanted. The end of the nation-state. 48 hours later in Washington DC and that building that's about a about 500 yards from us, the Capitol on the west side, President Trump stood up and gave the American carnage—gave his first inaugural address. He says, "This stops here and now." And that was a throwdown to Xi. And I am so glad I was a tiny part of that. That is the differentiation that we've had from that time. And you're either on their side or you're on the side of the populist nationalist movement throughout the world. And you can't be—there's no middle ground here. There's no middle ground.

Taking all of that in. You described what I think other people call it as the paper tiger of the Chinese economy. Uh uh the the the the whole system in—Well, they're a paper tiger, but they're v—they're a mass—we've turned them into a vast military power.

Right now. So, with all of that in mind, and in my opinion, the unlikely possibility that they can, they would even want to restructure their whole uh system, let alone be able to restructure their whole system, surely then kinetic war is actually a serious possibility.

Kinetic war is with the Chinese Communist Party, particularly around uh Taiwan in the chip facilities, is definitely not a zero probability. I would agree with you. And would you want America involved in in? No, I I don't want America having, coming out of the Navy. And that was I was part of the Seventh Fleet. My first tour was all straits of Taiwan in South China Sea and patrolling off of uh off of China in the East China Sea. Um, no, I'm the last person like President Trump. I don't want any kinetic war at all. That's why I think if we, you got to remember right now we we finance, we're taking public in this country with American pension funds, the the mothers and fathers of the kids on those carrier battle groups, particularly in the seventh fleet, that that in all probability or not prob possibility could be at the bottom of the straits of Taiwan or the South China Sea with the overwhelming military, you know, weaponry that the Chinese bring so close because they're only 90 miles, 90 miles away in Taiwan, you could lose 10,000 sailors in 2 hours. It could be as bloody as any naval battle we've had in World War II. Coral Sea, Lee Golf, uh, Midway, you pick it, right? It could be, this could be the bloodiest battle in naval history. You could lose 10 or 12,000 American sailors in a couple hours.

The mothers and fathers of those sailors, their pension funds right now are going through Wall Street, the Larry Finins of the world. We're underwriting the Chinese military technology companies. That's an open secret. It's not it's not you don't see that on mainstream media. Remember, without the city of London and without Wall Street and without the elites in the United Kingdom and in the United States being partners of these people and financing them and particularly giving them to technology, they either steal or we they we force us to give them $600 billion a year in intellectual property. Part of the deal, if you want to have any access to the Chinese market, you must do a joint venture. Part of the joint ventures, you must dump all your intellectual property in there. Corporate CEOs say, "We can't complain about it. If we complain about it, we're going to be cut out." And no other American or British companies complain about it, so we just go along with it. The system is completely rigged by the elites to make as much money as they possibly can, funding our enemy. Okay? This is what has to stop. If you stopped it, if we cut them off from all capital, and I mean equity capital and loans, if you uh cut them off from all technology, they would collapse in 100 days. They can't exist.

Is their collapse in 100 days the best scenario from your point of view? What's what's the best thing that could happen? A quick interruption to tell you about the sponsor of this interview, Native Path Hydrate. Most people know that staying hydrated is essential to nearly every bodily function. But 75% of Americans still do not consume enough fluid daily. As we age, natural bodily changes make staying hydrated even harder, especially without artificial additives or excess sugars. That's where Native Path comes in with extra help. Native Path's Hydrate is not just another drink mix. It is a thoughtfully designed formula packed with BCAAs and all nine essential amino acids to help with muscle recovery and overall vitality. Plus, it's completely sugar-free and 100% natural. With their native hydrate product, you can fuel your body with essential electrolytes at the cellular level for overall vitality. Unlike other hydration drink mixes that are designed for marathon runners and contain upwards of a thousand milligrams of sodium, Native Hydrate contains just 230 milligrams of sodium for optimal daily hydration. Regain your hydration free of artificial flavors, sugars, and dyes. It's only 5 calories per serving, and every order comes with a 365-day money-back guarantee so you can try risk-free. Visit nativehydrate.com/marshall to see what NativeHydrate could do for your health. Now, back to the interview.

Well, I'm, you know, one of the leaders of the anti-CCCP move. For me, it would be their collapse. I think there'd be a number of people, President Trump included, that would say that is total complete insanity and that won't happen. I'm happy with that. I'm trying to give you the ultimate object, which I think will be the object of the exercise long run. President Trump, remember, President Trump's got to balance so much. I think what he's trying to do, as he reiterated last night in Michigan and and today in his cabinet meeting, he's trying to bring manufacturing jobs. He's not going to allow us to be ripped off by by China. He's already putting out tons of executive orders. He put out an executive order uh a month ago saying he wants to restrict American capital to go support Chinese uh you know, advanced technology for for military operations. He's doing great. There's so much more to do, but that's because there's they're so embedded including right now in this budget, okay, with everything that's going on, Doge is doing budget, there is $60 billion of tax breaks. I mean, money they do not put into the treasury to pay for things that they get that are underwriting uh wind and solar that are 100% made in China. So, China has now taken 100% manufacturing of wind and solar globally. In the United States is about 50 or 60 billion dollars in tax revenue we don't collect because of tax breaks to support that because of the Green New Deal initiatives. This thing is just replete. I could go through for hours and show you it's all got to be cleaned out. It is a process as President Trump really, I mean nobody's dropped the hammer like he's dropped, it's it's melted down this city. It's melted down the media and you've seen the false accusations against him. You have to ask yourself, well, hang on, who's side are you on? Are you American media? Don't you Don't you want to make sure that you're representing the interests of the American people and what's best for this country of what you get your revenues from and what you get your license? If I was President Trump, I would pull the licenses of all the broadcast companies, given given how corrupt, how involved they are with the CCP. I'd pull their broadcast license in a second, given the lies and misrepresentation they've said on this very topic.

Uh, Steve, but I did say I'm a little more extreme than President Trump. I appreciate your time is precious. Thank you for speaking with me. There's one last question I I wanted to ask, which is on a different topic but we've kind of referenced it. I've noticed uh on the American online, right online, not only a huge rise in anti-semitism uh but I've also seen this sort of revisionism about World War II, famously uh this podcaster called Daryl Cooper saying that Churchill was the greatest villain of World War II and he said you've got to take Mein Kampf with a pinch of salt. He said various things of this nature. He's having airtime on Tucker Carlson, airtime on the Joe Rogan Experience. I wanted to know what your opinion was. Was was Winston Churchill the greatest villain of World War II? And what's his thesis? I'm not familiar with this. So, what's his thesis about? Why is it? His thesis is that Churchill made it into a bigger war than it had to be. Um, and that if he hadn't got involved, the guy, by the way, the person who said that was Winston Churchill. What What was Winston Churchill's name for the Second World War? What was it? The Unnecessary War. This is Churchill. Churchill said because of the because of not actually addressing not just German unification but German rearmament, not doing it earlier, not getting in in not getting in, you know, engaged and involved earlier that the war itself uh was an unnecessary war that they had they sleepwalked like people, the the unnecessary in the sense that it shouldn't have happened in the first place, but do you not agree that it was the right thing for Winston Churchill to try and take and successfully take down the Nazis and end the Holocaust?

Here here's, we remember the the the Holocaust is um obviously horrific. I don't want to say it came later. Let's let's just go back in time when the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor. People don't know this. The United States, we did not declare war on Germany. We did not declare war on Adolf Hitler. Um, the Japanese, which we had this situation. This is one of the things we have to worry about the Chinese. If you cut them off from chips, is that like cutting the Japanese off from oil in July and August of 1941? Um, is it going up the escalatory ladder so quickly that it may force your mortal enemy uh to do something that is uh irrational or in their mind rational but turns out to be irrational. So, you have to watch that. Um, people forget or either don't know or don't know the history of it that we did not declare war on Nazi Germany, given the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor that night, the Sunday evening in the White House. There is discussion that because um uh FDR and Marshall and the in the high command of the Americans, which really started to get uh much more thinking about the potential war in Europe in 19 about 1938 um when we started getting serious, I think we put the draft in in 1939, 1940, really started rearming in 1939 um they said no, the American people are not there, they are not the the bitterness of World War I and people don't realize this. The bitterness of the American people in World War I, which we felt afterwards, we were sucked into that war uh that rose that Wilson and people had lied to people after guaranteeing people we wouldn't get involved in these imperial conflicts and these rule houses and all this thing that we got lied to. We got sent there and there was still, whether right or wrong. There was a lot of discussion whether the arms manufacturers, the financiers, because the American casualties were so high given the limited amount of time and we were the deciding factor. The Germans realized once we came to the war, if the American comes in we can't we can't slug it out anymore. The bitterness was so high that in the 1930s, you know, we had the America First movement. He had a lot of people that just didn't want to go to war. That it was decided on Sunday night in the White House that the next day when Roosevelt went, he would ask for a declaration of war. He would declare war on Japan and ask for a declaration of war from the house, which is, remember our constitution, which we ought to get back to. You can only only the only Congress can declare war. And uh it was not Germany was out. The whole seven-minute speech is about Imperial Japan and the sneak attack. Germany made a decision. They had a secret treaty with Japan. And this is Hitler's big gamble. Hitler at the time was had already started. Remember, we're in December 1941, he had already started the land war in uh against Russia, his former ally, his former partner. He's in outside of Moscow in this bitter winter. And they feel at the time that they could take St. Petersburg, they could take Moscow. They were still on the move. The winter was setting in and he had a secret alliance with uh with Japan and the whole plan was across Eurasian landmass meet up in India. Uh and they had a huge, you know, debate inside of Germany because they could have walked away from it. They said no, the secret treaty we'll we'll agree to and we'll announce and they declared war on us on two days, I think on the 11th of December. So it was maybe three or four days. Uh so no, he went to the east. So three days later the Nazis declared war in the United States. Only after they declared war in the United States did we declare war on them. And and and later there was a lot of finger-pointing. And there's a sorry, my original question is was Winston Churchill the greatest villain of World War II. Surely it's obvious that Adolf Hitler was the greatest villain of World War II.

Well, I think I don't think there's any doubt. I mean, I don't know what this guy's theory is. I mean Adolf Hitler Adolf Hitler and the fascists are obviously the greatest villain of World War II for that because these guys won't say that, but I I don't know what they're fine. So people look, people on the internet say a lot of things. You know, people have all I've read from David Irving to all the progressive historians. I've tried to read everything on World War II including the original memoirs I can to make sure that I could put myself in those shoes. But people shouldn't be lost on the fact that we partnered to take down Hitler. We basically partnered with I think a devil as great as Hitler was Stalin and the Bolsheviks. What they did in Ukraine, what they did in the 1930s to the Ukrainian people was I think the Holodomor, Holodomor, Holodomor. I mean the starvation of millions in the way they did it was absolutely brutal, heartless. I'm not trying to I'm not doing a Stalin. So I have I'm not familiar, but people come up all the time with with theories. I think what I but it's getting this prominence and fair enough you haven't seen it, but it's he's getting serious airtime on major major shows and alternative space, which is why I will I will say that look, Winston Churchill, his strategy as it should have been was to save the British Empire, right? You could actually argue that in saving the British Empire he essentially destroyed it because of what happened to what happened to the war in in England, so it was kind of a pyrrhic victory, but uh he's a very complicated guy uh he there were a number of decisions he made, particularly by going to the Balkans are things have been even even more horrific. Um, but no, I don't to me at least on my reading of history, you can't say that Hitler was not the the the greatest villain, although there is internal, not for the Holocaust, that's obviously a crime that you know stands without history in history is one of the most horrific crimes ever committed, but um you um you know the unification of Germany, bringing the German people back together, there was some logic of that at at the beginning, but then it spun out of control and nobody sat there and kind of stepped up to it and said, hey, you can't go to another thing people trying to understand this is about the economic crisis coming up. Roosevelt and Churchill come to power in essentially the same year and Roosevelt tried with the Great Depression many different things, right? Kind of his 100 days was trying to Trump predicated his 100 days on it. He tried everything. And in 1932 with the closing the banks and doing all these organizations he was set up trying to take control of industry, things got a little better because it couldn't get worse. And things kind of stabilized and then they went down, then they came back up. But by 1938 under FDR and these guys, we were back heading towards levels in 1932 and internally they were saying a lot of stuff they had thrown at the world just weren't going to work. Germany had taken a very different approach. Hitler's approach and their financial situation was far worse than ours with the hyperinflation and the war reparations. Their he they immediately virtually went to rearmament and their economy started to thrive. This is one of the reasons the German people I think looked away from a lot of what Hitler was doing, you know, culturally the Americans finally by 1938-39 realized hey, if we don't rearm and rearm rapidly this war is going to this war is going to hit now, not declaring war, having them declare war on first, Germany was always the number one perspective, the Pacific theater, I'm not saying an afterthought, but it's probably an 80-20 war, 75-25 from there on in, if I can just make a a defense of Churchill just because, true with me. He's one of my great heroes. But I see him with war. He stood alone against Hitler. He rightly recognized communism as evil long before that war. He understood those evils. He understood the evil of Hang on a second. What do you mean he understood communism? That's that's an argument against him. Actually, Hitler is the one that it Churchill Churchill partnered with the Bolsheviks, but he knew he was doing a de a deal with a devil to get rid of another devil. Yes. Yeah. So, he recognized that.

Okay, let's let's have a brutally frank conversation about this. The royal family, okay, if you go back in that time, Hitler uh when the government fell of the appeasement and the appeasement guys had a plan, they get ter they get tossed into the base of history today, they made huge mistakes. Part of their plan, if you go back and read their memoirs, was to buy time to try to rearm. You can't understand the run-up to World War II in the 1930s, what we call the dark valley, until you understand the horrific nature of the First World War. Up until August of 20 of 1914, it was the high point of the Victorian era. Global trade was was more than ever been. The world was at peace. You had the fashion and the music. I mean, the world was really at peace. What hit in World War I totally collapsed. The Victorian values actually got slaughtered in those trenches because it was all God and country. I mean, what happened to the British army that was called um you know, lions led by by by mules or donkeys or something. The slaughter of the British army, the slaughter of the British aristocracy, those young officers, all the working men, Tolkien's, the whole ring comes from the slaughter, you know, comes from the slaughter of of the t the shire, him looking back to the shire as the as bucolic England. That all comes from the slaughterhouse of World War I, the trenches. And look who came out of the trenches. Hitler came out of the trenches. So much disease came out of the trenches. The evil came out of the trenches because it was brutal. It was it was mechanism and technology so far advanced of of warcraft and people just blinded about this is how we're going to do it. And the psalm, I think you lost 60 or 7,000 men in one day. Yeah. That type of memory is it can't be taken from a people and this was just not shri this was the best and brightest of of the United Kingdom. That agony and and that informs all of World War II. You have to look at what the these people went through, the royal family. Uh, and that's why the appeasement guys to their defense and I not defending them. They were trying to buy more time to rearm because they realized they saw what Germany was doing and they hoped they could paper it over and maybe get this mad man to stop, which they couldn't. Hitler, Churchill in those years in the wilderness saw that and he kept saying here's what they're doing. They're rearming. It was the British royal family. When when when uh Chamberlain's government fell, Churchill was not the guy they wanted. They wanted Halifax. And Halifax was the Brit the British royal family wanted to cut a deal with the Germans, right? With the I don't want to say that they're kind of a German family to begin with, but hey, they kind of have some German roots to begin with. They they want they wanted to cut a deal with the Germans to save the empire because they could see being very smart and having Singapore and having Hong Kong understood what the Japanese were doing and they were most concerned about the jewel and the crown which was India which was still the big cash machine and so worrying about that they wanted to appease by they it's a specific it was King Edward or the the Edward, but all of them was it all of them the the queen mother was the worst, she was the one that was back of I think it was Edward's mother that that when Edward advocated, but he advocated he was out. These were outright guys that supported the fascists. I'm talking about accommodation to make a deal that we don't have to go to war and save the empire and let the let the Germans have the continent. That was, you know, Hess flew over there and they said, "Oh, Hess was a mad man." Well, hey, when Hess flew over, he was number two and he was heading to Scotland to talk to somebody, right? Halifax, the people that saved was not so much Hitler. It's not so much Churchill. The same voters that came in for Brexit are the same voters that came to the back in May of 1940 and backed and backed uh Churchill to become the basically I guess a coalition government or conservative government backed by the trade unionists and the people in the Midlands, the working class and a lot of that was informed because of the unions being associated with the Bolsheviks, etc. So there was quite complicated. Yeah. But but Churchill's no saint. He was a practical, tough uh as an American and having studied this for years, they tried to draw us into the war. A word we should have had nothing to do with at first in the Holocaust when that became evident. Uh obviously I don't think people move quickly enough. People knew in the media uh high levels of the Jewish community, the government. It it it it wasn't revealed to people when Pat and the army in Bavaria and other places started to unearth what had happened at the camps. People knew what was happening about people being stripped away back into the 1930s. There's a lot of guilt to go around about looking the other way on these camps. And so, uh and I don't think that's been fully explored enough either. But no, I don't think you make an argument that that Churchill is a villain. He's a practical, tough uh individual who put stake that we're going to try to save Western civilization from what the Germans are turning it into. Uh and for that, I think it makes him a hero in my opinion. Well, no, he's in many regards he is a hero. He is a hero because of his stickiveness in doing that and playing the flag. But he he's a hero but not a saint. And I do think a lot of people sometimes put too much saint-hood. He's a practical tough guy. Look, he he he worked uh he worked very hard to get the United States into this war. He he says that the night on Per when Pearl Harbor was bombed when he and he made communication with um with uh Roosevelt, who he'd already had a number of meetings with off in Nova Scotia, they already met a couple of times face to face. When he hung up the phone, it's the first time he said England would be saved because the United States. Yeah. He wanted America in the war because he knew he he couldn't win without America. And thank God for America defeating uh the the the the Nazis. Um and as a British, I am grateful for that. I I app one of my favorite films. I'll tell you the full story of my favorite film being used by British intelligence to get the United States into the war. Uh shortly after Gone with the Wind, uh with Vivien Leigh being the biggest star in America, and she was English. uh she and her husband her the great romance of you know uh was Sir Laurence Olivier. Sir Laurence Olivier and Vivien Leigh made with Alexander Korda, right? the uh the the great Hungarian then British um director made a film about Lord Nelson and Lady Hamilton called That Hamilton Woman that was basically made and in made I think actually shot in the United States but was used as a propaganda weapon to use to get America into the war and later they had they were going to have a Senate intelligence investigation. I'll give you next time we get together, I'll tell you the whole I'll give you an hour on that. That'll show you the how sophisticated MI6 is in running the world. Um, Steve, thank you for your time. Thank you. No, no, you're great. You're great. The question your questions are fantastic. I really enjoyed what amazing what's amazing about you. You're not a professional journalist or anything, but your questions are are actually those are some of the most intelligent and toughest questions. It's because I care about these things and I care about the state of the world and I care about America and Britain. We do. You're you're you're uh you're our second, France is our oldest ally, but we have a special relationship and uh we want to make sure we got to get you over here and be a guest on.

Um, on Independence Day, of uh, our independence. No, what what no what what we should do. We were rid of you. No, no, no. Next year.

What I want to do, cuz people don't realize, when on July 4th, the largest armada in world history landed at Staten Island in New York Harbor on July 2nd, the day that the that before the promulgation of the declaration. That was the British Expeditionary Force of Admiral Howe and his brother, Lord Howe. And uh, that was that started the American Revolution in full, the war. And you and I will go around, I'll take you, we'll go around battlefields in July and August of next year in a uh, and we'll do a podcast about it.

I'd love to. Steve Bannon, a great pleasure. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Thank you for listening to the Winston Marshall show. That was Steve Bannon. If you want to support the show, remember all you have to do is press subscribe, and if you head over to winstonall.co.uk, you'll get exclusive videos and ad-free viewing. But until next time, be