Aug. 3, 2024 - Bannon's War Room
48:46
Participants
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| This is the primal scream of a dying regime. | ||
| Pray for our enemies. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Because we're going medieval on these people. | |
| I got a free shot on all these networks lying about the people. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The people have had a belly full of it. | |
| I know you don't like hearing that. | ||
| I know you try to do everything in the world to stop that, but you're not going to stop it. | ||
|
unidentified
|
It's going to happen. | |
| And where do people like that go to share the big lie? | ||
|
unidentified
|
MAGA Media. | |
| I wish in my soul, I wish that any of these people had a conscience. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Ask yourself, what is my task and what is my purpose? | |
| If that answer is to save my country, this country will be saved. | ||
|
unidentified
|
War Room. | |
| Here's your host, Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| Dave Brat in the war room with the great Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| August 3, Year of Our Lord 2024. | ||
| Starting all shows in honor and respect for Stephen K. Bannon, who is now in prison. | ||
| It's just unbelievable. | ||
| And so we go to God in prayer. | ||
| We have to start every show in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. | ||
| And today I was honored to host a couple days back and today we have another super lineup. | ||
| We got Colonel Derek Harvey with us and Bradley Thayer backing up on China. | ||
| Uh, and so, uh, let's welcome, uh, to the War Room, uh, Colonel Derek Harvey, uh, years of service to our country. | ||
| Uh, and at first, uh, I think we want to do a, uh, whirlwind tour, uh, around the globe, the hotspots. | ||
| Uh, we had, uh, John Mills on a few weeks back, uh, and, you know, in addition to the four hotspots, Brought up, you know, 14 other areas of interest, all related to China in his view. | ||
| And so, Colonel Harvey, welcome to the War Room. | ||
| And if you just want to, you know, help the War Room posse put into context Where do all these wars fit that we're seeing in the headlines? | ||
| A lot of it we're not being educated in the headlines for obvious political reasons. | ||
| But why don't you lead us on what matters most and then where we should be aiming and what may be misdirection plays from the administration. | ||
| Welcome to the show, Colonel Derek Harvey. | ||
| Well, great to be here. | ||
| And I'd like to begin this Tour de Horizon with a quick examination of what's going on with Israel and Iran. | ||
| And we're on the precipice of a wider war there. | ||
| And it's been going on over nine months with the United States restraining and restricting Israel and its response and trying to check it while it protects Hamas's viability and tries to prevent a wider war with Iran. | ||
| But while Israel's fighting these wars on multiple fronts, every day a campaign in the north against Hezbollah, you got the Houthis, you got Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, more stuff going on in the West Bank, and then we had in April the direct fire from Iran. | ||
| Iran is behind all of this, okay, in the military scheme of things. | ||
| And this is an ongoing conflict that is going to reach, I think, a high point here very quickly with what Iran is trying to do, which is coordinate an attack against Israel on multiple fronts simultaneously. | ||
| From the North to South, the Houthis and Gaza, and create more unrest at West Bank in a coordinated, orchestrated attack to show that they are wreaking revenge for the assassination of Hania. | ||
| In Tehran, people forget in this dialogue what Iran is doing. | ||
| We forget what Iran is doing in directing, financing, equipping and managing this coordinated effort against Israel. | ||
| But this is where it gets interesting. | ||
| China, Russia are involved in this, you know, China in particular. | ||
| They see a weakening of Israel as an ally and as a stabilizing force in the region. | ||
| They wanted to undercut the Abraham Accords because if Israel goes down or is weakened and does not come out of this strategically, seen as a winner by everybody, it will undercut American influence in the region. | ||
| It will undercut us economically, undermine stability, and then further encourage aggression against not just Israel, but our allies. | ||
| They will look elsewhere. | ||
| They are working not just in the military sphere, but in political warfare across the globe, okay? | ||
| Supporting leftists, Marxists, Palestinian groups, financially, etc. | ||
| Also, Qatar and Turkey are in line with this. | ||
| And then, in the international organizations, they are facilitating and helping, you know, this political warfare, the BDS movement to disinvest from Israel, and use the WHO, the International Court at The Hague, the United Nations, to undermine, weaken, and get to a strangulation strategy that makes Israel cry uncle. | ||
| So, this is a very dangerous situation. | ||
| If Israel is weakened, then we are weakened, in my view. | ||
| And our allies and friends start looking for other places to go. | ||
| So, that's the hot spot. | ||
| Now, Ukraine... Let me just ask you... | ||
| Yeah, yeah. | ||
| Before we go to Ukraine, a lot of folks in the War Room watch Scott Ritter on YouTube, Douglas McGregor on YouTube. | ||
| They say Israel is lost. They say they're going to lose, right? Hezbollah, | ||
| Iran, Turkey, they say Egypt is waiting in the wings. There's a periphery around. I haven't | ||
| seen enough evidence on that. But what's your response to Ritter and McGregor who | ||
| say Israel is way over its head? | ||
| They don't have the capability. | ||
| And part of the strategy is just to try to lure the U.S. | ||
| into this greater war. | ||
| What's your response to that piece? | ||
| Well, Ron, I do not think Israel is trying to lure us into a greater war. | ||
| The United States has restrained Israel, but Israel is fully capable of fighting this war themselves and doing what's necessary. | ||
| What we've fallen into in this case is the trap of believing that the enemies are stronger than they are, that they have more depth, more capability, more resilience than they actually have. | ||
| Iran is a case in point, you know, but also we saw that with the Soviet Union. | ||
| We see that with, you know, fighting Russia today where their forces were exaggerated about being able to overrun, you know, Ukraine, you know, with very little effort and the expectations were that Russia would win in four days, okay? | ||
| You know, we're falling into this trap of thinking our enemies are stronger than they are and that we are weaker and then we become risk averse. | ||
| Number two, a quick point about Israel. | ||
| I want to point to what I call sometimes neo-isolationists that do not look at Israel in its own Yeah. | ||
| you know, column here, separated from Ukraine, which I have problems with the Ukraine issue here. | ||
| I don't know how that one ends in our favor, but with Israel having worked in the Pentagon, | ||
| having worked as the director and assistant to the president | ||
| for the Middle East and North Africa, and having worked with Israel in joint ways | ||
| for a number of years, the Israelis are fully capable of taking this on | ||
| and fighting the fight and taking it to them because they know the weaknesses and they know the | ||
| strengths, and they are just now getting to a point | ||
| where they're going to be in a position to really shift gears | ||
| and take the fight to Hezbollah and to Iran if necessary. | ||
| And there are critical vulnerabilities. | ||
| You can shut down the whole energy grid in Iran by just hitting a few places. | ||
| They import almost all of the refined gasoline and oil products. | ||
| They don't produce it themselves. | ||
| That's a strategic vulnerability. | ||
| You could shut down the whole economy. | ||
| The regime relies on a reign of terror in order to keep the population on board. | ||
| And that's one reason Iran's going to try and strike Sooner rather than later, because they need to send a message not only domestically but internationally that they're not weak, because they're worried about domestic unrest. | ||
| And we've avoided supporting or advocating or even using information operations to undermine what is a very weak Iranian religious regime. | ||
| Yeah, yeah. | ||
| Before we go to Ukraine, I want to hit one other point of contention out there, and that is the relative strength of China, as a lot hinges on the conclusion there, right? | ||
| China's got a whole host of problems. | ||
| I think they have $13 trillion now in local and regional debt. | ||
| They have a collapsing real estate sector, which is a primary asset. | ||
| They got a demography problem, a lot of capital flight going on. | ||
| And so that links in to, as you were saying, sometimes we overestimate our adversaries. | ||
| But at the same time, boy, they're doing a good job of luring those BRICS countries, right? | ||
| There's 40 countries. | ||
| They're going slow and steady, it looks. | ||
| It's not going to happen in a year or two or three, but we're losing friends. | ||
| They're building alliances. | ||
| Do you think they can sustain that alliance? | ||
| Do you think they have enough economic power to sustain what they've been doing over the next few years, Colonel Harvey? | ||
| Well, Dr. Thayer probably has more granularity on that, but my perception of it, having looked at it for a number of years on House Intelligence Committee and elsewhere from a global intelligence perspective, I think that China, the most important thing is we need net assessments. | ||
| We spend too much time looking at at reports and singular data points, and we don't look at the whole picture and understand what that country's motivations are, what their fears are, what they're actually trying to do. | ||
| And in China, it's a pretty good read. | ||
| We can figure that one out, but we don't really pay much attention to what they say to themselves and what they're writing in their own doctrine books and their own publications for their domestic audience. | ||
| But I think what they've been doing is gradually building up their military, A blue water navy that can extend worldwide. | ||
| They're getting ports and airfields in different places on the eastern part, western part of Africa, eastern part of Africa. | ||
| They're expanding into the Mediterranean Sea. | ||
| They're doing a lot of things. | ||
| In Venezuela, they've got a tremendous amount invested there. | ||
| Both Iran and China does, along with Cuba through Russia. | ||
| So they are bound and determined not to lose that foothold they have. | ||
| in South America and Venezuela. | ||
| So they are very adept for pushing on all of these areas, economically, diplomatically, militarily, in ways that are more sophisticated and more focused on aggrandizing power and influence to themselves. | ||
| Our State Department fails in comparison to what they're doing in the Foreign Ministry. | ||
| Our DOD fails in comparison to what they're doing with their You know, PLA, their military forces and how they're partnering and investing. | ||
| So we need to have a complete relook. | ||
| And what happens here is what matters with our friends and allies is are we steadfast allies? | ||
| Are we showing leadership? | ||
| Are we willing to commit? | ||
| Are we willing to take some risks? | ||
| Are we good friends? | ||
| Okay. | ||
| And the message from the Biden administration is no, we are not. | ||
| You know, we're undercutting not in Yahoo. | ||
| We undercut allies in Europe. | ||
| And in Asia, we're not doing what we need to be doing. | ||
| Yeah, exactly. | ||
| And just one more minute before we go to break on the strength of the Chinese economy. | ||
| They're doing all these things, the Belt and Road initiatives. | ||
| They have a bigger capital stock, right? | ||
| They have $100 trillion capital stock. | ||
| We only have $70 trillion. | ||
| That is good news for future growth for them. | ||
| But they copy and steal everything. | ||
| They don't have the innovation and technology. | ||
| And Xi Jinping has been giving some stale speeches lately. | ||
| He gave the one a year ago, right? | ||
| We're going full-on Marxist-Leninism. | ||
| We're not going to do any more economic reforms and no more China culture, right? | ||
| Meaning Buddhism, etc. | ||
| It's full-on Marxist-Leninism. | ||
| Do you see that philosophy from the top blinding them and perhaps slowing them down more than More than experts are saying right now? | ||
| Well, I don't see it slowing them down very much, and they have been very good at orchestrating and managing their economy, and very good at influence and stealing things from the United States. | ||
| And unfortunately, our Securities and Exchange and our Commerce Department and our Department of Defense have not enforced the laws To prevent the transfer of technologies and to undercut what China is doing here in the United States and going after our technology and our R&D, but also in their influence operations to influence state and local officials as well as federal officials. | ||
| And their partnerships with American corporate elites and banking and investment elites, particularly venture capital, has worked against us and to their advantage, where we're financing the growth of their military and their R&D in almost all of the state-of-the-art areas. | ||
| Yep, Colonel Derek Harvey back with us on The War Room after the break. | ||
| Thanks for the tour de force across the world. | ||
| We'll be back with a little more domestic view of the administration to come in the | ||
|
unidentified
|
White House. | |
| Dave Brat sitting in with Stephen K. Bannon and honored and privileged to have Colonel Derek Harvey in with us. | ||
| If you just heard the last segment, I thought it was stunning. | ||
| The flow of information. | ||
| And so what we want to use the colonel's mind to explore what to expect in the next administration. | ||
| All political views are my own. | ||
| But let's just assume following Rasmussen polling this morning that Trump is ahead by several points still and wins the election. | ||
| Last time President Trump won, I was in Congress 14 to 18. | ||
| And when I came in, I was simply stunned at the lack of strategy or planning or anything, right? | ||
| It was just, wait, if we win the Senate, then we'll do something. | ||
| If we win the White House, we'll do something. | ||
| We won all three. | ||
| We had all three. | ||
| Speaker Ryan was the speaker. | ||
| following Boehner. | ||
| And there was no plan, we promised seven years to repeal Obamacare. We didn't even do that. | ||
| We didn't even put that forward. We did tax cuts, which are going to be a more complicated story, | ||
| likely going forward. It's going to be more nuanced, kind of in the J.D. Vance style. | ||
| But, Colonel Harvey, | ||
| you know, we don't know what the future administration is going to look like exactly. But in retrospect, | ||
| what lessons have we learned? | ||
| One thing we learned is Paul Ryan had the Steele dossier in 16. | ||
| And the deep state, the administrative state, the blob, whatever you want to call it, the Washington Post nuked President Trump on day one before he even took office. | ||
| And so how do we avoid these missteps, put great talent in place? | ||
| Colonel Harvey, take it from there. | ||
| Well, you have to understand the, you know, the combat terrain you're going to be on, the political combat terrain, and you have to get the diagnosis right. | ||
| And fortunately, The incoming administration, if it's a Trump team, knows what it went through last time, where you faced a McConnell that was not on side. | ||
| You had a Paul Ryan, who we came to learn was actually working actively against the administration in so many ways, and he has continued to work against Trump since he left the speakership. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| In government, we learned about the deep state and, you know, the White House suffered, you know, one or two leaks of classified information every day for the first 180 days. | ||
| And that was from mostly career people that were, you know, supporting the White House in different positions detailed by the CIA and elsewhere. | ||
| And then, you know, we turned over the personnel effort to Rance Prebis and the RNC early on. | ||
| And so they are the ones who put forward the names and got the approvals for people like, you know, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, who never supported the president's agenda, was against what he was trying to do in Israel, in Saudi Arabia, even opposed the trip to Saudi Arabia, of all things, in May of 2017. | ||
| He was against moving out of the Pacific trade agreement and the climate accords. | ||
| So you can't be putting people in to run your departments and agencies like Tillerson, like Mattis and some of the others who are not on side and do not buy into the president's agenda. | ||
| So that's part one. | ||
| Part two is understanding that getting control of DOJ, FBI, and the intelligence community is going to be very important because we saw what happened with Brennan and Avril Haines and Jim Clapper cooking up a false intelligence community assessment that suggested that Putin wanted Russia. | ||
| Putin wanted Trump to win, and they included that false dossier in the document because Comey wanted it to provide him some cover for what he was doing with Crossfire Hurricane and things. | ||
| There was an agenda there. | ||
| They falsified documents. | ||
| They changed things. | ||
| We know this from a detailed analysis of everything that went into that community assessment, and it wasn't bought into by the others. | ||
| So you have to understand where the threat's coming from. | ||
| You have to have good, loyal people that are going to enforce the law fairly across All political parties, not just be partisan, as we saw with DOJ and FBI under Comey. | ||
| And that means, you know, at the end of the day, Trump's going to need a close-knit group of people that understand who these people really are, what they have said, what they have done, more importantly, and what their commitments are to bringing on people. | ||
| Because if they get to be Secretary of State, they have tremendous say about everyone else that comes on board. | ||
| And so Tillerson did not bring on people that bought into the president's vision. | ||
| And, you know, the America First vision, you know, is a good one. | ||
| And I know that the president understands this now. | ||
| He went through it. | ||
| He suffered through it. | ||
| And the success of his administration was severely undermined because of the Mueller investigation and the fake You know, impeachment trials and things like that. | ||
| Now, what are we dealing with this time? | ||
| You were in Congress. | ||
| We got Mike Turner, who's head of the House Intelligence Committee, a Republican who really has never gone into the trenches to fight for our civil liberties against FISA overreach, FBI overreach, or to hold these bureaucracies accountable. | ||
| He's an anti-Trumper in my view, and I worked for him. | ||
| I worked for Devin Nunes, but I saw Turner in action every day. | ||
| Then you look at others in some of these committees. | ||
| We've got real divisions in the House of Representatives, and it's going to take real leadership and Mike Johnson getting on board if we have a mandate in November. | ||
| In the Senate, we don't know what the leadership's going to be like, but I expect it will be someone like Thune, who is not a committed America First person, isn't committed to defending American rights, freedoms, and liberties that are in the Constitution, and is more comfortable with the administrative state, unfortunately. | ||
| And so that's what we're going to be dealing with. | ||
| Yeah, Dakotas, I hope you heard that from Colonel Derek Harvey. | ||
| The Dakotas getting action there. | ||
| We got the receipts. | ||
| Colonel Harvey, going back, hit and rewind, I think you gave a few receipts there about what the intelligence agencies cooked up in the books. | ||
| You made it sound like it wasn't only unethical, but illegal. | ||
| The three-letter agencies, etc. | ||
| And for me, you know, the war room is fast. | ||
| This assassination attempt, I'm not going to draw any direct lines, but this election does seem existential. | ||
| Stephen Bannon is in jail right now. | ||
| Peter Navarro just got out of jail. | ||
| President Trump could be in jail right today if the judge had wanted it to be, or any day coming up in the next months. | ||
| So this is not anecdotal, right? | ||
| This is the use of the Justice Department for just awful means in a constitutional republic. | ||
| And the same holds on the other side. | ||
| The other side who created those documents It's existential for them. | ||
| That's why I brought up the extreme logic of what could possibly be at play. | ||
| How would you refer the War Room to the receipts that are available to see? | ||
| With the illegality that took place back in the 16-18 range, with the Steele dossier, with the State Department, with the 51 intelligence officers, etc. | ||
| Where can folks go to confirm that first basic piece that the laws were broken? | ||
| Well, I would say that the House Intelligence Committee produced public reports on that. | ||
| And those are accessible, I think, still online, or you can dig them out. | ||
| I think the Inspector General's reports that were completed on DOJ malfeasance on FISA and Crossfire Hurricane and the like are important documents that provide a roadmap to a lot of this. | ||
| I think there's a number of other places. | ||
| There's been some great work by Lee Smith, an author and commentator. | ||
| Just the News, John Solomon, some great reporting there. | ||
| But let me give you an idea of what we face. | ||
| We've submitted under the House Intelligence Committee 22 criminal referrals to the Department of Justice and the FBI. | ||
| The response is what we've seen in many cases. | ||
| They didn't do anything, okay? | ||
| And what they did do is, you know, they turned around and investigated the investigators and sought information from AT&T and Google and Yahoo about what we were, what our background was. | ||
| Well, we were, who we were calling, who we had text messages with. | ||
| They reversed it and started to investigate House intelligence staffers to try and get dirt on us in order to undercut. | ||
| And I don't know what they did against any of the Congress persons that were on our committee, but that's how they play ball, okay? | ||
| And they had no predicate, no underlying crime. | ||
| Just like when they did the FISA warrants in 2016 for Crossfire Hurricane to go after You know, Trump foreign policy advisors during the campaign, they had no predicate. | ||
| They falsified information. | ||
| They provided false information to the FISA court. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| And no one was accountable for that. | ||
| At the end of the day, after the Mueller report and after the inspector general investigations and our criminal referrals, if you're on one side, you get a free pass. | ||
| And it's just as much when you look at China influence and other things, there's breaking of the law. | ||
| and they're big donators, then they may not get even a subpoena, not even an open investigation. | ||
| And if you're on another side, they open up investigations on the flimsiest of information, | ||
| like a news release, they plant a news story with the New York Times, and then they refer | ||
| to the news story as a reason to open an investigation. | ||
| Yep. | ||
| I know it well. | ||
| We've got to bring it to an end. | ||
| It's not America. | ||
| It's not a republic. | ||
| Colonel Derek Harvey, back after the break. | ||
| Stick with The War Room. | ||
| Please share this platform with your friends. | ||
| We want to have the numbers even bigger when Stephen K. Bannon returns. | ||
|
unidentified
|
War Room. | |
| Here's your host, Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| Dave Brat in the war room with Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| Honored to have Colonel Derek Harvey with just sweeping analysis of the world we live in and unfortunately of the political world we now live in. | ||
| Brought the Colonel to an abrupt end as he was surveying some of the intelligence problems we have in the country right now. | ||
| So Colonel, bring us up to date. | ||
| I think you had an example of some intelligence failings in the United States of America. | ||
| So on the intelligence community assessment that concluded that Putin wanted Trump to win the 2016 election. | ||
| We went through the document and looked at every source in that citation to see where the information was coming from and whether it was credible or not. | ||
| And what we discovered at the end of the day is there were only three fragmentary pieces of information that alluded to Putin in some way or another, maybe being in favor of Trump. | ||
| And all three of those fragmentary reports were not put out in official reporting because they were from sources that had no reporting background, no reliability, and much of the information that had been provided by those subsources had been untrue in the past. | ||
| And so what they did is they integrated those and blended them with a higher quality source to give the impression that they were reliable reporting. | ||
| This was a total fabrication, and this is what the intelligence community has done on issues like this, okay? | ||
| And it's dangerous, it's manipulation, and it should be criminal. | ||
| Yeah, no, it's stunning. | ||
| You know, I was in Congress. | ||
| People think if you're in Congress, you have a megaphone, you can get your word out. | ||
| You cannot, right? | ||
| The media from the top down is lopsided and one-sided. | ||
| Are there any heroes on our side Who have brought attention to this fabrication? | ||
| I mean, this is a coup of a sitting president of the United States. | ||
| All these agencies supposedly work for him, and they're not working for him. | ||
| There's a great book out by, I think, Gibbons called National Security and Double Government. | ||
| And us Madisonians have been gravely naive in thinking that there's a separation of powers. | ||
| How do we get the word out? | ||
| Who should be getting the word out and who can you point people to to give us a little | ||
| hope here? | ||
| Well, I would point to people like John Radcliffe and Devin Nunes and most of the people in | ||
| the Freedom Caucus, for example. | ||
| And there are dozens of others that have not joined the Freedom Caucus, as you know, but are more or less aligned with them. | ||
| But, you know, there's that middle herd in the Republican Party that, you know, Are leaning to the benefits and follow the Speaker's direction. | ||
| And that's what they do. | ||
| They're a little bit cowed from the idea of joining the Freedom Caucus. | ||
| That said, the movie plot against the President is still very good and very accurate. | ||
| I want to just add one other thing about what they did on that Intelligence Community Assessment. | ||
| We also looked at all of the reporting that was available to them, that small team handpicked by John Brennan. | ||
| All of the intelligence that was available to them that they decided to put on the cutting room floor. | ||
| And what we found there was information that, if you included it, would lead you to a conclusion 180 degrees from what they concluded. | ||
| In actuality, the Moscow regime was more comfortable with a reset with Secretary Clinton, With Hillary Clinton, because they knew her and they knew how to manipulate her. | ||
| They were comfortable with her and they saw lots of indicators about Trump that they were not sure about. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| And they weren't, they couldn't put them in a box. | ||
| They weren't comfortable with them. | ||
| And therefore they were leaning towards Hillary Clinton. | ||
| They never really thought at all that Trump was their guy. | ||
| Yep, absolutely stunning. | ||
| It's depressing. | ||
| I grew up naive in the Midwest. | ||
| They called us Minnesota nice. | ||
| Now it's time for the Judeo-Christian West to rise up and start fighting the fight and holding these congressmen and senators. | ||
| The Senate, by the way, we're giving a hard time to the Congress. | ||
| The Senate's even worse. | ||
| They pick one issue to fight for, like, you know, changing the post office name in six years. | ||
| And that's all they do. | ||
| They don't do anything. | ||
| And so, Colonel Derek Harvey, you're a national treasure. | ||
| We just thank you so much for being on this show. | ||
| Everybody loves when you come on. | ||
| This time, I thought, was particularly striking, rich and deep analysis. | ||
| And so, God bless you, brother, and thanks for being on The War Room. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| Take care. | ||
| God bless. | ||
| You bet. | ||
| You bet. | ||
| All right, you just heard what we're facing. | ||
| To put it mildly, turbulent times may not even be strong enough, right? | ||
| So we refer you to our friends at Birch Gold. | ||
| Gold just hit a historic high, $2,500 an ounce. | ||
| And so consult Birch Gold. | ||
| Steve Bannon's written several articles for them, with them. | ||
| They'll answer your phone calls, tell you about the place of gold in your portfolio. | ||
| The rest of the world is buying gold, right? | ||
| So what do they know, right? | ||
| It's at a high. | ||
| That's why we don't give investment advice on timing, etc. | ||
| It depends on your age, your retirement trajectory, etc. | ||
| So call Birchgold and ask them what's right for you. | ||
| But traditionally, gold's been a good hedge against a risky world. | ||
| With that, we're going to move from Colonel Derek Harvey to another friend of the war room, Dr. Bradley Thayer, the China expert. | ||
| I think he's been listening in to Derek Harvey, and we had Colonel John Mills on a few weeks ago. | ||
| I thought, you know, I asked him to do a review of the four hotspots, you know, that immediately come to mind, you know, with Thailand and Ukraine, etc. | ||
| But he gave me 14 hotspots, and he did it by region. | ||
| He said over in the Caribbean, South America, then over in Asia, and then over in Europe and in the Middle East. | ||
| All of them brought to you by China. | ||
| So, Bradley Thayer, why don't you let me know if you agree with Mill's analysis. | ||
| Is China really behind most all of these hotspots? | ||
| And if so, can you please explain how? | ||
| Thank you for being with us, Bradley Thayer. | ||
| Hi, Dave, great to join you. | ||
| I think John Mills, Colonel John Mills, is right that China's behind it. | ||
| It's as Reagan said of the Soviet, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, that they're the center of evil in the modern world. | ||
| So too, the Chinese Communist Party is. | ||
| It's their resources, it's their wealth, it's their military capabilities, it's their political warfare strength. | ||
| Which is responsible for igniting and sustaining a lot of these conflicts, whether it's their support for Russia, which is of direct relevance for the war in Ukraine, or of Iran. | ||
| It's their expansion, the PRC's expansion into Africa, into South America, into the Middle East, of course, Southeast Asia. | ||
| Which is helping to drive it. | ||
| And the point fundamentally, Dave, is to undermine the United States and our interests. | ||
| It's the fundamental point is to overthrow the United States. | ||
| And that's what we need to recognize. | ||
| So Reagan's great insight was that it was the Soviet Union that was the problem. | ||
| And within the Soviet Union, the Communist Party So, too, we have to recognize it's the Chinese Communist Party which is driving it. | ||
| which is driving all of these fires, if you will, these significant fires around the world. | ||
| So our efforts have to be focused on the Chinese Communist Party and evicting it from power. | ||
| As Reagan destroyed in conjunction with Pope John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher, of course, and many other great people, people of goodwill around the world, So too we need to focus our energies on the CCP with people of goodwill around the world, the Chinese people. | ||
| as well as our friends and allies, to bring their tyranny to an end, because they are an illegitimate government, because they're communists, right? | ||
| The communists, by definition of illegitimate, are illegitimate wherever they're in power. | ||
| They don't seek any mandate from the people. | ||
| They seize power and rule through tyrannical methods. | ||
| When we recognize that, of course, the United States should have nothing to do with them. | ||
| We should work very hard to evict them from the international order. | ||
| They don't rule in the Chinese people's name. | ||
| They never ask the Chinese people whether they want, whether they've given any consent, and we should not treat them as the legitimate government of China, because they're not the legitimate government of China. | ||
| Right, right. | ||
| I asked Colonel Derek Harvey the same question. | ||
| He said, to come back to you, I'm seeing a lot of negative news on the economy and the strength of China. | ||
| I'm also seeing positive news about how intelligent they are with a long-range plan with these BRICS. | ||
| And a slow, steady drip, drip, drip of picking up countries while we're losing countries. | ||
| But a lot of it does seem to depend on the strength of the Chinese economy. | ||
| The Belt and Road requires billions and billions per country, right? | ||
| A billion per country sometimes across Africa, across Asia. | ||
| The Blue Water Navy is billions. | ||
| Their economy is fading from what we can tell. | ||
| I don't know how bad it's fading, but what's your take on their relative strength right now and going forward in the next, you know, five to ten years? | ||
| Well, Dave, their relative strength is in decline. | ||
| That is that their economy has stalled. | ||
| And this is the time to put pressure on them because of the illegitimacy of the regime really can be targeted at this time. | ||
| The bad news is, of course, that they've grown so rapidly and so quickly, and they've converted that wealth into military might, into diplomatic power, into technology, all of the problems that we see. | ||
| And so they're riding that wave, if you will, to use against us. | ||
| So what we need to do is cut off any investment with China, cut off trade with China, invest elsewhere, invest in the United States rather than investing in China, and recognize this is an acutely dangerous time because Xi Jinping is a hyper-aggressive leader, And he's one with an economy which is more abundant, which is in decline, and that makes him even more dangerous. | ||
| So we need to anticipate that the communist regime in China is going to be very aggressive, as they already are against the Philippines, against Taiwan, and against America right now. | ||
| Oh, we've got some folks who are saying that they're not at war with us. | ||
| But in fact, they're at war with us in every measure short of kinetic war. | ||
| We're not shooting at each other, just as we didn't shoot at the Soviets during the Cold War. | ||
| But the Chinese are working as hard as they can to undermine us, to kill Americans today, whether through fentanyl, whether through dispiriting Americans by eroding our sovereignty, obviously within the United States, through their operations, through the many, many tens of thousands—nobody really knows how many Chinese individuals have come in to the United States through the southern border and through other avenues. | ||
| Many of these individuals certainly are going to be covert agents, right? | ||
| They're going to be working for MSS or they're PLA. | ||
| They're at war with us today. | ||
| They have been. | ||
| Famously, they declared people's war in 2019 against the United States. | ||
| And in the communist idiom, that means something, right? | ||
| That means that they're targeting the United States for destruction. | ||
| And Xi Jinping was calling on the Chinese people as well as ordering the party to expedite measures towards the destruction of the United States. | ||
| So we're not shooting at each other. | ||
| And the whole point is to deter that, but they're at war with us, and it's time that we respond accordingly. | ||
| Yep. | ||
| Bradley Thayer, I'm going to come back on that point I had Douglas McGregor on, Colonel Douglas McGregor on. | ||
| I'll try to frame his point of view as accurately as possible right after the break and then I'd like your response to that. | ||
| Back with Bradley Thayer in the war room on China. | ||
| Government gangsters are the group of individuals, career bureaucrats, who have been installed by what we call the Deep State into every agency and department in the United States government. | ||
| Had Donald Trump not won in 2016, he would not have exposed the flank of the Deep State and their weapon of choice, the two-tier system of justice. | ||
| From Russiagate, to Hunter Biden's laptop, to Joe Biden's classified documents case, to January 6th, to the 51 Intel letter, and everything in between. | ||
| We would never have learned that. | ||
| These people are dangerous and vindictive, learning from their mistakes and perfecting ways to hide their corruption. | ||
|
unidentified
|
It is finally time for a straightforward assessment of the state of our nation. | |
| Back in the war room with Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| Dave Brat sitting in the house. | ||
| Prayers go out to Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| Please write in your newspapers on his behalf. | ||
| He's a political prisoner. | ||
| Peter Navarro just out of jail. | ||
| President Trump could have been in jail the whole time. | ||
| These are shocking times we live in. | ||
| Thank God for the war room posse, right? | ||
| As Stephen K. Bannon says, President Trump puts you, gives you access to the room. | ||
| He's in the room with you. | ||
| Same with Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| He puts you in the room, lets you see what's coming our way better than anybody else I know of. | ||
| So honored to be in the war room always with Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| And so we have Bradley Thayer with us, and we've been surveying China and the strengths and weaknesses. | ||
| And Bradley, why don't you just continue? | ||
| I had to cut you off the point you were making, and then we'll follow up and close out. | ||
| Sure, Dave, happy to. | ||
| So we have arguments in the United States that China is not a threat to the United States. | ||
| That argument is made in different guises. | ||
| It's made in some think tanks. | ||
| It's made, obviously, by some journals on Wall Street, for example. | ||
| And that argument is just wrong. | ||
| You can look at the three different elements here that are going to be directly relevant. | ||
| The leader of China, Xi Jinping, models his rule on Mao Zedong, the tyrannical ruler of China who killed scores of millions of Chinese people, and Mao modeled himself on Stalin. | ||
| So indirectly, Xi is modeling himself on Stalin. | ||
| Secondly, They're communists. | ||
| Communists destroy economies, they destroy people, they destroy every aspect of human life. | ||
| Uh, and so, um, and they're also do that aggressively. | ||
| Uh, so the ideology is one which lends it to a hyper aggressiveness. | ||
| Thirdly, let me ask you on. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Go ahead. | ||
| Go ahead with number three and I'll come back. | ||
| They've got the capabilities now, right? | ||
| Distribution of power. | ||
| China has grown so much. | ||
| in the last generation, in no small measure because we funded them, right? We've allowed | ||
| that. We let them into our economic ecosystem. And as Jim Finnell and I argue in our book, | ||
| Embracing Communist China, America's Greatest Strategic Failure, their economy went from about | ||
| 0.6 of 1% to about 20% of 1% of a world gross domestic product in about 30 years. | ||
| That's tremendous growth. | ||
| And with that has come power, military power. | ||
| So, Xi Jinping, the Communist Party, and they have the capabilities now. | ||
| Right. | ||
| Let me give you the counterpoint to that. | ||
| I had Douglas MacGregor on. | ||
| I watch him a lot on YouTube and some of the counter voice. | ||
| He said that China is not at war with us right now, doesn't want to go to war with us right now. | ||
| So, you know, I'll just read Kinetic, right? | ||
| Just say Kinetic. | ||
| And you said they now have the capacity and the will and the intent, which I agree with. | ||
| But let's just tease this out a bit. | ||
| If they do go for Taiwan right now, the U.S. | ||
| cannot allow that to happen just on the chips front alone, not to mention the major trade seaway piece that has been in place since Bretton Woods at the end of World War II. | ||
| And so the main problem Xi's got is feeding 1.4 billion people. | ||
| If he goes to war, he can go to war. | ||
| But I mean, I think it would be tens of millions of Chinese is starvation and worse. | ||
| And so if you add that into your calculation, does that change your mind at all | ||
| that they don't want a war quite yet because they don't have it all built out | ||
| and ready to roll yet to dominate and to win without sacrificing, | ||
| they're giving up their whole economy, right? | ||
| When the rest of the world sees that, they'll be horrified. | ||
| The whole world will take out all capital, will come to an end the next day. | ||
| And so how does that affect your calculations on the war probabilities? | ||
| Well, I certainly understand the argument, Dave, and it's made time and again, | ||
| that in essence, they can't afford to go to war. | ||
| That's the argument. | ||
| Right. | ||
| That argument's wrong. | ||
| And it's wrong because you can't mirror image. | ||
| You can't take our values and apply it to the Communist Party of China. | ||
| You have to think like a communist. | ||
| You have to think like a Chinese Communist leader. | ||
| And that is people are expendable for the Chinese Communist Party. | ||
| They don't care about the Chinese people. | ||
| They care about themselves, communist rule in China. | ||
| So they're quite willing to incur sacrifices, because those sacrifices are going to be borne by the Chinese people. | ||
| Again, Dave, Mao Zedong starved to death about 40 million people, according to Frank Dick Carter, 40 to 42 million people in about just over three years, from 1959 to about 1961. | ||
| 1959 to about 1961. 40 million people starved in an intentional famine. So this is not a | ||
| regime that cares or that where the human cost just doesn't figure into their calculus. | ||
| You've got to recognize, you have to think like a communist, right? | ||
| They're hyper-aggressive, and they're determined to bring about, through war, and again, this is the key point, Dave, they're at war with us now. | ||
| In political warfare, it's just not kinetic. | ||
| It could become kinetic, Over the Philippines, over Taiwan or other issues and it could happen today in terms of it, but they are determined to destroy us. | ||
| Yep. | ||
| Yep, Bradley Thayer, I agree with you. | ||
| Stephen K. Bannon agrees with you. | ||
| We always go back to the 1999 unrestricted warfare. | ||
| Everybody at home should go download that. | ||
| It's only 80 or 90 pages. | ||
| Your stomach will be upset because of the logic Bradley Thayer just laid out. | ||
| When you read the two Chinese colonels, |
Export Selection