Sept. 5, 2025 - Bannon's War Room
47:59
Participants
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| This is the primal scream of a dying regime. | ||
| Pray for our enemies. | ||
| Because we're going medieval on this people. | ||
| I got a free shot on all these networks lying about the people. | ||
| 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 gonna stop it. | ||
| It's going to happen. | ||
| And where do people like that go to share the big line? | ||
| Mega media. | ||
| I wish in my soul, I wish that any of these people had a conscience. | ||
| 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
|
Warum. | |
| Stephen K. Thursday, 4th of September, and Odomini 2025. | ||
| Um great guest this evening, Joseph Robertson, a political strategist in the UK, my beloved homeland, who has come out with this incredible analysis. | ||
| And I strongly recommend everybody to go to Substack and read it for themselves. | ||
| We'll be pushing out the link for this later on towards the end of this block. | ||
| And the thesis basically is I don't know how much you will follow UK politics, but there's been this organization called the Fabian Society, very heavily involved with the Labour Party since its foundation. | ||
| Um since before it's um involved in the foundation of the Labour Party. | ||
| Um the Fabian Society has been around by uh for about 140 years, and it's always been known as being socialist but moderate and non-revolutionary. | ||
| But in fact, thanks to Joseph's analysis and research here, there are a couple of things here that I and I consider myself a close follower of UK politics. | ||
| I wasn't aware of, and it's not as moderate and non-revolutionary as they've had us believe. | ||
| Joseph, welcome on to the show. | ||
| Thanks very much for coming on. | ||
| Can you just tell us in your own words just just a little bit about the Fabian Society and why you um we'll go into some of the themes that you mentioned in your article? | ||
| But first, just tell us a bit about the Fabian Society and why you decided that it warranted uh a closer look. | ||
| Well, thanks very much for having me on, first of all, and you know, I think this is a story like you said, isn't well known, even perhaps to most of the general public in the UK, let alone around the world. | ||
| And there are two things to point out with the Fabian Society, they're really key for the audience to understand. | ||
| One is the theme of something called gradualism, uh, which is basically a uh an antidote, if you like, to revolutionary communism, because what they realized is that if you do a revolution and do it well, you can take over the system, but to actually get the people on the side over many hundreds of years is how you really take over a system. | ||
| It's not all about hard and fast uh beheadings and executions, it's more about getting the will of the people, getting the judiciary, getting the very system itself into place, and that's the theme of gradualism, it's a gradual progress through the institutions. | ||
| I'm sure some of this will resonate. | ||
| You know, it's the breakdown of the nuclear family, it's the breakdown of the nation-state, it's the decimation of free speech. | ||
| It's all from the communist playbook that we know so well. | ||
| But what the Fabians did differently uh from the late 1800s onwards is realize that there was a route to slow and gradual progress that would culminate in them running the government, and this is what they have, in my opinion, successfully done. | ||
| Um, we've seen it, particularly with you know, looking at the current Labour government. | ||
| I mean, Keir Starmer himself is a Fabian, the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, who is certainly not in the good books of of uh the American establishment. | ||
| Here's also a Fabian, Angela Rayner is a Fabian, the Lord um uh Lord Hermer, who is the attorney general is also a Fabian, a recent judge who was on one of the migrant hotel cases, it's discovered was a Fabian. | ||
| They are everywhere, and they have permeated throughout the entire establishment. | ||
| And I think something that's very important to note and will resonate straight away, is that Tony Blair was a fabian. | ||
| And if you understand that and you understand what was happening in the world between 1997 and 2008, uh, then it puts a lot of things into place because their idea is to take things over through supranational institutions, international law, and to basically take away uh our our freedom and our sovereignty. | ||
| Now I know you're gonna talk a little bit about the the UK's human rights act for 1998, pushed by Tony Blair in a moment, um, and the judicial activism that really sort of snuck in also through the creation at the same time of the Supreme Court. | ||
| But first, just go just go back, if you wouldn't mind 140 years to the foundation of the Fabian Society. | ||
| Who were the original Fabians, first of all, and what was the philosophical context around which they got together. | ||
| So you had George Bernard Shaw and Sydney Webb, um, and these were two of the key founding voices in the movement. | ||
| Uh Bernard Shaw in particular is a particularly um uh sinister individual. | ||
| I mean, he called for the decimation of certain populations, he loved what was happening with Marxist projects around the world. | ||
| Um, and we we can we can't really even call it Marxist at that point because it was creeping out through revolutionary, what I call student politics, socialism at that point, the stuff that uh for those who might like to read the Russian classics, Dostoevsky and other authors were picking up on at the time. | ||
| He was a big fan of all this kind of revolutionary anti-establishment enlightenment that was driving and sweeping through Europe at the time. | ||
| And he, along with his co-founders, basically realized that there was a way to do this in Britain, but because they were up against an establishment uh which is deeply deeply embedded into the British system, is what you think about when you think about Britain, you know, the monarchy, uh, these institutions, these grand institutions we've had for hundreds of years, it was going to be a far tougher challenge than in more volatile political atmospheres on the continent. | ||
| And so what they did was essentially to look at it as though they were the establishment. | ||
| They started to set up universities like the London School of Economics. | ||
| They set up and founded the Labour Party. | ||
| I mean, I would I would go even further than what you said in your intro. | ||
| I think they they were actually the creators of the Labour Party. | ||
| Um so they were revolutionary in every aspect of that early socialist movement, which then went on to create trade unions and all the things we saw uh fighting for communist purposes in the Cold War. | ||
| It all sounds very English back in sort of the the sort of the late the late second half of the 19th century. | ||
| Uh looking at some of the founding figures here, it's a bit like I don't know, Sunday afternoon tea at the Vicarage. | ||
| Um there's no there's there's no real um in fact there's there's no real nothing brazen enough to frighten the horses, um, and yet the revolutionary content is certainly there. | ||
| Now, what you're mentioning just um now is about the the foundation of the Labour Party. | ||
| Uh that was took around about took place about the very early 1900s, right? | ||
| Um the the I think was the in international uh labour movement or something like that, right there at the beginning. | ||
| And you have a number of different streams flowing into this. | ||
| You you had the Webb, Sydney Beatrice Webb, obviously, but you also have someone like Keir Hardy, um, who's who's presumably he he's the person who inspired our current prime minister's parents in the naming of their of their child, right? | ||
| Um he was always he was that no that he was always a bit more being from an old labor, old sort of manual labor sort of background, uh very wary of the middle class sentiments of the Fabian society, and he was much more um I think that it's fair to say um he was obviously sort of a Christian socialist as well. | ||
| I think it's um I'm the reason I'm saying that is because there are some things in the Kerr Hardy program that found its obviously found its way into the early labor movement that a lot of MAGA can support, right? | ||
| Which is the concentration on um on a fair, you know, a fair deal, basically, for the blue-collar worker. | ||
| Um it's it's socialist, but as some people like to say, I think Blair might have been one of them himself, it's social hyphenist rather than the full-on redistribution of wealth and some some other forms of socialism like sort of going towards communism and Marxism, the abolition of private property. | ||
| Now that's sort of far more in the territory of the webs, right? | ||
| So you have this coming together. | ||
| Um, and the what the what I want to ask you here about that is the webs. | ||
| I think didn't they go to um or Bernard Shaw? | ||
| He went to um to Soviet Russia, he saw Stalin, he came to Italy and sat down with Mussolini. | ||
| What was um what was his reaction to those two individuals? | ||
| Well, he actually advocated for eugenics and he he advocated for the extermination of certain populations. | ||
| He was he was enthralled, in fact, with national socialism, because he understood Hitler's project better than a lot of modern day historians, which was that to properly take over a country, you can't just use the lower classes to rise. | ||
| You also have to have the middle and upper classes in your in your hand. | ||
| And he realized that other movements were doing this successfully. | ||
| So really what we're talking about is exactly what you're saying. | ||
| It's it's a melding of blue-collar labour, which is essentially fighting for a better deal, fighting for better working conditions. | ||
| It's not necessarily Marxism. | ||
| And then this totalitarian, authoritarian mindset of eugenics, the Margaret Sanger attitude, perhaps for an American audience to get a reference point. | ||
| That's the kind of people that these Shaws and Webbs were. | ||
| And what they did so successfully was to, you know, unite some of the aristocracy and the institutions, the universities, which let's face it weren't that democratic at the time of foundation, uh, with this more sinister subcurrent. | ||
| And yes, he praised Mussolini, he praised Stalin, but he also realized that, like you said, they needed a third way. | ||
| They needed gradualism. | ||
| And what's really interesting to note is that this idea of a third way, this idea of doing Marxism differently, is also very similar to the language that Tony Blair used when introducing his own economic platform in the late 90s and early 2000s. | ||
| He used exactly that terminology, a third way. | ||
| So there's this sort of, as you said, it it is quite English, it's is quite stereotypical. | ||
| It's uh let's do it over a cup of tea rather than have a revolution. | ||
| And I think that's why it's been so successful, because you can barely notice it. | ||
| And as you're saying, basically most of the present government um are members of the of the Fabian society. | ||
| But you make the point in your article that really that's almost a diversion. | ||
| The revelation of that should should shock people and to wake wake them up. | ||
| But that's really only the superficial part of it because as you make clear towards the uh the the second half of your article, the real success of the Fabian society is its infiltration into the civil service. | ||
| And you make the analysis how that sort of this is very much the UK's deep state, and that's where they have the capture. | ||
| And I think in your own words, you say they've been so successful at this, it doesn't really matter which colour Rosette occupies Downing Street. | ||
| That's completely correct. | ||
| So our administrative deep state is obviously uh older than a lot of other institutions because we are you know the original foundational democracy, other than one or two other countries who have had it slightly longer, but we're certainly the largest nation in terms of the uh democratic nations who's had a system of parliament for probably the longest period. | ||
| And so what's happened over many hundreds of years is that bureaucracy is built up around Whitehall and around um the houses of parliament. | ||
| And and what the fabians realized very early on was that if they could control this, this bureaucracy, this administrative deep state, then they would be the ones in charge regardless of the colour of the rosette. | ||
| So what they did was to put their own people into significant positions. | ||
| So, as an example, the current governor of the Bank of England, a very, very, very, very important position, as you as you'll see in a second from the analogy I'm gonna give, is a fabian. | ||
| And he, if uh rumors are to be believed, and I believe they are because I've had it from the horse's mouth, was the guy who was instrumental in bringing down Liz Truss, who is a name I'm sure many of your audience will be aware of. | ||
| She is on the war path to call out the deep state for what it is in this country. | ||
| She's our former prime minister, former conservative prime minister, who was brought down essentially by the financial institutions working cohesively together to evict her from office. | ||
| And she found that she was not only up against her own party who have drifted far to the left, that's the Tory party, the Conservative Party, but she was also up against an administrative deep state that went Far, far beyond the civil service. | ||
| It went into the financial institutions, the judiciary, the Supreme Court. | ||
| Another important thing to note is that in the UK, the idea of a Supreme Court is a relatively new idea. | ||
| We didn't have a Supreme Court before the Blair Brown government who introduced that in uh 2008 and 9. | ||
| And before that, the law lords, our Supreme Court, sat in the House of Lords. | ||
| So they were wedded to the parliamentary constitution. | ||
| They were part of the process in the lower and upper house. | ||
| They got removed into the Supreme Court for a reason because what Blair wanted to do was create a network that was the rule of law. | ||
| It was the lawyers and the judiciary who were going to take over upholding this new Fabian project. | ||
| And that's why it's so important that so many judges, so many lawyers are Fabians now, because it all makes sense. | ||
| I just want to quickly have uh a quick word about some of our sponsors. | ||
| But before we do that, I just want to ask you this question about the the Supreme Court. | ||
| Many people will be persuaded by the argument about the separation of powers, and will, you know, the notional idea that it's still basically the lawlords, but not sitting in the upper chamber of the legislature of parliament, but in a separate concrete body. | ||
| Um, but you make the argument, which is absolutely historically it's absolutely true, that whatever you might think of the concept of the separation of powers, I think it goes back to Montesquieu, right? | ||
| Who who might have uh coined that term for philosophically, but whatever you might think about that, that's not the British tradition. | ||
| That's not the English tradition. | ||
| The English tradition over over 1,400 years, as you make the argument, evolved in a very different direction. | ||
| And in fact, in the English tradition, it is it is the case and appropriate that the legislature itself should be the final arbiter of what law means rather than uh an elected judges. | ||
| There's a very fine point to make on this, and I don't want to make it too nuanced because I want people to really understand what's going on here. | ||
| But the easiest way to think about this is that we have always had a constitutional monarchy, and that monarch doesn't have real or absolute power, he's there essentially as a head, something that binds together the four nations because we are United Kingdom, we are four nations. | ||
| We are Great Britain, but we are four nations. | ||
| And so the monarch is the glue that holds that together. | ||
| He's the final piece in the jigsaw, as it were. | ||
| And so the House of Lords is essentially one down from the king in a sense, because it's the you know, mixture of the hereditary peers, most of whom have been got rid of by Labour, um, and then also an expert class of lords who sit and and and look through laws to try and pick through it. | ||
| So it's a very, very expert body. | ||
| These are people who examine stuff before it goes through. | ||
| But again, they don't have absolute power. | ||
| The real power lies in the sovereignty of parliament, which is the lower house, it's the house of the people. | ||
| Now, when a law goes from the House of Commons to the House of Lords, it has to be rubber stamped with the seal of the king. | ||
| Uh, the presence of the king and the house of lords gives the final stamp on a law. | ||
| That's an important point to note. | ||
| Since the creation of the Supreme Court, twice, the sovereign will of parliament, which is the people's will, the democratic will that cannot be overturned of the people, has been overturned by the Supreme Court. | ||
| Once in Miller No. | ||
| Which was when Parliament was progued during Brexit, which means it was shut down. | ||
| The Supreme Court decided that that couldn't happen and said that what the Prime Minister had done was illegal. | ||
| Completely wrong because it received royal assent. | ||
| It should have happened. | ||
| And the second time was the Rwanda migrant scheme, which the Conservative Party tried and failed with, where again, they overturned the rule of the rule of the House of Commons and made it about the rule of law. | ||
| So they're working against the people. | ||
| Joseph Opperson, hold that because you're touching one of my favorite, the supremacy of parliament. | ||
| And this principle that no parliament can bind and other is one of my personal hobby horses. | ||
| And I always love talking about this, especially to a predominantly American audience. | ||
| Hold on, that we're gonna we'll come back to this point in just a couple of moments' time. | ||
| When inflation jumps, when you hear the national debt is over 37 trillion dollars, do you ever think maybe now would be a good time to buy gold? | ||
| Whether there's a hedge against inflation, Peace of mind during global instability, or just for sensible diversification, Birch Gold Group believes every American should own physical gold. | ||
| And so they created something special. | ||
| Until September the 30th, if you're a first-time gold buyer, Birch Gold is offering a rebate of up to $10,000 in free metals on qualifying purchases to claim eligibility and start the process. | ||
| Request an info kit now. | ||
| Just text Bannon to 989898. | ||
| Plus Birch Gold can help you roll an existing IRA or 401k into an IRA in gold, and you're still eligible for that rebate in free metals of up to 10,000 dollars. | ||
| Birch Gold Group is the only precious metals company, the War Room Trusts, as do tens of thousands of their customers. | ||
| So right now, your first time to buy gold and take advantage of that rebate of up to 10,000 when you buy this uh uh when you buy before the September 30th deadline, just text the name Bannon to 989898 and claim your eligibility and get your free info kit. | ||
| And also September is national preparedness month. | ||
| So it's the perfect time to ask yourself some questions like how much food do you have on hand for emergencies? | ||
| How would you get clean water if the tap went dry tomorrow? | ||
| And what would you do if a storm knocked out the power for a week? | ||
| If you're anything like me, there's some room for improvement on all this stuff. | ||
| Luckily, our friends at My Patriot Supply are making disaster preparedness easier and more affordable than ever by giving you over $1,500 worth of emergency food and preparedness gear for free. | ||
| They just launched their preparedness month mega kit, and it includes a full year of emergency food, a water filtration system that can purify almost any water source, solar backup generator, and a lot more. | ||
| And here's the best part. | ||
| If you go to my patriot supply.com slash bannon, you can get 90 preparedness essentials totaling over $1,500. | ||
| Absolutely free. | ||
| Head to my Patriotsupply.com slash banner for full details. | ||
| That's my Patriotsupply.com slash Bannon. | ||
| Okay, so Joseph, I often use my little perch here on the war room to suggest, gently suggest to Americans who hold their constitutional system in great esteem. | ||
| That actually the better system is the English system. | ||
| Uh, because there you have a system where your directly elected representatives have the ultimate say over the nation. | ||
| I I often like to make the argument that one of the and I voted for Brexit, that one of the things that really got under the skin of the Brits was the fact that Parliament, our Parliament, could be overruled by a group of Europeans sitting in Brussels, and that did not sit well with us because we had this parliamentary tradition where parliament is sovereign. | ||
| Doesn't no over no judges can overrule it. | ||
| And as you point out, in the late 90s, 98 or whatever it was, Tony Blair created this Supreme Court. | ||
| And you cited these two instances. | ||
| Now I want to play devil's advocate for a moment on this. | ||
| Because my understanding of the Supreme Court is that it can't overturn primary legislation, parliament's explicit legislation. | ||
| What it can do is say that the government hasn't interpreted the law correctly, but the government is always free to pass an amendment or to clarify that situation, which is the thing that you really don't have here in Italy or in America, because once the judge says that's unconstitutional, you're pretty much stuck with that. | ||
| Um I right or am I wrong on that? | ||
| What is the sovereign body in England or in the UK right now? | ||
| Is it the Supreme Court or is it the king in Parliament? | ||
| Well, this is the big question, right? | ||
| I think for a long time because the system hadn't been tested, we couldn't really answer that question because it had never come to the point where something had received royal assent, but then it gone to the Supreme Court and be deemed illegal. | ||
| Now, can you say that sovereignty is the law, but then also say that a sovereign parliament has acted illegally? | ||
| To me, that seems like a paradox. | ||
| So I think that kind of answers your question. | ||
| If if if the Supreme Court can sit on its high horse, which by the way is not elected in any way, shape, or form, and that is your point. | ||
| It's not elected, and yet it can overturn the sovereign will of parliament, even if they have a la acted so-called illegally. | ||
| I mean, explain to me this paradox. | ||
| If you make the laws, how can you break them directly? | ||
| I'm not talking about the individuals, not the MPs breaking laws, but the actual House, how can it break the law by passing a law or a directive? | ||
| Well, it can't. | ||
| And of course, the Rwanda bill was a bill. | ||
| So it went through and it got shot down by the Supreme Court. | ||
| So I think this has been tested now. | ||
| We know who's in charge. | ||
| It's the judiciary. | ||
| And that is so important. | ||
| There's another really, really interesting nuance here. | ||
| When the Lord Chancellor takes an oath, he now says, I vow to uphold the rule of law. | ||
| That is an addition. | ||
| That did not used to be in the vow he took. | ||
| That came in in the early 2000s under Tony Blair. | ||
| Before that, he vowed to uphold the King and Parliament. | ||
| So what do we have here? | ||
| We have what I call a backdoor to cultural regicide. | ||
| It's a way to get rid of the supremacy of the king and the supremacy of the people. | ||
| And those two things are combined, of course, through our uh common law in the UK. | ||
| Our common law, which of course dates far, far back into history, and you can go all the way back to Ronnie Mead and the charter signed by all the noble barons to protect the people, etc. | ||
| We have a long constitutional history of this. | ||
| The people are in charge in the UK because of the House of Commons. | ||
| If that can then put a bill through, which again gets royal assent, but cannot pass the Supreme Court because of technicalities. | ||
| You are not being governed by the king, you're not being governed by the people. | ||
| And so fundamentally, we have institutional capture and we are governed by a what I would call a communist regime. | ||
| Fundamentally, to continue my old hair as devil's advocate in the UK, Parliament could always abolish the um the Supreme Court, right? | ||
| You can simply pass an act of parliament abolishing the Supreme Court. | ||
| Whether the Supreme Court then says that act is uh is illegal, uh, would be an interesting dynamic. | ||
| Look, we've got like 90 seconds left. | ||
| Can you just give me give me your synthesis on this as a strategy to MAGA? | ||
| What can they do about looking at the Fabian success? | ||
| Um to learn from it and to absorb some of these ideas in their own fight back and out to take back the American system for the American people. | ||
| Well, now we get on to the good stuff. | ||
| It's a shame I've only got a few seconds to talk about it, but we need to take a chainsaw to the establishment in this country. | ||
| That's what's got to happen. | ||
| We've got to look at three people Malay, Trump, and Orban. | ||
| Malay took a chainsaw to the bureaucracy in Argentina, he slashed similar inner fashion to what Doge is doing in the US, but perhaps even more extreme, he slashed uh whole elements of the administrative deep state, they disappeared, they went away. | ||
| And of course, what Orban's doing at the other end of the spectrum is state building. | ||
| He's putting in place institutions that will last decades, if not hundreds of years, on the right of of Hungarian politics in that country. | ||
| And so for MAGA and for the UK, what we have to do is take those lessons and synthesize them. | ||
| We have to figure out what it is constitutionally we need to do to put the safeguards in place to prevent a recapture of the state. | ||
| Because it's great winning an election and it's great just doing things. | ||
| That's all important stuff. | ||
| You've got to flood the zone, you've got to take back the system, but then you've got to build the next generation, and that's the most important part. | ||
| That's what the Fabians have done for 140 years, and that's what we have to do in this country, what they have to do in the US. | ||
| And the only way to do that is to galvanize the youth. | ||
| This is what I love about MAGA right now, and this is what we need to get right in the UK. | ||
| Once you've slashed all of the librette tape and all the legislation and you built a new civil service that's higher and fireable, then you've got to staff it with young people. | ||
| That was just fascinating. | ||
| Stand by, folks. | ||
| We'll be back in about two minutes after this short break to continue the analysis with Joseph Robertson. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I got American power. | |
| I got American faith. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| America's home. | ||
| Tell America's Voice family. | ||
| Are you on Getter yet? | ||
| What are you waiting for? | ||
| It's free. | ||
| It's uncentered, and it's where all the biggest voices in conservative media are speaking out. | ||
| Download the Getter app right now, it's totally free. | ||
| It's where I put up exclusively all of my content. | ||
| 24 hours a day. | ||
| You want to know what Steve Banner's thinking? | ||
| Go together. | ||
| That's right. | ||
| You can follow all of your favorites. | ||
| Steve Banner, Charlie Project the Solvies. | ||
|
unidentified
|
And so many more. | |
| Download the Getter app now. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Sign up for free and be part of the new pit. | |
| Welcome back, folks. | ||
| And one of the great joys of doing uh on air television is that you get to do on air production in real time. | ||
| And this the engagement we've had over the last 25 minutes with Joseph Robertson has been so strong and so immense. | ||
| We're actually going to continue this conversation now until the end of the show. | ||
| And that is that is on air production. | ||
| A la Bannon. | ||
| So Joseph, you were saying just before the break there, what the what MAGA as uh a revolutionary movement might want to absorb from some of the Fabian society and other revolutionary movements and successes over the last 140 years. | ||
| There is something that both movements share. | ||
| Let me put this to you. | ||
| And that is the fact that they are both attempts to reform the system from within rather than to overthrow the system. | ||
| Even if, as you were saying earlier in the first half of the show, that Sydney and Beatrix Webb actually got lost, they actually lost hope in the ability to do that. | ||
| And they would they became full on overthrow the system type revolutionaries. | ||
| Originally the Fabian idealist to change within. | ||
| That is something that MAGA intends to do as well. | ||
| And I think many people look at President Trump as the last chance to successfully change the system from within while it might still be possible. | ||
| So let's come back to this point. | ||
| What you were saying about it wasn't Gramsci's expression, the slow march through the institutions. | ||
| I think it was uh Rudy Deutschka who coined that, but it's often attributed to Grammar Sheen is very much there in his philosophy. | ||
| What do we, you know, without obviously wanting to imitate the cultural Marxists too much, they have been pretty successful in saying about achieving what they want to do. | ||
| Go continue your point that you were on before the break about what MAGA might be looking at here about the Fabians. | ||
| Um point us to imitate. | ||
| You have to get outside, I think, uh, of electoral politics to really consider this question properly. | ||
| Because of course, what we find with particularly the Fabian society in the UK and then and what they've done is that it doesn't matter who's in power. | ||
| The Conservative Party were in power in this country for about 14 years, and okay, they are a far more left-wing party than they used to be now, but there were still some good people within that movement who wanted to do things, and they couldn't, because the institutions were so fundamentally captured from the financial institutions all the way through to the universities, all the way through to even private corporations and the way they run, that every time they tried something, it failed. | ||
| It was either held up by the judiciary, it flopped financially, or there was some other mechanism in place to prevent it from happening. | ||
| So what we have to do is if you like counter-revolutionaries is the people who want to rebuild the system with a prosperity and sovereignty agenda. | ||
| Is we have to create not just parallel institutions but also go back in and retake over institutions where necessary. | ||
| And so that sometimes means building new projects. | ||
| I mean, look at what the Fabians did. | ||
| You know, this is a good point. | ||
| The London School of Economics, now revered around the world as uh a left-wing but nonetheless uh formidable institution. | ||
| Um is considered by many to be one of the pillars of those who maybe want to go into the financial markets or into certain areas of of governance. | ||
| Um, and so people go there, and whether they like it or not, they will at some point be received, or sorry, be met with leftist indoctrination. | ||
| So we need to build institutions like that one that do the opposite, that actually open up people to critical thinking, to pillars of sovereignty, to understanding why the family is so important. | ||
| Just like they're doing in Hungary. | ||
| I want to use Hungary as an example of this. | ||
| I think we've already got a very good model to copy because if Victor Orban lost an election tomorrow, it would still be decades before his opponents could properly clear out the institutions. | ||
| He's done exactly what the left have done in this country. | ||
| And of course, Hungary is a much smaller country than the UK or the US in terms of population. | ||
| But we can start to imitate some of those things and the way we go about business. | ||
| It's all very well, for instance, having political action conferences, because I'm you know a big fan of that, helping organise one here in the UK next year. | ||
| But the key thing is then what do you do with that energy? | ||
| Where does it go? | ||
| How do you build new institutions to continue that movement? | ||
| Um I don't want to put words into a mouth, but would you be looking? | ||
| Would you would you suggest the consideration of an LSE type project, but along MAGA lines in the United States to do for the next generation of MAGA culture warriors? | ||
| Um, much what the LSC has been doing in the last hundred years in the UK. | ||
| I would, although I'd say in the US, you're kind of a little bit further on than we are. | ||
| You've got institutions that you can use, which were traditionally considered conservative institutions from think tanks like the Heritage all the way through to different university projects that are opening up as we speak around the country, which I think are far more traditional values and conservative values perhaps than we do in the UK. | ||
| You've got to understand that fundamentally the UK has been captured, I would say, ideologically longer than the US. | ||
| So we are working from a ground zero here. | ||
| In the US, I think there are institutions you can recapture. | ||
| I think the problem is that liberalism has corroded the right so much that we don't really understand our own values and our own traditions in the way that the left does. | ||
| And so it's all very well talking about woke and pointing fun at people and you know doing all these things that we do so well on the right. | ||
| But what are we actually building? | ||
| You know, uh, what are we actually going at and making? | ||
| Where are our groundbreaking revolutionary ideas that will change the face of the earth for the next 50 years? | ||
| Because the the leftists have managed to do that. | ||
| We don't like what they're doing, we don't believe it's moral, but it's incredibly competent, and we have to learn from them. | ||
| I think, you know, is it's one of my favourite quotes actually from the Bible. | ||
| Yeah, I'm gonna get biblical because I I believe in this so passionately. | ||
| I think you know you've got to be gentle as doves but cunning as serpents. | ||
| And we've been gentle as doves for a long time in the face of adversity, but we haven't been cunning as serpents, and we have to start getting our act together on that front. | ||
| How do we build the next 50 years? | ||
| Because we should, because we know that we're right. | ||
| Um just to close this the point about the LSC here, and many people I won't realize that it was founded by these radical socialist ideologues. | ||
| Um, but that's really the point, isn't it? | ||
| They'll just think of the London School of Economics as one of the UK's great universities, and they won't associate it with an a project explicitly created for the for the propagation of propaganda. | ||
| And I repeat, that that is the point. | ||
| That is the point of why that of why that is so successful. | ||
| But what um the two polls I wanted to pull from your essay, one of them was on the LSC, and I'll just read it out here. | ||
| You say that the LSC was designed to launder radical political goals through the wash of academic rigor, transforming partisan objectives into expert social science. | ||
| And I think that's absolutely brilliantly put. | ||
| Um something else you want uh that I want to ask you about I think will be of interest to Americans given the present political debate, is that you you highlight two areas of government activity here as part of the explicit socialist project of building the welfare, the infrastructure, the superstructure, the scaffolding, I think you call it, of the of the welfare state. | ||
| Um, and that's the the nationalisation of education and the nationalisation of health. | ||
| Um for people who aren't that aware about the the national health service, the NHS in the UK, which really is more of a civic religion for the British and the Church of England itself. | ||
| Um, and I I just whenever I talk to Americans about the NHS, I can't help but think of the opening of the Olympics when London hosted the Olympics, which was just cringeworthily embarrassing. | ||
| It was worship and adoration of the cult of the NHS. | ||
| But just say something about that would you wouldn't, if you wouldn't mind about the NHS and why it is so essential as part of the establishment's plot to destroy the freedom and free choice of the average Brit. | ||
| Well, I I think the best way I can describe this is with an anecdote. | ||
| So there's a very famous poster from World War II, I believe, which has a gentleman with with very interesting facial hair pointing, saying, Your country needs you. | ||
| And it was very effective propaganda because it made people feel that if they didn't go and fight for their country, then they were uh somehow traitor uh uh treacherous to the cause. | ||
| And the NHS since the wartime has basically become a replacement of that. | ||
| It's uh it's a left-wing idea. | ||
| You all pay taxes into the system and people get largely free health care as a result. | ||
| It's not actually that bad of an idea, right? | ||
| Because it does work in some areas. | ||
| I'm not going to entirely slate it as an idea. | ||
| Um, it certainly helps some people who are lower down in society to get access to healthcare or doctor's appointments. | ||
| So there are elements of the NHS which are completely docile and perhaps actually valuable. | ||
| Um, however, where it gets tricky is when it becomes nationalised to the point of worship, which is what you're talking about. | ||
| It is an incredibly large organization. | ||
| I mean, quite literally, you know, a large percentage of our population um have jobs in the civil service of one kind or another, and a big proportion of that is made up from the NHS. | ||
| Um that is basically what we're talking about. | ||
| The the NHS is the largest employer in the United Kingdom. | ||
| Yeah, it is, it is. | ||
| It's the largest employer within the subset of the civil service or or you know, the the public services. | ||
| Uh it is a behemoth. | ||
| Uh it spends more money in seconds than entire international space programs spend around the world in a year. | ||
| I mean, the the scale of this operation is really something to behold. | ||
| And yet we're falling away, and I think this is why it's important. | ||
| We're falling away in terms of the quality of health care that we provide, to the point where people are genuinely beginning to question it. | ||
| Uh, because of course, what's really happening is that they're siphoning agendas through this system. | ||
| Supposedly it's for medicine. | ||
| In reality, it's like a giant planned parenthood in some ways. | ||
| It pushes all kinds of stuff from transgenderism to abortion. | ||
| I mean, it is very much a branch of the state. | ||
| And of course, because it's run as a propaganda branch as well as a medical branch, it slowly becomes awful. | ||
| I mean, the last time it was independently reviewed to give you some example was in the 1980s. | ||
| Uh the Tories started trying to attempt to review it, but they just couldn't because the scale of the thing is so large. | ||
| So, to really understand the Fabians, you have to look at what they did. | ||
| And this goes back to my point about MAGA, back to my point about Reform UK and their movement here in the UK. | ||
| Reforming governments who get into power have to build credible institutions. | ||
| I think the NHS is so large, I don't think we could tear it down and start again. | ||
| There would be too much public out uh outcry over it. | ||
| But you can refine elements of the system, and you have to privatize certain areas of the system, in my opinion. | ||
| You also have to allow people to essentially pay in if they want to, because some people don't want to pay into this system. | ||
| It's almost like being forced to pay into the education system and then getting told that your kid is being taught transgender propaganda at school. | ||
| This is a very similar concept we're dealing with. | ||
| It's a brainwashing arm of the state. | ||
| And I think the only similar thing you have in the US is probably Planned Parenthood on the medical front. | ||
| Um so I want to I want to give that as an example. | ||
| Um I'm gonna come back to the point about the NHS because there's uh there is this movement in the United States to abolish private health care and just nationalise uh do a federal grab, federal government grab on the whole of health care provision. | ||
| By the way, before we move on, and I I'll check this after the show out, um, but I think it's Lord Kitchener, wasn't it? | ||
| Um your country needs you um That's right. | ||
| But it's now a bit about memes. | ||
| I mean it was a it it it's a it's a it's a it's a it was a meme before memes existed. | ||
| Let's just do a quick recall, you give me two minutes to do a quick recall of Birch Gold, and then I I'll come back to you on the NHS point. | ||
| So as I was saying in the first half Of the show until September the 30th, if you are a first-time gold buyer, Birch Gold is offering a rebate of up to 10,000 in free metals on qualifying purchases. | ||
| And to claim eligibility and start this process, you need to request this info kit now by texting Bannon to 989898. | ||
| And if you do that, Birch Gold will also help you roll any existing IRA or 401k into an IRA in gold. | ||
| And you're still eligible for that rebate in free metals of up to 10,000, folks. | ||
| So right now, make it right now. | ||
| It's your first time to buy gold and take advantage of this 10,000 dollar rebate when you buy before September the 30th. | ||
| Text Bannon to 989898 to claim your eligibility and get your free info kit. | ||
| Text Bannon to 989898 and Philip Patrick is waiting for your call. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| So Joseph, just back to the uh back to the NHS, back to the designs of the United States. | ||
| It's the same goal, right, isn't it? | ||
| It it's it's to it's to capture the people and provide something which is absolutely essential, which is healthcare, whether whether you provide it publicly or privately, it is absolutely essential. | ||
| But making it state provided you bind people in into dependency onto the state. | ||
| Um you mentioned in the first half of the show about Liz Truss. | ||
| Here's my question to you if we're really well, the whole theme of this is the reason we're talking about the Fabians and their success is to try and conceptually equip people on both sides of the Atlantic to taking their countries back and have the state work for them rather than the people who are profiting out of it. | ||
| Liz Trust, seeing as you mentioned her, um perhaps one of her mistakes that she didn't do what Margaret Thatcher assiduously did, which was create the map the popular mandate for the reforms of trying to roll back the state. | ||
| Um, and in fact, I think one of the the reasons that she that that for me, Liz Truss came uh a crop, is that I mean tax cuts are great, but she there was no real the scalpel wasn't being wielded with regards to public expenditure. | ||
| So, in terms of revolutionary movements on our side, um that's really I think what needs to happen moving forward, right? | ||
| Is you need to do what Trump has done, um, and that is take the country with you, because a president or a leader, a political leader who has a populist nationalist mandate from the people, a very clear one, um, should be able to wheel that scalpel in a way that Liz Trust never never really um was able to do. | ||
| What would you say to that? | ||
| So I think there's a very striking parallel to be made here. | ||
| Um, I think if you know Liz and you listen to what she has to say, you would hear strong parallels with Trump and uh with what Trump tried to do in his first term, and this is a really important point because although Trump won so um effectively in 2016, | ||
| uh, his first term was of course hampered by a number of different actors, mainly the deep state, mainly not understanding some of those people that he encountered in that first time in power and what they were really there to do, which is of course contain him because he had a radical agenda that they didn't like. | ||
| And that's exactly what happened to Liz. | ||
| She went in without pre-planning, without experience being prime minister, although she was a far more experienced minister and had experience of government, which is something Trump didn't have, she didn't really understand how it worked from the inside because no one does until you're setting a number 10 or in the equivalence in the over office. | ||
| You just don't know what that's like until you're there. | ||
| And so she saw it from the inside, and effectively she had a gun put to her head, which was if you continue down your policy pathway, we will blow up your economy. | ||
| And that came from the central banks, that came from the Bank of England, it came from various different Quangos that the government outsources its statistics and economics to, and she quickly realized that this was far, far bigger than what she had realized was wrong. | ||
| Uh, up to that point. | ||
| Now, what I'm hopeful of in this country is that Farage, should he win, will be Trump 2 and not Trump 1, because that's what we're trying to build here. | ||
| That's our project. | ||
| That's what we are going to do if he gets in. | ||
| We're going to give him everything we know and what we studied and what we've seen from previous administrations that tried different things, including Thatcher's administration, which by the way created some of the quangos that we now see today, because it thought that it would be good to actually outsource elements of government outside this central hub. | ||
| Those got captured by the left, and now they're just another problem. | ||
| So what you've got to be careful of in the MAGA movement is not creating too much, not creating too many new laws, too many different departments that do new and supposedly wonderful things. | ||
| Because what the left does best is capture things. | ||
| Strip back, pair back, get what you need in place. | ||
| Make sure you've got control of the Fed. | ||
| Make sure that you're actually in control of where the money is and who's really pulling the strings, because that is the key part to all of this. | ||
| So look, 60 seconds. | ||
| Would it be fair to synthesize what you're saying? | ||
| If people read your article, they go to your Substack, they read your analysis here on the visa of the Fabians. | ||
| Um your conclusion, therefore, is that the Tory Party is no longer fit for purpose, and the next political movement to carry this forward is Nigel Farage and reform, right? | ||
| That is that is where you're coming from. | ||
| It's the only possible solution because we right now in this country have a uniparty status, which means that even if, let's say, in a parallel universe, Nigel Farage uh became leader of the Tory party, which he would never do at this point in time, um, he wouldn't be able to do anything, he wouldn't be able to enact because that party has aligned its constitution with the establishment. | ||
| When you are in power, it does not enable you to act because of the way that it works. | ||
| It contains you, it prevents you from doing radical things. | ||
| In this case, radical things, radical change is simply going back in time to a period where legislation didn't hamper us and we were a free and prosperous country. | ||
| And I think that's where the US is trying to get back to as well. | ||
| Lawyers are your best friend at times and your worst friend at other times, and and you've got to be careful with what you do with it. | ||
| Lawyers are our worst friends at all times. | ||
| Um you're poking at a war wound. | ||
| Joseph Robertson, where do people go to get you on your superb writings on Substack? | ||
| Thank you very much. | ||
| So on Substack and on X, you can find me at JRTypes, and uh pretty much all my stuff is linked back on both on both sides of that spectrum. | ||
| So please do go read, give me a follow on X, um, and I will be pouring as much content out as possible over the next few weeks. | ||
| And my favourite phrase in your article is that you call the UK constitution a sacred inheritance. | ||
| Indeed, it is to my fellow traditionalist Catholic, thanks very much for coming on the show, Joseph Robertson. | ||
| My thanks to Cameron Wallace and Spencer and all the team at Real America's Voice for putting the show together. |
Export Selection