Latest / V / Fighting the Red Dragon: Evita + Natalie Winters (Ep.180)

Transcript

Fighting the Red Dragon: Evita + Natalie Winters (Ep.180) · V

0:10
Speaker 1: Good morning and welcome to Bongino Report, early edition. And
0:14
Speaker 1: today I brought on somebody very knowledgeable on all things China,
0:19
Speaker 1: Bannon War Room co-host Natalie Winters. Natalie, thank you so
0:24
Speaker 1: much for being here. Do we have sound for Natalie, Mikey?
0:31
Speaker 2: On the show.
0:32
Speaker 1: Okay. Now we have sound. I'm so sorry, Natalie. Now
0:34
Speaker 1: we have sound. I couldn't hear you for a second.
0:36
Speaker 2: We can blame the CCP for that.
0:38
Speaker 1: Exactly. You guys, we are actually doing this live. Some
0:41
Speaker 1: of you say, oh, you do an interview show. It's
0:42
Speaker 1: not live and you guys get mad. You guys be
0:44
Speaker 1: in the comments. I'm listening. I'm hearing you guys. Natalie
0:48
Speaker 1: is too. We are live. So if there's any hiccups,
0:51
Speaker 1: bear with us. But for those of you guys who
0:53
Speaker 1: don't know, Natalie and I went to the University of
0:56
Speaker 1: Chicago together yesterday. She is a superstar. Natalie, are you
1:00
Speaker 1: still in your early 20s or are you 25 yet?
1:02
Speaker 2: I know I just turned 24, but like you, I've
1:06
Speaker 2: been doing this for so long that I feel old.
1:08
Speaker 1: Well, so she's 24 in her early 20s, and she
1:12
Speaker 1: has done more than journalists with decades of experience exposing
1:18
Speaker 1: the CCP infiltration into American politics, academia, the media, You
1:22
Speaker 1: have these exclusive stories cited by congressional committees and national
1:26
Speaker 1: security groups. So like I said, a superstar with a
1:29
Speaker 1: really deep knowledge of this topic. So Natalie, I wanna
1:33
Speaker 1: just get right into it because yesterday, President Trump hiked
1:36
Speaker 1: tariffs on Chinese imports to 145%. And he's taking on
1:41
Speaker 1: the red dragon, forcing the whole world to decide between
1:44
Speaker 1: China or the US. And there's someone who years ago
1:50
Speaker 1: really echoed President Trump's America-first priorities when handling predatory, cheating China.
1:58
Speaker 1: Take a listen to this, Natalie.
1:59
Speaker 3: The argument is, number one, that's the biggest market in
2:02
Speaker 3: the world. Number two is those countries are already selling
2:05
Speaker 3: to us. I keep on pointing out there are a
2:07
Speaker 3: lot of Japanese cars here in the United States, almost
2:10
Speaker 3: no U.S.
2:10
Speaker 4: Cars in Tokyo.
2:12
Speaker 3: Number three is that if we don't write the rules,
2:16
Speaker 3: China will write the rules out in that region. We
2:19
Speaker 3: will be shut out. American businesses, American agriculture, that will
2:22
Speaker 3: mean a loss of U.S. jobs.
2:24
Speaker 1: So Obama was hailed as this like expert strategist, but
2:27
Speaker 1: the difference is that he was just all talk. And
2:29
Speaker 1: Trump is actually doing what Obama claimed that he'd do.
2:33
Speaker 1: And now Trump is demonized as this orange maniac. What gives, Natalie?
2:38
Speaker 2: Well, it's purely performative. And I think to that point,
2:41
Speaker 2: the interesting sort of double-sword relationship of a lot of
2:44
Speaker 2: the reporting and the hyping of the Chinese Communist Party
2:47
Speaker 2: as a legitimate threat, which it of course is, is
2:50
Speaker 2: that some of our worst, I would say, people, whether
2:53
Speaker 2: it's in Congress, in some cases in the White House,
2:56
Speaker 2: especially neocons, love to use the CCP as a justification
3:00
Speaker 2: for their bloated defense budgets, right? It's why we need
3:03
Speaker 2: a trillion dollar, I guess, $ 37 trillion deficit so we
3:06
Speaker 2: can defend the against the Chinese Communist Party, right? That's
3:09
Speaker 2: the strapline as to why we have to fund the
3:11
Speaker 2: Ukraine conflict, I guess, in perpetuity, right? It's absolutely insane.
3:16
Speaker 2: But President Trump, I think for the first time, and
3:18
Speaker 2: I don't even know how long, I mean, we're talking decades,
3:20
Speaker 2: probably before you and I were ever born, certainly if
3:23
Speaker 2: you take in their ascension to the World Trade Organization,
3:26
Speaker 2: for the first time did what every politician likes to
3:29
Speaker 2: talk about, right? Taking on the Chinese Communist Party, we're
3:32
Speaker 2: going to bring jobs back. He actually had the courage
3:36
Speaker 2: to do it. And, you know, you were very kind
3:38
Speaker 2: in your introduction. I appreciate you saying all that. But
3:40
Speaker 2: I always say it's not really that I've broken all
3:43
Speaker 2: these stories. It's that there is complicity and just intentional
3:48
Speaker 2: blindness and ignorance to the Chinese Communist Party. It plagues
3:52
Speaker 2: the city of Washington, D.C., because the Chinese Communist Party
3:55
Speaker 2: runs extremely vast political influence operations on journalists, on think tankers,
4:00
Speaker 2: on academics, on politicians, all the people who are conveniently anti-tariff.
4:05
Speaker 2: But to that point, they never want to report on
4:07
Speaker 2: it because they're taking the subsidized trips right from China
4:10
Speaker 2: in exchange for favorable coverage. And that's a direct quote
4:13
Speaker 2: from Foreign Agent Registration Act filings. So I think the
4:16
Speaker 2: historic gravity of what President Trump did, regardless of whether
4:21
Speaker 2: or not you agree with the tariff policy, we can
4:23
Speaker 2: have that discussion too. But he is the first president
4:26
Speaker 2: and really first politician to actually take on the Chinese
4:30
Speaker 2: Communist Party in a meaningful and non-performative way.
4:34
Speaker 1: Well, Natalie, there's such a realignment happening right now on
4:38
Speaker 1: full display because you mentioned the World Trade Organization. You
4:41
Speaker 1: had these 1999 protests where leftists were taking the streets
4:45
Speaker 1: in Seattle furious over China joining the World Trade Organization.
4:50
Speaker 1: And now those same people, I'm sure years later, are
4:54
Speaker 1: angry at President Trump allegedly for taking on China, which
4:59
Speaker 1: is what they were upset Bill Clinton did back in 1999.
5:02
Speaker 1: So the whole thing is just It's fascinating to see
5:06
Speaker 1: all of these party lines start to shift. But the uniparty, Natalie,
5:12
Speaker 1: you're right to point out that Washington is sort of
5:14
Speaker 1: captured by China because the uniparty among Republicans and Democrats
5:19
Speaker 1: seems to be unified in their disagreement with President Trump
5:24
Speaker 1: on this. And now Trump, he's taking on China, but
5:26
Speaker 1: he's lowered tariffs to 10% for over 75 other countries
5:31
Speaker 1: for 90 days. He's saying he wants to welcome people
5:35
Speaker 1: to the table to actually have some negotiations. And now
5:38
Speaker 1: the left is saying that Trump is capitulating to China,
5:41
Speaker 1: that he's weak. So first they were mad that he
5:44
Speaker 1: implemented the tariffs. Now they're mad that he lifted the
5:47
Speaker 1: tariffs on certain countries. And some leftists like Hassan Piker,
5:51
Speaker 1: you know, he's a, he's kind of a younger left-wing influencer, podcaster.
5:56
Speaker 1: And He seems to be totally dismissing the threat of China.
6:01
Speaker 1: This is kind of echoing the sentiment of a lot
6:02
Speaker 1: of leftists. He wrote this on X yesterday. Your enemy
6:06
Speaker 1: isn't China, it's global capital. Your thoughts on that framing, Natalie?
6:11
Speaker 2: Well, I think the original sin of that global capital, frankly,
6:15
Speaker 2: I would say globalist capital model is that it all
6:19
Speaker 2: originates from China, right? The slave labor that they have
6:22
Speaker 2: is sort of the bedrock that allows the financial system
6:25
Speaker 2: that we currently have And I think you're extremely right
6:29
Speaker 2: to pick up on this being, I think, a continuation
6:32
Speaker 2: of the trajectory of the political reorientation that President Trump
6:35
Speaker 2: spearheaded right when he came down that escalator. And I'm
6:39
Speaker 2: sure your audience remembers the kind of notorious H-1B visa
6:42
Speaker 2: debate that we had. But I think that the sort
6:45
Speaker 2: of emerging top line from that debate was essentially the
6:49
Speaker 2: idea that the United States of America is a country
6:53
Speaker 2: with borders, with sovereignty, where citizenship should mean something.
6:57
Speaker 5: Right.
6:57
Speaker 2: It's not a special economic zone where a bunch of
7:00
Speaker 2: whether they're tech pro oligarchs or just globalist CEOs can
7:05
Speaker 2: maximize a way for profiteering.
7:08
Speaker 6: Right.
7:08
Speaker 2: That really they're the only people who see the benefits of.
7:10
Speaker 1: Right.
7:11
Speaker 2: It's sort of the idea that, oh, well, Ukraine aid
7:12
Speaker 2: packages are so good for the economy because they help
7:15
Speaker 2: boost the profits of Boeing and Raytheon. Well, I don't
7:18
Speaker 2: think your average, you know, single mom who's working in
7:21
Speaker 2: the Midwest, who's been totally decimated, whether it's NAFTA, the WTO,
7:25
Speaker 2: Ascension of China. really cares or thinks that, you know,
7:28
Speaker 2: Boeing profits skyrocketing or is anything that's good for her
7:33
Speaker 2: to write home about. But I think fundamentally, too, there's
7:37
Speaker 2: the ideological capture, right, where a lot of these left wing,
7:40
Speaker 2: I was going to say elites, I don't know if
7:41
Speaker 2: I would ever describe Hassan Becker as a left wing elite,
7:44
Speaker 2: but they kind of envy, I think, the authority, the
7:48
Speaker 2: repression tactics. I mean, we saw it on four years
7:52
Speaker 2: under Joe Biden, right? the authoritarian tactics that the Chinese
7:56
Speaker 2: Communist Party rules with, right, with an iron fist, no
7:59
Speaker 2: pun intended. And I always sort of say that the
8:01
Speaker 2: circumstantial evidence that the Democratic Party, but people like Hunter Biden,
8:06
Speaker 2: for example, though establishment Republicans too, have been in business
8:10
Speaker 2: for so long with the Chinese Communist Party, is the idea, right,
8:13
Speaker 2: when they joined the WTO, that we were going to
8:15
Speaker 2: change them. But in reality, They changed us. And I
8:19
Speaker 2: don't think that you can discount the sort of inevitable
8:24
Speaker 2: closer ties.
8:25
Speaker 5: Right.
8:25
Speaker 2: Joe Biden saying a rise in China is great for
8:27
Speaker 2: the United States and The New York Times in an
8:29
Speaker 2: op ed. And I think like 2008 or 2009. that
8:33
Speaker 2: that lust and desire for collaboration, they never describe it
8:38
Speaker 2: as competition, right? That's the hardest they can go. But
8:40
Speaker 2: collaboration with the Chinese Communist Party has made our elites,
8:44
Speaker 2: I think, a lot more open and sort of almost normalized, right?
8:47
Speaker 2: These repressive tactics and not saying we're going to have
8:50
Speaker 2: a Tiananmen Square anytime soon. But I don't think that
8:53
Speaker 2: we were that far off from a sort of, you know,
8:56
Speaker 2: digital Tiananmen Square. I think what they did to the
8:58
Speaker 2: January 6th protesters in some ways You can look at
9:01
Speaker 2: the whole MAGA movement, I think, as sort of a U.S.
9:03
Speaker 2: equivalent of the Hundred Flowers campaign, right, where they sort
9:06
Speaker 2: of used it to identify opposition and then went after
9:09
Speaker 2: them by imprisoning them, people like Stephen K. Bannon. But yeah,
9:13
Speaker 2: I think that's just a fundamental misread on what undergirds
9:16
Speaker 2: the global capital system because all roads lead to Beijing.
9:20
Speaker 1: Can you explain the network a little bit, Natalie? Because
9:25
Speaker 1: obviously there's a lot of talk about there being spies
9:27
Speaker 1: in the university systems, that they embed themselves that way.
9:31
Speaker 1: Wall Street is captured by China. If the government is
9:34
Speaker 1: captured by Wall Street, then obviously they're captured by China.
9:37
Speaker 1: Is there something else I'm missing here? Like how exactly
9:40
Speaker 1: are they influencing the leaders of this country? I mean,
9:43
Speaker 1: they just reported a few days ago how the Chinese
9:46
Speaker 1: spy balloon flew over the entire continental US and Biden
9:50
Speaker 1: officials knew about it, but they were worried that it
9:52
Speaker 1: would ruin Antony Blinken's trip to Beijing if they shot
9:56
Speaker 1: it down. So they let it collect information all across
10:00
Speaker 1: the U.S. Why is that happening? And how is this
10:02
Speaker 1: network playing out, Natalie? Sure.
10:05
Speaker 2: So it's important to understand that the Chinese Communist Party
10:07
Speaker 2: prefers infiltration as opposed to invasion, right? They'd rather have
10:11
Speaker 2: the White House not necessarily flying a Chinese flag, but
10:15
Speaker 2: they'd rather have it flying a flag that's made in
10:17
Speaker 2: China because we have no manufacturing capabilities. Everyone in there
10:21
Speaker 2: is relying on prescription and pharmaceuticals, prescription drugs and pharmaceuticals
10:25
Speaker 2: that are manufactured in China. Everybody's graduated from elite institutions
10:29
Speaker 2: that are bankrolled by the Chinese Communist Party.
10:32
Speaker 6: Right.
10:32
Speaker 2: That's sort of the the mindset and the approach that
10:35
Speaker 2: they take. And one of the if not, I think
10:37
Speaker 2: the most heavily cited quote throughout a lot of the
10:40
Speaker 2: People's Liberation Army doctrine, their kind of codified military texts
10:44
Speaker 2: is the idea that the supreme art of war is
10:47
Speaker 2: to subdue the enemy without fighting. So they have a
10:50
Speaker 2: strong aversion to kinetic conflict. They much prefer these sort
10:55
Speaker 2: of fifth generation, almost fifth dimension warfare tactics, information warfare tactics. propaganda,
11:01
Speaker 2: media warfare, they have something called the three warfares doctrine,
11:06
Speaker 2: which has to do with, like I was saying, media manipulation,
11:09
Speaker 2: psychological warfare, and you guessed it, lawfare, when I was
11:13
Speaker 2: talking about that, a cultural appropriation that we've seen our
11:16
Speaker 2: elites kind of take from the Chinese Communist Party, but
11:19
Speaker 2: I rattle off all those terms that you're probably like, oh,
11:21
Speaker 2: my goodness, this is too early for all of this
11:23
Speaker 2: Chinese Communist Party lingo. But to make the point that
11:27
Speaker 2: this is not, you know, Hunter Biden, for example, receiving
11:30
Speaker 2: millions of dollars from the Chinese Communist Party is not
11:33
Speaker 2: a happy accident.
11:34
Speaker 5: Right.
11:35
Speaker 2: This is part of a decades long, systematic and systemic,
11:39
Speaker 2: very calculated political warfare campaign that emanates out of Beijing.
11:44
Speaker 2: And most of it comes from an entity called the
11:46
Speaker 2: United Front Work Department, which Then it sort of rebranded
11:51
Speaker 2: to the United Front Department. But they always are trying
11:55
Speaker 2: to rebrand their propaganda operations. And it's very funny. They
11:58
Speaker 2: rebranded their Confucius Institutes into like Confucius Centers. They're like, guys,
12:02
Speaker 2: you're going to have to do a little bit of
12:03
Speaker 2: a better job than that. But I bring up the
12:06
Speaker 2: United Front Work Department because they really run what is
12:09
Speaker 2: billions of dollars. It's closely administrated by the Chinese Communist Party.
12:15
Speaker 2: It's called the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. So they
12:19
Speaker 2: have this essentially regime body that works to influence elites overseas.
12:23
Speaker 2: And just take this one group alone, one of the
12:26
Speaker 2: leading organizations that works as part of the United Front
12:29
Speaker 2: is a group called the China United States Exchange Foundation,
12:32
Speaker 2: or QSEF for short. Now, QSEF, their sort of go-to
12:37
Speaker 2: tactic is that they will pay to take, and then
12:41
Speaker 2: you can silo it into different sort of sectors of
12:43
Speaker 2: American society. So we've got journalists, academics, think tanks, even
12:48
Speaker 2: college students, members of Congress. And just to demonstrate the
12:53
Speaker 2: level of how calculated this is, even congressional staffers. So
12:56
Speaker 2: they will pay, they will subsidize their trips to China.
12:59
Speaker 2: And in the case of journalists, this was all reported
13:03
Speaker 2: on Farah. And you can see that not only were
13:06
Speaker 2: they choosing journalists that they thought they could eke out
13:09
Speaker 2: positive coverage, though I guess it wasn't really a heavy lift,
13:12
Speaker 2: But they were looking for, and I quote, favorable coverage
13:14
Speaker 2: and to quote, disseminate positive messages about the Chinese Communist Party.
13:20
Speaker 2: And while they were there, they met not just with,
13:23
Speaker 2: you know, some Chinese NGOs or people who want to
13:25
Speaker 2: talk about why they love capitalism.
13:27
Speaker 7: No, no, no, no, no.
13:28
Speaker 2: They were meeting with Chinese military officials, people from Huawei, DJI, Hikvision, right,
13:34
Speaker 2: these sanctioned. And QSEF, which is one of many, there's
13:38
Speaker 2: over 200 active registered Chinese foreign agents in the United States.
13:42
Speaker 2: QSEF runs this exact same program with really every think
13:47
Speaker 2: tank in Washington, D.C. You've got the Center for American Progress, Brookings,
13:51
Speaker 2: Atlantic Council, CSIS, the Center for Security and International Studies,
13:57
Speaker 2: the Carnegie Endowment, where our former CIA director Bill Burns
14:01
Speaker 2: used to be the president of. They also run it
14:03
Speaker 2: with virtually every top, though I use that word loosely, institution,
14:06
Speaker 2: including our alma mater, UChicago, Harvard. They fund the Johns
14:10
Speaker 2: Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies. So they essentially have
14:15
Speaker 2: a stranglehold, if not on every choke point, of what
14:20
Speaker 2: influences American society. And that's their sort of above board tactic.
14:25
Speaker 2: Like I was saying, right, there's over 200 registered foreign agents.
14:29
Speaker 2: But remember, Hunter Biden, right, never registered with Farah. So
14:33
Speaker 2: that's the tip of the iceberg. That's what's legally reportable.
14:37
Speaker 2: But it just shows you the tactics that they use.
14:41
Speaker 2: And my last point on the sort of private sector
14:43
Speaker 2: side of this is that when you're dealing with all
14:48
Speaker 2: these companies, right, they obviously want the market access, right?
14:51
Speaker 2: You've seen the whistleblower when it comes to Meta and Facebook,
14:54
Speaker 2: how they Really, I think we're demonstrating what I was
14:57
Speaker 2: talking about, this idea not so much of elite capture,
15:00
Speaker 2: but of elite merger, where our Western elites have become
15:04
Speaker 2: much more authoritarian and repressive in the way that they
15:06
Speaker 2: want to rule this country or be, you know, titans
15:09
Speaker 2: of industry. But take Microsoft as an example, right? They're
15:13
Speaker 2: getting hacked by the Chinese Communist Party every other day.
15:17
Speaker 2: And I have zero, zero actually negative sympathy for them.
15:21
Speaker 2: because they're responsible for creating what's called Windows China Government Edition,
15:27
Speaker 2: which is the operating system that the Chinese Communist Party
15:30
Speaker 2: runs on, in addition to collaborating extensively with the Chinese
15:34
Speaker 2: Communist Party on a host of other tech endeavors, Bill
15:37
Speaker 2: Gates obviously himself. So they have turned over willingly their IP.
15:42
Speaker 2: So IP theft is obviously a big deal, but these
15:45
Speaker 2: corporates are so in bed with the Chinese Communist Party.
15:50
Speaker 2: that that is why these tariffs are striking fear in
15:54
Speaker 2: the hearts and the eyes and the minds and the souls,
15:56
Speaker 2: if they have them, of all these people, because they
15:58
Speaker 2: are so far down the river, I don't even think
16:01
Speaker 2: they would know what putting America first would look like.
16:05
Speaker 1: It's a terrifying network that you just laid out, Natalie.
16:09
Speaker 1: And so many of these NGOs and these foreign organizations
16:14
Speaker 1: embedding themselves in the media, in academia, we just like,
16:17
Speaker 1: don't even realize it. There's all this obsession with TikTok
16:21
Speaker 1: right now, and we can have a conversation about TikTok,
16:24
Speaker 1: but there's all these other things that nobody is really
16:28
Speaker 1: discussing or seems to care about. Not to mention the
16:30
Speaker 1: fact that they're buying up American farmland. We had these
16:34
Speaker 1: reports that military-age Chinese males are crossing over the U.S. border.
16:39
Speaker 1: Where are those guys? Have we tracked them down yet?
16:42
Speaker 2: I don't know.
16:42
Speaker 1: I mean, really concerning ways that, and you did say
16:46
Speaker 1: infiltration over invasion. Still, it is deeply, deeply concerning. Now,
16:53
Speaker 1: Mao Ning, she's a spokesperson for the Chinese Ministry of
16:58
Speaker 1: Foreign Affairs. She recently posted on social media to, I guess,
17:02
Speaker 1: prove how tough China is. She's been trolling the that
17:07
Speaker 1: China's very resilient, we're going to tackle these tariffs. And
17:10
Speaker 1: yesterday she shared a clip featuring Mao Zedong. And I
17:15
Speaker 1: want to play this for you, Natalie, and get your
17:17
Speaker 1: reaction here, because I think it's kind of fascinating.
17:20
Speaker 2: Let's take a listen.
17:24
Speaker 1: As to how long this war will last, we are
17:26
Speaker 1: not the ones who can decide. It used to depend
17:29
Speaker 1: on President Truman, and it will depend on President Eisenhower
17:33
Speaker 1: or whoever to become the next U.S. president. It's up
17:35
Speaker 1: to them. no matter how long this war is going
17:37
Speaker 1: to last, will never yield. I think he says, we
17:51
Speaker 1: will fight them. I missed that at the end. But okay,
17:53
Speaker 1: so five years after this speech, Mao starves 50 million
17:58
Speaker 1: of his own citizens to death. Natalie, your reaction to
18:02
Speaker 1: this strategy from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs And
18:07
Speaker 1: I ask this because I have to assume that they
18:11
Speaker 1: realize this isn't a good look. I mean, the horrors
18:14
Speaker 1: of Mao aren't banned on the internet for the rest
18:16
Speaker 1: of the world. Maybe they have censors in China, but
18:18
Speaker 1: we all know how evil and horrific this regime was.
18:24
Speaker 1: The CCP continues to be. How can they possibly be
18:27
Speaker 1: sharing Mao clips to prove to the world that, oh,
18:30
Speaker 1: China is so great and wonderful and we're going to
18:32
Speaker 1: take on the orange man?
18:35
Speaker 2: Well, look, I think it goes back to what we
18:36
Speaker 2: were talking about, this idea of your country being, what
18:38
Speaker 2: is it, a special economic zone or a sovereign nation
18:41
Speaker 2: where citizenship means something? And if you view your citizens,
18:45
Speaker 2: your subjects in that case, as just sort of cogs
18:49
Speaker 2: in a corporate wheel, of course you're going to feel
18:50
Speaker 2: comfortable murdering tens of millions of them, right? It's what
18:54
Speaker 2: undergirds communism and Marxism, the idea that there's nothing unique, special,
18:59
Speaker 2: or god-given. Given right talents or what not that that
19:04
Speaker 2: is certain that certainly I think represents what it means
19:06
Speaker 2: to be in this case an American or in that case, Chinese,
19:09
Speaker 2: but I think to bring this whole sort of thing home.
19:13
Speaker 2: I think we can look no further than our sort
19:15
Speaker 2: of domestic resistance organizations, our equivalent of, I guess, the
19:19
Speaker 2: not so little Red Guard. I'm sure you guys have
19:21
Speaker 2: seen the pictures of a lot of the protests. I
19:23
Speaker 2: would not describe some of the protesters as little, but
19:26
Speaker 2: I digress on that point. But Indivisible, right, which is
19:29
Speaker 2: one of the leading sort of organizations that's really, I
19:33
Speaker 2: won't even say organizing, but that is astroturfing and sort
19:36
Speaker 2: of I would say unorganically bringing together a bunch of
19:39
Speaker 2: paid protesters to oppose President Trump, to oppose Elon Musk.
19:45
Speaker 2: They were actually quoting, believe it or not, Mao in
19:47
Speaker 2: one of their town hall virtual testimonials. hall meetings, I
19:50
Speaker 2: believe just two weeks ago. They actually invoked, though, as
19:54
Speaker 2: true historians, they called it the thousand flowers movement. It's
19:57
Speaker 2: the hundred flowers movement. But they discussed how they were
20:01
Speaker 2: having a hundred flowers movement within their organization to which
20:06
Speaker 2: if I were advising them, I would say, hey guys,
20:08
Speaker 2: maybe on your public Zoom calls, you maybe don't want
20:11
Speaker 2: to quote Mao Zedong, but it's a mask off moment, right?
20:15
Speaker 2: These are the people that we're dealing with. And to
20:17
Speaker 2: that point where I think all of this comes home,
20:20
Speaker 2: because I think there's a fair critique too, where, you know, oh,
20:23
Speaker 2: so many people just get off on criticizing the Chinese
20:26
Speaker 2: Communist Party. Our ruling class in some cases is not
20:29
Speaker 2: much better. And I agree with that. But the Chinese
20:32
Speaker 2: Communist Party is also intimately involved financially. And I do
20:35
Speaker 2: think there's an ideological trap component to it too. But
20:39
Speaker 2: in a lot of these resistance organizations, and to bring up,
20:41
Speaker 2: I think, perhaps the best example is, There's a group called,
20:46
Speaker 2: so it's the Resistance Lab Training, which is being done
20:48
Speaker 2: under Representative Pramila Jayapal, everyone's favorite, I'm sure. But she's
20:53
Speaker 2: working with her colleagues in conjunction with the Harvard Kennedy
20:58
Speaker 2: School's Ash Center. And they have something called the Center
21:02
Speaker 2: for Nonviolent Protest. And you can tell a true leftist
21:05
Speaker 2: for its projection. And it's obviously a lie, if not
21:08
Speaker 2: outright stochastic terrorism, because there's nothing nonviolent about it. But
21:12
Speaker 2: what is so interesting about this organization is that though
21:16
Speaker 2: their web pages have been deleted, and they don't list
21:18
Speaker 2: who funds them. And that's also sort of all by design.
21:21
Speaker 2: So these universities can take just copious amounts of foreign cash,
21:26
Speaker 2: and not ever be rightfully harassed or called out for it.
21:29
Speaker 2: But deleted webpages show that two of their top donors
21:33
Speaker 2: were essentially Chinese state-owned enterprises. One was a solar company,
21:39
Speaker 2: and the other was sort of some energy holding company.
21:42
Speaker 2: And what's so interesting is that this group, like I
21:45
Speaker 2: was saying, is now partnered with a sitting member, a
21:48
Speaker 2: Democrat member of Congress, to do what they call resistance
21:51
Speaker 2: lab training. So they're hosting these sort of virtual, I
21:55
Speaker 2: would call them organizational calls, but pay attention to the syntax,
21:58
Speaker 2: the diction, the analytics. They're calling them boot camps and trainings. And,
22:03
Speaker 2: you know, they're very war oriented with their language. And I,
22:06
Speaker 2: of course, is the co-host of the war room. So
22:08
Speaker 2: we know what that means. But when you're seeing these
22:10
Speaker 2: protesters who are, you know, firebombing and going totally just
22:14
Speaker 2: crazy on these Teslas, it's very concerning. And I think
22:17
Speaker 2: to sort of demonstrate that nexus between a lot of
22:20
Speaker 2: this weird USAID stuff and And the China stuff, the
22:24
Speaker 2: chick who runs it, who uses they them pronouns. So
22:27
Speaker 2: I will let you decide her politics. She is a
22:32
Speaker 2: longtime USAID grant recipient. The Harvard Center itself was also
22:38
Speaker 2: funded by USAID in the State Department. She was also
22:41
Speaker 2: a consultant to the United States Institute of Peace from
22:44
Speaker 2: 2017 to 2019. She's lectured at USAID, I believe, in 2015, 2016,
22:49
Speaker 2: and 2022. And this is someone who, when you read
22:53
Speaker 2: her resume, it's not that she is analyzing protests and
22:58
Speaker 2: what kind of signs are more effective and, oh, let's
23:01
Speaker 2: focus on what they did to, I don't know, bring
23:04
Speaker 2: down the Chinese Communist Party, right? How can we help
23:06
Speaker 2: that happen? No, it was actually the Ash Center that
23:08
Speaker 2: put out a study saying that I think upwards of
23:10
Speaker 2: 90% of people love the Chinese Communist Party, so they're
23:14
Speaker 2: hardcore propagandists. But this chick studies violence and terrorism and
23:19
Speaker 2: writes about how to topple dictators. You're not dealing right
23:24
Speaker 2: with like run of the mill political protests. You're dealing
23:27
Speaker 2: with full blown political warfare, if not outright color revolution
23:31
Speaker 2: and regime change tactics. And I just think when you
23:35
Speaker 2: see the Chinese Communist Party posting videos like that, they're
23:40
Speaker 2: so bold and brash in their efforts to attack the
23:43
Speaker 2: United States of America. I just think there's a very
23:45
Speaker 2: interesting symmetry, if not outright affinity, to what we're seeing
23:50
Speaker 2: emanate out of a lot of these left-wing resistance groups,
23:53
Speaker 2: which to their core, I would argue, are as Marxist,
23:56
Speaker 2: if not maybe even more so, than probably a lot
23:59
Speaker 2: of members of the Chinese Communist Party.
24:02
Speaker 1: Well, I couldn't agree with you more on that, Natalie.
24:04
Speaker 1: And it's so disturbing to see people on the with Hitler.
24:09
Speaker 1: And I think Hitler was an evil guy. But there
24:12
Speaker 1: is never a conversation about the atrocities committed by Mao Zedong.
24:17
Speaker 1: There's this disturbing level of almost sympathy that the modern
24:22
Speaker 1: left seems to have with this man. And that's why
24:25
Speaker 1: I think it's so important for, I think Jack Posobiec
24:28
Speaker 1: was doing this yesterday, to remind people of what he did,
24:32
Speaker 1: of what this movement actually represents. What does it look
24:35
Speaker 1: like in full practice? Because it's terrifying. And I want
24:38
Speaker 1: to play for you another video, Natalie, because this is
24:40
Speaker 1: one that Jack shared yesterday of the Red Guard and
24:44
Speaker 1: Chairman Mao in Tiananmen Square in 1966. Let's take a
24:48
Speaker 1: listen to that.
24:49
Speaker 7: Great Supreme Commander Chairman Mao, we will be loyal to
25:01
Speaker 7: you forever.
25:02
Speaker 6: We will be loyal to the invincible thought of Mao
25:04
Speaker 6: Zedong forever. we will firmly support the proletarian revolutionary left,
25:10
Speaker 6: and we pledge to be loyal defenders of the great
25:12
Speaker 6: proletarian cultural revolution.
25:22
Speaker 1: So if you're listening, there were just people fanatical about
25:26
Speaker 1: Mao Zedong. I mean, like, raising the red books, cheering.
25:30
Speaker 1: They really viewed Chairman Mao as as a god. His
25:33
Speaker 1: image was everywhere. In homes, in factories, in schools, his
25:37
Speaker 1: words were treated like scripture. That's why I say he
25:39
Speaker 1: was like a god. Questioning him was seen as heresy
25:44
Speaker 1: against the state itself. And some Chinese, quite literally, I
25:48
Speaker 1: found this out recently, prayed to his portraits and even
25:52
Speaker 1: thanked him for natural phenomena like the rain or the harvest,
25:56
Speaker 1: as if they were in the Aztec empire or something.
25:59
Speaker 1: And this man, he built the CCP that still exists today.
26:03
Speaker 1: And it seems like a pretty easy ideological choice for
26:06
Speaker 1: the world to make. I mean, not to mention even
26:09
Speaker 1: the slave labor, the market manipulation. And like you said, Natalie,
26:13
Speaker 1: there is so much just bizarre sympathy among the modern
26:18
Speaker 1: left for Mao. I mean, this guy... I mean, terrorized China.
26:22
Speaker 1: They dragged teachers and elderly people out of their homes,
26:26
Speaker 1: beat them to death, forced them to undergo these public
26:29
Speaker 1: struggle sessions, humiliated, tortured, driven to suicide. You had the
26:34
Speaker 1: ancient temples and churches, all these priceless artifacts and relics
26:38
Speaker 1: just smashed to pieces because they wanted to erase China's
26:41
Speaker 1: old ways. You had families torn apart, children denounced their parents,
26:46
Speaker 1: or even physically attacked or killed them to prove how
26:49
Speaker 1: loyal they were to Mao. And this is a crazy one, Natalie.
26:52
Speaker 1: Cannibalism occurred in certain provinces where the political victims of
26:57
Speaker 1: Mao's organs were eaten as like a sign of ideological purity.
27:01
Speaker 1: This was like decades of mass brainwashing of horror fueled
27:06
Speaker 1: by this fanatical worship of Mao. And I see elements
27:11
Speaker 1: of this today. Maybe it's not at that level, but
27:13
Speaker 1: you see the struggle sessions. You see this rejection of tradition.
27:17
Speaker 1: You see the hatred of religion. The way that CNN
27:20
Speaker 1: will praise some little kid who turns his father into
27:23
Speaker 1: the FBI for his role in protesting on January 6th,
27:27
Speaker 1: we had at UChicago a communist snitch list where we
27:30
Speaker 1: were required to sign a document that said, if you
27:32
Speaker 1: want to attend class, you have to promise that you
27:35
Speaker 1: will turn in your classmates and your teachers or your
27:39
Speaker 1: professors who dare to violate COVID rules. And I wonder, Natalie,
27:44
Speaker 1: if you noticed that on college campuses, this the CCP
27:53
Speaker 1: style of living, ideology, kind of reemerging in the most
27:57
Speaker 1: brazen way. Did you notice that?
28:00
Speaker 2: Well, you beat me to it. I was going to
28:01
Speaker 2: say watching that video is like PTSD or deja vu
28:05
Speaker 2: to our UChicago days. But no, I mean, I think
28:09
Speaker 2: what you're getting at, and I feel like you would
28:11
Speaker 2: maybe even sort of coined this analogy, but it's the
28:14
Speaker 2: destruction of what is it, the four olds, right? Everything
28:17
Speaker 2: that constitutes a society, a culture, you have to destroy
28:22
Speaker 2: every single ounce of it, every single bit of it,
28:24
Speaker 2: so nothing can return. And I think it's quite interesting.
28:29
Speaker 2: I believe Patrice Cullors, one of the Black Lives Matter co-founders,
28:34
Speaker 2: when she was doing a book tour, she was promoting
28:36
Speaker 2: her book back when she was at I think she
28:39
Speaker 2: was speaking at an event with the Weather Underground founders,
28:43
Speaker 2: a very radical, very Maoist in their orientation. And she's
28:47
Speaker 2: trying to get people to buy her book. And she
28:49
Speaker 2: compares it to the Little Red Book and talks very
28:53
Speaker 2: positively about Mao's Little Red Guard. So it's not even
28:57
Speaker 2: like conjecture or we're coming up with these, shall I say,
29:00
Speaker 2: conspiracy theories. In their own words, right? If you let
29:04
Speaker 2: them talk for long enough, they just can't help it.
29:07
Speaker 2: They'll say it, right? And you see, like I was saying,
29:09
Speaker 2: that through line with these indivisible organizations. But I think
29:13
Speaker 2: you pick up on what is, I think, particularly, I think,
29:17
Speaker 2: damaging and outright scary about it, which is the trend
29:21
Speaker 2: among young people, right? And how they've always targeted children.
29:25
Speaker 2: But in this case, it's, I think, I guess maybe
29:27
Speaker 2: once you turn 18, right? The voting age, right? The
29:30
Speaker 2: sort of college age. I think that you saw a
29:33
Speaker 2: very interesting sort of trend develop when, you know, the
29:37
Speaker 2: media was running this idea that, oh, young men have
29:39
Speaker 2: gone so overwhelmed. pro-Trump. And this idea that there needed
29:43
Speaker 2: to be some sort of like societal structure that would
29:46
Speaker 2: push back on them or pressure them, sort of beat
29:48
Speaker 2: them into submission for backing Trump, right? Rather it was
29:51
Speaker 2: the idea, oh, well, you're never going to get a girlfriend.
29:53
Speaker 2: You're never going to get a wife. I'm sure you've
29:55
Speaker 2: seen women are trending more liberal, right? You need to
29:58
Speaker 2: accommodate them. But there's this sort of I think pushback
30:02
Speaker 2: in some cases, I think, you know, Steve Bannon is
30:04
Speaker 2: a perfect example of state sanctioned violence, prosecution, persecution against
30:09
Speaker 2: people who dare to speak out. But you see it
30:11
Speaker 2: in these little kind of daily smaller scale ways. But,
30:15
Speaker 2: you know, someone who grew up in Los Angeles, that
30:18
Speaker 2: whole system feeds feeds off of keeping people silent and
30:23
Speaker 2: repressing them. And that is, I think, you know, then
30:25
Speaker 2: the inverse of it, right? The other side of the
30:28
Speaker 2: coin is that when these people say, oh, well, the
30:31
Speaker 2: silent majority, I can't believe President Trump won in 2016. Well, yeah,
30:34
Speaker 2: because you've told anyone who's going to speak out that
30:37
Speaker 2: they're probably going to end up in some form of
30:39
Speaker 2: like a 21st century gulag or the equivalent of that
30:42
Speaker 2: losing your job, getting canceled, you know, your children hating you,
30:45
Speaker 2: the list goes on. Or in some cases, like you said,
30:47
Speaker 2: turning you into the authorities. But it's a societal structure
30:51
Speaker 2: that is meant to breed, I think, submission. and people
30:54
Speaker 2: who are complicit, and they prey on, I think, what
30:57
Speaker 2: is the human nature, the human desire to be accepted, right?
31:01
Speaker 2: It's hard to stick your neck out. You and I
31:02
Speaker 2: have sort of faced, I think, that issue, and I'm
31:05
Speaker 2: sure your audience, your viewers every day, right? You bite
31:08
Speaker 2: your tongue occasionally, but when you don't, you suffer consequences. Again,
31:12
Speaker 2: we do it for the sake of the country. But
31:15
Speaker 2: you're so right to just take a step back and realize, like,
31:18
Speaker 2: It really is insane how far the left has gone.
31:22
Speaker 2: That they're posting mal videos, right, is just wild.
31:26
Speaker 1: Well, Natalie, so there is like a cultural Marxism that,
31:30
Speaker 1: of course, is very prevalent in America, but among young people.
31:34
Speaker 1: At the same time, Michael just threw up something about
31:36
Speaker 1: Gen Z. And there's these studies that are showing Gen
31:39
Speaker 1: Z men, women, black, white, brown are more right-wing people.
31:44
Speaker 1: than their millennial counterparts. And of course, Gen Z men,
31:48
Speaker 1: and specifically Gen Z white men, have gone really far
31:51
Speaker 1: to the political right. In the last four years, they've
31:53
Speaker 1: swung 30 points to the political right. And I want
31:58
Speaker 1: to talk about these tariffs a little more specifically on
32:00
Speaker 1: that note, because every young person that I've asked about
32:02
Speaker 1: these Trump tariffs has been, at least if they're a conservative,
32:06
Speaker 1: very positive on it. The pushback from the neocons in
32:10
Speaker 1: the Republican Party, I'm not seeing any of that among
32:13
Speaker 1: young people. There's a lot of enthusiasm if you're a
32:15
Speaker 1: right winger and you're young for what Trump is doing,
32:18
Speaker 1: this sort of America first, new right way of thinking.
32:23
Speaker 1: I want to know your take, Natalie, as a young person,
32:26
Speaker 1: but also just speaking practically about what's best for this
32:29
Speaker 1: country on these tariffs. Do you think they're going to
32:32
Speaker 1: be effective in fighting China?
32:34
Speaker 2: Well, look, I think that the metric that the legacy
32:37
Speaker 2: media has really chosen to be attuned to, affixed to
32:40
Speaker 2: throughout this whole, I guess, trial and tribulation is the
32:44
Speaker 2: stock market. And I'm not going to sit here and say, oh,
32:47
Speaker 2: the stock market doesn't matter. Obviously, it does. Is it
32:49
Speaker 2: the only and sole indicator that we should be evaluating?
32:53
Speaker 1: No.
32:53
Speaker 2: And I think if just the last few hours have
32:56
Speaker 2: probably demonstrated, right, or I guess a few days. this
32:59
Speaker 2: stuff is still happening. It's evolving. It's changing. So, you know,
33:03
Speaker 2: the jury is still out.
33:04
Speaker 8: Right.
33:05
Speaker 2: But I think that the legacies, the legacy media is
33:08
Speaker 2: pushed to just really like maniacally and myopically focus on
33:12
Speaker 2: the stock market, frankly shows you why young people don't
33:15
Speaker 2: watch their programs, but, You're so right. Most young people,
33:18
Speaker 2: just as a symptom of age, are not, I would describe,
33:20
Speaker 2: as heavily invested in the stock market. Sure, they may
33:23
Speaker 2: have some investments, but they've definitely been more scorned and
33:28
Speaker 2: I think wronged by decades of government policy that have
33:33
Speaker 2: really led to the outsourcing of probably more of the
33:36
Speaker 2: jobs that they would want to have as opposed to
33:39
Speaker 2: becoming some, you know, techie corporate slave if you could
33:42
Speaker 2: even get that kind of job because you're going to
33:44
Speaker 2: be replaced by H-1B importation. I would have honestly added
33:48
Speaker 2: to the tariffs a significant overhaul of the legal immigration
33:54
Speaker 2: process because I think that for so many people, the
33:57
Speaker 2: number one issue that's preventing them, 50% of Americans who
34:01
Speaker 2: have STEM degrees can't work in STEM or tech fields.
34:04
Speaker 2: because they're being replaced by an H-1B visa holder. So
34:08
Speaker 2: not to reignite that whole debate, but I think that
34:10
Speaker 2: those issues are very intricately linked. I think this is,
34:14
Speaker 2: you know, what you're talking about is something that is
34:17
Speaker 2: reorienting the entire global world order and financial systems that
34:23
Speaker 2: have really been around and been like this, I mean,
34:25
Speaker 2: more or less since World War II, maybe the China's
34:28
Speaker 2: ascension to the WTO in 2001, you could say that
34:31
Speaker 2: it existed to then. But even so, you're talking about
34:34
Speaker 2: decades of behavior, I would argue, of an abusive relationship,
34:39
Speaker 2: the Chinese Communist Party and their globalist pals against everyone else.
34:43
Speaker 2: So it's going to take time to sort it out.
34:46
Speaker 2: I think the only downside to it is that President
34:48
Speaker 2: Trump is only in office for four years and the
34:52
Speaker 2: The untangling from all this is sort of extricating ourselves
34:55
Speaker 2: from this economic mess that the Obamas and Clintons and
34:58
Speaker 2: Romneys and Bushes of the world have handed us. By
35:00
Speaker 2: the way, the Bush Foundation heavily against these tariffs. So
35:03
Speaker 2: that should tell you that you should like them. It's
35:05
Speaker 2: just a longer project than four years. And of course,
35:09
Speaker 2: the legacy media is going to do everything they can
35:11
Speaker 2: to try to get a crash. But just one quick point, too,
35:13
Speaker 2: on your cultural Marxist stuff. The president of the Open
35:16
Speaker 2: Society Foundations. was lecturing in South Africa about three weeks ago.
35:21
Speaker 2: And she explicitly stated in her really horrendous speech that
35:26
Speaker 2: they were looking to Anthony Gramsci as their sort of
35:30
Speaker 2: model for the road forward for the future, the idea
35:33
Speaker 2: of destroying the old and creating the new. He, of course,
35:37
Speaker 2: being the godfather of cultural Marxism, the Frankfurt School, the
35:41
Speaker 2: sort of infiltration of institutions to subvert them, to push
35:44
Speaker 2: outright Marxist ideology. So I guess... No wonder why these
35:48
Speaker 2: people would be against the idea of a strong United
35:51
Speaker 2: States of America, the idea that sovereignty matters, as opposed
35:55
Speaker 2: to this weird kind of globalist slave working class that
35:58
Speaker 2: they've turned not just the Chinese people into, but I
36:01
Speaker 2: would argue the American people too.
36:03
Speaker 1: I think we're constantly being confronted with this question, Natalie,
36:07
Speaker 1: of what does America first really mean? And even within
36:12
Speaker 1: our own party, there seems to be two competing sides
36:14
Speaker 1: of how do you define that? I don't know if
36:17
Speaker 1: Michael can pull this up. Maybe you can't, but I'll
36:19
Speaker 1: just describe it. Because George W. Bush had this really
36:23
Speaker 1: fascinating soundbite that was going around X recently where he
36:26
Speaker 1: essentially said that protectionism and tribalism are super evil. And
36:32
Speaker 1: it doesn't surprise me at all that the George Bush
36:34
Speaker 1: Foundation is really against these tariffs because his whole MO
36:38
Speaker 1: was globalism. And he was obviously a Republican. And I
36:42
Speaker 1: think it's interesting that he ties it to so-called tribalism.
36:46
Speaker 1: Because this idea that we should put the American people
36:49
Speaker 1: first is somehow really bad and regressive in the eyes
36:55
Speaker 1: of the uniparty. And we have to, I think, reassess
36:58
Speaker 1: what America first means. And this is really at the
37:01
Speaker 1: heart of what we're doing. Is America just GDP growth?
37:06
Speaker 1: Is it how good Amazon and Walmart are doing? Or
37:11
Speaker 1: is it how good regular Americans are doing? Are they able...
37:15
Speaker 1: to afford to buy a home? Can they raise a
37:18
Speaker 1: family on one person's income? Can they actually find good
37:22
Speaker 1: paying jobs? And you're right, it is attached to the
37:25
Speaker 1: immigration issue with H-1B visas, where you have people who
37:29
Speaker 1: do everything right and they study hard and they go
37:31
Speaker 1: to school, they go to college, they get a really
37:33
Speaker 1: good degree, and they're essentially a surf class of American
37:37
Speaker 1: citizens who can't compete with these foreigners who come into
37:40
Speaker 1: our country And they get these really supposedly good paying
37:44
Speaker 1: jobs for way less undercutting them because they don't have
37:47
Speaker 1: to have the same standards as an American citizen does.
37:50
Speaker 1: They can work for much less. And it is, Natalie,
37:53
Speaker 1: I think something that is really animating a lot of
37:57
Speaker 1: young people. And this gets to my point about the
38:00
Speaker 1: America first new right rising. Because if you are a
38:04
Speaker 1: young person, you're right. If you have stock, you don't
38:06
Speaker 1: have that much. And if you are looking to the
38:09
Speaker 1: future of this country. I would much rather have a
38:12
Speaker 1: long-term investment in industry in this country to see that
38:17
Speaker 1: I actually have a future instead of a little bump
38:21
Speaker 1: in the stock market, which I barely have anything in
38:23
Speaker 1: it anyways. Michael has that video. Let's play that if
38:26
Speaker 1: we can.
38:26
Speaker 5: What's interesting about our country, if you study history, is
38:29
Speaker 5: that there are some isms that occasionally pop up. One
38:34
Speaker 5: is isolationism. and it's evil twin protectionism, and it's evil
38:39
Speaker 5: triplet nativism.
38:40
Speaker 1: Oh, nativism, not tribalism. Nativism. I mean, that almost is worse. Natalie,
38:44
Speaker 1: can I get your reaction to that?
38:46
Speaker 2: Well, look, our immigration policy, our trade policy, really, I
38:50
Speaker 2: think any policy that's emanated out of the Bush, Obama,
38:54
Speaker 2: Biden era, is effectively a crime against humanity. And I
38:59
Speaker 2: use that term, and it's full force. If you look
39:02
Speaker 2: at what their perverted view of the social contract is,
39:05
Speaker 2: It's that, I don't know, we get cheap stuff in
39:09
Speaker 2: exchange for being treated absolutely horrifically. Our tax dollars have
39:14
Speaker 2: to be used to fund wars abroad that none of
39:16
Speaker 2: us ever voted for. Congress didn't even vote to authorize
39:20
Speaker 2: trade deals that are directly responsible for stripping you not
39:25
Speaker 2: just of your wages, but your decency and your dignity.
39:29
Speaker 2: I mean, the people who thought it was a good
39:31
Speaker 2: policy to have American workers trade their foreign H-1B replacements, right?
39:35
Speaker 2: The infamous Disneyland story. Like those people should be on
39:40
Speaker 2: trial for, I would argue, they're traitors and it's treasonous.
39:44
Speaker 2: But that right there, that story right there is, I think,
39:49
Speaker 2: such a flashpoint in American cultural history where we hit
39:52
Speaker 2: the point where corporations and so many of these corporations
39:57
Speaker 2: being subsidized by the government, if not bailed out in 2008,
40:01
Speaker 2: you can choose if you want to call it a
40:02
Speaker 2: subsidy or a bailout, but that they then used our
40:05
Speaker 2: tax dollars, right? To essentially weaponize against us. And I
40:09
Speaker 2: guess you see the culmination of that right in the
40:11
Speaker 2: Biden regime. But it's just absolutely reprehensible. And I think
40:16
Speaker 2: what really gets my blood boiling and I'm sure makes
40:19
Speaker 2: your audience tick is that, you know, these people are
40:23
Speaker 2: so willing to talk tough about the horrors of MAGA.
40:29
Speaker 2: The horrors of President Trump. Steve Bannon is an awful person.
40:33
Speaker 2: Evita and Natalie are, you know, racist, sexist, America firsters.
40:39
Speaker 2: I don't know about you. I've never heard these people
40:41
Speaker 2: talk so tough against the Chinese Communist Party. You can
40:45
Speaker 2: tell who's writing their paychecks. I've also never heard these
40:49
Speaker 2: very same people who are now apparently we have to
40:52
Speaker 2: really feel bad about all the federal bureaucrats, i.e. deep
40:56
Speaker 2: state embeds getting fired from USAID or these stupid globalist
41:01
Speaker 2: institutions where We see no benefit. I don't really think
41:04
Speaker 2: we need to be involved in astroturfing election results in Romania.
41:08
Speaker 2: Call me a protectionist for saying that, George Bush, like, okay.
41:12
Speaker 2: But I think the issue with all of this, right,
41:15
Speaker 2: when you're looking at who's funding this, is that these
41:18
Speaker 2: people had no compassion, sympathy, empathy, or anything like that.
41:23
Speaker 2: Start the clock, put it back to 2008, put it
41:26
Speaker 2: to the COVID lockdowns, put it to four years of
41:28
Speaker 2: inflation under Joe Biden. These people don't give one damn
41:32
Speaker 2: about America's working class, right? It's a term that only
41:35
Speaker 2: exists when their consultants remind them to say it. And
41:39
Speaker 2: it's just insulting to the intelligence, I think. And frankly,
41:42
Speaker 2: it goes to, I think, the spending cut debate that
41:44
Speaker 2: we're having right now, right? They, oh, no. $ 10 trillion,
41:48
Speaker 2: $ 1 trillion, $ 1 trillion. Well, over 10 years, it's $ 150 billion.
41:54
Speaker 2: That's nothing. And you're actually increasing spending by, what is it,
41:57
Speaker 2: $ 700 million? And I just think there's this idea that
42:00
Speaker 2: the American people are so dumb that we're cattle that
42:03
Speaker 2: you can just say, oh, well, protectionism is bad. Well, really,
42:08
Speaker 2: why is it bad? Because last time I checked, the
42:11
Speaker 2: Chinese Communist Party abuses not just American businesses, but people
42:15
Speaker 2: at mass scale, IP theft, illegal trade subsidies, currency manipulation.
42:19
Speaker 2: The list goes on, right? And we're the crazy people
42:23
Speaker 2: for wanting to be, quote unquote, protectionist, right? Anyone who
42:27
Speaker 2: uses the term Trump's trade war, you should automatically turn
42:31
Speaker 2: that show off because it is the dumbest, most reductive,
42:35
Speaker 2: and dare I say, victim blaming take that I have
42:38
Speaker 2: ever heard. It was the Chinese Communist Party that started it, right?
42:42
Speaker 2: When they joined the WTO, even before with all of
42:44
Speaker 2: the ways that they cheat the system. And I love
42:47
Speaker 2: it now that we have some business leaders coming out
42:49
Speaker 2: and saying, yeah, no, 400% tariffs. Yeah, China's really bad.
42:52
Speaker 2: They're really abusive. Where were you 10 years ago, right?
42:56
Speaker 2: Where were you when American workers who can't just go
42:58
Speaker 2: on CNN and complain about their business being overtaken, these
43:01
Speaker 2: small mom and pop shops, they were nowhere to be found.
43:04
Speaker 2: But now that President Trump has made it politically advantageous
43:08
Speaker 2: to go against the Chinese Communist Party, there'll be dozens
43:11
Speaker 2: and scores of people lining up to hit the airwaves
43:14
Speaker 2: to say, yeah, China bad, China bad, China bad. But
43:17
Speaker 2: just remember, where were these people 10 years ago? They
43:20
Speaker 2: had the power to do something about it. It's nice
43:23
Speaker 2: that they all made their money off of this rigged system.
43:26
Speaker 2: And now they can speak out and criticize it because
43:28
Speaker 2: maybe that well's dried up. But it's pure politics. And
43:32
Speaker 2: you can tell this is the one thing that makes
43:34
Speaker 2: me tick. But just the moral superiority of these people
43:37
Speaker 2: who have nothing but contempt for the American working class.
43:41
Speaker 2: Save it, Bush family. Go take your your money from
43:44
Speaker 2: China and propagandize on these tariffs. No one's going to
43:47
Speaker 2: believe you anyways.
43:49
Speaker 1: Natalia, so many of these people don't care about the
43:52
Speaker 1: American people. And there was that fascinating heat map that
43:57
Speaker 1: showed a lot of leftists specifically will have the priority
44:01
Speaker 1: be everything far away from, like, they care more about
44:04
Speaker 1: aliens in outer space than they do their next-door neighbor.
44:07
Speaker 1: And you'd think that at least, if they're not going
44:09
Speaker 1: to care about the American people, if they're not going
44:11
Speaker 1: to care about the working class, they would at least
44:13
Speaker 1: care about human rights abuses abroad, right? That's kind of
44:15
Speaker 1: the left's MO, that they take up the mantle of
44:19
Speaker 1: every single social issue that has nothing to do with
44:22
Speaker 1: what's immediately in front of them. This is why I
44:25
Speaker 1: kind of get peeved at all these pro-Palestine students, because
44:27
Speaker 1: it's like, there are so many issues you could care
44:29
Speaker 1: about right here at home, and they just don't. They
44:31
Speaker 1: are so animated with something happening on the other side
44:35
Speaker 1: of the world, and it seems a There is something
44:38
Speaker 1: to be said about the slave labor used by the Chinese,
44:43
Speaker 1: the way that they are just stripping and destroying the environment,
44:47
Speaker 1: the natural environment that impacts all of us. We all
44:49
Speaker 1: live on the earth. These are alleged climate enthusiasts. These
44:53
Speaker 1: are environmentalists. They don't care at all about China. Another
44:57
Speaker 1: one is the Congo, Natalie. I mean, all of these
45:00
Speaker 1: Chinese businessmen own these mines in the Congo that are
45:04
Speaker 1: not only destroying the environment, but like children, women forced
45:09
Speaker 1: into slave labor to dig up cobalt and all these
45:12
Speaker 1: other rare earth minerals for our electric vehicles and what's
45:17
Speaker 1: in our iPhones. And there is no care in the
45:22
Speaker 1: world for the human environmental abuses of the CCP. No
45:27
Speaker 1: one cares.
45:29
Speaker 2: Well, look, I think when they say, you know, you'll
45:31
Speaker 2: own nothing and you'll be happy via what future tense
45:35
Speaker 2: that they use in that statement makes it seem like
45:37
Speaker 2: that hasn't materialized yet. But so many people, if not
45:40
Speaker 2: probably billions of people own nothing. I guess they're not happy.
45:43
Speaker 2: But I think I always say that the buried lead
45:45
Speaker 2: of that sentence is that the second part, right, that
45:48
Speaker 2: they're trying to sort of, you know, geoengineer and like
45:51
Speaker 2: terraform your idea of happiness. And I don't think it's
45:55
Speaker 2: an outlandish statement to say that they want the entire
45:57
Speaker 2: world to be in some new 21st century form of
46:00
Speaker 2: slave labor. For their sakes, you know, I hope that's
46:03
Speaker 2: what they want, because otherwise they're the dumbest people I've
46:06
Speaker 2: ever met in terms of creating an economic system and
46:08
Speaker 2: world order whereby that is the output of it. And look,
46:11
Speaker 2: I think you're so right to extend the critique right
46:14
Speaker 2: to these sort of third world countries, especially Africa, which,
46:16
Speaker 2: by the way, is now essentially all run by the
46:18
Speaker 2: Chinese Communist Party.
46:20
Speaker 7: Right.
46:20
Speaker 2: All these people who are melting down over what President
46:22
Speaker 2: Trump is trying to do in Panama. I didn't hear any,
46:26
Speaker 2: you know, meltdown coming from the media about China's Belt
46:29
Speaker 2: and Road Initiative. They actually wrote positively about it. They
46:32
Speaker 2: thought it was great that, you know, China was going
46:34
Speaker 2: to reverse decades of neocolonialism coming from the West, which
46:37
Speaker 2: you can have your discussion about the merits of neocolonialism,
46:40
Speaker 2: though that's obviously, I'd reject the framing of it. But look,
46:44
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't think it's that outlandish to say that,
46:46
Speaker 2: you know, the people who are dying on the front
46:48
Speaker 2: lines in Ukraine, I mean, that's slave labor in some
46:51
Speaker 2: weird way too, right? They're the slave labor doing the
46:54
Speaker 2: bidding of globalist Victoria Nuland, globalist and failed policy expert
46:59
Speaker 2: Jake Sullivan, right? All of these people are on the
47:02
Speaker 2: front lines of some battle. I think the Chinese people
47:05
Speaker 2: represent the front of the sort of economic battle of
47:08
Speaker 2: the globalist world order, right, where you're going to have
47:11
Speaker 2: cheap stuff in the way that they keep you complacent.
47:13
Speaker 2: It's not bread and circuses, right? It's, you know, weird
47:17
Speaker 2: plant-based vegan alternatives and, you know, degenerate Netflix documentaries and porn, right?
47:24
Speaker 2: That's sort of the equivalent. And the Chinese people, the
47:26
Speaker 2: Lao Bai Jing, the Uyghurs, right, are going to be
47:29
Speaker 2: the people who are sort of undergirding that financially. But
47:32
Speaker 2: you can see in whatever vertical, this sort of globalist,
47:35
Speaker 2: you know, supranational entity with the UN, the WEF, Whatever
47:41
Speaker 2: vertical they want to control your life from, they have
47:43
Speaker 2: people who are essentially on the front lines fighting that
47:47
Speaker 2: war for them. And I think you see people, I
47:49
Speaker 2: think a lot of what's going on in the Middle East,
47:51
Speaker 2: a lot of what's going on in Ukraine, those are
47:53
Speaker 2: unnecessary casualties that are happening now. Because either the Chinese
47:58
Speaker 2: Communist Party wants the United States to be dragged into
48:00
Speaker 2: forever conflict. Even other countries, you know, Israel, a bunch
48:04
Speaker 2: of countries in the Middle East, they love it when
48:05
Speaker 2: the United States is dragged into these forever wars and
48:07
Speaker 2: subsidizing their defense budgets, right? Because they don't have to pay.
48:10
Speaker 2: And death is really, really good because you know why?
48:13
Speaker 2: It destroys these countries. And we know that these neo-Marxists
48:17
Speaker 2: love to rebuild like we saw, right? We were talking
48:19
Speaker 2: about Mao Zedong. But you can only rebuild from a
48:22
Speaker 2: blank slate, right? That's why Mao Zedong purged his country
48:25
Speaker 2: of tens of millions of people, especially his ideological opponents.
48:29
Speaker 2: So if you want to build back better, as I
48:32
Speaker 2: heard someone, you know, used to say, right, or rebuild
48:35
Speaker 2: the Great Reset, it's sort of hard to reset something
48:38
Speaker 2: or rebuild something that hasn't been destroyed first. And that's
48:42
Speaker 2: what you're seeing going on in Ukraine. It's what you're
48:45
Speaker 2: seeing going on, I would argue, in the Middle East
48:47
Speaker 2: is what you're seeing going on. I think what you
48:49
Speaker 2: would have seen gone on under Kamala Harris here. And
48:51
Speaker 2: that's why they were so pissed off, right, about President
48:54
Speaker 2: Trump winning, not just because 2024 kind of overlapped with
48:58
Speaker 2: the sunset of so many of these globalist ambitions, whether
49:00
Speaker 2: it was Agenda 2030, Made in China 2025. By the way,
49:04
Speaker 2: that's the ultimate heckle and troll of what President Trump
49:06
Speaker 2: is doing, right? China's big Made in China 2025 initiative.
49:10
Speaker 2: where they wanted to become essentially the new manufacturing powerhouse
49:13
Speaker 2: of the world, which they, to some extent, already had been.
49:16
Speaker 2: It was set to conclude in 2025. President Trump said, actually,
49:19
Speaker 2: I think we're going to reverse that a little bit.
49:23
Speaker 2: But it's all interconnected because if you look at who's
49:26
Speaker 2: pushing in and who's behind it all, it's the same
49:28
Speaker 2: people who I think you've really hit the nail on
49:31
Speaker 2: the head where there's just no respect for humanity, human decency.
49:33
Speaker 2: They're probably all atheists, if not outright, you know, Satanists,
49:37
Speaker 2: take your pick. But they don't see anything wrong with
49:41
Speaker 2: slave labor because they don't think that people have God-given rights.
49:45
Speaker 2: They don't believe in the Constitution. They don't believe in
49:47
Speaker 2: the Declaration of Independence. They don't believe in the Enlightenment. So,
49:50
Speaker 2: of course, they're going to treat people absolutely reprehensible in
49:52
Speaker 2: the name of maximizing profits because it's all they know
49:55
Speaker 2: what to do. And believe me, that's what they would
49:57
Speaker 2: want to do to you as Americans. We just likely
49:59
Speaker 2: have a little more protection because of our founding fathers.
50:03
Speaker 1: There is zero respect. for human life. And my husband
50:06
Speaker 1: and I were just recently talking about how the globalists
50:10
Speaker 1: have had an amazing track record. Of every government that
50:14
Speaker 1: they've wanted to topple, they've done it. They have regime
50:17
Speaker 1: change any time that they've set their mind to it.
50:20
Speaker 1: And the problem is that the result has been horrific
50:22
Speaker 1: every time. They're successful in toppling the government, but are
50:26
Speaker 1: they rebuilding something better for the people that live there,
50:28
Speaker 1: for the world at large? 100% of the time, no.
50:33
Speaker 1: And I want to get to this, Natalie, before we
50:36
Speaker 1: run out of time, because yesterday Joe Rogan dropped a
50:39
Speaker 1: debate episode between comedian libertarian Dave Smith, British neocon Douglas Murray,
50:45
Speaker 1: and the two of them got into a heated discussion
50:48
Speaker 1: actually about foreign wars and regime change. But the center
50:52
Speaker 1: of the discussion was trusting the experts. And I want
50:55
Speaker 1: to get your take here, Natalie, because we're hearing a
50:57
Speaker 1: lot from the experts in whether it's foreign wars, whether
51:01
Speaker 1: it's this tariff debate. If you are not an expert,
51:04
Speaker 1: you don't have a right to have an opinion on
51:06
Speaker 1: this topic. So let's just take a listen to that, Mikey.
51:09
Speaker 4: He doesn't claim to be a historian either.
51:11
Speaker 9: You see my point about the move. It's like some
51:14
Speaker 9: weird jujitsu move where you say, hang on, you know
51:17
Speaker 9: all about this as well. You say, I'm not a historian,
51:22
Speaker 9: but I'm going to spend my time talking about history.
51:25
Speaker 9: I'm not a journalist, but I'm going to spend my
51:27
Speaker 9: time talking about this thing. I'm not an expert on this,
51:30
Speaker 9: but I'm going to spend my time talking about this thing.
51:32
Speaker 4: It's a weird move, yeah?
51:33
Speaker 2: No.
51:34
Speaker 4: You don't think? No, I'm a free American. I can
51:36
Speaker 4: talk about what I like to. You can talk about
51:38
Speaker 4: what you want. So what is the point here? I've
51:39
Speaker 4: noticed you can. But what's the point?
51:42
Speaker 9: The point is, what are you pushing? What are you watering?
51:46
Speaker 4: What am I pushing?
51:47
Speaker 10: Liberty, free markets, peace, prosperity, not getting in another stupid
51:52
Speaker 10: catastrophic war, which we're on the precipice of right now.
51:54
Speaker 4: That's what I'm pushing.
51:56
Speaker 9: I'm still slightly bemused about this move from, I'm an
52:01
Speaker 9: expert on this and I have views, to I'm a comedian.
52:04
Speaker 4: I've never claimed to be an expert on anything. This
52:07
Speaker 4: is the problem, Joe.
52:10
Speaker 9: If somebody says- Wait a minute, you have to claim
52:12
Speaker 9: to be an expert on something to have an opinion
52:14
Speaker 9: on something?
52:15
Speaker 4: No, you don't have to be. You don't have to be.
52:17
Speaker 9: This is like, I'm not a historian, but I'm pumping
52:20
Speaker 9: out history. I'm not an expert, but I'm talking all
52:22
Speaker 9: the time about this thing.
52:23
Speaker 4: But you're not even talking about specifically on what he
52:25
Speaker 4: just said.
52:26
Speaker 9: No, I'm saying, this is my point about this. You say,
52:30
Speaker 9: I'm not an expert.
52:31
Speaker 4: So what's the solution? To not talk about it?
52:33
Speaker 9: No, it's to have more experts around.
52:37
Speaker 4: Well, the expert class hasn't done a great job.
52:39
Speaker 7: I know.
52:39
Speaker 4: This is follow the science. Yeah, but you know what?
52:42
Speaker 4: I agree with that. I just said to you, I
52:44
Speaker 4: agree with that. But one of the problems is.
52:46
Speaker 10: During all of COVID, I will put my track record
52:49
Speaker 10: against any of the expert class on COVID. I'm glad
52:53
Speaker 10: to do that. So should I have just shut up?
52:54
Speaker 10: Should I have shut up by opposing lockdowns and opposing
52:57
Speaker 10: vaccine mandates?
52:58
Speaker 4: No, no. That was the argument at the time. You
53:00
Speaker 4: realize that, right? That's the entire argument that you're making.
53:02
Speaker 4: Let the experts handle it.
53:04
Speaker 1: Natalie, can we afford... to leave things up to the
53:09
Speaker 1: experts anymore. In that clip, they were talking about Afghanistan.
53:11
Speaker 1: But like I said, this applies to the tariff issue too.
53:13
Speaker 1: I'm sure that people like Douglas, and I don't hate
53:17
Speaker 1: everything that he's done. I think he's been probably a
53:19
Speaker 1: net positive on the culture and taking on wokeism. But
53:22
Speaker 1: this take to me is pretty interesting because I think
53:26
Speaker 1: a lot of people would say, well, Avita and Natalie,
53:28
Speaker 1: they don't have PhDs in foreign affairs and in China studies.
53:35
Speaker 1: They don't know anything about tariffs or economic policies. They're
53:38
Speaker 1: just two young 20-something girls. They can't be talking about this.
53:41
Speaker 1: They're not experts. Can we trust the experts?
53:46
Speaker 2: Experts has to be my least favorite word, maybe second
53:49
Speaker 2: only to the phrase comprehensive immigration reform in DC. I
53:53
Speaker 2: don't know which gives me more PTSD. But no, I mean,
53:56
Speaker 2: it goes back to the age-old debate, right? Who gets
53:58
Speaker 2: to dictate what an expert is? And I think more
54:01
Speaker 2: and more we're realizing that that the expert moniker, the label,
54:06
Speaker 2: the credentialism that comes with that is really only a
54:08
Speaker 2: symptom of people and by people like the globalists we
54:12
Speaker 2: were talking about, or even the Chinese Communist Party, right?
54:14
Speaker 2: Like funding and bankrolling your education, your credentials, your speaking fees, right?
54:20
Speaker 2: And I just think it's this broader, I think, anti,
54:26
Speaker 2: not institutionalism, but anti-credentialism and just anti-elitism Where there's this
54:31
Speaker 2: inherent pejorative connotation to it, because I think that the so-called,
54:35
Speaker 2: you know, expert class has never really been fact checked
54:38
Speaker 2: or not even fact checked, but just talked to directly.
54:41
Speaker 5: Right.
54:42
Speaker 2: But when you strip, I think the media marketplace, I
54:45
Speaker 2: think COVID, the FOIA requests, the independent reporting, the investigative reporting,
54:49
Speaker 2: certainly with Trump back in office and stripping a lot
54:51
Speaker 2: of these. censorship programs, when you have actual, not that
54:55
Speaker 2: we like complete free trade, but free exchange of ideas,
54:59
Speaker 2: complete loss of fair market competition when it comes to information,
55:05
Speaker 2: people like Dave Smith are going to win because they
55:08
Speaker 2: don't have an ulterior motive or an ulterior agenda. And
55:13
Speaker 2: I think that it's always funny to me when they
55:14
Speaker 2: sort of chalk it up to being anti-intellectual. I hope,
55:18
Speaker 2: I hope for the sake of the expert class, that
55:20
Speaker 2: they have been acting intentionally destructive. And that they intentionally
55:25
Speaker 2: have been trying to destroy this country and intentionally lying
55:28
Speaker 2: and deceiving us about COVID-19. Because if this is where
55:31
Speaker 2: we got as a result of them thinking that they
55:34
Speaker 2: were going to usher in some like, you know, super
55:37
Speaker 2: state that is extremely anti-racist and woke and we have
55:41
Speaker 2: no pandemics, right? Whatever things they would think make a
55:44
Speaker 2: society accomplished. They have done such a horrible, horrible, horrible job.
55:51
Speaker 2: And if you really get to the crux of why
55:52
Speaker 2: they have such elaborate censor regimes and all that, it's
55:55
Speaker 2: because they can't handle criticism.
55:57
Speaker 5: Right.
55:57
Speaker 2: Anthony Fauci folded like a paper bag the second people
56:00
Speaker 2: started questioning him. And what was his defense? I am
56:03
Speaker 2: the science. No, you're not. And the facts prove that
56:06
Speaker 2: you were and you never were. But they would love
56:08
Speaker 2: an environment whereby you wouldn't even be allowed to critique it.
56:11
Speaker 2: We'd be, you know, Mao Zedong and sitting in a
56:13
Speaker 2: prison like Stephen K. Bannon had to. So I don't
56:16
Speaker 2: trust the experts. I trust, I would say, my lived
56:20
Speaker 2: experience and my reality and people who I know are
56:24
Speaker 2: not on the payrolls of foreign governments, multinational corporations, or globalists.
56:32
Speaker 1: Natalie, that was so, so well put. And I mean,
56:36
Speaker 1: we can have experts and they can be knowledgeable on
56:40
Speaker 1: certain topics and that's fine. But you're right, when you
56:42
Speaker 1: have this capture... from all of our elite institutions, there
56:46
Speaker 1: is not just an obvious distrust that we have, but
56:50
Speaker 1: one that's very well-founded. We've been lied to over and
56:53
Speaker 1: over again, whether it's about weapons of mass destruction or
56:56
Speaker 1: that the vaccines work or that masks work or that
56:59
Speaker 1: everybody's going to die from this COVID virus that we
57:02
Speaker 1: were seeing propaganda videos of Chinese people on the streets
57:06
Speaker 1: falling over and dying. That obviously was not happening because
57:09
Speaker 1: of COVID. We were lied about. The lab leak theory
57:12
Speaker 1: told us that this was a crazy thing to assume.
57:15
Speaker 1: And it turns out that it was leaked from a lab.
57:18
Speaker 1: And Natalie, you've done so much research on that. That's
57:20
Speaker 1: a whole other topic. But I think that this was
57:24
Speaker 1: a very fruitful conversation. And if you thought it was
57:26
Speaker 1: a fruitful conversation, it is a repudiation of everybody who
57:29
Speaker 1: will say you need to have the experts with PhDs
57:32
Speaker 1: and all the credentialism to talk about these things because
57:35
Speaker 1: I think we did a good job and neither of
57:37
Speaker 1: us have the extreme credentials that I think someone like
57:41
Speaker 1: Douglas would say we're required to have to have this discussion.
57:45
Speaker 1: We're just intelligent young women who do actual research and
57:50
Speaker 1: can have a fruitful discussion because we're humans. And like
57:52
Speaker 1: Dave Smith said, this is America now. And people are
57:55
Speaker 1: allowed to have conversations without having PhDs. So Natalie, thank
57:59
Speaker 1: you so much for being here, for having this discussion
58:02
Speaker 1: with me. I want to be respectful of your time.
58:04
Speaker 1: So where can people go to follow you and all
58:07
Speaker 1: of your amazing work?
58:08
Speaker 2: Well, thank you so much for having me on. Always
58:10
Speaker 2: an honor. You can follow me Twitter, Instagram, all the
58:13
Speaker 2: places at Natalie G Winters. And the New York Times,
58:15
Speaker 2: believe it or not, just dropped a long form profile
58:18
Speaker 2: piece on me. So you should go read what the
58:21
Speaker 2: expert class has to say about me.
58:24
Speaker 7: Amazing.
58:24
Speaker 1: I love it.
58:25
Speaker 2: All right.
58:25
Speaker 1: Well, all of Natalie's links are in the description. Michael
58:28
Speaker 1: just added them all so you guys can get it
58:29
Speaker 1: in the description on Rumble. And if you guys are
58:32
Speaker 1: listening on Apple or Spotify, make sure to go to rumble.com
58:35
Speaker 1: slash Javita. Check this show out in its video version.
58:37
Speaker 1: I really appreciate all of you guys tuning in live,
58:40
Speaker 1: bearing with us, and I will see you guys all
58:43
Speaker 1: next week.
58:44
Speaker 4: The Dan Bongino Show.
58:45
Speaker 8: I think a lot of people are underestimating the Trump
58:48
Speaker 8: effect in this midterm. You've heard it yourself. Act like
58:51
Speaker 8: I'm on the ballot. Why is he saying that? You
58:54
Speaker 8: think he doesn't know what he's doing? That is the
58:57
Speaker 8: X factor. Folks, elections are a math issue.
59:01
Speaker 1: That is it.
59:01
Speaker 8: This is not a football game.
59:04
Speaker 4: If you vote, we will win. It is not complicated.
59:08
Speaker 1: The Dan vontino show follow and listen on your favorite
59:10
Speaker 1: platform