Escalating Trade Tensions: Bannon Pushes for Total U.S.-China Trade Embargo
In a fiery broadcast on his War Room show, conservative commentator Steve Bannon called on President Donald Trump to intensify the ongoing trade conflict with China by imposing a complete embargo on all bilateral trade. The provocative suggestion follows China's recent decision to halt exports of rare earth minerals, critical for various high-tech industries, prompting Trump to counter with a ban on exporting AI-related technology to China.
Bannon framed the escalating trade dispute as a strategic climb up an "escalatory ladder," urging a hardline approach. "I'm all for it," he declared, emphasizing that any de-escalation would require serious negotiations, which he believes China’s President Xi Jinping is unlikely to initiate casually. "He’s not going to pick up the phone and say, ‘Let’s have tea,’" Bannon quipped, suggesting that diplomatic breakthroughs would need to come through alternative channels.
The call for a total embargo marks a significant escalation in rhetoric, as both nations continue to wield economic leverage in a high-stakes standoff. Bannon warned that the current trajectory, with China cutting off critical resources, could lead to a de facto trade blackout. "People have to understand, I believe we’re at a total embargo," he stated, underscoring the gravity of the situation.
As global markets brace for potential disruptions, the prospect of a complete trade halt raises questions about the economic and geopolitical fallout. With both sides digging in, the path to resolution remains uncertain.
The Left’s Embrace of Terrorism and Political Violence: A Call for Purge
The Democratic Party and its propaganda arms—legacy media, activist journalists, and social media influencers—have spent years radicalizing their own base. What began as rhetorical excess has now metastasized into outright embrace of terrorists, assassins, and street violence. The Left no longer hides its contempt for democracy when it doesn’t serve their ends. Instead, they cheer on chaos, intimidation, and even murder—so long as the targets are conservatives, law enforcement, or anyone standing in their way.
From MS-13 to Hamas: The Left’s Rogue’s Gallery
The Democratic Party’s open-border policies have allowed violent criminals like MS-13 to flourish, with some lawmakers even advocating for their protection. In 2024, the Left rallied behind a deported MS-13 gang member with a domestic violence record, framing his expulsion as an injustice. Meanwhile, elite universities have become breeding grounds for pro-Hamas extremists who openly call for intifada on American soil. These aren’t fringe voices—they’re the Left’s new shock troops, nurtured by professors and media figures who paint jihadist sympathizers as “idealistic youth.”
Antifa and BLM: The Left’s Street Army
Antifa, a self-described “anti-fascist” militia, operates as the Left’s paramilitary wing, assaulting conservatives, firebombing police stations, and shutting down free speech under the guise of “protecting democracy.” The media downplays their violence, often portraying them as noble activists rather than the black-clad thugs they are. Similarly, the 2020 BLM riots—which caused billions in damage and dozens of deaths—were excused as “mostly peaceful protests” by Democratic leaders. The message was clear: Left-wing violence is morally justified.
The Assassination Culture
The Left’s rhetoric has consequences. After years of calling President Trump “Hitler,” they celebrated when a deranged leftist attempted to assassinate him. The same media that spent a decade demonizing conservatives as “violent extremists” suddenly found poetry in political murder when the CEO of UnitedHealth was gunned down by Luigi Magioni. Left-wing journalists rushed to paint Magioni as a “revolutionary hero”—young, handsome, and morally righteous. The message? Murder is acceptable if the target is deemed “oppressive.”
Targeting Judges, Intimidating Dissent
When conservative Supreme Court justices were targeted at their homes by pro-abortion mobs, Democratic leaders remained silent. Some, like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, even fundraised off the intimidation tactics. The Left has no issue with political violence—so long as it’s directed at their enemies.
Time for a Reckoning
If the Left truly believes in democracy, it must purge its ranks of terrorists, assassins, and street militants. But don’t hold your breath. The Democratic Party has shown it will weaponize any means necessary to seize power—even if it means burning down the country in the process. The question isn’t whether the Left can reform. It’s whether it even wants to.
The New Left and the Rise of Bible-Quoting Marxism
The New Left never died. It just changed uniforms.
What began in the 1960s as a Marxist revolution against traditional Western values has now split into two wings—but both are flying toward the same destination: total control through collectivist ideology. On one side stands the Woke Left, dressed in rainbow flags and screaming about equity. On the other is the so-called Woke Right, cloaked in crosses and quoting Bible verses.
Let’s stop pretending these are different groups.
They are both the New Left.
They are both the New Marxists.
And they are both enemies of the United States.
The Woke Left wages war through identity politics, gender theory, and cultural decay. They demand equity instead of equality, glorify victimhood, and redefine justice through a Marxist lens of oppressor vs. oppressed. They push government redistribution, censorship, and state morality. They hate men, hate beauty, and hate merit. Their religion is Communism, and their church is the bureaucratic state.
But the Woke Right is no different—it’s the same virus, just in a different host.
They quote scripture but speak the language of Marx: redistribution (disguised as distributism), authoritarianism (justified as order), and identity politics (framed as nationalism). They don’t believe in individual freedom—they believe in state-enforced morality. They blame women for societal collapse. They demonize legal immigrants. They worship uniformity. They want Christianity turned into a state weapon.
They are not “based.”
They are not conservative.
They are not protecting the West.
They are the New Left in religious drag.
They are the New Marxists in camouflage.
And make no mistake—they are trying to infiltrate, hijack, and destroy the Conservative movement from the inside. Just like the Marxists of the past, they’re using division, identity, and engineered outrage to turn Americans against each other. They are weaponizing culture and ideology to tear the United States apart—one institution, one community, one person at a time.
They are Marxists.
The Woke Left hates America openly.
The Woke Right hates America while pretending to save it.
Both are obsessed with racial identity.
Both believe power is more important than truth.
Both want more government, not less.
Both use struggle sessions to humiliate and destroy dissenters.
Both see the Constitution as obsolete.
Both claim perpetual victimhood.
Both want forced conformity of thought and behavior.
And both harbor hatred for the Jewish people—either quietly or loudly.
This is not a battle between Left and Right.
This is a battle between Marxism and Freedom.
Between collectivist tyranny and individual liberty.
Between America and its enemies—foreign, domestic, and now, disguised as patriots.
So let’s stop calling them the Woke Right.
Let’s stop giving them false legitimacy.
Call them what they are: the New Left. The New Marxists.
And call them what they’re doing: sabotage.
https://x.com/wcdispatch_/status/1913047249791193329
The War Room: Woke Left v Woke Right Debate
Why Male Solidarity Terrifies a Gynocentric Society
The greatest fear of a gynocentric social order is not violence, chaos, or even apathy—it is the idea that men might band together, organize, and reclaim the authority they willingly relinquished over half a century ago. The very concept of men forming communities independent of female approval is treated as subversive, threatening, even dangerous. And that reaction isn’t accidental; it’s the system protecting itself.
For more than sixty years, the narrative arc of Western culture has pushed men toward deference—social, legal, and emotional. They’ve been told that power is oppressive when held by men, but empowering when claimed by women. They’ve watched as institutions once built on male cooperation—fraternities, trades, churches, and men's clubs—have been dismantled, repurposed, or demonized. Male strength was not merely made obsolete; it was pathologized.
Today, any mention of male-only spaces—whether a podcast, a retreat, or even an online forum—is greeted with suspicion and hostility. Why? Because it reawakens the specter of male autonomy. And male autonomy poses a threat to a social order that thrives on male submission disguised as “progress.”
The hysteria and derision aimed at male solidarity aren’t random; they are the immune response of a system that understands what’s truly at stake. It is not equality that’s endangered by male empowerment—it’s control. A gynocentric order maintains its dominance not through brute force, but through social engineering: by convincing men that to speak, gather, or assert themselves is inherently oppressive.
But reality is beginning to shift. Men are waking up. They are no longer content with passive roles in a society that simultaneously blames them for everything and expects them to fix everything. They are questioning the deal they inherited, and they are remembering something dangerous to the status quo: that brotherhood—true brotherhood—is power.
And that terrifies the system.
"Escape the Herd: Mimetic Traps, Scapegoats, and the Contrarian Cure"
Every age has its madness. Ours is conformity—polished, algorithmically enforced, and paraded as morality. Behind the slogans and social movements lies a deeper force: the unconscious urge to imitate. Our desires, beliefs, and even our outrage are often not our own. They’re borrowed—mimetic, as French thinker René Girard warned.
Girard’s mimetic theory reveals a disturbing truth: we desire what others desire. Not because of inherent value, but because someone else wants it. This imitation spirals into competition, rivalry, and eventually collective violence—violence often disguised as justice. From the Inquisition to Twitter mobs, from witch trials to political scapegoats, the machinery is the same. What looks like moral clarity is frequently mass delusion.
One of Girard’s sharpest students, billionaire investor Peter Thiel, understood the implications better than most. While others saw mimetic theory as academic, Thiel saw a blueprint of modern culture, markets, and power. He saw how businesses collapse under copycat logic, how universities churn out ideologically identical minds, and how entire political systems cannibalize themselves in search of scapegoats.
But Thiel didn’t just diagnose the problem—he practiced the cure: contrarian thinking. His now-famous interview question—“What important truth do very few people agree with you on?”—wasn’t a gimmick. It was a mimetic filter. A way to find those rare minds who hadn’t outsourced their beliefs to the group.
Why This Matters Now
Today, groupthink isn’t just annoying—it’s existential. We’ve built societies where mimetic loops are amplified by social media, where “truth” is often determined by virality, and where dissent is pathologized. The scapegoat mechanism, once tribal and religious, is now digital and ideological. Targets are doxxed instead of stoned, canceled instead of crucified—but the structure remains. A collective cleansing ritual to purge tensions from the system.
And that’s where the contrarian steps in. Not to troll, not to provoke, but to see. To observe the mimetic current and step outside it. The true contrarian doesn’t define themselves in opposition to the crowd—they define themselves independently of it. That’s rare. That’s power.
Mimetic Desire and the Myth of Authenticity
Most people believe their choices are authentic. They’re not. Girard shows us that what we call “taste” or “values” are often shaped by models—people we emulate, consciously or not. The influencer. The guru. The political idol. Mimetic desire turns us into mirrors, not individuals.
This creates scarcity and conflict. If two people want the same thing because the other wants it, rivalry is inevitable. It’s no longer about the object—it’s about the model. Who gets to define desire? Who wins the imitation game?
Eventually, the system implodes unless a scapegoat is found—someone to blame, punish, or exile. This is why every mass movement eventually eats its own. The mimetic fire needs fuel, and once it starts, it burns indiscriminately.
The Contrarian as Cultural Immune System
Contrarians are often dismissed as cranks or rebels, but they serve a vital function: they break mimetic loops. They refuse to imitate. They notice what others don’t because they’re not looking through the same lens. They resist the reflex to conform—and in doing so, preserve the possibility of originality.
Thiel’s entire investment philosophy is built on this insight. You do not win by following the herd. You win by anticipating where the herd is wrong. Contrarians create value because they do what others are too afraid—or too entranced—to consider.
Conclusion: Think Different, or Be Devoured
René Girard gave us the map. Peter Thiel showed us the escape route. In a culture of mass imitation, the only way to remain sane is to become mimetically self-aware. Ask yourself: Whose desires am I imitating? Whose fears have I adopted?
Because if you don’t own your mind, the mob will.
And history shows: the mob always finds someone to blame.
Democratic Party continues to erase women and their rights.
Democrats stand up for criminals and stand down for American citizens. https://m.primal.net/QTHC.mp4
https://x.com/stealthmedical1/status/1912675336573333716
Trump’s Global War Room: DNC, Iran, Deportations, Tulsi, Leticia James
Democrats Defend Criminals While Sacrificing American Citizens
The evidence against Kilmar Abrego Garcia is overwhelming. He has been repeatedly identified as a member of the violent MS-13 gang by multiple credible sources:
A Maryland county police gang unit
A reliable confidential informant
ICE officers
An immigration judge
A federal appellate board
All of this has been confirmed publicly by former Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Yet despite this, Democrats continue to defend individuals like Garcia—people with clear ties to dangerous criminal organizations. Why? Because today’s Democratic Party has shown, time and time again, that it prioritizes the rights and welfare of criminals and foreign nationals over the safety and well-being of American citizens.
From city to city, Democrat-led governments spend U.S. taxpayer and state taxpayer dollars not on improving public safety, education, or infrastructure—but on services for those who entered the country illegally. Sanctuary policies, free legal aid, housing assistance, healthcare benefits, and even cash payouts have been handed out to non-citizens while American families struggle to afford groceries and pay rent.
This is not compassion. It is strategy.
Rather than earning the votes of American citizens by doing a good job, the Democratic Party is working to import a new voter base. The goal is simple: flood the country with illegal immigrants, lure them with entitlements paid for by hardworking taxpayers, and then either push for mass amnesty or turn a blind eye to illegal voting. All in an effort to shift the demographics in their favor and create a permanent one-party state.
The cost of this political scheme is staggering. Entire cities are being pushed toward financial collapse. Emergency services are strained. School systems are overwhelmed. Hospitals are overcrowded. And in many cases, American citizens—especially the poor and working class—are the ones being displaced and ignored.
The Democratic Party has abandoned the idea of earning support through leadership and accountability. Instead, they are betting everything on a plan to replace the electorate—trading the votes of citizens for the dependency of the foreign-born.
It is no longer a question of policy differences—it is a question of loyalty. Who do these leaders serve? The American people—or their future political machines?
This is not just unsustainable. It is a betrayal.
And the American public is waking up to it.
Modern Marriage
Can Democrats Be Trusted to Defend America If War Breaks Out With China?
As the trade war with China intensifies under the renewed leadership of President Donald Trump, a critical question is emerging at the forefront of national discussion: If a hot war were to erupt with the Chinese Communist Party, can the Democratic Party be trusted to fight for the United States? Or have years of appeasement, infiltration, and ideological compromise positioned many of its top leaders as liabilities—or worse?
The concern isn’t abstract. It’s grounded in recent history and well-documented cases. Take Congressman Eric Swalwell, for instance—a sitting member of the House Intelligence Committee who was exposed for having a relationship with a known Chinese spy named Fang Fang. Despite the grave implications, Swalwell faced no meaningful consequences. He retained his seat, his security clearance, and his standing in the party. The Democratic establishment looked the other way.
This pattern repeats itself elsewhere. In New York, Governor Kathy Hochul’s administration came under fire after reportedly employing a staffer with direct ties to the Chinese Communist Party. What once would have triggered urgent national security investigations now barely registers as a political inconvenience. The implications are quietly brushed aside, and no accountability follows.
Then there’s California Governor Gavin Newsom—arguably the most visible example of strategic capitulation to China within the Democratic ranks. Under Newsom’s leadership, California has descended into chaos. Crime, drugs, and homelessness have overwhelmed major cities. Businesses have fled. Public services have crumbled. Yet when Chinese dictator Xi Jinping arrived in San Francisco, the city was suddenly transformed. Streets that had been neglected for years were cleaned overnight—not for American citizens, but for a communist leader hostile to the United States.
The symbolism could not have been clearer.
Now, in the midst of an escalating economic and geopolitical confrontation with Beijing, Newsom isn’t aligning with American interests—he’s growing closer to the CCP. His recent diplomatic trips to China, his public praise for their policies, and his break with the administration’s hardline stance raise serious concerns about where his loyalties lie. The timing isn’t just suspicious—it’s dangerous.
This behavior demands scrutiny. It’s time the FBI and DOJ stop ignoring these patterns and begin investigating Newsom’s ties to the Chinese Communist Party. At what point does repeated engagement with a hostile foreign regime shift from poor judgment to possible collusion? How many lines have to be crossed before action is taken?
Unfortunately, Newsom is not an outlier. He’s part of a broader trend within the Democratic Party—a party that, for years, has protected and empowered individuals linked to anti-American and extremist groups. From quiet associations with the Muslim Brotherhood to public defenses of Hamas sympathizers, the Democratic leadership has increasingly embraced actors who openly oppose American values and security interests.
Nowhere is this more evident than in their policy toward Iran. Under Democratic administrations, sanctions were lifted, billions in cash were funneled into Tehran, and the regime’s alliance with China and Russia grew stronger. This “Axis of Resistance” isn’t theoretical—it’s real, it’s coordinated, and it directly threatens American security.
So again, we ask: If war breaks out with China, who will Democrats stand with?
This is no longer about partisan bickering or traditional foreign policy debates. It’s about national loyalty. It’s about who will defend the republic when global conflict tests our unity and resolve. And it’s about whether some of our own leaders are already compromised—willingly or not—by the very adversaries we may soon be forced to confront.
In an age where warfare isn’t only fought with bullets but with influence, money, data, and subversion, the greatest threat may not be in Beijing. It may be in our own capitols, hidden behind a polished smile and wrapped in the flag.
This isn’t paranoia—it’s pattern recognition.
And it’s time we take a hard, unflinching look at who is truly prepared to defend this country—and who may already be serving another master.
UK Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Biological Women https://m.primal.net/QStL.mp4
https://x.com/StealthMedical1/status/1912675336573333716
Trump's Global War Room: The End of the DNC
UK Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Biological Women
The UK Supreme Court has issued a decisive ruling affirming that the legal definition of “woman” under the Equality Act 2010 refers exclusively to biological sex. This marks a major victory for women’s rights advocates who have long argued that gender identity should not override sex-based protections in law.
The case, brought by For Women Scotland, challenged the Scottish government’s attempt to redefine “woman” to include biological males who identify as female. The Court unanimously rejected this, ruling that legal provisions for women—such as access to single-sex spaces, services, and protections—must be grounded in biological reality.
This ruling safeguards the integrity of spaces and policies designed to protect biological women, including domestic violence shelters, hospital wards, sports, and public boards. It ensures that women’s rights cannot be diluted or overridden by subjective gender identity claims.
Supporters of the decision praised it as a clear stand for common sense, fairness, and the preservation of hard-won protections for women. The ruling sets a legal precedent that strengthens the rights of biological women across the United Kingdom and reestablishes a firm boundary between sex and gender in public life.
Trump Administration Moves to Revoke Harvard’s Tax-Exempt Status
President Donald Trump has ordered the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to draft plans to strip Harvard University of its tax-exempt status, intensifying a high-stakes conflict with the institution. This directive follows Harvard’s refusal to comply with White House demands, which include terminating diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, banning masks at protests, expelling pro-Palestinian students, and fully cooperating with the Department of Homeland Security.
The move comes on the heels of the administration’s decision to freeze $2.3 billion in federal funding to the university, signaling a broader campaign against elite academic institutions accused of fostering antisemitism and leftist ideologies.
The IRS, led by acting commissioner Gary Shapley, holds the authority to revoke tax exemptions, though such actions are exceedingly rare. The last notable precedent occurred in the 1980s when Bob Jones University lost its tax-exempt status due to racially discriminatory policies, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court. Harvard’s tax-exempt status is estimated to save the university between $465 million and $528 million annually, making its potential loss a significant financial blow. However, with an endowment exceeding $51 billion, Harvard remains financially resilient.
Harvard has staunchly defended its autonomy, rejecting the administration’s demands as unconstitutional and asserting its right as a private institution to determine its own policies and academic practices. The university argues that these demands infringe upon its freedom to operate independently, framing them as politically motivated rather than grounded in legal or ethical concerns.
The Trump administration’s directive has garnered widespread support from those frustrated with ongoing issues on Harvard’s campus. Many back the move, citing incidents of building vandalism, disruptions to classes that affect paying students, and what they perceive as the university’s anti-white and anti-Asian bias in its policies and practices. Supporters view the administration’s actions as a necessary step to hold elite institutions accountable.
However, the directive raises significant legal questions. Federal law prohibits the president from directly ordering specific IRS investigations, casting doubt on the legality of Trump’s instruction. Furthermore, the IRS is undergoing substantial workforce reductions, with plans to cut staff by 40–50%, which could strain its capacity to execute such a complex and high-profile action. The agency’s independence in this matter remains under scrutiny.
As the IRS prepares its plans, the outcome remains uncertain. A final decision is pending, and the resolution will likely have far-reaching implications for Harvard, the Trump administration, and the broader landscape of higher education in the United States.
A single phrase has ignited a firestorm of speculation across the internet.
Speaking at the Endless Frontiers Retreat in Austin, Texas, on April 14, 2025, Michael Kratsios—Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy—stated that U.S. technologies now “permit us to manipulate time and space.”
The statement, delivered as part of a larger vision to restore American dominance in science and innovation, immediately went viral. Some interpreted it as a nod to classified government programs or science fiction-style breakthroughs. Others took a more grounded approach, suggesting it was metaphorical. Either way, the phrase captured attention and imagination.
A New American Golden Age?
Kratsios’ speech wasn’t just about one dramatic line—it was a full-throated call for a “new American Golden Age” of innovation.
He criticized decades of bureaucratic stagnation and regulatory overreach that have slowed progress. As a key example, he pointed to the absence of any significant supersonic passenger jet development since the 1970s.
Instead of waiting for public institutions to catch up, Kratsios urged deeper collaboration with the private sector—highlighting nuclear energy, space travel, and digital infrastructure as key pillars of a revived U.S. tech dominance.
The now-famous phrase—“manipulate time and space”—was, according to Insider Paper, meant to evoke technologies that “annihilate distance” and maximize efficiency in ways that change how we live and work.
What Does It Really Mean?
In context, Kratsios’ phrase was likely metaphorical—referring not to wormholes or warp drives, but to modern technologies that compress time and space in practical terms.
Consider the global reach of 5G networks and Starlink’s satellite internet, which erase traditional geographic barriers. Or SpaceX’s Starship, which aims to cut cross-continental travel times from hours to minutes—and eventually carry humans to Mars. AI-powered logistics, like Amazon’s predictive delivery systems, create the illusion of instant gratification.
These technologies don’t manipulate physics—but they do reshape human experience.
Kratsios tied this vision to deregulation, pointing to the White House’s new Permitting Technology Action Plan. The plan is aimed at accelerating environmental reviews and fast-tracking major infrastructure and tech projects nationwide.
The Internet Takes Over
Still, online, the quote took on a life of its own.
On X (formerly Twitter), users spun the phrase in every direction. Some hailed it as evidence of a technological renaissance. Others speculated about secret programs and futuristic weapons.
“Proof of a classified breakthrough,” wrote one user. “Trump’s secret weapon?” another mused. The lack of a full transcript or video only fueled the frenzy, allowing interpretations to spiral.
Reality Check
Despite the hype, there’s no credible evidence that the United States has developed the ability to literally bend spacetime.
No mention of exotic physics or classified science emerged in Kratsios’ speech. In fact, mainstream outlets like The New York Times covered the event without even citing the now-viral quote—suggesting it may have been more rhetorical flourish than policy revelation.
Viewed in the broader context of the Trump administration’s innovation agenda, the phrase fits. It’s bold. It’s visionary. And it’s carefully designed to inspire a belief in American technological supremacy—even if it overreaches in language.
A Deeper Fascination
What’s most revealing isn’t the phrase itself—but how the public responded to it.
Kratsios’ words tap into a cultural yearning for breakthrough moments—for the kind of future imagined in sci-fi, where distances disappear and progress feels exponential. The internet’s reaction proves how deeply people want to believe that such a future is near.
And perhaps, in a metaphorical sense, it is.
With advancements in artificial intelligence, logistics, transportation, and communication, we are indeed shrinking the world—reducing the distance between thought and action, between location and connection.
Final Word
So, can the United States “manipulate time and space”?
Not literally. But metaphorically, the tools we’re developing are doing just that—shortening wait times, eliminating travel barriers, and accelerating the tempo of modern life.
In that sense, Kratsios wasn’t wrong. His statement may not signal a secret physics breakthrough—but it does capture something real: the transformative potential of American innovation.
And that’s the message behind the hype. Not wormholes. Not time travel.
Just the future—arriving faster than anyone expected.
https://x.com/stealthmedical1/status/1912318270461604205
Trumps Global War Room: Secretary of Defense fires leakers.
Inflation explained