Bannon's War Room - October 17, 2025


WarRoom Battleground EP 872： People Think Science “Disproves” God’s Necessity — But The More We Know, The More God Is Necessary


Episode Stats


Length

51 minutes

Words per minute

129.70728

Word count

6,713

Sentence count

370

Harmful content

Hate speech

2

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

Did the political establishment pave the way for the rise of Trump and Farage? In a recent article, an academic from the Institute for Advanced Studies in Toulouse argues that the lack of action on behalf of the political mainstream actually led to the rise in support for the far-right and nationalist movements across the world.

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
00:00:00.000 Hello, America's Voice family.
00:00:02.140 Are you on Getter yet?
00:00:03.460 No.
00:00:03.980 What are you waiting for?
00:00:05.200 It's free.
00:00:05.940 It's uncensored.
00:00:06.960 And it's where all the biggest voices in conservative media are speaking out.
00:00:11.480 Download the Getter app right now.
00:00:13.360 It's totally free.
00:00:14.060 It's where I put up exclusively all of my content 24 hours a day.
00:00:17.840 You want to know what Steve Bannon's thinking?
00:00:19.580 Go to Getter.
00:00:20.200 That's right.
00:00:20.960 You can follow all of your favorites.
00:00:22.760 Steve Bannon, Charlie Kirk, Jack Posobiec.
00:00:25.020 And so many more.
00:00:26.620 Download the Getter app now.
00:00:27.820 Sign up for free and be part of the movement.
00:00:31.500 Friday, 17th of October, Anno Domini, 2025.
00:00:36.860 Honol here at the helm.
00:00:38.480 Good evening.
00:00:39.660 There are a few newspapers as sedate and anti-sensationalist as the Financial Times.
00:00:48.800 So when they published a recent article headlined,
00:00:52.460 Did the political establishment pave the way for Trump and Farage?
00:00:58.320 That caught my interest.
00:01:00.280 And it is quite a subversive argument.
00:01:03.080 We're going to go through it now.
00:01:04.680 The theses inside this article are definitely worth the War Room Posse's consideration on this.
00:01:12.880 And the academic featured at the heart of this article, Laurence Gunther, Dr. Gunther from the Institute for Advanced Studies in Toulouse joins us tonight from Toulouse.
00:01:27.820 Dr. Gunther, thank you very much for joining us.
00:01:30.780 Your thesis, let me get this right, your thesis is effectively that it's the action or the lack of action on behalf of the political mainstream that actually created inadvertently the rise of these populist and nationalist movements right across the world.
00:01:51.020 But why don't you give us the, in your own words, the what led you to concentrate on this specific branch of research?
00:01:59.160 Yes, so I became fascinated by topics of what we call the rise of populism now during the rise of the AFD in Germany, like a few years ago, maybe eight years ago or so.
00:02:18.360 And I read an article about the topic that summarized what researchers had done so far, and I noticed that the issue of representation was not at all considered.
00:02:32.720 So the question whether mainstream parties, the parties that existed until then, represented the political opinions of voters, in particular in Europe.
00:02:44.540 So there was little research on that, so I started this research and then I analyzed the attitudes and political positions of politicians and voters and found that the particular full theory of populism is quite correct.
00:03:05.740 And in particular that mainstream parties are basically all cultural, social topics, much more liberal, much more left-wing than most voters.
00:03:16.660 And populists build this, what I call a representation gap.
00:03:21.320 They often, like politicians from right-wing populist parties, often have attitudes that are relatively close to those of the average voter, a bit more right-leading, but relatively close.
00:03:35.740 Um, yeah.
00:03:39.100 Because this is it, this is the heart of it, this term which you've coined, representation gap.
00:03:44.160 Your analysis effectively shows that voters and mainstream politicians have long been broadly aligned on the economic issues, such as tax, spending, public ownership and what have you.
00:03:58.340 But on the social, cultural issues, such as immigration and criminal justice, there's a huge gap between the political parties and the various peoples around the world.
00:04:10.020 Um, and that, therefore, Western publics, uh, having long desired a greater emphasis on, on order control, uh, and cultural, um, in integration, uh, noticed, have noticed that the politicians themselves have tilted in the opposite direction, uh, favoring what could be called inclusive and permissive approaches.
00:04:32.780 And that is, I think, uh, the, the, a perfect synthesis here of this representation gap.
00:04:40.480 Uh, it seems to me, though, Dr. Gunther, that the best thing that the political mainstream could do, if it finds the rise of what it calls the far-right alarming, is actually pivot to where the public is, uh, on, on, especially on the issue of, of immigration.
00:04:59.760 But that's not what's happening, is it?
00:05:04.580 So I do agree that to win back voters, I think the optimal thing for mainstream parties to do is real political action on cultural issues, in particular regarding immigration.
00:05:19.740 That would mean limited immigration and particularly asylum immigration.
00:05:25.100 I do think that for a long time there was no real action.
00:05:34.200 There were some attempts by mainstream parties, and here I'm talking mostly about Europe.
00:05:39.580 There were some attempts by mainstream parties to co-opt the rhetorics of populist writing parties, but usually without any action.
00:05:49.640 And if they tried action, then usually this action did not have any results, like the plans of the Tories to re-migrate. 0.97
00:06:01.540 In the end, it did not have any tangible results.
00:06:06.640 I do see that slowly on the European level, there is a move toward more restrictive immigration policy.
00:06:12.920 But this is happening very slowly, and often it doesn't have results so far.
00:06:21.080 So that, I think, is the perfect analysis.
00:06:26.580 The response of the so-called Christian democratic centre-right has been to try to imitate, in a certain extent, the vocabulary and the rhetoric of what the mainstream calls far-right,
00:06:41.900 but without the follow-through of the actual action.
00:06:46.420 That's why, in our movement, in the economic nationalist sphere, we term these groups effectively performative.
00:06:55.400 Their discourse is a performance and doesn't really get to the heart of the issue, which means so much to the voting public.
00:07:04.380 Dr. Gunther, what really interested me about your research and your argumentation is that it cuts across a lot of the narrative coming from the political mainstream,
00:07:20.300 that what are called far-right political movements are somehow fascist, anti-democratic,
00:07:29.120 and like you mentioned the AFD in Germany, basically, the AFD is almost a prescribed political party now.
00:07:38.920 The courts are constantly intervening with its candidates, and not only in Germany.
00:07:45.680 The interesting thing about your research and the way you frame this is that, in fact,
00:07:51.960 that analysis from the mainstream media, but also the political mainstream, would actually be incorrect.
00:07:58.420 What you're pointing out here is that these groups are responding to a democratic need which isn't being catered for by the mainstream political parties.
00:08:09.680 And that makes these far-right groupings far from being anti-democratic, but part of, an essential part of, the democratic process.
00:08:20.460 So I think this is a very fascinating point, and this, I think, reveals some struggle over democracy,
00:08:32.140 that we have underlying this discussion about concrete politics, because, you know,
00:08:38.380 the thing is, I think, most, probably the majority of voters would interpret my results the way you do.
00:08:50.380 But the interesting thing is, most researchers or politicians that I've talked to have a very different interpretation,
00:08:57.620 because their interpretation is, well, if populist parties have the same attitudes as the average voter,
00:09:09.220 what that means is that the average voter is a fascist, because these, like, I think many mainstream politicians
00:09:19.260 and also many researchers and journalists are very convinced, because of the positions of living populists,
00:09:29.100 that they are fascists, so everyone who's like that is then also a fascist.
00:09:34.300 And I think democracy is also defined in very different ways by people across a different spectrum nowadays.
00:09:42.720 So, again, I do think that many voters would, like, define a democracy like you, or a democratic behavior like you,
00:09:51.100 if you represent a large part of the electorate, then this is a very democratic act,
00:09:57.700 because democracy is fundamentally about representation in the eyes of many people,
00:10:02.040 but not in the eyes of all people.
00:10:04.560 So, like, in particular politicians from liberal parties, mainstream parties that I've talked to,
00:10:12.640 they really highlight liberal institutions as being democratic.
00:10:17.200 So, and they do not think that representing voters is that important within the democracy.
00:10:24.600 And also, they think, well, say, right-wing populists try to push through with some initiatives that judges don't like,
00:10:39.380 then they are anti-democratic, and if voters agree with that, then they are anti-democratic.
00:10:44.680 Hold on to that point, Dr. Gunther.
00:10:47.220 We're going to come back to that in just two short minutes,
00:10:51.160 because that is, that I think what you, the confession there,
00:10:55.520 or what you said is really at the heart of what is wrong with what many of our viewers will think is wrong
00:11:02.360 with the democratic, the inverted commas democratic mentality of the center ground.
00:11:09.760 When inflation jumps, when you hear the national debt is over $37 trillion,
00:11:15.440 do you ever think maybe now would be a good time to buy some gold,
00:11:18.920 whether it's a hedge against inflation, peace of mind during global instability,
00:11:24.520 or just for sensible diversification,
00:11:26.880 Birch Gold Group believes every American should own physical gold.
00:11:31.560 Birch Gold can help you roll an existing IRA or 401k into an IRA in gold.
00:11:39.200 Birch Gold is the only precious metals company that we at The Wallroom trust,
00:11:44.220 as do tens of thousands of their customers.
00:11:47.620 So make right now your first time to buy gold by texting BANNON,
00:11:53.820 that's B-A-N-N-O-N, to 989898.
00:11:59.440 Again, that's BANNON, B-A-N-N-O-N, to 989898.
00:12:05.100 And I will give you that number once again,
00:12:08.180 if you want to get a pen and paper ready in about half an hour's time in the second part of the show.
00:12:13.480 Dr. Gunther, coming back to you, can you just repeat what you just said?
00:12:19.580 Excuse me.
00:12:21.240 Could you just repeat what you said about how speaking to centre-right and mainstream politicians,
00:12:30.580 they don't actually feel as if it's their responsibility to respond to some of the Democrats,
00:12:37.900 some of the desires of the electorate, if they can just dismiss those desires as being fascist and anti-democratic,
00:12:47.180 such as the desire for greater controls on immigration?
00:12:52.240 Yeah, so I do think that there's a very strong tendency in mainstream parties
00:13:01.520 to not seeing themselves as representatives,
00:13:07.840 at least not in the first place, but rather as leaders.
00:13:11.960 So I have the impression these politicians think that they figured out the right policies
00:13:21.240 on all kind of topics, for instance, immigration,
00:13:24.940 that are objectively good,
00:13:28.160 and that most voters, if they disagree with these policies,
00:13:31.740 and most voters do disagree, this is what my research shows,
00:13:34.920 then it just means that the voters are either uninformed or stupid or some related concept,
00:13:42.440 or they are deeply immoral, like fascists or so.
00:13:45.280 In any case, I think politicians do not,
00:13:48.900 mainstream politicians do not think it's their main responsibility to represent these attitudes,
00:13:55.660 but to lead the way and educate voters the policies that the politicians find good.
00:14:03.760 Correct. There's also some hard data on that.
00:14:06.560 So in some of my papers, you know,
00:14:08.760 I understand where politicians are explicitly asked.
00:14:13.240 So say you have one opinion, your voters have a different opinion.
00:14:17.020 Now, what should the politician do?
00:14:19.860 And like more than 80% of parliamentarians say,
00:14:24.700 well, a politician should follow his own judgment.
00:14:28.620 Now, interestingly, so among populist parties,
00:14:33.760 even there, like a relatively large share has this opinion,
00:14:37.380 but it's much less.
00:14:38.380 It's more like around a half.
00:14:40.000 If you ask voters, of course, they say,
00:14:42.500 well, politicians should represent just the voters,
00:14:46.280 should follow the voters.
00:14:47.640 And I think this is the struggle that we have.
00:14:50.560 What's a democracy?
00:14:51.660 Voters say, just represent me.
00:14:53.960 Politicians want to be leaders.
00:14:54.980 As an academic who studies this,
00:14:58.720 are you not,
00:15:00.140 what is your emotional reaction when you see this disparity
00:15:04.240 between the expectations of what is,
00:15:09.100 it is appropriate from the political class with respect to the peoples?
00:15:13.860 Because as someone whose job it is to pull over these statistics,
00:15:20.240 to ask questions,
00:15:21.420 to go and talk out in focus group with voters
00:15:24.260 and then come back and talk to politicians,
00:15:27.180 when you see them looking you in the eye
00:15:30.240 and they say quite,
00:15:33.040 without any shame whatsoever,
00:15:34.940 we don't really think it's our job as elected politicians
00:15:39.300 to respond to the interests of our electorate.
00:15:45.840 What is your reaction from that?
00:15:47.440 And how does that differ from your colleagues,
00:15:51.180 your professional colleagues?
00:15:52.080 Because there aren't that many people looking into
00:15:54.700 what you're doing with this degree of resisting
00:16:00.360 to make a value judgment on your findings.
00:16:04.940 Yeah, so, I mean, as you said,
00:16:09.200 that's science.
00:16:10.260 So I try to be not emotional about these topics
00:16:13.620 and I just try to analyze things as they are.
00:16:20.960 So I was very,
00:16:23.100 I remember my main reaction,
00:16:24.520 my first reaction was just surprise
00:16:27.000 because I never had much exposure to politicians
00:16:32.960 before I wrote these papers
00:16:35.140 and I always took it for granted
00:16:36.660 just talking to family and friends.
00:16:39.540 I took it for granted
00:16:40.220 that it was the job of a politician
00:16:42.240 to just represent opinions
00:16:43.980 and I was very surprised
00:16:45.080 that many people I talked to
00:16:46.880 had a very different opinion.
00:16:47.900 I mean, you know, of course,
00:16:53.360 in theory, there is some points that they have,
00:16:58.000 you know, like, of course, voters can have biases,
00:17:00.620 voters are misinformed,
00:17:01.940 but this is not emotional,
00:17:04.220 this is an intellectual point.
00:17:05.720 I do think my hunch,
00:17:08.920 strong hunch is that they are really wrong
00:17:11.480 in the sense that they overestimate strongly
00:17:16.600 the misperceptions people have
00:17:18.620 and that they also do not realize
00:17:20.460 that they themselves have cognitive biases,
00:17:22.960 they also have misperceptions.
00:17:24.040 There is some interesting research
00:17:25.240 comparing how biased politicians and voters are
00:17:30.420 and politicians tend to be even more biased,
00:17:33.060 you know, so if you take the decision away from voters,
00:17:36.600 okay, you eliminate the biases of the voters,
00:17:38.500 but you just replace it with your own biases
00:17:40.060 and these, I think, are often larger.
00:17:46.880 It is fascinating because there is this expectation
00:17:49.740 that most people working in this arena of social science
00:17:53.140 is going to be basically communist.
00:17:58.020 So to find someone who's brave enough
00:18:00.280 to look the research and the analysis in the face
00:18:02.820 and come out and say it is exactly as it is,
00:18:06.360 you know, I can't commend you enough.
00:18:09.180 And of course, the other thing is
00:18:10.380 that that comes out of what you're saying,
00:18:11.800 and to most people who follow this show,
00:18:13.480 what you're saying is just absolute obvious.
00:18:15.480 I mean, it is exactly the case
00:18:17.960 as you're describing it.
00:18:19.980 The problem is the whole 99% of academia,
00:18:23.340 they won't go near what you're saying
00:18:24.980 and they certainly won't report on it neutrally.
00:18:28.380 They will say, basically, as you're saying,
00:18:30.320 as the politicians are saying,
00:18:31.440 if the people are fascist,
00:18:33.380 then it's inappropriate to respond to them.
00:18:36.840 And that, of course, creates,
00:18:38.000 as you were just highlighting just now,
00:18:40.360 towards the end of your remarks,
00:18:42.400 this paradox, basically,
00:18:45.540 that huge swathes of the political spectrum
00:18:49.320 of the centre ground,
00:18:51.300 in order,
00:18:52.720 in Germany, I think this is the clearest example of this,
00:18:55.800 in order to not respond to the democratic will
00:19:00.160 with regards to the immigration crisis,
00:19:04.220 by dismissing it as anti-democratic,
00:19:09.240 they themselves,
00:19:10.900 using the state apparatus
00:19:12.320 and the secret police
00:19:14.020 and the intelligence services
00:19:15.580 to clamp down on the AFD,
00:19:18.140 both candidates,
00:19:20.540 incumbents,
00:19:21.220 and also supporters,
00:19:23.240 are themselves assuming
00:19:24.800 the very anti-democratic paraphernalia
00:19:29.880 that they set out
00:19:32.180 trying to oppose.
00:19:34.380 That is, I think,
00:19:35.840 the contradiction
00:19:37.040 that really comes forward
00:19:38.920 out of your research,
00:19:41.060 Dr Gunther.
00:19:41.500 And I hope more people
00:19:43.080 spend time,
00:19:44.560 we'll put the links up
00:19:45.680 to your stuff,
00:19:47.120 and I hope more people
00:19:48.180 will take a look at it
00:19:49.420 and circulate it.
00:19:52.100 So on social media,
00:19:54.620 where can people go
00:19:55.960 to get more
00:19:56.980 on your research?
00:20:00.820 Yes,
00:20:01.560 so the main thing
00:20:02.860 would be Substack,
00:20:04.980 where I post
00:20:07.020 some articles,
00:20:09.520 some analysis,
00:20:10.040 and X,
00:20:12.900 where I
00:20:14.440 post not so often,
00:20:17.240 but you'll
00:20:17.640 find me there
00:20:19.400 if I have some
00:20:20.580 Substack article,
00:20:22.120 I will post it on X.
00:20:23.740 And that's perfect.
00:20:24.740 Would you mind
00:20:25.220 just reading out
00:20:26.480 your handle on X?
00:20:30.600 Your profile,
00:20:31.680 what is it?
00:20:32.120 It's
00:20:32.440 Gunther
00:20:34.880 Lawrence.
00:20:35.960 It is
00:20:39.240 Gunther
00:20:39.820 Lawrence.
00:20:41.160 That's it.
00:20:41.820 Perfect.
00:20:42.400 Dr Lawrence,
00:20:42.980 thank you very much
00:20:43.820 for coming on the show,
00:20:45.200 and I wish you all the best
00:20:46.320 with your research,
00:20:47.300 and do come back
00:20:48.300 and update us
00:20:49.440 on your further analysis
00:20:50.960 in due course.
00:20:52.160 Thank you.
00:20:52.500 Much obliged
00:20:53.140 for you
00:20:54.000 coming on
00:20:54.820 this evening.
00:20:55.500 Okay,
00:21:01.160 let's be honest,
00:21:01.680 you never thought
00:21:02.180 it would get this far.
00:21:03.100 Maybe you missed
00:21:03.740 the last IRS deadline
00:21:05.340 or you haven't
00:21:06.040 filed taxes in a while.
00:21:08.020 Let me be clear,
00:21:08.960 the IRS is cracking
00:21:09.980 down harder than ever,
00:21:11.520 and this ain't gonna
00:21:12.360 go away anytime soon.
00:21:14.640 That's why you need
00:21:15.560 Tax Network USA.
00:21:17.080 They don't just
00:21:17.980 know the IRS,
00:21:18.920 they have a preferred
00:21:19.880 direct line to the IRS.
00:21:21.960 They know which agents
00:21:23.240 to deal with
00:21:23.820 in which to avoid.
00:21:24.840 Their expert negotiators
00:21:26.020 have won gold.
00:21:28.360 Settle your tax problems
00:21:30.180 quickly and in your favor.
00:21:32.660 Their team has helped
00:21:33.500 clear over $1 billion
00:21:35.220 in tax debt,
00:21:36.840 whether you owe
00:21:37.440 $10,000 or $10 million.
00:21:39.840 Even if your books
00:21:40.840 are a mess
00:21:41.540 or you haven't filed
00:21:42.320 in years,
00:21:42.940 Tax Network USA
00:21:44.040 can help.
00:21:45.180 But don't wait.
00:21:46.600 This won't fix itself.
00:21:48.220 Call Tax Network USA
00:21:49.520 right now.
00:21:50.700 It's free.
00:21:51.720 Talk to a strategist
00:21:53.180 and finally put
00:21:54.200 this behind you.
00:21:55.880 Call 1-800-958-1000.
00:21:59.000 That's 1-800-958-1000.
00:22:02.260 Or visit
00:22:02.800 TNUSA.com
00:22:04.780 slash Bannon.
00:22:05.940 Make sure you tell
00:22:06.660 them Bannon
00:22:07.000 you'll get a free
00:22:07.840 evaluation.
00:22:08.660 That's 1-800-958-1000.
00:22:12.020 Do not let
00:22:13.640 letters from the IRS
00:22:14.920 or your failure to file
00:22:16.680 work on your nerves
00:22:18.480 anymore.
00:22:19.080 Take action,
00:22:20.260 action,
00:22:20.960 action,
00:22:21.340 and do it today.
00:22:22.620 When you're buried
00:22:23.640 in credit card
00:22:24.460 and loan debt,
00:22:25.400 it's only human nature
00:22:26.620 to put it off
00:22:27.260 and say,
00:22:27.760 hey,
00:22:27.980 I'll deal with this
00:22:28.760 later.
00:22:29.920 If that's you,
00:22:31.000 here's a hidden fact
00:22:32.000 the debt strategy experts
00:22:33.740 at Done With Debt
00:22:34.760 shared with me.
00:22:36.100 They discovered
00:22:36.840 a little-known strategy
00:22:38.140 that works in your favor
00:22:39.500 to dramatically reduce
00:22:40.820 or even erase
00:22:41.800 your debt altogether.
00:22:43.080 They aggressively engage
00:22:44.960 everyone you owe money
00:22:46.320 to in September
00:22:47.340 and here's why.
00:22:48.360 They know which lenders
00:22:49.200 and credit card companies
00:22:50.280 are doing year-end
00:22:51.240 accounting
00:22:51.660 and need to cut deals.
00:22:53.600 They even know
00:22:54.160 which ones have
00:22:54.880 year-end audits
00:22:55.940 and need to get
00:22:56.600 your debt off the books
00:22:57.980 quickly.
00:22:59.640 That means you need
00:23:00.580 to get started
00:23:01.100 with Done With Debt
00:23:01.880 now.
00:23:03.080 Done With Debt
00:23:03.680 accomplishes this
00:23:04.860 without bankruptcy
00:23:05.800 or new loans.
00:23:06.900 In fact,
00:23:07.500 most clients end up
00:23:08.600 with more money
00:23:09.320 in their pocket
00:23:10.120 the first month.
00:23:11.480 Get started now
00:23:13.040 while you still have time.
00:23:14.380 Go to
00:23:14.640 DoneWithDebt.com
00:23:16.220 and talk with
00:23:16.800 one of their specialists
00:23:17.640 for free.
00:23:19.960 DoneWithDebt.com
00:23:21.120 DoneWithDebt.com
00:23:22.520 Take advantage of this.
00:23:24.140 These people are aggressive,
00:23:25.340 they're smart,
00:23:25.920 and they're tough.
00:23:27.380 You want them on your side.
00:23:28.920 DoneWithDebt.com
00:23:29.940 What if he had
00:23:31.340 the brightest mind
00:23:32.300 in the war room
00:23:33.080 delivering critical
00:23:34.240 financial research
00:23:35.360 every month?
00:23:36.860 Steve Bannon here.
00:23:38.000 War Room listeners
00:23:38.620 know Jim Rickards.
00:23:39.680 I love this guy.
00:23:40.540 He's our wise man.
00:23:42.160 A former CIA,
00:23:43.300 Pentagon,
00:23:43.760 and White House advisor
00:23:44.680 with an unmatched grasp
00:23:46.360 of geopolitics
00:23:47.340 and capital markets.
00:23:48.760 Jim predicted
00:23:49.360 Trump's electoral
00:23:50.100 college victory
00:23:50.900 exactly 312 to 226
00:23:54.340 down to the actual
00:23:56.240 number itself.
00:23:58.140 Now he's issuing
00:23:58.980 a dire warning
00:23:59.840 about April 11th,
00:24:01.380 a moment that could
00:24:02.260 define Trump's
00:24:03.100 presidency
00:24:03.580 in your financial future.
00:24:05.640 His latest book,
00:24:07.120 Money GPT,
00:24:08.140 exposes how AI
00:24:09.280 is setting the stage
00:24:10.280 for financial chaos,
00:24:11.760 bank runs at
00:24:12.580 lightning speeds,
00:24:13.540 algorithm-driven
00:24:14.520 crashes,
00:24:15.380 and even threats
00:24:16.380 to national security.
00:24:17.400 Right now,
00:24:18.040 war room members
00:24:18.640 get a free copy
00:24:19.660 of Money GPT
00:24:21.300 when they sign up
00:24:22.260 for Strategic Intelligence.
00:24:23.960 This is Jim's
00:24:24.720 flagship financial
00:24:26.100 newsletter,
00:24:27.160 Strategic Intelligence.
00:24:28.800 I read it.
00:24:29.880 You should read it.
00:24:30.920 Time is running out.
00:24:31.820 Go to
00:24:32.120 RickardsWarRoom.com.
00:24:33.660 That's all one word,
00:24:34.580 Rickards War Room.
00:24:35.560 Rickards with an S.
00:24:36.460 Go now and claim
00:24:38.480 your free book.
00:24:39.520 That's
00:24:39.720 RickardsWarRoom.com.
00:24:42.020 Do it today.
00:24:46.280 This is the primal scream
00:24:48.900 of a dying regime.
00:24:51.340 Pray for our enemies
00:24:52.560 because we're going
00:24:54.080 medieval on these people.
00:24:56.580 I got a free shot
00:24:57.760 at all these networks
00:24:58.500 lying about the people.
00:25:00.840 The people have had
00:25:01.500 a belly full of it.
00:25:02.740 I know you don't like
00:25:03.460 hearing that.
00:25:03.940 I know you try to do
00:25:04.920 everything in the world
00:25:05.440 and stop that,
00:25:05.960 but you're not going
00:25:06.360 to stop it.
00:25:06.880 It's going to happen.
00:25:08.160 And where do people
00:25:08.740 like that go
00:25:09.460 to share the big line?
00:25:11.540 Mega Media.
00:25:12.880 I wish in my soul,
00:25:14.680 I wish that any
00:25:15.940 of these people
00:25:16.560 had a conscience.
00:25:18.300 Ask yourself,
00:25:19.360 what is my task
00:25:20.420 and what is my purpose?
00:25:22.100 If that answer
00:25:23.220 is to save my country,
00:25:25.280 this country
00:25:26.260 will be saved.
00:25:28.400 War Room.
00:25:29.300 Here's your host,
00:25:30.320 Stephen K.
00:25:31.360 Bannon.
00:25:35.440 Friday 17th of October,
00:25:41.040 Anno d'Armini 2025.
00:25:44.160 Hanwell here at the helm.
00:25:45.920 Very, very delighted
00:25:47.500 to introduce our two guests
00:25:49.700 to kick off the show today,
00:25:51.840 Michel-Yves Bollaret
00:25:53.080 and Olivier Bonassie.
00:25:56.540 Excuse my French.
00:25:57.920 if I handled that
00:26:00.200 relatively well.
00:26:01.520 They've written a book,
00:26:03.040 which I remember
00:26:03.620 when that came out
00:26:04.280 in Italy
00:26:04.820 a couple of years ago,
00:26:06.380 I was absolutely
00:26:07.560 fascinated with it.
00:26:09.080 The basic thesis
00:26:10.120 of this book
00:26:11.240 is that
00:26:12.340 the secularist
00:26:14.540 or materialist
00:26:15.820 explanation
00:26:16.640 for the universe,
00:26:18.840 for all that is,
00:26:19.980 for humanity,
00:26:20.680 is insufficient
00:26:23.900 and therefore
00:26:26.000 it's
00:26:27.040 the hypothesis
00:26:28.660 that the world
00:26:29.700 has
00:26:30.320 a creator,
00:26:32.080 a God creator
00:26:33.200 is by no means
00:26:35.080 incoherent.
00:26:36.140 We're going to be
00:26:36.700 exploring that theme
00:26:37.840 as we go forward
00:26:39.120 and I hope
00:26:40.380 by
00:26:41.000 this,
00:26:41.780 the 25 minutes
00:26:42.700 as we discuss this,
00:26:44.300 to furnish you
00:26:45.380 with arguments
00:26:46.480 that you might use
00:26:47.560 with more
00:26:48.320 sceptical
00:26:49.380 friends
00:26:50.240 and family.
00:26:52.140 It's not,
00:26:53.600 the point of the book
00:26:54.720 isn't specifically
00:26:55.700 evangelical,
00:26:57.060 and it's not even
00:26:58.300 to suggest
00:26:58.980 that
00:26:59.720 religious faith,
00:27:01.900 religious Christian faith
00:27:03.260 and science
00:27:04.200 are compatible.
00:27:05.620 It goes a bit
00:27:06.380 further than that
00:27:07.120 and suggests
00:27:07.600 the simple,
00:27:08.720 rational,
00:27:10.380 scientific,
00:27:11.400 no God
00:27:12.380 explanation
00:27:13.060 for the universe
00:27:14.180 and for life
00:27:15.780 or life on Earth
00:27:16.960 has gaps in it
00:27:19.300 and the natural
00:27:21.840 response to that
00:27:22.720 is to hypothesize
00:27:26.100 God.
00:27:27.120 Before I bring
00:27:27.820 the guests on,
00:27:28.700 let's just have
00:27:29.660 a quick look
00:27:30.400 at the book
00:27:31.820 itself.
00:27:32.360 beginning tomorrow,
00:27:46.940 good to begin
00:27:47.180 today.
00:27:47.540 Oh,
00:27:48.220 you
00:27:49.120 have
00:27:50.340 got
00:27:50.840 good to
00:27:51.220 continue
00:27:51.440 because
00:27:51.760 it's that
00:27:52.140 humor?
00:27:52.820 When did
00:27:54.500 you
00:27:54.820 apologize?
00:27:55.820 One
00:27:56.560 step
00:27:57.140 minute.
00:28:00.060 Go
00:28:00.940 We'll be right back.
00:28:30.940 We'll be right back.
00:29:00.940 That dismisses too quickly the possibility of God.
00:29:06.400 Why don't you say something in your own words as to why you have put this book together with the specific viewpoint you have chosen?
00:29:16.200 Yes, exactly as you said, Ben.
00:29:20.660 Materialism, which has been a dominant current view during the early 20th century, has become recently a belief which is almost irrational.
00:29:32.100 It's a belief which is extremely difficult to keep and hold.
00:29:38.660 And the recent discovery shows that the reasonable way is to believe that there is a creator God.
00:29:47.180 All these discoveries that the materialism is a difficult belief is known by the scientists and know all the difficulties, but it's not known by the general public.
00:29:59.440 And the goal of our book is to make known to the general public here and in Europe that materialism is a belief like any other, but it's a belief which has received so many shocks and has so many problems that it is probably today an irrational belief.
00:30:17.680 Would you mind just explaining the term?
00:30:24.840 I mentioned it in my introduction.
00:30:26.820 You mentioned it yourself just now.
00:30:29.580 Would you mind defining materialism?
00:30:33.440 Yes, materialism is a belief that there is nothing else in our universe than matter, space, time and energy.
00:30:44.940 And that's all.
00:30:45.840 Which means that if there is only matter in which has come from materialism, if there is not that, there is, of course, no God.
00:30:53.340 But there is no devil.
00:30:55.260 There is no spirit.
00:30:56.420 There is no angel.
00:30:57.820 There is nothing.
00:30:58.440 It's just matter organized by chance and necessities and by the laws of nature.
00:31:04.960 This is the definition of materialism.
00:31:08.540 Well, Robert Wilson, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for physics for his discovery of cosmic radiation, the background radiation that ripples right across the universe following the Big Bang, has written the foreword to your book.
00:31:26.580 And in that book, he says, although the general thesis that a higher mind could be at the origin of the universe does not provide a satisfying explanation for me, I can accept its coherence.
00:31:42.880 If the universe had a beginning, then we cannot avoid the question of creation.
00:31:49.440 So, Olivier, my question to you following on from Robert Wilson wrote there is that even though you have a Nobel laureate right forward to your book and he doesn't share your conclusion, do you think this suggests that a new frontier isn't belief versus science, but humility within science?
00:32:14.800 Yes, Robert Wilson is a very important Nobel Prize winner because he was with Arnaud Penzias, one of the two who discovered, as you said, what we can call the proof of the Big Bang.
00:32:30.120 And he was the one who wrote the preface of our book in the beginning in France and in Italy.
00:32:37.120 Now he's one of the endorsements of the book.
00:32:39.300 And as you said, he said that he is not a believer, but he was an atheist and he become an agnostic.
00:32:46.280 And he said that his discoveries of the beginning of the universe, we cannot avoid after this, the question of the creation, as you said.
00:32:55.420 And it's very important because he recognized that the hypothesis of God is coherent and that, but he said for myself, I'm not sure that it's the only way to explain the things.
00:33:10.480 So that's the case of many, many Nobel Prize winners that we are meeting today.
00:33:16.840 We were in Princeton and in Berkeley a few weeks ago to discuss those topics with them.
00:33:23.560 And many of them recognize that the hypothesis of God is coming back and that for the moment, they have nothing to explain the beginning and the fine tuning of the universe.
00:33:34.160 But they say, perhaps one day we will find something.
00:33:37.760 So what we are saying with this book is that there is a great reversal in science, a great reversal, which means that for centuries, science seems to be able to explain the world without the hypothesis of God.
00:33:52.620 But now things have changed.
00:33:54.500 OK, so let's have a look at the two primary theses then that about this book, about the origins of the universe, the Big Bang and the origins of of life or life or DNA based life on planet Earth.
00:34:10.500 Because we have to lean. In fact, I think part of the genius of of your book and the way you've put this out is you're you're actually using science itself and philosophy to suggest that there are gaps in science to do with the the origins.
00:34:31.640 The arguments themselves, I think that you're presenting are an updated version of what Aristotle was suggesting two and a half thousand years ago about the need of the prime mover, the unmoved mover.
00:34:48.640 Ho u kinumenon kine, that which being unmoved moved moves, excuse me, that's how Aristotle framed it.
00:34:59.800 Would you just in your own words explain what this argument is about causality, the principle of causality and what arises from that, which is determinism, the principle of determinism and why they are absolutely essential to contemporary science.
00:35:20.700 And the fact that they can't resolve the origin and the fact that they can't resolve the origin either in with regards to the Big Bang and the origins of the universe or the origin of life, why those are fundamental issues that that that that that needs to be responded and cannot be responded to according to the science itself.
00:35:44.460 Well, even before Aristotle, there was another philosopher, a Greek philosopher whose name is Parmenides.
00:35:54.140 And he used to say, and he used to say already, it was in Latin, ex nihilo nihil, which in English is from nothing, nothing can come.
00:36:06.460 So it's very important.
00:36:09.360 And today, 99 percent of the scientists and philosophers, they agree on the fact that from nothing, nothing can come.
00:36:17.440 So there is a consequence on this principle on which everybody agrees is that the universe, if you want to be a materialist, the universe cannot have an absolute beginning, a beginning from nothing, because it had a beginning from nothing.
00:36:35.760 There is a necessity for a cause.
00:36:37.280 So it's extremely interesting and important to know that all the materialists today, they believe or they have to believe that in one way or the other, our universe is eternal.
00:36:50.340 And surprisingly, during this last 100 years, several discoveries, several evidence came, we count six or seven evidence showing that it is almost impossible that our universe could be eternal.
00:37:11.860 We, it is today highly, highly probable that our universe had a beginning.
00:37:19.260 And then in that case, of course, we have the reason for a cause, a cause which would be different.
00:37:27.260 And this cause, of course, in philosophy, a cause which has a capacity to make the universe, we call it with a name, we can call it with a different name, but we call it with a name, which is God.
00:37:38.520 And this is a creator God.
00:37:39.860 So this question of the materialism, it's one of the aspects that it is making the materialism an irrational belief, because today, to believe that the universe is eternal is a very difficult hypothesis to sustain today.
00:37:58.360 What you were saying just now, if I've understood this correctly, about the collapse of a number of hypotheses in the last century, principally, we're talking about the collapse of the argument of the big crunch, right?
00:38:15.680 So you have the big bang sort of 14 billion years ago, and then the gravity of all the matter and energy inside the universe causes the universe to collapse in on itself, and then have an infinite successions of big bangs and crunches.
00:38:33.680 That hypothesis was very convenient for scientists, for materialists, because it sort of allowed them to avoid, I actually don't think it was, I actually don't think it was a satisfactory explanation, because even if you had this infinite series of expansion and contraction, you still need to explain why they, what sparked the big bang.
00:39:01.300 So I think this goes back to Newton, right, that you can't have, you can't have any effect that doesn't have a prior cause.
00:39:09.760 This is part of the principle of causality.
00:39:13.240 But put that aside, put that aside, in the 1990s, the scientists realised that the universe was expanding at an accelerating rate.
00:39:25.580 It was so great, so great, so great, that actually the idea that it was going to implode in and of itself, that gravitational force wasn't sufficient.
00:39:36.400 So it's not an infinite series of expansion and retraction, it's a one-off.
00:39:42.280 From nothing, the big bang, all the matter, all the energy, all the time, space in the universe, just emerged out of nothing.
00:39:53.880 That's what the scientists want us to believe.
00:39:57.340 And with the collapse of the big crunch theory, they really do need to come up with either an explanation for that, which they can't do, because it breaks the principle of causality,
00:40:09.980 or they need to read your book and show far more integrity about what they don't know and accept the need for something outside of the system, to having created the system in the first place.
00:40:25.700 Olivier?
00:40:26.060 Yes, what is sure is that the discovery of the big bang was a very big problem for the materialist people.
00:40:34.460 And we have a chapter in our book saying that all the Russian scientists who discovered the big bang with Alexander Friedman, they were persecuted and killed in order to avoid this hypothesis of a beginning by the communist Marxist regime of Russia.
00:40:58.360 And also in Germany, it was the same, and the reason is that the beginning is a problem, as Michele said, for the vision of the world of the materialist.
00:41:09.780 And after this, when it was not possible to inform the big bang, they invented the idea that perhaps after the big bang, you will have a big crunch and an infinite number of big bang and big crunch in the past.
00:41:22.440 But in fact, as you said, as you said, it does not work for many reasons.
00:41:27.260 You mentioned Saul Perlmutter, who discovered in 1998 that after eight, nine billion years, the universe accelerated its expansion.
00:41:40.060 And we were with him in Berkeley a few weeks ago discussing all this.
00:41:45.120 And that's one of the reasons of the impossibility of the big bang and big crunch in the past.
00:41:50.380 But there is many others, because, for example, if you have an infinite number of big bang and big crunch, the entropy should be at a maximum.
00:41:59.240 The black hole should be very numerous.
00:42:01.820 The cosmological constant should dominate.
00:42:05.020 And you should have a universe looking like a cigar and not homogenous and isotropic as it is really.
00:42:13.920 So, as you said, to summarize, the hypothesis of the big crunch and big bangs in an infinite number of big bangs and big crunch in the past does not work.
00:42:24.920 So it's one of the problems of the materialist because there is no explanation of the beginning and there is no good explanation of the fine tuning.
00:42:33.900 Gentlemen, will you stand by just for 30 seconds, a minute, and I'll come back and we're going to dig on in this a little deeper.
00:42:44.240 Folks, I gave out the Birch Gold telephone number to text.
00:42:49.720 I'll do it again if you've now got your pen and paper at the ready.
00:42:53.040 You need to text Bannon, B-A-N-N-N-O-N, to 989898.
00:43:00.060 That's Bannon to 989898.
00:43:03.960 And Philip Patrick at Birch Gold and his team are standing by waiting to give you advice and help you should you want to roll your existing IRA or 401k into an IRA in gold.
00:43:19.940 That's Bannon 989898.
00:43:23.860 On with the show.
00:43:26.540 Michelle, you were saying early on, and I want to dig in on this because I think there were two themes here in the book.
00:43:33.460 The first theme is that science doesn't have all the answers and that the more we understand about the universe, the more the lack of those answers becomes significant.
00:43:48.860 Which is sort of the reverse of what most people think.
00:43:53.920 But most people would think the more we know, the more the argument for God disappears.
00:43:58.580 And that's really not the case.
00:44:00.040 The more we know, the more science is discovered, especially on the astrophysics level, the more the gaps are becoming apparent.
00:44:10.140 That's, I think, the first part of your book, which I think would be very helpful if people had a wider appreciation of.
00:44:18.080 The second part of the book, and I think you put this very well, is the idea that if you just take the secularist, materialist view of the universe
00:44:31.520 on its own, that requires to some degree a religious type of faith to sustain.
00:44:42.060 Michelle, could you just explain a little bit about that?
00:44:45.300 It's clear that the recent discoveries, which is since, I would say, since one century, are bringing, in fact, are bringing evidence.
00:44:59.080 We cannot say proof because absolute proof are just in field of knowledge like mathematics.
00:45:05.800 We don't have absolute proof in the real world.
00:45:08.420 But in the real world, we have evidence, and we have now many evidence that's a world that cannot be explained without the creator God.
00:45:18.000 And let's take the main discoveries which are bringing that.
00:45:21.580 The first one is that our universe cannot be eternal.
00:45:25.900 Today, the science has six or seven evidence that it is almost impossible for our universe to be eternal.
00:45:33.640 It has evidence coming from the physics, from the thermodynamics, from the expansion of universe, from quantum mechanics, from mathematics, etc.
00:45:44.860 So, because if there is an absolute beginning, there is a problem, of course, and everybody understands that.
00:45:52.360 But that's not all.
00:45:54.220 There are many others.
00:45:55.240 The fine-tuning of the universe is a fantastic discovery.
00:46:00.160 It's a discovery which is quite recent because it's dating from the 1960s.
00:46:06.140 A discovery which means that all the numbers of the universe which are guiding the universe, ruling the universe,
00:46:14.000 these numbers, these numbers are so finely tuned that in some cases, it's a 15 decimal after the main number which cannot be changed.
00:46:25.620 If we change them just by one, our universe would not exist anymore.
00:46:30.360 And it's very important to know that several top scientists have changed their mind.
00:46:37.900 They were materialists, and they have changed their mind discovering the fine-tuning.
00:46:42.040 And, for example, it has been the case with Fred Oil.
00:46:46.240 Fred Oil was a top scientist in the United States and the one who was mocking Georges Lemaitre about the theory of the expansion and the Big Bang.
00:46:57.840 And he invented the word Big Bang, which then had a big success.
00:47:02.960 But when Fred Oil was confronted with the fine-tuning of the universe, he decided himself that he would change his mind.
00:47:13.220 And from atheist, he became a deist.
00:47:16.520 So it is a big change.
00:47:17.960 And this shows that the evidence that we have today that there is a creator God are not small evidence.
00:47:26.700 They are not a small thing.
00:47:28.540 They are very, very serious.
00:47:29.860 So the world has changed, and this is why we call, we name it in our book, that there is a reversal of science.
00:47:39.840 For centuries, science seems to say we don't need a God to explain our universe.
00:47:46.680 And the philosopher said, if we don't need a God to explain the universe, there is a reason which is very simple and very obvious, is that just God does not exist at all.
00:47:58.980 So this is what they say.
00:48:00.220 And now we are just in an opposite situation.
00:48:05.480 Look, in 90 minutes, perhaps I could go back to 90 seconds, excuse me.
00:48:10.900 Perhaps I could go back to Olivia.
00:48:13.240 Could you just give me one minute and just say why you think that there are areas of science that require as big a leap of faith as that required in Christianity?
00:48:30.400 What I would like first to say that you said that there is a great lack of answers.
00:48:41.920 In fact, it's not exactly this.
00:48:43.920 It's now we have new questions, the questions of the beginnings that we talk a lot, but also all the questions of the fine tunings and also many enigmas in the history of humanity that we are pointing in the second part of our book.
00:48:59.940 And also in biology, for example, in biology, we discover that life is a miracle, in fact.
00:49:08.480 Even atheist people who discover the DNA, for example, Francis Crick, he said the apparition of life on Earth is a miracle. 0.81
00:49:18.300 And he was a pure atheist.
00:49:19.760 So how is it possible?
00:49:23.380 In the past, we thought that coming from enough matter to living being, it was something very simple.
00:49:31.740 But at the end, we discover that every living being on Earth depends on cells and cells are all coded by DNA.
00:49:41.220 And DNA appears on Earth 3.8 billion years ago.
00:49:46.600 And it was already perfect.
00:49:48.860 The laws of the universe produce a marvel of technology that the density, just to imagine, the density of information in the DNA is 40 billion times more than what we can do in the best chips today in our century.
00:50:08.840 So the scholars, the scientists, are absolutely astonished when they discover such technology that is absolutely essential to produce life.
00:50:24.320 Because, as we said, all the bacteria, all the human beings, all the plants and all the animals need the DNA.
00:50:31.620 So, the mystery is great.
00:50:37.460 We've run out of time now.
00:50:39.420 Very grateful for the two of you.
00:50:41.760 I know you're in demand all over the world to promote this book.
00:50:45.480 And I strongly recommend it, especially as we're coming up to Christmas.
00:50:49.200 I strongly recommend it as a Christmas stocking gift for perhaps your friends or family who haven't given Christianity a chance because they think that science has resolved all of the questions.
00:51:05.340 Olivier Bonessi and Michel-Yves Bolloway, very quickly, where do people go to learn more about the book?
00:51:11.900 Thank you very much.
00:51:12.960 Where do people go to learn more about the book?
00:51:18.700 The website first.
00:51:20.300 The website.
00:51:21.980 On the website, there is everything.
00:51:25.220 Okay.
00:51:25.700 And that website is GodTheScienceTheEvidence.com.
00:51:32.480 Many thanks for joining us, folks.
00:51:34.160 We'll be back at 10 a.m. this morning.
00:51:36.800 And thanks to Will at Real America's Voice and Vittorio for putting this show together.
00:51:42.960 Because I can use on the website.