UK COLLAPSES, STARMER RESIGNS AS BANANA REPUBLIC CRUMBLES | WAR ROOM AM W STEVE BANNON | JUNE 22, 2026

Summary

Real America’s Voice: War Room AM with Steve Bannon

Episode Title: UK COLLAPSES, STARMER RESIGNS AS BANANA REPUBLIC CRUMBLES
Date: June 22, 2026
Main Theme:
This episode covers the dramatic resignation of UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the political upheaval shaking Britain, and broader implications for sovereignty, democracy, and economic stability. Host Steve Bannon, joined by regular contributors and expert guests, draws connections between British and American political turbulence, focusing on immigration, populism, and the crisis of legitimacy facing western elites.

---

Episode Overview

The sudden resignation of Prime Minister Keir Starmer has quickly thrown the UK into another round of political instability, leaving the Labour Party poised for a possible leadership by Andy Burnham. Steve Bannon and guests analyze this development as symptomatic of deeper systemic breakdowns: persistent elite failures, mass immigration, economic malaise, and a prevailing sense that democratic mandates are being ignored or subverted. The episode ties these British events to parallel crises in the US, arguing a broader crisis of the Western order.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Keir Starmer's Resignation and the Labour Party Challenge

[00:04–03:56]

• Starmer announces (with emotion) his resignation as Prime Minister and Labour leader.
• The special election in Makerfield propelled Andy Burnham (ex-Mayor of Greater Manchester) forward as the likely new Labour leader and Prime Minister—a sign of deep unrest within Labour.
• Starmer’s tenure saw rising voter disillusionment, partly due to economic woes and controversy (notably, his appointment of Peter Mandelson with alleged links to the Epstein scandal).
• Frustration within Labour stemmed from perceived failure to address cost of living, immigration, and a loss of support to both the Green and anti-immigration Reform parties.
• Speculation on world reaction, including critical remarks from President Trump.

Notable Quote:

“He thanked his wife, his children. He said he would support whoever the next leader is, but that he doesn't feel he is the best person to lead Labour into the next election.”
— Cad, [01:54]

---

2. The Rise of Reform and Farage’s Populist Mandate

[03:56–07:35]

• Nigel Farage emphasizes Reform’s breakthroughs in traditional Labour strongholds, driving calls for a general election.
• Draws historical parallels with Italy’s instability and accuses the UK of becoming a “banana republic.”
• Farage chastises both main parties (Labour and the Conservatives) for ignoring Brexit’s real mandate: immigration control and national sovereignty.
• Calls for a new general election for legitimacy, noting recent leaders lacked proper electoral mandates.

Notable Quote:

“We are ready for a general election, and I suspect many of you too are ready for a general election. Six Prime Ministers in seven years should convince you of that fact.”
— Nigel Farage, [06:30]

---

3. Structural Economic and Social Challenges

[07:35–12:14]

• Bannon and Ben Harnwell argue the UK is increasingly “banana republic”-like due to economic decline (comparing GDP per capita to Mississippi), unchecked immigration, and loss of sovereignty.
• Refer to the Brexit vote as the core of this crisis, with establishment parties failing to deliver on its promises.
• Labour’s supposed shift back toward the EU under both Starmer and Burnham marks deep internal division.
• Immigration seen as both a cause and symptom of institutional crisis.

Notable Quote:

“Per capita GDP ... is less than Mississippi ... outside of London, it’s essentially a third world country.”
— Steve Bannon, [08:00]

---

4. Immigration, Populism, and the Limits of 'Switching Leaders'

[12:14–17:07]

• Burnham’s rise echoes global populist surges but is quickly problematized as superficial: “phony populist” branding, more style than substance.
• Labour accused of prioritizing mass immigration for electoral engineering.
• Right-wing figures (e.g., Tommy Robinson) gaining traction by taking more hardline stances.
• Reform’s potential to unite “the Right,” but populist momentum seen as limited unless tackling mass migration directly.

Notable Quote:

“The central beating heart of Labour is to continue to flood the zone with foreigners ... Labour’s five times worse [than the Tories].”
— Ben Harnwell, [12:45]

---

5. Explosive Political Dynamics: US-UK Parallels

[17:07–20:27]

• Discusses inextricable links between immigration crises in the UK and US.
• The Tory party’s refusal to call an election framed as fear of just electoral obliteration.
• Bannon likens the coming UK general election to a defining populist moment akin to the Trump insurgency in the US.

---

6. Will Burnham Change Course?

[20:27–26:10]

• Debate whether Andy Burnham will meaningfully depart from Labour’s open-border, pro-EU orientation, or just become a slicker salesman for the same underlying direction.
• Media fearmongering over Burnham’s outsider status—using “bond market jitters” as a scare tactic.
• Real test: whether Burnham backtracks, or doubles down, on EU re-alignment.
• Suggests any Labour move away from Brexit would feed the Reform party further.

Notable Quote:

“When I see the UK media playing that card ... you know, we can’t have Andy Burnham because the bond markets look like it’s going to be a rerun of Liz Truss ... they're confronting something they don't control.”
— Steve Bannon, [27:18]

---

7. Central Banks, Greenspan, & Economic Sovereignty

[29:29–47:50]

• Extended discussion on the legacy of Alan Greenspan (who just passed), the Federal Reserve, and the concept of sound money.
• Critiques “casino capitalism,” the bailouts, and how central banking has enabled immense growth of government and undermined constitutional limits.
• Both David Malpass (former World Bank President) and Jim Rickards (economist) argue for return to sound money principles, with Rickards outright calling for the abolition of the Fed.
• American economic mismanagement linked thematically to British malaise: growth of bureaucracy, disregard for constitutional guardrails, and elites saved at the expense of ordinary citizens during financial crises.

Notable Quotes:

“We did it because we’re Americans ... If anyone says you need a central bank, history says otherwise.”
— Jim Rickards, [41:56]
“The Fed essentially bailed out the elites of this country ... on the shoulders of the working class of this nation.”
— Ben Harnwell, [44:47]

---

Memorable Moments & Quotes

• Banana Republic Parallels
  “Frankly, what is going on here is reminiscent of a banana republic that has totally devalued the very process of general elections and democracy.”
  — Nigel Farage, [06:20]

• On Immigration as Central Crisis
  “The core issue is immigration, which is not an issue that's going away. Let us see whether [Burnham] is prepared to repeat the same disastrous mistakes as kids.”
  — Jim Rickards, [18:43]

• On Central Banking and US-UK Parallels
  “How did we do all that without the Fed? ... Because we’re Americans.”
  — Jim Rickards, [46:57]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [00:04–01:54] – Starmer’s resignation statement and immediate political fallout
• [03:56–07:35] – Farage’s reaction, demand for new general election
• [07:35–12:14] – War Room panel analyzes the UK's 'banana republic' trajectory
• [12:14–17:07] – Immigration, populism, party realignment
• [20:27–26:10] – Will Burnham change Labour’s direction? Brexit as the litmus test
• [29:29–47:50] – Greenspan, the Fed, and economic sovereignty—tough reflections on elite misconduct

---

Flow & Tone

The conversation is urgent, combative, and deeply skeptical of both UK and US political establishments. The War Room’s signature tone blends populist outrage, historical analogies, and policy critique—intensifying as the panel links British and American crises into a common populist framework. Frequent references to ‘real’ democracy, the betrayal by elites, and the need for radical reform are bookended by warnings about economic collapse and calls for new political mandates.

---

Conclusion

This episode frames the downfall of Starmer not as an isolated incident, but as part of a wider Western crisis: establishment parties entering freefall, mandates ignored, and populist alternatives surging. Its throughlines—immigration, sovereignty, and the failures of globalist elites—run from Westminster to Washington. In the War Room’s world, Britain’s turmoil is a preview of what happens when nations ignore the will of their people, and it’s only a matter of time before “banana republic” dynamics cross the Atlantic.

---

For listeners wanting a blend of fiery populist analysis, economic critique, and sharp transatlantic parallels, this episode delivers a maximalist take on a rapidly shifting political world.

Transcript

[Stephen K. Bannon]

This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human.

[Nigel Farage]

I will remain in post as Prime

[Ben Harnwell]

Minister until the contest is complete, and I will do everything I can to

[Stephen K. Bannon]

ensure an orderly handover of power.

[Ben Harnwell]

I will also give my successor my full and unequivocal support, knowing that they will inherit a Britain that is far stronger and fairer than the one I inherited two years ago, better prepared for the challenges ahead, and better able to ensure the Labour Party secures a second term in office.

[Cad]

That was Keir Starmer this morning in London as he announced his resignation as Britain's Prime Minister. Members of Starmer's own Labour Party had been calling for new leadership for months, with speculation over his resignation growing last week after the mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, won a special election for Parliament. Burnham is reportedly eyeing the top job

[Ben Harnwell]

and what would will be Britain's seventh

[Cad]

Prime Minister in a decade. He's scheduled to be sworn into the House of Commons today and to speak with Starmer this week. Cad, even though there have been calls for this for months, what's the reaction to the resignation?

[Ben Harnwell]

Everybody could see this coming. Over the course of the last few days, I have spoken to one British official who said to me, we can't just think that by changing the person at the top, we can change the fundamental problems that Britain has. And now the joke is in the uk, we're trying to be Italy. And that was the country that was constantly changing leadership and Britain was meant to be known for stability. That certainly doesn't look to be the case. And whether Andy Burnham can make a better bet of the British economy than Keir Starmer did just by being more charismatic. I think most people would say that remains to be seen.

[Cad]

Did see Keir Starmer this morning coming out here outside of 10 Downing street to announce he was stepping down as Prime Minister and as leader of the Labour Party. I will say he was quite emotional. You know, he was saying how everything he's done, he's done out of love for his country. He thanked his wife, his children. He said he would support whoever the next leader is, but that he doesn't feel he is the best person to lead labor into the next election. Now, you guys mentioned it, but this all comes after that special election was held in Makerfield. The former mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, was running in that and had suggested that if he won, he would mount a formal leadership challenge. He did win. And so Starmer getting out ahead of that and stepping down. I will say moments ago we did hear from Burnham that he would be running as the next leader of the Labour Party. And this morning we've been seeing, seeing prominent Labour officials coming out to throw their support behind Burnham. So he could very well be the next Prime Minister. But we'll have to wait and see how that plays out. Starmer, for his part, you know, won in a landslide in 2024, but as you guys mentioned, there had been growing calls for him to step down in recent weeks and months. There was frustration that Labour was losing support to the Green Party, to the anti immigration Reform Party as well. Voters frustrated with the economy, with the rising cost of living. But also, you know, we can't ignore the Epstein scandal and we've talked about it repeatedly, but Starmer was responsible for appointing Peter Mandelson as British Ambassador to the US at a time when it was known that Mandelson had closed ties to Epstein. And so there had been calls for him to step down back then as well. He survived that, but clearly the frustration kept mounting. And we'll see if we get more reaction from world leaders. We heard from the Australian Prime Minister this morning saying Starmer can be proud of what he's accomplished. We've heard from President Trump over the weekend saying that Starmer would step down. So unclear if Trump had been giving a given a heads up or if that was just speculation on his part. He said that Starmer had failed on things like immigration and energy. We know that there had been no love lost there between Trump and Starmer. Trump frustrated with Starmer for not getting involved in Iran. So we'll see if we get additional reaction from President Trump as the day goes on.

[Nigel Farage]

On May 7, in the Midlands, Yorkshire, all the north of England, reform scored absolutely stunning victories in areas that Labour had dominated for the best part of 100 years. The sheer scale of our victory against Labour made it inevitable that this Prime Minister could not survive. And because of that, Burnham steps forward and wins quite convincingly. The Makerfield by election. Ironically, with the same message that we had in the local elections. Ours was, vote reform, get Starmer out. His was vote Burnham, get Starmer out. Unbelievably, we're about to have our sixth Prime Minister in seven years. I remember growing up thinking Italy was totally ungovernable as they went through a new Prime Minister every year. And yet that's where we are here. Why is it all happening? And why did we get that big number of votes in the north of England? Well, 10 years ago, on the 23rd of June 2016, we voted Brexit. Much of our political establishment has never accepted the result, and even those that reluctantly did, namely the Conservative Party refused to implement what voters demanded, namely lower levels of immigration and more freedom for our sole traders and small businesses. They were just two of the benefits we could have taken. Having got back self governance under Starmer, the Labour Party has moved much closer back to the European Union. And if Mr. Burnham wins, they'll go closer still. Which means Labour voters and the Labour Party are completely divided on this issue. But the bigger point today is that of a mandate is that of legitimacy. I've no idea whether there'll be a contest or a coronation, but what I do know is the British public have simply had enough of political parties chopping and changing their leaders at will. We vote for somebody in a general election to be our Prime Minister, we expect them to serve their term. And barring ill health or exceptional circumstances, what is going on here, frankly, is reminiscent of a banana republic that has totally devalued the very process of general elections and democracy. I demand we at reform demand a general election. After all, when the Conservatives were chopping and changing prime ministers, Labour kept saying there should be a general election. On that point, the Conservative Party say there's no need for a general election because they're part, frankly of the uniparty. It's as if the whole thing is a game. Labour did not actually carry out their mandate of 24, did a whole number of things. A whole number of things. Whether it was the tax on family farms, the giving away of the Chagos Islands and much else that wasn't in the manifesto. If it is Mr. Burnham, he didn't even stand at the last general election. Britain is broken. Six prime Ministers in seven years should convince you of that fact. We are ready for a general election and I suspect many of you too are ready for a general election. The thought we're going to go through weeks, maybe months of paralysis in a country whose debt is rising faster than any country in the world apart from Botswana, where the boats continue to come across the English Channel every day. The whole thing is not acceptable. Let's have a general election. Let's get a government with a clear democratic mandate.

[Ben Harnwell]

Monday 22nd June in the year of our Lord 2026, on the eve of the eve of the 10 year anniversary of Brexit, when I bring in Ben Harnwell. By the way, Raheem is over in London right now working with Nigel on this team. You heard our colleague Nigel Farage calling for a general election. Not this kind of shift. The deck chairs on the Titanic of the Marxist jihadist Labor Party. Ben Harnwell. A lot of reasons here. Their economy's in the tank. Per capita GB GDP I think is less than Mississippi, the 50th state for GDP per capita in the nation outside of London. It's essentially a third world country inside of London. It's not much better in certain areas of it. Immigration. The reason Nigel won Brexit 10 years ago was not, was not about the laws in Brussels. That was part of it. Right. That was Boris Johnson's pitch as the official Brexit campaign. But Nigel, who lost the funding for the official did the unofficial and drove people to want to get their country back and their sovereignty back. On this issue of immigration and migration and remigration, it's now reared its head. Where do we stand? Is and we're going to talk about Italy in a moment. Is the United Kingdom a banana republic, sir?

[Stephen K. Bannon]

Yeah, pretty much. It's certainly on the way to being one. And that's what really happens when you have jealousy and bitterness at people's success as the prevailing philosophy of your government. And that's exactly what we've seen under the care Starmer government, not so much because of Keir Starmer himself, but because of Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor who's been Chancellor of the Exchequer, what we call Treasury Minister, Treasury Secretary, what Americans would call that. They've been absolutely appalling. I, I want to so many things to bounce off what, what both the cold open Steve and what you also just said. I am one of these people who voted Brexit specifically because of the sovereignty issues. The idea that Britain, the history of Britain, the constitutional architecture dictated that we ourselves via Parliament determined our own destiny. And it was really, it was like a very ill fitting saddle for us, for the UK being in the European Union and having the laws of the European Union override British national that, that, that there's a lot of people that, that that concept was never acceptable to. The immigration issue, as you point out, I think is one that's not, not only is it not going away, it's the principal reason I think that Nigel Farage did so well in the local government elections across the country that he's just alluding to in May, last month, including in this very constituency of Makerfield where Andy Burnham just got in with quite a substantial convincing majority. So many things to say. Let me just respond off what Nigel Farage said about calling for a general election. There's something that he didn't say there but it's implicit in what he said. And I think this is the trend of dynamics moving forward. He pointed out that Kemi Badenuk, the leader of the Tory Party, has said that there is no need for a general election. And constitutionally, that's absolutely true. But that's not why she's making that argument. She's making that argument because if anybody is terrified of reform UK and Nigel Farage in the next general election, it's not so much Andy Burnham who's the presumed incoming Prime Minister, it's the Tory party, because that is the trend. That is the lesson that I have drawn from. In the space of a month, one result going in one way at the local government elections, and the month later at this national parliamentary election, a very different result in the same territory. It's that people are sick to death of performative politicians. They hated Keir Starmer, they hate the British Conservative Party. Nigel Farage is something refreshing and different and authentic. But when I say refreshing, different and authentic, I think a lot of people, especially in the industrial north, will also ascribe those attributes also to Andy Burnham. So the threat I would suggest for the British establishment isn't so much in the Labour Party. They've got a good charismatic.

[Ben Harnwell]

But, but, but. Slow down, slow down, slow down. The reason we started with this today is I want to connect some dots here. The problem with Burnham, and Burnham's an upbeat guy, he's, you know, charismatic. He'll be happy in his job, not tower like Sir Keir, right? He's got the kind of upbeat personality of Nigel Farage. But the problem is the same problem. The Bernie Sanders and the phony populists here, the Mandamis, they're. They're not really populist nationalists because they're globalists. Burnham can't. The central beating heart of labor is to continue to flood the zone with foreigners. I think you've. I think you've added 13 since the Tories came to party. And the Tories are terrible, don't get me wrong, but Labor's five times worse is. Is to flood the zone with foreigners. I think you've added in a nation of 80 million people, you've added 13 million foreigners. This is why Nigel's issue is to unite the Right. He's got the Tommy. He's got the Tommy Robinson. More what I would say, lad. Vote right. Which is actually, you know, and Nigel just came to do the remigration last summer. He was very. He was pretty adamant about not touching that until, I think, forced to. Your thoughts on that?

[Stephen K. Bannon]

Look, I know we've Got a break coming up. But I, I would push back slightly on this. As I say it's the same, the same territory that's forced to separate one Ben.

[Ben Harnwell]

When Ben says, I know we've got a break coming up, that's a message to Steve. Let's talk about this and break so we can show a unified front on the way out. Hang on for a second, Ben. I'm gonna let you still get all the Runway you need. I know you and I, you and I don't agree with this. Hey, more importantly, Nigel Farage and I don't agree on this. Nigel's pretty adamant. Anyway, we're packed this morning. A lot going on with dni Director of National Intelligence. Brother Pulte's over there. They're trying to dig him out. I think a lot of explosive information's about to come out. We've got this, the quote unquote deal, which I think now we're bound and determined to give the Persians $6 billion of cash money on pallets. Maybe somebody can be talked out of that at the last second. We're gonna go through all of that. Dr. Fauci. Miranda Devine did an amazing piece in the New York Post on the crimes of Fauci and why they're not being prosecuted. But it speaks to a deeper issue. The ccp. Whether it's in data centers, which now the tech bros are all saying they're all anti CCP when it comes to their tech centers. Of course they're the guys funding them non stop. We're gonna get into all of it. Plus Alan greenspan, dead at 100. David Malpas be here to discuss. Short break war room. Here's your host, Stephen K. Band. Okay, for full disclosure, I just told Ben during the break. Ben, say what you're going to say. I, I know you don't agree with me. That's the fun of this show. And Nigel definitely doesn't agree with me. Jim Rickard's also going to join us. And Jim's got a slightly different take on I, I do on the negotiations. That's fine. That's what we provide the Warren posse. Different, A platform to hear different voices, different analysis. And that's why you guys are such a strong political power on the eve of the 10th anniversary. This was about England getting its sovereignty back. That's why Nigel Farage, if he was never become prime minister and never do anything else in his life, he'll be known in British history as the man that single handedly worked for 20 years, labored in the vineyards. I would go to these things with Raheem would hook me up and go to. With Nigel. I think in 2012, 2013, 2014, there would be 50 people in a room, 25 people in a room. He was like Tea Party meetings. And Nigel was preaching the gospel of, of immigration and getting there and getting your sovereignty back. That's still, to me, when you look through everything, because you're not going to change. This is why it's. Brexit was inextricably linked to Trump's victory in 2016. Who said that? Stephen K. Bannon. We had a whole team over it for months working on the Brexit situation with Breitbart London, run by, wait for it, Raheem Kassam, who reported to me and I said that day that, hey, this shows you more than any that there's a tectonic plate shift in the way working class people think. And this is going to lead to a Trump victory over Hillary Clinton. I think back in June, after the primary reserve, I don't know, Trump was down 6, 8 points, got down as low as, I think, 10, 12 points when they had the situation with the Muslim couple after the Democratic Convention. And then Stephen K. Bannon was hired as CEO and Bob's your uncle. The. So walk me through it.

[Nigel Farage]

What.

[Ben Harnwell]

What is the issues today? I think it ties directly the United States, because we're not. We're not getting down and focusing on how these things are inextricably linked, particularly the deal in Persia with the invasion we have here. And we have an invasion in this country. We got 20 million and we're not doing mass deportation. So we have 20 million illegal alien invaders here from Biden's watch. But Vino says we've got another, you know, 50 or 60 or 70 or 80 million here on previous watches. Plus we got 6 to 10 million minimum here, I think, illegally, that are legal immigration. The British establishment refuses not just to address it, they want it to continue. This is why the Tory Party, the home of the Awfully Awfullys, is absolutely in free fall. And the leader of the party doesn't want a general election today because they would be swept in to the dustbin of history. And it's quite ironic, in the 250th year of our Declaration of Independence, when we declared war, we declared war on the British Empire and the Crown, because that's what it was. Declaration of Independence was a war document that started, I would seven, eight year, you could actually say all the way to 1815, war against the British Empire. Ben. This to me is pretty cataclysmic because the Labor Party came in with a massive victory to thwart everything the Tories had done. Yet the central issue of immigration, migration and the country being overrun by invaders is still the central ticking time bomb in the United Kingdom.

[Jim Rickards]

Sir.

[Stephen K. Bannon]

Well, let me give you my reading of this then, Steve, and the importance of the switcheroo that the governing party has just performed or is in the process of performing. And to ask, ask ourselves why they have done this, because Keir Starmer did get a very good result. And I think it was 7-20-24, two years ago at the last general election. And it's this, because had they not have done this, the writing was on the war already three years yet distant from the next general election, that not only would the Labour Party going to lose, but that, and I would put money on this, Nigel Farage would have been the Prime Minister on the following day after the next general election. And that's why the Labour Party, anticipating that, seeing the momentum, have pulled the switcheroo. As it is, I would suspect that the day after the next general election, Madra Far is going to be the leader of the opposition. But here's the thing, and this is why politics is so interesting. Because, you know, why do we find politics interesting? It's not so much when political leaders do well or do what they're supposed to do. It's more the enjoyment of watching, I don't know, the, the own goals, the, the missed opportunities, the unforced errors. What I mean by that is that it is now Andy Burnham's to lose, okay? He's got a huge spread of goodwill for him in the country right now. And it comes back to the issue that you've just been talking about, immigration, which is not an issue that's going away. Let us see whether he is prepared to repeat the same disastrous mistakes as kids.

[Jim Rickards]

Labor can't.

[Ben Harnwell]

This is like the Democrat.

[Jim Rickards]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.

[Ben Harnwell]

This is like the Democratic Party. You're living in la la land. These parties are unite in the fact they're globalists. And they want. They want to. They want to destroy the central cultures. They can talk all the working class. They want. They want to destroy the central underlying culture. That does it. This is why Mondami, these guys are open borders guys look at Mondami every day. Mandami is a Marxist jihadist. The party that is the Labor Party, labor right now, we couldn't even use the airfields that we help finance in England because he needed starmer needed six hours so that it was his 50 Muslim. The 50 Muslim members of Parliament would, would not throw him out of office then that was his threat. The you can put a guy like Burnham in front and he's going to be a much better salesman. He's got energy, he's got the gift of gab, he's got charisma, he connects with people. All the things Starmer and quite frankly the last three or four stiffs they had in the Tory party didn't do. So he comes across much more populous. But the center beating heart of it is the same problem with the Democratic Party here. They can put Ossoff or Newsom or put any kind of, you know, more pleasant face on this thing. The bottom line is they want the destruction of America as it is and has been for the 250 years that it's been a constitutional republic. Am I off on that, sir?

[Stephen K. Bannon]

If nothing changes. Your conclusion is absolutely spot on. If nothing changes, if they can, if they, if they are going to continue, if they haven't correctly understood and done the calculation at this point why Sakir Stalin was forced to resign, right. And they were what they have not been able to intuit, the reasons of why they are, is necessary for them to perform the switch route, then exactly what you're saying is going to cause proceedings logically from, as effects from that cause. I don't know whether that's the case. I'm gonna be watching this with the people of Makerfield themselves.

[Jim Rickards]

Hang on, hang on.

[Stephen K. Bannon]

Having just voted, I just want to

[Ben Harnwell]

make sure, I want to make sure I understand this because now you're confusing me. Parliament as it exists, commons as it exists, even a lot of lords, they put the people in there, he may give some happy talk, right, but they not simply think they're winning, they know they're winning even with Brexit. And the reason is you're right, you brought in 13 million, 13 million migrants in the last couple of years on a nation that had what, 70 million people at the time, 80 million people. They're going to that, that is their ticket. This is what Los Angeles, Los Angeles in New York and Chicago and Seattle and Portland are no different than what's happening in London. This is why we went to Texas, because London has fallen. That mentality, that mentality has to break. These constitutional republic has to break, although you're a constitutional monarchy, has to break. The Christian west, the way they break the Christian west is doing this. This is one of the problems I've got with whatever this deal we're talking about we're funding our enemies in this deal. Because what happens in Tehran is inextricably linked to what's happening north of Dallas, Texas with these huge mosques being built. One of the leading drivers of this are the Pakistanis who were using as intermediates or the, or the Qataris who were using as intermediaries. They are not friends of this constitutional republic. And that's why in England, Burnham is a much more accessible personality, but the core driving focus. Why would they change their winning? Why would they. They got Nigel and even Nigel doesn't want to go there. Until last summer. You know, this is something. Nigel has not been a re migration guy. Unless you do remigration, it's over. It's just over. You're not going to do it. This is why the Tommy Robinson in, in the, in the street lads that continue to build up momentum and power and that's one of the reasons they've got this guy low, who I don't think is a good guy started this other party is putting pressure on. They understand the beating heart of the province. Not simply to get political power in Commons, it's to get to the heart of the matter which Nigel did in Brexit. But the British elites did not let him take all the things Nigel talked about in Brexit. When we won 10 years ago, they were never implemented. Not just the business part of it, but more importantly the migration part. Under Boris Johnson, these phony Tories got worse.

[Jim Rickards]

Sir.

[Stephen K. Bannon]

Okay, so you mentioned just now the actual issue here, which was Brexit. Okay. That is the litmus test to see whether your reading of this is correct or not. Because up until a month ago, Andy Burnham, as mayor of Greater Manchester, one of our great industrial cities up in the north of England, he, his official position was to go back into, to take the UK back into. Into the European Union.

[David Malpass]

Sure.

[Stephen K. Bannon]

If he walks away from that now and he's. His most statements have been to walk that back, that indicates perhaps he will lead a different type of government from the House of Commons. Because this is it. If instead he pushes on that there'll be nothing in the country more to deflate the balloon of the goodwill that is behind him right now and push all of that support very firmly back into the direction Nigel Farage and reform. It's the Brexit.

[Ben Harnwell]

Okay. His talk on that is just purely perfunctory. He's been all those guys, by definition they have to get united back with their globalist partners and Europe. Hang on a second, Ben. I Haven't finished beating up on you yet. Ben's gonna say we're do more England. Rickard's gonna join us. Malpass is going to join us. We're talking about Greenspan, what he meant for the country, what we're living through because of Greenspan. We're going to talk about the deal. We got so much going on. We are packed on a Monday morning. Birch Gold. Take your phone out, text Bannon B A N N O N 989-898. They have a special with a qualifying purchase. You get a free 1 oz silver round. It's not a coin. It's around, obviously. Talk to Philip Patrick and the team about why silver as a precious metals may be be something to look into at Birchcold or here's your host, Stephen K Band has been some. The folks in the FT are. Are giving their warnings. Why do you say that's important about Burnham?

[Stephen K. Bannon]

Well, you know, I think Denver might be popping up something on the screen as we talk about the Guardian. And, and this is the, the fear that the British media have been putting out about Andy Burnham before he won the by election, that an incoming Burnham prime ministership would not be good for the UK because of the jittery nervousness that the bond markets are having. This is the narrative right, in response to that possibility. The point I'm saying this, Steve, is that, you know that the British establishment is fearful of an outsider. No. You know that a political establishment in any country is fearful about an outsider that they don't think they're going to be able to control when they start playing the jittery bond market card. And I'm just putting that out there. I don't know if I would necessarily. I wouldn't put Andy Burnham in the same category of this succession of Daleks that the UK has produced. I don't, you know, I have absolutely no idea whether he's going to pivot now and betray his base and the people and then force obviously the momentum towards reform. We'll wait and see. But when I see the UK media playing that card, you know, we can't have Andy Burnham because the bond markets look like it. It's going to be a rerun of Liz Truss, you know, that they are confronting something that they don't.

[Ben Harnwell]

Well, that may also be. May also be the sense that he, he got a little wobbly on Brexit a month ago because he knew this day was coming. And now, of course, the bond markets, they're wanting to reunite. Okay, I'm going to Let you go to your corner and get your cut man working on you. Stick around. We're going to. You stick around, sir. We're getting more to this and and our favorite Maloney took, took a beating from Trump over the weekend. We'll get to all that Italian why it's important to the United States. Jim Rickards, got you in Malpass. First of all, give me your thoughts. 100, 100 years old, Greenspan passed away this morning. Alan Greenspan as the most powerful central banker I think maybe in history, at least in the 20th and latter part of the 20th and early 21st century. Your thoughts, sir?

[Jim Rickards]

Yeah, I think it's a fair description of Greenspan. I always kind of liked him. He's met him once or twice. Highly intelligent, kind of knew what he was doing. But he was amazingly candid about what I would call the irrelevance of the Fed. Now he's, you know, the maestro greatest central banker probably. Right. You know, the world hangs on every word that comes out of the Fed. But Greenspan said decades ago that we had the Fed. We really don't know what money is anymore. They have M1, M2, M0, M3, etc. They got four definitions inside the Fed, not to mention, you know, today.

[Ben Harnwell]

But didn't, but, but didn't I get horned one of rickets to my favorite people. I got to go Adam on the morning. But he's the author. I did Generation Zero in the Central Beating Heart. A Generation Zero film I made that's still relevant today. If you watched it, made it what, 15 years ago, 16 years ago, about 08. The Greenspan put. He basically helped turn Wall street into casino because the traders realized that they could. The traders realized he would bail him out with rate cuts.

[Jim Rickards]

Right.

[Ben Harnwell]

And expansion of money, sir.

[Jim Rickards]

Yeah. Well, I negotiated the bailout of Long Term Capital Management in 1998. We were hours away from shutting every market in the world. And Greenspan didn't cut interest rates because he could see the bailout coming. As soon as the bailout got done, $4 billion, all cash, no due diligence. We were up for, for five days practically with no sleep to get it done. But as soon as that was done, he cut interest rates. And then they actually, the panic continued. It wasn't over. We with the new $4 billion, we started losing. We lost another $500 million in the first couple of days. That was after Wall street took over the balance sheet and Greenspan had emergency meeting and cut them again. And at that point the fire was out. And it was just took a year to unwind. My point is, yeah, Greenspan put was real but that's carried over into the Bernanke put, the Yellen put, the Powell put. We'll see how Kevin Warshaw feels about it. But yeah, but every one of my thesis is that every crisis gets bigger, the Fed bails them out. Just look at Silicon Valley bank. That was 2023. It was, was not long ago. But there will come a time when the crisis is bigger than the Fed and I think we're getting close to that point. So it's sort of a dead end. Might have been better just to let things fall apart at some point.

[Ben Harnwell]

The highly leveraged bet on AI Hang on for one second, Jim, I'm coming right back to you. Talk about this deal and what it all means. Malpass, you've had to live through this. Your thoughts on Alan Greenspan, sir?

[David Malpass]

Hi, Steve. Well I was there in 87 when the transition came from Volcker. So one thing that strikes me is just how much change has come at the Fed. And a lot of it is just plain growth. The Fed extended itself into regulatory policy. Now it has a huge balance sheet. It changed over the years the way it sets interest rates. So one lesson I think from where we are today is that there was a huge amount of judgment that Greenspan put into setting the interest rates. He also had really good timing. For example, the Maestro, that book you just mentioned came out just before the crash of the dot com so they were calling him the Maestro. And then the whole NASDAQ bubble really crashed deeply just after that. So good timing. He left before the 08 financial crisis. He left in 07, but maybe allowed some of the groundwork to set up. So my bottom line on this is he's renowned and should be for good judgment through, for, through five terms, long terms of but didn't leave us with a foundation for the Fed of sound money.

[Ben Harnwell]

How did we get. We're in the 250th anniversary of our constitutional republic the way the framers, you know, the revolutionary generation and the framers came in right afterwards. How did we get into a situation malpass that's not foreseen in the Constitution or even their concept. In fact it was a anti concept of how a central bank in a Supreme Court. Because remember, people sit there and we do it. We're outside the Supreme Court. We're waiting for these, we're waiting for these rulings of the Supreme Court with this kind of judicial supremacy. We've given the same Thing with the central bank now, it's not quite as bad, although, you know, we cover it non stop. Talk about it non stop. As in Greenspan. Greenspan. It was an obsession. I mean it was like, it was like the British chance of the egg checker leaving with the red box right there. It was Wall street and particularly CNBC and the other, you know, nascent television business channels were obsessed with this. How do we get into a situation where a central banker and the Chief justice of the Supreme Court became more powerful than the legislative branch, both houses of Congress and even the executive branch? The presidency, sir.

[David Malpass]

That's a great question. You know, the president carries, or his staff carries the football which has the nuclear codes in. And Greenspan carried his briefcase which carried the data that ran the world because he was looking at freight car loadings, you know, how much the real economy was growing and then using his judgment on how to set interest rates. How did we get there? I think in the Constitution for one, the whole world had always been on a hard money standard, either gold or silver or shells on the beach. And they didn't really think in terms of there being a central bank of the United States. One other thing from those days, they didn't have any concept that they were creating a government that could borrow trillions of dollars or now we're at $40 trillion. So they were hopeful of borrowing 1 million, $1 million. And so they didn't put in a size of government limit. So that allowed all of this growth of government. We still have no boundaries on size of government or size of the Federal Reserve. So I think that's one of the legacies of Greenspan is he made it popular and he popularized it to the point where it's grown way beyond its ability to do its mission. So we have to look at these task forces that that are, they're setting out on now and think about whether those can accomplish really sweeping changes that are needed in economics to make this work better. You know, I've laid out those changes that we need to have a sound money foundation for monetary policy. That was the way it was in the Constitution and we' that over the years and now we have the dollar.

[Ben Harnwell]

What do you mean? What do you walk people through? How is that hardwired into the Constitution?

[David Malpass]

In the Constitution they said it was Congress that sets the weights, the value of weights and measures. That's a provision, Article 1, Section 8. And so that literally meant that Congress would regulate what a piece of eight was. That was a part of a Spanish silver coin. And that would give you a foundation for value for farmers and for people doing trade. And England, of course, you know, during the war, just choked off the US by not the colonies, by not allowing them to have enough real money. So those, those problems are still with us today. We, you know, the gold standard extended all the way to 1971 and then has never really been replaced with a concept. How do you run trillions, hundreds of trillions of dollars of transactions without having some kind of framework for whether you want it to be stable? China does it differently. They actually have an official policy of a strong and stable yuan, and that has allowed them to expand their use of their currency, you know, radically, which I think is dangerous to us.

[Ben Harnwell]

Yes, this is the end of the dollar empire as they lead the BRICS nations. But they all, one of the reasons they can do that is they have no social safety net, right. In China, it's devil catch the hindmost. So they, they have huge military spending, but they don't have any social spending.

[David Malpass]

David Balpass that that's true, but I really want to say it depends also on what your government says it wants. So in their case, they for four leaders have said explicitly that they want the yuan to be stable so that people will use it. And that was, you know, embedded really in the Constitution, that concept. So as we look now, Greenspan started out as a sound money guy. He used to write books about the importance of sound money. But then as Fed chairman, he allowed different models to be used. So that's where we stand today. And I think it's a productive moment in history right now to say, what do we want a central bank to do with relationship to the money?

[Ben Harnwell]

That's when everybody around the world since the, since the Fed supposed to be, quote, unquote, independent, how do the people, how does the MAGA movement has the President even get into the, the ear of Kevin Warsh to say we need these fundamental changes? This has to come through Senate Banking Committee. I mean, are there places on the Hill that could do this? Or is this something you just got to get wash, have a cup of coffee and say, hey, here's what we're thinking.

[David Malpass]

Congress hasn't been very effective with commissions. You know, Greenspan did1 in 1982 that raised the retirement age and taxes on Social Security. And so it was a success, called a success at that moment. But since then not many have worked. So we've got the Fed totally tangled up with fiscal policy. So I'm not sure Congress is a very good arbiter. Of this the Constitution is clear that there's supposed to be stability in this. And so I think the Fed needs to read the words price stability and realize that that means money has to be stable. You can't get price stability without stability of the value of money. So if they do that, that's all they have to do. That would be that would be a giant change in the academic economics and would lead in the right direction.

[Ben Harnwell]

David where do people go? You're writing for the Wall Street Journal all the time on the editorial page, op ed page. Where do people go?

[David Malpass]

Sir thanks. David R. Malpass on zoom.

[Ben Harnwell]

Fantastic. Appreciate you, sir. David Malpass putting up great content over at the Wall Street Journal. Some of the best stuff on there, op ed page. Of course, the other stuff they put up we don't agree with a lot. End of the Dollar Empire that conversation right there. This reason six years ago we started putting out free installments. Birchgold.com Bannon End of the Dollar Empire explains it all to you from the beginning of this republic up to the current time. Talk to Philip Patrick and the team about what it all means for your financial stability. Short commercial break here's your host, Stephen K. Ban. Tonight at tonight in the evening show, we are going to discuss Obama's library. Not the architecture, design and all that may touch on that, but there's a big problem there with access to certain papers that should have public access to and the big question is why don't we like other presidential libraries? Not that Obama and his crew be hiding anything. Far, far be from that. Jim Rickards, your thoughts right there. On Greenspan and fiat currency, the purchase price of the dollar is dropped. We've had this great analysis about devaluation since Biden came to Office with massive spending 50%, but I think it's decreased 90% plus since it went off the gold standard. Your thoughts are?

[Jim Rickards]

Yeah, I agree with what David Malpass said. I'll just drop two quick footnotes. Steve From 1836 to 1913, the United States did not have a central bank, period. Didn't have one. It was one of the greatest periods of innovation, technology, expansion, rising living standards, indoor plumbing, et cetera in the history of the world. And we had no central bank. So if anyone says you need a central bank, history says otherwise. Number two, you asked where did the Fed come from? How did we get that? Not in the Constitution. That's right. The short answer is it was the panic of 1907. Now that was a typical bank run type of thing, but it was much Worse, that was solved by Pierpont Morgan. What he did, he got all the top bankers in a room. He locked him in his library, actually said, you're not leaving until you come up with a deal. But he sent Benjamin Strong out to look at the books of all the major banks and they did triage. They said certain banks are actually fine. There's a panic going on, but these banks are fine. Other banks were solvent but illiquid, meaning the balance sheet was okay, but they were running out of cash. And there was a third category who were insolvent. They were just gardeners. And what Morgan said was okay, the healthy banks will lend to the illiquid banks because they just need cash. The insolvent ones are going to fail, end of story. And that's what they did. And it worked. The problem was in the immediate aftermath of that, the Morgan interest, the Rockefeller interest and other. Basically the people running the country said, Pierpont's not going to live forever. And what happens when this happens again? We need a lender of last resort. And that's what the Fed was designed to do. But lender of last resort is not a bad idea. And that's how the Fed was set up. But it has, let's say any bureaucracy has morphed into something unrecognizable. Humphrey Hawkins act of, I think it was 1977, maybe 79, said the Fed had to deal with unemployment in addition to price stability. Those two are not correlated. It's two, two tests are inconsistent. They've had a bank regulation, bank holding company. They turn Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs into banks. So now the Fed is a very powerful regulatory institution.

[Ben Harnwell]

Hang on, hang on, hang on. Slow, slow down, slow down. They turn Goldman Sachs and JP Moore, they turn them into Morgan Stanley. They turn investment banks into bank. Only comes a stroke of pen to save them from collapse. In the 2008 crisis, the biggest scam, this audience took it in the shorts. The partners at Goldman Sachs and at Morgan Stanley, the elites, the elites on Wall street were bailed out by the Fed with a one line from Hank Paulson says I'm now a bank holding company. I can borrow at the Fed window for essentially zero, lend it to my high net worth clients for I don't know, 300 basis, 3 or 4% and I keep the spread that saved those banks from the natural bankruptcy they should have gone through given what they did to drive the financial crisis.

[Jim Rickards]

Correct.

[Ben Harnwell]

This is the problem with the Fed arbitrarily. Chris Leonard, his book, which I always recommend the Lords of easy money during the financial crisis because the minutes of the Fed are kept in high security for 10 years. You can't see them. Once he was released he went back through the minutes and it's outrageous what the Fed did. The Fed essentially bailed out the elites of this country, the elite financial institutions, the law firms, everybody associated with the financial collapse on the shoulders of the working class of this nation.

[Jim Rickards]

Sir. That's. That's exactly right. And I was general counsel of a bank holding company. We did applications. I had, we were owned by a Japanese bank. The firm I worked for at the time. We had applications. If the Fed didn't like what you were trying to do or you thought they were going too fast, whatever. They were supposed to do these things in 45 days. They took two years. Two years. On one of my applications they converted Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs in two days. It was a couple of phone calls. So they can do what they want when they feel like it. And you're right. Now they've got their finger in every pie, so to speak. They're pretty much incompetent. By the way, the Fed staff is the worst forecasting record I can think of. The so called dots are jog. I think Warsh will get rid of them. I mean wash is a, is a.

[Ben Harnwell]

Okay, okay. So you made, you made. This should be one of the predicates for the future of MAGA going forward. And more nationalism. You just made the statement from 1836 when Andrew Jackson, right, took down the bank of the United States and 1913 had the greatest run. Now it coincided with the Industrial Revolution coming to the United States with the greatest run of a prosperity of any folks in the world and American citizens in this country with not just no central bank, I mean political parties that were absolutely dead set on any investment bank. Even in the Panic of 1873 after the Civil War it came up again and they beat it down. Why don't we go, why do we even need a Fed? Why are we not taking apart? First off if we audited it it would be over in a second because you'd see all the scams they were running. But why do we allow the Fed. And not just that, the New York Fed which is the biggest trading desk in the world and basically controls markets.

[Stephen K. Bannon]

Sir.

[Jim Rickards]

That's right. And how do we build the transcontinental railroad? How did Edison wire the country for electricity? How did Bell invent the telephone? How did we do all that without the Fed? Well we did it because, because we're Americans. And by the way, Krugman likes that. Paul Krugman likes to point to the panics and you mentioned some of them and there were panics, 1873, 1893, you know, et cetera, when there was no Fed, say, well, that's why we need a Fed. Like, I'm sorry, we've had a lot of panics with the Fed. 1987, Dow Jones crashed 22% in one day. That would be like 10,000 points by, or 15,000 points by today's standards. You know, 2001.com crash, NASDAQ crashed 80%. 2008, Bear Stern said, we know Lehman, we know what happened. So the answer is there's no correlation. But the panics happen. They're going to keep happening. It's human nature. But the Fed has nothing to do with it. So that's not a reason not to get rid of the Fed. No, we should get rid of the Fed, in my view.

[Ben Harnwell]

Well, I think actually they exacerbate. I would make the case that the casino mentality and nothing could be looked at the more the casino mentality than the SpaceX public offering. I think the average purchaser, I think was official as of this morning. When the bell rung, the average, average person at purchaser of SpaceX was underwater. Right. This thing was a scam put together by, by Goldman Sachs. Like I said, if, when I was at Goldman Sachs, if you had had anything to do with that prospectus, it came up to the partners back then, it was joint and several liability on underwritings and they were an equity house. You would, they wouldn't let you go to your desk and clean it out. You would have just been walked out of the building. What in the hell are you doing? And who is this guy? Elon Musk. No, we're not doing this. We may do a deal, but we're not going to do it at this valuation and we're not going to do it under these terms anyway. Rickards, hang on. We gotta talk about deals. We're gonna get to that. Sam Fatis also going to join us. Things we have to do with the Chinese Communist Party number one is hold Fauci accountable for the, for the bioweapon. Brandon Vine's got a great piece. Sam Fat is here, former CA to break it all down for us. The second hour of the war room is upon us.