reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I reject the idea that President Trump started a trade war. For decades, countries like China and Mexico have harmed American workers and the economy through practices like intellectual property theft and illegal immigration. The mainstream media ignored these issues for years and now pretends to care about American consumers, particularly regarding tariffs. Many corporate media outlets are influenced by a globalist agenda, but Trump represents a shift towards using America's economic power to achieve real wins, including in immigration. The Chinese Communist Party has long exploited American workers, and the narrative that the trade war began with Trump is misleading. The focus on American workers and consumers is often performative.

A young Chinese TikTok influencer speaking English shared a 1.5-minute clip directed at Americans, and the speaker says it is “fascinating” and discusses it with Chris and Professor Mearsheimer. The clip claims Americans “don’t need a tariff” and instead “need a revolution.” It argues that American “garment and auto guys” for decades “won’t ship your job to China” for diplomacy or peace, but to “exploit cheap labor,” resulting in hollowing out the middle class and crashing the working class while telling Americans to be proud as “they sold your future for profit.” The clip contrasts China’s use of trade gains—building roads, lifting millions out of poverty, funding healthcare, and raising living standards—with what it says American “oligarchs” did with wealth: buying yachts, private jets, and mansions, manipulating markets, dodging taxes, and pouring billions into endless wars. It says Americans face stagnant wages, crippling healthcare costs, “cheap dopamine,” debt, and “flagged wave poverty made in China,” while elites “picked your pocket.” The clip states that for forty years both China and the United States benefited from trade and manufacturing, but only one of them used that wealth to build, calling it “yours” and claiming Americans “let this happen.” It says elites fed lies that made the public “fat, poor, and addicted,” and rejects the idea that China is to blame for mass damage, arguing Americans should “wake up” and “take your country back.” The speaker adds one correction: “we haven’t spent billions on useless wars, we've spent trillions on useless wars.” Professor Mearsheimer is prompted to respond as if the clip’s speaker were his student. He says he “basically agree[s] with him” and that he thinks the message is largely something Trump made as a candidate before the 2016, 2020, and 2024 elections, which the speaker says helped get him elected in two of those three cases. Mearsheimer concludes that there are “a huge number of People in this country” who feel exactly the same way the Chinese influencer describes.

President Trump is prioritizing America by implementing reciprocal tariffs, a concept with bipartisan support. Trump aims to reverse decades of being the "world's ATM," referencing his 1988 concerns about trade imbalances with Japan and other countries not paying their fair share. The US has become overly reliant on adversaries like China, even for essential items like pharmaceuticals. Between 2020 and 2022, US imports of China-based pharmaceuticals grew by 485%. China now owns the American generic drug supply. Trump is implementing discounted reciprocal tariffs, charging China half of what they charge the US. Critics predict economic disaster, but Trump supporters argue these tariffs are essential for long-term independence and are already incentivizing investment in American factories. Critics accuse Trump of promising to lower the high cost of living, but now, quote, crashing the economy. Countering claims that Trump will cut Social Security, supporters say he explicitly stated he would not. The speaker claims the media lies about Trump, while Americans support his actions.

Chinese producers on social media are exposing who Trump's tariffs target: international corporations, not American consumers or Chinese producers. For example, if Nike buys shoes for $10 and sells them for $100, a 25% tariff means Nike pays $2.50 to the U.S. government per shoe. Nike's cost increases by $2.50. Even if Nike passes this cost to consumers, the price only increases to $103. Chinese producers on TikTok suggest it's better to buy directly from China, even with tariffs and shipping, for $12.50. Tariffs are not meant to hurt consumers or China, but to protect American industry from corporations prioritizing profit. Those who criticize tariffs are often the corporations and investors who benefit from these practices.

I claim to be the chosen one, stating that China has made $500 billion by ripping off the United States through intellectual property theft and other means. I believe someone had to take action, so I am taking on China in trade. And the good news is, we are winning.

Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi have been discussing tariffs for decades. China's repression, trade deficit, and job losses for American workers are issues. Tariffs signal to China that unfair trade policies must end, or there will be dramatic consequences. When Democrat elites want tariffs, it's accepted, but when President Trump wants tariffs, there's a double standard. Some believe everyone knew tariffs were necessary, but lacked the courage to implement them. Implementing tariffs takes guts, and the country needs to be patient. The situation is working out, possibly faster than anticipated. This is a transition to greatness for the country. People investing in the country will do better than ever before.

Chinese producers on social media are exposing who Trump's tariffs target. It's not American consumers or Chinese producers, but international corporations who have "sold out American prosperity for their own profits." Using Nike as an example, if Nike buys shoes for $10 and sells them for $100, a 25% tariff means Nike pays $2.50 to the US government per shoe. Nike's cost is now $12.50, netting them $87. If Nike passes the cost to consumers, the shoe costs $103. Chinese producers on TikTok suggest it's better to buy directly from China, even with tariffs and shipping, at $12.50 per shoe. Tariffs are not meant to hurt consumers or China, but to protect American industry from corporations that prioritize profit. Those who criticize tariffs are often the corporations and Wall Street investors who don't want Americans to realize they've been "sold out."

The speaker questions why people would believe that the US government sees communist China as an enemy, citing their long-standing partnership. They mention historical events such as Henry Kissinger's secret trip to Beijing in 1971 and George H.W. Bush's role in outsourcing American labor markets. The speaker then connects the 9/11 attacks to the neocons' plan for a new American century, the Patriot Act, and missing funds. They claim that evidence of controlled demolitions was ignored, debris was sent to China, and China joined the World Trade Organization. The speaker accuses the US government of working with China to weaponize COVID-19 and destabilize the economy. They mention fake jobs reports, a collapsing housing market, and small businesses struggling to pay rent. The speaker suggests that a new threat, possibly an EMP attack, is being orchestrated to benefit the Chinese Communist Party. Another speaker highlights China's aggression in various aspects of American society. The video ends with the reporter signing off.

A 4% tariff on China is insufficient; 400% is necessary because China doesn't adhere to WTO rules, steals IP, and cannot be litigated against in their courts. This isn't just about tariffs; it's about leveling the playing field, something no one has done. The speaker claims to represent millions of Americans whose IP has been stolen. While acknowledging the Chinese people's contributions, the speaker asserts their government cheats and steals. The speaker praises the Trump administration for standing up to China. The speaker believes 400% tariffs would force China to negotiate, as Xi Jinping's leadership depends on employment. The speaker argues America, holding 39% of global consumables and 25% of the world's GDP, has the leverage to pressure China. The speaker advocates implementing 400% tariffs immediately, anticipating a swift resolution.

Trump's tariffs have revealed that many designer brands are manufactured in China. The speaker states that Lululemon leggings, costing consumers $100, are made in China for only $5 to $6. The speaker believes that both Chinese manufacturers and American consumers are being exploited by these brands. The Chinese are making only a few dollars in profit, while Americans pay thousands for items costing very little to produce. The speaker concludes that Trump's tariffs have exposed this "lose-lose situation" for both the Chinese and American people.

America and China represent almost half of world GDP, but America is the market that matters. China has an aging population, a difficult case for foreign investment, murky IP rules, and a difficult economic forecast if they shrink. The speaker believes the Biden administration, in partnership with Janet Yellen, pushed America to the brink of financial collapse through debt creation and short-term obligations. The speaker claims that Donald Trump was right about China's entry into the WTO and the fragility of the United States exposed by COVID. The four critical areas that need focus are AI, energy, batteries/rare earths, and pharmaceuticals. The speaker suggests the "establishment" is unable to acknowledge Trump's correct stance and course correct. The speaker asserts that global elites benefited from a 20-year regime of optimizing for profit and low volatility, and are now trying to scaremonger the White House into economic policy. The speaker believes the media is trying to portray the president as having "blinked," but the stock market is only back to where it was in May 2024, not a crash. The speaker concludes that the Trump administration is different because they want to understand what's happening on the ground, even when there are disagreements.

Since the US helped the CCP join the WTO, American manufacturing has lost around 3.4 million well-paid jobs, as shown on a map. The job losses are not limited to the Rust Belt but extend from the East Coast to the West Coast. The trade deficit with China currently stands at $367 billion. The CCP has been engaging in unrestricted economic warfare against the US, violating international rules without consequences. President Trump was the first to hold them accountable for human rights violations and forced labor, but the trade deficit continues to grow. Chinese workers abused by the CCP have been producing goods for major retailers like Target, Walmart, and Kmart. It is crucial to find an alternative to China's dominant supply chain.

Speaker 0 states that Donald Trump is in retreat due to opposition to his tariff policies, which are described as chaotic and damaging to the economy. These policies are said to discourage spending due to their unpredictability and harm American families. Speaker 1 claims tariffs send a message to China that their unfair trade policies must end and that failure to reform will have dramatic consequences. The speaker asserts China has a large and growing trade surplus with the U.S., partly due to free trade rules, but largely because China doesn't play fair by restricting access to their markets and not preventing the theft of intellectual property.

The speaker advocates for raising tariffs on Chinese goods to 400% to force China to adhere to trade rules, alleging they haven't followed WTO rules since 2020 and consistently steal American IP. They claim China uses US financial markets unfairly, with Chinese companies not abiding by GAAP while listing on NASDAQ. The speaker says they are willing to accept market volatility to resolve the trade imbalance, which they believe harms American businesses through IP theft and unfair competition. They emphasize the distinction between the Chinese government and its people, criticizing the government's cheating and disregard for rules. The speaker believes the US has leverage due to being the largest consumer market and having a significant GDP. They argue that China needs the US, and this is the time to pressure them into compliance, even if it causes short-term economic disruption.

Ashwin Rifansi discusses New Order’s focus on how India and its allies sit at the center of a shifting global order, noting that the West Asia conflict involving Trump, Netanyahu, Iran, and Lebanon has repeatedly broken ceasefires and that Pakistan publicly thanked Trump for de-escalation efforts before its consulate in Peshawar was shut down as the US deemed the location too dangerous. New Delhi is about to host the BRICS foreign ministers meeting, with Iran likely sending its deputy foreign minister. India’s chair aims to balance Gulf energy ties with a broader multi-aligned strategy, positioning it as the broker able to keep competing sides in the same room. The last BRICS meeting failed to reach consensus; this time the stakes are higher, divisions sharper, and billions hinge on deli decisions. The question posed is whether this emergent order can hold together or reconcile internal contradictions. Professor Richard Wolff, a prominent economist, joins to discuss who pays for the Trump–Netanyahu war. Wolff identifies the cost as ultimately borne by a combination of American taxpayers and the global community that finances the war through borrowing. He says the government relies more on borrowed money than on taxes, noting that an explicit tax burden on American families would be politically unsustainable, while the bill is effectively deferred to future generations. He points out that parts of the global South are lending to the US to finance the war, citing that Japan is the largest creditor to the United States, with China as the second-largest, while the US remains the world’s largest debtor. Wolff explains that the crisis of supply lines stems from long-standing corporate decisions since the 1970s to relocate manufacturing abroad for profitability, particularly to China. He argues politicians—including Trump—present the narrative as if foreigners (China, India, Brazil) forced these changes, thereby portraying the US as a victim rather than the perpetrator. This framing disguises the revenue gains American capital reaped from overseas production, which in turn produced long supply lines as goods must travel back to markets. The discussion emphasizes the strategic political use of this narrative to manage domestic anger at lost jobs and wages. The conversation then turns to potential futures for supply chains and localized production. Wolff suggests that global factors push toward localization and diversification of production within the United States and BRICS countries, with the Hormuz Strait being a model for potential disruptions elsewhere (e.g., the Malacca Strait). He predicts a major, long-term reorganization of where production happens and how the global economy is organized, arguing the conflict could catalyze a renaissance of regionalized or localized production, even if not immediately after the current war. On the political economy side, Wolff notes that Trump’s political support is shrinking outside the extreme right and the business elite who benefit from his tax policies and fossil-fuel ties. He warns that if the Iran confrontation undermines Trump’s ability to assert U.S. power, oligarchic support could wane, threatening his presidency. Wolff also forecasts that the defense budget under discussion—proposed to rise from about $900 billion to $1.5 trillion—would far outpace any social program cuts, intensifying pressure on workers who are already relying on food stamps and other supports. The discussion touches on the global South’s response to a declining U.S. empire, including potential non-dollar settlements and the challenges of unwinding dollar-denominated debt. Wolff notes the dollar is weaker but remains central; the process toward a multi-currency system is gradual. He observes that global South students are increasingly looking elsewhere for education and investment, signaling a broader trend away from the United States as a safe or dominant hub for capital. The program closes with questions about the Quad and ASEAN’s roles, and whether India should stay in the Quad. Wolff’s perspective frames a dynamic, multi-polar trajectory as BRICS and other blocs potentially gain influence in the face of U.S. decline. The show teases a future discussion with Khan about how viewers can engage with these questions.

Chinese producers on social media are exposing who Trump's tariffs target. It's not American consumers or Chinese producers, but international corporations who have "sold out American prosperity for their own profits." Using Nike as an example, if Nike buys shoes for $10 and sells them for $100, a 25% tariff means Nike pays $2.50 to the US government per shoe. Nike's cost is now $12.50, netting them $87 per shoe. If Nike passes the cost to consumers, the shoe costs $103. Chinese producers on TikTok suggest it's better to buy directly from China, even with tariffs and shipping, costing $12.50. Tariffs are not meant to hurt consumers or China, but to protect American industry from corporations that prioritize profit. Those who complain about tariffs are investors in these companies who don't want Americans to realize they've been sold out.

The speaker states that the U.S. had the greatest economy in history before COVID-19, and that the speaker did a great job handling the pandemic but received no credit. The speaker claims COVID-19 caused $50 trillion in damage and devastated every country, including China.

The speaker emphasizes the rise of China as a positive development and dismisses the idea of slowing down Chinese growth. They criticize Donald Trump's approach, accusing him of hysteria and xenophobia towards China. The speaker also mentions Joe Biden's stance, suggesting that he believes China always wins. The transcript ends with a mention of a trade agreement and a disclaimer about the content of the advertising.

Of course big business and Wall Street hate Trump's tariffs; they've been decimating American manufacturing for decades. These tariffs are helping to reverse that trend. We've seen companies like Milwaukee Tool, which sounds American but is owned by the Chinese Communist Party, compete against American companies. That's why we need tariffs to protect companies that actually want to manufacture in the United States. Don't believe the lies you read; polls show Americans overwhelmingly support tariffs.

The transcript centers on a retrospective beginning with a Casablanca exchange at the end of World War II, where Roosevelt told Churchill that the war wasn’t fought to reestablish British eighteenth-century methods, and Churchill asked what Roosevelt meant. Roosevelt answered with a definition of a system that takes more out of a country than it puts back in. Roosevelt died before the war ended, and the result, as described, was the triumph of British eighteenth-century methods or a system that takes more out than it puts in. The speaker then argues that since World War II, the United States has deteriorated: manufacturing employment fell from 31% of the population in 1950 to 8% today, and when including other goods-producing sectors (agriculture, mining, transportation), the share dropped from 55% to less than 20%. The speaker contends that good-paying jobs, industry, infrastructure, and family farms disappeared, and economic sovereignty was stripped by “British eighteenth-century methods of financialization and free trade,” leading to imports of food and “cheap crap” and an exploding trade deficit. The claim is made that Donald Trump is reversing this trend, with tariffs described as a powerful weapon that the global elites hate, and that they are working to rebuild the U.S. manufacturing base and economic independence. Support for this claim includes concrete numbers: in November, 136 new factories were started, along with 78 processing plants and 199 new warehouses. The narrative emphasizes that, beyond physical growth, there is a reawakening of a productive spirit among the population, especially the youth. An example is given from blue Massachusetts, where young people respond to opportunities in vocational training and productive jobs instead of pursuing liberal arts degrees with heavy debt. The speaker also highlights the Trump administration’s broader vision, including a merger between Trump’s Truth Social and TAE Technologies, described as signaling a revolutionary development: cheap, clean, limitless fusion power that could drive the economy forward and propel humanity into the solar system. The broader strategic claim is that, on the eve of 2026—the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of American independence—there is an unprecedented opportunity. Trump is described as dismantling the postwar imperial system, ending perpetual wars, rebuilding American manufacturing, and treating nations as sovereign partners rather than pawns on a chessboard. However, the British establishment is portrayed as resisting this transformation, intending to turn back the clock by leveraging assets in Congress, the media, and intelligence agencies to create chaos and turn Trump supporters against one another. The speaker urges listeners not to fall for it and to keep their eye on the strategic picture.

Putin knew that Ukraine was stealing money we sent them when Biden was in office. Trump will stop that, and the fighting will stop. I stand by my statement that Trump will stop us from throwing money down the drain in a war we have nothing to do with. Their own president said they don't know where half the money went. You're paying off the war machine to prolong this war, and men are dying because of it. That's wrong and Trump will stop it. At the beginning of the war, we were on both sides with gas contracts with Russia and giving money to Ukraine. Putin is responsible for the war. But why isn't there outrage about China's mistreatment of people? Because everything is made in China, and it's all about the dollars.

The speaker claims that America was once rich due to tariffs, which taxed other countries for taking American jobs, similar to China's current policies. They state that in the 1880s, a commission was formed to decide what to do with the excess money generated from tariffs. The speaker asserts that America switched to an income tax system in the early 1900s because other countries pressured America to stop using tariffs, implying these countries controlled American politicians. They contrast this with China's policy of requiring companies to build factories there to sell cars, referencing Elon Musk as an example and praising him.

A 4% tariff on China is insufficient; 400% is necessary because China doesn't abide by WTO rules, steals IP, and can't be litigated against in their courts. A 400% tariff would force China to negotiate and level the playing field. No administration has confronted China, but the Trump administration has. This speaker claims to represent millions of Americans whose IP has been stolen. While acknowledging the Chinese people's contributions, the speaker asserts their government cheats and steals. Xi Jinping's leadership depends on employment, and America, controlling 39% of consumables and 25% of global GDP, holds the leverage. The speaker advocates for immediate 400% tariffs, believing it will compel China to negotiate swiftly.

An individual in China displays a home allegedly containing no US products, then asks if the listener has Chinese products in their home. The speaker suggests Americans should be angry about China getting rich off of them, possibly for the speaker's entire life. The speaker questions anger directed at Trump and Elon Musk, especially in light of Trump's tariffs on China.

The speaker warns of an economic collapse three to four times worse than COVID, driven by a roughly 20% reduction in global energy supply. He notes that under modern modeling, energy is the prerequisite that enables labor, capital, and technology; without energy, GDP falls far more than traditional neoclassical models predict. Key points: - COVID-era lockdowns caused GDP destruction; the coming shock will be three to four times worse, with COVID-style contractions appearing mild in comparison. - A 1% drop in global GDP historically pushes about 40–50 million people worldwide into extreme poverty. A 10% global GDP decline could thrust about 500 million people into extreme poverty (unable to eat, dress, shelter, or pay for basic needs). - The Strait of Hormuz has been effectively shut, reducing oil flow; this is part of a broader energy squeeze impacting global economies. The existing buffer of energy and spare parts will evaporate in a matter of months, worsening supply chains and transportation. - The result will be a global energy shock causing a significant GDP hit (the speaker estimates at least 10% in GDP, possibly 12–14% or more). This is framed as “triple COVID” with numbers centered around a 10%+GDP reduction. - The current U.S. energy advantage is described as temporary; allied economies (Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Australia) will suffer, and Europe faces energy lockdowns as the U.S. allegedly influenced energy geopolitics (including Nord Stream incidents) and the dollar’s role in global energy trade is challenged as BRICS nations move toward other currencies (e.g., yuan). - The collapse is framed as global and systemic: once energy supplies tighten, there will be a cascade of shortages—tires, lubricants, food, housing—and a widening wealth gap between a small entrenched elite and impoverished masses, with the middle class largely disappearing. - Social and political consequences are predicted: increased desperation could lead to uprisings and revolutions in some countries; domestic political upheaval in the U.S. is expected, including talk of impeachment dynamics and shifts in power. - The analysis criticizes neoclassical economics (Cobb-Douglas production function) for treating energy as interchangeable with other inputs; the speaker argues that without energy, you cannot operate the rest of the economy, regardless of labor or capital. - Historical comparisons: the Great Depression saw a 30% GDP contraction; the 2008 Great Financial Crisis caused about 1–2% global GDP reduction; COVID caused about 3% globally. The coming energy shock is argued to exceed these, with an estimated minimum of a 10% GDP reduction. - The audience is urged to prepare by decentralizing, becoming more self-reliant, and developing resilience: own gold and silver, consider privacy-focused crypto, grow food, pay off debts, keep stored diesel, and acquire practical skills to survive long-term systemic breakdowns. - The speaker emphasizes the need to trade with diverse global partners (including China, Russia, Iran) rather than engage in coercive or militaristic policies, arguing that the current path will impoverish the U.S. and hollow out its infrastructure. - A recurring theme is that the American quality of manufacturing and supply chains has declined; examples are given of quality-control failures in U.S. industry (e.g., a John Deere machine with a poorly tightened bolt, poor auto manufacturing standards) and the claim that the U.S. cannot match China’s manufacturing automation and scale in weapons production. The argument is made that the U.S. would struggle to produce effective weapons at scale and that China’s capabilities (drones, hypersonics, robotics) are far ahead. - The discussion ties economic collapse to broader geopolitical shifts, warning that sanctions and aggressive postures will backfire, leading to currency collapse and widespread hardship unless a pivot to peaceful, global trade and internal resilience is adopted. - The message concludes with a practical call to action: take steps to weather the coming period by building self-reliance, acquiring knowledge, and preparing for a prolonged period of economic and societal stress. Throughout, the speakers frame these developments as imminent and systemic, affecting not only economics but also social stability, infrastructure, and daily life. They stress preparedness, self-reliance, and strategic global engagement as the path to mitigating the coming challenges. The content also includes promotional segments about Infowars-related branding and merchandise, which are not part of the core factual points about the economic analysis.