Speaker 1: I have been obsessed with the US versus China story
Speaker 1: for a couple of years now. I don't remember why
Speaker 1: or how it got on my radar, but man, I
Speaker 1: just I just suck up everything I can find about it.
Speaker 1: And we talked to Josh Rogan a while back. There's
Speaker 1: something about COVID and China or something. Anyway, he's got
Speaker 1: a new book out, Chaos under Heaven, Trump g in
Speaker 1: the Battle for the twenty one Century. Josh Rogan is
Speaker 1: the global opinions columnist for the Washington Post, and man,
Speaker 1: some great reviews. I just read the Wall Street Journal
Speaker 1: review on this last night. Is one of the first
Speaker 1: great books on what is going to be the story
Speaker 1: for the next century or more, the US versus China.
Speaker 1: Josh Rogan joins us. Josh, how are you sir, Hey guy,
Speaker 1: it's great to be back with you. Um. Just in general,
Speaker 1: my statement correct that this is maybe the biggest story
Speaker 1: in the world for the next century, US versus China. Yes,
Speaker 1: not only is the US uh China relationship the most
Speaker 1: important biolateral relationship of our lifetime, that's increasingly obvious. It's
Speaker 1: also the biggest story for every country in the world,
Speaker 1: because every country in the world is now suffering through
Speaker 1: a coronavirus pandemic that originated in China. So there are
Speaker 1: seven billion people who are suddenly quite aware of the
Speaker 1: fact that what happens in Beijing doesn't stay in Beijing,
Speaker 1: and that to some degree, and we can debate how
Speaker 1: much the actions and character of the Chinese Communist Party
Speaker 1: affect our lives are national security, our public health, our prosperity,
Speaker 1: and undeniable ways. So that's like an awakening that now
Speaker 1: it's not just you know, certain people in certain everybody
Speaker 1: can agree on that. Now the question is what do
Speaker 1: we do about it? Well, we know the answer to
Speaker 1: this question, But where do you stand on the issue
Speaker 1: of the origin of the coronavirus, the lab leak theory,
Speaker 1: the rest of it. You know, I gotta tell you,
Speaker 1: I was one of the first reporters in April to
Speaker 1: publish about the still unproven but very plausible theory that
Speaker 1: the outbreak was related to a mistake of of these
Speaker 1: Woohan labs. And you know, for over a year I
Speaker 1: was amazed that no one would talk about it, That
Speaker 1: people would talk about it would get insulted and and
Speaker 1: and shouted down, And it was just crazy. And now
Speaker 1: here we are eighteen months after the outbreak and there's
Speaker 1: still been no investigation. And my point is not that
Speaker 1: we know that it came from the lab. My point
Speaker 1: is we have to check it out. In other words,
Speaker 1: we can't rule it out, so we have to check
Speaker 1: it out. It seems like a pretty reasonable and obvious
Speaker 1: thing to say. It's always seemed that way to me,
Speaker 1: But now all of a sudden, the mainstream media and uh,
Speaker 1: different parts of the government, including the Bid administration, are like,
Speaker 1: wait a second, you're telling me that there are a
Speaker 1: bunch of back coronavirus is next to the outbreak that
Speaker 1: we did check out those labs that had all about coronaviruses.
Speaker 1: That's crazy. We should check it out. So I'm not
Speaker 1: saying we know it came from the lab. I'm just
Speaker 1: saying we should probably check it out. We knew a
Speaker 1: lot of media criticism, and so we've talked a lot
Speaker 1: about the you know, whether it was it was important
Speaker 1: to be anti Trump and Trump was pushing the narrative
Speaker 1: or whatever it is in the media. But inside a government,
Speaker 1: that's what's fascinating to me. What was going on to
Speaker 1: your mind inside a government? That was causing some scientists
Speaker 1: to ignore what seems like the most likely cause to
Speaker 1: actively cover it up. And that's right. They absolutely did that,
Speaker 1: and they're there. It's really important because you're right. It
Speaker 1: wasn't just the media that wanted to sort of dismiss
Speaker 1: the Lab League cary because they couldn't. They dodn't want
Speaker 1: Trump to be right about anything, you know, like even
Speaker 1: the broken clock is right quite the day. The guy
Speaker 1: was bound to be right about something, whether you like
Speaker 1: it or not, and the media just couldn't deal with that.
Speaker 1: But if that's the government, you had a couple of
Speaker 1: things going on. One, you had the scientists who were
Speaker 1: the closest to the lab and who were collaborators with
Speaker 1: the Wuhan Institute of Virology and all these other back
Speaker 1: coronavirus labs in China. Uh calling it a conspiracy srey
Speaker 1: to cover their own butts because they didn't want anyone
Speaker 1: to look into the lab because that would mean that
Speaker 1: we were looking into them. In other words, the Lab
Speaker 1: League series doesn't just implicate China, implicates all of our
Speaker 1: scientific collaboration with China, because we built those labs along
Speaker 1: with the French. We gave them this technology. We taught
Speaker 1: them how to play around with viruses, and then they
Speaker 1: built another part of the lab that they didn't tell
Speaker 1: us about, and no one was watching it. And that's
Speaker 1: why the Lablick theory is so sensitive to the scientific
Speaker 1: community in the US because it implicates us. It implicates
Speaker 1: Fauci and Collins and all these guys who were doling
Speaker 1: out the money that is going to these Chinese labs
Speaker 1: that no one was paying attention to. And that relates
Speaker 1: to what was going on inside the government because if
Speaker 1: you're the intelligence community, if you just think about it,
Speaker 1: it's the Lablick theory is true. Well that then that's
Speaker 1: that's bad for them too, because they missed it. Because
Speaker 1: we've spent eighties six billion dollars a year on intelligence
Speaker 1: stuff and zero of it was pointed at this network
Speaker 1: of risky labs doing risky research that was funded by
Speaker 1: US taxpayers. And that's pretty awful if that's true, and
Speaker 1: that's why. And then, of course, you know, the some
Speaker 1: of the intelligence guys didn't like the Trump people and
Speaker 1: they didn't want them to be right either. And you know,
Speaker 1: the media trust of the scientists and the intelligence guys
Speaker 1: trusted the same scientists. So it was like a perfect
Speaker 1: storm of bs and by the time we started to
Speaker 1: figure it out, it was all too late. Do you
Speaker 1: are you willing to call it a cover up? Absolutely well,
Speaker 1: there's several cover ups. There's a first and foremost the
Speaker 1: Chinese Communist Party cover up, which is not just about
Speaker 1: the origins, which is about everything. They covered up the scientists,
Speaker 1: They jailed the whistleblowers. Uh you know, they jailed the journalists.
Speaker 1: They kept all of the science that they had away
Speaker 1: from the Inn. They continue to to this day. They
Speaker 1: won't give us vital information that's could help us in
Speaker 1: a response to the information that they have, while our
Speaker 1: citizens are getting second dye, and not just us, people
Speaker 1: all over the world. That's the first cover up. The
Speaker 1: second cover up is the one by the American scientists
Speaker 1: who are the friends of the lab. And that's all
Speaker 1: being revealed now and all these emails that are getting released.
Speaker 1: But we kind of knew it already. In other words,
Speaker 1: the scientists went around and they wrote all these papers
Speaker 1: in scientific journals that said it's a conspiracy theory if
Speaker 1: you mentioned the lab right me all they were ready
Speaker 1: emails to each other which were like, hey, the one
Speaker 1: might be involved, we should probably check it out. So
Speaker 1: they were telling us one thing and telling themselves a
Speaker 1: completely different thing. That's the nature of the deception. That's
Speaker 1: a that's another cover up right there, You know what
Speaker 1: I mean. So there's two cover ups. Right. What is
Speaker 1: it about the nature of communist systems that gives us
Speaker 1: a chernobyl, that gives us an outbreak of the coronavirus.
Speaker 1: That's a really good question because this sort of very
Speaker 1: floorlates to the overall theme of the book, right, which
Speaker 1: is that what we're dealing with here is a party
Speaker 1: state that's has no moral compunction, that will stup to
Speaker 1: any level and do anything to protect its own political interests,
Speaker 1: which it places above everything else. So, in other words,
Speaker 1: what we have to understand is that first of all,
Speaker 1: the Chinese Comunist Party is not looking out for us
Speaker 1: for certainly right, there's also not looking out necessarily for
Speaker 1: the Chinese people or even China's nation. So looking out
Speaker 1: for the party that means protecting the party. That means
Speaker 1: they will even subject their own people to horrendous stuff
Speaker 1: ring to protect the party. That's how you get a
Speaker 1: cover up like this, That's how you can have a
Speaker 1: worldwide pandemic, and they're just like, no, what screw you,
Speaker 1: We're not gonna tell you anything. What are you gonna
Speaker 1: do about it? That's their attitude, right, which is shocking
Speaker 1: and horrible. Right. The other thing he tells you is
Speaker 1: that you know, when when they're setting up all of
Speaker 1: these engagements with us, whether it be scientific engagement or
Speaker 1: academic or political or trade, they're thinking about how to
Speaker 1: weaponize those engagements against us. So that means like Fauci
Speaker 1: and Collins and all these scientists who are like, how
Speaker 1: could these Chinese researchers do something bad? They're just trying
Speaker 1: to do research, and we're trying to say, see the world,
Speaker 1: and you know that how they wouldn't do that. But
Speaker 1: what these American sizes don't realize is that in their
Speaker 1: system and the CCP system, the scientists don't get to
Speaker 1: make those decisions. It's all controlled by the party, and
Speaker 1: the party will do anything, including let billions of people
Speaker 1: get sick and die, if they think it's in their
Speaker 1: political interests for their time being, and that's exactly what happens.
Speaker 1: The book is Chaos under having Trump. She in the
Speaker 1: Battle for the Century were talking with that Global opinions
Speaker 1: columnist for the Washington Post. So you think the big
Speaker 1: mistake was our scientists trusted the Chinese. Not only did
Speaker 1: we trust, we didn't verify. It's one thing to have
Speaker 1: a collaboration, it's another thing to let it just grow
Speaker 1: into a two million dollar network of labs that no
Speaker 1: one's watching, not the intelligence community, not the scientists, not
Speaker 1: the government. And of course they took that technology and
Speaker 1: built it another side of the lab with their military.
Speaker 1: That's what we now know. That's not a Trump administration
Speaker 1: claim alone. That's what the Biden administration confirmed. We we
Speaker 1: built up a huge virus research industry in China, and
Speaker 1: they took it and then they built another side of
Speaker 1: the lab, those sides we didn't know about with their
Speaker 1: military to do god knows what, okay. And and that's
Speaker 1: that's a perfect recipe for a disaster. And you know, yeah,
Speaker 1: I could say that, like, you know, the American scientists,
Speaker 1: maybe they truly believed that they're Chinese scientists and uh
Speaker 1: wouldn't do that to them. But then they're horrendously naive
Speaker 1: when when the pandemic hit, it was all the people
Speaker 1: who understand China, who knew who knew what the score was,
Speaker 1: and it was the national security people who really understood
Speaker 1: the nature of this ECP who looked at their actions
Speaker 1: instead of course they're lying. Of course they're hiding stuff
Speaker 1: because that's what they did in the Stars epidemic twelve
Speaker 1: years or twenty years prior. They just did it again.
Speaker 1: The problem was the first time it only killed eight
Speaker 1: thousand people. This time he killed three point five million. Accounting.
Speaker 1: When we come back with Josh Rogan, we want to
Speaker 1: talk more specifically about the Battle for the twenty one
Speaker 1: Century Chaos under Heaven Trump she In the Battle for
Speaker 1: the Century being the title of the book, and how
Speaker 1: interesting it is and notable that that that break, that
Speaker 1: pivot to open rivalry took place during the Trump administration
Speaker 1: of all time. So, Josh, if you can hang on,
Speaker 1: we were gonna get right back to it in moments.
Speaker 1: Stay with us. Are if you missed our first segment
Speaker 1: with Josh Rogan about his book Chaos under heavn Trump
Speaker 1: she In the Battle for the twenty one Century, go
Speaker 1: to the podcast at Armstrong and Getty dot com because
Speaker 1: we got in specifically to a lot of the coronavirus
Speaker 1: and the origins and the cover up not just by
Speaker 1: China but by our own damn scientists as to how
Speaker 1: this whole thing started, which is really really troubling. Josh,
Speaker 1: I don't know if you're familiar with the book Hundred
Speaker 1: Year Marathon by Pillsbury. We've we've talked about that book
Speaker 1: a lot, and his argument and he was with the
Speaker 1: Nixon administration is going back to Nixon opening China. China
Speaker 1: has been playing us this entire time, and we thought, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: this is good news. But they knew what they were
Speaker 1: doing all along. Did Trump, in his unique way, uh,
Speaker 1: did he open the eyes of people in America and
Speaker 1: to the world of what China is really up to?
Speaker 1: Do you think? I think the administration did a lot
Speaker 1: of that work, and it was really important. Of course,
Speaker 1: it wasn't all good. Some of it he did in
Speaker 1: a pretty chaotic way. That's why my book is called
Speaker 1: Asked under Heaven. But yeah, I know the book un
Speaker 1: your your Marathon, and Pillsbury is in the in my
Speaker 1: book too. And you know the bottom line is that,
Speaker 1: you know, we had this forty year, fifty year bet
Speaker 1: that if we just engaged the Chinese Communist Party as
Speaker 1: much as possible, and integrated them into our system as
Speaker 1: much as possible, that they would liberalize and become more
Speaker 1: like us, first economically and then politically, and that would
Speaker 1: solve all of our problems, that we could avoid the
Speaker 1: Cold War and all that. Uh. And whether or not
Speaker 1: you think that was a good bet or a bad bet.
Speaker 1: Pillsbury thinks it was a bad bet. Other people say
Speaker 1: that was a reasonable bit to make that time. My
Speaker 1: view is it doesn't really matter. Now. We just have
Speaker 1: to realize that the bet has failed, not because we
Speaker 1: weren't nice about it, not because we weren't good intentions,
Speaker 1: but because China decided to go another way, and especially
Speaker 1: since Hi jing Pin came to power, they're taking China
Speaker 1: in the opposite direction, and they're becoming less liberal and
Speaker 1: more repressive and more aggressive, and then they're also interfering
Speaker 1: in our free and open societies and we can't have that.
Speaker 1: And so now, whether or not you think it was
Speaker 1: good or bad bet, we have to realize that that
Speaker 1: that's over and we have to have a new strategic
Speaker 1: response that I take you, that's what you see the
Speaker 1: Biden administration actually saying very clearly, and that doesn't mean
Speaker 1: we're doing it but at least we're saying it, which
Speaker 1: is the first thing. So that pivot from front of
Speaker 1: me is too openly rivals. It was going to happen,
Speaker 1: It had to happen. Was there something about Trump and
Speaker 1: his personality that that accelerated the timetable? Absolutely? You know,
Speaker 1: the thing about the Trump administration is that they didn't
Speaker 1: care about you know, what were the sort of like
Speaker 1: the rules of Washington. And then those rules of Washington
Speaker 1: constrained US China policy for all this time because the
Speaker 1: China issue was run by the China experts, and they're
Speaker 1: the ones who got us largely into this mess in
Speaker 1: the first place. So it just opened the overton window
Speaker 1: of what was possible inside the government. And then of
Speaker 1: course there were a lot of competitions, and not everybody
Speaker 1: inside the Trump administration agreed on China. You know, people
Speaker 1: like uh, Mike Pompello and Stevenuga totally disagreed. But the
Speaker 1: point is that all new things, all of the new
Speaker 1: things were on the table, and so all of a
Speaker 1: sudden you started to seek confronting China in our schools
Speaker 1: and in our capital markets, and even in Hollywood and
Speaker 1: in the tech industry and I'm not saying it all
Speaker 1: with perfectly. I'm just saying that all of those options
Speaker 1: were now at least being explored, and now that binda
Speaker 1: mistress just trying to step through them to see which
Speaker 1: parts of the Trump China policy they want to keep
Speaker 1: and they want to discard, And they're actually keeping a
Speaker 1: lot more than you would have thought. Right, if that's
Speaker 1: that should be a signed You know that they the
Speaker 1: Biden people who are like hate all the Trump stuff
Speaker 1: on all the other countries. They hate the Trump you know,
Speaker 1: Russia approach, they hate the Trump Iran approach, but on China,
Speaker 1: they're basically continuing most of it. That means though they
Speaker 1: probably saw a lot of it in there that was
Speaker 1: pretty good. Yeah, it's pretty interesting that for all the
Speaker 1: talk in the media and you know, on the campaign
Speaker 1: trail about how awful Trump's approach was, the tariffs are
Speaker 1: still in place. A lot of the stuff still in place.
Speaker 1: Um this far into Biden's presidency, um where I just
Speaker 1: keep thinking that the break is going to come with
Speaker 1: US businesses in China. And it's inevitable too, Like Joe said,
Speaker 1: it was inevitable. We went from friend of these enemies
Speaker 1: at what point, do does the NBA, does Apple? Does
Speaker 1: everybody just have to stop doing business with China? Do
Speaker 1: you think that's coming? Yeah? No, I think the business
Speaker 1: community is still split because I think and I think
Speaker 1: the fight over this inside the Bider administration is still coming.
Speaker 1: Like they haven't appointed a lot of the people in
Speaker 1: like Treasury and these places. Those are the people who
Speaker 1: are gonna push back and say no, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: but you just gotta get rid of the tarifs and
Speaker 1: go back to business to avoid the Cold war whatever
Speaker 1: nonsense they're going to come up with. And so I
Speaker 1: think in the business community, first of all, have the
Speaker 1: companies that are corporate hostages, right, like the Apples and
Speaker 1: the NBA, and they know they've got a problem, right
Speaker 1: They're making money in China, but for how long you know,
Speaker 1: and the squeezes is on, you know what I mean.
Speaker 1: So I think we should actually help those companies not
Speaker 1: get bullied around by the CCP. Uh. Then on the
Speaker 1: other side, there's the financial services companies which are pushing
Speaker 1: for more engagement because there have a corrupt interest in
Speaker 1: getting to this cold wort thing. So if you look
Speaker 1: at the Goldman Saxes and the Bloomberg Barkleys and the
Speaker 1: MSCI and the mortgage Stanleys of the world. Uh, they're
Speaker 1: pumping money into China and taking Chinese money left, hand
Speaker 1: over fist because they're pushing back against this realization that
Speaker 1: we're in this competition. So I think that's a that's
Speaker 1: the problem, actually a problem that we have to be
Speaker 1: really clear eyed about. Oh yeah, well, I think it's
Speaker 1: gonna be like, you know, decoupling with China is gonna
Speaker 1: be like giving up meth heroin and smoking all on
Speaker 1: the same week. I mean, it's gonna be an enormous disruption. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And you know, you have so many American elites on
Speaker 1: both sides, i'le who are thoroughly compromised, who are corrupted,
Speaker 1: who are making money on both ends, and have an
Speaker 1: interest in telling us that their national security threat is
Speaker 1: fake and that it's all just you know, Mike Pompeios,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump cold war nonsense. But you know, uh, to them,
Speaker 1: I would say, well, then you have to accuse the
Speaker 1: Biden administration being part of that too, because they're saying
Speaker 1: that the threat is real. They're saying that we have
Speaker 1: to have some limited decoupling, not total decoupling. But some
Speaker 1: limited the coupling to protect ourselves, so that you know,
Speaker 1: the next time the Chinese Communist Party gets mad about
Speaker 1: a tweet, the entire NBA doesn't suffer. Or the next
Speaker 1: time that there's a pandemic that they don't have all
Speaker 1: their masks, all the masks in the world that they
Speaker 1: hang over our heads. That tell us to shut up
Speaker 1: about the origin of the coronavirus, which is exactly what happened. Josh,
Speaker 1: I want to jam in one more question. Your book
Speaker 1: is Chaos Underhoving Trump she in the Battle for the
Speaker 1: twenty one century? This is short. Is it inevitable that
Speaker 1: China China took Hong Kong? Are they going to take
Speaker 1: take Taiwan? Nothing inevitable, but nothing is inevitable, but the
Speaker 1: thread is rising and not. What I say is that
Speaker 1: the best way to ensure their aggression is to do nothing,
Speaker 1: and that their appetite grows with the eating. And we've
Speaker 1: seen that appeasement doesn't work. So if we don't, if
Speaker 1: we want to avoid them taking Taiwan, then we have
Speaker 1: to stand up for Taiwan. Now. We have to do that. Now.
Speaker 1: I have to support Taiwan war now and I hope
Speaker 1: to find administration will do that. Josh, thanks for your time.
Speaker 1: The great book Chaos under Heaving Trump. She in the
Speaker 1: Battle for the twenty one century. We hope to have
Speaker 1: it on again. That's good stuff right there. Thanks Si Milion,
Speaker 1: great conversation Armstrong and Getty