In a wide-ranging and challenging conversation, Donald Trump's former strategist tells GQ's Ben Schreckinger why the #MeToo movement amazes him, why the Chinese enrage him, and why his secret new venture—a project to "weaponize ideas"—excites him.

Steve Bannon has been thinking big thoughts.

Though he's stayed largely out of sight since the publication of Michael Wolff's Fire and Fury, Bannon has been in high demand in recent weeks. He appeared, behind closed doors, in front of the House Intelligence Committee and is said to have given Robert Mueller some 20 hours of his time as well. What he told them, of course, remains unknown. As does the path ahead for Donald Trump's erstwhile strategist.

These days, he no longer runs Breitbart News, but Bannon remains holed up at the townhouse that once served as its Capitol Hill headquarters, plotting the next stage of his right-wing populist revolution and brooding over the course of human events.

That's where, on a recent Saturday afternoon, I found him—wearing a beige-khaki shirt over an orange polo, the collar down on one side and popped on the other. Amid the clutter sprawled in front of him on the dining room table at Breitbart's townhouse lay two totems of his current thinking. One was a copy of The New York Times, showing coverage of the Women's March protests that greeted the one-year anniversary of Trump's inauguration. He's been studying the movement closely, he explained. The other was a sheet of paper on which he'd sketched a triangle, labeling its vertices China, Persia, and Turkey. Invoking the 1930s and '40s, Bannon told me that he believes the triumvirate is forming a "new Axis," one that he thinks the U.S. and its allies must confront and defeat.

In the wide-ranging conversation we shared, Bannon declined to address the status of his relationship with Trump or with his onetime patrons, Bob and Rebekah Mercer, who have severed ties with him. In fact, when the conversation turned to the Mercers, he cut it off, but not before he had offered a stern defense of his worldview, a reflective perspective on his time in the White House, and a cryptic glimpse of what he's planning to do next.

GQ: You've made it clear that you're concerned about China's rise, and that you want the U.S. to embark on a national project to counter its global influence—something like a new Cold War. Do you have some sort of grudge against China?

Steve Bannon: China has been at economic war with us for a long time, and we're now starting to confront that. President Trump's policies, if fully executed—it already has their attention in a massive way—will start to right the balance.

I'm a Sinophile. I have a great love for China. One of the reasons I joined the United States Navy Pacific Fleet was from a very, very young age in my life, I had a great attraction to Asia.

Really?

Oh yeah, one of the most important things in my life was—for the first time as a Naval officer—pulling into Hong Kong in 1977, ’78. It was a very powerful experience for me. I spent time in China, actually owned companies in China. I've lived for a while in the French Concession in Shanghai. I've studied Chinese history and I love it. I have a very big difference with the regime that runs China. But I have great, great love for the Chinese people.

It's been reported that you've compared the regime to the early stages of Nazi Germany. Is that accurate? Does that reflect your thinking?

John Kennedy wrote Why England Slept about how people were caught by surprise with what the Germans did. Why did America sleep?

If you look at President Xi's nineteenth party speech, and if you actually read it—I keep saying the elites in this country are not serious people; I don't think enough people read it—it's a three-and-a-half-hour speech, and there's no happy talk in the entire speech. If they accomplish in the next five to 10 years [what he described], I think it'll be virtually impossible for us to continue to be a hegemonic power vis-à-vis them. We've been asleep and allowing this to happen.

“The Russians are bad guys. They’re not pilgrims. But I’ve argued from day one that we ought to try to reset the relationship with Russia.”

I know that one of your favorite books is The History of the Peloponnesian War, by Thucydides. When you think about rising and declining powers, are you at all worried about provoking a conflict with China that the U.S. would lose—the so-called Thucydides Trap?

I don't think it has to happen. First off, the whole concept of the rising power and the declining power presupposes that the larger power that's declining continues to decline.

This is the issue when I first took over the campaign. Although the numbers were horrific—down double digits in battleground states—the key number was that 70 percent of the American people thought America was in decline, and they don't want America to be in decline.

The elites in our country are comfortable with America being in decline. That is what's happened since the end of the Soviet Union, right? So the key to Thucydides' Trap is continual decline. Trump's thing is that "America first" revitalizes the United States of America and puts China on notice.

Did you hear the report about Wendi Deng and the counterintelligence concerns about her?

Look, it's a concern. I don't know any of the particulars of Wendi Deng, but China's brought every element of national power to bear on the United States—a lot of things are going to be revealed about this. They've had a massive influence operation in the United States.

What have they been doing in terms of influence operations?

Relationships with politicians, how people are making money. Look at the capital outflows from China. A lot of that goes into real estate and hard assets in the West. That's going to be a very big issue in United States going forward.

This is not bean bag. This is two global powers that are now on a stage. And I quote from the national security memorandum—this is not Steve Bannon—they call China, for the first time, "a strategic competitor" and used the terminology of economic aggression. I didn't see that on the nightly news five nights in a row. They'd rather talk about Stormy Daniels. They'd rather talk about Melania Trump, the First Lady, going to a museum instead of accompanying President Trump to Davos. They'd rather talk about who's up and who's down in the White House mess instead of the most important stuff of the day.

Do you talk to Henry Kissinger much about China? Are you in close touch with him?

I've had several meetings with him. He believes that it's a long-term relationship where you can kind of work together and guide them. And I would say he's an irrational accommodationist, and I don't say that as a derogatory comment. We took a strategic holiday from 1992 to the election of Donald Trump. Great powers can't do that.

You've trashed Francis Fukuyama's view that the world is moving inexorably toward Western-style liberal democracy. Was the late Samuel Huntington right when he argued that geopolitics in the 21st century will be defined by a clash of civilizations?

Absolutely. What we're seeing today is China, Persia, and Turkey—three ancient civilizations—coming together to form a new axis. It's confronting the Christian West and also a big part of Islam that is tied to the West. You're starting to see this form every day like in the 1930s. You're starting to see it crystallize more and more.

Yet you've suggested that the U.S. draw closer to Russia. They're close with Iran. They're getting closer to Turkey. How can they be trusted?

Correct me if I'm wrong, I think the Russian economy is basically the size of the state of New York. The Russians are bad guys. They're not Pilgrims. But I've argued from day one that we ought to try to reset the relationship with Russia. Eventually we have to end the Cold War, right? Clearly, in the highly politicized atmosphere we have now in Washington, D.C., that's not going to happen. Trump says this perfectly all the time. "Hey, we got enough enemies. Why is everybody pushing me to be more belligerent with this guy?"

We're going to have our hands full right now with China, Iran, and Turkey. Turkey's supposed to be an ally.

“The Time’s Up movement [is] basically going against 10,000 years of recorded history. That’s the power of it. You see here something that’s in a very early, raw stage, but I’ve never seen such potential power in something.”

Are you going to make a push to advance this idea of a "new axis"? How do you plan to do that?

Absolutely. In this new entity that I'm setting up, part of it is—weaponizing ideas maybe is too strong a term—but getting ideas out there. One is economic nationalism, one is populism, one is this world that "America first" is coming into. And certainly I'll be arguing this, or just pointing to the facts.

We've talked in the past about the power of Facebook memes as a way to weaponize ideas. Are you planning for this new venture to have a strong social-media component?

Facebook's a very powerful tool. When I talk about building a 10 million man digital-and-analog army, a big part of that is going to have to be social media. It's the way this new movement, Time's Up—or what I call the "anti-patriarchy movement"—is coordinating right now. This movement is using social media just like the Tea Party when it first came about.

So you're studying the Time’s Up movement?

Absolutely. One hundred percent. There are two important movements in this country right now: the populist nationalist movement on the right, and the MeToo movement on the left. Excuse me, not the MeToo. It's the Time's Up movement. MeToo is about sexual predators and everything like that. The Time's Up movement is much more fundamental and actually many steps above MeToo. It's basically going against 10,000 years of recorded history. That's the power of it. You see here something that's in a very early, raw stage, but I've never seen such potential power in something.

Do you view it as politically adversarial to what you're doing?

Yes, absolutely.

Why?

I don't see it as populist in nature. It's something that is more fundamental and more primal, right? Quite powerful. I respect it. I don't agree with it, but I respect it. That's going to become powerful, and I'll tell you why. They had a million people in the streets throughout the nation [for the second Women's March].

This is from The New York Times [motions to a copy of the newspaper sitting on the table]. I was in New York, and one of the reasons I went up there was that I wanted to see this. This is a picture on the cover—that star right there is the Tiffany star at Fifth Avenue and 57th Street. This march was not supposed to go there. They just took over the street.

The headline's even more important: "A Movement's Vast Cadre of Foot Soldiers." A movement's vast cadre of foot soldiers. A movement's vast cadre of foot soldiers.

What I'm hearing is that you respect the power of it, but that you are opposed to it, but you can't articulate why.

I'm opposed to it because it's clearly coming from the left. It's clearly, in part, in reaction to this populist movement, this nationalist movement.

People say, "Oh, Steve, it doesn't have any policies yet." It doesn't need to have policies yet. The Tea Party didn't have policies in its first couple of years, but it was against Obamacare. There's plenty of power in just being against. The Five Star Movement in Italy, it's just against, right?

What I do know is that it's against what I call the patriarchy, it's against the way things have been run for the previous 4,000, 5,000, 10,000 years. It's just opposed to that.

Is it fair to call you pro-patriarchy?

No, I'm not. I'm not. "Pro-patriarchy" is too harsh a term. I just know that this is a resistance to the existing order. Whether the existing order is correct or not is not a thing I want to debate. My issue is the existing order between the elites and the people of this country has to be changed.

You're a leader of an anti-system movement then. You don't see a path of alliance?

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. [Time's Up] is something totally different from the populist movement on the left. I've said this from day one, I've made real outreach to people in that movement—one third, at a minimum, one third of Bernie Sanders's movement can absolutely be part of our movement. These people are strong economic nationalists. And they can help us continue to win states like Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania. I'm trying to make a lot of outreach to those people to make sure that they understand we're in common cause.

But this is something quite different. I don't believe this is nationalistic in its center of gravity, and I'm not so sure it's populist at the end of the day in its center of gravity.

“I have a big problem with foreign nationals coming into the country to be CEOs of companies.”

Anything more you can say about the group that you are planning to launch? Timeline?

It'll be sometime this spring or this summer. It's going to be focused on the promulgation of ideas, the weaponizing of ideas and building and binding together through affiliate groups. Something to counter this [pointing to The New York Times]: I want to put together "a movement's vast cadre of foot soldiers" through a foundation or a [501(c)(4) organization].

In the modern digital age—and [David] Axelrod [Barack Obama's chief strategist] saw this very early on, and we a little bit copied it—there's three things that are important: It's authenticity of candidate. The one thing the Internet has done is blown through phonies. Number two is the importance of actionable ideas. Obama had a series of actionable ideas. Donald Trump had a series of actionable ideas. It's the reason my office was called the war room. Number three is—and this is also an Obama and Trump [characteristic]—a volunteer army of dedicated people.

We know from the studies, the most powerful thing in a digital world—in an isolated world, in a fractured world—is somebody ringing a doorbell and coming up to you and telling you from their heart about a candidate. The most powerful thing to this [women's] movement is not Oprah Winfrey. The most powerful thing is a million people [in the streets] on a Saturday. That's power.

Is there anything you've learned about the nature of power that you couldn't have learned without being on the Trump campaign or without being inside the White House?

No, as somebody that's a student of history, [the experience] just reinforces that human nature doesn't change. You go back and read who's around the throne, you know, in the Roman Republic or in ancient times. You read about power and about human frailty. It doesn't change.

[The experience] did show something that I never could have seen. And that is that the greatest power on earth is not nuclear power, it's not capital. The greatest power on earth is the working men and women in this country. They have a nobility to them. They have a certain power to them.

The elites do not mind if we're on a decline. What is going to save this country is the working class people and the lower middle class people in this country who refuse to accept that America is in decline.

All this talk of working people reminds me of Woody Guthrie. Do you listen to him at all?

Absolutely. Although people today would say, "This Land is Your Land" is a communist song. The populist left have taken it, but it's still one of the most powerful songs written in this country. So I'm a big fan.

What I know you're not a fan of, are the big tech companies, which you've argued should be regulated as utilities, in some cases.

Big tech is out of control, particularly Google, Facebook, and maybe even Amazon. Maybe the companies don't have to be regulated per se, we have to get into that—maybe like the regional Bell companies were [regulated] with state commissions or whatever—but the data has to be held in public trust. People have to have access to it and build entrepreneurial companies.

It's dangerous, this thing with Facebook [changing its news-feed algorithm]. It just shows you the power of an apparatus to shut down dissent, right? And by the way, I'm saying dissent on the left. I mean, I've had so many guys come in and talk to me about starting a Breitbart on the left. They understand now that they need—and do not have—an anti-establishment platform on the left. It's one of the reasons that these guys say that Bernie Sanders movement could not really engage the Clintons and take on the Wall Street ownership of the Democratic Party.

Who's talked to you about that? Who are the guys?

I can't give the names but it's pretty prominent guys associated with progressive causes. They can see that right now that the left does not have an anti-establishment media platform that literally spends its time going after the Democratic Party.

Bernie didn't, really. I don't want to call [the 2016 Democratic primary] a pillow fight, but it was not Breitbart going after John Boehner or Breitbart going after [Eric] Cantor. I always used to tell the guys withdraw the sword and throw away the scabbard.

You haven't seen that on the left, and the populist movement over there is not going to really get itself sorted out until that's done. I've talked to a couple of the people that are deeply involved in this—and we're much more kindred than not.

You've mentioned your unhappiness that there are so many Asian and Indian executives in Silicon Valley. But if the U.S. is going to win any kind of tech race, will it really be done exclusively with white guys from, say, Richmond? Doesn't the country need all hands on deck?

Yes, I do believe you need all hands on deck. When I made that comment, I made that comment about the H1-B visas. I have absolutely no problem with American citizens—if they're American citizens—being heads of companies, regardless of their ethnicity. I have a big problem with foreign nationals coming into the country to be to be CEOs of companies.

We're not going to solve the problems in this country economically until all classes and races get full access to high value-added technology jobs, we shouldn't allow the rest of the world to come and compete for them. I happen to believe that black, hispanic, and white working class kids are just as smart as kids throughout the world. We've got to start worrying about protecting the citizens of this country from the ravages of global wage competition.

And people say, "oh, Bannon, you're keeping out all the geniuses." Well, If they're such geniuses, why is the average salary of an H1-B visa $102,000? Is Isaac Newton getting $102,000? Is Einstein getting $102,000? It's about suppressing wages. I understand why the companies want higher margins. Higher margins mean higher stock prices.

This conversation has been edited and condensed