Speaker 1: Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
Speaker 2: the future of this show.
Speaker 3: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 3: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 3: not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
Speaker 2: you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
Speaker 2: and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 3: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 3: dot com. Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday. We have an
Speaker 3: amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal,
Speaker 3: indeed we do.
Speaker 2: We have a lot that we're going to try to
Speaker 2: get through this morning. So we're taking a look, of course,
Speaker 2: at those tariffs. What are they going to be? They'll
Speaker 2: be instituted tomorrow on quote unquote a liberation day. So
Speaker 2: looking at what we know and what the fallout is
Speaker 2: likely to be, Trump just pardon a whole rash of fraudsters.
Speaker 2: The details are really quite stunning. So we'll get into
Speaker 2: that everybody from hawk to a girl, well, I guess
Speaker 2: you can get a pardon, but her action was no
Speaker 2: charges filed whatever, go to Hunter Biden associate. That one
Speaker 2: is particularly grotesque, so give you all the details there.
Speaker 2: Coffee Zilla is also all over that one. Bibe is
Speaker 2: now saying that their plan for Gaza is Trump's plan
Speaker 2: complete ethnic cleansing. So you know, we are getting some
Speaker 2: clarity about the horrors that will be continue to be
Speaker 2: perpetrated in the Gaza strip. Trump is threatening to bomb Moran,
Speaker 2: so that's cool and great and looking good. I'm taking
Speaker 2: a look at Elon's election lines and what they could mean.
Speaker 2: Fashakiir is going to join us to talk about the
Speaker 2: stop Oligarchy tour and where it may be headed, where
Speaker 2: the Democratic Party may be headed, And we had to
Speaker 2: put this in Elon Baby Mama Drama. Ashley Saint Clair,
Speaker 2: hosts of the video. They're going back and forth on Twitter.
Speaker 2: Laura Lumer's involved, whatever, So we're trying to get that
Speaker 2: in on the end.
Speaker 3: Of Tabloid at the end of the show. I mean, yeah,
Speaker 3: it's just too good, right, folks. We can't look away.
Speaker 3: It's one of those things I saw.
Speaker 2: To the character of the man who's running the country
Speaker 2: right now.
Speaker 3: Say yeah, we could say that. All right, let's go ahead. Oh,
Speaker 3: by the way, Happy April Fool's Day. Isn't this funny?
Speaker 3: You know, when you're a kid, you think April Fools
Speaker 3: Day is like a real thing, and then you become
Speaker 3: an adult and you're like, oh, yes, it's just a
Speaker 3: normal day.
Speaker 1: You gotta go to work.
Speaker 4: Youngest is obsessed with April.
Speaker 1: She loves mystifying.
Speaker 2: For her birthday, she asked for like a whole prank kid. Yeah,
Speaker 2: she loves pranking, like a little harmless stuff, you know.
Speaker 1: I don't know. It's one of those things where.
Speaker 4: Putting a fake snake on the bed.
Speaker 3: Or you become twenty three, you go to work and
Speaker 3: you're like, oh, it's just April First. It's like you
Speaker 3: have to do the water cooler thing and be like,
Speaker 3: have a good day.
Speaker 2: Today, but make sure you are extra aware of what
Speaker 2: sort of news you're being fed today, because people do
Speaker 2: love on Twitter to like make some wild shit up.
Speaker 4: Who will believe it? So be on extra guard today.
Speaker 3: For even April Fools. That's just a normal day on Twitter.
Speaker 3: That's another normal day on E one let's go ahead
Speaker 3: and get to these tariffs. We've got some new announcements
Speaker 3: or indications there from the White House, White House Press
Speaker 3: sectory care our Line Levitt speaking on the topic.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 5: We have another big week. On Wednesday, it will be
Speaker 5: Liberation Day in America, as President Trump has so proudly
Speaker 5: dubbed it. We'll be announcing a tariff plan that will
Speaker 5: roll back the unfair trade practices that have been ripping
Speaker 5: off our country for decades. And I'll let the President
Speaker 5: get into the specifics of the announcement, but he has
Speaker 5: a brilliant team of trade advisors. You have Secretary Besant,
Speaker 5: Secretary Lutnik like that.
Speaker 6: Steere exemptions for farmers and considered for.
Speaker 3: Teriff no exemptions at this time, Liberation Day, no exemptions.
Speaker 3: The line on this has probably changed about fifteen different
Speaker 3: times from the White House. Trump has currently said he
Speaker 3: has settled on Liberation Day on the plan.
Speaker 1: He says, I've settled it.
Speaker 3: Liberation Day means that you will find out tomorrow.
Speaker 1: That's basically what it is.
Speaker 4: We have got several different liberated from our suspense.
Speaker 3: We will be liberated from our suspense. I could mean
Speaker 3: and across the board ring tariff. According to them, it
Speaker 3: could mean reciprocal tariffs. It could be according to him,
Speaker 3: lesser tariffs. It could be every country, it could be
Speaker 3: ten to fifteen countries. Nobody really knows. That's why the
Speaker 3: stock market and all of that is currently in haywire.
Speaker 3: And yesterday stocks were down, then they closed up because
Speaker 3: of some of those comments there from Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: But the point is is that this level.
Speaker 3: Of suspense and people being kept on their toes means
Speaker 3: that no matter what happens, you're going to see a
Speaker 3: major reaction there.
Speaker 2: That That was also the press avail in which she
Speaker 2: announced that they're closing the case.
Speaker 4: I know, true trust on signal gates occur.
Speaker 2: So the brightest minds were convened in you know, Elon's
Speaker 2: doze team got on it. They figured out the great
Speaker 2: mystery of how Jeffrey gold number got into Mike Waltz's phone,
Speaker 2: and there they're moving on.
Speaker 3: I am not yet allowed to reveal some of the
Speaker 3: things that I know about Mike Wallace. One day I
Speaker 3: will be allowed about some of the things that he
Speaker 3: has been saying behind the scenes, and you will not
Speaker 3: believe some of the things and excuses that he has
Speaker 3: come up with, and it goes way beyond Elon's technical
Speaker 3: advisors and the White House getting to the bottom and
Speaker 3: case closed on this.
Speaker 1: It's genuinely some of the stupidest things that I ever
Speaker 1: heard in my life. Not yet allowed to say it,
Speaker 1: but I will get to it one day.
Speaker 4: Tea teas for the future.
Speaker 1: You know, this is the problem with sources.
Speaker 3: They're like, tell you this stuff off the record, and
Speaker 3: it's so juicy, and you're like, come on, dude, let
Speaker 3: me say something, you know, and then they're like, nah,
Speaker 3: you can't do it yet, you gotta wait.
Speaker 1: Et cetera. So we'll get there.
Speaker 3: I'll hammer, I mean, I'll ask if I can actually
Speaker 3: reveal it. Okay, let's go to the next part here.
Speaker 3: This is on the Fox News confronting Caroline Levitt on
Speaker 3: the polling of this.
Speaker 1: Let's take a.
Speaker 7: Listen, and our new Fox News polling shows that people
Speaker 7: perhaps are concerned with how things are going. This is
Speaker 7: as of March fourteenth, Those that say they disapprove fifty
Speaker 7: six percent more than half. Those who approve of the
Speaker 7: president's handling of the economy is at.
Speaker 4: Forty three percent.
Speaker 7: And in that same polling, we asked about the most
Speaker 7: important issue facing the country today, and top of the
Speaker 7: list is inflation, and the economy is nonumber two and jobs.
Speaker 7: Those are first and second. As it goes down to
Speaker 7: political division and preservation of democracy, is the president doing
Speaker 7: enough to answer answer the needs and demands of the
Speaker 7: American voter when it comes to the economy and lowering prices.
Speaker 5: The President and his economic team are working on this
Speaker 5: effort every single day. And the President is not only
Speaker 5: trying to fix the mess created by the previous administrations
Speaker 5: in competence and reckless spending. He is trying to fix
Speaker 5: decades of unfair trade practices that have ripped our country off,
Speaker 5: that have sent jobs overseas and not have forced millions
Speaker 5: of Americans out of their jobs.
Speaker 3: So yeah, look, even Fox and all them, I mean,
Speaker 3: all the polling on this is now like pretty clear
Speaker 3: people are not that happy about it. Let's go and
Speaker 3: put this next up on the screen. This is just
Speaker 3: where the futures are right now. Literally kind of as
Speaker 3: we speak. Yesterday the S and P closed up by
Speaker 3: about point six. Right now it's down by about point six.
Speaker 3: It's like basically flat. As I said, nobody has any
Speaker 3: idea about what's going to happen, which means that it's
Speaker 3: not quote priced in, and it does mean that there's
Speaker 3: going to be a massive correct or could be a
Speaker 3: massive correction, depending on what the policy that he announces
Speaker 3: on Wednesday.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well, and as we've said at nauseum, at this point,
Speaker 2: like even if you wanted to, even if you're like
Speaker 2: a tariff person and you're in favor of some version
Speaker 2: of this, you don't even have like a story to
Speaker 2: tell or anything to defend yet. So tomorrow perhaps all
Speaker 2: will be revealed, maybe or maybe he'll put something on
Speaker 2: and take it off again like he did previously.
Speaker 4: Who knows.
Speaker 2: And I think it was Joe Wisenthal that made this
Speaker 2: point on Twitter yesterday, which is an important one, which
Speaker 2: is some of his explanations for why the terrorifts are
Speaker 2: good are completely contradictory. So, for example, he'll talk about
Speaker 2: how it's, oh, it's going to raise all of this revenue.
Speaker 2: Tariffs are effectively, especially when they're across the board, effectively
Speaker 2: a regressive tax, but oh, they're going to raise all
Speaker 2: of this revenue for the US Treasury and make our
Speaker 2: country super wealthy. But he'll also indicate that, oh, it's
Speaker 2: going to cause all of these jobs to come back,
Speaker 2: and you know we're going to reindustrialize America.
Speaker 4: Well, those two things don't.
Speaker 2: Really fit together because if you're actually reindustrializing, then you're
Speaker 2: not getting the tariffs on the imports. So none of
Speaker 2: it really adds up, not that I really want to
Speaker 2: even overthink it at this point. So so we don't
Speaker 2: actually know what we're truly talking about here. But you know,
Speaker 2: with regard to the politics of this, this is an
Speaker 2: extraordinary situation for Trump where the economy is like his weakest.
Speaker 2: He has a number of issues in which the American
Speaker 2: people are not too happy with what he's been up to,
Speaker 2: but this is probably the biggest political liability for him.
Speaker 2: This is the area where he has turned what used
Speaker 2: to be a strength into one of his greatest weaknesses.
Speaker 2: And the other point that I saw made on Twitter Eshair,
Speaker 2: which I think is a good and important one too,
Speaker 2: is that even just the uncertainty of are they on,
Speaker 2: are they off, what are they doing, et cetera, has
Speaker 2: already caused a freeze in a lot of economic activity. Businesses,
Speaker 2: who are you know, importing a bunch of goods and
Speaker 2: anticipation who.
Speaker 4: Are freezing hiring.
Speaker 2: Even just the uncertainty has an economic impact and takes
Speaker 2: an economic toll as we saw.
Speaker 4: You know, the estimate of.
Speaker 2: GDP in the first quarter was zero point three percent growth,
Speaker 2: which is extremely low. You even see it in some
Speaker 2: things like flight bookings from Canada to the US have
Speaker 2: fallen off like seventy percent. So there's hit to the
Speaker 2: tourism industry as well from the on again, off again
Speaker 2: tariffs and the sort of belligerent attitude visa of e
Speaker 2: Canada and Mexico as well. So you know, there's a
Speaker 2: lot of fallout from this, even before the full tariff
Speaker 2: regime goes into effect.
Speaker 1: Where are they going to go? Winnipeg? All right, they'll
Speaker 1: be back. I'm just sorry Canadians.
Speaker 4: But there's a there's a big world out there. Why
Speaker 4: option a lot of options? Okay, uy to.
Speaker 3: Greenland then since it's so close, Oh actually no, that's
Speaker 3: going to be ours soon.
Speaker 1: I'm joking.
Speaker 3: Coming back to the tariffs, to the tariff conversation, You're
Speaker 3: exactly right, and this is the problem with you and
Speaker 3: I run a business. Somebody's says, hey, you may or
Speaker 3: may not have X amount of money in a month
Speaker 3: and they're like, should we do any hiring?
Speaker 1: No, any hiring?
Speaker 4: Right right?
Speaker 3: This is obviously this is how any normal person who
Speaker 3: runs a business is going to be thinking.
Speaker 1: This is why confidence, planning and all of these other things.
Speaker 3: Yes, even in an uncertain environment, it's never a sure thing,
Speaker 3: but to be able to make decisions, you want to
Speaker 3: have like pretty good information about how things are going
Speaker 3: to go. When you have uncertainty, that causes a pullback.
Speaker 3: That's going to cause lack of spending, perhaps firing. And
Speaker 3: if we do see some major tariffs that go into place,
Speaker 3: there is no question that that's going to cause major reaction.
Speaker 3: What's also interesting is about some of the reaction overseas.
Speaker 3: Let's go and put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 3: Lots being made of this. I'm still actually trying to
Speaker 3: wrap my head around this. So China, Japan, and South
Speaker 3: Korea have announced, according to the Chinese state media, but
Speaker 3: you know, the Japanese and the South Koreans have not
Speaker 3: denied it, have said that they have agreed to respond
Speaker 3: to a US tariff. Agreed to respond to US tariffs,
Speaker 3: an assertion that Soul has said is quote somewhat exaggerated,
Speaker 3: and that.
Speaker 1: Tokyo has downplayed.
Speaker 3: However, it's one of those where they're talking out of
Speaker 3: both sides of their mouth. Now, we shouldn't say this
Speaker 3: is like some full scale, like joint declaration between the
Speaker 3: three countries who all hate each other, if you will
Speaker 3: recall some.
Speaker 1: Of the Asian dynamics.
Speaker 3: But the issue does get to the purpose not only
Speaker 3: of trade and tariffs, but fundamentally about what are we
Speaker 3: trying to do here, And what we're trying to do
Speaker 3: is reciprocal tariffs, which is if they charge us this
Speaker 3: and they charge us that, that I think speaks to
Speaker 3: some basic.
Speaker 1: Level of market fairness.
Speaker 3: The problem is, I keep saying, is that we have
Speaker 3: all these crazy justifications. It's fentanyl. It's not fentanyl. It's cars.
Speaker 3: It's not cars, it's US cars, but some US cars
Speaker 3: are actually made with a ton of foreign parts. You
Speaker 3: have not got to sell America and really the world
Speaker 3: on what is the future going to look like? When
Speaker 3: you have uncertainty, people look in different directions. So is
Speaker 3: this some full scale like realignment against you? No, Japan
Speaker 3: and China are not allying anytime soon to retaliate against
Speaker 3: the United States. But you know, sometimes you know the
Speaker 3: whole enemy of my enemy is my friend thing. The
Speaker 3: Japanese they're ruthless in their trading partners and their own
Speaker 3: terif regime. You can go and look at some of
Speaker 3: the things that they do. How do you think that
Speaker 3: You know, their government has propped up and has made
Speaker 3: their companies some of the most prominent in the entire world.
Speaker 1: It didn't happen by accident.
Speaker 3: So they know you have some sort of existential threat
Speaker 3: or even marginal threat, you know, to their overall bottom line.
Speaker 3: Here with the serfs, they're gonna have to look in
Speaker 3: a different direction. It's going to change their overall calculus
Speaker 3: and relationship with the United States.
Speaker 1: Now, I want to be clear.
Speaker 3: This is often used by neoliberals to say that we
Speaker 3: should never put tariffs on our quote allies, and I
Speaker 3: think that's ridiculous.
Speaker 1: That's not what I'm saying at all.
Speaker 3: But I'm saying you have to have care and a
Speaker 3: plan and actual certainty. This goes for the consumer and
Speaker 3: for other countries as well. And that's my biggest critique
Speaker 3: here of the entire policy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I mean nations around the world be foolish
Speaker 2: not to look at the you know, the way that
Speaker 2: he's handled already, the relationship with Canada and Mexico in particular,
Speaker 2: and all of these threats and there are terrors that
Speaker 2: were put into place, and you know, it's threatening economic
Speaker 2: war against Canada in order to annex them. They would
Speaker 2: be foolish to not look around and go like, okay, well,
Speaker 2: on our own, we don't have any prayer against the
Speaker 2: United States America, which is a giant economy and really
Speaker 2: important to any number of nations around the world.
Speaker 4: On our own, we don't have a prayer.
Speaker 2: We need to figure out some sort of way to
Speaker 2: coordinate to have a chance of, you know, effectively pushing
Speaker 2: back against whatever it is that Hemp has in store
Speaker 2: for us. So it shouldn't be surprising when you see
Speaker 2: conversations like this, and the leaders of these three nations
Speaker 2: just had a meeting and you know, so we don't
Speaker 2: know exactly what was said there, but the indication is
Speaker 2: there's at least somewhat of an opening to coordinating on
Speaker 2: some level. So that is you know, extraordinarily noteworthy here
Speaker 2: in terms of you know, what the what the world
Speaker 2: is going to look like going forward.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, I'm curious to see how it shakes
Speaker 3: out in the future because the South Koreans and the
Speaker 3: Japanese also talked a really big game the first time
Speaker 3: around whenever they were tariffs that would have put into place.
Speaker 3: Trump actually tried to put major tariffs on South Korea
Speaker 3: during the first term. Actually, yours truly wrote an article
Speaker 3: against that because I was like, it's a bad idea.
Speaker 3: We're in this whole thing, with this whole North Korea
Speaker 3: situation right now, why would we exactly want to be,
Speaker 3: you know, having tension here with South are Also the
Speaker 3: thing is about South Korea and Japan. As people know,
Speaker 3: I hate Europe. But here's the thing. The Japanese, the
Speaker 3: South Koreans, they're good allies. They're tremendously economically important and
Speaker 3: biable to the United States. Not the Japanese because they're
Speaker 3: literally constitutionally prohibited, are not allowed to spend on their defense.
Speaker 1: Look at the South Korean defense budget.
Speaker 3: I mean, look also at their like they're not ideologically
Speaker 3: against US. Economically, they're good partners. They're dramatically important to
Speaker 3: the overall US economy, and then broadly in the region
Speaker 3: that is the most important region that's actually increasing its
Speaker 3: overall economic activity. It's population and it's importance to America,
Speaker 3: and it gets probably one fIF teenth the amount of
Speaker 3: care that it deserves here in Washington. Probably not the
Speaker 3: people I would antagonize. At the same time, they certainly
Speaker 3: do have an imbalance in our trading relationship with the
Speaker 3: two Here.
Speaker 1: We're going to turn now to Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: Asked here about what these small scale tariffs and whether
Speaker 3: those were going to be into place. He's downplaying that,
Speaker 3: giving us again some peak into what it might be.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen on the tariffs that you're planning.
Speaker 2: So there are you're expecting to hit something like ten
Speaker 2: to fifteen countries?
Speaker 4: Is that right?
Speaker 8: Oh?
Speaker 9: Well, all of the countries across the board who told you.
Speaker 8: Ten or fifteen country heard that?
Speaker 9: So we heard that you were going to aid seventeen.
Speaker 10: But you didn't hear it from me.
Speaker 9: And so how many countries will be in that initial trunk?
Speaker 10: But you'd start with all countries? So let's see what happened.
Speaker 10: There are many countries. I haven't heard a rumor about
Speaker 10: fifteen countries, ten.
Speaker 4: Or fifteen you've started with all countries.
Speaker 10: Essentially all of the countries that we're talking about wouldn't
Speaker 10: be talking about all countries done and cut off.
Speaker 11: And if you look at the history and you look
Speaker 11: at what's happened to us, you go to certain places,
Speaker 11: go to Asia, and you take a look at every
Speaker 11: single country in Asia, what they've done to the United
Speaker 11: States in trade and by the way, in military, in
Speaker 11: a certain way you look at you would take a
Speaker 11: look at trade with Asia, and I wouldn't say anybody
Speaker 11: is treated as fairly or nicely, but we are.
Speaker 10: Going to treat them. We're gonna be much more generous
Speaker 10: to them in terms of art. We're going to be
Speaker 10: much more generous than they were to us.
Speaker 3: So yeah, you could take that for what you will.
Speaker 3: Let's gohe and put this up there on the screen
Speaker 3: from Jeff Stein. He says Donald Trump is described by
Speaker 3: several poor sources as pushing big with tariffs. He's described
Speaker 3: as a simple universal rate as high as twenty percent,
Speaker 3: described as where of advisors trying to talk him down
Speaker 3: and weaken his trade agenda, which he believes limited the
Speaker 3: tariff impact of his first term. Thinks tariffs are a
Speaker 3: win win for federal revenue and bringing back manufacturing. Is
Speaker 3: thinking of transforming the US economy in terms of decades
Speaker 3: or century, some sources said, rather than the next few months.
Speaker 3: It's one of those where I've said, you know, you
Speaker 3: can make this case. I think you could make a
Speaker 3: probably good case. Many people would stick with you, although
Speaker 3: in our consumer society it might be a little bit difficult.
Speaker 3: But the problem I just keep coming back to is
Speaker 3: just about the communication and the chaotic nature of the
Speaker 3: way that much of this is being put into place
Speaker 3: will significantly pose a major risk, not only to your
Speaker 3: political chances, but let's be honest here. You know, even
Speaker 3: if you do announce some sort of major tariff, what
Speaker 3: confidence would any of us have that that's actually going
Speaker 3: to remain into place? And that gets to that uncertainty
Speaker 3: with a business. If I was a business, I would
Speaker 3: just sit there and.
Speaker 1: Wait it out.
Speaker 3: I'd be like, Okay, shut it down, let's see what
Speaker 3: actually happens. Of course, that'll have, you know, big ramifications,
Speaker 3: but it's probably better than paying some crazy terraff for something,
Speaker 3: especially if you know that it's going to go away
Speaker 3: in a few weeks, or at least if you have
Speaker 3: a relative confidence.
Speaker 2: Yeah, or even waited out like Okay, this guy's going
Speaker 2: to be in office for a few years and then
Speaker 2: we're very likely to get a different president probably, you know,
Speaker 2: and then you know, the regime will completely change again.
Speaker 2: So yeah, we can just wait it out, like put
Speaker 2: our heads down and muddle through the next few years
Speaker 2: and then see what comes down on the other side.
Speaker 2: So I think that's all very possible. Also, we can
Speaker 2: put Joe Wisenthal's piece up on the screen here at
Speaker 2: this A six and a seven. He has eight different
Speaker 2: thoughts about, you know, what these tariffs really mean. And
Speaker 2: one of the things he's pointing to here, liberation is
Speaker 2: in a binary event is kind of what I was
Speaker 2: referring to before. We're already all of the they're on,
Speaker 2: they're off. Here's what we're doing. No, we're not doing that.
Speaker 2: No we're going big. No it's going to be just
Speaker 2: a few countries. All of this has already created problems.
Speaker 2: Let's go to the next piece as well. He also
Speaker 2: talks about the fact that he talks he's making a
Speaker 2: case here that you know, when economies become rich, then
Speaker 2: they're capable of building the most complex things, and so
Speaker 2: if you're trying to go back to reindustrial reindustrialize like
Speaker 2: sort of simpler products, then that might not be the
Speaker 2: direction you want to go in. I don't fully agree
Speaker 2: with that because I do think you know, for me,
Speaker 2: I think there's a targeted tariff approach that is logical
Speaker 2: and is beneficial. We all saw during COVID how detrimental
Speaker 2: it was to our safety, health and security that so
Speaker 2: much of the supply chain was overseas, so that there
Speaker 2: were basic medical supplies we couldn't produce here. You know,
Speaker 2: also in terms of supply chain fragility, like it was
Speaker 2: a disaster. So there is a tariff scheme that I
Speaker 2: would support, but you know, the whole across the board
Speaker 2: situation to me is insane. And then the last point
Speaker 2: that he also makes is that even if your goal
Speaker 2: is reindustrializing, like, these things are very interconnected and it's
Speaker 2: very difficult to game out what impact is going to have. So,
Speaker 2: for example, oil companies have reduced output because they're concerned
Speaker 2: about the price of some of the like electrical components
Speaker 2: that they need in terms of their process. So you know,
Speaker 2: when you're doing this across the board thing, and it's
Speaker 2: not matched with any sort of concerted industrial policy. In fact,
Speaker 2: the government's going the opposite direction of rolling back some
Speaker 2: of the previous industrial policy that was put into place.
Speaker 2: It's also not even clear that you're going to get
Speaker 2: any of the results that you know, are gaming for here.
Speaker 2: Whatever those are not that that's really been spelled out
Speaker 2: by Trump in particular. But you know, if we zoom
Speaker 2: out here, I think that the big picture is, yes,
Speaker 2: there is another potential economic paradigm that Americans could be
Speaker 2: open to that wasn't based around them being consumers of
Speaker 2: a lot of cheap goods from overseas. But if you
Speaker 2: are going to just take away the cheap goods and
Speaker 2: high prices and not offer any other alternative like benefits,
Speaker 2: then no, it's going to be dramatically unpopular. And you're
Speaker 2: also flirting with a stagflation situation in which growth is
Speaker 2: lower zero, you still have high inflation. That really makes
Speaker 2: it difficult for the Fed to do anything because you know,
Speaker 2: if they hike interest rates, then you're lowering growth. Even
Speaker 2: more if they lower interest rates than you are increasing inflation.
Speaker 2: So that's why that situation is so incredibly difficult to
Speaker 2: deal with and so dangerous, and you know is really
Speaker 2: a looming possibility right now.
Speaker 3: Yeah, to retardge this last thing one, Yeah, because I
Speaker 3: really like this argument that he makes. What he's talking
Speaker 3: about in terms of riches is monetary riches, and that
Speaker 3: is what we need to redefine.
Speaker 1: So Joe has a great statistic that I learned.
Speaker 3: Quote one of the most important facts about the world
Speaker 3: is that in the last fifteen years, China has become
Speaker 3: the global manufacturing powerhouse, at the cutting edge of multiple industries.
Speaker 3: But the Shanghai Composite Stock Index is scarcely above where
Speaker 3: it was in two thousand and nine. So, I mean,
Speaker 3: you know what US stocks are up from two thousand
Speaker 3: and nine. I literally don't know off the top.
Speaker 1: Of my head. It's probably hundreds and hundreds of percent.
Speaker 3: Are we richer richer materially than we were in two
Speaker 3: thousand and nine, I would say no, absolutely not. In China,
Speaker 3: I would say, yeah, there are a lot richer in
Speaker 3: terms of they got drone deliveries, They've got the byd
Speaker 3: Jaumi cars, their society and their overall like net growth
Speaker 3: and the quality of life is dramatically increased. I mean, look,
Speaker 3: I'm just gonna sit here it admit it. Go to
Speaker 3: Shenzhen today, Go look at any video, go talk to
Speaker 3: any person, or look at anything in Shenzin in Chung Ching,
Speaker 3: in any of these like major cities, even that you
Speaker 3: wouldn't even necessarily know, like the mid tier cities of China,
Speaker 3: and tell me that they're not living better than we
Speaker 3: are now. Yes, they're living in apartments. Certainly, they don't
Speaker 3: have any crime, it's pretty safe, train goes on time,
Speaker 3: there's you know, I could go on forever. These are
Speaker 3: different models of economic activity. But I think that's the
Speaker 3: point that he's trying to make about riches. We are
Speaker 3: richer in the sense that, yes, the flat screen television
Speaker 3: is much cheaper, fantastic. We are richer in the sense
Speaker 3: that I mean, be honest, this iPhone in my hand,
Speaker 3: is it all that materially different than the iPhone four
Speaker 3: that I bought in twenty ten.
Speaker 1: No, it's just.
Speaker 3: Not, like, be honest, here the camera quality is better,
Speaker 3: and also it's still manufactured in China last time that
Speaker 3: I checked him. That's I think the point that he's
Speaker 3: trying to make about manufacturing and riches, as in the
Speaker 3: definition of riches financially is basically the one that the
Speaker 3: United States has decided to go all in on. He
Speaker 3: even says that he's like the greatest export of the
Speaker 3: United States is US stocks and treasuries. Okay, great, I
Speaker 3: mean you know it's definitely better off for it.
Speaker 9: Right.
Speaker 3: We talk a lot about this in the chips context.
Speaker 3: The chips are all designed here. You know, what does
Speaker 3: that thing say whenever you open your Apple box designed
Speaker 3: in Coopertino, California, Why does it stay designed because it's
Speaker 3: designed here, it's manufactured somewhere else? Tell me you, as
Speaker 3: the power, who's actually materially richer?
Speaker 1: Well, I think it's them.
Speaker 2: Not only that, but those you know, high end design
Speaker 2: and like pushing the tech frontier. It's not like we're
Speaker 2: maintaining our edge there, you know, it's we're at best
Speaker 2: at competitive level with China, and I think increasingly they're
Speaker 2: surpassing us in terms of like the leading edge of transformative,
Speaker 2: future oriented tech is increasingly coming out of China. So
Speaker 2: you know, the bet that we made that we could
Speaker 2: keep this high the sort of like high end like
Speaker 2: a design in Coopertino and keep the low end manufacturing there, Well,
Speaker 2: it turns out if you are the one manufacturing the products,
Speaker 2: and also if you have a government that's been very
Speaker 2: committed to investing in research, investing in technology, trying to
Speaker 2: push their country in that direction, then you know, you
Speaker 2: have a huge advantage in terms of innovating for the future. Meanwhile,
Speaker 2: our companies have grown into these you know, giant monopolies
Speaker 2: in many ways, complacent in many ways, much more focused on,
Speaker 2: you know, how to game the stock market and like
Speaker 2: give themselves stock buybacks and do financial engineering. Then they
Speaker 2: have been on genuine innovation. I don't want to erase
Speaker 2: the genuine innovation that has been going on. You know,
Speaker 2: we obviously have these llms that are leading edge coming
Speaker 2: out of American company, from American investment, et cetera.
Speaker 4: But if you look across the board.
Speaker 2: I mean, certainly in the ev where all China's kicking
Speaker 2: the ass of every American car company, it's not really
Speaker 2: even close. There was a post that was going viral
Speaker 2: on Twitter. Soccer tells me it's a little bit of
Speaker 2: a gimmick, but gives you a sense of like the
Speaker 2: sort of future oriented direction that China's heading in. They
Speaker 2: just issued a commercial license for these like drone quad
Speaker 2: copter taxis, where you can you know, as like a
Speaker 2: consumer hop in this. It's like some Jetson's kind of
Speaker 2: shit that they're contemplating here and meanwhile we're you know,
Speaker 2: like pumping the next talk to a coin or whatever.
Speaker 1: So and I have the stats.
Speaker 3: So since two thousand and nine, the S and P
Speaker 3: five hundred is up, let's see a total return on
Speaker 3: investment of eight hundred and forty one percent. The Shanghai
Speaker 3: Index is up two point two eight percent. But you know,
Speaker 3: be serious, Yes, there are a lot of people out here.
Speaker 3: If you were lucky enough and you've had your four
Speaker 3: one k and all that, I think that's fantastic. But
Speaker 3: you should take a look at what the alternative economic
Speaker 3: model of that is and what it means to be
Speaker 3: actually rich and what that you know, the definition of
Speaker 3: that to me is not just where the S and
Speaker 3: P five hundred is.
Speaker 2: So Trump has gone on a pardoning free of all
Speaker 2: sorts of white collar criminals. We've got here the Nicola
Speaker 2: founder that was that supposed like hydrogen powered truck company,
Speaker 2: Trevor Milton receives a full pardon.
Speaker 4: This was a crazy one.
Speaker 2: Ozy Media co founder Carlos Watson pardon for his finance
Speaker 2: or commuted the sentence of his financial conspiracy case.
Speaker 4: Let's go on to the next one.
Speaker 2: We had some crypto types who also are being let
Speaker 2: off the hook.
Speaker 4: Hawke to a girl.
Speaker 2: You know she's not going to face any charges after
Speaker 2: her pump and dump. This guy, Jason Galanis he had
Speaker 2: his sentence commuted. This is the second New York Post
Speaker 2: says X Hunter Biden business partner partner to receive clemency.
Speaker 2: I dug into this dude, saga. What a loathsome, disgusting
Speaker 2: piece of shit this guy is. He scammed a Native
Speaker 2: American tribe out of sixty million dollars, convinced them to
Speaker 2: issue these sixty million dollars in bonds. According to him,
Speaker 2: used his proximity to the Vice president, Oh Hunter Biden
Speaker 2: or the President Hunter Biden is my associate, etc. To
Speaker 2: build up his own credibility, and then just took the
Speaker 2: proceeds of this bond sale, which he claimed was going
Speaker 2: to be invested in some sort of annuity so that
Speaker 2: this tribe could invest in themselves and do economic development
Speaker 2: for their tribal nation. Instead, he took it and bought
Speaker 2: like a ten million dollar Tribeca apartment, spend eight and
Speaker 2: a half million dollars on Gucci clothes and jewelry and
Speaker 2: this luxurious lifestyle, and also paying back his previous legal
Speaker 2: expenses and his new business ventures and whatever, like just
Speaker 2: a totally disgusting person. However, he from prison testified in
Speaker 2: Republicans like Biden inquiry impeachment thing, and so now he's
Speaker 2: getting let off the hook. The Nicola guy, I don't
Speaker 2: know if you guys remember this story.
Speaker 1: I'm sure you do it I very well.
Speaker 4: Remember they put out.
Speaker 2: This propaganda that supposedly showed their trucks which are like,
Speaker 2: you know, giant like mac truck, tractor trailer things. Supposedly
Speaker 2: showed this you know, driving along. Well it turns out
Speaker 2: they just had it rolling down a hill like it
Speaker 2: was all fake, lie to investors. Total fraudster. So he's
Speaker 2: being let off the hook. In some ways, the Haktua
Speaker 2: girl is like the most sympathetic one because you could
Speaker 2: argue she's just like Domin, didn't know what she was
Speaker 2: really getting into.
Speaker 4: I mean that.
Speaker 2: Compared to the guy who stole the sixty million dollars
Speaker 2: from the tribe, Like, she is the more sympathetic case here.
Speaker 2: And then we have put B three up on the screen.
Speaker 2: There were some other crypto fraudsters. They were basically like
Speaker 2: running a sort of money laundering operation. In blatant defiance
Speaker 2: of US regulations and laws. So these people have also
Speaker 2: been these three Bitmex crypto exchange co founders also.
Speaker 4: Let off the hook.
Speaker 2: It's just absolutely extraordinary. Coffee Zilla has been taking a
Speaker 2: look at some of these cases. This was a video
Speaker 2: that he posted on his void Zilla channels that was
Speaker 2: titled Crime is Legal Part two. Let's take a listen
Speaker 2: to a little bit of that.
Speaker 12: This season of American Crime Is Legal is getting even crazier.
Speaker 9: The hawk to a girl.
Speaker 12: She had her investigation closed obviously because she basically did
Speaker 12: more or.
Speaker 9: Less what the president did.
Speaker 12: Yes, it was a little bit worse, but kinda will
Speaker 12: look bad if you took out somebody for a meme
Speaker 12: going while the president did it.
Speaker 9: But that's sort of your run of the mill stuff.
Speaker 9: You see a lot.
Speaker 12: I wouldn't even be commenting on it, except that we've
Speaker 12: now moved from not just not going after people who've
Speaker 12: done something wrong, but sort of releasing the prisoners from
Speaker 12: our I am talking about Trevor Milton. He's one of
Speaker 12: the og fraudsters of the twenty first century. This guy
Speaker 12: faked a hydrogen truck company, which was caught out by
Speaker 12: Hindenburg research where he rolled a truck down a hill
Speaker 12: and told everyone that it worked. Okay, he got arrested,
Speaker 12: sentenced to four years in prison, but now he won't
Speaker 12: be finishing that because he got an unconditional pardon from
Speaker 12: President Trump.
Speaker 9: So where do we go from here? I think SPF
Speaker 9: is up next.
Speaker 2: And that dude, the Nicola Trump guy had apparently given
Speaker 2: like one point nine million dollars to the Trump campaign
Speaker 2: or to the Trump inauguration or something of that nature.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's just very clear like any Trump associate they.
Speaker 4: Can get it away with whatever.
Speaker 2: It doesn't matter who they scanned, it doesn't matter how egregious,
Speaker 2: they can get away with it. And then meanwhile, you
Speaker 2: know they're charging people who like hurt a tesla with
Speaker 2: terrorism and trying to throw them in prison for twenty years.
Speaker 2: So it's a complete it's the complete and total end
Speaker 2: of even the aspiration that the criminal justice system is
Speaker 2: going to be, you know, sort of like politically neutral
Speaker 2: what well, and.
Speaker 3: Even on white collar crime, like, let's all be honest,
Speaker 3: it's not exactly.
Speaker 1: Like they're working overtime in that department.
Speaker 3: So yeah, I mean, the bar for getting yourself prosecuted for,
Speaker 3: like on a federal level, for white collar it's actually
Speaker 3: very hot. People think it away with so much. People
Speaker 3: think that it's it's not you actually have to go.
Speaker 3: If you look at the federal sentencing guidelines and stuff,
Speaker 3: you need to steal or be responsible for millions of
Speaker 3: dollars before, I mean think about it. It probably costs
Speaker 3: the Feds like a million bucks to even investigate somebody
Speaker 3: and take you to trial. So it's got to be
Speaker 3: pretty high whatever your alleged response, you know, fraud or
Speaker 3: responsibility is here.
Speaker 1: So there's just no earthly reason why any of.
Speaker 3: These people should be part of the Nicolo one is
Speaker 3: absolutely the most egregious one to me. I actually do
Speaker 3: think though that the OZI founder, that Carlos Watson one
Speaker 3: is even more egregious because since we covered the story
Speaker 3: from the very beginning and then looking into it one
Speaker 3: of his business associates, it seems almost one hundred percent
Speaker 3: clear that his associates lobbied Alice Johnson and other like
Speaker 3: black MAGA influencers lobbied. You take that term for what
Speaker 3: you will. I don't have any other more information on it,
Speaker 3: but somebody somewhere got to some of these black Maga influencers,
Speaker 3: and that's how he got himself off.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's stone cold guilty. You can go and
Speaker 1: listen to the tapes.
Speaker 3: We played it here on our show about the fakery
Speaker 3: of that website.
Speaker 4: It was egregious, right he was found guilty.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, he's literally guilty. Like it's did he plead
Speaker 3: or did he?
Speaker 1: Was he convicted?
Speaker 3: I forget regardless. I mean he's admitted guilt here at
Speaker 3: least at some level. And why are we you community?
Speaker 3: It's like, no, he defrauded investors and basically dropped up
Speaker 3: this fake media empire and beyond that, like deceived major
Speaker 3: corporations like YouTube, and they made a mockery of the
Speaker 3: entire thing. Same with these same with these bitmax people.
Speaker 3: I mean it's yeah, like, look, I'll be the first
Speaker 3: here to tell you that the FEDS can overreach, that
Speaker 3: they can prosecute people for political purposes, or they can
Speaker 3: manipulate things and all that I looked into, and I
Speaker 3: definitely know the Nicola.
Speaker 1: Case, you know very well.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there's no there's no out of it, like, there
Speaker 3: is no allegation. And that's actually why a lot of
Speaker 3: these are being announced, not from a White House podium.
Speaker 3: They're just happening, you know, from the desk, and they're
Speaker 3: only being reported after the fact of the communtation. The
Speaker 3: Ross Albert thing was very different. Right, There's a whole
Speaker 3: pr strategy that rolled out for this Carlos I mean,
Speaker 3: we have to learn that from his associates and from others,
Speaker 3: that this guy is getting out of prison.
Speaker 1: You're like, what, yeah, hold on a second.
Speaker 2: Well, Trump got asked about the Nicola ruck guy, and
Speaker 2: he framed it in political terms. He said basically like, oh,
Speaker 2: this guy's crime was supporting Donald J.
Speaker 4: Trump.
Speaker 2: I mean, first of all, he wasn't even until he
Speaker 2: was in trouble, he was not a known at least
Speaker 2: Trump supporter.
Speaker 4: But then once he.
Speaker 2: Saw that, oh my hail Mary, chance to get out
Speaker 2: of these charges and get out of prison is to
Speaker 2: you know, send some money to Trump. And so, you know,
Speaker 2: Trump himself frames it in totally nakedly political terms to
Speaker 2: remind people about the Carlos Watson one. We did cover
Speaker 2: this extensively. Part of what's hilarious is if you go
Speaker 2: and look at this like ozy media, fake channel that
Speaker 2: he had propped up, like it was some you know
Speaker 2: giant media behemoth, and everyone was like, who what, We've
Speaker 2: never heard of this that happened to me. It was
Speaker 2: the most like cringe identity lib type of crimes.
Speaker 3: And remember Hillary spoke at their conference at I actually
Speaker 3: met a guy once and he's like, oh, I work
Speaker 3: at ozy Media. Like what and he was like, yeah,
Speaker 3: you know, we're doing actually really well. And I went,
Speaker 3: I go, I have never heard of this thing once
Speaker 3: and then I banked it. You know, in my mind
Speaker 3: years later this all happens.
Speaker 2: They had all these Remember we went and looked at
Speaker 2: their channel and the views would be like, you know,
Speaker 2: fairly significant and that on some videos. Some videos had
Speaker 2: like no views, and then occasionally you'd have a video
Speaker 2: that had like a very high view count. But then
Speaker 2: you'd go and look, there were almost no likes, there
Speaker 2: were almost no comments.
Speaker 4: It was completely and totally fake.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he bought them from India or some Bangladeshi click fit.
Speaker 1: Is that what I was? I think that's what it was.
Speaker 2: And then what was the most preposterous is he he
Speaker 2: pretended to be a YouTube rep on a call with
Speaker 2: I don't I think it was like Goldman Sacks or
Speaker 2: something like him.
Speaker 3: As associates pretended to be a representative from YouTube with
Speaker 3: the camera off during a meeting while they were pitching,
Speaker 3: you know, basically raised he's.
Speaker 2: Using some i think like voice modifier to try to
Speaker 2: and the Golden Sacks people were like, oh, this is
Speaker 2: really weird. I mean, you just got caught red handed.
Speaker 2: These are not cases that were really close calls. Right again,
Speaker 2: talk to a girl, pump and dump. Apparently pump and
Speaker 2: dumps are just legal now. The President did onel with
Speaker 2: Malania going the you know, Javier Malay whatever, like apparently
Speaker 2: that's just like a thing you can do now, but
Speaker 2: not letting her off the hook. But you know, these
Speaker 2: other ones are just not even remotely close cases.
Speaker 4: And it's just so clear.
Speaker 2: That no matter how much of a live or a
Speaker 2: Hunter Biden associate or whoever that you've been in the past,
Speaker 2: if you can get in Donald Trump's good graces, then
Speaker 2: you can get away with absolutely anything. It is truly
Speaker 2: astonishing and to your point, Sober put before up on
Speaker 2: the screen.
Speaker 4: So this is.
Speaker 2: Really kind of a whole of government effort to let
Speaker 2: a lot of white collar crime and a lot of
Speaker 2: corporate crime go unpunished. You've had the obviously the attack
Speaker 2: on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is like the
Speaker 2: anti scam agency SEC no longer regulating the crypto market nationally.
Speaker 2: Relations Board is once again without a quorum. So if
Speaker 2: you're a worker trying to fight for worker rights, you
Speaker 2: have nowhere to go. And a public citizen has been
Speaker 2: tracking this corporate clemency and apparently a quarter a quarter,
Speaker 2: twenty five percent of all corporate enforcement has been dropped
Speaker 2: at this point.
Speaker 10: Wow.
Speaker 2: So it really is a whole of government effort to
Speaker 2: let more white collar criminals get away with, you know,
Speaker 2: scamming the public and truly doing whatever it is that
Speaker 2: they really want to do.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, I think it's egregious and it is
Speaker 3: just something that's been back to the first Trump administration.
Speaker 3: He pardoned people like or not pardoned, commuted people like
Speaker 3: Michael Milkin.
Speaker 4: The most Jesus.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: And also just so you guys know, if you go
Speaker 3: to the White House, now you know what's right across
Speaker 3: the street, the Milkin Institute, which is just a little
Speaker 3: bit too.
Speaker 1: Perfect for me. Wow.
Speaker 3: Anyway, den a Thief's great book recommendation if you've never
Speaker 3: read it.
Speaker 1: The movie Wall Street was based on.
Speaker 3: Some of the characters that were in there by ib
Speaker 3: Oski and Michael. Michael Milkin is one of the most
Speaker 3: notorious why collar criminals literally of all time. Like he
Speaker 3: was a cut and dry, open insider trader. They had
Speaker 3: him on tape, there was no getting around it. And
Speaker 3: he basically use his gains since then to launder his
Speaker 3: reputation in the public health space and others since then.
Speaker 3: And eventually Rudy Giuliani, who's one of the people who
Speaker 3: prosecuted Milkan, is then the one who gets Trump to
Speaker 3: get him his I think it's his pardon or his
Speaker 3: commutation some years later.
Speaker 1: It was completely insane.
Speaker 4: Well think about it. I mean the Eric Adams situation.
Speaker 1: Well, he hasn't gotten this yet, right.
Speaker 2: They dropped the charges against him. Pressure from DOJ and
Speaker 2: forced them to drop the charges. And remember you had,
Speaker 2: you know, various people are involved that Federal District Court
Speaker 2: who were like, I'm out, like this is latantly immoral, unethical.
Speaker 2: And these were people who were like one of them
Speaker 2: was like a I can't remember which of the conservative
Speaker 2: justices that she had clerked for. She was like, I'm out,
Speaker 2: that's right, this is nakedly political. Yes, and yeah, it
Speaker 2: was the same. He was able to position himself like, oh,
Speaker 2: the deep stays down to give me because I want
Speaker 2: to help Trump on immigration whatever. I mean, it's just
Speaker 2: it's just so obvious. It's just so obvious, and it
Speaker 2: makes a mockery of the Our justice system is flawed
Speaker 2: in a million different ways, there's no doubt about it.
Speaker 2: But again, the aspiration is that it should be neutral, right.
Speaker 2: The aspiration is that you should at least have the
Speaker 2: expectation that it's not just like if I can suck
Speaker 2: up to this person, then I can get away with it,
Speaker 2: and that gone out the way.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean I have spoken against us.
Speaker 3: There is no actually, there is really no reason other
Speaker 3: than the holdover from the monarchical period when this was invented,
Speaker 3: that the president should have such a unilateral pardon and
Speaker 3: clemency power.
Speaker 1: Actually, it's literally nuts.
Speaker 3: It is borrowed at that time from the powers that
Speaker 3: the Czar and that the Kings had. Wow, based on
Speaker 3: the European SYS. So just everyone's away full model of
Speaker 3: where it all comes from.
Speaker 4: Full model.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it makes it makes absolutely no sense.
Speaker 2: So we are now getting confirmation from BB Netanyahu that
Speaker 2: the official plan for the Gaza Strip. You know, we've
Speaker 2: been talking abou oh, what's the plan for the day after?
Speaker 2: From the beginning, some of us have been saying, you know,
Speaker 2: the plan is probably full ethnic cleansing and removal of
Speaker 2: Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and complete reoccupation bb At.
Speaker 2: Netanyahu now confirming that that is in fact the case.
Speaker 2: He says, if your Hebrews a little rusty, or Arabic
Speaker 2: as a little rusty as mine, as Yery says, we
Speaker 2: are ready to discuss the final phase of the war.
Speaker 2: Hamas will lay down its arms, its leaders will be
Speaker 2: allowed to leave. We will take care of security in
Speaker 2: Gaza and implement Trump's voluntary migration plan. This is our plan,
Speaker 2: We're not hiding it, and we're ready to talk about
Speaker 2: it at any time. This, of course, comes amid a
Speaker 2: renewed bombing campaign and ground invasion and complete siege of
Speaker 2: the Gaza Strip. Gaza Strip has already been reduced effectively
Speaker 2: to rubble, according to Trump's envoy there, Steve Witcoff, who
Speaker 2: went and visited Gaza and said there's basically nothing left.
Speaker 2: We continued to get horror stories of the atrocities that
Speaker 2: are being committed there. We also have this, we could
Speaker 2: put this next piece up on the screen more details
Speaker 2: about the systematic use of Palestinians as human shields. Every
Speaker 2: accusation is a confession. This is published in Haretzu, this
Speaker 2: Israeli newspaper says in Gaza, almost every IDF platoon keeps
Speaker 2: a human shield a sub army of Palestinian slaves. May
Speaker 2: go ahead and read this to you this person rights.
Speaker 2: I served in Gaza for nine months, first came across
Speaker 2: these procedures called Mosquito protocol in December twenty twenty three.
Speaker 2: It was only two months into the ground defensive long
Speaker 2: before there was a shortage of dogs from the IDF's
Speaker 2: canine unit who were used for this purpose. This became
Speaker 2: the insane unofficial excuse for this insane unofficial procedure. I
Speaker 2: didn't realize then how ubiquitous using human shields, who we
Speaker 2: refer to as shahwish would become.
Speaker 4: Today.
Speaker 2: Almost every platoon keeps a shawish. No infantry force enters
Speaker 2: a house before a Shawish clears it. This means there
Speaker 2: are four shawishes in a company, twelve in a battalion,
Speaker 2: and at least thirty six in a brigade. We operate
Speaker 2: a sub army of slaves. So this coming directly from
Speaker 2: someone who served in the Gaza Strip in the IDF
Speaker 2: for nine months, Saga. We'd received reports of this before,
Speaker 2: but this speaks to the widespread systematic use of Palestinians
Speaker 2: for this purpose. But wanted to get your reaction to
Speaker 2: what BB is announcing there and saying like, oh, Trump's
Speaker 2: plan to take over Gaza. Yeah, that's our plan. We're
Speaker 2: not hiding it. That's what we're going for. And we
Speaker 2: know that they had actually spoken to some African nations
Speaker 2: about like, hey, will you take these people? And if
Speaker 2: you think that this is going to be quote unquote
Speaker 2: voluntary migration, I mean this is part of what the
Speaker 2: current ste ourvation campaign is designed to compel, to force
Speaker 2: them to have no other choice if they want to live,
Speaker 2: but to leave the Gaza Strip.
Speaker 3: And that's also the issue with the overall US policy
Speaker 3: right now is we explicitly quasi endorsed this from the beginning,
Speaker 3: and so now we own it, and in that way,
Speaker 3: we are now responsible both obviously not only in terms
Speaker 3: of providing weapons, but most importantly in terms of how
Speaker 3: this is going to reshape things in the region. In
Speaker 3: the future, because if you think about our relationship with Jordan,
Speaker 3: with Saudi Arabia, I mean, if we have some grand
Speaker 3: goal in the Middle East, what it is for me,
Speaker 3: it's get the hell out. But you know, I guess
Speaker 3: if we're going to stay is to what is to
Speaker 3: secure peace in this region which is very important petrochemicals
Speaker 3: to the United States. Well, how exactly are we supposed
Speaker 3: to be doing any of this whenever we are explicitly
Speaker 3: backing and then responsible and endorsing this mass expulsion. That's
Speaker 3: why no US government ever, even some of the most
Speaker 3: pro Israel press of all time, have always moved against
Speaker 3: the Israelis and trying to trying to move them away
Speaker 3: from what their obvious goal in this case was. It's
Speaker 3: only Trump was just taking the mask off. I mean
Speaker 3: even Biden tacitly somewhat endorsed it, right, but rhetorically would
Speaker 3: not go all the way there. Trump was just being
Speaker 3: thinking he's smart, being like, oh, we're gonna We're going
Speaker 3: to own the Gaza strip and then also backing effectively
Speaker 3: the mass expulsion. And so when you have that endorsement,
Speaker 3: they will take that and run with it as far
Speaker 3: as they can possibly go and uh, yeah, the ramifications
Speaker 3: for us is disastrous. That human shields thing too. Like
Speaker 3: you said, this is also part of what drives me crazy,
Speaker 3: is uh, there is a thing in the West where
Speaker 3: we're not really allowed to even say these things until
Speaker 3: the Israeli press admits them.
Speaker 1: And then even then, you.
Speaker 4: Know, you wouldn't see that time, see it exactly.
Speaker 3: That is what drives me. You know, this recently happened.
Speaker 3: We haven't had time to put in this New York
Speaker 3: Times report. I'm not sure if you saw it, which
Speaker 3: it's multiple pages long, and it's about the role of
Speaker 3: the Pentagon and the CIA in running the war in Ukraine.
Speaker 3: And I mean, I've been screaming here for three years
Speaker 3: about all this stuff, but it's like you're not allowed
Speaker 3: to admit it until it becomes verified by the New
Speaker 3: York Times. I feel that way in this case as well.
Speaker 3: And yeah, in the Western press and and all of
Speaker 3: our discussion here of the conflict, we just look, we
Speaker 3: don't even pay any attention, and.
Speaker 1: They're writing it in English for all of us to see.
Speaker 1: It's not difficult.
Speaker 3: And this doesn't even mean you have to be some
Speaker 3: Kefia wearing palate. You just have to be like, yeah,
Speaker 3: I don't know, you know, why are we paying for this?
Speaker 3: What exactly are we getting out of this? You can
Speaker 3: even be callous if you want to look at it
Speaker 3: that way. And yet, you know, the media environment here
Speaker 3: is just so propagandized and shaped that Yeah, even the
Speaker 3: quasi liberal institutions are not able. You know, we're about
Speaker 3: to talk about this medics thing. I just saw this
Speaker 3: from Ryan. Ryan flagged that in the New York Times.
Speaker 3: They're like, we can't independently verify these claims. And Ryan's like,
Speaker 3: you guys want to Pulitzer Prize and you don't know
Speaker 3: how to get someone in Gaza on the phone.
Speaker 4: You don't know what are you doing?
Speaker 2: Yeah, he says, yeah, because this is about Red Crescent, Yes,
Speaker 2: which is their equivalent of the Red Cross Red Crescent medics.
Speaker 2: He's like, you can't get the Red Crescent on the phone.
Speaker 4: To I verify.
Speaker 1: I've never met them. I guarantee I could do it.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 2: To your point, Schiel Beneferin, who we have had on
Speaker 2: the show, who is like a self described liberal Zionist,
Speaker 2: he was saying on Twitter, you know, left out of
Speaker 2: this conversation about like the deportations of the protesters and
Speaker 2: the crackdown on descent and.
Speaker 4: All of this stuff.
Speaker 2: Is the fact that and he was someone who was
Speaker 2: critical of the protesters like this was is not a
Speaker 2: kafia wherein Guy right, he was like the protesters were right.
Speaker 2: Israel has behaved in exactly as monstrous a way I'm paraphrasing.
Speaker 2: These aren't exactly his words, and exactly as monstrous away
Speaker 2: as they were depicted, and they were. And that's the thing,
Speaker 2: is like, from the very beginning of this onslaught post
Speaker 2: October seventh, the people who were the most maximalist on lefties,
Speaker 2: kafia wearing people were the most accurate about what the
Speaker 2: goals were and what this would ultimately look like. You
Speaker 2: could listen to them, or you could listen to the settlers,
Speaker 2: the most fanatic zelots about their goals, and that would
Speaker 2: have given you a much better understanding of what the
Speaker 2: goals were and what was likely to unfold than listening
Speaker 2: either to the propagandists in Israel or certainly the propagandist
Speaker 2: here in the US, either from a political class or
Speaker 2: from our media class. But to speak to the incident
Speaker 2: that you're talking about here, there were fifteen Palestinian medics,
Speaker 2: including one UN and employee, who were executed in Gaza.
Speaker 4: And you're talking about fifteen.
Speaker 2: People who were killed one by one, so intentionally killed
Speaker 2: one after another and then buried.
Speaker 4: In a mass grave.
Speaker 2: So at the State Department briefing, whoever this person is,
Speaker 2: this new you know, the equivalent of Matthew Miller of
Speaker 2: this administration, gets asked about this and whether there's going
Speaker 2: to be any sort of accountability for this naked atrocity
Speaker 2: and slaughter intentionally of Paramedics's take a listen to what
Speaker 2: she had to say.
Speaker 13: The UN's Humanitarian Affairs Office has said that fifteen paramedics,
Speaker 13: civil defense and a UN worker were killed, in their words,
Speaker 13: one by one by the idea. They have dug bodies up,
Speaker 13: they said, in the shallow grave that have been gathered up,
Speaker 13: and also vehicles in the sun. Have you got any
Speaker 13: assessment at what might have happened? And given the potential
Speaker 13: use of American weapons, is there any assessment of whether
Speaker 13: or not this complied with international law?
Speaker 8: Well, I can tell you that for too long Hamas
Speaker 8: has abused civilian infrastructure cynically using it to shield themselves.
Speaker 8: Hamas's actions have caused humanitarians to be caught in the crossfire.
Speaker 8: The use of civilians or civilian objects to shield or
Speaker 8: impede military operations is itself a violation of international humanitarian law,
Speaker 8: and of course we expect all parties on the ground
Speaker 8: to comply with international humanitarian law.
Speaker 13: But there's specifically a question on any It's a question
Speaker 13: about accounting and accountability given may have been the use
Speaker 13: of US weapons, So it's a question about the State
Speaker 13: Department rather than Hamas. Is there any actions.
Speaker 8: Well, every single thing that is happening in Gaza is
Speaker 8: happening because of Hamas, every single dynamic.
Speaker 2: Every single thing that is happening in Gaza is happening
Speaker 2: because of Hamas. I mean, it's just like, I mean,
Speaker 2: it's you know, the Biden administration.
Speaker 4: It's not really any different. It's just more it's more.
Speaker 2: Naked, more brazen, like Israel literally has zero agency or
Speaker 2: zero responsibility for any of their actions, which we know
Speaker 2: has decimated the entire Kaza strip killed.
Speaker 4: We don't even have a clue.
Speaker 2: Tens of thousands at the least, women and children, elderly, paramedics, journalists,
Speaker 2: schools are leveled, moss are leveled, I mean, it's just
Speaker 2: on and on and on, and the official stance of
Speaker 2: the State Department is they bear zero responsibility. So they
Speaker 2: could literally nuke the Gaza strip and it's all Hamasa's fault.
Speaker 4: They have no agency for their actions at all.
Speaker 3: But if Russia nukes Ukraine, then all of us have
Speaker 3: to get into you see how this all falls apart.
Speaker 1: It's all preposterous.
Speaker 3: Let's go to the next part here, because honestly, this
Speaker 3: is this is pretty grim. Quote, only three percent of
Speaker 3: Jewish Israelis are quote morally opposed to the Trump Net
Speaker 3: and Yahoo plan to depopulate Gaza. Some fourteen percent consider
Speaker 3: it a distraction. More than eighty percent say they support
Speaker 3: the forced removal from Goza area. That's pretty important, you know.
Speaker 3: You know, this is the other thing that we may underestimate.
Speaker 3: As much as the Israeli press is actually far far
Speaker 3: more honest about their coverage and airing of dissent, we
Speaker 3: should also be real about where the majority of the
Speaker 3: population is. And we should not make the critical mistake
Speaker 3: that Westerners always make, which is pointing to dissident media
Speaker 3: inside of the country and seeing, see this is what
Speaker 3: they're being exposed to, that would be like an outsider
Speaker 3: pointing to Jacobin or something.
Speaker 1: So let's see this is available in America.
Speaker 3: It's like, yeah, it's it's available, but like, that's not
Speaker 3: what people are reading.
Speaker 4: Every day, probably more Americans that read Haraz.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're right, I've spent a lot of time in this.
Speaker 1: You know what they watch, They watch the same.
Speaker 3: Bullshit that we do, which is their stupid cable news,
Speaker 3: their equivalent to Fox News. And yeah, their equivalent of
Speaker 3: Fox News very different than Horetes, which we've played some
Speaker 3: of the clips here, but you have to translate from Hebrew,
Speaker 3: so it's more difficult for us to understand.
Speaker 1: But you ever go there, I can guarantee you they
Speaker 1: love TV.
Speaker 3: Israelis actually love the news in the same way that
Speaker 3: I guess we do, you know, in terms of our
Speaker 3: addiction to cable television. And I can tell you the
Speaker 3: cable TV over there very different than what you're reading
Speaker 3: in Horetes or Times of Israel.
Speaker 2: Ahead and move on to this next piece with SOCCA.
Speaker 2: I know you have taken great interest in Solicans.
Speaker 1: It's just a little too per.
Speaker 4: It's two on the nose.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Republicans have of course been very upset and opposed
Speaker 2: to DEI and critical race theory and ibramex Kendy's whole
Speaker 2: are like whole ideological archetype of You can't just be
Speaker 2: not racist, you have to be anti anti racist.
Speaker 1: It is not enough to be just not racist. You
Speaker 1: have to be anti racist.
Speaker 4: Yes, there we go.
Speaker 2: So some of this language, though, when it's about Israel,
Speaker 2: suddenly is being received with open arms from the what
Speaker 2: Dave Smith is called.
Speaker 4: The woke right.
Speaker 2: Let's go ahead and take a listen to this rabbi
Speaker 2: who was brought by Republicans to testify about the you know,
Speaker 2: the scourge of anti Semitism across the country.
Speaker 4: Take a listen to this.
Speaker 14: Anti Semitism is not just an angel prejudice. It is
Speaker 14: a temporary crisis manifesting on campuses across the nation. It
Speaker 14: is not enough for individuals institutions to merely claim they
Speaker 14: are not anti Semitic. As my father once taught me,
Speaker 14: it is not enough for people, especially public figures, to
Speaker 14: be neutral or not be anti semitic. One must be
Speaker 14: anti anti Semitic. We must demand the same of our
Speaker 14: universities and government institutions. This hearing, in my opinion, is
Speaker 14: an attempt to be just that anti anti Semitic.
Speaker 3: We need anti anti semitism. I mean, it's beyond parody. Also,
Speaker 3: I went and I checked the tape that witness was introduced,
Speaker 3: specifically by Senator Bill Cassidy, Republican of Louisiana. Took me
Speaker 3: about two minutes to find tweets of his railing against
Speaker 3: critical race theory. So anyway, there you go. And it's
Speaker 3: a little bit too on the nose, isn't it, Because
Speaker 3: what this shows us is that the DEI the I
Speaker 3: now stands for Israel. We've relessed, we have left in
Speaker 3: illusion off and we've put Israel in from affirmative action
Speaker 3: in the state of Florida to the fact that we
Speaker 3: are literally deporting people who are here legally and have
Speaker 3: done nothing else other than pen and opinion and tell
Speaker 3: them to leave because of their opinion on a foreign country.
Speaker 1: We're open, we're spending.
Speaker 3: I was thinking about that too, and I yes, I
Speaker 3: understand that it's not just about money, but you do
Speaker 3: need to think that if the government is discrete resources,
Speaker 3: why are there five or six agents. Do you know
Speaker 3: how much it costs, you know, just to even employ
Speaker 3: all of them, and to go and then to arrest
Speaker 3: this lady and then put her on a plane to Louisiana.
Speaker 1: Like that's what you do for like actual criminals.
Speaker 3: Here, we're doing it for somebody who rode in op
Speaker 3: ed against funding Israel.
Speaker 4: That's right?
Speaker 9: And what are we doing?
Speaker 2: And to your point, yeah, like for people who are
Speaker 2: on board with the mass deportation plan, I would expect
Speaker 2: you wouldn't want to prioritize actual criminals. We know there's
Speaker 2: a lot how about that, we know there's a limited
Speaker 2: amount of resources, and instead you've got, you know, five six,
Speaker 2: a whole mob of these plane closed mass officers waiting
Speaker 2: for someone to like, you know, step out to break
Speaker 2: their sath with their friends because she committed a thought crime.
Speaker 2: And it's not just our you know, it's hundreds of
Speaker 2: students at this point who have been flag for deportation,
Speaker 2: some of which have gotten this same like you know,
Speaker 2: mass response flown down to Louisiana or transferred to Texas,
Speaker 2: et cetera. And as we've said before, it doesn't stop
Speaker 2: with the students either. It does not I mean with
Speaker 2: the immigrants either or even with the students. You know,
Speaker 2: they are talking about pro palestimee protests as being in
Speaker 2: favor of terrorism. That has implications in terms of criminalizing
Speaker 2: anyone who participates in those protests. They're using this as
Speaker 2: a cudgel in order to enforce compliance and conformity at universities.
Speaker 2: They've threatened sixty different universities with repercussions if they don't,
Speaker 2: you know, do whatever the administration wants them to do.
Speaker 2: And you know, basically they are using this framework to
Speaker 2: as a cudgel to go against institutions and people that
Speaker 2: they consider to be their political adversaries. I mean, I
Speaker 2: think pro Palestine just basically stands in for like the left,
Speaker 2: you know, universities who they think fostered anti Semitism or
Speaker 2: didn't do enough or whatever, like these are their ideological adversaries,
Speaker 2: and so they're using this framework that was sort of
Speaker 2: laying around That's what I talked about in my monologue
Speaker 2: yesterday in order to This is way beyond any of
Speaker 2: the worst of the like cancel culture epidemic on the
Speaker 2: left because of the way that the state is aggressively
Speaker 2: enforcing these speech codes to actually punish and deport people.
Speaker 3: Yet to bring it back to anti racism for anybody
Speaker 3: who suffered through Ibraheim Kendy's books. What he proposes is
Speaker 3: actually a Department of Anti Racism, which would effectively do
Speaker 3: stuff like this but on behalf of critical race theory.
Speaker 3: So it's worse because they've actually not only replaced the
Speaker 3: I and DEI for Israel, but then they're actually using
Speaker 3: the government for those purposes. And you know, you were
Speaker 3: talking about some of that action. So I'm not sure
Speaker 3: if you saw it. Just yesterday Princeton University or last
Speaker 3: night Prince University and Harvard University have had their funding
Speaker 3: put on pause over the anti Semitism initiative. Now, look,
Speaker 3: if we were doing that to actually like blow these
Speaker 3: people up and you know, make it so that these
Speaker 3: elite institutions not only are not only like bilking people
Speaker 3: for literally hundreds of thousands of dollars, ripping off the
Speaker 3: American taxpayer, I wouldn't be fine with it because I
Speaker 3: still wouldn't want to use anti semences as a pretext.
Speaker 1: But I'd say whatever.
Speaker 3: But look at what they actually extracted from Columbia University
Speaker 3: is what the ability to expel like students for protesting
Speaker 3: on behalf of Palestine and then replaced the middle Eastern
Speaker 3: Studies Department. To what benefit is that to me is
Speaker 3: the American taxpayer or to the student. That's not the point.
Speaker 3: That's not why people hate higher education. You know, there
Speaker 3: are many many reasons. Actually, I was just looking yesterday
Speaker 3: Harvard admitted less people and it's class of twenty twenty
Speaker 3: three than it did in the class of like nineteen
Speaker 3: eighty two, even though the United States has grown by
Speaker 3: about one hundred million people or so that far.
Speaker 1: Do you know why they do that?
Speaker 3: Exclusivity to be able to charge more And that's a crime,
Speaker 3: in my opinion, you know, really to artificially restrict her
Speaker 3: class size to try and bilk as many people as
Speaker 3: possible and also use your reputation to basically steal money
Speaker 3: from people who are applying to you, even though the
Speaker 3: odds and all that have dropped.
Speaker 1: We could talk about that in a much more equitable way.
Speaker 3: Why are we doing it on behalf of quote anti Semitism,
Speaker 3: which is one of the fakest panics that has struck
Speaker 3: the United States here now in the last decade. This
Speaker 3: is probably akin similarly to the I would say, like
Speaker 3: you said, the woke cancel culture stuff, me too, et cetera.
Speaker 3: That happened in the mid two thousands, except this one
Speaker 3: now has the arm of the state behind it, which
Speaker 3: obviously makes it worse. Yeah, it's just preposterous. And then
Speaker 3: same thing. Look, yes, it's great to see Matt Walsh
Speaker 3: be like, oh this is bad, and a few other
Speaker 3: right wing influencers. It's like, yeah, that's nice, but where's
Speaker 3: the members of Congress, Where's you know, the people in power,
Speaker 3: who's why are people not you know, pointing to this. This
Speaker 3: was a witness who was invited by the Republicans to testify,
Speaker 3: like and nobody sees the contradiction and the fact that
Speaker 3: you know, this person even gets to be able to witness,
Speaker 3: you know, to be in the opening statement, which is
Speaker 3: obviously submitted for the record and cleared with all of
Speaker 3: these staffers, that it didn't even enter their mind shows
Speaker 3: you the level of hypocrisy.
Speaker 1: That we've now reached.
Speaker 4: Very true, very well, it's bad.
Speaker 3: It's I mean, it's not just bad, it's horrific, because
Speaker 3: they really are My only hope is and I think
Speaker 3: I said this in your monologue is now our eyes
Speaker 3: are open.
Speaker 1: I think the world's eyes are open.
Speaker 3: The polling data indicates this on behalf of Israel and
Speaker 3: of US attitudes towards them. And there are a lot
Speaker 3: of people who have can no longer be silenced for
Speaker 3: quote noticing, and Tim Dillon one of those people.
Speaker 1: So why don't we take a listen to that?
Speaker 8: Yep?
Speaker 6: Is this being done from America for Israel? I mean,
Speaker 6: this is a fair question. Is the United States government
Speaker 6: now just taking edicts and orders from Israel? Is this
Speaker 6: what people voted for when they elected Trump is to
Speaker 6: have a country taking orders from Israel?
Speaker 1: I don't think so.
Speaker 3: So you know, I respect him, and you know what
Speaker 3: I like about that is we can sit here and
Speaker 3: talk about this stuff all day long, but that being
Speaker 3: in the bro sphere, that's a good thing.
Speaker 1: That's in that positive And that's what I mean.
Speaker 3: People are gonna notice, and yes, a lot of the
Speaker 3: bad is being done, and I'm not downplaying any of that,
Speaker 3: but I do think that things are going to shake
Speaker 3: out very differently than the pro Israel lobby.
Speaker 1: Thanks right now.
Speaker 4: I don't know, Sorr.
Speaker 3: We'll see, we'll see, But too, I mean, what the
Speaker 3: country will survive now, Like we're going to continue ten years,
Speaker 3: fifteen years from now, People who grow up in this era,
Speaker 3: are going to be like me growing up during the
Speaker 3: war in Iraq. And you're gonna tell them, come to
Speaker 3: me and tell me smoking gun is going to be
Speaker 3: a mushroom cloud.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna laugh in your face, right, That's what's going
Speaker 1: to happen.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, it's just it's part of a it's
Speaker 2: part of a broader project, right, and it's part of
Speaker 2: a broader project specific with regard to education in universities
Speaker 2: in particular. I mean, this is like you know, Trump's
Speaker 2: executive Order on quote unquote patriot patriotic education. You know,
Speaker 2: they want to have leverage over these universities to control
Speaker 2: the type of education that you know, the students who
Speaker 2: Harvard and Yale and all these institutions are very powerful.
Speaker 4: Those are the people who end up in power.
Speaker 2: They want to use this cudgel in order to enforce
Speaker 2: compliance across you know, this is this is sort of
Speaker 2: the tip of the spear. And then it's the same
Speaker 2: thing with the you know, the warrant CRT and DEI
Speaker 2: and I have my own issues with those ideologies, et cetera,
Speaker 2: but there's a concerted effort to teach a sanitized version
Speaker 2: of history, and this is part of the cudgel that
Speaker 2: is that is being used to effectuate that broader outcome,
Speaker 2: because they do see these universities as an alternative power center.
Speaker 2: And so you know, this is something and are a
Speaker 2: sort of ideological architecture that has been supported both by
Speaker 2: liberals like Joe Biden and most of the elected Democratic
Speaker 2: political leaders and much of the media New York Times,
Speaker 2: et cetera. And so it's the easiest way for them
Speaker 2: to really push that project. But I don't think that
Speaker 2: it stands alone. It's part of a broader project.
Speaker 1: Definitely is in an I guestion.
Speaker 3: So the difference then between you and me is, yeah,
Speaker 3: I have no problem withholding funding from Harvard from any
Speaker 3: of these other people for propping up DEI or teaching
Speaker 3: for critical race theory, because that concerns our country.
Speaker 1: I do have a big problem with.
Speaker 4: Which I mean. But the idea of intellectual freedom.
Speaker 2: Is like lists, it's agree with you, but like if you,
Speaker 2: you know, want to teach.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah, you're welcome to.
Speaker 3: You have a fifty billion dollar endowment that you can
Speaker 3: draw down every day. Me is the American taxpayer, and
Speaker 3: others we can vote to withhold our funding from said
Speaker 3: institutions now, and I think that's a pretty fair, pretty
Speaker 3: fair rebuttal.
Speaker 2: I think there's the that's actually fair in that the universities,
Speaker 2: I mean Harvard and certainly Yale and these other Ivy
Speaker 2: League institutions, they have the endowments where we talked about
Speaker 2: with Columbia, like, they don't actually need the four hundre
Speaker 2: million dollars. They could fill in that gap. It wouldn't
Speaker 2: be a problem. These endowments have become so massive and
Speaker 2: they're like a business in and of themselves. But not
Speaker 2: many universities do not fall into that category, right, and
Speaker 2: they're actually the ones that are most vulnerable, which is
Speaker 2: why it's so disheartening to see the Harvard's and the
Speaker 2: Colombia's and the Ivy League institutions, which are in a
Speaker 2: position to actually stand up for intellectual freedom, you know,
Speaker 2: and their own integrity. It's completely capitulating in the face
Speaker 2: of this assault.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 3: See, the thing is public education by default, if it's
Speaker 3: going to be funded by the public, then of course
Speaker 3: we get to say. The idea that you should have
Speaker 3: intellectual freedom at a quote public university is preposterous because
Speaker 3: public education is for the purpose of quote educating the
Speaker 3: public based on the payer right, So we.
Speaker 2: Don't we want a public that's educated like about you know,
Speaker 2: the educate raducated toy and Jim Crow.
Speaker 1: Educated to what end?
Speaker 3: The purpose of public education is to benefit the American
Speaker 3: taxpayer by having people who are skilled it's curious or
Speaker 3: whatever I mean, and to become a better Sitzan.
Speaker 1: But there's also like an economic benefit to this.
Speaker 2: So you don't think that public universities there should be
Speaker 2: like intellectual freedom of public university.
Speaker 4: I mean it is also not a public university.
Speaker 1: Under that argument. Yeah, I agree with you, and that's
Speaker 1: what I'm trying to say.
Speaker 3: Though, is it at a state level, Like if the
Speaker 3: state of Massachusetts, if they had a literal white power curriculum,
Speaker 3: do you think that would be acceptable? I would say
Speaker 3: absolutely not the state of Massachusetts at the University of Massachusetts,
Speaker 3: if they those taxpayers voted to say that that's not
Speaker 3: in line with what we want to teach our schools.
Speaker 1: Be my guest, it's your university. You guys are the
Speaker 1: ones who funded.
Speaker 2: And so you think that teaching about you know, the
Speaker 2: scourge of slavery and let's say are you known side
Speaker 2: against Native Americans is forever is equivalent to a white
Speaker 2: power seminar.
Speaker 3: Well, I think that if you're going to teach it
Speaker 3: in such a way like the sixteen nineteen project did,
Speaker 3: which was also funded and then used of some of
Speaker 3: these elite universities, to say America is a revically racist,
Speaker 3: then what are we all doing here? I mean, there's
Speaker 3: no point, you know, to this entire thing. So this
Speaker 3: is the problem, is you think one is justifiable and not.
Speaker 3: I'm making a point about academic freedom, which is genuinely
Speaker 3: value neutral. So if the taxpayer and the public broadly
Speaker 3: mostly agrees with me about critical race theory and DEI,
Speaker 3: and yes, they should be able to and that's what
Speaker 3: you say, Joe's universities should not be allowed to do
Speaker 3: this with our dollars.
Speaker 2: You know, that's actually not even true though, that the
Speaker 2: taxpayer in the country agrees with you about DEI. But
Speaker 2: I think we can all recognize that there are some
Speaker 2: intellectual inquiries that are worthy of debate, you know, to
Speaker 2: take it out of race, like, some intellectual inquiries that
Speaker 2: are worthy of debate, and some which are only add
Speaker 2: confusion to the debate. So, for example, it wouldn't be like,
Speaker 2: you know, worthy ofdemic freedom to have some flat earther
Speaker 2: there trying to make their case, et cetera. But to
Speaker 2: have people who you know, see race as a central
Speaker 2: component of our nation's history, and you know, teach courses
Speaker 2: on that, teach courses on you know, gender studies has
Speaker 2: been a big target. I would say that understanding the
Speaker 2: dynamics of our genders and our differences has perhaps never
Speaker 2: been more important. There's a lot that we could learn
Speaker 2: from there. I think that that is completely within.
Speaker 4: The bounds finding taught at a school.
Speaker 2: And certainly represents the sort of academic freedom that the right,
Speaker 2: you know, really like obsessed over during when you know,
Speaker 2: during the Biden administration and previously, so you know, to
Speaker 2: enforce this sort of conformity and like you have to
Speaker 2: learn quote unquote patriotic history that doesn't ever cast the
Speaker 2: America in a negative light. I mean, that's what they're
Speaker 2: going for here, and they're using anti Semitism as a
Speaker 2: cudgel in order to help bring these universities to hear
Speaker 2: so that they're only teaching the versions of American history
Speaker 2: that are approved by this particular rognment.
Speaker 3: If you want to put your kid into some howard
Speaker 3: zin university, that's your right. You know, you can go
Speaker 3: to some private university. But if public funded universities by
Speaker 3: the taxpayer obviously have a right not only in the
Speaker 3: say on the curriculum, but and to be paying forward
Speaker 3: to propping up said departments which are genuinely one hundred
Speaker 3: percent funded by them and not some major endowment.
Speaker 1: I genuinely couldn't disagree more.
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't really understand then, your opposition to
Speaker 2: what they're doing with antisemity.
Speaker 1: Because we're doing it on behalf of this is But know.
Speaker 2: What they would say is that this is our foreign policy.
Speaker 2: This is our This is the argument Marko Rubio and
Speaker 2: others make. This is our national security, This is our
Speaker 2: foreign policy. We want our tax dollars to go to
Speaker 2: further our national interest as American citizens, and part of
Speaker 2: our interest is in combating anti Semitism and bolstering our
Speaker 2: ally Israel in the Middle East.
Speaker 4: So what's your issue with what they're doing?
Speaker 1: No, that's my point is that I completely disagree with that.
Speaker 3: But I'm saying, I mean, do you really do you
Speaker 3: really believe in a principle where the taxpayer has no
Speaker 3: say on the academic input or the academic environment that
Speaker 3: they're going to fund.
Speaker 2: I believe that we should have academic freedom and intellectual exploration.
Speaker 1: And the white powers.
Speaker 4: I already I.
Speaker 2: Already explained that there are certain things that are do
Speaker 2: not add to the academic or intellectual sire.
Speaker 1: Who's setting the standard the demon society does. Yes, that's right.
Speaker 2: Exactly, society input. Society thinks it's important. They don't agree
Speaker 2: with you on DEEI. By the way, they don't even
Speaker 2: agree with me on DEEI. Society is in favor of
Speaker 2: knowing the facts about our history, even the ugly facts
Speaker 2: about our history. And I think it's incredibly important that
Speaker 2: we be able to learn.
Speaker 4: And you're a history guy. You know more about the
Speaker 4: stuff than I do.
Speaker 1: Socer, that's my point, And it was important for.
Speaker 4: Your own intellectual development to know the truth.
Speaker 2: About those past horrors, whether it's Jim Crow or whether
Speaker 2: it's slavery, or whether it was what was done to
Speaker 2: Native American people on these lands. That's not to say like, oh,
Speaker 2: you have to live with that shame and guilda this
Speaker 2: is you know what the right always says.
Speaker 4: But yeah, you.
Speaker 2: Want to learn from the past, you to learn from
Speaker 2: the mistakes so we don't repeat them again in the future.
Speaker 2: And that's what's under assault here with this onslaught against universities.
Speaker 2: They want to bring them to heal so that only
Speaker 2: the quote unquote, the sanitized quote unquote patriotic version of
Speaker 2: history that is not honest about the warts and the
Speaker 2: truth of you know, things that our country has been in.
Speaker 3: I would say to see curriculum for which you're describing
Speaker 3: that as because I think, go look at.
Speaker 4: What Pregger he was putting out, Go look at the.
Speaker 1: Curriculum Florida University.
Speaker 2: They used that for curriculums in places like Florida as
Speaker 2: part of this patriotic education push.
Speaker 4: This is the broader project. And so if you don't
Speaker 4: see the way.
Speaker 2: That this anti Semitism thing is being used as a
Speaker 2: cudgel to enforce a broader bringing to heal of these universities,
Speaker 2: like that is just one plank of the plan here,
Speaker 2: That is the tip of the spear. But the broader
Speaker 2: plan is to completely bring these universities to heal and
Speaker 2: make them comply with whatever sanitized history that this particular.
Speaker 3: Administration is yours quote quote sanitized history the other quote,
Speaker 3: true history is one where we just sit there and
Speaker 3: we're supposed to be like, oh, and these are all
Speaker 3: the most horrible things about America. You know, my education
Speaker 3: in Texas was terrible. And it wasn't because it was woke.
Speaker 3: It was genuinely just not Actually it had one inch depth,
Speaker 3: of which ninety nine percent of the US population will
Speaker 3: ever actually read below. The vast majority of what I've
Speaker 3: learned has been reading on myself. And what I have
Speaker 3: learned is what is that there is deep complexity to
Speaker 3: the issue, and that with Jim Crow, and with the
Speaker 3: slavery and the South, and the debates at the US
Speaker 3: Constitutional Convention during the Civil War and more, we're not
Speaker 3: often all pure and heroic in the way.
Speaker 1: That we like to learn or all that evil.
Speaker 3: Is that there was a deep amount of gray area
Speaker 3: in that time, and that actually the story of how
Speaker 3: we were able to emerge today to a much more
Speaker 3: equal society, not yet of where we are is remarkable
Speaker 3: and is one in which we should absolutely study and
Speaker 3: I think we should celebrate now. I think critical race
Speaker 3: theory what it does is invert that on its head,
Speaker 3: and to say no, actually, where we are today is
Speaker 3: an immense failure and we didn't get there, and this
Speaker 3: so called true history or whatever, it's just like leftist claptrap.
Speaker 3: To be honest, it's not one which genuinely grapples with
Speaker 3: any of the good of the US. Is done because,
Speaker 3: like I reference with Howard's Inn and more, it views
Speaker 3: it as this evil empire morally corrupted its founding, as
Speaker 3: the sixteen nineteen project does. And what that instills in
Speaker 3: people and or the citizen is one this idea that
Speaker 3: we can never get better instead of looking at both.
Speaker 1: I am equally.
Speaker 2: Famis my issue familiar with your opinion, However, the question
Speaker 2: is do you think that learning about those things should
Speaker 2: be effectively banned by the state. I mean, but that's
Speaker 2: the goal, that is the goal is to enforce conformity
Speaker 2: on these universities and to push a sanitized narrative so
Speaker 2: that you know, I just think that listen, you can
Speaker 2: agree or disagree with how central races and the way
Speaker 2: that this infected, you know, affected our nation's development.
Speaker 4: I would say that it's.
Speaker 2: Been a pretty important part of many of the most
Speaker 2: critical battles in terms of, you know, how we've gotten
Speaker 2: to where we are today, and important to learn about
Speaker 2: and see the legacy of et cetera. But like I
Speaker 2: just to I believe you've previously spoken on behalf of
Speaker 2: academic freedom, and to think that that's out of bounds,
Speaker 2: or that the state should use its power to bully
Speaker 2: universities out of teaching that sort of you know, sort
Speaker 2: of history, is I think pretty wild.
Speaker 3: Here's I want to be clear, I'm talking specifically about
Speaker 3: public education. I think we can all agree curriculum is
Speaker 3: propaganda in some form, yes or no. Now, in that propaganda,
Speaker 3: we all democratically get to decide in that public education
Speaker 3: for what should be and should be not taught in
Speaker 3: our classrooms. This is ultimately a parental decision. In fact,
Speaker 3: I think what you're laying out is a ridiculous idea
Speaker 3: where the taxpayer is supposed to give you unlimited or
Speaker 3: whatever amount of funds and you're able to just be
Speaker 3: able to do whatever you want and preach that to
Speaker 3: children and or create curriculum for students science.
Speaker 1: We cannot live in a society.
Speaker 2: First of all, we're talking and have never talking specifically
Speaker 2: about universities.
Speaker 1: Okay number one, yes, but these are publicly funded.
Speaker 3: Every time I look at my property tax, Bill, I'm
Speaker 3: pretty sure I know where a lot of it's going.
Speaker 2: And we're predominantly talking about I mean, this just gets
Speaker 2: to a I think a fundamental difference about what the
Speaker 2: university system is even for, because in my opinion, the
Speaker 2: university system is not, including the public university system, is
Speaker 2: all about academic and intellectual exploration. That's how even you know,
Speaker 2: even thinking through things that might be out of bounds
Speaker 2: right politically, that are outside of the certainly the consensus
Speaker 2: of the public. Like, that's how you push research and
Speaker 2: intellectual activity forward. And so yes, I think that's important
Speaker 2: to support at both the public university level and you know,
Speaker 2: certainly private university you should be able to do what
Speaker 2: they want. They're not doing good job as standing up
Speaker 2: for themselves in the face of this onslaught. But yes,
Speaker 2: of course, I think having academic curiosity and risk taking
Speaker 2: within the university system.
Speaker 4: I see that.
Speaker 2: As a as a core value of the university system.
Speaker 2: I don't see it as a place where we're just
Speaker 2: supposed to like stamp out these conformist ideas and you know,
Speaker 2: based on what the current regime approves that you're allowed
Speaker 2: to learn about like that is just that is completely
Speaker 2: foreign to my notion of what the university system is
Speaker 2: supposed to be all earning.
Speaker 3: An issue here, which is what did I say that
Speaker 3: I didn't actually learn all that much in school. I've
Speaker 3: mostly learned about it myself. So if you're curious, you can.
Speaker 3: All the information you need is out there, and I've
Speaker 3: got about one percent of what I need and I'll
Speaker 3: be looking for with the rest of the five percent
Speaker 3: of what I'm able to consume over the course of
Speaker 3: my life. But last thing here is you made a
Speaker 3: good point about what is education, the course of public education.
Speaker 3: Why did we create it was to create a more
Speaker 3: skilled populace. And my problem for economic benefit, that's the truth.
Speaker 3: It's all namby pam be nice to say, oh, intellectual curiosity,
Speaker 3: et cetera. The problem that we have today is that
Speaker 3: way too many people go to college to pursue degrees
Speaker 3: which are not economically viable and which saddle them up
Speaker 3: with a lot of debt. The solution to that is
Speaker 3: not to offer quote free college so that everybody can
Speaker 3: go get little box checks. It's to make sure that
Speaker 3: people pursue higher educational, vocational training or wherever, or perhaps
Speaker 3: a four year college degree for the purpose of being
Speaker 3: able to pursue the American dream, which you individually get
Speaker 3: to define for yourself. So that's my last thing, is
Speaker 3: just like this idea that you're going to be conformist
Speaker 3: because you go to college. I went to a college
Speaker 3: with a bunch of woke people. In fact, being around
Speaker 3: them made me a lot more intellectually curious about what
Speaker 3: I wasn't learning in school, and you could pursue it
Speaker 3: for yourself. But that's an inversion of this idea that
Speaker 3: everything you're ever going to learn about the world is
Speaker 3: going to be at a four year college. No, we're
Speaker 3: supposed to lay a foundation for which you yourself can go
Speaker 3: from there in spring.
Speaker 1: Some of that is risk taking, et cetera.
Speaker 3: But and like I said, the purpose of public education,
Speaker 3: and while we funded itself, is not to have people
Speaker 3: sitting around reading proosts or whatever. It's so that you
Speaker 3: can go out, you can get a job which is
Speaker 3: going to benefit yourself and ultimately benefit the entire culd.
Speaker 2: I think that treating human beings and their education as
Speaker 2: solely being about becoming effective cogs in the American capitalist machine.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I disagree with that end.
Speaker 2: Goal of that being the only goal in our education,
Speaker 2: especially school and especially our university system.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but I'm saying, even in a communist system, why
Speaker 3: do they send people to university? It wasn't again to
Speaker 3: be sitting around and reading and debating markets.
Speaker 2: Funny that this is so fat send them to as
Speaker 2: I think this is so funny to come from you,
Speaker 2: because you're so intellectually curious, absolutely, and you're so well
Speaker 2: read and not everything that you consume is about like,
Speaker 2: how can I generate more profit? How can I like
Speaker 2: you make you.
Speaker 4: Value?
Speaker 2: And it has made you part of who you are,
Speaker 2: that you have that intellectual curiosity and that you have
Speaker 2: that intellectual development. And I'm not saying that all of
Speaker 2: that comes within a like traditional school system, of course
Speaker 2: it doesn't. But I think an important part, especially for
Speaker 2: young adults within that system, when you have a fantastic
Speaker 2: professor who opens your eyes up to something, who helps
Speaker 2: you to understand something you didn't understand before, to help
Speaker 2: you explore the world, to help you learn about history
Speaker 2: and see the lessons of the past and be able
Speaker 2: to apply them to the present, and you know, understand
Speaker 2: better the trajectory that you're on. So yeah, of course
Speaker 2: I think that that's important part of the university system
Speaker 2: and that it's not all just about like I mean,
Speaker 2: why should anyone go to university at all if you're
Speaker 2: just like training to for your end goal as a
Speaker 2: human being of your career.
Speaker 3: No, a lot of people actually shouldn't go. And I've
Speaker 3: said that before. I think the amount of people go
Speaker 3: is way too high. Probably should be twenty thirty percent
Speaker 3: less because I think last I checked it was like
Speaker 3: forty five percent.
Speaker 1: But I mean, that's what I'm saying.
Speaker 3: Is the flip is I'm not going to sit here
Speaker 3: and tell you or even believe in a system where
Speaker 3: the public education system is supposed.
Speaker 1: To be the be all and all of on it.
Speaker 3: As I said, that was much more inspired to read
Speaker 3: and to be individually more curious from what I didn't
Speaker 3: learn in school and asking questions about that. So it
Speaker 3: just comes down to the fact that I believe that
Speaker 3: the reason public education exists literally at all, and you
Speaker 3: can go and look for why we decided for this
Speaker 3: grand experiment in the first place was genuinely not nice
Speaker 3: to say it, but the truth is is so we
Speaker 3: could all be more beneficial to each other. Part of
Speaker 3: that is intellectual exercise and more. But a lot of
Speaker 3: what public education has become has become an economic saddle
Speaker 3: on the American taxpayer and on the individual who is
Speaker 3: participating in the system, who is hobbling their life forever.
Speaker 3: I believe in individual pursuit of what it is that
Speaker 3: you want to do.
Speaker 1: I like to read for my own edification.
Speaker 3: I'm very lucky I've been able to pursue a career
Speaker 3: in something like that. But even if I didn't do this,
Speaker 3: I would still be doing it whenever I was doing
Speaker 3: something else. That's what I like to do. But that's
Speaker 3: my point is it wasn't necessarily something inspired by the
Speaker 3: great public universe or private university.
Speaker 1: I guess where I went for something.
Speaker 3: It basically comes back to this idea of why is
Speaker 3: the public participating this in the future. I just believe,
Speaker 3: of course, the public has a right and has a
Speaker 3: responsibility to be honest of being involved in this and
Speaker 3: not some blank tabula rasa slate where these professors are
Speaker 3: allowed to take our dollars and then do whatever they want.
Speaker 3: That has never existed for literally all of human history
Speaker 3: or conception of public education. It has always been any
Speaker 3: curricula in which the state is paying for is itself
Speaker 3: a debate and is propaganda in some form? It's about
Speaker 3: a war of what is supposed to be in that
Speaker 3: propaganda to shape a better citizen ree And then that's
Speaker 3: the debate that you and I are having now.
Speaker 2: I think universities should be about intellectual exploration, and I
Speaker 2: don't think that they will benefit from having a heavy
Speaker 2: hand of the state coming in to enforce what is
Speaker 2: acceptable thought. And I think we see that very clearly
Speaker 2: with the efforts that are being taken here with regard
Speaker 2: to quote unquote antisemitism.
Speaker 4: So we can leave it there.