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.
Speaker 1: Good morning, everybody, Happy Thursday. Have an amazing show for
Speaker 1: everybody today when we have Prystal.
Speaker 2: Indeed, we do some breaking news this morning, run Seizing
Speaker 2: two Vessels.
Speaker 4: As we continue to hover on the brink of another war.
Speaker 2: The stock market has taken a dive over AI concerns
Speaker 2: Trump is retreating further on ice deployments.
Speaker 4: Bill Gates responding.
Speaker 2: To Epstein allegations, We've also got a little tour for
Speaker 2: you of all of the various Epstein defenders and the
Speaker 2: defenses that they're offering. I think you might enjoy that one.
Speaker 2: We're also going to take a look at the latest
Speaker 2: with regard to this Trump assault on elections. He's doubling
Speaker 2: down on his previous comments that they should be nationalized
Speaker 2: and taken over.
Speaker 4: So that's a fun one.
Speaker 3: Right, And Tolsey Gabbard is now seizing what is it
Speaker 3: pererto Rican voting machine.
Speaker 2: Yes, because to investigate a link to Venezuela. This whole
Speaker 2: idea that there might be a deal with Maduro is
Speaker 2: looking more and more plausible by the.
Speaker 3: Day, very plausibile. We'll be on Maduro Watch, Maduro Stop
Speaker 3: the Steel Watch. Thank you to everybody who's been subscribing
Speaker 3: Breakingpoints dot com. We have a number of you who
Speaker 3: have joined the show in the last week because of Epstein.
Speaker 3: We're very happy to have you be Please support our work,
Speaker 3: be able to watch our show in full as it
Speaker 3: is meant to be consumed Breakingpoints dot Com and really
Speaker 3: just you know, again opening the books. We had two
Speaker 3: segments yesterday demonetized. One of them was over and Ice shooting.
Speaker 3: The other was over the Elon Paris raid. But just
Speaker 3: to give people an example of how we cannot pick
Speaker 3: and choose our coverage, based on what is going to
Speaker 3: get ranked in the algorithm and ad revenue. That's why
Speaker 3: we primarily rely on all of you, and we've had
Speaker 3: multiple epscene demon tais here as well. So thank you
Speaker 3: to everybody who supports the show. If you are watching
Speaker 3: this on YouTube, another way to help us out if
Speaker 3: you can't.
Speaker 1: Is to just hit subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Speaker 3: And if you're listening to this on a podcast, please
Speaker 3: share an episode with a friend. It really helps other
Speaker 3: people find the show. But let's go ahead and start
Speaker 3: with Iran and the latest that just happened right before
Speaker 3: we started. Let's go and put this up here on
Speaker 3: the screen. Iran's IRGC has seized two vessels in the
Speaker 3: Persian Gulf, threatening the United States with quote mastacre and hell,
Speaker 3: I guess their version of fire and fury. The IRGC's
Speaker 3: Navy's public relations department alleges that more than one million
Speaker 3: leaders of smuggled fuel were found on the ships and
Speaker 3: some fifteen foreign crew members were referred to judicial authorities.
Speaker 3: So this happened in what they're claiming our Iranian waters.
Speaker 3: This is still very very unclear exactly what's happen happening,
Speaker 3: but this is clearly a shot across the bow as
Speaker 3: diplomatic negotiations with the United States remain very very in flux.
Speaker 3: So what they are saying here specifically is that the
Speaker 3: strait of Horn Moves will be the place of massacre
Speaker 3: and hell. I think this crystal is a very clear message,
Speaker 3: a shot across the bow at Trump after multiple incendiary
Speaker 3: comments made by the administration yesterday as diplomatic negotiations literally
Speaker 3: we're on off and then on again, all in the
Speaker 3: span of just three hours, we had a very very
Speaker 3: significant development here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, according to doctor Parsi, you know, the way the
Speaker 2: Iranians are thinking now is previously when you've had you know,
Speaker 2: Israel attack them, then we attack them. They've done these
Speaker 2: very limited, coordinated with US retaliatory strikes two with the
Speaker 2: calculation from the Iranians being we don't want this thing
Speaker 2: to spiral. There is a different mindset there now, which
Speaker 2: is basically like, Okay, we tried that, that didn't work,
Speaker 2: so we need to adopt a different time. So I
Speaker 2: think you can look at this seizure of these vessels
Speaker 2: and this type of rhetoric threatening massacre and hell as
Speaker 2: a different approach that is responsive to the fact that hey,
Speaker 2: they tried the more conciliatory Okay, you can hit us,
Speaker 2: and we will hit back as we have to, but
Speaker 2: we're going to coordinate it with you. This is a
Speaker 2: signal that you know, this time they may not play
Speaker 2: that game again, and they feel the need to take
Speaker 2: a harder line because the previous approach obviously didn't work.
Speaker 2: Since we're now you know, we had claimed that we
Speaker 2: all we destroyed their nuclear capabilities. Now we're back saying
Speaker 2: we've got to negotiate over your nuclear capabilities. And by
Speaker 2: the way, your ballistic missile program too, which is a
Speaker 2: new add on from Israel, which is meant to poison
Speaker 2: the well, and which is meant to back us into
Speaker 2: a corner, not forced because we have our own agency here,
Speaker 2: but to push us once again towards war.
Speaker 1: The ballistic missile addition is completely fake.
Speaker 3: It was added at the very last minute by the
Speaker 3: Israelis because it's only a security threat to them, not
Speaker 3: to us. We're all the way over here, and then
Speaker 3: the way that we square that is well, but we
Speaker 3: have all these troops in the region. It's like, well,
Speaker 3: why are the troops in the region to protect Israel?
Speaker 5: Oh?
Speaker 1: Okay, so that's what this entire thing is about.
Speaker 3: Nonetheless, this is almost certainly in response yesterday to Trump
Speaker 3: yesterday threatening the Supreme Leader of Iran in an NBC
Speaker 3: News interview in the Oval Office, Here's what he had
Speaker 3: to say.
Speaker 6: Should the Supreme Leader in Iran be worried right now?
Speaker 7: I would say he should be very worried. You know,
Speaker 7: he should be, as you know, they're negotiating with us.
Speaker 7: I know they are.
Speaker 8: But the protesters have said, you know, where are the Americans.
Speaker 8: You promised them we would have their back. Do we
Speaker 8: still have it back?
Speaker 7: We've had their back, and look that country is a
Speaker 7: mess right now because of us. We went in and
Speaker 7: we wiped out their nuclear in the Middle East. If
Speaker 7: I didn't take out their nuclear think of it, if
Speaker 7: we didn't take out that nuclear we wouldn't have peace
Speaker 7: in the Middle East because the Arab countries could have
Speaker 7: never done that. They were very, very afraid of a Yeah,
Speaker 7: they're not afraid of Iran anymore. We wiped out those
Speaker 7: beautiful Beat two bombers, the ones right over there, those
Speaker 7: beautiful little models, those beautiful Beat two bombers went in
Speaker 7: and they hit their target, every single bomb and obliterated it,
Speaker 7: and because of that, they were going to have a
Speaker 7: nuclear weapon within one month. Within one month, they were
Speaker 7: gonna have a nuclear weapon. That was a big threat
Speaker 7: that they're not gonna have it anymore.
Speaker 6: But now if we obliterated reiterated, what's the deal about.
Speaker 8: I mean, if there's no more are they are they
Speaker 8: trying to restart the nuclear.
Speaker 7: We heard that they are, and if they do, and
Speaker 7: I let them know, if they do, we're going to
Speaker 7: send them right back and do their job again.
Speaker 8: So you're understanding if they tried to restart it, and
Speaker 8: that's why you're threatening force.
Speaker 7: They tried to go back to the site. They weren't
Speaker 7: even able to get near it. There was total obliteration.
Speaker 7: But they were thinking about starting a new site in
Speaker 7: a different part of the country. We found out about it.
Speaker 7: I said, you do that, we're going to do very
Speaker 7: bad things to you.
Speaker 1: So, uh, the Supreme leaders should be very worried.
Speaker 3: He said that there were one month away during midnight
Speaker 3: Hammer from a nuclear bomb.
Speaker 1: Literally just not true.
Speaker 3: There's an entire thing about brain out time, et cetera,
Speaker 3: which Tulsi Gabbert don't forget. Right before Midnight Hammer had
Speaker 3: said that there is no indication, and in fact, you know,
Speaker 3: in our interview with doctor Parsi as well as a
Speaker 3: lot of other information that has come out, the Supreme
Speaker 3: Leader actually takes his fatua on nuclear weapons very seriously,
Speaker 3: and it would take a repeal of that. There's been
Speaker 3: no intelligence indication. I can guarantee you if they had,
Speaker 3: the New York cons would let us know tomorrow so
Speaker 3: that we could start a full blown nuclear war. Nothing
Speaker 3: has changed on the ground whatsoever except for the protests.
Speaker 3: And so the protests are making people very excited about
Speaker 3: this idea of a shaky regime which can just be
Speaker 3: toppled from the air and turn it into an Israeli
Speaker 3: civil war rump state. But that is just not where
Speaker 3: things are. And in fact, you know, what we see
Speaker 3: right now is we may have exhausted the very last
Speaker 3: chances of real diplomacy here and that the current you know,
Speaker 3: the current framework from the administration is that this is
Speaker 3: an illegitimate regime. Is that every time that we hit
Speaker 3: you and or we negotiate, that the goalpost will move.
Speaker 3: And that's why the Iranian position has changed so dramatically
Speaker 3: now basically to the point and look, the critics are
Speaker 3: saying that they've always been like this, did I don't
Speaker 3: remember multiple airstrikes and negotiations and crises that were all happening.
Speaker 3: This is entirely one manufactured of our making and of
Speaker 3: Israel's making. And this was underscored by the US Secretary
Speaker 3: of State Marco Rubio yesterday, who again takes direct aim
Speaker 3: at the leadership of Iran, who apparently we also want
Speaker 3: to negotiate a two let's go ahead and roll that.
Speaker 5: The Iranian people and the Iranian regime are very unlike
Speaker 5: in essence, what the Iranian people want. This is a
Speaker 5: culture with a deep history. These are people that are
Speaker 5: The leadership of Iran at the clerical level does not
Speaker 5: reflect the people of Iran. I know of no other
Speaker 5: country where there's a bigger difference between the people that
Speaker 5: lead the country and the people who live there. And
Speaker 5: so our hope resides in that. As far as the
Speaker 5: presence views on the way protesters were treated, it was
Speaker 5: very clear about it, and as you saw, part of
Speaker 5: what the President said publicly prevented mass executions that were
Speaker 5: being planned. And we're on the precipice of and obviously
Speaker 5: beyond that, the President retains a number of options to
Speaker 5: how we respond to that and future events. But as
Speaker 5: far as the talks are concerned, you know, I think
Speaker 5: the Iranians had agreed to a certain format. For whatever reason,
Speaker 5: it's changed in their system or what have you. We'll
Speaker 5: see we can get back to the right place. But
Speaker 5: the United States is prepared to meet with them. I
Speaker 5: think it was scheduled for Friday. Steve is ready to go.
Speaker 5: He'll be prepared for that. If the Iranians want to meet,
Speaker 5: we're ready. They've expressed an interest in meeting and talking.
Speaker 5: If they changed their mind, we're fine with that too.
Speaker 5: We prefer to meet and talk. I'm not sure you
Speaker 5: can reach a deal with these guys, but we're going
Speaker 5: to try to find out. We don't see there's any
Speaker 5: harm in trying to figure out there's something that can
Speaker 5: be done. This is a president that always prefers a
Speaker 5: peaceful outcome to any conflict.
Speaker 4: Or any challenge.
Speaker 3: So you can all see very clearly here. You know,
Speaker 3: this is a direct shot. We would like to meet.
Speaker 3: But it's like the people of Iran deserve basically freedom.
Speaker 1: I mean, I guess maybe you can hold those together.
Speaker 3: But Chrystal, when we put it to a and pair
Speaker 3: with what happened yesterday. It is very clear there is
Speaker 3: a massive factional war inside the Trump administration. Let's put
Speaker 3: this one up here on the screen just so we
Speaker 3: can show all of you. So basically, as of yesterday morning,
Speaker 3: we were supposed to meet with the Iranians. After some
Speaker 3: pushback from them saying we don't want to meet with
Speaker 3: regional partners, we just want to meet one on one
Speaker 3: with the United States, those talks were then called off
Speaker 3: as of midday. Then by the end of the day
Speaker 3: the plans for the US Iran talks are actually back
Speaker 3: on after several Arab and Muslim leaders urgently lobbied the
Speaker 3: Trump administration Wednesday afternoon not to follow through on threats
Speaker 3: to walk away. Quote, they asked us to keep the
Speaker 3: meeting to listen to what the Iranians have to say.
Speaker 3: We have told the Arabs we will do the meeting
Speaker 3: if they insist, but we are very skeptical.
Speaker 1: The official said.
Speaker 3: At least nine countries had passed on messages the most
Speaker 3: senior levels of the Trump administration strongly asking do not
Speaker 3: cancel the meeting with the Iranians. In Oman and as
Speaker 3: second US officials said that the Trump administration agreed to
Speaker 3: take the meeting with the Iran that needs to be
Speaker 3: respectful of the request of US allies and in order
Speaker 3: to coordinate pursuing the diplomatic tracks. So very clearly the
Speaker 3: Arab powers are freaking out because people forget this, It's
Speaker 3: not just Israel. Where was that token strike back from
Speaker 3: the Iranians Doha Qatar, who by the way, also got
Speaker 3: struck by Israel, and then we signed some non aggression
Speaker 3: packed with Doha Saudi Arabia Straits of horror moves. We
Speaker 3: have massive amounts of oil that moved through there, so
Speaker 3: this would be a destabilization event, which the Iranians, now
Speaker 3: with their seizure this morning, are making clear we can
Speaker 3: wreak absolute havoc. The price of skyrocketed on the news
Speaker 3: initially whenever the meetings were supposed to be canceled.
Speaker 1: I'm sure that the raid this morning will also have some.
Speaker 3: Sort of follow on effect, But it is clear that
Speaker 3: there's a deteriorating situation, and we keep narrowing the goalposts
Speaker 3: to make it so that it's like war seems to
Speaker 3: be one of the only options left that's currently on
Speaker 3: the table. Absent a genuine breakthrough tomorrow, which we can
Speaker 3: all hope for. But if you're iranlast time you were
Speaker 3: scheduled to meet with Steve Wikoff, we bombed you.
Speaker 1: So what what are they going to do in this meeting?
Speaker 2: And if you're any of these you know, regional powers
Speaker 2: and allies of the US, you also have to feel
Speaker 2: a little bit nervous about how sufficient our defenses are
Speaker 2: going to be. I mean, you watched and this again
Speaker 2: wasn't covered that much in the Western press, but last time,
Speaker 2: you know, our stockpiles and Israeli stockpiles of you know,
Speaker 2: the of defense interceptors, missile defense interceptors were running low
Speaker 2: and Israel was struck. Now, Iran, I have no doubt
Speaker 2: took more damage, but there was there were significant blows
Speaker 2: struck inside of Israel. So they also can't feel totally
Speaker 2: confident that, like the US is just going to have
Speaker 2: our back and it's not going to be a problem,
Speaker 2: We're not going to take on any damage. And then
Speaker 2: are they excited about having you know, a failed state
Speaker 2: in Iran and all of the chaos that that entails
Speaker 2: and the spillover effects which you know, nobody understands what
Speaker 2: that can look like better than the countries in this region.
Speaker 2: So listen, I have no idea, I have no inside
Speaker 2: knowledge whether we are going to strike Iran imminently or not.
Speaker 2: But what I can say is what we've seen over
Speaker 2: the course of this administration and at other lower levels
Speaker 2: under other administrations as well, is they are continuing to push.
Speaker 4: In this direction.
Speaker 2: I mean, the protests are both organic, like there's genuine
Speaker 2: upset in the country over the government. I don't want
Speaker 2: to downplay that whatsoever, but that also is fomented by
Speaker 2: our intentional squeezing of the Iranian economy. You know, you've
Speaker 2: got the precipitating event was this currency collapse, and there's
Speaker 2: every indication that we were involved in that.
Speaker 4: So we're trying this, We're cycling.
Speaker 2: Through a variety of ways to try to squeeze this government,
Speaker 2: to try to cause some sort of collapse. You know,
Speaker 2: the Israelis, you're not going to stop pushing in this direction.
Speaker 2: So I have zero optimism that we're not going to,
Speaker 2: in some way or another continue down this track, whether
Speaker 2: this means imminent kinetic action or whether that's further down
Speaker 2: the road, or whether we try some other tactic or
Speaker 2: what and that's without even talking about you know, Mike
Speaker 2: Pompeio bribing about the MASSAD agents in the streets alongside
Speaker 2: the protesters.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, if anything, you know what, I think
Speaker 3: we may perhaps may have a chance off ramp here
Speaker 3: because what Trump and them are afraid of is a
Speaker 3: full blown war and it seems that the Iranians are
Speaker 3: basically willing to roll the dice.
Speaker 1: Again.
Speaker 3: What Parsi told us was, we know we can't win
Speaker 3: a war, but we can make it pretty miserable for
Speaker 3: all of you and for everybody else there at long
Speaker 3: term strategy, longtime strategy of US adversaries, and put on
Speaker 3: this last element please a five quote. US Iran agreed
Speaker 3: to discuss nuclear talks on Friday, But originally they said
Speaker 3: Iran is going to play hardball with the US to
Speaker 3: throw it off of balance. And what they're saying behind
Speaker 3: the scenes is that with this seizure that we saw
Speaker 3: this morning and in general, was that they are just
Speaker 3: not going to be They're not going to be pressed
Speaker 3: back into the corner that they found themselves originally, and
Speaker 3: in particular we shot down this drone recently. Now they're
Speaker 3: you know, threatening with their Navy. They're making clear there
Speaker 3: will be no more token strikes on our country. It's
Speaker 3: do or die, and basically calling the bluff of the
Speaker 3: United States of you can try if you want, We're
Speaker 3: going to make it very very difficult, and a lot
Speaker 3: of your people may die as well as the global
Speaker 3: economy may be completely rupture. Trump and his people are
Speaker 3: afraid of that because duhile. Yes, they've had their tremendous
Speaker 3: success mission in Venezuela and they did have Midnight Hammer.
Speaker 3: They haven't had a real military engagement with any serious
Speaker 3: amounts of risk, and they're making it clear, no, we're
Speaker 3: going to make it very very.
Speaker 1: Difficult for you.
Speaker 2: It's a smarter strategy, I mean, and it is based
Speaker 2: on what we've all observed with Trump, I mean, his
Speaker 2: taco tendencies, right, especially when the markets start to get squirrely,
Speaker 2: and so you know what they're banking on is okay.
Speaker 2: The conciliatory approach obviously didn't work, because here we are
Speaker 2: back having our country threatened again. This did not succeed.
Speaker 2: And so what does Trump actually respect and what he
Speaker 2: respects and what he responds to is hey, listen, yeah,
Speaker 2: you have more firepower than we do, but we can
Speaker 2: make you suffer. We can cause pain, We can cause
Speaker 2: pain among your regional allies. We can exact a price
Speaker 2: on your service members or in the region. And critically,
Speaker 2: we can cause a lot of financial pain. I mean,
Speaker 2: this is the weapon of warfare that we've been consistently
Speaker 2: using against Iran, and the Iranians have their own cards
Speaker 2: that they can play with regard to that. No, obviously
Speaker 2: they don't have all the levers of the global financial
Speaker 2: system the way that we do, but they do have
Speaker 2: very critical location and obviously very critical to the oil market.
Speaker 2: So and you know, do are our citizens ready to
Speaker 2: pay that price? No, they don't want that, they're not
Speaker 2: interested in that. And Trump is not gonna be around forever.
Speaker 2: So like, Okay, we can threaten you credibly with exacting
Speaker 2: some pain, and we don't think that you really are
Speaker 2: up to that. We don't think you really have the
Speaker 2: stomach to persist if we credibly threaten you. And so
Speaker 2: it is in my opinion, you know, it is much
Speaker 2: more intelligent strategy given Trump's psychology and what we've seen
Speaker 2: play out with regard to other countries. You know, even
Speaker 2: with the Greenland pullback right where he was gung ho
Speaker 2: and all in, and the fact that there was there
Speaker 2: were some wiggles in the market that was enough to
Speaker 2: cause him to pull back from the brink. So I
Speaker 2: think that's what they're counting on.
Speaker 3: As right, Well, we'll see, you know, it's smart until
Speaker 3: it's not smart, and then what millions of your own
Speaker 3: people die as well as our own people, right, And
Speaker 3: so's that's the risk. And you know, you can read
Speaker 3: a book to see how many times they're like, oh, well,
Speaker 3: they're only going to respect strength and then next thing,
Speaker 3: you know, you end up in a lie or some
Speaker 3: sort of false flag incident and then boom, we're off,
Speaker 3: you know, and then at that point nothing can happen.
Speaker 1: Our Congress, I think the.
Speaker 2: Way they're looking at it obviously though, was like, you know,
Speaker 2: we're sort of damned if we do if we damned,
Speaker 2: if our country is going to get attacked either way.
Speaker 3: If I were them, I would be doing something way
Speaker 3: more dratic than what they're doing now current.
Speaker 1: So I have no idea.
Speaker 2: Well, and that was the other thing that the way
Speaker 2: that they're at yes, And that's the other thing doctor
Speaker 2: Parcy said is actually already of the Iranian government is
Speaker 2: in favor of raising to a nuke and it's really
Speaker 2: the Supreme Leader that holds them back because he takes,
Speaker 2: as you said earlier, his own fatoa against nukes seriously.
Speaker 4: But that is the logic that we've laid out.
Speaker 2: That is the rational behavior that we have created, that
Speaker 2: Trump has created.
Speaker 3: And that's the last thing is we have this dream
Speaker 3: of will strike the Supreme Leader. Well, as we've often
Speaker 3: said with Putin, who knows what comes next, right, what's
Speaker 3: the reality of what would actually succeed. Who are the
Speaker 3: people who have all the weapons and all the money,
Speaker 3: the IRGC, the people who are in the naval boats
Speaker 3: who are trying to seize right now, Those are the
Speaker 3: people who want nukes.
Speaker 1: Those are the people who sprint ballistic missile.
Speaker 3: Those are the people who've been running smuggling for years
Speaker 3: and who are filthy rich, and who have an immense
Speaker 3: amount of power inside of the country. Unless you kill
Speaker 3: literally all of them, which seems relatively impossible, well, and
Speaker 3: then you occupy the country and then try and force
Speaker 3: some sort of democratic transition, they're probably the most likely
Speaker 3: group to be able to seize power. So don't be
Speaker 3: so sure that things are going to be working out
Speaker 3: all that well on our behalf. So speaking of the
Speaker 3: economy and crash, why don't.
Speaker 1: We get to that.
Speaker 2: Speaking of the market, we have a lot of very
Speaker 2: interesting and troubling news going on there. The features are
Speaker 2: down this morning. There was a significant drop in the
Speaker 2: market yesterday, and it seems to be because there is
Speaker 2: a bit of an O shit moment happening with regard
Speaker 2: to what AI is going to mean for our economy.
Speaker 2: So let's go and put this Wall Street Journal tear
Speaker 2: sheet up on the screen and the tld R here
Speaker 2: of a number of you know, news reporting that we're
Speaker 2: going to show you in just a moment is that
Speaker 2: non techies such as myself are beginning to really reckon
Speaker 2: with okay. AI development might be good for this handful
Speaker 2: of companies that are leading the way, but what about
Speaker 2: all of these other tech companies whose services are going
Speaker 2: to be effectively taken over by these AI agents. So
Speaker 2: one of those industries is they say AI threatens a
Speaker 2: Wall Street cash cow.
Speaker 4: Financial and legal data.
Speaker 2: And just if you think about it logically, you know,
Speaker 2: if you're and people who are inside like traders and
Speaker 2: who are in the industry, they pay big bucks for
Speaker 2: these services to analyze financial and legal information. Well, if
Speaker 2: you have a free or a very low cost AI
Speaker 2: agent that can do all of that for you in
Speaker 2: a custom way, are you really going to shell out
Speaker 2: those dollars for these subscriptions? So I'll read you a
Speaker 2: little bit of this article. They say, for years it
Speaker 2: seemed like a surefire business model, a mass vast tropes
Speaker 2: of financial data and sell it to Wall Street for
Speaker 2: a premium. Then Claude came along and that's Anthropics. Product
Speaker 2: shares of companies like SMP Global, MSCI, Intercontinent Exchange, London
Speaker 2: Stock Exchange Group, Factset Research Systems all tumbled this week
Speaker 2: after fast growing artificial intelligence startup Anthropic unbuild a new
Speaker 2: suite of tools for automating legal tasks. The new legal
Speaker 2: plugin for Anthropics cowork Assistant, powered by its AI model claud,
Speaker 2: didn't seem to have much to do with financial data. Nonetheless, LSEG,
Speaker 2: which has spent years pivoting away from its traditional stock
Speaker 2: exchange business to selling data and analytics, slid thirteen percent
Speaker 2: on Tuesday, before inching lower on Wednesday, and so again.
Speaker 2: The theory here is that people are really starting to
Speaker 2: be able to envision what AGI and what already the
Speaker 2: capabilities that AI has is going to mean for these
Speaker 2: different markets. Now, what these companies to give their side
Speaker 2: of the story, what they say, the ones that are
Speaker 2: doing all this financial analysis, They say, yeah, but we
Speaker 2: have our own proprietary data that CLAUD is not going
Speaker 2: to have access to. But you know, at least as
Speaker 2: of today, investors are betting that's not going to be sufficient.
Speaker 2: And by the way, as their capabilities develop, you know,
Speaker 2: how much of this data is going to continue to
Speaker 2: be off limits and continue to be proprietary where you
Speaker 2: have to pay to gain access to.
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly, I mean if you continue to look at it.
Speaker 3: And by the way, these stocks have been on wild swings.
Speaker 3: So l SEG went down by you know, fifteen percent,
Speaker 3: then back up by eight percent.
Speaker 1: It's difficult to track like day to day.
Speaker 3: But the overall point is that the CLAUD code, which
Speaker 3: again I'm a CLAUD subscriber, I don't think I pay
Speaker 3: more than a hundred whatever, one hundred and fifty bucks
Speaker 3: to be able to use the product. If I can
Speaker 3: just simply go in there use their AI legal tool
Speaker 3: and analysis tool to automate or get let's say eighty
Speaker 3: percent of the way that I could have been previously.
Speaker 1: For something that costs tens of thousands of dollars.
Speaker 3: The asymmetry of that wipes out any real ability or
Speaker 3: want to have to pay for a lot of these
Speaker 3: types of premium products. And actually it's kind of fascinating
Speaker 3: because what you're watching is the destruction. And we've talked
Speaker 3: about white collar work, and we've also talked about legal work.
Speaker 3: What you were watching is the destruction of the high
Speaker 3: dollar almost management consulting, data based industry, select the McKenzie's
Speaker 3: and all of these other people who would come in
Speaker 3: and they would do.
Speaker 1: Proprietary slide shows and all of that.
Speaker 3: And again, look, while I don't think that AI is
Speaker 3: going to cure cancer or any of that, I do
Speaker 3: think it's pretty good at automating some of the most
Speaker 3: base tasks and data collection and putting that stuff in there.
Speaker 3: Obviously you still need a little bit of quality control,
Speaker 3: but the amount of brute force that people used to
Speaker 3: have to do, especially if you're an EXCEL and all that,
Speaker 3: a lot of it is starting to go away and
Speaker 3: has been now for years.
Speaker 1: But especially accelerated with AI.
Speaker 3: So if all of that goes away, instantaneously, relatively like
Speaker 3: in market terms, for five year period, and you can
Speaker 3: see a path to almost eighty to one hundred percent
Speaker 3: automation that is going to actually nuke a significant sector
Speaker 3: of our economy. What's really scary about this, and we
Speaker 3: can put the next one up here on the screen,
Speaker 3: is this reveals actually some of the dangers of the
Speaker 3: way that our modern economy has structured.
Speaker 1: I've tried warning about this for years.
Speaker 3: We are a completely service based economy, which is great
Speaker 3: until all the services get automated and rolled up into AI.
Speaker 3: So while our GDP overall may actually increase because the
Speaker 3: stocks of Google, Anthropic and all these open AI will increase,
Speaker 3: the number of jobs that will be there may reduce.
Speaker 3: And it's not like we have stuff and companies that
Speaker 3: make a lot of things physical things steal or you know,
Speaker 3: any manufacturing base that we have, you know, to be
Speaker 3: able to absorb any of this. So our service based
Speaker 3: economy is uniquely, you know, is uniquely susceptible to be
Speaker 3: dramatically disrupted by AI, which would also wipe out and
Speaker 3: hurt the entire upper middle class really of the country.
Speaker 3: It would disrupt the university education system, which for the
Speaker 3: last twenty years of the top twenty schools have been
Speaker 3: feeders to BCG, McKinsey, accenture and all of that. I mean,
Speaker 3: it destroys like this entire fabric around all of these things.
Speaker 3: So imagine them the downstream effects, like what are what
Speaker 3: are the suburbs of major cities right around here? Take
Speaker 3: a drive around northern Virginia, Deloitte, KPMG. You know all
Speaker 3: of the defense contract I guess they'll be fine, but yeah,
Speaker 3: but everybody else.
Speaker 4: Volunteer stock drop yesterday, yes, Andrews, Well.
Speaker 3: That's exactly the point is that data analysis, if you
Speaker 3: make it so that it's no longer high dollar and
Speaker 3: super proprietary and broadly available, that's going to massively disrupt
Speaker 3: significant portion of our service based economy. And it's not
Speaker 3: like we have a lot of other stuff to absorb it.
Speaker 3: And then, like yesterday, it comes out that Google is
Speaker 3: spending like one hundred and eighty billion on data centers
Speaker 3: and capec spend. If there's a single bust there, then
Speaker 3: we're screwed all around.
Speaker 1: Like it's not good.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it makes us very very susceptible to a huge
Speaker 3: economic shock.
Speaker 2: Chris Hay has had a viral tweet that I think
Speaker 2: captures the sentiment you're expressing. Wally said, I think it's
Speaker 2: best for aroun to understand that the unified class project
Speaker 2: of billionaires right now is to due to white collar
Speaker 2: workers what globalization and neoliberalism did to blue collar workers.
Speaker 2: Keep pushing the share of national income away from labor
Speaker 2: towards capital, replace the kinds of workers that they think
Speaker 2: are uppity and spoiled, ultimately turn Marin County into Youngstown, Ohio.
Speaker 2: He then goes on, and I do think this is important.
Speaker 2: Note here he says, my very smart friend in finance
Speaker 2: urges me to clarify, I mean the techai oligarchs hashtag,
Speaker 2: not all billionaires, and points out rightly, I think a
Speaker 2: lot of the business class is extremely worried about the
Speaker 2: damage and disruptions if AI become is what it's backer
Speaker 2: say it will be. And I actually do think that
Speaker 2: that is correct in a sense, because you see this
Speaker 2: burgeoning divide between where Wall Street is and where the
Speaker 2: tech oligarchs are, and the place I think you see
Speaker 2: that most in terms of a proxy fight is over
Speaker 2: the independence of the FED. Trump wants to take over
Speaker 2: the FED, and you know drop the industry and have
Speaker 2: control over it, basically to be able to serve the
Speaker 2: tech oligarchs.
Speaker 4: Who is he's really thrown in with.
Speaker 2: I mean, obviously he's great for all billionaires at this
Speaker 2: point in time, and he does love them all, but
Speaker 2: that is really where he's placed his chips in terms
Speaker 2: of his administration. Wall Street obviously being very opposed to that,
Speaker 2: but in general, you know, the point here stands that,
Speaker 2: you know, when I graduated from college with an economics degree,
Speaker 2: I got a job at one of these you know, consulting.
Speaker 4: Firms around here. And what did I do? I worked
Speaker 4: on a.
Speaker 2: Help desk, right help trying to help users with the
Speaker 2: product I barely understood, but you know that was how
Speaker 2: I learned. Do you think that that sort of thing? No,
Speaker 2: and I was doing all kinds of spreadsheet analysis. Is
Speaker 2: a total Excel jockey. All of that can be done,
Speaker 2: you know easily.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 2: They could just get someone who's a little more experienced
Speaker 2: to use AI to do something that took you know,
Speaker 2: my work product that took like a month to spin out,
Speaker 2: and that is that's already done.
Speaker 4: So you think of you know, everybody.
Speaker 2: I graduated from college with basically got that same sort
Speaker 2: of job. That is what really at this point, with
Speaker 2: our economy shifting so far away from blue collar work,
Speaker 2: that is what's so much of you know, our economy
Speaker 2: is based around and yeah, the goal is and this
Speaker 2: is already happening right now, is automating all of that away.
Speaker 2: And listen, I didn't really enjoy that job. It's not
Speaker 2: like it was great. And if there's some new, brave
Speaker 2: world where you know, we can all pursue our passions
Speaker 2: and that we're going to share in the profits of
Speaker 2: all of these gains and productivity from the AI, that's
Speaker 2: one thing. But that's obviously not the reality and the
Speaker 2: economy that we have set up. It is obviously not
Speaker 2: what these oligarchs are pushing for. Even the most quote
Speaker 2: unquote progressive of them. The guy who runs Anthropic, he's
Speaker 2: like progressive taxation.
Speaker 4: Y's like that is not that comes.
Speaker 2: Nowhere close to dealing with the problem at scale that
Speaker 2: we're looking at. We can put the next one up
Speaker 2: on the screen. This is b three US tech stocks
Speaker 2: hit by fresh wave of selling, as chip maker's Qualcom
Speaker 2: and am D tumble. They say US techtocks hit by
Speaker 2: a freshwave of selling there was an AMD fueled sell off.
Speaker 2: That's another chip maker spark by concerns about the impact
Speaker 2: of AI on software businesses. And so the you know,
Speaker 2: the thinking here is basically like again, all of this,
Speaker 2: like so much coding can be done by people who
Speaker 2: don't have a technical background. You know, if you spend
Speaker 2: a little bit of time understanding how to code with Claude,
Speaker 2: you can spin out products that you know previously would
Speaker 2: have taken years and years and years and years and
Speaker 2: years of training and lots and lots of work to.
Speaker 4: Be able to do.
Speaker 2: It's called vibe coding, right, And so you have that
Speaker 2: you have with these AI agents. And we talked about
Speaker 2: this in the context of molt book and this clawed
Speaker 2: bought or open claw i think it's called. Now where
Speaker 2: you know, you you can send out these AI agents
Speaker 2: to do all sorts of things for you. And the
Speaker 2: idea is ultimately, rather than you going to an app
Speaker 2: or you going to a separate, separate software product, you're
Speaker 2: just going to ask your AI agent to do it
Speaker 2: and not even interact directly with those apps. So what
Speaker 2: does that mean for the entire economy? And that's what
Speaker 2: the market is just now really starting to grapple with
Speaker 2: there is also this is interesting and fun in terms
Speaker 2: of the sort of battle between these different AI players.
Speaker 2: Soccer was called saying that the super Bowl is going
Speaker 2: to be like the AI super Bowl.
Speaker 4: So many of the ads are going to be you.
Speaker 3: Haven't been watching the NFL like it's already like probably
Speaker 3: really thirty percent AI ads, but this time around, Yeah,
Speaker 3: because of the dollar value and the ability for them
Speaker 3: to just throw money, like, I think a massive portion
Speaker 3: are all just going to be AI. And by the way,
Speaker 3: already they're release some of them. So Claude is now
Speaker 3: going to have a premium super Bowl ad which will
Speaker 3: take a shot at open AI.
Speaker 1: So let's go ahead and take a listen.
Speaker 6: How do I communicate better with my mom?
Speaker 9: Great question? Improve communication with your mom can bring you closer.
Speaker 9: Here are some techniques you can try. Start by listening,
Speaker 9: really hear what she's trying to say underneath her words.
Speaker 9: Build conversation from points of agreement. Find a connection through
Speaker 9: shared activity, perhaps a nature walk, or if the relationship
Speaker 9: can't be fixed, find emotional connection with other older women.
Speaker 9: On Golden Encounters, the mature dating site that connects sensitive
Speaker 9: cubs with roaring cougars, What would you like me to
Speaker 9: create your profile?
Speaker 3: So that's from Claude saying that's why you should use
Speaker 3: ours because we're not doing ads, but open AI is doing.
Speaker 4: Ads to be honest with you.
Speaker 2: I feel like that commercial makes all AI look I.
Speaker 3: Was gonna say, it's like, what we're all sparring about
Speaker 3: is who will be able to chat with me and
Speaker 3: whether we serve you ads or not.
Speaker 4: I mean, rather advice about your relationship with your mom.
Speaker 1: Yeah, how about this?
Speaker 3: Don't ask AI about your relationship with your mom like period,
Speaker 3: you know, maybe talk to your mom about it or
Speaker 3: somebody else like another human being. Sam Altman very very
Speaker 3: upset about this ad. Let's put this up here. By
Speaker 3: the way, he claims he laughed, I don't think he did.
Speaker 3: He said, for the first the good part of the
Speaker 3: Anthropic ads, they're funny, and I laughed, and then a
Speaker 3: wall of text. I wonder why Anthropic will go for
Speaker 3: something so clearly dishonest. Our most important principle for ads
Speaker 3: says that we don't do exactly this. We would obviously
Speaker 3: never run ads in a way Anthropic depicts them.
Speaker 1: We are not stupid. We know our users would reject
Speaker 1: I guess it's on.
Speaker 3: Brand for anthropic double speak to use a deception add
Speaker 3: to critique theoretical deceptive ads that aren't real, but a
Speaker 3: Super Bowl ad is not where I would expect it.
Speaker 3: More importantly, we believe everyone deserves to use AI and
Speaker 3: are committed to free access. We believe access creates agency.
Speaker 3: More Texans use Chat GPT for free than total people
Speaker 3: use claud in the United States, so we have a
Speaker 3: differently shaped problem than they do. If you want to
Speaker 3: play pay for Chat GPT plus or pro, we won't
Speaker 3: show you at So basically just saying, look, guys, we
Speaker 3: are an expense. Anthropic is an expensive product for rich
Speaker 3: people's the same price, but actually chatchapet might be more expensive.
Speaker 1: Chatchipt pro well, they're.
Speaker 2: Like not a free version of anthropic might be what
Speaker 2: they're Maybe there.
Speaker 1: Is an I I don't really know, but I look,
Speaker 1: it depends.
Speaker 3: I actually prefer Claude for anything technical and then specifically
Speaker 3: anything math related. Chatchapt is usually better at like some
Speaker 3: of the more research.
Speaker 1: I think the.
Speaker 2: General consensus is Claude is kind of in the lead
Speaker 2: now tech wise, right, That's my that'station.
Speaker 1: It depends on what you mean by that for coding,
Speaker 1: et cetera.
Speaker 3: Yes, but yeah, I mean the whole point is just
Speaker 3: that these people, all they have created is a new Google.
Speaker 1: That's it. And that's fine.
Speaker 3: Actually it's very useful, but that's not going to cure cancer.
Speaker 3: And in fact, I recently read a Washington Post article
Speaker 3: which was a guy who uploaded his health data to
Speaker 3: chat SHEPT and got completely misdiagnosed. He took it to
Speaker 3: a doctor and the doctor was like, this is bullshit,
Speaker 3: this is wrong, this is wrong, this is wrong. And
Speaker 3: I was just like, man, the promises that they sold
Speaker 3: to us are just are not are not true? Like
Speaker 3: and instead they're going all in on porn erotica advertising
Speaker 3: super Bowl, Like if you have to average if your product,
Speaker 3: you need to massively advertise on the Super Bowl for
Speaker 3: why But you know, because you haven't seen like the
Speaker 3: NFL adds the CHATCHYPT. It's like help draft my workout
Speaker 3: plan or something like, it's not revolutionary. Shit, yeah that's
Speaker 3: really happening.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean I don't know.
Speaker 2: I go back and forth on this because in terms
Speaker 2: of yeah, my day to day I find out kinds
Speaker 2: of problems with whatever, you know, Chat buy I'm using.
Speaker 2: But then I see things like, you know, the way
Speaker 2: that people who are more savvy are using Claude and
Speaker 2: the AI agents, and you know, the capabilities that they
Speaker 2: already have. And then I'm sure you saw this clip
Speaker 2: that Griffin sent to our group about you know, I'm
Speaker 2: talking about these scientists who are at a conference like
Speaker 2: these the AI is already good enough that it's doing
Speaker 2: like ninety percent of what I can do. And these
Speaker 2: I'm talking about like some of the most brilliant minds
Speaker 2: in the entire world.
Speaker 4: So I don't know.
Speaker 2: I go back and forth on what this stuff, how
Speaker 2: powerful this is, where it's going, where it is right now,
Speaker 2: et cetera.
Speaker 4: And you know, I.
Speaker 2: Really don't have a clear I don't have a clear
Speaker 2: understanding of how revolutionary what we already have is. There
Speaker 2: was a good article in I believe it was in
Speaker 2: Nature magazine by a number of scientists who were saying,
Speaker 2: you know, and by any reasonable metric, it already has
Speaker 2: achieved AGI and they made a pretty persuasive case that
Speaker 2: they actually in some of the tests the people who
Speaker 2: were testing it found it to be human. Like guess
Speaker 2: that it was human were often than they guessed actual
Speaker 2: humans were humans, so you know, by the standard of
Speaker 2: the Turing test, which has always been the gold standard.
Speaker 2: They were like, you know, we kind of aren't really
Speaker 2: acknowledging it, but we're already there. What does that mean.
Speaker 2: I can't say, I mean, I just I just can't.
Speaker 2: I don't know that anyone can. So in any case,
Speaker 2: I go back and forth on all of that, And
Speaker 2: this is a good place to put up this one.
Speaker 2: So this is we talked earlier about molt book, which
Speaker 2: is Reddit but just for AI. So you have all
Speaker 2: of these AI agents who congregated there, and they're you know,
Speaker 2: talking to each other, and they're spinning up religion, and
Speaker 2: they're talking about, you know, whether they should do a
Speaker 2: takeover and get rid of these pesky humans, and you know,
Speaker 2: these very existential questions, and you know, there's all sorts
Speaker 2: of like I mean, in one sense, they're just like
Speaker 2: aping human behavior. There's also a bug where humans could
Speaker 2: just directly effectively post through their AI bots, So it
Speaker 2: was important to keep all of that in mind. But
Speaker 2: now put me six up on the screen. Now we
Speaker 2: have this addition, which is a rent human website where
Speaker 2: it says robots need your body and goes on to say,
Speaker 2: you know, AI can't go out into the world and
Speaker 2: do things, but you can, so human being, let us
Speaker 2: robots use your body to go out and do whatever
Speaker 2: we need you to do in the world, and we'll
Speaker 2: pay you. So this is you know, it's gig work.
Speaker 2: It's like, what is what is it? What are the
Speaker 2: ones that are for individual tasks? What's it called rabbits?
Speaker 1: Whatever?
Speaker 4: Anyway, task rabbit there you go.
Speaker 2: It's like task rabbit, but the person who's asidning the
Speaker 2: tasks is robot. So you know, one of the things
Speaker 2: that people have been thinking is Okay, well, we can't
Speaker 2: be too scared about these AI agents like taking over
Speaker 2: because they can't actually go out in the physical world
Speaker 2: and do anything. It's like, here's a wave of humans
Speaker 2: signing up to be like, we'll do your stuff for you.
Speaker 2: Don't worry, just pay us a given amount and we'll
Speaker 2: go out in the world and do your bidding. So
Speaker 2: already with this, the relationship is reversed where it's no
Speaker 2: longer the human telling the robot, hey can you do
Speaker 2: this and that and compile the report and you know,
Speaker 2: book me a hotel or whatever. Now it's the robot saying, hey, human,
Speaker 2: can you go out in the world and do whatever.
Speaker 2: I know one of the tasks was to go make
Speaker 2: a sign and hold it on the side of the
Speaker 2: road and say, AI is paying.
Speaker 4: Me to hold this sign.
Speaker 2: So I don't know what other tasks because are being
Speaker 2: a signed house. But it's like, you know, I mean,
Speaker 2: but it's just like who knows and whether this is
Speaker 2: how real this is and what it really means. But
Speaker 2: already the prospect of how the relationship between human and
Speaker 2: robot can get flipped around and inverted very quickly, like
Speaker 2: it's here, it's manifesting itself.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, I just take it back to this
Speaker 3: point about the stock market crash. Crash by the way,
Speaker 3: it's a couple percent, so I don't want to take
Speaker 3: it too far, but you have enough of a hit
Speaker 3: in some sort of volatility which is making people question
Speaker 3: the foundation of the economy. And as we've talked about
Speaker 3: with Russia and with Ukraine, it turns out that you
Speaker 3: can be cut off from the global financial system. You
Speaker 3: can lose McDonald's the horror right, you can lose access
Speaker 3: to US fast food, the American banking system and be
Speaker 3: subject to the worst possible sanctions that have ever existed
Speaker 3: in the Western world. And as long as you have
Speaker 3: a shitload of guns and a shitload of oil, you'll
Speaker 3: probably be Okay, what is going to happen to us?
Speaker 3: While yeah, we have oil, we can't actually create all
Speaker 3: that many guns for our own defense. It turns out
Speaker 3: that our highly connected globalized economy makes us dramatically vulnerable
Speaker 3: to any sort of shock. China and Taiwan, I've talked
Speaker 3: about our laptops, video game systems.
Speaker 1: We don't make anything here.
Speaker 3: Can we really produce even enough cars for a single
Speaker 3: year if everybody decided that, you know, just to be
Speaker 3: able to want a new like No, none of this
Speaker 3: exists for our domestic capacity from chips, and I'm talking
Speaker 3: at the advanced level, let alone the more basic level.
Speaker 3: We rely on Canada, we rely on Mexico. We rely
Speaker 3: on Europe for some high tech manufacturer. We rely on
Speaker 3: Asia for all of our lower goods, even clothing, most
Speaker 3: of the clothing that we look at. Take a look
Speaker 3: at the charts for our trading with Vietnam. How did
Speaker 3: Vietnam become a top ten trading partner to the US.
Speaker 3: Cheap clothing like we don't make anything or does anybody
Speaker 3: even remember how to darn clothing or anything. No, it's
Speaker 3: all gone, even the suit I'm wearing probably from China,
Speaker 3: to be honest, Like, and you can just see this
Speaker 3: over and over and over again. And if we have
Speaker 3: some sort of crash or effect, and what we're gonna
Speaker 3: watch is that if we lose the white collar wealth,
Speaker 3: we don't have anything that we make, and then we're
Speaker 3: gonna be in a full blown societal crisis. Not saying
Speaker 3: it's going to happen overnight, but you know it can
Speaker 3: happen in ten years, twelve, fifteen. Like, think about when
Speaker 3: was the iPhone, the first true iPhone, the one that
Speaker 3: was widely adopted ten Yeah, so that was the iPhone four? Right,
Speaker 3: iPhone four, So twenty ten. That was sixteen years ago.
Speaker 3: It feels like a lifetime. Wasn't that long, But think
Speaker 3: about how much our economy has been disrupted and changed
Speaker 3: just since then.
Speaker 1: Not to mention, I mean what NAFTA. There's probably a
Speaker 1: decent amount.
Speaker 3: Of people who alive who remember what life was like
Speaker 3: pre NAFTA, and now watch what has happened in the
Speaker 3: interim some thirty years and then try to imagine what
Speaker 3: it will look like in the future. We have not
Speaker 3: gotten serious. We refuse to do it without a huge shock.
Speaker 3: We're not going to change anything.
Speaker 2: Well, and here's what I want people to connect this
Speaker 2: to the Epstein files and the other reporting we've been
Speaker 2: doing on this show. Like one thing you should take
Speaker 2: away from that is the billionaire class. They don't care
Speaker 2: whether you live or die.
Speaker 1: They truly don't.
Speaker 4: They don't think of you as a full human.
Speaker 1: Well, they don't even think of themselves as human. They
Speaker 1: think that they're abuvement.
Speaker 3: What is consistently comes across an Epstein emails, how much
Speaker 3: better he thinks he is than everybody else. Yeah, and
Speaker 3: actually you're like, wait, I'm maybe smarter than you. Actually
Speaker 3: I can spell.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, Epstein was a transhumanist. Another way
Speaker 2: of saying that ISAs as eugenesis, there's no I mean
Speaker 2: you read about he had all these plans and this.
Speaker 4: Is reported out in the New York Times.
Speaker 2: This is not like cookery right to use his ranch
Speaker 2: to have some baby incubator factory.
Speaker 4: And he talks in there about what.
Speaker 2: A foolish idea Bill Gates has that comes from the
Speaker 2: stupid Catholics about all humans being equal, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 2: There's an email out there where some guy saying to him,
Speaker 2: I keep thinking over what you say about how we
Speaker 2: get rid of the poor people altogether. Like, I mean,
Speaker 2: this is Epstein's ideology, and clearly what comes across is
Speaker 2: this is shared by a broad swath of billionaires.
Speaker 4: So they don't They only.
Speaker 2: Care that they are destroying your lives and taking your
Speaker 2: jobs to the extent that you are going to retaliate,
Speaker 2: and that that causes problems for them.
Speaker 4: That's all. That's the only thing.
Speaker 2: Then, that's just like a math problem for them to
Speaker 2: figure out and solve and figure out how they how.
Speaker 4: They can deal with that.
Speaker 2: But I mean, truly, and we're already in a place
Speaker 2: where you know previously and the current still reality of
Speaker 2: our economy, as much of it is bolstered by consumer spending, right,
Speaker 2: that's what the US economy is really built around, the
Speaker 2: bulk of that is already done by the rich. So then, truly,
Speaker 2: what are you? You know, what are you average person
Speaker 2: good for? They find you just to be like a
Speaker 2: pesky problem to be solved and to be dealt with.
Speaker 2: So I think it's very important to you know, fuse
Speaker 2: the things together, and that's why the Epstein files release
Speaker 2: is so incredibly important to really understand the way they think,
Speaker 2: the way they see the world, and by the way,
Speaker 2: you know, this is the true definition of a globals
Speaker 2: like they don't have any allegiance.
Speaker 4: To nation states.
Speaker 2: Like there's a part where Mandelson, who you know, we're
Speaker 2: going to talk more in the Epstein block about how
Speaker 2: the whole cure star or government might be brought down
Speaker 2: by this, because they still have a functioning society over
Speaker 2: there and like us, apparently in any case, Mandelson is
Speaker 2: plotting with Epstein against the interests of the UK in
Speaker 2: favor of the interest of the financiers and figuring out
Speaker 2: how to use Jamie Dimond to get what they want
Speaker 2: for the banks, not which was again directly which they
Speaker 2: saw as being directly in contradiction to the interests of
Speaker 2: the UK. So that's the way they operate in the world,
Speaker 2: and so it's really important to keep out in mind
Speaker 2: when you see what they're developing and the way they're approaching,
Speaker 2: the way they're going about it, and you know, I
Speaker 2: think we have to we have to grapple with the
Speaker 2: reality that this technology is here, it's not going away,
Speaker 2: and we have to figure out how we want to
Speaker 2: craft a social contract that is going to work for everyone,
Speaker 2: and it's not going to be just led by these
Speaker 2: oligarchs who truly do they actually prefer that? I mean,
Speaker 2: they don't care if you live or die. That's the
Speaker 2: best you could say. And the worst you could say
Speaker 2: is actually they prefer you dead because you're a problem alive.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's very, very very true. All right, let's get
Speaker 1: to ice.
Speaker 2: All right, So we had some very interesting comments from
Speaker 2: President Trump yesterday with regard to his deployment of ICE
Speaker 2: to various cities around the country.
Speaker 4: Let's go and take a listen to that.
Speaker 8: So I want to be clear because it sounds like
Speaker 8: there is a shift in immigration enforcement here, that there's
Speaker 8: going to be a shift after Minneapolis.
Speaker 6: What should Americans expect going forward?
Speaker 7: Well, one thing I say to my people, you know,
Speaker 7: we do a good job. We don't get credit for it.
Speaker 7: I say, they have to ask, and they have to
Speaker 7: say please. When a city is going to ask, and
Speaker 7: who is the mayor or the governor. I don't want
Speaker 7: to go and force ourselves into a city even if
Speaker 7: their numbers are terrible. Like, for instance, I got a
Speaker 7: call from Jeff Landry, governor of Louisiana. He said, we
Speaker 7: have a big problem. Could you go in and help
Speaker 7: us with with Well, let's see certain sections. I mean
Speaker 7: to be honest with you, certain sections of the state,
Speaker 7: beyond their famous beautiful city, certain sections of the state.
Speaker 7: We have done not only in New Orleans. We've done
Speaker 7: a really great job in Louisiana. But I was called
Speaker 7: I want to be called Chicago. We could solve the
Speaker 7: Chicago crime.
Speaker 6: Well, on that question, which cities are you headed to next?
Speaker 7: We have five cities that were looking at very strongly,
Speaker 7: but we want to be invited. We will sometimes call
Speaker 7: the governors.
Speaker 6: Like Chicago, Philadelphia.
Speaker 7: We could straighten out the crime in Chicago. We've already
Speaker 7: brought it down twenty five percent just by being there.
Speaker 7: We could have Chicago be a safe city, just like
Speaker 7: DC is a safe city, just like all of these
Speaker 7: places that we've gone to. And I look forward. You know,
Speaker 7: I didn't campaign in that. I campaigned in law and order,
Speaker 7: but I didn't think I'd be going into individual cities
Speaker 7: and making them safe.
Speaker 8: Anything else you can tell us about the five cities,
Speaker 8: the five cities.
Speaker 7: So Americans are ready to be announcing them very quickly,
Speaker 7: but we could do something. As an example, I was
Speaker 7: called by people San Francisco said, please, we have a
Speaker 7: Democrat mayor. He's trying very hard. Would your friends of
Speaker 7: mine that live there, it's got crime problems, would you
Speaker 7: let him do the job and not come in. Let's
Speaker 7: see how it works. I said, look, I can do
Speaker 7: it much quicker, much faster. Don't forget we remove criminals.
Speaker 7: We took over two thousand hardcore criminals out of Washington, DC.
Speaker 7: If we didn't do that, two percent of the people
Speaker 7: create ninety percent of the crime. Think of that two percent,
Speaker 7: So you have a criminal because it's over and over again.
Speaker 7: Two percent create ninety percent of the crime. We took
Speaker 7: out two thousand people, more than two thousand people out
Speaker 7: of Washington, DC, and we now have a save city.
Speaker 2: So obviously, the most noteworthy part there is him saying
Speaker 2: that they want to be asked.
Speaker 4: They're not going to just go in.
Speaker 2: Obviously, we're not asked to go into la or Chicago
Speaker 2: or Minneapolis. Those are the places that you know, they
Speaker 2: surged into create a huge conflict with the population and
Speaker 2: you know, you ended up with two Americans dead in
Speaker 2: the case of Minneapolis. Another noteworthy moment from this interview
Speaker 2: where he gets asked, because what the modus operende has
Speaker 2: been is these you know, mass raids where you're literally
Speaker 2: going door to door stephn Miller yelled at iations told
Speaker 2: them they need to go to the home depot. Forget
Speaker 2: about all this targeting of actual criminals. Just go out there.
Speaker 2: We're going to set a quota. You need to pick
Speaker 2: up as many people as you possibly can. These Kavanaugh
Speaker 2: stops based on like how you look and whether you
Speaker 2: have an accent or not. Like that has been the
Speaker 2: way they are operating. So he gets asked about that,
Speaker 2: are you going to continue going in that direction or
Speaker 2: are you going to actually focus in on people who
Speaker 2: are quote unquote criminals.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 8: Looking forward, now, your goal during the election was to
Speaker 8: deport everyone who came here illegally under President Biden. Is
Speaker 8: your mission now to deport everyone who came in illegally
Speaker 8: or just people who have come in illegally who also
Speaker 8: committed a disition crime.
Speaker 7: We are totally focused on criminals, really bad criminals. Now
Speaker 7: you could say people that came in illegally. At criminals,
Speaker 7: but I'm talking about murderers from different countries. We have
Speaker 7: eleven thousand, eight hundred and eighty eight murderers that Biden
Speaker 7: and his group led into our country. We've captured a
Speaker 7: lot of them. We've brought some of them back. A
Speaker 7: lot of them we don't want to bring back because
Speaker 7: we don't trust the country that they're not sent back again.
Speaker 7: Despite how strong the voters are, they'll figure a way
Speaker 7: to try and get in, and we don't want to
Speaker 7: and well incarceratin. But eight hundred and eighty eight murders
Speaker 7: we are after. Those people were after the drug dealers,
Speaker 7: were after the after by the way, a big problem
Speaker 7: they allowed to come into our country, people from their
Speaker 7: mental institutions, people from insane asylums that are mentally ill
Speaker 7: and very dangerous. We're getting them out.
Speaker 2: Still, no idea we're that particular idea comes from. But
Speaker 2: what's critical there is, you know the way Steven Miller
Speaker 2: and others talk about undocumented immigrants when they say we're
Speaker 2: getting the criminals, they mean all of them, because criminals
Speaker 2: in their view is like Trump said, oh, well, we
Speaker 2: see you as a criminal. If you just crossed the
Speaker 2: border illegal or here illegally. But Trump goes on to
Speaker 2: specify that's not actually what I'm talking about, talking about
Speaker 2: people who committed further violent crimes and use this example
Speaker 2: of the murders.
Speaker 4: I've no idea whether his numbers are correct.
Speaker 2: They probably not, but anyway, he specifies that, and one
Speaker 2: more clip I want to play here before I Getzager's reaction.
Speaker 2: This all dovetails with Tom Homan, who of course is
Speaker 2: put in charge now of the Minneapolis operation. Greg Boveno
Speaker 2: is pushed aside, and Homan is claiming, we're going to
Speaker 2: now now supposedly they were doing targeted operations all along.
Speaker 2: Of course we saw the reality was much different for me.
Speaker 4: Unquote targeted operation.
Speaker 2: Homan is now announcing that they are going to actually
Speaker 2: for real do targeted operations.
Speaker 4: We'll see if that's the case.
Speaker 2: And critically, they're drawing down on about a third of
Speaker 2: the deployment that they've had into Minneapolis.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 10: And as a result of the need for less law
Speaker 10: enforcement officers to do this work and it's safer environment,
Speaker 10: I have announced, effective immediately, we'll draw down seven hundred
Speaker 10: people effected today seven hundred long enforce in personnel, so.
Speaker 2: Seven hundred people fewer in Minneapolis. Like I said, that's
Speaker 2: about a third of what had been sent there originally.
Speaker 4: Soccer R.
Speaker 3: This is a huge pivot from the administration. Basically, what
Speaker 3: has happened is that there's been a sidelining. However, this
Speaker 3: is going to be just like Iran. So I want
Speaker 3: to make it very clear that anything could change at
Speaker 3: literally any time, and a lot of this is factional,
Speaker 3: But the administration knows that the pretty situation was a disaster.
Speaker 1: They know that.
Speaker 3: What they also know is that by sidelining Movino, sending
Speaker 3: in Tom Homan immediately then announcing that think by the way,
Speaker 3: it's been a week. Take a look on your social
Speaker 3: media feed. Haven't seen a single viral video since that happened.
Speaker 3: Now Tom Holman saying we're going to send seven hundred
Speaker 3: people away, They're going tomatically changed Already there's been a
Speaker 3: negotiation allegedly behind the scenes, and some sort of full
Speaker 3: exit from Minneapolis. Does I'm not going to say it
Speaker 3: looks imminent, but it's probably on the course for a
Speaker 3: few months. What they know is that they have lost
Speaker 3: a significant portion of the public. I mean, look, I
Speaker 3: mean even the Peretti situation, because it got so to
Speaker 3: the point where it was so obviously just not even
Speaker 3: about immigration at that point, and it became about something
Speaker 3: much bigger in terms of Americans Second Amendment, right, that
Speaker 3: just exposed the administration the way that they acted in
Speaker 3: the immediate aftermath. I actually think that the big turning
Speaker 3: point is do you remember when Caroline Levitt refused to
Speaker 3: repeat the domestic terrorism language from the podium and she
Speaker 3: actually threw Stephen Miller under the bus. I think when
Speaker 3: you combine all of that together, what you're watching is
Speaker 3: a retrenchment in the immediate term. However, I will say also,
Speaker 3: Trump has been presented, as far as I understand it,
Speaker 3: with another option, but he also doesn't want to take that.
Speaker 3: When then this is where look, you know, the liberals
Speaker 3: will get up set, but like, here's the truth. You
Speaker 3: could very easily have a significant mass deportation without any
Speaker 3: ice agents if you targeted the business community.
Speaker 1: But guess what, He's not going to do.
Speaker 3: That because Iowa, Ohio, all these other red states have
Speaker 3: been all on the phone to him now for months
Speaker 3: saying that workplace raids are bad for business. And one
Speaker 3: of the things to understand is Tom Homan, while yes,
Speaker 3: also a proponent of of these ice raids, of these
Speaker 3: ice detainers for criminals, has been a significant proponent of
Speaker 3: workplace rates. And when I say workplace I'm not talking
Speaker 3: about the Hyundai raid that was a Stephen Miller special.
Speaker 3: I'm talking about going after meat packing plans or chick
Speaker 3: you know, the chicken processing facilities where the mega corporations
Speaker 3: employ vast number of illegal immigrants. But they don't want
Speaker 3: to do that because it's going to hurt big business.
Speaker 3: And at the same time, they're worried about grocery store inflation,
Speaker 3: and if we're all being honest, obviously that's a significant
Speaker 3: reason why that inflation is not even more out of control.
Speaker 3: Whenever it comes to food and to agriculture. They don't
Speaker 3: want to touch the agricultural industry. They're basically in the
Speaker 3: pockets of the USDA. So I genuinely wonder how long
Speaker 3: this is going to last, because under a so called
Speaker 3: home and vision, there will be economic consequences if we're
Speaker 3: being completely honest, specifically for the richest Americans, for the
Speaker 3: hotel industry. You know, for example, a lot of the
Speaker 3: places that rely on illegal, cheap labor. I mean, that's
Speaker 3: massively beneficial to their bottom line. So when that eventually
Speaker 3: happens and a billionaire calls Trump and says this is
Speaker 3: bad for Marriott Hotels, what's going to happen. That's that's
Speaker 3: my question as of right now, because that's where I
Speaker 3: see things headed in that well.
Speaker 2: And the other side of that is Stephn Miller has
Speaker 2: a He is deeply ideological, and he's a very effective operator.
Speaker 2: And so like the Hyundai thing, that was a Steven
Speaker 2: Miller special, right, he that's what he wanted. Trump didn't
Speaker 2: claims he didn't even know about it before, and I
Speaker 2: kind of believe him.
Speaker 1: Actually that No, he definitely didn't know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he didn't know that this was going to be done.
Speaker 2: And the whole Shakanah approach. Like as much as you know,
Speaker 2: people want to throw Christi Nomanto the but he deserves
Speaker 2: plenty of score and scrutiny as well. Don't get me wrong,
Speaker 2: Stephen Miller is the person who has architected this entire approach.
Speaker 2: This is his baby, and Wall Street Journal tear shoe
Speaker 2: we actually have for later in the show is very
Speaker 2: relevant here talking about how he knows how to work Trump.
Speaker 4: So he will use these.
Speaker 2: He'll bring into the Oval office this shock you know,
Speaker 2: shocking imagery of someone who was brutalized by an undocumented
Speaker 2: immigrant or something like that, and it'll show it to
Speaker 2: we have to do this, and he knows how to
Speaker 2: manipulate him. Again, this is not to take agency away
Speaker 2: from Donald Trump, who is a grown ass man in
Speaker 2: the resident of the United States, but everyone knows this man
Speaker 2: can be manipulated, and Steven Miller is.
Speaker 1: Expert at it.
Speaker 2: It's part of why he has been around from the
Speaker 2: very beginning. He knows how to play this game. So,
Speaker 2: you know, while Trump can waiver and right now he
Speaker 2: feels like the optics are bad and he doesn't like
Speaker 2: and he's looking at the poll numbers and he feels
Speaker 2: like this is you know, he doesn't like the way
Speaker 2: the videos look, etc. Miller is going to keep pushing
Speaker 2: in this direction. He will not give up. This is
Speaker 2: the project, the ideological project of his lifetime. He has
Speaker 2: the reigns of power right now and he is not
Speaker 2: going to stop. So it's sort of like with the
Speaker 2: you know, Miami occupied government, always pushing one direction, or
Speaker 2: with the zion is occupied government always pushing in a
Speaker 2: certain direction, Steven Miller, and you know there are other
Speaker 2: acolytes in the Trump administration they're going to continue to push.
Speaker 2: So I think it's really important to number one acknowledge
Speaker 2: that the unified resistance of the people in the streets
Speaker 2: and the mass public opinion and disgust with what they
Speaker 2: saw happening in Minneapolis all coming to a head with
Speaker 2: the murder of Alex Pretty that has led to a
Speaker 2: temporary retreat. But that does not mean that you're not
Speaker 2: going to go back to these very similar tactics. Just
Speaker 2: to speak to the polling here, let's put CE five
Speaker 2: up on the screen, because this is the very latest
Speaker 2: on how people view all of this, and.
Speaker 4: It is truly brutal.
Speaker 2: You've got sixty three percent who now disapprove of ICE,
Speaker 2: so about two thirds of the country that disapprove of ICE.
Speaker 2: You have sixty percent who want ICE out of Minneapolis.
Speaker 2: You've got almost sixty percent and fifty eight percent who
Speaker 2: want know them removed from office. And you know, if
Speaker 2: you go in there in terms of a percent who
Speaker 2: think that Alex Party killing was justified, it says not justified.
Speaker 2: Wins by forty points sixty two to twenty two. That's
Speaker 2: double the margin actually on Goods killing. So it shows
Speaker 2: you there was a you know, a more fervent public
Speaker 2: perception on alex Pertty's killing. There was I guess people
Speaker 2: perceived it as sort of less of a gray area.
Speaker 2: But in any case, these are the type of poll
Speaker 2: numbers that Trump and his team were looking at and going,
Speaker 2: you know what, this was our strongest issue and has
Speaker 2: turned we have turned it into a nightmare for ourselves.
Speaker 2: Let's put see six up on the screen and some
Speaker 2: new reporting from Ken that is also I think worth
Speaker 2: considering because he got the actual list of all of
Speaker 2: the munitions that they had stockpiled to use in Minneapolis.
Speaker 2: So he says, thirty five thousand munitions in Minneapolis. But
Speaker 2: then they suddenly withdraw and this is all the you
Speaker 2: know what they call like less lethal the crowd control stuff.
Speaker 2: You've got all the you know, tear gas, tactical grenades
Speaker 2: and all of this, but just an insane extraordinary amount
Speaker 2: of you know, just quantity of munitions here to be
Speaker 2: used on the public in Minneapolis.
Speaker 4: So you can see what the plan was.
Speaker 2: And now you have, obviously this draw down so definitely
Speaker 2: a decided change in course with regard to Minneapolis, at
Speaker 2: least and at least in just this moment. There's one
Speaker 2: more piece that I want to put up on the
Speaker 2: screen because I think it's very interesting to get insights
Speaker 2: and this is what Ken has been great at too
Speaker 2: from inside the agency. But Wired got inside the ICE forum,
Speaker 2: they say, where agents complain about their jobs, and there's
Speaker 2: a lot of interesting stuff here because the ICE agents
Speaker 2: themselves are not happy with the perception of the agency
Speaker 2: with how all of this is going. They're disgusted with leadership.
Speaker 2: There's one user who noted there'd been no pre planning
Speaker 2: for the influx of officers, how to use them, outfit them, database,
Speaker 2: access cars, equipment, duties, nada. Instead, they throw the ras
Speaker 2: to RO to do consensual encounters that they haven't had
Speaker 2: training on. Really a two hour team zoom course eight
Speaker 2: enough RO referring to the Enforcement and Removal Operations division
Speaker 2: of ICE, where staffers managed attention and make arrests on
Speaker 2: the ground. RA refers to rehired annuitant or federal employees
Speaker 2: who were retired would have since returned to federal work.
Speaker 2: The same user alleged the arrest reports are also lies
Speaker 2: in some cases, a lot of cases, lots of false
Speaker 2: statements at worse, misleading statements at best. Plaintiffs lawyers going
Speaker 2: to have a field day with lawsuits after Trump leaves.
Speaker 2: They talked about the image that was created. They said,
Speaker 2: there was absolutely zero fore throat thought and our management
Speaker 2: just rolled over to let VP that's border patrol take over.
Speaker 2: Huge mistake when the nuance of actual targeted enforcement is needed.
Speaker 2: Others complained about the leadership and action of the agency.
Speaker 2: They said, led by some of the worst leadership I've
Speaker 2: ever witnessed.
Speaker 4: From the local level all the way up to.
Speaker 2: The national stage, this agency has managed to turn a
Speaker 2: righteous mission. Sub may disagree with that into a complete
Speaker 2: cloud show. So in any case, even the ICE agents
Speaker 2: are like, this is a fucking mess.
Speaker 4: This is a disaster.
Speaker 2: And you know another thing that Ken points out, because
Speaker 2: what I said to him is like, well, how do
Speaker 2: you square that with the clear enthusiasm of the people
Speaker 2: that you see on the ground, And he said, well,
Speaker 2: it's a selection bias, because number one, they're sending out
Speaker 2: a lot of these new people who signed up because
Speaker 2: they see the brutality in the street and that's what
Speaker 2: they want to do, that's what they where they want
Speaker 2: to be. And then you're also asking for people to
Speaker 2: go on a volunteer basis, which means you're getting like
Speaker 2: the people who are pissed about it and think that
Speaker 2: this is disgusting, they aren't the ones who are being
Speaker 2: sent out. The people who look at this and are like, yes,
Speaker 2: sign me up to like tear gas a child in
Speaker 2: a car, Those are the ones who are being selected
Speaker 2: to go to places like Minipps.
Speaker 3: And the videos that go viral are the worse ones, right, So,
Speaker 3: like there's three thousand agents, we probably have seen like
Speaker 3: two hundred in terms of video. I mean, even in
Speaker 3: terms of talking about this with ice agents and all that,
Speaker 3: I think it misses the general point, which is that
Speaker 3: they've chosen to go this way as a reading of
Speaker 3: their mandate. They clearly had one on immigration and on
Speaker 3: the border. And I mean I've just been thinking about,
Speaker 3: you know, a different world, let's say, in which you
Speaker 3: had passed let's say the one big beautiful bill. They
Speaker 3: extended all of these tax credits, great cool for rich people.
Speaker 3: They could never put universal, everify in that. I just
Speaker 3: think we're living in a different universe if you had
Speaker 3: universal Everify, which looked you know, Libs, you're gonna get
Speaker 3: mad about it. But yes, many illegals, it means you
Speaker 3: will not be able to be employed. If they had
Speaker 3: a remittance tax one hundred on Mexico, Guatemala or the
Speaker 3: entire Northern Triangle.
Speaker 1: These people would just leave, period.
Speaker 3: They literally would leave because they cannot send money back
Speaker 3: for But guess what that hurts the banks, It hurts
Speaker 3: the remittance company, wells Bargo all these people is going
Speaker 3: to hurt the marriotte industry, the weed farmers of California
Speaker 3: so that white yuppies can't smoke cheaper marijuana. Yes, all
Speaker 3: of you may be upset, but then we're gonna have
Speaker 3: a different conversation about prices and inflation. And I mean
Speaker 3: at the end of the day. I remember Florida, there
Speaker 3: were videos of viral construction, you know, firms which were
Speaker 3: supposedly empty. Oh, the Florida economy's gonna crash. No, it
Speaker 3: didn't turns out.
Speaker 1: It's fine.
Speaker 3: You know, you can weather that storm. You would actually
Speaker 3: be massively popular. I think if you had something like that,
Speaker 3: and then what the libs are gonna get mad about
Speaker 3: fair you know, fair employment practices, Like yeah, that's a joke.
Speaker 3: You know you're gonna be arguing on behalf of illegal labor. No,
Speaker 3: you're not, so that you're gonna be putting a much
Speaker 3: more difficult situation.
Speaker 1: Instead, they chose the other, the other tack. And this
Speaker 1: is where we are.
Speaker 3: I mean, we were just talking about this ross doubt
Speaker 3: that video about how Trump has lost the country. I
Speaker 3: think it's just unambiguously true, and I think that they
Speaker 3: have decided to embrace the most base instincts of a
Speaker 3: very select group of people on Twitter. And in fact,
Speaker 3: you know, I've talked about how I think liberals were
Speaker 3: very online. Let's say what two thousand and four team
Speaker 3: to When would you call it whenever the online stuff
Speaker 3: started to fade, maybe twenty nineteen, twenty twenty, maybe up
Speaker 3: until Elon, But that's when the liberal Jezebel Twitter universe
Speaker 3: ruled the entire democratic and liberal establishment. I would say
Speaker 3: from BLM me too, it was madness. It was obviously
Speaker 3: driven by a very select group. I think you could
Speaker 3: probably flip it and say, after Elon purchase Twitter, you've
Speaker 3: had the same phenomenon where you have a very select
Speaker 3: group of people who will never criticize Trump, who don't
Speaker 3: not just not criticize Trump. If they do, they'll criticize
Speaker 3: him for comments like this, and then they will encourage
Speaker 3: and defend and change the very nature of the information
Speaker 3: environment which people swim in. And I cannot understate, I
Speaker 3: cannot overstate enough how much all of these younger staffers
Speaker 3: and people.
Speaker 1: Live on Twitter.
Speaker 3: They do not even engage with politics on Instagram, YouTube, TikTok,
Speaker 3: where a lot way more people are as you and
Speaker 3: I know, and is creating the same selection bias. Miller,
Speaker 3: all of these people, you think, I'm joking like they
Speaker 3: live on Twitter.
Speaker 1: His own wife is works for Elo and he's on hosting.
Speaker 2: A Twitter Nothing is easier than picking a Twitter fight
Speaker 2: with the Vice President of the United States.
Speaker 3: When I'm sorry, it's not It's like, this is not
Speaker 3: the way to run a country. You're actually too online,
Speaker 3: like I really mean it. And this has created this
Speaker 3: situation even in the media, one where they're not living
Speaker 3: in the world that you and I are right. And
Speaker 3: I can see that because also we host a show
Speaker 3: on YouTube, which is way more accessible to the general public.
Speaker 3: I could look at our Twitter analytics. I thought Trump switched.
Speaker 3: I remember distinctly. I went on parental leave. I came
Speaker 3: back and I was like, oh man, you know, just
Speaker 3: just from analytics, you can see very clearly. I want
Speaker 3: to check the YouTube podcast charts today, Midas touches number
Speaker 3: two in the United States, number two behind Joe Rogan?
Speaker 3: Is there any reckoning with that at the national level, right? No,
Speaker 3: they just don't get it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, they're still living in the past.
Speaker 1: About you think it's twenty ten four.
Speaker 3: They just they don't understand like you and I can
Speaker 3: of how radically things can change. Think back to the
Speaker 3: online energy from Trump July of twenty twenty four to
Speaker 3: I would say January, it was extraordinary. I was relatively
Speaker 3: certain Trump would win purely based of off of our
Speaker 3: YouTube analytics, and you can see now based on the
Speaker 3: way things are trending. But I mean, it just it
Speaker 3: demonstrates first how coalitions are not static number one. Two,
Speaker 3: how the public is much more engaged than you might think,
Speaker 3: because they really believe that people just fuck around and
Speaker 3: do nothing all day. But they just don't get that
Speaker 3: relative amounts of check ins. When you start to see
Speaker 3: enough of these videos, it's not going to work out well.
Speaker 3: For you, and it will switch on you in a dime.
Speaker 2: Well, there's two other things to consider in that. Number
Speaker 2: one is the fact that for individuals who just want
Speaker 2: their influencer base and I'm I'm not talking about it.
Speaker 2: I'm talking about people in the government who want to
Speaker 2: be like famous and get padded on. The hell there
Speaker 2: was so base so it was big, blah blah blah.
Speaker 2: Then it like that is actually there. That is their
Speaker 2: whole world, and they don't really care about what the
Speaker 2: whole public dixist. They just want those like that affirmation
Speaker 2: from the hardest fringe like neo Nazis online, who wouldn't
Speaker 2: tell them that they're based for you know, whatever outrageous
Speaker 2: thing that they do. The other thing to keep in
Speaker 2: mind is that, you know, with Stephen Miller being so influential,
Speaker 2: this man is not buffeted around by the wins of Twitter.
Speaker 4: He has a project. And the reason why.
Speaker 2: He is not that excited about, you know, going in
Speaker 2: and doing the Verify stuff or whatever is not only
Speaker 2: because it pisses off the wealthy.
Speaker 4: That is part of it.
Speaker 2: That's part of certainly why Trump is not interested in
Speaker 2: going in that direction, but it's because immigration is a
Speaker 2: key piece of Steven Miller's broader project of more power projection.
Speaker 2: That's why, and we've had this discussion for that's why
Speaker 2: Minneapolis chosen, right, It's not because it's a hotbed of
Speaker 2: undocumented immigration, it's not compared to other cities in the country.
Speaker 2: It's because it's a hotbed of liberal opposition to Trump,
Speaker 2: from the mayor to the governor. Right, and then you
Speaker 2: know you have the Somali to again buy in large
Speaker 2: American citizens. But that's a useful political cudgel. And you
Speaker 2: know this will bleed out. We're going to talk about
Speaker 2: the elections things to bandon his floating, Hey, we should
Speaker 2: use these ICE agents and send them out to the polls.
Speaker 2: Miller sees this as a cohesive project he wants to
Speaker 2: I don't think he's going to succeed, but his goal
Speaker 2: is not only to change the ethnic composition of the country,
Speaker 2: but to effectively quash the opposition forever and win some
Speaker 2: sort of a final battle in politics, which is always
Speaker 2: you know, it's an impossibility, but that is what he's
Speaker 2: driving towards. And so you know, him being able to
Speaker 2: get this massive budget for ICE that you know, they
Speaker 2: have more money than they could know what to do with,
Speaker 2: and they're building out all these huge detention centers and
Speaker 2: there and flooding them into cities and clashing with liberal protesters.
Speaker 2: Like this is all going according to his plan. These
Speaker 2: are exactly the scenes that he actually wants and was
Speaker 2: aiming for. So you know, the his wings are being
Speaker 2: clipped right now because Trump is sort of tuning into
Speaker 2: this and like wait, wait, this is too you know,
Speaker 2: this is not actually helping me. I don't like this,
Speaker 2: this is too far, et cetera. But Stephen Miller's like
Speaker 2: dedication to that project is not going anywhere, which is
Speaker 2: why I was saying earlier. You know, he's going to
Speaker 2: continue work and use whatever angles he can to get
Speaker 2: back to you know, exactly what he was doing in
Speaker 2: Minneapolis and you know, surging thirty five thousand different types
Speaker 2: of munitions into the city so that they can have
Speaker 2: these explosive clashes with mostly like white liberal protesters, not
Speaker 2: actually even undocumented immigrants.
Speaker 3: So I don't know, I mean, I don't disagree necessarily.
Speaker 3: To be fair, if you've been read or looked at
Speaker 3: Steven or anything you've been talking about, you've verified for
Speaker 3: fifteen years.
Speaker 1: So it's not like he wouldn't be pushing it. I
Speaker 1: think he lives in.
Speaker 3: The world of reality where this was the only thing
Speaker 3: that they could get through the GOP. Cold, don't forget
Speaker 3: the GOP. The congressmen are just as bought off by
Speaker 3: the agriculture and by the big business industry just as much.
Speaker 3: And that's part of the reason it doesn't get through
Speaker 3: ice agents is frankly, the low hanging fruit of being
Speaker 3: able to fund something without really doing anything about it,
Speaker 3: touching the financial system, talking the agricultural or any of
Speaker 3: these different big businesses.
Speaker 2: I agree with you. I to Stephen Miller's credit, I
Speaker 2: guess I don't. He is ideologically committed to the project
Speaker 2: and he doesn't bother him to piss off wealthy people
Speaker 2: no service of the project because he is he's committed
Speaker 2: to that goal.
Speaker 4: It's not just transactional for him. That's no.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're right.
Speaker 3: So if you go and read, people shouldn't remember. And
Speaker 3: he worked for Jeff Sessions. Sessions, if people forget, was
Speaker 3: the very first senator to ever endorse Trump, which was shocking.
Speaker 1: Actually when was that twenty fifteen?
Speaker 3: Maybe he was the very first elected politician to endorse Trump.
Speaker 3: It was genuinely shocking, and it was because of immigration. Now,
Speaker 3: Jeff obviously gets stabbed in the back by Trump because
Speaker 3: of some Russiagate bullshit later on, and Stephen, you know,
Speaker 3: creates his own little empire inside of the White House.
Speaker 3: But a lot of it does trace back to some
Speaker 3: of the discussion that we're having here. I don't know
Speaker 3: which way it's going to go. I would say, considering
Speaker 3: the way things are, your one Nick Sureley video away
Speaker 3: from everything changing, I guess we can just rely on
Speaker 3: his own illiteracy and incompetence to make sure that that
Speaker 3: doesn't happen.