Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
Speaker 1: and we here at Breaking Points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 1: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 1: the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent
Speaker 1: coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about,
Speaker 1: it means the absolute world to have your support. What
Speaker 1: are you waiting for? Become a premium subscriber today at
Speaker 1: Breakingpoints dot Com. Super embarrassing moment for the US government
Speaker 1: as the no fly list, which has massively mallooned over
Speaker 1: the year since nine to eleven, was actually leaked after
Speaker 1: being left on an unsecured airline server. Let's go and
Speaker 1: put this up on the screen. This is from Vice News,
Speaker 1: they say in the headline US no fly list leaks.
Speaker 1: It was left on that unsecured airline server. The list
Speaker 1: was discovered by a Swiss hacker, and it contains the
Speaker 1: names and birth dates and over a million entries. Just
Speaker 1: as a reminder, guys, we've had a no fly list
Speaker 1: in this country for a long time, but as they
Speaker 1: point out in this article, prior to nine to eleven
Speaker 1: it contained literally like sixteen names on it, so it
Speaker 1: was you know, almost non existent after nine to eleven.
Speaker 1: No one has any real insight into how large, but
Speaker 1: it had ballooned to you know, forty thousand, eighty thousand
Speaker 1: something like that. And by the way, no due process
Speaker 1: about who gets put on this list or any process
Speaker 1: to get yourself taken off of the list. There's no
Speaker 1: way to even know if you're on the list. So
Speaker 1: this is a huge deal that this list has ultimately
Speaker 1: been obtained and leaked. The fact that it includes more
Speaker 1: than one point five million entries is really pretty wild,
Speaker 1: although they said many of those entries are aliases that
Speaker 1: all reference the same person. But one of the people
Speaker 1: involved here said, it is so much bigger than I
Speaker 1: thought it would be. Yeah, the total number is somewhere
Speaker 1: between forty seven thousand and eighty one thousand people. And again, like,
Speaker 1: what does that even mean? And also what are the
Speaker 1: justifications for doing that? To be clear, you do not
Speaker 1: have to be convicted of a crime and may have
Speaker 1: no due process or burden of proof to be placed
Speaker 1: on the no fly list. They simply have to suspect you.
Speaker 1: We had many of these cases in after nine to
Speaker 1: eleven where somebody who had a name that was similar
Speaker 1: to a terrorist name literally could not board a flight
Speaker 1: because they even though it wasn't them, their name was
Speaker 1: on the list and they had to go through an
Speaker 1: insane process to be able just simply to fly. And
Speaker 1: it gets to a lot of really interesting complex case
Speaker 1: law too, in terms of you know, you are right
Speaker 1: basically as an American citizen. For people who aren't citizens
Speaker 1: is different that you know, you don't have a right
Speaker 1: to come to the country, but for people who are
Speaker 1: American citizens, your ability to navigate interstate is something that's
Speaker 1: been litigated and well established by the Supreme Court, and
Speaker 1: there were some cases on this, but it never actually
Speaker 1: kind of quite came to fruition. So the fact that
Speaker 1: it is between forty seven thousand and eighty one thousand
Speaker 1: people also keep in mind this is the twenty nineteen
Speaker 1: version of the list. This is an old list. Yeah,
Speaker 1: what does it look like in the age of the
Speaker 1: whole domestic terror scare after the last two years. There's
Speaker 1: no open nothing about this that hasn't been made public.
Speaker 1: But it ultimately really serves as a reminder to me
Speaker 1: because I haven't thought, frankly about the no fly list
Speaker 1: in quite a while decade. But it's a reminder of
Speaker 1: the many evils that were birthed out of the quote
Speaker 1: unquote War on Terror, which they never go away, They
Speaker 1: just get expanded and then used for other purposes or
Speaker 1: by other political actors. And so the fact that you
Speaker 1: know something like this, which created a lot of uproar
Speaker 1: and a lot of questions from civil libertarians at the time,
Speaker 1: over time, Americans just sort of like accept that this
Speaker 1: is a thing that happens, that people got put on
Speaker 1: this list for with absolutely no due process and ability
Speaker 1: to get themselves removed from it, that it can be expanded,
Speaker 1: that you can be added to it at any time,
Speaker 1: and it takes a news item like this to remind
Speaker 1: us that how much our sort of liberties and freedoms
Speaker 1: have really been impinged over this time period. Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1: We've covered before how upset the Europeans were that we
Speaker 1: would dare do what they do, which is place restrictions
Speaker 1: on their ability to sell cars in the United States
Speaker 1: and car manufacturing. Well, they haven't forgotten it. They got
Speaker 1: real upset at Davos. Let's put this up there on
Speaker 1: the screen. French President Emmanuel Macrone actually confronted Joe Manchin
Speaker 1: and said, quote, you are hurting my country for supporting
Speaker 1: protectionist actions within the Inflation Reduction Act. Let's go to
Speaker 1: the next one here, because this is actually my personal favorite.
Speaker 1: Oloff Schaltz, the Chancellor of Germany. He confronts Joe Manchin.
Speaker 1: He says, your support for policies favoring US automakers are
Speaker 1: hurting Germany. Manchin pulls out his phone Google's tariff costs
Speaker 1: on autos in Germany and shows the top result, which
Speaker 1: shows that Germany has a higher tariff on US auto
Speaker 1: makers than the tariff that we actually put in place
Speaker 1: just to try and protect our domestic manufacturing. These people
Speaker 1: are the biggest hypocrites in the world. The French and
Speaker 1: the Germans have some of the most protectionist economies in
Speaker 1: all of Europe. Germany specifically their manufacturing. They go to
Speaker 1: immense government lengths to prop it up because it's the
Speaker 1: backbone of the German middle class and really of the
Speaker 1: entire Europe. And it's been smart for them too. By
Speaker 1: the way, way, I don't fault them for a second.
Speaker 1: I would do the same thing if I was Germany,
Speaker 1: but do not have the temerity to get upset when
Speaker 1: we do one tenth and what you what we should
Speaker 1: have done thirty years ago? What you've been doing? Yes,
Speaker 1: And we're like, yeah, maybe we'll protect our own industry
Speaker 1: and they're having a full fledged freak out. There's another
Speaker 1: level of hypocrisy here too, because they would sort of
Speaker 1: tried the US for not doing enough on the climate change,
Speaker 1: which I mean deserved, right, I get it. But then
Speaker 1: we actually do something and they're not about it. So
Speaker 1: I'm very upset. This was also something that can remember
Speaker 1: Macron had a state visit here recently, and this was
Speaker 1: apparently a point of real tension between him and Biden
Speaker 1: as well, over the fact that they're worried that some
Speaker 1: of their green energy manufacturing is going to reshore here
Speaker 1: because of the incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act. So
Speaker 1: the European Union's action preparing their own package now, which great, good, Yeah,
Speaker 1: go for it, do it. But you know the fact
Speaker 1: that for once, the US is doing like the teeniest,
Speaker 1: tiniest bit to rebuild and protect our own manufacturing base
Speaker 1: here and they're freaking out about it is just hilarious.
Speaker 1: So yeah, a rare mansion w here. Yeah, very rare
Speaker 1: mansion w and a very common euro centrism. They drive
Speaker 1: me nuts, like the level of moral superiority once again,
Speaker 1: you know, they act like they are the kings of
Speaker 1: the world, both morally, and then they get so upset
Speaker 1: whenever we happen to do something they've been doing basically
Speaker 1: since the inception of their economy. Germany is the richest
Speaker 1: country in all of Europe, and France is I think
Speaker 1: number two or number three, depending on how you define
Speaker 1: continental or define Europe with the UK or not. These
Speaker 1: are very rich societies. Like the idea that they could
Speaker 1: not comprehend why we'd do this, also, Crystal, you know,
Speaker 1: they're taking us to court, most likely in terms of
Speaker 1: the U was the World Trade Organization. They're calling this
Speaker 1: like a breach of the WT or I mean, go
Speaker 1: for it all right, it be, my guests. It just
Speaker 1: drives me completely crazy. Yeah, I will say that. You know,
Speaker 1: when the Inflation Reduction Act passed, obviously I was supportive
Speaker 1: of it, but I didn't It's hard to look at
Speaker 1: these numbers in the abstract and the tax credits in
Speaker 1: the abstract and say like, is this going to be
Speaker 1: a significant shit? Does this really matter? Or not. The
Speaker 1: total freak out from the Europeans has really hardened one. Yes,
Speaker 1: I agree, and made me feel like, oh, this was
Speaker 1: actually a bigger deal than maybe I really realized at
Speaker 1: the time. So thank you by you know, happenstance, you
Speaker 1: have hardened my support and belief in the power of
Speaker 1: this program. Criticism of MSNBC coming from a very unexpected place.
Speaker 1: Let's go and put this up on the screen. Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi admits she is not a big fan of MSNBC.
Speaker 1: Of course, her reasons here are absolutely hilarious. This was
Speaker 1: in a big sit down interview with Maureen Dawd of
Speaker 1: The New York Times, and dad brought up to her
Speaker 1: that even some of the folks on MSNBC were being
Speaker 1: critical of the president with regards to their handling of
Speaker 1: the classified documents situation. And that's when Pelosi said, quote,
Speaker 1: I'm not a big fan of MSNBC. I love some
Speaker 1: individuals there, but dot dot dot and then I guess
Speaker 1: she sort of trailed off so effectively Sager. Amazingly, her
Speaker 1: criticism of MSNBC is that they are not slavishly partisan
Speaker 1: enough for her taste. Everyone to pay real close attention
Speaker 1: to this she's mad that MSNBC is not a one
Speaker 1: Biden propaganda network by just covering the Biden documents. And
Speaker 1: here's the funny part. If in their coverage, what do
Speaker 1: you always note that they say every single time, the
Speaker 1: totally these are totally different cases, same at all. They
Speaker 1: actually go out of their way to downplay the entire thing. So,
Speaker 1: if anything, they are doing the Biden propagandas by their definition,
Speaker 1: I saw the straight and the Hillary thing the press
Speaker 1: that the Hillary people could not handle it. They you're
Speaker 1: not allowed to talk about the emails pod zero. Even
Speaker 1: talking about it means that you're playing into Republican hands.
Speaker 1: What if it's bad? What if it's the news? You
Speaker 1: would be derelict if you're a news network and you
Speaker 1: are not covering that. And what do you do here?
Speaker 1: We cover it and then we cover a lot of
Speaker 1: other stuff. Everything is important. We're not saying it's the
Speaker 1: most important story in the world, but it's also very
Speaker 1: significant involving the current president of the United States and
Speaker 1: even the former tangentially, So these people are brained it.
Speaker 1: They demand one hundred percent allegiance from their allies in
Speaker 1: the media. Well, and if you think that executives that
Speaker 1: MSNBC won't take notice of this, you are wrong, because
Speaker 1: they their core mission is to serve their advertisers and
Speaker 1: maintain their access to the Democratic Party. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: what they do. It really matters actually less what their
Speaker 1: audience thinks or whether they're certainly whether they're putting out
Speaker 1: their coverage or not. Those are really their sort of
Speaker 1: two core missions. Would not shock me at all if
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi, who she may not be speaker anymore, still
Speaker 1: one of the most powerful forces in this town and
Speaker 1: in the country, if she or one of her aids
Speaker 1: put in a call to express directly their displeasure with
Speaker 1: the direction of this coverage. And in corporate media, careers
Speaker 1: are made by being able to maintain access to someone
Speaker 1: like Nancy Pelosi or any of her sort of like
Speaker 1: you know, surrounding circle. So they will take careful notice
Speaker 1: of the fact that she is displeased with the tone
Speaker 1: of their coverage and the fact that they have been
Speaker 1: even covering this at all, let alone moderately occasionally mildly
Speaker 1: critical of the president. So that's why it's really something
Speaker 1: to take note of here. Would not be surprised at
Speaker 1: all if it shapes the network's coverage going forward. You're
Speaker 1: absolutely correct. Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis won a very
Speaker 1: big battle actually against the college Board this week. He
Speaker 1: originally pushed back on the pilot curriculum for a new
Speaker 1: AP course in African American Studies, objecting to certain components
Speaker 1: of it, like critical race theory and queer theory that
Speaker 1: had been brought into this curriculum that was being piloted
Speaker 1: by the college Board. The coursework had been kept secret.
Speaker 1: The only reason the public really knows what's in it
Speaker 1: is because of leaks to media. But DeSantis pushed back
Speaker 1: on it and the Associate and the Associated Press. The
Speaker 1: college Board said, Okay, we're going to rework it. We're
Speaker 1: going to revamp it because DeSantis and Florida Republicans were
Speaker 1: not going to allow it to be used in Florida schools.
Speaker 1: This does not have to turn into a debate over
Speaker 1: the Stop Woke Act that DeSantis implemented. I think it
Speaker 1: was just last year. I have my own problems with
Speaker 1: that law, even if I sort of agree with the
Speaker 1: thrust of his point, But he got the college Board
Speaker 1: to change the coursework, and I mean as much as
Speaker 1: people hate Rond DeSantis. I actually think this will be
Speaker 1: for the better of the curriculum. What do we know?
Speaker 1: What do we know about what the curriculum? I saw
Speaker 1: him griping about queer theory and intersectionality, and what do
Speaker 1: we know about what was in the curriculum from the leaks. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So the leaks particularly pointed to critical race theory. They
Speaker 1: pointed to queer theory, intersectionality, and a lot of the
Speaker 1: writers and thinkers that had been sort of used as
Speaker 1: scholars and used their scholarship in the curriculum where to
Speaker 1: put it, mildly, very radical, I would say, fringe left thinkers.
Speaker 1: And again, this is where and this is my colleague
Speaker 1: growth in the Federalist that there's a fourteenth Amendment question
Speaker 1: here when you're getting into questions that there's a quote
Speaker 1: pulled out in one of the leaks about one of
Speaker 1: the scholars cited in the coursework had been talking about
Speaker 1: how white people are X, Y and Z and it
Speaker 1: was basically just because they were white, and not because
Speaker 1: of any sort of learned or conditioned traits that people
Speaker 1: pick up. But because they're white, they're X, Y and Z.
Speaker 1: And that is not healthy. And I think there is
Speaker 1: a real Fourteenth Amendment violation in that case. To my
Speaker 1: Collie Droit Pulman wrote about that, and I thought it
Speaker 1: was an excellent point. Equal protection. Yeah, and that's, by
Speaker 1: the way, why I think you don't need things like
Speaker 1: the Stop Woke Act, because we already have civil rights
Speaker 1: protections on the books. I know, these lawsuits take a
Speaker 1: really long time to go through and you're banking on
Speaker 1: winning them, obviously, but we do already have protections for
Speaker 1: racial equality. And so is he claiming that. So I'm
Speaker 1: wondering if he's let me try to find this one
Speaker 1: piece in there Thesantus Zurdin specifically on abolishing prisons, queer theory,
Speaker 1: and intersectionality, and he said, basically, this is a political inclusion.
Speaker 1: This is something that is more about one political team
Speaker 1: than the other. I saw in one of the articles
Speaker 1: that was about that, he was saying that they've won
Speaker 1: a victory kind of over identity politics. But so that's
Speaker 1: why I wonder if this is actually about him wanting
Speaker 1: to edit out some of the excesses that might have
Speaker 1: kind of slipped in from some fringed thinkers, but is fundamentally,
Speaker 1: you know, comfortable with an ap African American history course,
Speaker 1: or whether he just rejects the entire idea, because if
Speaker 1: you say that you're winning a victory over identity politics,
Speaker 1: in what way can you be against that? Completely against
Speaker 1: identity politics, but then also supportive of African American history
Speaker 1: classes like that African American history classes are in essence,
Speaker 1: by definition, connected to identity, the identity of African American
Speaker 1: history in America. I'm guilty of using that term im
Speaker 1: precisely myself because it's become such a political football, identity politics.
Speaker 1: But I think you're making a really good point, which
Speaker 1: is that fundamentally, I don't really have an issue with
Speaker 1: identity politics, the literal definition of identity politics, because people
Speaker 1: are different, thus their political interests are going to differ
Speaker 1: based on those different interests. So of course there's some
Speaker 1: element of identity politics, and the right plays into them too,
Speaker 1: with the say the white working class. That's identity politics.
Speaker 1: And I think personally there is legitimacy to talking about
Speaker 1: the white working class differently than other demographics, just like
Speaker 1: we talk about suburban women differently than other demographics. So yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean identity politics in its essence to your point,
Speaker 1: run de Santis, I guess isn't rejecting the ap African
Speaker 1: American Studies class. He's still going to allow, obviously the
Speaker 1: College Board to administer the class in the state of
Speaker 1: Florida and has said repeatedly, we are proud to teach
Speaker 1: African American history. This is a line that I think
Speaker 1: many Diaz and Florida officials have been using in their
Speaker 1: back and forth with the college Board. We are proud
Speaker 1: to teach African American history in the state of Florida.
Speaker 1: This is just too far, which, you know, whether or
Speaker 1: not you think run to Santis is sincere in that
Speaker 1: it's at least politically clever and right. Not only our
Speaker 1: identity is kind of real and salient, but sometimes people
Speaker 1: have multiple lapping elements of their identities that actually intersect. Basically,
Speaker 1: like white and working class would be an intersecting identity,
Speaker 1: and both of those pieces of your identity inform who
Speaker 1: you are, how you go about the world. So to
Speaker 1: see him coming to call it if maybe his advisors
Speaker 1: have some like sophisticated critique in the background, but like
Speaker 1: the way that he's presenting it publicly seems just like
Speaker 1: a blunt rejection of the entire notion. Yeah, but I
Speaker 1: think it's a blunt rejection of the entire notion that's
Speaker 1: broadly popular because people are sick of being excessively divided
Speaker 1: along identity lines and being divided along identity lines when
Speaker 1: it's not salient to your point, and that happens over
Speaker 1: and over again. And intersectionality was taken from a legal
Speaker 1: theory by Kimberly Crenshaw into a hierarchy and whether or
Speaker 1: not you think certain folks have abused it, Crenshaw accuses
Speaker 1: the right of abusing it, but it has been extrapolated
Speaker 1: in cases with certain thinkers to be becoming hierarchical. And
Speaker 1: I think that's been a high profile mistake and one
Speaker 1: that allows you run a scantis to come in and
Speaker 1: talk about identity politics being a bad thing because the
Speaker 1: accesses do resonate with people. Yeah, And we talked earlier
Speaker 1: about how Maurice Mitchell, who's the national director of the
Speaker 1: Working Families Party, wrote this six thousand word essay about
Speaker 1: the way that the left had vulgarized identity politics and
Speaker 1: was and was abusing it for for the for kind
Speaker 1: of there are people's own, you know, kind of internal
Speaker 1: motivations inside organizations and divorcing it from its structure. Quoted
Speaker 1: somebody saying that you've you know, you've taken the politics
Speaker 1: out of identity. You had identity politics. No longer has
Speaker 1: the politics connected to it. Now it's just identity. And
Speaker 1: so there's an irony in that we all sides have
Speaker 1: dumbed it down and then battered each other with it.
Speaker 1: And then you try to say, okay, well then let's
Speaker 1: start let's let's do let's do a course on this, like,
Speaker 1: let's let's actually study it in a in a profound way,
Speaker 1: and then the dumbed down parts woul get pulled out
Speaker 1: and say, well, we can't do that because this is
Speaker 1: so dumb. Well how are we going to get smarter? Yeah,
Speaker 1: we don't study this. So we'll keep watching this and
Speaker 1: see what AP comes back with. I'm skeptical that it's
Speaker 1: going to be a good faith back and forth, but
Speaker 1: this is all we've got, you know. I think the
Speaker 1: red line in the sand should actually be whenever you're studying,
Speaker 1: like racial history, whatever it is, the red line in
Speaker 1: the sand, if you're a Republican or Democrat, whatever you
Speaker 1: think should be treating people differently based on the color
Speaker 1: of their skin solely and saying these are innate characteristics
Speaker 1: that come because of the color of your skin. And
Speaker 1: so to the extent that that's Rondasantis's red line, you
Speaker 1: can take it in good faith or not, it doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: But to the extent that this move at least drew
Speaker 1: that red line for the college board and the course
Speaker 1: is going to go on, I have a hard time
Speaker 1: being upset about this. I think that's great because I
Speaker 1: imagine that that's painful for children and causes a lot
Speaker 1: of confusion, confusion for children, and a lot of strife
Speaker 1: in classrooms as we've seen actually over the last couple
Speaker 1: of years. And it's not just white students. A lot
Speaker 1: of studies have shown that black students, when when you
Speaker 1: present this kind of this idea that you are defined
Speaker 1: by race completely and fully from beginning to end, that
Speaker 1: can create harm as well. But yeah, we'll keep following
Speaker 1: this story and others like it, so stay tuned for
Speaker 1: that really big news this week, though it kind of
Speaker 1: got buried in the media cycle. Disney is welcome back
Speaker 1: in China. This is again huge news for Disney stock,
Speaker 1: which has been struggling. But Actuos reported yesterday that Marvel
Speaker 1: movies are officially returning to theaters in China. That's the
Speaker 1: first time since Spider Man was released in twenty nineteen.
Speaker 1: Remember how huge of a relationship that Disney and Marvel
Speaker 1: has had with China over the years. It's a big, big,
Speaker 1: big money maker. But it's also something that has caused losses.
Speaker 1: If you remember Turnals, which is directed by Chloe Joo,
Speaker 1: she was banned. Basically, the movie was banned from China
Speaker 1: because she had said something critical in a trade publication
Speaker 1: about how there are secrets everywhere in China ten years ago,
Speaker 1: and that caused the movie. I just pulled this up.
Speaker 1: This is like a three hundred million dollar movie and
Speaker 1: its budget was expected to be made up by getting
Speaker 1: a great reception in China. That's a loss for Disney.
Speaker 1: When you can't show that money that movie in China
Speaker 1: and have spent a ton, a ton a ton of
Speaker 1: money on it. What do you make of this? This
Speaker 1: is a big deal. I just couldn't be happier for
Speaker 1: Mickey Donald, the whole gang, Disney happy for there that
Speaker 1: they're going to be back raking in money from China.
Speaker 1: Congratulations to them. So they're going to do their Marvel comics. Right,
Speaker 1: They've got ant Man and Black Panther coming out in
Speaker 1: February in China. And do you think that this was
Speaker 1: public pressure in China, the public being like come on,
Speaker 1: like these are fun, or like what do you how
Speaker 1: do you account for this shift? Yeah? I mean maybe
Speaker 1: it's that, Maybe it's just shaking things back up post COVID.
Speaker 1: Maybe it's because Bob Iger is back at Disney and
Speaker 1: he always had a good relationship with China, and Bob
Speaker 1: chat Back got pushed out last year and Iiger is back.
Speaker 1: That might have something to do with it. Maybe he
Speaker 1: was instrumental in reopening that relationship or rekindling that relationship.
Speaker 1: But Disney has really been struggling, and it's obviously a
Speaker 1: huge company. It's a huge part of the economy, and
Speaker 1: so it's access back to Chinese markets is a really
Speaker 1: big deal. And they'll argue, by the way, that this
Speaker 1: is a really big bridge between the two countries so
Speaker 1: they can share culture. It's sort of like the old
Speaker 1: Cold War argument about blue jeans. Right, If you can
Speaker 1: get people overseas to enjoy blue jeans, appreciate blue jeans,
Speaker 1: want blue jeans, then they'll be more favorable to the
Speaker 1: United States. It's a problem that's really plaguing many, many industries,
Speaker 1: whether it's the NBA, whether it's talking about rare earth
Speaker 1: minerals or semiconductors. This is a really big problem and Disney.
Speaker 1: It's interesting thor Love and Thunder. I think it was
Speaker 1: actually As that pointed this out. It dropped over the summer.
Speaker 1: It was not approved by China's censors because it had
Speaker 1: LGBTQ themes in it. Now it's awards season, and I'm
Speaker 1: very curious to see if any celebrities in their sanctimonious
Speaker 1: awards show speeches speak out against Disney coming back into
Speaker 1: this relationship with China. You get immediately blacklisted, immediately blacklisted
Speaker 1: by China. Even your studios that you work with can
Speaker 1: get blacklisted. The consequences will be huge, They'll be sweeping
Speaker 1: and will affect more than you if you speak out
Speaker 1: against this. But this is them rekindling relationship with an
Speaker 1: authoritarian country that has a lot of human rights problems, right,
Speaker 1: and so some people would call it a bridge, but
Speaker 1: what you're describing sounds more like shackles. Right. You saw
Speaker 1: the NBA cracking down on anybody who said anything even
Speaker 1: you know, remotely critical of treatment of people in Chin
Speaker 1: gen or or Hong Kong, said anything about time Wan
Speaker 1: like just you couldn't touch anything. So it was it's
Speaker 1: more more for boating it than basically anything online. It's
Speaker 1: like saying anything at all about the biggest country in
Speaker 1: the world. And so you're right, like actors love nothing
Speaker 1: more than to give virtual virtuistic speeches at the oscars,
Speaker 1: but I would be shocked if any of them stood
Speaker 1: up for you know, said anything about any of that.
Speaker 1: And so then if it is a bridge, which way
Speaker 1: are the people marching, and it seems like they're they're
Speaker 1: marching this way and controlling us rather than us kind
Speaker 1: of having an influence on them. And to your point
Speaker 1: about what's driving this, China has learned how to make
Speaker 1: Hollywood movies on its own, and they release a lot
Speaker 1: of movies that are very nationalistic, big blockbuster things. They
Speaker 1: are very nationalistic and very appealing to Chinese audiences that
Speaker 1: really really like them. So that's another thing. I mean,
Speaker 1: Disney planned the budgets for a lot of these films
Speaker 1: well before this relationship splintered, and now they want to
Speaker 1: make up and they know that they can spend more
Speaker 1: money on these films and get them, hopefully to appeal
Speaker 1: to bigger audiences. We saw a top gun Dotto over
Speaker 1: the course of the last year. A huge, big budget
Speaker 1: blockbuster does really well because people like the high octane stuff.
Speaker 1: So Disney can spend more money on these movies and
Speaker 1: then show them in China and all is well. That
Speaker 1: ends well, But every sector of our economy is now
Speaker 1: grappling with these questions. I think the public is more
Speaker 1: aware of these questions. Mulan, which never ended up getting
Speaker 1: shown in China, thanked the law enforcement of Shinjong the credits,
Speaker 1: which was a huge controversy at the time. So good
Speaker 1: luck to Disney, a huge lucrative contract or a huge
Speaker 1: lucrative move to be able to open up that relationship
Speaker 1: again with these two films. They're going to make a
Speaker 1: lot of money off of it, maybe break even on
Speaker 1: the films because of it, or even do better than that.
Speaker 1: So we'll certainly keep following this in every sector of
Speaker 1: the economy because there are some real problems for American
Speaker 1: business leaders. Some big movement in the realm of UFOs UAPs,
Speaker 1: whatever you want to call it. The government put out
Speaker 1: their report. They've been trying to gaslight us all on
Speaker 1: the issue. There's a new clip that's been reserved as
Speaker 1: well as a new image released by my friend Jeremy Corbel.
Speaker 1: Let's look at the clip first. I actually missed this.
Speaker 1: This was back in May of twenty twenty two, but
Speaker 1: still important. Nonetheless, you have a Congressman Richie Torres here
Speaker 1: talking about debris that has been recovered by the United
Speaker 1: States government. Let's take a lesson. Has any physical evidence
Speaker 1: such as debris been recovered. The debris that has been
Speaker 1: recovered has not raised any notable alarms. So hold on
Speaker 1: a second, which debris, what where? So a lot of
Speaker 1: this was discussed was at least wiped under the rug
Speaker 1: in the report. We talked previously about the Pentagon Inspector
Speaker 1: General coming out and talking about secret compartmentalized programs, Roswell
Speaker 1: and other things that he's been quote looking into. Still
Speaker 1: absolutely no disclosure on any of that. So my friend
Speaker 1: Jeremy Corbel, he's been talking, he's been releasing new podcast,
Speaker 1: Weaponized Podcast. Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 1: You can make fun of it if you want to,
Speaker 1: But this is a brand new photo it's actually been
Speaker 1: taken from the US government archives. They call this crystal
Speaker 1: the mosl ORB. So this was a US military filmed
Speaker 1: UFO from presumably from a drone and has been officially
Speaker 1: designated in government files as a unidentified anomalous phenomenon at
Speaker 1: no IDEA what roundage, Yeah, that round thing is actually
Speaker 1: seen for So the video itself is four seconds long.
Speaker 1: It was seen on the camera for only a single second.
Speaker 1: That's what you get there. And let's be clear, in
Speaker 1: the files itself, for all of the balloon people, this
Speaker 1: stuff has been ruled out. This has been you know,
Speaker 1: in terms of the analysis. Nobody knows what the hell
Speaker 1: it is. I don't know. I don't know what to
Speaker 1: make of it. It almost seems too good to be true.
Speaker 1: But again, I mean, nobody in the government is disputing this.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying it doesn't even look like anything in particular.
Speaker 1: It literally appeared on camera like a flash. So it's
Speaker 1: just stunning stuff. And it all comes on the heels
Speaker 1: of the new report. And there's lot of general interest
Speaker 1: that is happening right now with post report environment. Jeremy himself,
Speaker 1: I spoke to him, a lot more stuff has been
Speaker 1: is going to continue to come out, and I just
Speaker 1: want to say, look, I know it sounds a little wacky,
Speaker 1: and I know it sounds kind of crazy. None of
Speaker 1: these photos are smoking gun proof, but you would also
Speaker 1: presume that if you have a hyper advanced society that's
Speaker 1: like this, like the idea of the actual smoking gun
Speaker 1: proof and all of that just coming out. I mean,
Speaker 1: it doesn't seem all that likely. You get little glimpses
Speaker 1: and pieces. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. I don't know,
Speaker 1: but it's it's a real mystery. Can we can we
Speaker 1: incorporate this into the weaponization of government New Church Committee?
Speaker 1: Can we? No way, because it's one of those things
Speaker 1: where it's this is so much deeper than that, Like
Speaker 1: in terms of the car apartment. I always think about
Speaker 1: this John Podesta, whatever you think about the guy, he
Speaker 1: was a big UFO guy. Actually yeah, he was chief
Speaker 1: of staff to Bill Clinton and he wrote an intro
Speaker 1: to a UFO book and he was like, look, I
Speaker 1: tried to get to the bottom of this. He's like,
Speaker 1: I'm a UFO guy. I've always been interested in UFOs.
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton's actually fully admitted this on camera. He said,
Speaker 1: I tried to get to the bottom of it, and
Speaker 1: they wouldn't tell me that's out there. You can go
Speaker 1: and look at the clip itself. Podesta himself of White
Speaker 1: House Chief of Staff. He literally tried to corral the
Speaker 1: IC to give him the information and they didn't give
Speaker 1: it to him. There have been a variety of people
Speaker 1: like that who have been in senior government officials. Assistant
Speaker 1: Secretary of Defense Christopher Mellen, He's talked about the same thing.
Speaker 1: He's like, there's a lot of stuff in there. He's like,
Speaker 1: but you know it's not coming out. So the highest
Speaker 1: levels of elected office, and even they a money of them,
Speaker 1: they have no idea what's going on. We'll see. I
Speaker 1: take a lot of pride and the guys like Ryan Graves,
Speaker 1: he was the pilot, one of those pilots. I believe
Speaker 1: he observed the gimbal Ufo. He actually said he was
Speaker 1: almost arrested for coming out and speaking out about his
Speaker 1: experience with the gimbal Whatever ever happened with the dude
Speaker 1: who ran the website and how does tell like house
Speaker 1: runs that also, nobody knows what the hell happens to
Speaker 1: that guy. They FBI broke into his house, no knock warrant.
Speaker 1: Actually no, it wasn't FBI. It was like Navy Special whatever,
Speaker 1: the Naval Criminal Department NCIS literally went in and stormed
Speaker 1: in without a warrant U. They searched, seized all of
Speaker 1: his stuff, his servers, private phones, all that didn't give
Speaker 1: it back to him. Still to this day, we have
Speaker 1: no idea what happened. And he basically runs a website
Speaker 1: that has these like photos show you know from area
Speaker 1: fifty one and be similar photos to what we just
Speaker 1: showed you for example. And look, I get it. I
Speaker 1: know this sounds crazy. I know that said this is
Speaker 1: all true. Nobody's disputing that video. And we're talking about
Speaker 1: members of Congress and all this stuff that are saying
Speaker 1: this who have access that are saying, actually there's debris,
Speaker 1: that's what he says. And he says it hasn't raised
Speaker 1: any questions. But I mean, look, we have questions, whether
Speaker 1: he does or not. We definitely I need to see it.
Speaker 1: We have been tracking somewhat and you guys have probably
Speaker 1: been tracking as well. This big fight between two giants
Speaker 1: of conservative media's Stephen Crowder on one side and Daily
Speaker 1: Wire led by Ben Shapiro on the other side. Another
Speaker 1: player in this whole drama has been Candice Owens, who
Speaker 1: is now employed by The Daily Wire and who has
Speaker 1: been doing her own videos and appearance with Tim Poole
Speaker 1: talking about this whole thing, and you know, really slamming
Speaker 1: Crowder and talking about what a betrayal this was. And
Speaker 1: I think she called it a quote unquote bitch move.
Speaker 1: That's but I can't really do it. It is a
Speaker 1: bitch move. I can't really just do that. But the
Speaker 1: latest charge against Crowder is that he is basically now
Speaker 1: with exposing these these terms of this contract, that he's
Speaker 1: basically a socialist. Take a listen to what she had
Speaker 1: to say. I think that people are really seeing just
Speaker 1: how nasty what you did was. And I think that
Speaker 1: I would hope that you would come to terms to
Speaker 1: the fact that you owe everybody an apology, that this
Speaker 1: was never necessary, that you can start whatever company you want.
Speaker 1: You don't get to step in like a socialist, and
Speaker 1: it is socialists like these are the demands that you hear,
Speaker 1: and people are trying to establish a union. When the
Speaker 1: Amazon workers have walked out because they have decided that
Speaker 1: they are worth more, that they should have three hour
Speaker 1: lunch breaks, they've gotten their contract from Amazon, and they
Speaker 1: realize that they are lunch breaks for only one hour,
Speaker 1: and that they're required to show up to work, and
Speaker 1: they think they should be able to work from home
Speaker 1: for three days a week post COVID, and they walk
Speaker 1: out and they want to stage a union. And this
Speaker 1: is the big con. It's Amazon. No. I mean, I
Speaker 1: was with you on the bitch Move canvas. Why did
Speaker 1: you have to go so far as call a socialist?
Speaker 1: So obviously the Amazon part is going to trigger me,
Speaker 1: because this woman clearly has no idea what conditions are
Speaker 1: like for where houseworkers at Amazon. The idea that they
Speaker 1: get to work from home or they even get a
Speaker 1: lunch break, you know, let alone fighting for a three out. No,
Speaker 1: that is not what's going on there whatsoever. So that
Speaker 1: eared and also the whole concept of like, oh, this
Speaker 1: is so outrageous that you would band together with your
Speaker 1: fellow workers to have a voice in your own workplace
Speaker 1: which you spend a majority of hours of your life at.
Speaker 1: Obviously I find that atrocious. But I will say, Sager,
Speaker 1: one of the things that was always amusing to me
Speaker 1: about this fight is, you know, Crowder and Shapiro and
Speaker 1: Candice Owens, these are all died in well capitalists, blame
Speaker 1: free market all this stuff, and ultimately what Crowder was
Speaker 1: talking about, even though I think, you know, this is
Speaker 1: a total setup. It was like a cynical move to
Speaker 1: start his own thing. But he's talking about provisions in
Speaker 1: a labor contract and what is fair and unfair to workers,
Speaker 1: as if any of these people in him in particular,
Speaker 1: have ever really expressed concern or encouraged anything like the
Speaker 1: banning of non competes from the Biden administration, Like there's
Speaker 1: no track record there of caring about labor conditions in
Speaker 1: the past. So in a way, she does kind of
Speaker 1: have a point here of like, I clearly disagree with
Speaker 1: their ideology, but what Crowder is claiming to stand up
Speaker 1: for in this whole fight is very much inconsistent with
Speaker 1: the ideology he supposedly holds. Well. It's also you know,
Speaker 1: she also said something which really has me curious. She goes,
Speaker 1: Stephen has a lot going on, yeah, And I was like,
Speaker 1: what does that mean? Yeah, And she said something like,
Speaker 1: I think we should all pray for him right at
Speaker 1: this point, just let it all out. I gotta know.
Speaker 1: I'm transfixed at a lot too, just to see exactly
Speaker 1: what's going on with this. I will say it seems
Speaker 1: incredibly bizarre. At first, I was kind of a crowder
Speaker 1: and I was like, well, I could see him like,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure I would sign that contract. You know,
Speaker 1: the idea of especially the tech censorship thing and all that.
Speaker 1: I get where the Daily Wire was coming from. But
Speaker 1: at the same time, it's a term sheet, right, so
Speaker 1: it's not even like it was a contract that said.
Speaker 1: The more you think about it, like taping the phone
Speaker 1: call of your friend, and you could also so you
Speaker 1: can hear the betray when Ben and when Jeremy, especially Ben,
Speaker 1: when they talk about it. I'm like, man, that's well,
Speaker 1: that's screwed up. The timeline that Ben lays out of.
Speaker 1: You had registrate website, you had a term sheet for months,
Speaker 1: you register this stop big Con website, and then you
Speaker 1: set up the phone call that you record. It's very
Speaker 1: clear this was like a cynical market play. Ultimately, it
Speaker 1: was very capitalist of him. I mean that's you know, uh,
Speaker 1: I think what he is is after here. I think
Speaker 1: that seems incredibly incredibly clear now. But yeah, it's going
Speaker 1: to continue to be ugly because she is effectively sort
Speaker 1: of threatening and blackmailing him with revealing some sort of
Speaker 1: information that I guess he you know, wouldn't want out
Speaker 1: and that she got from quote unquote sources. So we'll
Speaker 1: see where it all goes. But you know, part of
Speaker 1: why it's brought these are huge players, Like we're talking about,
Speaker 1: this is a fifty million dollar contract over four years.
Speaker 1: The amount of money, the amount of influence they have
Speaker 1: in terms of the conservative ecosystem is massive. And I
Speaker 1: do think even though Crowder is not a noble actor here,
Speaker 1: you know, Daily Wire probably spends a lot of ad
Speaker 1: dollars on YouTube. I don't doubt that they have you know,
Speaker 1: people high up at YouTube that they're able to call.
Speaker 1: Do they have insights into okay, what can you say
Speaker 1: and what can't you say? And how to walk the
Speaker 1: line to make sure they don't get demonetized, that they
Speaker 1: don't get suppressed in the algorithm. I think those are
Speaker 1: like decent questions to ask. But again, I don't really
Speaker 1: think Crowder is like a noble actor here in terms
Speaker 1: of cecil dynamic. I don't think anybody is particularly noble. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and also shows you the hell a lot of money involved.
Speaker 1: It also just shows you also by the way, you know,
Speaker 1: whenever people accuse us or whatever of doing here's a
Speaker 1: perfect example. I was like, if you're willing to go
Speaker 1: all the way and read ads for gold and do
Speaker 1: sponsorships and really go into it, that's actually what it
Speaker 1: looks like. In terms of our business model, which is
Speaker 1: mostly in subscriber funded. We don't do host red ads
Speaker 1: or any of the other stuff. Never just to give
Speaker 1: you you're talk to advertise exactly, it's just auto generated
Speaker 1: ads and subscriber yes, so just to give people an
Speaker 1: idea of how much money exactly we're leaving on the
Speaker 1: table knowingly in favor of independence, and this is exactly why.
Speaker 1: So I also want to put that out there in general.
Speaker 1: Like with the whole situation, I really do think like
Speaker 1: for me, it's the personal betrayal of Crowder and the
Speaker 1: way that he has behaved. Because there are a lot
Speaker 1: of people who I hate in his business, people who
Speaker 1: actively talk smack and like all this. I would still
Speaker 1: never do any of that to them. It's just not right,
Speaker 1: like conducting yourself this way, especially to try and to
Speaker 1: make a profit. There was a genuine, genuine disservice here
Speaker 1: that was done. I think that's a completely different story.
Speaker 1: But the more that I see it, he betrayed friends
Speaker 1: and I don't know. To me, that's all wash your hands, yeah,
Speaker 1: grow smooth, very gross, smooth alight, all right, we'll see
Speaker 1: y'all later