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 2: We talked to you recently about Mark Andresen and then
Speaker 2: Zuckerberg going on with Joe Rogan and being like, you know, we.
Speaker 4: Gotta deal with this.
Speaker 2: This d banking Elizabeth Warren's d banking agency, the Consumer
Speaker 2: Financial Protection Bureau, which actually is basically like the anti
Speaker 2: scam Agency, is sort of like the best way effectively
Speaker 2: to think about that. This is no surprise, but Rohit Chopra,
Speaker 2: who's been the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Speaker 2: and a very effective one at that, who, by the way,
Speaker 2: has a posed debanking people for political ends. He has
Speaker 2: now officially been fired and in addition put the next
Speaker 2: piece up on the screen. Apparently the billionaire Hedgemund Treasury
Speaker 2: Secretary Scott Bessant has been put in for as acting
Speaker 2: director of the CFPB, and he immediately sends out a
Speaker 2: memo to staff saying you need to halt movement on
Speaker 2: any proposed or final rules guidance, suspend effective dates of rules,
Speaker 2: don't advance investigations or enforcement actions, no material agreements, no
Speaker 2: public communications or reports, seemingly giving Mark Andrews and Mark
Speaker 2: Zuckerberg and a lot of other people exactly what they
Speaker 2: were looking for here.
Speaker 1: Yeah. That I mean, yes, this is what.
Speaker 2: Grod to hear to say, thank you, help people understand
Speaker 2: what is the import of this particular agency and just
Speaker 2: remind them why the Mark Andrews and the Mark Zuckerbergs
Speaker 2: of the world were irritated at it in particular.
Speaker 5: Yeah, So the CFPB was dealing with, you know, scams
Speaker 5: and fraud and consumer protection questions, and so they would
Speaker 5: they were going after you know, there was this there's
Speaker 5: this company called Synapps which was like which was one
Speaker 5: of these fintech companies, and it sort of appeared like
Speaker 5: a bank and then a bunch of people lost their
Speaker 5: life savings in it. And the CFPB was investigating doing
Speaker 5: things to try to deal with with syn apps. Marc
Speaker 5: Andreesen was a big investor in synapps. This is true
Speaker 5: for a number of different investments.
Speaker 1: That he made.
Speaker 5: He doesn't like that the CFPB is wasn't was enforcing
Speaker 5: the law. I think that's my general view. But this
Speaker 5: is also you know Wall Street generally. There are there
Speaker 5: are different parts here because there's some things that the
Speaker 5: CFPB was doing that Wall Street did like. So they
Speaker 5: were looking into big tech owned payment systems. Banks are
Speaker 5: afraid of that open banking rules that some fintech companies
Speaker 5: liked that banks don't don't. Particularly, there's there's elements around
Speaker 5: FICO and credit reporting that some mortgage bankers don't like.
Speaker 5: So there's there's some industry splits, but by and largely
Speaker 5: what you find is that Wall Street and like hates
Speaker 5: any kind of anyone that tells them no, right, and
Speaker 5: that the CFPB and Roach Choper was saying, no, you
Speaker 5: can't steal everything. You can only steal a lot, right,
Speaker 5: and and so yeah, I know, how dare you right?
Speaker 5: And the Silicon Valley, you know, was getting and has
Speaker 5: been getting into payments and banking style arrangements, especially especially Meta.
Speaker 2: One himself is interested in this for Twitter as well.
Speaker 3: Yes, the original you know vision of Confinity and X
Speaker 3: is literally PayPal.
Speaker 1: That's what he's a sign of what he thought it was.
Speaker 5: He made his original money from PayPal, right, so that
Speaker 5: was a big, a big part of it. But yeah,
Speaker 5: metas into it. Amazon is hugely into it too. I
Speaker 5: mean there there's Meta tried to start their own currency
Speaker 5: like Libra, right, and I know, and everyone's like, you know,
Speaker 5: how dare how dare Biden be so mean to Meta?
Speaker 1: And it's like that was blocked under Trump right right?
Speaker 5: First Trump, So we got to come up with a
Speaker 5: nomenclature for first Trump and now Trump Trump Trump.
Speaker 4: Trump two point Oh I love what I do. Yeah,
Speaker 4: that's what I've been turning with as well. Trump the return.
Speaker 2: I don't know, let's also talk let's let's go to
Speaker 2: let's see see four. This is sort of more directly
Speaker 2: related to the CFP B. You've had a similar order
Speaker 2: go out at the SEC that's Security Exchange Commission, which
Speaker 2: looks at sort of like you know, insider trading and
Speaker 2: other white collar banking crimes. So they say that this
Speaker 2: change has not previously been reported made under new leadership,
Speaker 2: they are tightening oversight of probes, basically making it so
Speaker 2: that you have to go through the political appointees. If
Speaker 2: you want to, you can start an investigation, but if
Speaker 2: you're actually going to launch an official probe, you've got
Speaker 2: to go through the political appointees. You know, how should
Speaker 2: we understand this shift matter?
Speaker 3: Is this common?
Speaker 1: What does this?
Speaker 6: So?
Speaker 1: This is? This is actually a big deal.
Speaker 5: It's one of these annoying things that annoying people like
Speaker 5: me paytential attention to. When you're an investigator, if you
Speaker 5: have you know, if you have to get permission from
Speaker 5: your boss to look into something, you're going to look
Speaker 5: into less stuff, right, and a bunch of agencies. Sometimes
Speaker 5: they delegate authority to staff to look into stuff, and
Speaker 5: sometimes they don't. This is actually true in Congress too,
Speaker 5: Like Congress has investigative authority. Sometimes they let the chairman
Speaker 5: issue subpoenas. Sometimes the whole committee has to vote on subpoenas.
Speaker 5: It's a very different arrangement. If you have one guy
Speaker 5: who can just issue a subpoena if he wants to,
Speaker 5: And that's basically what they're saying here is there.
Speaker 1: What they're now saying is if you work.
Speaker 5: At one at the SEC, you have to go you
Speaker 5: have to get permission from the Republican Commissioners about whether
Speaker 5: to investigate something. And so that just provides a much
Speaker 5: tighter level of control over what the SEC is doing
Speaker 5: and means that the SEC is not going to be
Speaker 5: doing as much.
Speaker 3: Has it worked like that in the past, do you know,
Speaker 3: is this like a reverse of guidance or Biden or
Speaker 3: I think the true?
Speaker 5: Well, so what that article said and I'm just going
Speaker 5: off with that, right, you know, article on screen set
Speaker 5: is that it's traditionally the SEC gives wide latitude to
Speaker 5: to its people to just investigate. I know that the
Speaker 5: Federal Trade Commission better. They in the consumer branch of
Speaker 5: the Federal Trade Commission, They've historically allowed staff to just
Speaker 5: kind of I got a hunch that there's that vitamin
Speaker 5: supplement guys scamming people. I'm going to go investigate. I'm
Speaker 5: not going to bug the commissioners every time. On the
Speaker 5: competition side, So for antitrust, they traditionally did have to
Speaker 5: get permission to investigate companies.
Speaker 1: A couple of years ago.
Speaker 5: The FTC changed that and said, actually, now on the
Speaker 5: competition side, if you if you smell something that's off,
Speaker 5: you can go and investigate. And so that's a way
Speaker 5: of just kind of saying we're going to let you
Speaker 5: do more.
Speaker 1: But you know, it has there are.
Speaker 5: Implications to it, right, so if things are going through
Speaker 5: the you know, staff doesn't always have a good political sense,
Speaker 5: and so sometimes they can issue investigative demands that are
Speaker 5: intimidating or scary or whatever.
Speaker 1: So it's not like a completely outrageous.
Speaker 5: Proposal, but in the context of the SEC, in the
Speaker 5: context of these of what Trump is doing more broadly,
Speaker 5: it really is about, you know, shutting down investigation of
Speaker 5: corporate crime. And that that I mean, there's we're essentially
Speaker 5: in the moment of the white collar purge, right, all
Speaker 5: crime is legal, right, and that that is kind of
Speaker 5: true I think for the next six months, year or
Speaker 5: something like that. I mean, also the DJ. You know,
Speaker 5: a lot of the shake ups that are going on
Speaker 5: in government. I don't think there's a lot of investigations
Speaker 5: of crime going on right now at the FBI or DJ.
Speaker 5: And you know, you're seeing a CFPV shut down. You
Speaker 5: see the SEC basically same sort of very similar. You're
Speaker 5: seeing i think a rollback at the consumer protection side
Speaker 5: of the FCC, not the competition side. So what you,
Speaker 5: I think broadly are going to see is that there's
Speaker 5: going to be a wide latitude for pushing the law
Speaker 5: or just violating the law.
Speaker 3: If you have a suit and tie.
Speaker 2: Can you respond to some of the Some of the
Speaker 2: discourse online that I've been watching spectating is there's this
Speaker 2: analysis of you know, you people got your way, You
Speaker 2: anti trust people got your way under Biden, and the
Speaker 2: public voter for Trump anyway, and so you know, you
Speaker 2: have this stuff you care about your whole competition and
Speaker 2: going after white collar criminals like it's not all that popular, right?
Speaker 4: What is your view of that?
Speaker 2: And of because I do think that Biden, because he
Speaker 2: was an old man who couldn't really articulate much of
Speaker 2: anything about anything, did fail to enlist the American people
Speaker 2: in a project that was pissing off the tech barons
Speaker 2: and the Wall Street people, and is part of why
Speaker 2: they decided to completely throw in with Trump. So it
Speaker 2: ended up in a sense, I mean, I'm glad that
Speaker 2: the enforcement actions happen. I think that stuff is important
Speaker 2: and hopefully has lasting riverbding impacts. But in a sense,
Speaker 2: you know, you got four years of a better approach.
Speaker 2: You pissed off powerful people, but you didn't enlist the
Speaker 2: American people and help them understand what you were doing
Speaker 2: to create a sort of like popular understanding of why
Speaker 2: these things are important, which makes it easy for Mark
Speaker 2: Andrewes and to go on Joe Rogan's podcast and be
Speaker 2: like the cfp B they're d banking conservatives and loop
Speaker 2: it all into some you know, culture bullshit culture war umbrella.
Speaker 5: Yeah, so there's I think there's two. There's two ways
Speaker 5: to understand what happened. Okay, So one, I think we
Speaker 5: can go into ways that the INtime monopolist sort of
Speaker 5: things that they we didn't do enough of. I'll say
Speaker 5: we because I consider myself this sort of a movement
Speaker 5: and stuff that's kind of our fault, right. And then
Speaker 5: I think there's the broader dynamic. So it's just let's
Speaker 5: just divide it into those into two different things. I think
Speaker 5: the broader dynamic is far more impactful. So just to
Speaker 5: give you a sense of how much power the INtime
Speaker 5: monopolist had. So if you take the CFPB right, the
Speaker 5: anti trust enforcers which are in the Federal Trade Commission,
Speaker 5: and the Anti Trust Division, total budget right of all
Speaker 5: three of those is less than a billion dollars. Okay,
Speaker 5: the rest of the government, I don't know what is
Speaker 5: that five trillion dollars something like that. So you know,
Speaker 5: you're talking about a very very very small part of
Speaker 5: the government. Now, it was I think important, and people
Speaker 5: noticed it because they were the only ones doing something
Speaker 5: that was actually different and articulating. Maybe not a new agenda,
Speaker 5: but a traditional agenda that the Democrats would have recognized.
Speaker 1: In the nineteen thirties or nineteen sixties or something like that.
Speaker 5: But the rest of the government, right, you know, Javier
Speaker 5: Basera at Health and Human Services, right, when was the
Speaker 5: last time we heard his name?
Speaker 1: Right, do anything? Right?
Speaker 5: And so how much can you really accomplish out of
Speaker 5: a couple of regulatory agencies when the Federal Reserve and
Speaker 5: we don't nobody is like, oh man, that j Powell
Speaker 5: at the Federal Reserve. That's the reason Democrats lost it
Speaker 5: is because nobody is nobody. That's just the water was
Speaker 5: swimming in. Oh Man, that Jenny Yellen at Treasury Department.
Speaker 1: Oh man, that.
Speaker 3: Well, Pow probably had more to do it with anybody, right, yeah,
Speaker 3: out of anybody else, that's.
Speaker 4: Probably Oh yeah, No one's thinking that.
Speaker 6: That they should.
Speaker 5: You know, in twenty twenty two, Democrats overperform in the
Speaker 5: midterms at the height of inflation.
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty four.
Speaker 5: Got crushed, Yes, because people didn't want high interest rates.
Speaker 1: It was a high interest rate election.
Speaker 3: Yeah, right, I mean that's what it's.
Speaker 5: It's so so that I think that that people noticed
Speaker 5: the inti monopolists because that was different, right, but it
Speaker 5: wasn't dominant in the administration. That The other thing is
Speaker 5: there was no alignment between the politics and the policy
Speaker 5: of the entire so, like, yeah, what you said is right.
Speaker 5: Biden didn't articulate it. But I think if you talk
Speaker 5: to most Democrats in Congress, right, they didn't know what
Speaker 5: the anti trust people were doing. They couldn't articulate any
Speaker 5: of this stuff. So it was sort of this orphan
Speaker 5: agenda over here. And I only think it's totally fair
Speaker 5: to say, oh, you know, you made powerful people mad
Speaker 5: but didn't bring in any political benefits. Therefore it made
Speaker 5: it worse. I think those powerful people. I think what
Speaker 5: happened is the people voted. My guess is people voted
Speaker 5: for Trump because costs went up, wages went down, and
Speaker 5: Democrats were obsessed with stupid things, right, And that's not
Speaker 5: you know, Lena CON's fault. That's a broader political dynamic.
Speaker 5: I do think though there are some things that the
Speaker 5: anti monopolists.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 5: The other thing is when candidates were running, they were
Speaker 5: running on things like Inhaler's right, getting cheaper, right, and
Speaker 5: you know, Epipen's getting cheaper and junk fees and a
Speaker 5: whole like the arguments that basically the only thing Democrats
Speaker 5: had to run on in twenty twenty four that was
Speaker 5: economic was the stuff the anti monopolists had done. It
Speaker 5: didn't necessarily work, although I think in some races it
Speaker 5: probably did. You saw it like in Las Vegas or
Speaker 5: in Nevada and in other states there were normy Democrats
Speaker 5: that were running on opposition to the Kroger robertson merger right.
Speaker 1: And does this stuff work?
Speaker 5: I don't know, but I'm not a political person, but
Speaker 5: it's like, if that's what they're if that's the only
Speaker 5: thing they're running on, you know, they're not running on
Speaker 5: the first you know, non bare binary undersecretary of whatever.
Speaker 5: They're running on you know, food prices, so that and
Speaker 5: the things that the Biden administration had done. The fact
Speaker 5: that the only people who did anything where the anti monopolists,
Speaker 5: is not our fault. But I do think this stuff
Speaker 5: takes way too long. Right, so you launch something like
Speaker 5: you launch a Trump launched a Facebook suit in a
Speaker 5: Google suit in twenty twenty. The Facebook suit isn't even
Speaker 5: going to trial until you know, later this spring. So
Speaker 5: that's five years from them filing the complaint, six seven
Speaker 5: years from the investigation to even going to trial. It's
Speaker 5: not talking about appeals and everything. And that's just broadly
Speaker 5: true across the board, the suit against Ticketmaster, the suit
Speaker 5: against Google, suit against Apple suit. People don't feel the
Speaker 5: effects because it takes way too long. And then the
Speaker 5: other part of it is I think I think the
Speaker 5: agencies did a great job. You know, you can't issue
Speaker 5: a rule and it takes three years to issue a
Speaker 5: rule tapping overdraft fees.
Speaker 1: That's ridiculous. We gotta, you know, we gotta hurry this
Speaker 1: stuff up.
Speaker 5: We also have to do something about the courts who
Speaker 5: just block everything that's nice, you know, which is which
Speaker 5: is kind of crazy, you know, the non compete rules,
Speaker 5: stuff like that. So there are a number of institutional factors.
Speaker 5: And then I think, you know, this is the first
Speaker 5: time that any of these people, you know, that we
Speaker 5: had ever had any levers of government to pull. And
Speaker 5: so what you're seeing more broadly is the generational dynamic
Speaker 5: and a Democratic Party which was basically overlooking or actively
Speaker 5: helping oligarchs under Bill Clinton, under Barack Obama, and now
Speaker 5: some of the younger people with no mentorship at all. Right,
Speaker 5: we're saying maybe we should try something different. And nobody
Speaker 5: in our lifetime has done anything like this before. So
Speaker 5: of course it's not going to be perfect, but it
Speaker 5: is the outline for a party that's going to advocate
Speaker 5: for the working class or all. And I don't mean
Speaker 5: that the Democratic Party, I mean either party that wants
Speaker 5: to do this is going to have to do some
Speaker 5: of these anti corporate things, and that's going to upset
Speaker 5: powerful people one way or the other.
Speaker 2: Oh, I'm all in favor of upsetting the powerful people.
Speaker 2: I just think I mean, I think you articulated all
Speaker 2: very well, and I've thought more about it and have
Speaker 2: a certainly more granular understanding than I do. But if
Speaker 2: you were pissing off the powerful people, but you aren't
Speaker 2: like an FDR explaining like I welcome their hatred and
Speaker 2: here's why they hate me and here's how it's still
Speaker 2: nobody knows about it, then you're just going to have
Speaker 2: a lot of powerful people mad at you and hold
Speaker 2: that on your destruction and you're not going to have
Speaker 2: the you know, on the other side, you need to
Speaker 2: have the people behind you to back you up.
Speaker 5: You just have this joke when I would talk to
Speaker 5: someone who was, you know, we're going an anti trust case,
Speaker 5: I would, you know, they would say something about what
Speaker 5: they were doing, and I would just be like, a
Speaker 5: voter might hear you?
Speaker 1: Yeah, Like that's really I mean if you look that.
Speaker 5: I looked system sort of semi systematically at what the
Speaker 5: White House Press Secretary was would say, right, and they
Speaker 5: were asked about a Ticketmaster suit or a Google or
Speaker 5: whatever it was, and she would always say, I can't
Speaker 5: comment on pending litigation. And then people would be like,
Speaker 5: but it's Ticketmaster. They couldn't sell tickets to the Taylor
Speaker 5: Swift conference or a conference concert or.
Speaker 1: God man, I am such a nerd. The jacket, it's
Speaker 1: really good.
Speaker 3: I was a victim of Ticketmaster. Well I couldn't get
Speaker 3: a ticket, It's true, and we happened.
Speaker 5: So, you know, she made fun of the reporters for answering,
Speaker 5: for asking a question. And so it's like, if that's
Speaker 5: your framework, right, if you just mock the idea that,
Speaker 5: if you mock your own administration's agenda, that's a.
Speaker 1: Little that's a little bit. That's pretty weird.
Speaker 5: Right, And I mean you saw, like anyway, I don't
Speaker 5: want to get into the Democratic Party. There's a I've
Speaker 5: been thinking a lot about it. But there's a basic
Speaker 5: problem that they have, which is, you know the street
Speaker 5: lamp issue. Right, So the street lamp the parable about economists.
Speaker 5: So a drunk guy is looking for his keys, yeah, right,
Speaker 5: and the guy and the cops says, why are you
Speaker 5: looking here? And he's like, where'd you lose your keys?
Speaker 5: He said over there? Why are you looking here? He said, Oh,
Speaker 5: well that's what the light, that's where the light is.
Speaker 5: He's looking under the lamp. Yeah, And I think that's
Speaker 5: kind of what what democrats do is they are, you know,
Speaker 5: they're trying to figure out what what a problem. What
Speaker 5: to do about a problem that voters are complaining about,
Speaker 5: But they always look under the lamp post instead of
Speaker 5: where the problem is, even though they know it's not
Speaker 5: right right, And that's that's a that's a dynamic party wide.
Speaker 3: Well, I always love talking to you, man, really appreciate
Speaker 3: you joining us.
Speaker 2: Just when you thought DEI was out of the federal government,
Speaker 2: it is back with a vengeance. Let's put this up
Speaker 2: on the screen. We got a new task Force to
Speaker 2: combat anti Semitism announced by the Justice Department. They say
Speaker 2: in this anti Semitism is any environment in any environment
Speaker 2: is repugnant to this nation's ideal. Certainly, said Senior counsel
Speaker 2: Or Assistant Attorney General with Civil Rights. We'll be heading
Speaker 2: this task force. Apartment takes seriously our response ability to
Speaker 2: eradicate this hatred wherever it is found. Task Force to
Speaker 2: Combat anti Semitism is the first step in giving life
Speaker 2: to President Trump's renewed commitment to ending anti Semitism in
Speaker 2: our schools.
Speaker 4: Of course, everybody here a poorse.
Speaker 2: And poses actual anti semitism. But we know that the
Speaker 2: definition that is embraced right Trump and has also been
Speaker 2: embraced on a bipartisan basis by members of Congress also
Speaker 2: includes things like daring to criticize Israel. Trump has also,
Speaker 2: you know, moved to put in place procedures to deport
Speaker 2: anyone from any students who are here on foreign visas
Speaker 2: who are pro Palestine and engage in protests there as well.
Speaker 2: So even Christopher Ruffo took a principal stand on this
Speaker 2: one and said it was inconsistent with the push against AI.
Speaker 4: Got a hand tool.
Speaker 2: Put this up on the screen, He says. Supporters of
Speaker 2: this initiative should ask themselves, how is it reasonable to
Speaker 2: support a task force on anti Semitism while opposing an
Speaker 2: Ebrahm Kenny style task force on anti Black racism DEI?
Speaker 2: By the same principle, how is it reasonable to support
Speaker 2: a task force on anti Semitism without also supporting a
Speaker 2: task force of anti Wait racism and a task force
Speaker 2: on anti Asian racism, both of which are widespread on campuses.
Speaker 2: How is it consistent for the administration to abolish DEI
Speaker 2: than establish a special task force for one rather than
Speaker 2: all of these groups.
Speaker 4: I think that is very well.
Speaker 3: So I think he's totally right, And of course there's
Speaker 3: always a huge blind sprout whenever it comes to all
Speaker 3: of this.
Speaker 2: I haven't seen much push I mean maybe you're more
Speaker 2: tuned in, but haven't seen much pushback nice against this.
Speaker 3: Yeah, let's all be real, like you know, like it's
Speaker 3: always been obvious it's fake. Uh, you know in terms
Speaker 3: of where you had Ron remember when he created literally
Speaker 3: affirmative action for Jewishness.
Speaker 4: That's right.
Speaker 3: So and these are state resources. He's like, anybody who
Speaker 3: feels unsafe and across the United States is welcome to
Speaker 3: come to Florida. We'll give you tuition assistance. And I
Speaker 3: was like, uh, are we understanding this? Or powerlunteer if
Speaker 3: we'll recall was like, oh, anybody who uh, well, it's
Speaker 3: actually not his company, but I mean he's an investor
Speaker 3: or whatever. But but my only point is Peter, for
Speaker 3: some reason, is always socially the paltants like it's Joe
Speaker 3: Lonsdale and Alex cart it's a really Alex Carp's company,
Speaker 3: so he should get the smoke if people are looking
Speaker 3: at it to get it out there. He's a multi
Speaker 3: billionaire too, so there you go, you can attack him.
Speaker 3: My point around it is that it's obviously been a
Speaker 3: blind spot. It's one which is wholly focused on by
Speaker 3: these donors, and it has become extremely important because this
Speaker 3: is the literal Department of Justice, the arm of the
Speaker 3: government now adopting this anti semitism definition from Congress.
Speaker 1: What is it?
Speaker 3: The IHR a definition around anti Semitism, instituting it in law,
Speaker 3: which is an obvious and direct threat to the First
Speaker 3: Amendment rights of all American citizens. Baby, that's I mean,
Speaker 3: that's my beef.
Speaker 2: They basically want to like make it illegal to criticize Israel.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's insane. Glenn makes this point all the time.
Speaker 2: You can criticize America till the cows come home. You
Speaker 2: say anything about this country, and you should be able to,
Speaker 2: But you can't say anything about this foreign country that
Speaker 2: we ship billions of dollars in weapons and other aid to. Like,
Speaker 2: that's insane. That is a grave infringement on our rights.
Speaker 2: And anyone who claims to be, you know, in favor
Speaker 2: of color blindness and you know, in favor of merit
Speaker 2: against DEI, anyone.
Speaker 4: Who claims to be in favor of free speech.
Speaker 2: Should be wildly opposed to this particular direction. There are
Speaker 2: a couple other things that I just wanted to get
Speaker 2: into the show to keep an eye on as well.
Speaker 2: In terms of that attack on free speech. You know,
Speaker 2: Ryan laid this out really well. Trump has basically adopted
Speaker 2: this new tactic where he sues a media organization or
Speaker 2: like an Sells or or whoever truly for buying large,
Speaker 2: frivolous lawsuits that in any normal time would either be
Speaker 2: thrown out or he would lose on the merits. But
Speaker 2: these media organized media organizations, which are gigantic conglomerates, which
Speaker 2: want various things from the federal government and want to
Speaker 2: avoid let's say, antitrust scrutiny in whatever new merger deal
Speaker 2: that they have floated or you know that they just
Speaker 2: were able to accomplish. They want to keep in Trump's
Speaker 2: good graces, so they basically decide to settle and pay
Speaker 2: him off in what amounts to effectively a bribe to
Speaker 2: leave them alone. That's happened a couple of times. But
Speaker 2: now we also have the FCC going after a number
Speaker 2: of different media organizations.
Speaker 4: This is pretty wild. It could put D three up
Speaker 4: on the screen.
Speaker 2: So CBS has been forced to hand over the unedited
Speaker 2: transcript from that Kamala Harris interview that Trump and other
Speaker 2: Republicans didn't like how it was edited.
Speaker 3: I mean, like I mean, to be fair, they did
Speaker 3: edit it dishonestly because from in terms of the way
Speaker 3: they put it out or not.
Speaker 2: Okay, well, Fox News dishonestly edited a Trump town hall
Speaker 2: and edited out his stuff. If the Biden administration, you know,
Speaker 2: if Kamala had been elected and the SEC was going
Speaker 2: after Fox News because they didn't like how the interview
Speaker 2: was edited, we should be opposed to that as well.
Speaker 3: I don't disagree. I think that, I mean, the difference
Speaker 3: between Fox and CBS is about the network status in
Speaker 3: terms of their I forget exactly what it is about
Speaker 3: the fair something doctrine under because it's a network versus
Speaker 3: an actual channel on cable.
Speaker 1: That's the pretext that they're giving.
Speaker 3: I actually think was more egregious are all of these
Speaker 3: media companies which are settling with Donald Trump totally because
Speaker 3: that is literally like as you and I know, because
Speaker 3: we have similar insurance policies and others, it is the
Speaker 3: bar for having to pay out on defamation is you
Speaker 3: have to do what CNN did in the case of
Speaker 3: that guy who they defamed down in Florida. They were
Speaker 3: like lied about him. They literally had recordings that were
Speaker 3: revealed where they're like, I hate that guy. I want
Speaker 3: to screw him over, didn't issue a timely retraction and
Speaker 3: caused financial harm to an individual, and he wasn't a
Speaker 3: public figure like you have to check like nine all
Speaker 3: of those boxes to be able.
Speaker 1: That's why it's so rare that anything like it even happens.
Speaker 3: I think it's much crazier that they are settling with
Speaker 3: the president literally paying I think all.
Speaker 4: Of us crazy.
Speaker 2: They're also going after the FCC is also going after
Speaker 2: NPR and PBS, saying he's concerned that they could be
Speaker 2: violating federal law by airing commercials. In particular, they say
Speaker 2: it's possible NPR and PBS member stations are broadcasting underwriting
Speaker 2: announcements that cross the line into prohibited commercial advertisements. Again, obviously,
Speaker 2: what how do you feel about NPR PBS? This is
Speaker 2: like an ideological attack on them that doesn't really have
Speaker 2: anything to do with whether or not they are taking
Speaker 2: appropriate commercial money. And then the other piece that kind
Speaker 2: of falls into what you were saying, Sager about the
Speaker 2: like capitulation and the bending of the knee. This is
Speaker 2: not an overtbride but you guys will remember before the election,
Speaker 2: the Washington Post, the Bezos Washington Post and the La
Speaker 2: Times both decided, even though they're at a real staff,
Speaker 2: had prepared endorsements of Kamala Harris, but they were just
Speaker 2: not going to endorse at all. Well, the La Times
Speaker 2: tried to cloak this at the time and like, oh,
Speaker 2: it's because we don't like her policy on Gaza. I
Speaker 2: think at this point it's pretty clear that that was
Speaker 2: not really what was going on. We now have this
Speaker 2: is just absolutely agree. Just put this up on the screen.
Speaker 2: So they picked up an op ed from a contributor
Speaker 2: that was very critical of RFK Junior and his approach,
Speaker 2: and it was actually an interesting op ed talking about
Speaker 2: his thesis was basically like the reaction to Luigi Mangioni
Speaker 2: and the support for RFK Junior in some ways comes
Speaker 2: from the same place of like, discussed with the healthcare
Speaker 2: system and its failures, and we're getting sicker and we're
Speaker 2: getting fatter, and you know, our life expectancy is dropping,
Speaker 2: and but he goes on to make, you know, very
Speaker 2: critical argument about RFK Junior. So its its Originally the
Speaker 2: closing line said, although RFK Junior and Luigi Mangioni. Are
Speaker 2: both responses the same underlying problem of US healthcare corruption.
Speaker 2: There's a major difference between them. One allegedly operated outside
Speaker 2: the law to kill one person in defensive millions, whereas
Speaker 2: the other, via his egomaniacal disregard for scientific evidence, seeks
Speaker 2: to use law itself to inflict preventable death on those millions.
Speaker 2: Very critical of RFK Junior. The headline was supposed to
Speaker 2: be critical. Well, the LA Times before they published, stripped
Speaker 2: out all the sentences that were critical of RFK Junior,
Speaker 2: flipped the headline to be the polar opposite of what
Speaker 2: this op ed contributor intended it to be and published
Speaker 2: it that way.
Speaker 4: And the owner of the La.
Speaker 2: Times, the dude who blocked the endorsement previously, tweeted it
Speaker 2: out to, you know, celebrate this support of RFK Junior,
Speaker 2: which the author han't had intended in the total opposite direction. So,
Speaker 2: you know, another instance obviously of the media just like
Speaker 2: wanting to be on Trump's good side, et cetera, et cetera,
Speaker 2: that we're seeing almost almost across the board in various ways.
Speaker 2: And I think that you're right. The pieces perhaps the
Speaker 2: wildest direction.
Speaker 3: By the way, if anything ever like that happens and
Speaker 3: somebody doesn't quit and that's crazy.
Speaker 2: Well he doesn't actually what he's a contributor. He doesn't
Speaker 2: actually like work for them, I'm sure. And he said
Speaker 2: he will never publish with that us. But you can't.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's just.
Speaker 3: If somebody ever did that to me, I'm like, okay,
Speaker 3: it is outrageously ethical.
Speaker 2: So between the time, you know, you work with an
Speaker 2: editor of course, and he proved, okay, this is you know,
Speaker 2: this is where we are and this would you agree to,
Speaker 2: and then before it's published, like imagine if you know
Speaker 2: our producers after you recorded your monologue went in and
Speaker 2: completely flipped on its head, changed the like insane.
Speaker 3: You know, I almost imagine it to a previous company.
Speaker 3: Oh we'll just leave it there. Let's get to uh
Speaker 3: Anthony Lowenstein.
Speaker 2: We are fortunate to be joined this morning by Anthony Lowenstein,
Speaker 2: who is an independent journalist. He's author of the global
Speaker 2: best selling book The Palestine Laboratory, also a podcast with
Speaker 2: drop site News, our friends Ryan and Jeremy and just
Speaker 2: released a documentary series with Al Jazeera English on the
Speaker 2: Gaza Laboratory.
Speaker 4: Great to see you Anthony, welcome, good to see you.
Speaker 6: Thanks for having me guys, thank you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, of course I watched The Dark yesterday evening. You
Speaker 2: did a fantastic job. Let's just give your viewers a
Speaker 2: little bit of a taste of what is in that
Speaker 2: new documentary.
Speaker 6: The Farmbra Air Show one of the largest in the world.
Speaker 6: Global weapons giants like Bae Systems, Lockheed Martin, and Airbus
Speaker 6: come to show off their latest military hardware. Billions of
Speaker 6: dollars of civil and military deals are done here every year.
Speaker 6: Standing shoulders to shoulder with these global military giants. Israel's
Speaker 6: top weapons manufacturers like Israel Aerospace Industries and missile makers Raphael.
Speaker 6: In the main hall, Israel's largest private weapons company, Elbert,
Speaker 6: has a huge stand They needed to showcase their world
Speaker 6: class drones and missiles. Despite its tiny population, Israel is
Speaker 6: the world's ninth largest weapons producer. This high budget promo
Speaker 6: is for the Trophy anti missile system made by Israeli
Speaker 6: company Raphael. It's the kind of advanced technology Israel specializes
Speaker 6: in and makes the Israeli MIRKF tank one of the
Speaker 6: best on the market.
Speaker 4: Automatically activated only when enemy fuyer the vehicle.
Speaker 6: Both tank and anti missile systems sell around the world
Speaker 6: to undisclose clients. Overall, Israel exports more than thirteen billion
Speaker 6: dollars of weapons and surveillance equipment a year. And with
Speaker 6: adverts like this for the Spike firefly, Israeli company's hint
Speaker 6: that their products may have been battle tested in Palestine.
Speaker 6: So how does being a mad who to armed supplier
Speaker 6: impact Israel's diplomatic position? Could it give the country a
Speaker 6: measure of impunity when it wants to undertake its own wars?
Speaker 2: So, Anthony, why did you think this particular aspect of
Speaker 2: the conflict was important for people around the world to understand?
Speaker 6: When I started writing the book I came out in
Speaker 6: mid twenty twenty three, I felt that it was an
Speaker 6: issue that actually was largely of course, this was before
Speaker 6: October seven, an issue that had been largely ignored. I
Speaker 6: must say, no one else had ever covered it. They had,
Speaker 6: of course in the media here and there. But the
Speaker 6: Israeli arms industry explains so much about how Israel operates
Speaker 6: in the occupied Palestinian territories and also in the region.
Speaker 6: I don't stay in the book or the film or
Speaker 6: the podcast that Israel's occupying Palestine simply to make money
Speaker 6: from weapons. That would not be true. But instead of
Speaker 6: a self perfetual wedding industry where you have a massive
Speaker 6: number of Israelis who of course going to the army,
Speaker 6: the IDF, they spent many years there, They're in intelligence,
Speaker 6: they're in various other units, and they take that experience
Speaker 6: into the private sector once they'd left. And that's why,
Speaker 6: as we say in the film, it's now the ninth
Speaker 6: biggest arms still are in the world for a country
Speaker 6: which is a tiny, tiny population. And we thought that
Speaker 6: the reason to make the film, which has been we
Speaker 6: sort of start as working with a British production company,
Speaker 6: Blackley Films, and the director Dan Davies since twenty twenty two,
Speaker 6: although it really ramped up last year, was to explain
Speaker 6: to people who maybe hadn't read the book called listen
Speaker 6: to the podcast that this issue I think explains so
Speaker 6: much about how Israel is using, particularly in the war
Speaker 6: in Gaza, as a way to showcase huge amounts of
Speaker 6: new tech, including AI, despite the fact that on October seven,
Speaker 6: all the tech around Gaza failed. People failed, the military failed,
Speaker 6: the government fail. Everyone failed. Is from the Israeli perspective,
Speaker 6: of course, and despite that, the Israeli arms industry has
Speaker 6: never been better now might say better more profitable in
Speaker 6: the last fifteen sixteen months.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Anthony, it's really interesting to think about both Gaza
Speaker 3: and Ukraine as the forefront of what warfare looks like
Speaker 3: in the future. So one of the things that you've
Speaker 3: touched on in your documentary is specifically this new use
Speaker 3: of artificial intelligence. So can you lay out some of
Speaker 3: what that looks like. I think the world really got
Speaker 3: a taste of that with that famous drone footage several
Speaker 3: months ago of following that man and assassinating him even
Speaker 3: though he prepared to be doing npolutely nothing wrong.
Speaker 6: One of the things that Israel has been doing before
Speaker 6: October seven was using AI, but since October seven there's
Speaker 6: been a huge expansion. There's a various tools that they
Speaker 6: use called lavender Where's Daddy really dystopian names, essentially finding
Speaker 6: so called legitimate targets in the Israeli playbook to kill
Speaker 6: people in Gaza. Now in theory in years past, it
Speaker 6: was senior Hamas militants, senior Hamas leaders. What's happened since
Speaker 6: and we discussed this in the film in great depth
Speaker 6: is that the way that targets are selected is primarily
Speaker 6: done through AI, through a system of massive data collecting
Speaker 6: that Israel has been doing four years. There's about two
Speaker 6: going three million civilians living in Gars, that's been the
Speaker 6: case for many years, and Israel controls all aspects of
Speaker 6: that land, that territory, or communication in and out, all
Speaker 6: information about personal details, et cetera. So all that data
Speaker 6: is fed into a machine and it essentially spits out
Speaker 6: information which is deemed to be legitimate targets. But the
Speaker 6: key point here is that, as Israel calls it legitimate
Speaker 6: targets to kill civilians has been massively increased. So whereas
Speaker 6: in the past, if Israel would kill the Hummas militant
Speaker 6: alleged harmas militant, maybe five or ten civilians could be killed,
Speaker 6: now we're talking about one hundreds, and particularly in the
Speaker 6: first three or four months of this war after October seven,
Speaker 6: where the death toll escalated into the tens of thousands
Speaker 6: very quickly. It's important to say that I'm not arguing,
Speaker 6: in no one's saying that AI is not making all
Speaker 6: these decisions. This ultimately is made still by people, by humans,
Speaker 6: and the ultimate problem here is the dehumanization of Palestinians
Speaker 6: is so paramount within Israel that if they kill twenty
Speaker 6: thirty forty fifty sixty thousand Palestinians deemed to be apparent terrorist,
Speaker 6: that's legitimate. And what the fear I have is that
Speaker 6: film talks about this is there are many other countries
Speaker 6: that look to what Israel has been doing in Gaza
Speaker 6: as a model as stagam as you say, what Ukraine
Speaker 6: has been doing in their own wall, in their own country,
Speaker 6: essentially backs by the US their models. They're testing grounds,
Speaker 6: and the war has been used as a testing ground
Speaker 6: for every Rak and Afghanistan were as well. But the
Speaker 6: difference I think here is that the Israellies have a
Speaker 6: captive Palestinian population on their doorstep indefinitely. And I fear that,
Speaker 6: and I've heard this from people. I was doing work
Speaker 6: on the film last year, spending time in Israel and
Speaker 6: Palestine across the world, and a lot of countries look
Speaker 6: to Israel with deep admiration, deep admiration because Israel gets
Speaker 6: away with it and they have to this day. No
Speaker 6: one is stopping them. This wasn't happening under Trump. On
Speaker 6: the bottom, I should say or frankly won't happen under Trump. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I think that was one of the most chilling moments
Speaker 2: of the documentary, is talking about how this is something
Speaker 2: that many countries want. They want the sort of tech
Speaker 2: that allows them to get away with it, and I
Speaker 2: think it's important for people to understand this isn't just
Speaker 2: about battlefield technologies. You spend a good amount of time
Speaker 2: on surveillance tech as well, which is extensive beyond belief.
Speaker 2: Particularly hit home for me at a time when Trump
Speaker 2: just announced this big Stargate five hundred billion dollar boondoggle.
Speaker 2: One of the people involved, Oracles Larry Ellison, has been
Speaker 2: out bragging about how AI is going to make sure
Speaker 2: that all citizens are on their quote best behavior because
Speaker 2: of the implementation of the surveillance tech.
Speaker 4: Talk a little bit about that aspect of it.
Speaker 6: Well, it's actually a quote in the film by a Palestinian,
Speaker 6: a digital rights campaigner called Mona Shtaie, who literally uses
Speaker 6: those words that Palestinians have to be in inverted commas
Speaker 6: on their best behavior, both in real life and online
Speaker 6: because the surveillance is so ubiquitous, and a lot of
Speaker 6: people have seen the film and only came out less
Speaker 6: than a week ago. The first part. The first part
Speaker 6: said in Israel Palestine, and the second part we go
Speaker 6: globally where I go to the US Mexico border, India,
Speaker 6: Sri Lanka, not South Africa, and Greece and only show
Speaker 6: how Israeli surveillance and repressive tech is exported globally. And
Speaker 6: one of the things I think that many people don't
Speaker 6: realize is how ubiquitous the surveillance is within Palestine. A
Speaker 6: lot of people compare it to Black Mirror, the British
Speaker 6: program which talked about a very believable near future where
Speaker 6: surveillance is utterly everywhere. So when Larry Ellison or anyone
Speaker 6: else says to be on your best behavior, who is
Speaker 6: making those decisions? What's best behavior? And it comes in
Speaker 6: in terms of Palestine. It means people who, for example,
Speaker 6: can't express their honest opinion because they worry they'll be
Speaker 6: deemed as security threats, terrorist threats. And one of the
Speaker 6: things that AI is doing, and we talk about this
Speaker 6: extensively in the film, is actually trying to document every
Speaker 6: single citizen in Palestine with a certain almost like a
Speaker 6: traffic light, So you are deemed as a threat if
Speaker 6: you have certain political views, and we're saying to viewers as,
Speaker 6: despite what Israel and supporters might say, this is not
Speaker 6: about going after so called terrorists. The argument has not
Speaker 6: been for years. Israel's killing all the terrorists in Gaza.
Speaker 6: Has Anthony Blincoln himself said in the last days of
Speaker 6: the Biden administration, Hamas is essentially regrouped and recruited huge
Speaker 6: amounts of people during the last war. Now, Hamas has
Speaker 6: been bloodied and beaten in certain ways, of course they have.
Speaker 6: It's been a fifteen month war. But Hamas is still standing,
Speaker 6: whatever we might think about them. That's the reality. So ultimately,
Speaker 6: the question is what has Israel actually achieved here. They've
Speaker 6: achieved the decimation of Gaza. Yes, they've achieved the massiveveillance
Speaker 6: of many of the Ghazan population and a massive increase
Speaker 6: in violence in the West Bank. So that's what many
Speaker 6: countries look to with admiration, and we show a lot
Speaker 6: of that in the second episode of the film.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that that extends also now to Prime
Speaker 3: Minister Netanyah, who's visit to Washington. He's actually literally here
Speaker 3: as you speak, speaking with President Trump. All indications are
Speaker 3: that he wants to scuttle quote phase two of the deal.
Speaker 3: How does your documentary fit within that?
Speaker 6: Look. One of the things that's very clear is that
Speaker 6: within Israel itself, the country is split in a way
Speaker 6: that there are many Israelies who want all the hostages out,
Speaker 6: these rally hostages, which is a very reasonable demand, but
Speaker 6: there's a huge pressure on Netanyahu within his coalition to
Speaker 6: continue the war to essentially even destroy Gaza even more. Obviously,
Speaker 6: I can't predict exactly what the outcome of that meeting
Speaker 6: between SnO and Trump will be, but I think I
Speaker 6: suspect that there'll be pressure onto to try to continue
Speaker 6: the negotiations to get more hostages out. There are many
Speaker 6: many who remain in under Hamas control, so it seems
Speaker 6: to me unlikely that Trump will simply allow that to happen.
Speaker 6: The danger, to me is not just about the hostages question.
Speaker 6: The broader question is a Trump himself said, literally a
Speaker 6: week ago, very few days after we came into office,
Speaker 6: how about Jordan or Egypt just taking one and a
Speaker 6: half million Palestinians Like, hang on a minute, the idea
Speaker 6: of removing them from Gaza so Gaza can be rebuilt
Speaker 6: to whose dictates Jared Kushna his real estate mates. I mean,
Speaker 6: we can set of joke about that, but that's literally
Speaker 6: what Trump said, while at the same time the West
Speaker 6: Bank is on fire. And I think there is a
Speaker 6: real kind of accelerationist in Israel. And I've been saying
Speaker 6: this for years, long before October seven. There are obviously
Speaker 6: the is Raleigh Jews who oppose what's going on. Of
Speaker 6: course they are, and some of them are in the film,
Speaker 6: particularly in the second part. Gideon Levy is one good
Speaker 6: example of that. But there is a sizeable proportion of
Speaker 6: the Israeli population that believes it occupation is legitimate. The
Speaker 6: dehumanizing Palestinians forever is okay, is necessary, is needed, is justified.
Speaker 6: And when you have the world's biggest superpower, the US,
Speaker 6: whether it's Obama or Biden or Trump, basically saying go
Speaker 6: for your life. Here's more weapons. Israel's coming to Trump
Speaker 6: today asking for at least eight billion dollars of more weapons,
Speaker 6: and it's a good chance Trump will say yes to that.
Speaker 6: So what the outcome of the meeting will be, of course,
Speaker 6: it is the possible to predict. But the bigger picture
Speaker 6: here is what the so called vision is for Palestine
Speaker 6: and the fear of many Palestinians and many, I would say,
Speaker 6: decent people around the world, is that the ultimate vision
Speaker 6: here is endless occupation, dehumanization, which never, by the way,
Speaker 6: brings peace to his relis. Yeah, none of it does.
Speaker 6: In fact, life for them is never being more insecure.
Speaker 6: In my view, never being more insecure. And I say
Speaker 6: that as someone who's Jewish mussel.
Speaker 4: Go ahead, guys, and put E two up on the screen.
Speaker 4: To this point.
Speaker 2: Trump was asked yesterday if he would support West Bank annexation,
Speaker 2: and he said he wouldn't really say whether he supports
Speaker 2: it or not. He said, I'm not going to talk
Speaker 2: about that. It's certainly a small country in terms of land.
Speaker 2: Talking about Israel, he then took out his pen and said,
Speaker 2: you see this pen, this wonderful pen. My whole desk
Speaker 2: is the Middle East, and the top of the pen
Speaker 2: is Israel. That's not good. It's a pretty big difference.
Speaker 2: It's a pretty small piece of land. And it's amazing
Speaker 2: they've been able to do what they've been able to do.
Speaker 2: As you mentioned, part of the project here of continued occupation, subjugation,
Speaker 2: and assault of the Palestinian people has been a long
Speaker 2: term project of dehumanization. You know, to bring it back
Speaker 2: around to your documentary, how does the tech help to
Speaker 2: facilitate that ongoing process of complete dehumanization.
Speaker 6: Well, hugely, because one of the things we investigate in
Speaker 6: the film, particularly in the second episode when we travel
Speaker 6: the world, is there are multiple examples the US Mexico border, India,
Speaker 6: the EU and Greece's detention, surveillance of migrants coming from
Speaker 6: Turkey and elsewhere. The reality of South Africa today and
Speaker 6: particularly when to South Africa, look at the connection in
Speaker 6: the past between apartheid South Africa and Israel, but also
Speaker 6: today between both countries, and so much of the surveillance
Speaker 6: and repressive tech that Israel's testing and using in Palestine
Speaker 6: is deeply attractive to those countries. And obviously we could
Speaker 6: have chosen many other examples. This is what is partly
Speaker 6: fueling Israel's seeming impunity. India, for example, is the world's
Speaker 6: biggest population country emoting it are very good friends and
Speaker 6: there's a massive example and we detail this in the
Speaker 6: film of India being inspired by how they is inspired
Speaker 6: by Israel's repressing Palestinians and they want to use that
Speaker 6: against the Muslim population, of which there are roughly two
Speaker 6: hundred million people in India. So to see that tech
Speaker 6: first use in Palestine now appearing, for example in India
Speaker 6: on the US Mexico border at Greek detention centers backed
Speaker 6: and funded by the EU. Mexico we visit, which is
Speaker 6: the world's biggest and most obsessive user of Israeli spyware.
Speaker 6: I mean, let's be clear, Mexico, whether it's controlled by
Speaker 6: the right or left, they're equally obsessed with Israeli spyware.
Speaker 6: This is the reality of I guess, the seeming appeal
Speaker 6: of Israeli repressive tech. So when Trump talks about it
Speaker 6: in his kind of weird explanation about the West Bank,
Speaker 6: which to me sort of suggested that he supports Israel
Speaker 6: having more land, therefore supporting annexation, I mean, let's be clear,
Speaker 6: Israel as quasi annexed the West Bank anyway, I mean
Speaker 6: we talk about I mean, it's important to say that
Speaker 6: it hasn't been officially annexed, but having spent time there
Speaker 6: in any Palestinian will say, I mean, Palestinian life in
Speaker 6: the West Bank is deeply problematic, hard, and incredibly challenging.
Speaker 6: Long before October seven. But certainly since so the fear
Speaker 6: I have that many other nations are seeing what Israel
Speaker 6: is doing in Gaza and the West Bank and also
Speaker 6: in Israel proper, and they see it as attractive and
Speaker 6: as the right and the far right increases its influence.
Speaker 6: It's worth saying globally, places like France, Germany, Sweden, much
Speaker 6: a lot of Europe. Now parts of the US parties,
Speaker 6: particularly in Europe, but traditionally were literally neo Nazis view
Speaker 6: Israel as a model. Now that might seem insane when
Speaker 6: Israel is a Jewish state and there are quasi forma
Speaker 6: or current groups and parties in Sweden, in France, in
Speaker 6: Germany the traditionally how connected to the neo Nazis who
Speaker 6: see Israel as a model. Why because they loathe multiculturalism,
Speaker 6: they loathe Muslims. They believe in this concept of ethno nationalism.
Speaker 6: And the film touches on that. In say India, which
Speaker 6: is in my view and many others, becoming an ethno
Speaker 6: nationalist Hindu state, and Israeli tech is fueling that. Now
Speaker 6: India is doing what it's doing for its own reason.
Speaker 6: It's not doing it because of Israel, but Israeli tech
Speaker 6: is central to that and we document in the film
Speaker 6: how that impacts Indian population in reality, and that's a
Speaker 6: scary fact. As the right and the far right grows
Speaker 6: in popularity around the world.
Speaker 2: Anthony to tell people where they can watch the film.
Speaker 2: The first part of the series is out now, next
Speaker 2: part comes out when so.
Speaker 6: It's available on YouTube for free. It's our Dazira English.
Speaker 6: It's available. Part one came out last week. It's on YouTube.
Speaker 6: You can google it easy to find. It's on social media.
Speaker 6: It's on YouTube on our DEASEIIR website. Part two comes
Speaker 6: out on februy the CIA. That will also be available
Speaker 6: on YouTube. It's been seeing now hundreds of thousands of times,
Speaker 6: and I encourage people to see because it will hopefully
Speaker 6: scare you and push you into some kind of action
Speaker 6: and not be paralyzed by fear. That's the idea. Anyway.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it was interesting talking to you.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Thank you, Anthony.
Speaker 6: Great to see.
Speaker 3: Take care, thank you, Thank you guys so much for watching.
Speaker 1: We appreciate it.
Speaker 3: Great counterpoint show for you tomorrow. We'll see you then.