Glenn Greenwald
Politics • Culture • Writing
New SBF Indictment Exposes How Washington Really Works. Plus, Investigative Reporter Lee Fang In-Studio!
Video Transcript: System Update #45
February 25, 2023
post photo preview

Note From Glenn Greenwald: The following is the full show transcript, for subscribers only, of a recent episode of our System Update program, broadcast live on Rumble on Thursday February 23, 2023. Watch the full episode here or listen to the podcast on Spotify

The Justice Department has issued a superseding indictment of Sam Bankman-Fried, the disgraced founder of what the government now alleges was essentially a Ponzi scheme, the crypto exchange firm FTX. This new DOJ document sheds significant light on the actions of Bankman-Fried and his close associates, some of whom are still unnamed, but whose identity as liberal political strategist is basically an open secret in Washington. But this document sheds even more considerable light on how Washington really functions, how easily the media is manipulated, and how money converts Washington politicians into mindless puppets willing to defend positions completely at odds with their claimed ideology and lifelong worldview and we’ll look at highly illustrative examples of that. 

For our interview segment, we have a very special guest with us right here in our studio, not mediated through a screen, but personally, physically in our studio, Lee Fang, who is one of the best hires I ever advocated for at The Intercept. There were some bad ones. He was one of the best, and I regard him as one of the nation's really best and most dogged investigative journalists. He’ll talk to us about this new indictment, what it reveals about the role money plays in Washington, all of which has been a major focus of Lee's work for years. We'll also explore with him the ways in which woke ideology and woke symbols are being exploited by large corporate interest to co-opt these movements with money and use them as an imprimatur to signal that these sleaze and the swamp politics is something benevolent. Lee has also focused on that. He's the perfect guest to talk about all of this even if it weren't for the luck that he happens to be physically present in our city. 

For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update starting right now. 


Monologue

 

Back in December, the crypto world, but also the world of Washington lobbyists and politics was shaken at its foundations when Sam Bankman-Fried, once heralded as the new Morgan, as someone pioneering a new form of philanthropy, was arrested in the Bahamas, where his crypto exchange company, FTX, has long been based. He was arrested because the United States had sought his indictment as the firm essentially collapsed all around him in what became – and we should wait for the trial and the evidence presented there, if there is one, if he doesn't plead guilty to be sure that it is all true, he's entitled to due process just like everybody else. But there's a lot of evidence to show that what clearly happened, and much of this he has admitted, is that it was basically a gigantic Ponzi scheme. He was encouraging people to invest and to deposit in his crypto exchange and then he was using that money for his own personal self-interest and personal benefit while pretending to secure the depositors. 

He was doing that in large part to buy influence in Washington at the very highest levels of Washington politics in order to build his iconography, that most of the media bought into, that he was some kind of a hero figure, a savior presented as the good billionaire because he was spending so much of his time openly donating to Democratic Party politicians and to left liberal and what he called ‘woke causes,’ doing that in public to cultivate favor with the media, while at the same time donating to Republicans only with dark money and in secret, because he knew that if he were seen as a Republican Party donor, the media – the neutral, nonpartisan media – would end up giving him a far less favorable coverage and he would also be subject to a lot more investigative and regulatory scrutiny. 

So, the game he was playing in Washington, as revealed by this new indictment, sheds more light, I think, on Washington and how its key players function than it does on him. He's essentially just a con artist and a crook who is likely going to prison for a very long time. The size and scope of it was mammoth, but there's nothing particularly novel or pioneering about what he did. What really is important here is the way he ingratiated himself into Washington, to its top and most influential and powerful people in the United States and in the West, cultivated almost unanimously worshiping media coverage, using tactics that we're going to look at and in the process, insulated himself from regulatory scrutiny by simply buying off politicians, using as gurus, liberal political strategists who are right now in a lot of trouble. 

I always want to emphasize that when it comes to indictments issued by the Justice Department or local prosecutors, they deserve a lot of skepticism. I'm often very disturbed at how people treat indictments and charging documents issued by prosecutors as the gospel truth. The media does that all the time, so I want to avoid doing that. It's not just a cursory throwaway line for me to say he deserves due process. I do want to look at these documents with some degree of skepticism, but I really want to focus on what we can demonstrate and prove with concrete evidence outside of the four corners of the indictment. And that's what I'm going to focus on. And I will show you that evidence as well. 

Just to give you a sense for how successful his scheme was to ingratiate himself into the highest levels of political power in the West and to build for himself this hagiography, this completely blind and one-sided media worship, there's so many things we can show you, but here's one picture. It's a picture of him sitting on stage at an art conference in the Bahamas where he was based, with Bill Clinton, the former United States president, and Tony Blair, the former prime minister of Great Britain, and suffice to say, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair are known for many things. One of them is not doing things for free. And so, one can only imagine the amount of money, the gargantuan sums of money they were paid to go and sit with him on that stage while he wore his slovenly clothes that he liked to wear to signal that he was too important to even bother putting on a suit. This is part of his genius that he just wears ratty clothes. It was also designed to communicate that he wasn't in it for the money. He doesn't like the finer things in life. He was part of this movement that is designed to, in their view, pioneer how charity is done by using a very utilitarian calculus in order to maximize the impact of charitable giving. It was designed to essentially get as rich as possible. They claim with the intention of giving the world the way in the most humane and benevolent form. Obviously, that all turned out to be a gigantic fraud, like everything else connected to him. 

But it wasn't just these retired political figures who flew around the world getting paid many millions of dollars to use their influence for whoever has a paycheck to give them. Tony Blair has been, in his post prime minister life, consulting with the most despotic and brutal and savage regimes on the planet, getting millions of millions of dollars to help renovate their image, even though the substance of their governance never changes. But he was targeting the most important people when it came to whether or not crypto and the industry would be regulated in a way that might actually bring scrutiny to the fact that he was engaged in. 

So, here you can see, for example, someone with whom he curried particular favor, which is the longtime Californian Democratic member of the House, who has had her own ethics investigations in the past, Maxine Waters. The reason she's so important is because she has long been the chair, until the Republicans took over the House, of the House Financial Services Committee, the committee that would have investigated and sought to provide oversight and even regulated the crypto industry, had these people on that committee, led by Maxine Waters, not been drowning in all sorts of favoritism from this industry. And here you can see an expression of her affection for what she often called this genius and this young man and how successful this campaign was. Take a look. 

(Video 00:24:47)

There you see her blowing a nice little kiss to Sam Bankman-Fried. \Waving goodbye. Thank you so much for becoming essentially the largest investor or the second largest investor in the Democratic Party. We absolutely love you. We adore you. I don't think it's odd that, as the chairwoman of the Financial Services Committee that's supposed to be overseeing and regulating your industry, that I'm blowing a big kiss to you because you've drowned our political party and money. That's just the way Washington works. And that's why I say I think that the indictment is actually an indictment, more so, at least for our purposes, of Washington and its top players, than it is Sam Bankman-Fried, who one day will be thought of as Bernie Madoff or just some kind of ordinary crook who stole on a massive scale, but not using particularly interesting means of doing so. 

So here is the superseding indictment. A superseding indictment is basically a way that the Justice Department ends up charging somebody with a crime, a series of crimes, in order to gain their arrest and their extradition from the Bahamas, which they did. And then, as they investigate and they discover more facts, they want to add new charges and new facts to the indictment. So, they issue – basically another indictment. It adds charges. He's now facing more felony charges. It actually adds more detail as well for what prosecutors, again, claim took place. 

So here you see the caption of the case. It's entitled “The United States of America versus Samuel Bankman-Fried, a.k.a. SBF.” It's in the Southern District of New York, which is where a lot of financial fraud cases are tried and there you see the superseding indictment that was issued today. So, let's take a look at just a couple of the most significant revelations for our purposes. 

We begin with the first paragraph that essentially gives the sense for what this indictment is alleging. And it reads,  

 

 …including, among other things, to support the operations and investment of RTX and Alameda [which is a related firm that he controlled] to fund speculative venture investments, to make charitable contributions, to enrich himself and to try to purchase influence over cryptocurrency regulation in Washington, D.C., by steering tens of millions of dollars of illegal campaign contributions to both Democrats and Republicans (SBF. Superseding Indictment. Feb. 23, 2023).

 

As I mentioned earlier, the way he would essentially do this is he would openly tout the donations he made to Democratic Party causes to Democratic Party entities like state parties and Democratic politicians and all kinds of left liberal activist causes but then he would hide the donations he was making to Republicans because, as he himself said, in an interview he gave, once it was clear that he was about to be extradited, everybody knows that the way you curry media’s favor is by showing them that you're a Democrat. 

I mean, it's an amazing indictment of the corporate media – that insists they're nonpartisan and objective and a fair arbiter of facts – that he's saying, look, everybody knows that if you want the media to like you, you have to prove that you're on the side of the Democratic Party and that you're going to use your money for liberal causes. That's how you curry favor with the media. You get a big favorable media image, and that helps you avoid congressional and regulatory scrutiny. That's something he's saying explicitly in interviews and now the government in this document, as we're about to show you, is saying it as well. 

The indictment continues. This is, again, part of what the government is alleging against him. 

[…] and at relevant times, Bankman-Fried required that his co conspirators and others who work for him to communicate using encrypted and ephemeral messaging platforms that self-deleted, thereby preventing regulators and law enforcement from later obtaining a record of his misdeeds (SBF. Superseding Indictment. Feb. 23, 2023).

 

 

The reason why I highlighted this passage is this is actually something that is appearing more frequently and that I find bothersome. It has become almost the default position of the government that if you use encrypted communications, which is a technological innovation that already existed prior to the Snowden revelations but became very popular in the wake of those revelations, that enable you to communicate without being surveilled, or at least in a way that makes it much more difficult, that is presumptive evidence that you're doing something wrong. In other words, if you don't want the government watching what you're doing, the government believes that that is presumptive evidence that you are a guilty party – that the only people who seek privacy are people with something to hide. And they insert this in here to try and kind of color the perception of Sam Bankman-Fried in a negative way by saying “he used encryption”. He tried to prevent us from having access to the things he was saying. There are lots of people who are using encryption and don't want the government knowing what they're saying and doing who aren’t criminals. So, I just highlighted that one part because this is appearing more and more now in charging documents, and it shows the government's perception that privacy is only for bad people and if you're a good citizen, you should have no problem with the government knowing what it is you're doing and saying. 

Let's get into the section that describes the meat of the matter for our purposes, which is how he basically stole the money of his depositors, people who deposited money in this crypto exchange and used it to do many things, including buying political influence in Washington. And let's look at the people he seems to have purchased and how that ended up helping and protecting his scheme from being discovered for so long –  there are a lot of victims here. There are people who lost their entire life savings, people who invested large sums of money in this cryptocurrency exchange, and that money has now gone. He gave it away. He bought luxury items like that, but he also gave it to politicians. He also bought out media outlets, made gigantic donations to ProPublica, to The Intercept. I'm about to interview a reporter from The Intercept and The Intercept has said that they're considering the ethical questions of whether they should return that money. To my knowledge, they've yet to do so. So, he bought off not just politicians, but media outlets as well. And here's what the government says about all that: 

 

Samuel Bankman-Fried, the defendant, perpetuated his campaign finance scheme, at least in part to improve his personal standing in Washington, D.C., increase FTX’s profile and curry favor with candidates that could help pass legislation favorable to FTX or Bankman-Fried’s personal agenda, including legislation concerning regulatory oversight over FTX and its industry. To accomplish these goals, Bankman-Fried caused substantial contributions to be made in support of candidates of both major political parties and across the political spectrum. Bankman-Fried, however, did not want to be known as a left leaning partisan or to have his name publicly attached to Republican candidates. In those instances when he wanted to obscure his association with certain contributions, Bankman-Fried and others conspired to and did have those contributions made in the name of CC1 and CC2 (SBF. Superseding Indictment. Feb. 23, 2023).

 

Those are co conspirators. So, what they're essentially accusing him of doing is donating money to Republicans and Republican leading causes. But he didn't want the media to know he was doing that because he knows that the media hates everybody who donates to Republicans. He wanted to buy influence from Republicans, so he got other people to donate that money for him. And it's obviously illegal to make donations by getting other people to donate for you, in part because it's a form of fraud, and, in part, because it allows you to circumvent campaign finance laws. If I can only donate $5,000, but I get ten of my friends to donate for me, I'm now able to donate $50,000 to a candidate by pretending that there's 10 people who are donating, when in fact it's all coming from me. And that's one of the things he's also accused of doing. The indictment goes on. 

For instance, in around 2022, Sam Bankman-Fried, the defendant, and others agreed that he and his co conspirators should contribute at least $1,000,000 to a super PAC that was supporting a candidate running for United States congressional seat and appeared to be affiliated with pro-LGBT issues and selected CC1 to be the contributor.

 

A political consultant working for Bankman-Fried asked CC1 to make the contribution and told CC1 “In general, you being the center left face of our spending will mean you giving a lot of woke shit for transactional purposes”. CC1 expressed discomfort with making the contribution in his name, but agreed there was not anyone “trusted at FTX [who was] bi/gay in a position to make the contribution at the direction of Bankman-Fried and individuals working for him. CC1 nonetheless contributed to the PAC (SBF. Superseding Indictment. Feb. 23, 2023).

 

Let's just break that down. Sam Bankman-Fried, who didn't know Washington very well, especially progressive politics, wanted somebody to help him as a guide through this world where he wanted to buy influence, knowing that if anyone was going to regulate crypto, it was probably going to be the Democratic Party, the left wing that tends to favor regulation more than Republicans. 

He got an unnamed political consultant who, as I said, the identity of that person is an open secret in Washington – we're about to show you some articles that suggest who it might be, I'm not saying for sure it is, but who that might be – and that political strategist who's known for a lot of things, including inventing the hashtag Abolish ICE, #abolishice, told him that if you want favorable coverage in Washington, the way to do that is by giving to the Republicans, by progressive politicians, and by donating to candidates associated with LGBTQ causes. Then you're woke. You have the halo of woke ideology around you. The media will love you. The Democratic Party will think that you're benevolent and that you don't need regulatory scrutiny. These are the rules we all know that Washington runs by and that the media runs by. But it's rare to see it laid out with such explicit light as not only this indictment is done, but as a lot of media reporting has done as well. 

While he was waiting to come to United States to stand trial – I think in this moment before he was indicted, he was speaking publicly, even though his lawyers were obviously trying not to, because I think he believed deep down that he might have been guilty of reckless handling of finances, but that he could not possibly be a malicious person. After all, the corporate media in the United States has spent years heralding him as the new J.P. Morgan, as the new figure that was going to revolutionize how charity is done, how altruism is done. “Effective altruism” is what they called it. And he internalized this PR about himself. And so, he thought, I'm never going to be arrested. I have the most powerful friends in the world. Maxine Waters blows kisses at me. Tony Blair and Bill Clinton are at my beck and call. They get on a plane and come down to the Bahamas when I summon them and give them a check. He has in his brain these hangers on, his minions, who have been heralding his greatness for years. That's how reckless he was. He started talking to the media, knowing that indictments were coming – the dumbest thing that you could do. 

In the process of doing that, he spoke by Twitter DM to a reporter at Vox who published the key excerpts. And here you can see, it looks like any other Twitter DM because he's using Twitter to talk to a reporter at Vox and it's really interesting but he ends up telling her, she says to him, “So, the ethics stuff” [ meaning all that stuff you were talking about being an alter as being a philanthropist] “that was basically a front?”, she asked him. “People like you if you win and hate you if you lose. And that's all how it all really works”. And he responds this way: “Yeah, I mean, that's not “all” of it, but it's a lot. The worst quadrant is “sketchy + lose” the best is “win + clean”. “Clean and lose” is bad, but not terrible.” 

So, he's saying what I needed to do was win and in order to win, I needed to build a positive PR image that the media and Washington would eat up. 

And in the next exchange, this is where he explains exactly what he learned. She says: “You were really good at talking about ethics for someone who kind of saw it all as a game with winners and losers” – because he just admitted to her that the ethics branding was bullshit, that it was just a front, all that talk about effective altruism. He's saying the idea is to win. And that was just a tool to help us win. And so, when she asked him, “You were really good at talking about ethics”. This is what he said: “Ya. I had to be. It's what reputations are made up to some extent. I feel bad for those who get fucked by it, but this by this dumb game which we woke Westerners play, where we say all the right shibboleths and so everyone likes us.” 

Do you see what he's saying there? He's saying that if you want to be revered by the press corps and get away with whatever you want to get away with, it's a very simple game to play. All you have to do is affirm left liberal cultural orthodoxies be associated with woke causes. Give your money to woke causes. The media will love you and you will win. That's the game he was playing because that's the game that he learned and it worked. Think about what this says about the media and about people who exploit this ideology and these causes in order to do what he did. 

As I mentioned before, it's more or less an open secret who was guiding him through this Washington maze and taught him all of these things about how Washington works. I'm not suggesting this person is guilty of any crimes. He's not yet been charged with any crimes. But if I were him, I would not be sleeping well at night, given what we know that he did. Here's The New Republic, a left leaning journal, to put that mildly. The headline reads “Progressive Buddy of Sam Bankman-Fried,” and t's a profile of this activist named Sean McElwee and there you see the subheadline: “The “Abolish ICE” activist and founder of Data for Progress, allegedly helped steer donations for the FTX head toward pro-crypto candidates.” This is who was guiding Sam Bankman-Fried in telling him how you succeed in progressive politics. He used to be a hardcore leftist. Like I said, he invented the hashtag “Abolish ICE” campaign. He then converted that fame into creating this group called Data for Progress, which is designed to help Democratic Party candidates promote progressive causes. He kind of fell out of favor with the left because he started making a lot of pragmatic compromises, doing business with a lot of unsavory people like Sam Bankman-Fried but this was his political origins. Here's what The New Republic said about him. “By now, we've all heard of Sam Bankman-Fried […]”. Remember, this is December 2022, when the whole house of cards has fallen. 

[…] the erstwhile head of failed cryptocurrency exchange, FTX, who faces charges of fraud, money laundering and illegal political campaign contributions. But who is Sean McElwee, his equally scandal-ridden advisor and ally? McElwee, a former New Republic contributor, was once hailed as a progressive wunderkind. He started the viral “Abolish Ice” Movement on Twitter and in 2018 founded the progressive think tank Data for Progress, which focused on influencing public policy through polling data. 

 

His personal influence grew rapidly as well. McElwee regularly hosted parties in New York and Washington that were attended by younger politicos, as well as established lawmakers, including Senator Chuck Schumer and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. President Biden's administration began working regularly with Data for Progress. Over the past couple of years, McElwee and Bankman-Fried grew close. Bankman-Fried set up a super PAC aimed at supporting Democrats who focused on pandemic preparedness, and he hired data for progress to do polling. 

 

But in reality, New York Magazine reported on Thursday, many of the Democrats Bankman-Fried backed were pro-crypto. “This was not just about directing donations to candidates”, Max Berger, a progressive strategist and former McElwee ally, told the Magazine, “This was about Sean running a political strategy designed to shield crypto from government oversight so that crypto billionaires could continue to rip off working people” (The New Republic. Dec. 22, 2022).

 

Crypto billionaires like Sam Bankman-Fried. So, you have this progressive hero who branded himself as a hardcore leftist, revolutionizing Washington with his brilliant leftist strategies, in reality, creating the political strategy Sam Bankman-Fried used to buy influence with all of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party – but the Republican Party in secret, the Democratic Party publicly – to buy favor with the media that Sean McElwee played like a violin, knowing that the way you get ahead in media in Washington is by aligning yourselves with left liberal cultural issues and progressive causes. 

Just to give you an idea of how much John McElwee promoted – one member of Congress in particular, Ritchie Torres, is kind of the living, breathing embodiment of how woke politics is exploited to perpetuate status quo power. We've talked about this before on this show. The first time that I ever realized this and saw this was when the British counterpart to the NSA, the GCHQ, the spy agency, in 2015, lit up its futuristic UFO headquarters in the colors of the rainbow flag, basically to say,” I know you hate us, we spy on everybody, but we love the LGBT community.” That's why the CIA started celebrating Women's Day and creating ads about their agents being nonbinary, transwomen and all of that, co-opting and putting on the veneer of woke ideology onto the most corrupt, militaristic and corporatist institutions to give them a veneer of something rebellious and inspiring. We talked about that in the context of Hakeem Jeffries, the most sleazy corporate K Street swamp creature in Washington, rising to the head of the House Democratic Caucus and having the Squad talk about how he was the first black member, first black leader of a political party in Congress to make him seem like he was so progressive and revolutionary when in reality he serves status quo power. Barack Obama was probably Exhibit A in how effective that can be. 

And so, now you have Ritchie Torres, who is not only black and from the Dominican Republic, but also gay. He's from the South Bronx. He grew up with a single mother. He has a genuinely inspiring political story. He has every single intersectional box checked off, and they see him as a very powerful and potent weapon. He has very significant aspirations to rise in Democratic Party politics, and even though he has extremely conventional politics,they will depict him as some sort of young challenge to the status quo. And so, this became Richie Torres, one of the personal projects of Sean McElwee and Sam Bankman-Fried. And let's just look at how this was done, this particular example. 

So, here's Sean McElwee, in July of 2020, supporting Ritchie Torres as he was running for Congress for the first time. It was a crowded field of Democratic primary challengers, one of those long time incumbents who had represented the South Bronx for decades, retired. And so, the seat opened up and you have Sean McElwee reporting, promoting Richie Torres in the beginning. Here's a tweet: “Child poverty is a choice. The Coronavirus pandemic demands we end it. New on the blog from @RitchieTorres."  

So, he's promoting Ritchie Torres all the time. Here's another Sean McElwee tweet promoting a poll that his progressive group Data for Progress took, saying “Progressives have three weeks to prevent an anti-choice homophobe from being elected in the most Democratic district in the country by consolidating behind Ritchie Torres”, using this polling data to tell leftists, Look, Ritchie Torres, who loves the crypto industry, is a very vocal supporter of Israel, kind of an odd thing for a congressman from the South Bronx to make this his priority, but Sean McElwee architected Ritchie Torres, his rise to win this congressional seat and win this primary by promoting him all the time. 

Here you see Sean McElwee and David Shor, who are these kinds of young, hip political progressive consultants holding a fundraiser for Ritchie Torres in 2022, by which point Richie Torres is already a member of Congress. He won that election in 2020, and once you win the primary, you automatically win that district. It's a 85 to 15 Democratic Party district. So, Richie Torres is running for reelection in 2022. He had no opposition. He didn't even have a primary challenger. He was unopposed in the Democratic Party Primary. He was sure to win the Democratic nomination and then sure to win the general election, because, as I said, it's an 85/15 Democratic district. And yet, Sean McElwee And David Shor are holding a very expensive fundraiser for Ritchie Torres. Why does Ritchie Torres need large amounts of campaign finance when his reelection is guaranteed? Because this is how you buy influence. So, here's, the prices for attending this event are 1,000, 2,900, 4,000, $5,800, and you contribute to ActBlue. So, this is that personal project – Ritchie Torres. 

As it turns out, of the people who donated a lot of money to Ritchie Torres in 2022 was Sam Bankman-Fried and his brother Gabriel Bankman-Fried. For some reason, they took a lot of interest in donating a lot of money to somebody who had no political opposition: Ritchie Torres. Here you see some of the data. 2,900, 2,902, 2,900, 2900, 2900. Both Sam Bankman-Fried and his brother. 

Remember, the Justice Department is alleging that what they were doing was funneling huge amounts of money way beyond what campaign finance allows by having basically people who were donating Sam Bankman-Fried’s money but pretending it was coming from somebody else. This is what Dinesh D'Souza was prosecuted and went to jail for, for essentially doing this. 

So, another person who donated to Ritchie Torres's nonexistent 2022 reelection campaign was Sean McElwee, the progressive hero who became Sam Bankman-Fried’s guru. Nobody knows how Sean McElwee has enough money to be making large scale donations like this. Another $6,000 to a person who has no political opposition. The government says Sam Bankman-Fried was getting people close to him, as I just read you, to donate for him. And this is obviously somebody who's the perfect, “candidate,” as I said. And so, they were very interested in associating themselves with Richie Torres, this rising star in the Democratic Party, who's black, who has family from the Dominican Republic, who is gay. Every single possible box. 

Here is a list of the people that the government suspects were making donations that were really for Sam Bankman-Fried, including his brother. There you see Sean McElwee, several other people as well. And the list of the Democratic Party candidates here to whom they donated this money using what the Justice Department believes was this scheme and you see, Greg Sarsour, the new, very progressive member of Congress, young from Austin, Texas. You see on this list Maggie Hassan, who was a senator from New Hampshire. Maxwell Frost, the Gen-Z member of Congress who was just newly elected and the number one recipient of funds that the government believes is related to Sam Bankman-Fried: Ritchie Torres. He got almost $32,000, again, for a political campaign that just simply didn't exist. So, pouring a lot of money into Richie Torres's coffers became a major priority of Sam Bankman-Fried and of his guru, Sean McElwee. 

And just to be clear, we submitted a lot of questions prior to the show, earlier today, to Congressman Torres, which he did not answer. He has an open invitation to come on my show as I indicated to him to talk about this and anything else that he might want to talk about. And lo and behold, in a major coincidence, after getting deluged with all this money from Sam Bankman-Fried and his political guru, Sean McElwee – remember money that did not belong to Sam Bankman-Fried that he stole from working people – Richie Torres, amazingly, became a very vocal advocate of cryptocurrency, something you would not ordinarily associate with a progressive member of Congress, elected to the from the South Bronx. 

Here's a tweet from Richard Torres in March 2022:

Crypto is the future”, he wrote. “It could enable the poor to make payments and remittances without long delays and high fees. It could enable artists and musicians to earn a living. It could challenge the concentrated power of Big Tech and Wall Street. My Op-Ed” (March 17, 2022).

 

And there's an op-ed in the New York Daily News headlined “A Liberal Case for Cryptocurrency”. 

Do you see how they constantly take these corporatist policies, this Ponzi scheme, and justify it using woke terminology? They pretend, constantly, that they're fighting for the working person, for marginalized groups, while serving the agenda of this corrupt billionaire. 

We're going to talk to Lee in just a little bit, who has reported endlessly on this tactic, Sam Bankman-Fried and Sean McElwee didn't pioneer it. They just exploited it at a much greater rate.

Ritchie Torres didn't only sing the praises of cryptocurrency, he intervened along with seven of his colleagues in Congress, into an investigation that was underway into Sam Bankman-Fried and FTX. 

Here, from the American Prospect, in November of 2020, they report: “Congressmembers Tried to Stop the SEC's Inquiry Into FTX”. So, there was an attempt by the SEC to investigate FTX. Presumably they would have discovered the Ponzi scheme and for all that was, eight members of Congress whom the American Prospect has dubbed the “Blockchain eight” wrote “a bipartisan letter in March attempting to chill the SEC's information request to crypto firms. FTX was one of those. 

Here's what the article says. 

 

The Securities and Exchange Commission was seeking information from collapsed cryptocurrency exchange FTX earlier this year, The Prospect has confirmed, bringing a new perspective to an effort by a bipartisan group of congress members to slow down that investigation (The American Prospect. Nov.23, 2022).

 

So, the SEC was doing their job, suspecting something was amiss here with FTX and, then, a bipartisan group of eight members of Congress intervened to try and slow down that investigation. 

The March letter from eight House members – four Democrats and four Republicans – questioned the SEC's authority to make informal inquiries to crypto and blockchain companies and intimated that the requests violated federal law. They were telling me, as you see, you have no right to investigate crypto. 

The eight members were Reps. Emmer, Donalds, Auchincloss, Warren Davidson (R-OH), Ted Budd (R-NC), Darren Soto (D-FL) Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Ritchie Torres (D-NY). Budd was elected this year to the U.S.Senate. (The American Prospect. Nov.23, 2022). 

 

This is how the game in Washington is played, exactly right here. They forward to Ritchie  all this money, even though he doesn't need it – because he has no opposition – but he keeps it in his coffers. Money is power in Washington. He starts singing the praises of whatever you tell him to say. He suddenly becomes a vocal crypto advocate and he even helps intervene into an investigation that the SEC was trying to conduct to determine whether there was fraud at FTX and potentially an investigation that could have uncovered this fraud and saved hundreds of thousands of people from losing billions of dollars of their hard earned savings. 

Now, just to be clear, I also see potential not so much in cryptocurrency as in the underlying technology of blockchain, because my interest is more in its ability to provide a way for decentralization to happen. Jack Dorsey has often talked about how his regret with Twitter was that he didn't build it on blockchain technology to decentralize it, to make centralized censorship impossible. It also makes it much harder for surveillance to take place. We're going to be interviewing Edward Snowden in the next few weeks about his view of cryptocurrency and why he's excited about blockchain technology. And I actually try, I've tried over the past couple of years to tell people on the left that their reflexive opposition to cryptocurrency and blockchain is misguided because of these benefits. 

Back in December of 2021, I interviewed an anonymous activist who calls himself “the blockchain socialist,” who advocates blockchain technology and crypto currency from a left wing perspective. I also did a separate interview with Alex Gladstein, who essentially talked about the promises of cryptocurrency to do things like overthrow the dollar as the world's reserve currency. The dollar as the world's reserve currency is what enables the United States to borrow endless sums of money, to feed all of our endless wars and the benefits of that. 

So, I'm not an opponent of cryptocurrency, but I know that there's a lot of left wing opposition to it, which is why it's so enlightening to see people who have affiliated themselves with progressive causes to suddenly be on board with the crypto chain as money from Sam Bankman-Fried is pouring into their wallet, which is how Washington works to the point where, again, this is a bipartisan scam. 

Here you have on CNBC a Democratic Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, who's part of the center left of the Democratic Party, singing the praises of crypto, pretending that they want to introduce some regulation but it's really regulation written by the crypto industry to give the illusion of cryptocurrency regulation while protecting the industry from any actual regulatory oversight. Just listen to how she gushes about how this works.  

By the way, she's with Senator Lummis, who's a Republican from, I believe, South Dakota. So here is yet another example of a bipartisan consensus, something that we're always told never happens. But here, watch both of them sing the praises of crypto. 

(Video 00:58:00)

 

CNBC: Hey, Senators, two questions for you. One is and I'm sure you saw this a little over a month ago. The largest 401k manager in the country announced that they were going to offer Bitcoin to users or to consumers. Companies have to choose to allow their employees to put Bitcoin in there. For one case, the Labor Department came out and said, “This is a terrible idea”. What do you think?

 

Senator Lummis: I think the Labor Department's wrong. I think it's a wonderful idea. It should be part of a diversified asset allocation and it should be on the end of the spectrum of a store of value. Obviously, if you have a fully diversified asset allocation, you have some assets that you want to produce income in the short run. You also want some assets that are just a store of value. And I think that's where Bitcoin really shines. I think it's some of the hardest money that's ever been created in the world, and for that reason, it belongs as a slice of a diversified asset allocation for retirement funds. 

 

CNBC: Senator Gillibrand, do you agree or disagree? 

 

Sen. Gillibrand: No, I agree. And that's why this piece of legislation is so important and why it's so timely. Once you create basic infrastructure around these types of digital assets, where there are disclosure requirements, where they have a regulator, where there's full transparency, that is going to create the safety and soundness in the market, that will give other people comfort that this is a market that is here to stay. It's one that is properly regulated and one that has oversight and accountability. And that's what this legislation is going to do. So, while many people are comfortable with where these digital assets are being used or offered today, once the regulatory frameworks are put around it, there will be more comfort there. 



So, a lot of times the most important stories are the ones that receive the least amount of media attention. I always am amazed whenever I think about it to this very day that we do not know and likely never will know, for example, the client list of Jeffrey Epstein, who was in his various books, whether or not there was surveillance footage or blackmail material on the people who ended up falling into his web. 

Well, we know that many of the most powerful people in the world, from Donald Trump and Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew and lots of other people, spent time on that island. Whenever there's no partisan angle to the story, people seem to agree that it doesn't need to be scrutinized because there's no partisan benefit to it. 

This is, I think, similar – this case of Sam Bankman-Fried as I said, his particular crime is not that interesting. The way in which his tentacles were all throughout Washington is extremely interesting. And I believe there's a lot of people who are very, very worried about where this investigation is going and not only because it's important unto itself to find out who got dirty by this money and how, but also because of the amazing line it says on these media dynamics, on who's for sale in Washington, how easily purchased they are and how it all works. This is a story that I believe is only in the beginning that's going to grow and grow and grow in terms of its revelations about a lot of people. I know for sure there's a lot of people sleeping very poorly who are involved in these stories, including some of the ones we mentioned and others as well. And we absolutely are going to continue to follow this story vigilantly as it unfolds and we're going to also do that with the help of our next guest. 



So, for our interview segment, I am very delighted to welcome into our studio here, in Brazil with us, the great investigative journalist Lee Fang. He was on our show a couple of weeks ago talking about one of the blockbuster stories that he did on the Twitter Files. He has spent his career talking exactly about these issues. He has kind of made his way, starting off in progressive media outlets. He's now at The Intercept, but he is somebody who has always risen above ideological and partisan politics. 

He's for me, even though he's still kind of youngish, a very old school investigative journalist, he is the perfect guest to talk about this, all of this and the implications of it. And we're about to do that in just a minute.

 


The Interview: Lee Fang



G. Greenwald: I am really delighted to welcome into our studio my longtime colleague, my friend, and someone who is really a credit to American journalism. And there aren’t many people about whom I say that. Lee Fang, it's great to see you. Thanks for taking the time to talk to us. 

 

Lee Fang: Thanks for having me. It's great to be here. 

 

G. Greenwald:  Yeah, it is great for you to be here. I agree as well, especially tonight, given that we have something that is perfectly within the intersection, if I can use that word, of the reporting that you've been doing for years, which is the way in which money buys influence across the political spectrum. So why don't we just begin with your reaction to this new indictment and some of the revelations it contains? 

 

Lee Fang: Well, in some ways, this indictment is extraordinary. You have this very young billionaire who took money from his customers and really spread it across the political system. If you look at the size and scale of this alleged fraud, it's extraordinary. It's unprecedented. Obviously, using straw donations. If that's true, that's  illegal. And at the same time, it's also kind of benign and ordinary. What Sam Bankman-Fried is accused of is what every major industry does, this attempt to buy influence on both sides of the aisle and when it comes to Democrats, to progressives, to institutions where cultural liberalism is dominant in the media or at universities, using these kinds of signals around, you know, social justice language, around cultural liberalism, around identity politics, that's a great way to conceal influence peddling, to make it seem to provide like a veneer of righteousness to buying off influence and influencing the process. And that's what Sam Bankman-Fried was doing but, again, that's what the airlines do, the banks, that's what the regular tech industry does. It's how Washington basically works. 

 

G. Greenwald:  One of the things that I think angered the political establishment most about Donald Trump's political campaign in 2016 was – I don't know if you remember this specific moment – but in one of the debates, he basically stood up and said, “All Washington is a scam and when I was on the other side of the process as just kind of a billionaire, as somebody who is in the private sector, all I had to do was just write a check to any politician in either party, and with some exceptions, but not many, they would call me up and they would say, “What is it that I can do for you?” And whatever he needed them to do, they would do it in exchange for that check that he was willing to offer. He was famously a guest at Bill and Hillary Clinton's wedding that showed how ensconced he was in this political culture.

Having been somebody who has looked for so long at the way in which both parties operate under the scheme that you just described, how have you come to see the fights between the two parties that we're supposed to believe are so intractable and so fundamental? Do you see that more as theater and these parties serving kind of the same masters, or do you see the fights between these two parties as being often very genuine? 

 

Lee Fang: I think on the big picture issues, on taxes, who pays and who doesn't, on regulation of businesses, of how basically the economy is run, there is broad bipartisan consensus and there's an effort to use the emotionally evocative culture war issues as a way to distract people, to divide people, to kind of harness the polarization in society, to keep the status quo for major corporations and special interests. And we see this playing out in so many ways in Washington. You know, there was an effort in the last Congress to crack down on the power of Big Tech. This is something that a lot of politicians have talked about. I think we all recognize the power of Facebook, of Amazon, of Google and the other tech giants. You look at this kind of simultaneous exploitation of the culture war when there was a legislative effort to kind of crack down on the way that Google and Facebook share advertising revenue with newspapers and media companies. 

What the Silicon Valley Giants did is they took money, they gave it to front groups, and they ran ads in targeted districts that exploited the culture war without talking about the actual underlying bill. For Democratic districts, they ran ads that said that if we pass this legislation, we will have more hate speech and more hate groups on the Internet. Don't allow your legislator to support hate speech and other neo-Nazi groups because, you know, sharing ad tech revenue will mean more Breitbarts or whatever. And on the right, they said, okay, look, this is an effort to actually censor conservatives and this is a way for Washington liberals to kind of crush you under their thumb like they always do. 

It's like, okay, this is a way no one's actually talking about the underlying bill. This is a way to get people angry and upset about legislation they probably don't understand. 

 

G. Greenwald:  You know, I think about this issue a lot because you don't, on the one hand, want to completely dismiss the importance of what is this umbrella group of culture war issues. They do matter to people. People feel strongly about whether abortion should be legal or criminalized. People feel strongly about whether same sex marriages ought to be recognized under the law or not. They feel strongly about whether children should have access to puberty-blocking medication and even surgeries in order to change their gender and you go down the list if you want to even group in things like gun control and crime policy. Sometimes those get grouped into culture war issues as well, though I think they're kind of outside of it. 

So, on the one hand, these issues are not trivial; people feel strongly about them. They can affect people's lives. On the other hand, the more we are at each other's throats about those issues, the more we're focused incessantly on what a lot of times are easier political fights to have, right?, it's easier to fight with your neighbor about what books a school is going to include in their curriculum than it is to say, deconstruct the hegemony of Goldman Sachs and the CIA. So, it's tempting to do that because the results are more immediate. The more we're doing that, though, the happier power centers are, because the more we're fighting with one another, the less we're focused on that. 

What do you think, and I realize you tend to look at these things as a journalist, but having presented that problem that you just described, what is the way to kind of get people to find that right balance? 

 

Lee Fang: I mean, that's a tough question. I think that if you read about these issues and how people talk about them, whether there's, you know, nonprofit think tanks, the different media outlets, what have you, there just isn't a lot of understanding of the other side in an attempt to genuinely engage on the issues. 

But there is this kind of overarching effort to exploit, to flatten actual points of difference and cynically exploit them to make us hate each other. Another example of the Big Tech crackdown: Amazon has faced criticism around counterfeit goods on their platform as they face legislation in the last year to kind of crack down on that. They pay a number of Asian, African American and Latino groups that went out and lobbied on their behalf and said, “Look, if you require more photo ID and user verification for resellers on online platforms, well, that sounds a lot like voter ID, therefore, it's racist.” You know, that's a way to flatten the debate, not to actually talk about the nuanced policy issues. That's an emotional shortcut to get people angry, to then join Amazon and be their de facto lobbyist because they've been recruited into the culture war. 

 

G. Greenwald:  I started writing about politics in May 2005, and this is right around the time we were obviously already in Iraq, you know, with the major military force of a couple hundred thousand troops, and neocons were very eager to change the government in Iran. And there was that anonymous tip– it probably came from Richard Perle or Paul Wolfowitz, maybe even David Frum – that was leaked that said “real men go to Tehran – like Baghdad is not enough. We want to go to Iran”. And out of nowhere, there started to appear all of these stories about the abuse and mistreatment of gay men by the Iranian government, about gay men hanging from cranes and the like, and all these kinds of neoconservatives who didn't even have the slightest interest ever in any LGBT issues, much less the plight of Iranian gay men, suddenly started exploiting these kinds of social justice causes to gin up hatred among Democrats toward the Iranian regime by saying, “look at how they oppress gay men.” This has now become a major way that the West supports and sustains support for imperialism, militarism, even if it's done in Ukraine, you know, lobbies LGBT people and look at this like trans soldiers, but Putin and the Russians hate gay men and Jews in Israel and Palestine. If you go to Israel, they'll take you to all the nice gay clubs in Tel Aviv and they'll tell you that Hamas tanks gay men, in order to get you to be more on the side of Israel, you have focus on the use of those kinds of tactics in the domestic context when it comes to economic policy.  

That's what one of the articles that we want to ask you about, from Lee Fang, on the screen, from The Intercept. It's from 2022. The headline is “Lobbyists Mingle With Congress under the Banner of Celebrating Diversity,” and the subheadline is “Corporate lobbyists are sponsoring events celebrating racial progress to advocate for their clients’ business interests”. These are corporate lobbyists who are on K Street, whose job it is to generate profit, and they're using this kind of agenda of racial progress, post-George Floyd, to promote their corporatist agenda. Talk about that specific example and what that shows about how this works. 

 

Lee Fang: Yeah, this is how money flows into the Democratic side in Congress. You know, it would be untoward to kind of have a welcome event for Congress that has an official banner that says ExxonMobil and Waste Management and Goldman Sachs. That would be obviously problematic for a lot of left leaning lawmakers or lawmakers that campaigned on social change.  

But all you have to do to conceal that kind of nasty image would still have that same effect of lobbyists cozying up and partying with legislative staff and lawmakers and gaining influence, the kind of day to day transaction-based economy of Capitol Hill is to use a diversity event. The Tri- Caucus, the Asian American, Hispanic and Black congressional caucuses have their own affiliate nonprofits that are almost 100% corporate-funded. Their boards are dominated by corporate lobbyists when they make decisions on who to endorse. Often that's actually done by the corporate lobbyists that fund those congressional caucus nonprofits. And just this new Congress that was recently gaveled in, you have parties almost every week celebrating, you know, Lunar New Year for Asian-Americans. And there's this article where we mentioned a number of Hispanic and Latino caucus events. And again, these are lobbyist organized, just absolute swamp activities where – if we looked at the pictures posted on social media from these events, and you zoom in and it's one congressional staffer for Hakeem Jeffries next to a pharmaceutical lobbyist, next to another lawmaker, next to another bank lobbyist – it's just the same kind of cesspool but under this banner of promoting diversity and inclusion. 

 

G. Greenwald:  Yeah, that's what I was saying. I mean, in a way, I think is the perfect guest for this new one day, because one of the things the indictment reveals is just how cynical Sam Bankman-Fried and his political guru Sean McElwee became about let's just associate yourself with these woke causes and that will immunize you not only from regulatory scrutiny but also from negative media attention. This is something you've been spending a lot of time on, which is why I say he didn't invent it. He just kind of detected it and they used it. There's another example and by the way, since we went over a little time and I want to continue to explore this utterly while we have him, we also are now streaming on Locals, which will be our aftershow as well.  

Let's put this other article that is similar in theme to the one that you uncovered. There is the article from 2022 to the evolution of union busting, and it's entitled “Breaking Unions With the Language of Diversity and Social Justice”. Obviously, supporting unions has been – and unionizing and organizing unions – has been a long time cause of the left. And yet I've noticed all the time now that when corporations want to persuade their workers to reject unionization and the organization of unions, they of course, don't say, “Oh, you're going to eat into our bottom line”. That's not the kind of rhetoric that appeals to people. They, instead, smuggle in this kind of social justice language as a way of sabotaging union drives. Talk about some of the things that you've uncovered as part of that report. 

 

Lee Fang: Yeah, this was a fun story. I attended a number of conferences that are sponsored by the union suppression industry. This is a $300 million a year industry where, you know, major corporations hire special consultants that go into a company that's facing a union threat, and they hold captive meeting seminars with employees to dissuade them, because there's typically a vote to decide if workers can join a union or not. This has gone on for a very long time. It's a very sophisticated industry and, back in the day, they used threats of violence. There were weapons used and intimidation on the picket line, kind of threats to offshore jobs in the seventies and eighties, which were often actuated. But in the last decade, we've seen a very sharp turn where a lot of workers and more left leaning industries, the tech industry, Starbucks, RTI, companies that kind of have a large number of liberal Democrat employees, they're facing a growing movement to unionize, to join the labor movement. And you see these union avoidance consultants rebranding. They're becoming diversity consultants, DTI consultants, and they're going in and saying, look, you don't need to join a union to have your voice at the company. We can just talk about issues around identity. It's a very intimate way to kind of connect to an employee and they get people alternatives. They say instead of joining a labor union, they will create an employee resource group. This is a special club where you have an association of gay or Asian or what have you employees. And you know, you'll have a pizza party once a month and we'll have a hotline if you have any issues. But just don't join a labor union because they would actually – they don't say this part - but they would actually cost the company money. 

I mean, the thing of the day, whether it's lobbying Congress or what we just talked about or this kind of union busting, they want to take away decisions that change the kind of power structure where more power would be, redistributed to workers, to common people and they want to keep those decisions in the hands of investors and management. And this is the same thing where the attempts to crush this growing labor movement we've seen in the last few years are adopting the language of the kind of symbols and rhetoric of social justice activists and explicitly using these demands for diversity and inclusion as kind of a Jiu Jitsu to undermine this effort at unionization. 

 

G. Greenwald: I mean, it's so incredibly cynical and yet so remarkably effective because anything that has that kind of branding is assumed at this point to be something appealing and attractive. 

 And just speaking of which, I think I started really noticing a kind of seat change where these sorts of things are concerned, maybe 10 or 15 years ago when it came to Al Sharpton, because a lot of people don't remember when Al Sharpton ran for president in, I believe it was, 2004, he kind of occupied the Jesse Jackson Lane. Obviously, the comparison of them all being African American candidates but it went beyond that, which was very ideological. They were running as left wing critics of the Democratic Party. Jesse Jackson was a very harsh critic of the Democratic Party and actually had a pretty successful 1988, I believe, primary run, where he won multiple primaries, multiple states with this message that the Democratic Party was abandoning its working class roots and was becoming the party of corporations. And Al Sharpton kind of took up that mantle and in 2004 was attacking John Kerry and John Edwards and that kind of wing of the Democratic Party, saying that they're too much in bed with corporations and lobbyists and the likel. And then, suddenly, I started noticing that a lot of times Al Sharpton would start to appear and give his support for exactly the kind of corporatist bills and other legislative initiatives that he would typically have denounced for years from the left. And there was clearly a flow of money going from a lot of these corporations into his activist groups. What has your journalism revealed about Al Sharpton in the kind of – to me, he seems like a pioneer in this circle and he has often talked about this and many times before saying why should we as influential black people, also get the same kind of lobbyist funding that influential white lobbyists get as well? What is that kind of signal to you? 

 

Lee Fang: Well, I mean, he kind of represents this kind of schism in the Democratic Party that – from the New Deal through the Great Society, – you have this kind of very materialist, grounded focus of the Democratic Party that advance civil rights, at the same time advancing universal economic policy, increasing the social safety net of cracking down on corporate power, making sure workers have a seat at the table. And there was kind of a break in the sixties where you had this movement towards neoliberal identity politics. A lot of activist entrepreneurs embraced this rhetoric and ideology of black capitalism that Sharpton now represents. And, you know, he's […] 

 

G. Greenwald:  That very much to his benefit, for sure, from like an MSNBC contrast to all sorts of other ways. 

 

Lee Fang: I mean, even that MSNBC contract is fascinating. When MSNBC was purchased by Comcast, there was an incredible lobbying effort because the DOJ and other regulatory authorities were looking at this from an antitrust perspective. This is a major, you know, concentration of economic power. And Al Sharpton led the effort to lobby legislators saying, “Look, Comcast and MSNBC are devoted to diversity and inclusion. And look, they're going to set aside for nonwhite, black or Asian or whatever content on their cable shows”. And it certainly worked. It was approved. 

 

G. Greenwald:  I think that is really amazing. I mean, the idea that Al Sharpton, the Al Sharpton of the eighties, nineties and the early aughts would go to bat for a major corporation like Comcast and lobby the Justice Department against enforcing antitrust laws by, you know – wasn't really called woke ideology then – but by appealing to those kinds of social justice symbols is amazing in and of itself. I guess it should be a gigantic red flag. But that was a case where he really got paid by Comcast when he was hired for what was a very poorly reviewed show, he was terrible on camera, he could barely read a teleprompter. Nobody watched that program. The contract was multi-millions of dollars. And they finally got rid of him on prime time and they put him on the weekend where he's still getting paid. You know, it's such an overt quid pro quo, but it was done with Al Sharpton, you know, invoking these kinds of left wing causes for what was clearly a corporatist agenda. 

 

Lee Fang: Go on YouTube and the National Action Network Sharpton's organization has an annual conference and watch their proceedings. It's every bigwig of the Democratic Party people, teachers, Obama, Hillary, what have you going and, you know, singing his praises and talking at the conference. And then, each event is interspersed with corporate lobbyists coming up and thanking the National Action Network for what they're doing and pledging their money to his group. And what you don't see during the conference is how the National Action Network and Al Sharpton then go and mobilize civil rights groups. And, you know, he has his own network for their regulatory tax and other corporate issues on Capitol Hill. I mean, last year, Al Sharpton was calling legislators, asking them to drop the provision of the Biden legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act, that had to do with the carried interest loophole that would have attacked hedge fund managers and private equity bosses to make sure that they paid a fair rate in taxes. Right now, they can pay capital gains less than their own secretaries and janitors. What he's not done in the last year is he's paid by Reynolds America, the big tobacco company. And he's now working with George Floyd's family and then bringing them to press conferences, saying that the FDA's effort to crack down on menthol cigarettes is racist. This is what he does. I mean, this is this is just I mean, this. 

 

G. Greenwald:  Is Al Sharpton. And he shows up to say that whatever legislation you're against or whatever America is and you want to burn off is itself racist. And it's  a business. It's a racket. 

 

Lee Fang: It's a business that D.C. operates around. And, you know, in particular, it works. And there are different ways to influence Republican conservative audiences based on their values, on corporations. The same corporation will fund Al Sharpton and a number of LGBT causes. And meanwhile, to influence Republicans, they'll fund. 

 

G. Greenwald:  What, Newt Gingrich? 

 

Lee Fang:  Newt Gingrich and, you know, more jingoistic kind of religious organizations that have appeal and cachet with Republican audiences. It's a dual strategy that, again, exploits the polarization in America. But if you live in, you know, it's particularly effective for the media and for universities where these ideas are dominant and in states that have a lot of power – where I'm based in California and states like New York, it's essentially a one party state. In California, there's a super majority of Democrats in the legislature, a Democratic governor. You know, Biden wins by a huge majority there. But it's a state that's still incredibly unequal. It's a state where corporations win most of the major policy battles. And again, it's using the same kind of strategy that Sharpton – I don't know if he pioneered – but he's certainly very effective at taking social justice rhetoric and deploying it to basically manipulate voters into agreeing with the corporate bottom line. We've seen this with Prop 22, Prop 15, with efforts to reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals. They pay off lots of different identity groups, and they accuse their opponents of being bigoted and they eventually manipulate voters into agreeing with them because we have this kind of proposition system to change the state constitution every two years. 

 

G. Greenwald:  Yeah, you could get anything done in Democratic Party or basketball circles, as your colleague Ryan Grim has done a great job of reporting as well, that within these progressive organizations, they basically implode on each other because of this, without accusing the people you're trying to feed in some way of supporting bigotry or white supremacy. So even when it comes to just like the most financially oriented corporatist policies that are designed to protect the wealthy, somehow they end up having, you know, sort of like the Al Sharpton's of that state, people who purport to be professionals, activists on behalf of some ethnic group or racial group going to bat for these corporations, claiming that whatever legislative or regulatory proposal is pending to restrict their power is in some way racist or white supremacists. It's amazing to watch. 

 

Lee Fang: I want to share one quick anecdote, because this is maybe personal to you. We talk a little bit about the captains of industry, Big Tech and banking, whatnot. But this is just how legislation is done in California. I went to Sacramento a few years ago and there was an effort to regulate minks, mink farming, you know, fur coats. And, you know, the mink farming industry is incredibly cruel. These are territorial animals. So, when you put them in crates right next to each other and they can kind of sense each other nearby, they go insane. They start chewing off their own paws. So, when the California legislature sought to regulate this industry, the fur coat industry paid off and we got the text messages, they were offering $100 gift certificates or cash or whatever to a number of students to take a bus to Sacramento and were told to testify against this legislation. They did not say they were with the fur industry, that they're paid by the fur industry. They brought young African American men to say fur coats are part of our culture, and they show a level of socioeconomic status. And doing this and cracking down on fur coats is racist. And they brought in a Native American. And they say that fur coats are part of our indigenous culture and any effort to regulate this is racist against our people. Incredibly cynical stuff, but this just kind of shows how much it runs the gamut, whether you're a big bank or airline or, you know, Sam Bankman-Fried, a fur coat dealer in L.A. who paid off these young students to testify on your behalf. 

 

G. Greenwald:  Yeah, that's right. I mean, the Sam Bankman-Fried part of this, isn't that he invented it. It's just because of the scope of the fraud. It's just going to shed so much light on how it actually works. 

While I have you, just a couple of quick last questions. The last time you were on my show, as I said, you were here because we were talking about the work you did on the Twitter Files and the story you did about the media, the military, rather, deploying fake identities on Twitter, something that we hear only Iran and Russia and China and all the bad countries do. What is the status of your work on the torture files as a continuing? Do you have other stories coming out and what do you make of the way in which the media really, on day one, announce that this is a trivial story, that it was done corruptly and that most revelations that have emerged and that will continue to emerge have just been declared something that they intend to completely ignore. 

 

Lee Fang: I have not conducted any recent searches. I had a few days at Twitter HQ in December and one or two days after that, but I've done very little new searches. I've got a number of emails that I'm still working on. I'm going to produce more stories based on those documents, on the media's treatment of this reporting. The New York Times covered my story, the CENTCOM story that I appeared on your show to discuss.. But, you know, just generally, regarding the coverage of the story, I've been disappointed but not surprised. These revelations were incredible just to see the kind of daily and aggressive FBI influence on issues both weighty and mundane. The FBI was contacting them every other day, executives at Twitter, for The New York Times and other media outlets to ignore that, which I think is very strange and maybe reflects some type of professional jealousy or something else. It's hard to kind of divine their intentions. And, you know, Michael Sullenberger's revelations using the Twitter Files on how much Jim Baker and other Twitter executives were involved in the censorship of The New York Post… 

 

G. Greenwald:  Former FBI general counsel that went to Twitter as the deputy general counsel. 

 

Lee Fang: Yes. Thank you. And you know that that's very newsworthy, but not just given the role of the Hunter Biden laptop now and the new Congress being investigated, but just that the role of that, that whole story and unprecedented nature of the suppression of it in 2020, for the major media outlets to completely ignore this, except for Fox News and maybe a few other conservative outlets. You know, I find it ridiculous. And, you know, again, but not surprising. 

 

G. Greenwald:  Yeah, and a testament to my faith and trust in those institutions have collapsed across most demographic groups in the United States. And independent media really so clearly is the wave of the future. People just don't trust these outlets any longer. 

Last question, and it's kind of curious, like whenever there's a potential to really blow a big, gigantic hole in the way Washington works like this, Sam Bankman-fried investigation does. Again, not the part of how he stole money, but the part of how he used it for political influence implicates a lot of political figures, implicates a lot of political consultants. People who were just getting money in all sorts of various ways are incredibly powerful. House Financial Services Committee that Maxine Waters has chaired for seven years. I always kind of believe that they're going to find a way to shut it down. I mean, to this day it is. Is amazing, is it not, that the way in which the Jeffrey Epstein investigation was conducted, he never got to trial because he ended up dying beforehand. And then the way they did the Maxwell trial to make it as narrow as possible, the charges against her and what evidence was admissible. So, we saw none of the client list or the potential leverage they might have had is really striking. And there's been no journalistic revelations of this part either. I mean, Julie Brown at The Miami Herald has done great work, but the bulk of it has remained hidden. I feel like whenever you have a story like this that can really threaten the power centers in Washington, they will find a way to shut it down. What is your expectation about the potential for this investigation going forward to keep revealing things like this document today revealed? 

 

Lee Fang: Well, I'm hopeful. I'm hopeful that more of the truth and more revelations come to light. But yeah, you're right that there's a lot of prosecutorial discretion. And the direction that the DOJ takes could provide incredible amounts of sunlight to what Sam Bankman-Fried was doing. Or they could take certain plea deals and take the investigation in another direction that kind of conceals what was going on. I don't know. I mean, there's been some boost in terms of just more media scrutiny. Of course, you know, the bankruptcy filings are also interesting. The fact that they're going through Chapter 11 and, you know, their companies being taken apart, that also provides a little bit more insight into what they were doing. We had a story recently looking at that and how they're paying off just endless think tanks and consultants and PR firms, a little bit like the indictment today revealed. But again, I don't know. 

 

G. Greenwald:  Yeah. Well, we'll most certainly keep following that. And I don't know how long you're going to be here, but we'll probably be hectoring you to come back on the show. We have a lot more to talk about with you, as always. Your work is, I think, important and always really interesting. So, I'm really thrilled that we were able to bring you here into the studio and spend the time talking to you. Thanks for being here. 

 

Lee Fang: It's awesome to be here in the studio. Looks great. Thanks for having me. 

 

G. Greenwald:  Absolutely.  

 

So that concludes our show for this evening, since we did go a little long for it tonight, as we said, we streamed the last part of this on Locals that will constitute our aftershow for tonight. 

We will be back Tuesday for our aftershow on Locals. Tuesday and Thursday are the days we do that. We will be back tomorrow night. We typically have Michael Tracey on to chat with. That's sort of a punching bag for me, which I think the audience likes. He likes to try and fight back as well, and I think people find that amusing too. So, we'll try and have him on for tomorrow night. 

Thank you very much for continuing to watch: the numbers of our audience continue to grow. Remember as well that we are now available on those podcasting platforms also and following us there helps increase the visibility. So, if you use Spotify or Apple, please follow the show System Update on there and we hope to see you back tomorrow night and every night. 7 p.m. EST, exclusively here on Rumble.

 

community logo
Join the Glenn Greenwald Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
10
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Answering Your Questions About Tariffs

Many of you have been asking about the impact of Trump's tariffs, and Glenn addressed how we are covering the issue during our mail bag segment yesterday. As always, we are grateful for your thought-provoking questions! Thank you, and keep the questions coming!

00:11:10
In Case You Missed It: Glenn Breaks Down Trump's DOJ Speech on Fox News
00:04:52
In Case You Missed It: Glenn Discusses Mahmoud Khalil on Fox News
00:08:35
Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted

For years, U.S. officials and their media allies accused Russia, China and Iran of tyranny for demanding censorship as a condition for Big Tech access. Now, the U.S. is doing the same to TikTok. Listen below.

Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted

Another day, another revelation of Israeli war crimes.

"However, S. testified that aside from one person found with a knife and a single encounter with armed fighters, the scores of others killed — an average of one per day in his battalion’s combat zone — were unarmed. According to him, the drone strikes were carried out with the intent to kill, despite the majority of victims being located at such a distance from the soldiers that they could not have posed any threat.

“'It was clear that they were trying to return to their homes — there’s no question,' he explained. 'None of them were armed, and nothing was ever found near their bodies. We never fired warning shots. Not at any point.'”
https://www.972mag.com/drones-grenades-gaza-chinese-autel/

I just watched this speech. Holy!
Literally gave me chills all over. Usually that sensation is reserved for music or literature that really touches me. Not from someone speaking.
I agree with everything Tucker Carlson says here. Check it out, if you haven't yet. You won't be sorry.

placeholder
post photo preview
Trump Mocks Concerns About Epstein; Trump Continues Biden's Policy of Arming Ukraine; Trump and Lula Exchange Barbs Over Brazil
System Update #483

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXdQ7dlWcVsr6gxA7vqLq-1A7mWjxjCfmkfW_idQ9AUuXFgbpYHaApRU0dHG1K-go6WP1EuQHkZ0TcaDhxBsLpBdDAN1Xt3U3Nh4bCNCrJAW6mSVm7ZY4a80mI9TZNNPvyHV75EmE75jxNEG2gV41zA?key=vLeq5wNRjH8OhqLXJDWEpg

 Much of the MAGA world was in turmoil, confusion and anger yesterday –understandably so – after the Trump DOJ announced it was closing the Epstein files and its investigation with no further disclosures of any kind. After all this happened, some attempt was made to try and pin the blame or isolate the blame for all of this on Attorney General Pam Bondi. Yet, Donald Trump himself, today, when asked about all of this, went much further than anyone else when meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the White House again: President Trump actually mocked and angrily dismissed any concerns over the Epstein matter and how it was handled. 

On our second segment, one of the uniting views of Trump supporters over the last four years has been opposition to the Biden administration's policy of arming, funding, and fueling Ukraine in its war against Russia. Yesterday, however, at the same meeting with Netanyahu, Trump announced that he would continue the Biden policy that he had spent so many years criticizing by now providing defensive arms at least to Ukraine, and he did so based on the longstanding neocon/liberal view that Putin is completely untrustworthy and therefore Russia must be thought because of Putin. That's what Trump himself said. 

Then, we’ll comment on Trump’s lengthy tweet attacking Brazil for its ongoing prosecution of former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro, during the BRICS Summit being held in Rio de Janeiro. This was something we were going to cover last night and didn't have time to, but we will tonight. Brazil's President Lula da Silva quickly responded, very defiantly, by basically telling Trump to mind his own business. 

AD_4nXdQ7dlWcVsr6gxA7vqLq-1A7mWjxjCfmkfW_idQ9AUuXFgbpYHaApRU0dHG1K-go6WP1EuQHkZ0TcaDhxBsLpBdDAN1Xt3U3Nh4bCNCrJAW6mSVm7ZY4a80mI9TZNNPvyHV75EmE75jxNEG2gV41zA?key=vLeq5wNRjH8OhqLXJDWEpg

AD_4nXdFPqAU_UAlxnVl4bAGguNJXNdZxNBG5GYQRQ4rQ0s9nbGI3hy31ARaIkofh9-MnqDExEgQJwprJhlZCLFqt5TQ1AMEZL4dZuVcwfkWAUE9s8HKeccp7h8P74Smsa9IfJxGBCcOeBSZBRmO9vG3uQ?key=vLeq5wNRjH8OhqLXJDWEpg

Last night, we covered quite extensively the decision by the Trump Justice Department, not even six months into the administration, to completely shut down and close and stop all investigations into Jeffrey Epstein, as well as announcing that there will be no further disclosures of any documents of any kind, that whatever they've released so far, which has basically been nothing – not basically, has been nothing – is all you're going to get. 

This is a blatant betrayal of multiple promises made by key Trump officials over the last four years, before they were in the White House, but was also a complete 180 in terms of what key Trump influencers and pundits had been saying, including several pundits who are now running the FBI, such as Kash Patel and Dan Bongino, as well as the Justice Department, including Pam Bondi. 

We even showed you an interview that Alina Habba, the Trump attorney who is now the U.S. attorney for New Jersey, appointed by Donald Trump, did with Pierce Morgan while she was in the government, just in February, where she claimed they have a whole bunch of very incriminating lists with shocking names. She said there's video and there are all kinds of documents that are shocking, in her words, and she said they're going to be released over time because we've gone long enough where people who do these sorts of things, including are involved in the Epstein scandal, have no accountability. She said that is ending with the Trump administration. There's going to be accountability. 

Yesterday, the Trump Justice Department said, “No, there's nothing here. We looked. There's no such thing as a client list.” We know we've been promising and that JD Vance repeatedly said, “Where's the client list?” Donald Trump Jr. said, “Anyone hiding the client lists is a scumbag.” Dan Bongino, Kash Patel, Pam Bondi accused Biden officials of basically covering up predatory pedophilia by refusing to release the Jeffrey Epstein client list. Now, they're saying there's no client list, that thing we've been talking about and accusing Biden officials of hiding and promising to disclose, that doesn't exist. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Trump DOJ: There's Nothing to the Epstein Story; State Dept: Syria's Al-Qaeda are No Longer "Terrorists"
System Update #482

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXchraXAcM2XesxWhHUd_N92bq3HtZGBU0u87-_fbhgSvF_mW53lPXSclX3vc961GSDXkWZcNNf8FOPD8HtRT03BCNEDdQml65kDYVIePskT17DYTDjhr2qdoot9YMrl2ICIsDNxtoo3No9gS_87UbA?key=KgbZuF9MUUu9LACQfXBJhw

One of the most significant scandals among MAGA pundits and operatives within pro-Trump discourse generally over the last four years has been the one involving Jeffrey Epstein. 

Now, in less than five months, the DOJ announced today, the one under Pam Bondi, that they are closing the investigation, given the certainty that they say they have that Epstein had no client list. There's no such thing as an Epstein client list, he never tried to blackmail anyone and no powerful people were involved whatsoever with his sexual abuse of minors. They also say that he undoubtedly killed himself: there's no question about that. 

All of this is such a blatant betrayal of what was promised all of these years, such that all but the most blindly loyal Trump followers – like the real cult numbers, a lot of them almost certainly paid to be that – are reacting with understandable confusion and anger over what happened today and over the last several months. We'll delve into all of this and what this means. 

Then, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced today that the group that al-Golani once led, long known as al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria, is no longer officially a designated terrorist group. This is al-Qaeda. We'll explore what all of this shows about the utterly vacant and manipulated propaganda terms, terrorist and terrorism. 

As a note, we did not have enough time, so we’ll talk about President Trump’s tweet attacking Brazil and its government, on the day of the BRICS Summit in Rio de Janeiro, some other time soon.

AD_4nXchraXAcM2XesxWhHUd_N92bq3HtZGBU0u87-_fbhgSvF_mW53lPXSclX3vc961GSDXkWZcNNf8FOPD8HtRT03BCNEDdQml65kDYVIePskT17DYTDjhr2qdoot9YMrl2ICIsDNxtoo3No9gS_87UbA?key=KgbZuF9MUUu9LACQfXBJhw

AD_4nXf8opZ5QUDtAVaICU5qTM5Y1LjnKXrCQiFXaCgRyR0Wajit4anClkk9fzlucH9EsxtIoMf80nPijX1q2-P9anbJF2Br6tuTIhvUEcswwY_3YO8e6XnO1COADsy13uka9aFDYMs6gyeuA1ekGHkGHXo?key=KgbZuF9MUUu9LACQfXBJhw

Earlier today, the Justice Department issued a statement, essentially announcing that they no longer consider any of the questions surrounding what had long been the Epstein scandal to be worthwhile investigation; that essentially all of these questions have been answered, that there's really nothing to look into. 

You can read the Justice Department's statement here.

They're saying this client list that most Trump supporters, I would say, have been accusing the U.S. government, of hiding to protect all the powerful people on this list, now, that they're in power – people like Pam Bondi, Dan Bongino and Kash Patel, now they're in charge – they're saying, no, actually there is no client list at all. There's at least no incriminating client list, whatever that means. 

I don't know if there is a client list or not, but according to them, there's no incriminating client list. I don't know how you can have a client list that's not incriminating: to be a client of Jeffrey Epstein seems inherently incriminating. They seem to have said what the White House briefing said today when asked about this, because as we'll show you, Pam Bondi went on Fox News and was asked, “Are you going to release the client list?” And she said, “It's sitting on my desk for review.” 

Trump had strongly suggested he would order it released. Now they're saying, “You know what? There is no client list.” 

So, all these claims that Jeffrey Epstein had recordings of prominent individuals who he invited to his island, who had sex with minors, evidently, there's no incriminating material of any kind that would implicate any powerful person. Just not there, they checked. They checked the storage closets, they looked under the beds, just couldn't find anything. All the stuff they had been claiming was there for years, screaming and pounding the table on podcasts, making a lot of money over it, too, accusing Biden officials of hiding this all for corrupt ends, just not there. They looked, couldn't find it. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Glenn Takes Your Questions on the Ukraine War, Peter Thiel and Transhumanism, Trump’s Middle East Policies, the New Budget Bill, and More
System Update #481

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXdjbpoTTLOmpbn81q-fbdtNH5KAjOl7i674NJwHWMr-BPjOVIwcl04UDSw7pd8lyyarg4eQNlqToNtF0abDltxOZp1oTlEV403-2j_MJggeocO1jXm8yVmaT6T7gCplMc-4PcBtWJGJbmmtZ1QRKoA?key=IE-A7iIKYOSYqSVSuMR2PQ

 

I don't know if you heard, but there's some breaking news, and that is that tomorrow is July 4, which in the United States is a major holiday. The Fourth of July is the day that we celebrate our independence from the tyranny of the British Crown. Tomorrow we will be taking the holiday off in large part because the appetite for watching political content or political news apps and some big political story on July 4 is quite reduced and so everyone can use a three-day weekend. 

What we usually do on Friday night is the Q&A session, something very important to us and something that we try to do at least once a week because it's one of the main benefits that we believe not only give to our Locals members but also receive from them. 

It's always kind of a hodgepodge, but it always ends up as one of our most interesting shows, we think, throughout the week, one of the shows that produces the best reaction. Since we're not doing a show on Friday, we're going to do it tonight instead. We have some excellent questions. There's one really confrontational question – I was going to say a bitchy question, but I want to be a little more professional in that – let's say confrontational questioning, critical. We're going to try to deal with that one as well. 

AD_4nXdjbpoTTLOmpbn81q-fbdtNH5KAjOl7i674NJwHWMr-BPjOVIwcl04UDSw7pd8lyyarg4eQNlqToNtF0abDltxOZp1oTlEV403-2j_MJggeocO1jXm8yVmaT6T7gCplMc-4PcBtWJGJbmmtZ1QRKoA?key=IE-A7iIKYOSYqSVSuMR2PQ

So one of the things that shows throughout the week is that I happen to speak a lot. I analyze things, I dissect things, I read evidence, I show you videos, I talk to guests, I ask them questions. And what we try to do on our Q&A is to be respectful with the question and give an in-depth answer. 

I'd rather answer four or five by giving in-depth answers that I hope are thought-provoking than just speeding through them. I'd rather do a substantive response to four or five than a quick, superficial one to nine or 10. So let's go do that. 

The first one is from @If TruthBeTold and this is what they asked: 

AD_4nXfocH_nEvtOZCXGIfrCpo6G1DHUOfDgJuv8Bw-UPqqXQdw-XEbpoAOWRJbcokEudPYq3pyPLpDKRYjHTG_sSyK-i4TSdBevo-ZCofQ70VqKsfZ_xTpbBV2AO53NwWebo1jMNniZx8RuPUZ3tNaeyu4?key=IE-A7iIKYOSYqSVSuMR2PQ

Well, let's begin with the fact that there is a reasonably effective instrument for preventing foreign interests and foreign lobbies from exerting influence in our country in a way that's stealthy or covert; that’s the FARA registration, which requires foreign agents acting on behalf of other countries to register as such so that everybody knows if they're slinking around Congress, whispering in politicians' ears, asking for legislation on behalf of a foreign government because they've disclosed it. 

And so if you work for the Iranian government, they're paying you to influence members of the legislator, if you do that for Qatar, if you do it for Russia, if you do it for Saudi Arabia – and the premise of the question correct, huge numbers of foreign interests lobby in the United States, you're required to declare that publicly on a FARA registration form and you can go see those, they're publicly available, and you can see who's lobbying on behalf of foreign governments for pay. 

One of the problems is that, for some reason – and you can fill in the blanks here – AIPAC has become exempt from that requirement. AIPAC is a lobbying group that reports to the Israeli government, meets all the time with the Israeli government, and gets funding from Israeli sources. Ted Cruz tried to deny that AIPAC is operating on behalf of a foreign government. Tucker Carlson asked him, “Well, has there ever been a single position that AIPAC has taken that deviates from the Netanyahu government?” and Ted Cruz said, “Sure, they do it all the time.” And Tucker Carlson said, “Oh, that's great. Why don't you name one?” And of course, Ted Cruz couldn't because it never happens, because AIPAC is an arm of the Israeli government trying to exert influence in the United States. 

And yet, for some reason, for a lot of reasons, in contrast to all the other examples I just named, when you have to fill out a foreign agent registration form, people who work for AIPAC or on behalf of the Israel lobby don't. Their claim is, “Oh, we're not lobbying for Israel. We're lobbying for the United States. We just believe that if the United States does everything that Israel wants, that's good for the United States. We're an American group. We're patriotic. We're America first. We just think that America benefits when it does everything that the Israeli government tells it to do.” 

John F. Kennedy strongly advocated and started to demand that the predecessor group to AIPAC register as an agent of a foreign government. He couldn't understand why it didn't have to, alone among all the other groups. And it never ended up happening because JFK's presidency ended when he was killed. 

Again, I'm not drawing any kind of causal link there. I'm not even trying to imply it. I'm just giving you the chronology as to why that never came back. And since then, nobody has ever talked about that. So, that's one thing. The other is that AIPAC is uniquely well-financed in terms of being a lobby operating on behalf of foreign governments. It hides that in a lot of ways, but I'll just give you an example. In the last Congress, there were two members in particular who AIPAC identified as being too critical of Israel. They were both Black members of Congress who represented primarily Black, poor districts, and the rhetoric started to become, which is threatening to AIPAC, ‘Wait, why are we sending billions and billions and billions of dollars to Israel when Israelis enjoy things like better access to health care and more subsidies for college than our own citizens do, when millions of Israelis have better standards of living than millions of people in the United States, including in my district? Why are we sending the money there instead of keeping it at home and improving our lives? 

Two of the people they identified as highly vulnerable were Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush. I've certainly had criticisms of both of them, particularly Jamaal Bowman, but also Cori Bush – but that's not why AIPAC was interested in moving them from Congress. They poured $15 million – $15 million into a single house district in a Democratic primary – they found this Black politician in St. Louis to challenge Cori Bush, who promised to be an AIPAC puppet, and he has kept his promise. Wesley Bell is his name. He should put AIPAC in the middle of his name because it's much more descriptive of what he is now. And they just removed Cori Bush from Congress and put in this person who is basically the same as Cori Bush, except he loves and worships and devotes himself to Israel, never criticizes it. 

They did the same with Jamaal Bowman. They got George Latimer, who's white, but he was a county executive known in the district, and they poured $15 million into that. I don't know of any other interest group on behalf of a foreign government that has not just the ability, but the brazenness, the willingness, to be so open about destroying people’s careers in Congress that they're not sufficiently loyal to a foreign government. 

So the question is, well, what's the solution? Are you more willing to consider the problem of money in politics? I've never doubted the problems of big money in politics. I've always recognized that there are massive problems with huge amounts of money in politics. The founders did as well. They were capitalists. Obviously, they weren't opposed to financial inequality. They were often very rich themselves, property owners and the like, but they also warned that massive inequality in the financial realm can easily spill over into something they did want to avoid, which is inequality in the political realm or the legal realm. And clearly that's happening. 

The problem is, how do you restrict the expenditure of money for political purposes without running afoul of the First Amendment? Let me just give you an example of what this kind of law would entail. This was at the heart of Citizens United, which was the five-to-four Supreme Court decision in 2010 that invalidated certain amounts of financial campaign finance restrictions on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment. 

Let's say you're a group that wants to improve conditions for the homeless, and you want to bring attention to the problems of the homeless and solutions you really believe in as a citizen; you're just like trying to pursue a political cause that you believe in. You get together a bunch of money from your friends from other groups, you save your money and use that money to publish films, ads and documentaries about which politicians are helping the homeless and which ones are harming them. Then, you also may hire somebody who has influence in Congress, who can get you into doors to talk to members of Congress, to try to persuade them to enact legislation that will help the homeless. If you have laws that say that you can't lobby, you can’t spend money on political advocacy. It's not just going to mean that Israel and Raytheon can't go into Congress or that Facebook and Palantir can't; It's going to mean that nobody can. And that clearly is a restriction on your ability to, not your ability but your right under the Constitution to petition your government for redress, to speak freely about grievances you have against your government. 

I've always thought the better solution than trying to restrict First Amendment rights by eliminating money from politics is to equalize it through public campaign financing. So, if your opponent raises $10 million through billionaire spending or very rich people, the government will match your funds and give you $10 billion. 

We do have matching funds in certain places. We also have a better tradition and culture of small-dollar donors that compete with big-money donors. I mean Bernie Sanders' campaign drowned in money in 2016 because of small donors. AOC has insane amounts of money that largely come from small donors over the internet. Donald Trump had a ton of small donors, in addition to very big ones. Zohran Mamdani, actually, got so much money at the start of the campaign from grassroots donors that he actually asked them not to give anymore because, under the matching fund system of the city, where you can raise money up to a certain level and then they match it, he reached the maximum. He didn't need any more money because he wanted to get the matching funds. 

That has been encouraging; the internet and various fundraising networks enable small donor contributions to a huge amount, making people competitive, who aren't relying on big money. But once you start trying to regulate how people can spend their money for political causes, remember Citizens United grew out of an advocacy group, they were conservative, they produced a documentary, publishing, highlighting and documenting what they believed were the crimes and corruptions of the Clintons before the 2008 election. So, they made a film about one of the most powerful politicians on Earth and it contained information they wanted the general public to see before voting, potentially making her president. And that was, they were told, a violation of campaign finance laws because they were a nonprofit, and under the campaign finance laws in question, corporations, including nonprofits or unions, were banned from spending money 60 days before an election. 

That's why groups like the ACLU and labor unions sided with Citizens United and argued that this campaign finance law, which the court, by a 5-4 decision, overturned, is in fact unconstitutional. People forget the ACLU and labor unions that also would have been restricted, were also part of the urging of the majority decision, even though it's considered a conservative decision. 

I think there are much better ways to equalize the playing field when it comes to lobbying: make AIPAC and all of its operatives and the entire Israel lobby required to register under FARA, just like everybody else does. If they don't, they go to prison, just like anybody else does who doesn't file the FARA forms deliberately or intends to deceive. And then, also, find ways to make the playing field even without telling people, citizens, that they can't spend their money that they earn and that they make on political advocacy, on campaigns to convince the public of certain things against various other candidates. I think there are many better ways to do it than that. 

 

AD_4nXdjbpoTTLOmpbn81q-fbdtNH5KAjOl7i674NJwHWMr-BPjOVIwcl04UDSw7pd8lyyarg4eQNlqToNtF0abDltxOZp1oTlEV403-2j_MJggeocO1jXm8yVmaT6T7gCplMc-4PcBtWJGJbmmtZ1QRKoA?key=IE-A7iIKYOSYqSVSuMR2PQ

All right, @TearDrinker asked the following. And this is somebody, I'm quite sure, that if you start crying, he gets so happy, he'll drink your tears. He looks for that. That's who asked this question. So, I think we do have a lot of very noble and benevolent people in our audience but we also have some very dark people in the audience and I think @TearDrinker is one of those. Nonetheless, the question is very good. We all have dark sides, good sides and bad sides. We're very complex. So is our audience. And here's his very good question: 

AD_4nXcy6SXgQfWMN8QAWIhxM9Qq35vHfYFCq_YCN79KQukJ7KTf3nel0kxZFqdtTh_fzAZxPK-EG4H2gYCN1sb4RZW3b6ld2f_LrUau48ODVfu8fWCyvVOMEZF4DBFZbNANIfImpdANmWt0-M49s9VaYDI?key=IE-A7iIKYOSYqSVSuMR2PQ

AD_4nXdtZCj9sNj4x49iP2xcrio4QwLPb3dD8xkd2AXwhREmMxXhisH4qoZzftAJ_CeczFgry2VtOg_unpXAWZ6LOwwb9_EDXDpslMhY2bH8x1gq8mxcrtI0u5J-Xf4Nzy1HtljOa8erm6ksX5NHzg0247M?key=IE-A7iIKYOSYqSVSuMR2PQ

 

I had several people on my show from the start who were vehement opponents of U.S. financing, NATO financing of the war in Ukraine. Jeffrey Sachs was one, John Mearsheimer was another and Stephen Walt was another. We had several people, we had members of Congress, Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene, part of the MAGA movement, Rand Paul as well, RFK Jr., when he was running for president. We had a lot of people but Professor Mearsheimer, Jeffrey Sachs and Stephen Walt in particular were overwhelmingly prescient in predicting what would happen, even though at the time you weren't allowed to say this because if you said this, if you said reality, you would get accused of being a Russian propagandist or pro-Kremlin or all the things they use to smear people who are questioning the prevailing propaganda. Just like we saw in this last war, if you questioned U.S. bombing of Iran or the Israeli attack on Iran, you were accused of pro-Mullahs, loving the Ayatollahs, same thing every time. 

One of the things that they were saying is like, “Look, it doesn't matter how many weapons you give to Ukraine, it does matter how much money you hand to Kiev.” Even if it didn't get all sucked up in the massive corruption that has long governed Ukraine – which of course it will, but let's assume it didn’t, let's just say it was a very honest, well-accounted for country driven by integrity and principle and all the money was used for exactly what it was earmarked for – even if that happened and even if the Ukrainian people were incredibly courageous and they were at the beginning but even so… 

You know, there's a dog behavior that I've seen so many times. If you go to a dog park and two dogs are going to fight and they're on neutral ground, no one owns the dog park, the stronger dog is likely to win. But if you took those same dogs and the weaker dog in the dog park was at home and the stronger one in the park went to the house of the weaker dog, the weaker dog would suddenly become very strong. And typically, I'm not saying in all cases, obviously a Poodle and a Rottweiler, it's going to be the same result, but I'm saying when it's even remotely close, when you're defending your home – and this is definitely true in the canine world, they fight much more passionately, much more aggressively, much more confidently. And I think that's the same for human beings. 

And so the Ukrainians were very feisty, very punching above their weight at the beginning but even so, and all these people on my show said it, and I got convinced, that it was true from the very start, even if everything went right for the Ukrainians, even if you give them everything they want, the simple fact that Russia is so much bigger and that this is going to be a ground war of attrition between two neighboring countries, meant that inevitably Russia was going to win. It might take a year, it might take two years, it might take five years. The only possibility is that the Ukrainian population of young men, and as they expanded the draft, it became middle-aged, young to middle-aged men, were going to be obliterated, were going to disappear and obviously were huge numbers of young Russian men, but they have so many more that they can just keep replenishing them and losing that amount without having any real effect on Russia, which is like a gigantic country. And that's what's happened between the people who were killed in Ukraine, the people who fled and deserted, and there are a lot of them. There's basically a generation of Ukrainian men missing, which in turn means women aren't dating and aren't marrying. It just destroys the whole society.

The last time we really heard any promises that there was going to be a change was in 2023. There was going to be this great counterattack during the summer, like David Petraeus and Max Boot and all the people who promised the same thing was going to happen in Iraq with the surge were they telling us, “No, this counterattack is going to change everything.” It didn't change anything. Russia has maintained the 22%, 23%, 24% of Ukraine that they occupied, and they've been expanding more and more. There's no way to stop that unless you send in NATO troops or U.S. troops to have a direct war with Russia, which would by definition be World War III. 

The EU, has these – I'm going to say they're primarily women and I say that because a lot of left-wing parties in Europe ran explicitly on the idea that they were going to put women in foreign policy positions because women are less likely to be militaristic, warmongering, seeking conflict, they're much more likely to rely on diplomacy to resolve disputes because it's more in the woman nature. This was the feminist argument, a very essentialist and reductive view of how women and men resolve conflicts. 

But instead, you look at these warmongers, and you're up there like Ursula von der Leyen, who's the president of the EU. Nobody elected her. She's a maniac, a sociopath. The foreign affairs minister is the former prime minister of Estonia. It's like a million people. She's now like the foreign minister; she goes around demanding more and more war. And then the Green Party in Germany is the worst. They ran on this feminist foreign policy explicitly. And they have Annalena Baerbock as the Foreign Minister: she sounds like something out of 1939, talking about the glories of war. 

And even with all that, the Europeans are going to send in troops, the Americans are going to send in troops and so the more we prolong this war, the more we destroy Ukraine, the country, and the more we sacrifice the lives of Ukrainians. And that has been the neocon argument. It's like, you don't have to worry. Americans aren't dying. It's the Ukrainians who are dying. Remember, they're not fighting voluntarily. They're conscripted. A lot of them are fleeing, a lot of them are deserting. They just don't have the people to fight. 

Over the last couple of weeks, there have been announcements that the U.S. is going to slow down or stop certain weapons transfers that had previously been allocated under the Biden administration. One of the people who is announcing this, who's deciding this, is Elbridge Colby. You remember that Elbridge Colby was one that the neocons tried so hard to stop his confirmation to the high levels of the Pentagon because his view has long been that we have no interest in a lot of the wars we fight, including in Ukraine, including in the Middle East, we ought to be focusing on China and the Pacific. And neocon groups that obviously want the United States focused on fighting in the Middle East, funding Ukraine, were desperate to keep him out. 

There are a few others. Some of those non-interventionists who made the high levels of the Pentagon, like Dan Caldwell, who ended up getting fired because they fabricated leaks against him that were completely fake. We'll do a show on that one time. But there are still several of them. And so Elbridge Colby, when he announced this policy, like, Look, we were going to ship all these munitions and missiles to Ukraine, but now we can't. The reason we can, and we have gone over this before, is because U.S. stockpiles are dangerously low. We don't have these missiles and munitions to give, at least not consistently with making sure that we have enough in the case we want to fight another war. And the reasons are obvious. We've been sending missiles and munitions and drones and everything else we have to Ukraine and to Israel to fuel their wars. 

Israel has multiple wars, not just in Gaza, but also in the West Bank, in Lebanon, in Syria. It has bombed the Houthis many times and attacked Iran. The United States has been arming and funding and just sending huge amounts of weaponry to Ukraine. And also remember, President Trump re-instituted and escalated President Biden's campaign of bombing the Houthis. And the idea was we're going to obliterate the Houthis. After a month, President Trump got the report and saw how much money we were spending, how many weapons we were using, how much money it was costing, and nothing was really getting done. We were killing a bunch of civilians and not really degrading the Houthis at all. And they told him, “Oh, sir, we just need nine more months.” But he ended it because he saw he was being deceived again. And we're very low on military stockpile, even though we spend three times more than any other country on the planet and more than the next 15 countries combined. 

This was one of the reasons why, although we've been told that Israel and the United States together achieved this massive, glorious war victory, Netanyahu and Trump are war heroes, when Trump called on Netanyahu to be immediately pardoned or have his corruption trial stopped, it was like, “Look, he just, with me, won a historic war.” It's very important for Trump and Israel to insist to people that they won this great war, this historic war, in 12 days. 

The reality is that the Israelis really couldn't fight that war for much longer. You saw with fewer and fewer missiles shot by Iran, not even most sophisticated yet, that more and more of a landing. We don't know the full extent of the damage in Israel because journalists will tell you they were absolutely and aggressively censored by the military from showing any hits on government or military buildings. The only things they were allowed to show were the occasional hits by the Iranians on a civilian building here, a residential building there, to create the false impression that they were targeting and only hitting civilian buildings, but a lot of Israel suffered a lot of damage. President Trump said that himself, that Israel took a huge pounding. They didn't have air defenses any longer. They were running out and the United States couldn't continue to supply them. We were running out of our own missiles that we use to shoot down Iranian missiles. Israel and the United States didn't end to that war at least as much as Iran did because we were so low on our stock files because we're fighting so many wars or funding so many wars. And so the argument of the Pentagon and Elbridge Colby is, “Look, we just don't have these weapons to keep giving to Ukraine. We need them for ourselves. If we keep giving them to Ukraine, we're not going to have any on our own and our priority should be our military and our protection and not Ukraine's.” 

If this were really a difference between Ukraine winning the war, if we give them the weapons as defined by NATO, which was always a pipe dream. However, the definition was expelling every Russian troop from every inch of Ukraine, including Crimea, which the Russians would never ever allow to happen. If it were a difference between Ukraine winning or Ukraine just getting rolled over, then I would say, okay, maybe there's a debate to be had. But the reality is we've been feeding them weapons into the fourth year now. It's four whole years, coming up on four years, three and a half years of not just the United States sending billions and billions of dollars, but also Europe, and Ukraine hasn't been saved. Ukraine has been destroyed. Ukrainians haven't been freed. They've been slaughtered in mass numbers. And that's all that's going to happen if we keep sending weapons there. 

Of course, the Europeans are relying on this fearmongering that Putin is not going to stop with Ukraine. He wants to eat up all of Ukraine. He's demonstrated many times that he's willing to do a peace deal that secures a buffer zone in eastern Ukraine that protects the ethnic Russians who speak Russian and feel they've been aggressively discriminated against by the Kiev government. The people of Crimea and various provinces in the east feel closer to Moscow than they do to Kiev. They identify as Russians and not Ukrainians. So, as long as Russia feels that, A, they can protect those people, and B, create a buffer zone between NATO and the West on the one hand and Russia on the other so it can't go right up to their border, they've always said they're willing to reach a deal. 

And remember, Ukraine and Russia they almost reached a deal at the very beginning of the war that didn't call for the complete sacrifice of Ukrainian sovereignty, but only those kinds of buffer zones or semi-autonomous regions to letting them vote, and that was the deal that Victoria Nuland and Boris Johnson swept in and told Ukraine they can't keep and they wanted this war to be a prolonged war to destroy Russia. So this fearmongering that Putin's going to eat up all of Ukraine and he's going to move to Poland and then he's like Hitler, he's going to sweep through Eastern Europe and then Central Europe, back to Austria and Germany and then is going to go to Paris again, this is idiotic. 

The Russians have had a hard time defeating Ukraine, albeit with, obviously, Ukraine's being aggressively backed by NATO. But even if they weren't, they were willing to do a deal that just provides Russian security. But wars always are raw and fearmongering, and so they've convinced a lot of people if we don't back the Ukrainians, Russia is going to just roll over and take over, annex Ukraine and rebuild the Soviet Union under this kind of view of Greater Russia that Putin supposedly has in mind, the way Israel is actually doing, creating Greater Israel. There's so much evidence that contradicts that, so little evidence that supports it, but at the end of the day, where are these people going to come from who are going to fight on the front lines in Ukraine? There aren't many left. We can drown that country with billions of dollars in weapons and the war is still going to end up the way it's going to end up. You may not like it, it may be sad to you, you may wish it were a different way, but that is just the reality. 

There have been experts saying it very bravely, I mean, Jeffrey Sachs used to go on “Morning Joe” all the time, until he started saying this, and he hasn't been on again. People get booted out of mainstream platforms, they get called all sorts of names, Russian agents, Kremlin propaganda, etc., but who cares? Those people were the ones who were absolutely right, which is why we kept putting them on our show. They were by far the most convincing people. And that is the nature of the war in Ukraine and the U.S. role in it. Even if we wanted to keep supplying the weapons, we simply don't have them because we've been fueling and arming far too many wars: our own, Israel's and Ukraine's. That's what happens. 

AD_4nXdjbpoTTLOmpbn81q-fbdtNH5KAjOl7i674NJwHWMr-BPjOVIwcl04UDSw7pd8lyyarg4eQNlqToNtF0abDltxOZp1oTlEV403-2j_MJggeocO1jXm8yVmaT6T7gCplMc-4PcBtWJGJbmmtZ1QRKoA?key=IE-A7iIKYOSYqSVSuMR2PQ

I think this is the third question, and it comes from @BookWench. And this person, I believe, is a wench, self-described, I'm not being insulting, they're a wench. And they really like books. And if you're going to be a wench, I think it’s better to be a well-read wench than some ignorant one. It's a good friend of the show, often asks some really great questions. And here's the one submitted by this wench tonight. 

AD_4nXcKFU5vGJM9_9tMG2e__ZY3JjSYiT-xr67bVp2jAnYzb8hIxPSTtIiyZGb9o6FZR9ioyS6tu0LvOEoD2itp1_rTHLtlPBFyoeuxzfl8GZ6zNFmY-8p8N80ANekdAFPNWn6XTce1LHV5rjD2-FKaqq0?key=IE-A7iIKYOSYqSVSuMR2PQ

She’s talking about our show last night. If you haven't seen it, that's a great summary of it. But we talked about the integration of Big Tech companies like Meta, OpenAI and Palantir increasingly into the media, while at the same time, Trump and big media corporations are reaching all sorts of nefarious agreements about what their coverage should and shouldn't be.

AD_4nXdoUcJwKs8ztc_mxCuLb6-wFlFM-xtKMKaZ8oGw7i4zrk3sOUjiFryskHklhd157Pe00z2kSm-pmf__4QMzzNTBJreNSF1esVFQFNAGmpDpl1nJ7pTWCe7JOetVVNYutqE1Si9S88XGEKmFOdwgxA?key=IE-A7iIKYOSYqSVSuMR2PQ

I'll give you a parallel example to make this point, rather than just addressing this one directly. Oftentimes people focus on what words apply, like what inflammatory words apply, what shocking or extreme political jargon applies, and even if that jargon is important, even if it has fixed meaning, even if deserves to be applied, traditionally, I've tried to avoid arguments over words or labels because so many people feel so strongly about them that even if they might be open to your argument on the substance and the merits, the minute you use that word, a lot of people just shut off. 

That was why it took me a few months to call what Israel was doing in Gaza a genocide, not because I doubted that the term applied but just because there are a lot of people open to hearing the facts about what Israel is doing in Gaza and seeing how horrific and criminal and atrocious it is, but the minute you use the word genocide, they just kind of instantly turn away from it. I often make the assessment, I'd rather have the channel open for communication than use a word that I know that's just going to close that channel. 

A lot of times, though, it does become necessary to use that term, I don't just mean genocide, but a term that can't have that effect because it's indispensable to understanding the situation. And that's how I came to see the word genocide in Gaza and ethnic cleansing, even more so. You can't really talk about Gaza without talking about that intent. It's not my guess about that; it's based on the statements that the Israelis have made about their war objectives and then their actions that align with it. But in general, I like to avoid those kinds of words. 

Fascism is definitely one of them. I promise fascism is similar to my problem with genocide and there are a lot of other words like this. There are a lot of words that get thrown around that even if they have a clear and fixed meaning, the people throwing them around aren't very capable of defining in a very concrete, specific way what the words mean. Fascism, to me, has almost become colloquial for just, like, Hitler-like or authoritarian or using aggressive racist themes combined with abuse of government power but the word and concept Fascism is a lot more complex than that, and it involves a lot more prongs than that. 

People study fascism for years in universities. There are graduate programs where you study fascism. It's a philosophy, it's an ideology that was developed in a very specific historical context. It ended up shaping the Italian government in the 1930s under Mussolini and then, of course, the Germans; you could argue Franco in Spain also was an expression of it. But I just feel like throwing the word fascism around at Trump or the Republicans, or especially, of all, it means a kind of aggressive authoritarianism. It just doesn't serve any purpose because I think the Biden administration was extremely authoritarian in lots of different ways. I think most administrations of the last 25 years have been. Very few people spent more time vocally, vehemently condemning Bush-Cheney than I did. I wrote books about it, including arguments that they ought to be prosecuted for things they did, spying on Americans without warrants, torturing people and kidnapping them off the streets of Europe. But I don't think I ever called them fascists. Not because someone had studied or done that, would have been offended or argued that it didn't apply, but just because I don't think it helps the conversation any. 

I think one of the worst things the Biden administration did is essentially commandeered the power of Big Tech to control political discourse in the United States, dictating to Big Tech what they ought to suppress and what they are to permit. In doing so, they absolutely warped and suppressed crucial debates about COVID, about Ukraine, about even election integrity that ought to have been aired. One of the things that bothered me about it so much was that you had the government on the one hand and corporate power on the other in the form of Big Tech and the Biden administration was basically annexing the power of Big Tech and corporate power to control free speech. 

I often pointed out that, ironically, the Democrats love to call Donald Trump a fascist, uniting state and corporate power, eliminating the separation between them, where they each have different objectives, sometimes overlapping, sometimes not, but uniting them as one entity working toward exactly the same goal. That was what Hitler did. There was no arms industry that wasn't under the control of the government. There was no private sector not under the control of the government, all working toward a common theme and a common unity. 

That is what's happening here as well as these major corporations like OpenAI, Palantir and Facebook more and more directly and expansively integrate into the military, into the intelligence community, into the government. But there are other factors, other prongs of fascism as well, and people debate it. And so if I were to say that, oh, this is fascism, the Trump government is fascist or the Biden administration is fascist, it might be satisfying to people who want to hear that and who believe that. But for a lot of people, they would just turn that off as Fox junk in the case of Biden or MSNBC junk in the case of Trump, and oftentimes that is what it is, just junk. It's people spewing it without having any idea what those terms mean, just to get maximum emotional catharsis or provoke emotional reactions. 

I would much rather do what we did last night, which is spend 45 or 50 minutes, maybe an hour, however much we spent, showing people exactly what's happening, showing this integration between corporate and state power for surveillance purposes, for military purposes, for intelligence gathering. Talk about the dangers of it in a way that I hope people are open-minded, because we're showing them the evidence. The minute you start using terms that they're kind of inherently going to repel or just recoil from, I feel like I can call it fascism and congratulate myself, but I don't feel like it does much good. I feel like actually does the reverse. If these terms were very clearly agreed to specific meanings that everyone understood, I wouldn't have a problem with using them when they applied, but since they don't at all, I think these words are obfuscated. 

But I did point out last night, and I will say again, that integrating corporate and state power is a hallmark of fascism and whether all the other hallmarks of fascism are present, it's extremely dangerous for the reasons we delved into extensively last night if you want to understand more how we think about that and what we said you can, if you haven't already, check out last night's show

AD_4nXdjbpoTTLOmpbn81q-fbdtNH5KAjOl7i674NJwHWMr-BPjOVIwcl04UDSw7pd8lyyarg4eQNlqToNtF0abDltxOZp1oTlEV403-2j_MJggeocO1jXm8yVmaT6T7gCplMc-4PcBtWJGJbmmtZ1QRKoA?key=IE-A7iIKYOSYqSVSuMR2PQ

All right, next question @KKtowas, who says this:

AD_4nXeiF3xQCpnDRCuYymk_YyVllROFZymcNuHaXaW9ZQ948TDdyfz3k2bs9DPW8A5BjjsQcgcBeEEU70Gze2GVHOsv8_RLIieI92BYUKiAYfIhcr9GWtq1TDMe8qETniGCPPK9vJan5lilagnVSACqFr0?key=IE-A7iIKYOSYqSVSuMR2PQ

AD_4nXeeP7YxeXw9VGGWBssh3zKth5QwlfA12ostiLiQF0Lhts9a4rcyy6f93xL2B41BZtJcGMCjSHWfjysB3x2UdGxtEjUjBD_-zzH71x11Ew_EWI6DkVHXYB0WQtBbZLnHT-PPqu_Y2r79C7UOGQnZDg?key=IE-A7iIKYOSYqSVSuMR2PQ

AD_4nXfWMOiqfnGBG-75eqjmbiWDyDJ8gV_Ep_iXpqEuLYkC_dZVPt2su-iOutSIqwL0x3PAiVQ2VujlMJvskCTZsZQmlwj8C8F46xhinoAA83LgM91FXqbkaDAvZXr0V7Avx4nBiKztGx7jysq-U4HIvqI?key=IE-A7iIKYOSYqSVSuMR2PQ

I don't want to be too cavalier about paraphrasing this. The question did do a good job of describing it. I'd rather show the actual words. If you haven't heard it, it's really worth watching. I definitely understand why it provoked this question. 

So, let me focus on the part that I do actually feel comfortable paraphrasing, which is Ross Douthat did ask Peter Thiel, “Do you favor the continuation of the human race? Is this something that you actually think is a good thing?” 

Elon Musk has been asked this before. Part of what Elon Musk wants to do is make sure humanity is multiplanetary, starting with life on Mars. A lot of people think, ‘Oh, you must think that's because humanity on Earth is doomed; otherwise, why is it so important to you to make humanity multiplanetary?’ There are other reasons why you might, but that's a suspicion, and not just to make it multiplanetary because the Earth is doomed, but also to transform what it means to be human. 

This kind of philosophy has been popular among these more extreme Silicon Valley types of Transhumanism, something that transcends humanity or fundamentally transforms it. Typically, I think merging humanity with technology or with a machine for a superior being, it's definitely how a lot of them think of artificial intelligence. I, one time, got a root canal, which I hate as much as anybody – I think I hate it more, but probably everyone hates it equally – but one of the only good things about it is that it lasts for two hours. I have the time to sit and listen to podcasts that ordinarily I wouldn't have time to listen to, or the inclination, just because I have to have my brain distracted. I can't, even if my mouth is totally numb and I don't feel it. I don't like hearing what the dentist is doing. I don't want to think about what tools he's using and why. There's almost no job I'd rather have least than being a dentist and just constantly being in someone's mouth every day looking at their teeth. But whatever. So, I try to distract myself and one of the ways I did so is I listening to Mark Zuckerberg's appearance on Joe Rogan. He was talking at length about his vision that soon we're going to take all these devices, virtual reality devices and AI devices, and they're no longer going to be exterior instruments that we wear, like Googles on our head or phones or earpieces or things in our phone. It's going to be part of our anatomy. He was talking about drilling into brains in order to have this technology part of the human brain, and at first he said the first use is going to medical, somebody has a neurological injury or some other serious neurological problem, this machine will help them with that functionality. But critically, he was talking as well about an ultimate merger between technology and human beings, which in one way may not change the nature of human beings in the beginning. It's just kind of another instrument. You can imagine this earpiece. Say you wear an earpiece of the kind people commonly use now to listen to things on a computer, connected by Bluetooth to their phones. Does it really change humanity if, instead of just having this come in and out, it's just now implanted in our ears? Does it change humanity? Well, when you start talking about the brain and changing how our brains think and produce thought, or having AI be the future of what a human being should be, but in a spiritual form, that's clearly transhumanistic. That's transforming what a human being fundamentally is. 

There are all kinds of questions that come with that. If you believe in a soul, does this have a soul? And the way Mark Zuckerberg was so cavalier in talking about it, I found very creepy. 

Let me just say one thing. I think the question referenced that Peter Thiel stuttered when he answered and kind of had big pauses. Peter Thiel always does that. The reason is – and he's talked about this before, he's autistic – and that means you don't have the same capacity for social interaction. 

One of the things he said that I found super interesting was what he thinks the benefit of being autistic, not severely autistic, where you aren't verbal, can't interact with people at all, but somewhere on the spectrum of where he places himself. When you don't have autism and you're very clued into social cues – and we are social and political animals, we do interact as groups, we are not solitary beings – that if you're so aware of social cues and you're constantly receiving what social cues are, in a way it's making you more conformist, kind of morphing you into society, you understand what society expects of you, you understand what the society thinks, you understand what you're supposed to say in most situations. And he was saying that that can really make you conformist. It can kind of just make you part of this blob. Whereas he sees his autism as almost a gift because feeling detached, excluded, or isolated from majoritarian societal sentiments, ethos and mores forces you to see things differently, to look at things differently. And then that, of course, is the kind of thing that can lead to innovation and invention. Steve Jobs was not autistic, but he actually has said in interviews, people don't talk about this, but it's so true, that had he not taken LSD and had experience with other hallucinogens, he never would have invented the iPad or various Apple products, that it was that kind of transcendent thought that enabled him to have this vision that he otherwise wouldn't have had. On some level, mind-altering drugs can be analogized to autism and so, yes, Peter Thiel stutters; he stumbles. Oftentimes, it seems like he's sweating or having difficulty answering the question, but in reality, it's autism and the way he speaks. But it does affect how people perceive him. 

Let me show you this clip that the question asked, because I think it's really worth hearing him in his own words. 

Video. Ross Douthat, Peter Thiel, TikTok.

Let me say a couple of things about this. People who think about changes in the future are often looked at as strange and weird because generally, the future is something we can't really imagine. 

I remember when I was young, I'm still young, but I remember when I was younger, when I was a child, and I used to go visit my grandparents. My grandfather was born in 1904. My grandmother was born in 1910. I spent a lot of time over there when I was younger and I constantly thought about how bizarre it was that they were born into a world that didn't have airplanes, didn't have radio, didn't have television, didn't really have phones and then during their lifetime, like all this technology that previously had been considered unthinkable – how is something going to fly in the air over the Earth? How are people going to talk to each other using weird connective machines? Or television that started off black and white and then became color, or film that started silent and then became with audio. All these things were unthinkable at the beginning and I kept thinking how strange to be born into a world where this unthinkable technology didn't exist, and then suddenly it arrives, and it just changes your world. All those technologies, obviously, had a major effect on the world. Then I had my own experience. I was born in 1967. I was 24, 25 when the internet started really being something that I used in my life, and, obviously, that's a major transformative innovation. If you had thought about the internet before it happened, it would seem inconceivable; people who describe the future in ways that seem inconceivable always come off as very strange and weird. So, I think we ought to acknowledge that. 

But I want to say two things on the other side, as kind of big caveats. One is the idea of a billionaire; until you really interact with billionaires, it's hard to explain what they're like, and I've had pretty close interactions with many of them. Obviously, I founded a media company with one of them, Pierre Omidyar, who I think is worth like $12 billion or whatever. A lot of other people in Silicon Valley whom – I've gotten to know some – ‘being rich’ doesn't describe that, like the amount of wealth that you have, like when you're a billionaire, you don't think of yourself as just rich, you start thinking about what you can do to change the world, change the government, change countries, change culture. It's so much power; it's so much money. 

With power and money comes, in almost every case, being surrounded by sycophants: people constantly flattering you, saying yes to everything that you think, say and want, because power means you can do so many things for people that benefit their lives and if they know that you have that, they're going to want to flatter you so that there's a chance you're going to give those things to them. Obviously, it makes people in that situation so detached from reality and so enamored of themselves just because all their influences tell them that they are brilliant, and that they're a genius and that they see things people don't see. 

Sometimes, that may be true, there are probably billionaires, I guess I know a couple, who I would consider extremely smart, but the majority of them, including ones I've worked with, I can tell you, I'm not going to say they're dumb. They're mediocre. Sometimes they have like an idiot savant skill that turned into a company that just exploded at the right time. Everyone's success has partly some luck. You have to be in the right place at the right time and a lot of these people who walk around thinking they're brilliant and have the power with their billions of dollars to bring those visions to fruition and to convince people that they should, are not even remotely close to as smart as they think. 

So, when they start getting these visions and everyone around them tells them how brilliant they are and everything about their lives is reinforcing their own brilliance, I do think that can be a very twisted and dangerous dynamic. Then there is this very specific billionaire culture, especially the ones that came out of Silicon Valley, that believes that they are the kind of people society ought to progress and evolve and transform into, and that the society just doesn't facilitate that. The society punishes success; it impedes a transformative kind of Übermensch, to use a Nietzschean expression. And they have ideas like they want to just start new societies, they want to buy a country, or buy so much land that it can become its own country and they just create a society from scratch where they're the overlords and they create rules. Obviously it then extends to like, maybe we shouldn't even do it on Earth, let's start our own society on Mars or wherever and it becomes this very utopian and dystopian vision driven by a tiny number of people who have no real pushback or tension between the things that come out of their mouths into their from their brains into their mouths and then try they can try and make reality and have the power to make reality. But a lot of that is, I think very alarming; we ought to be very, very, very skeptical of that, even in the cases where it might be promising. 

A lot of this just depends on what you think. If you're a complete nihilist and atheist, and you just believe everything is just kind of a nihilistic evolution, no purpose, no spirit, no soul, we just keep evolving over millions of years, and human beings are just where we are now, it’s just one stop along the way, and our next destination is something totally different, it probably wouldn't bother you. But if you have a kind of idea of something essentialist about being human that turning us into beings that exist in an AI vat and eliminating us, every part of us, except our intellect, may not be an advancement, that may be a destruction of humanity while maintaining the facade of it, this is the kind of stuff that I think requires a great deal of introspection, a great deal of thought, a great debate involving the whole society. 

But because billionaires have this ability to just push things along with no constraints, AI is just exploding really with no safeguards. I mean, there are some superficial safeguards, like if you use ChatGPT or the commercial ones, they don't let you do certain things that could easily be done, but you can imagine how it's actually being developed. And the people who don't want those safeguards to exist are using AI without those safeguards. None of this is being understood. None of it is being analyzed or studied. 

I'm not an alarmist at all about technology, even including AI. But I think it's more this kind of narcissism and this self-adoration that naturally develops in billionaires that gives them far too much confidence in their own ability to push humanity into directions that they think it should go and really don't need much debate to do it because their brains are sufficiently advanced to make those decisions and see those things on their own and the proof is that they became billionaires. That's how the reasoning works. That, I think, is the most dangerous dynamic rather than the specific things. 

And yeah, when Peter Thiel starts saying, “I'm not sure humanity should continue, okay, I'll say yes, just because you obviously think it's extremely creepy if I don't, but I'm going to add that maybe we should exist in some other form,” I hope people are disturbed by that. I'm not saying necessarily opposed to it, but I hope they're disturbed by it, in a way that they kind of demand some time and reflection in order to consider. 


 

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals