A Swedish leader is terrified of bananas. A group of ne'er-do-wells get busted for bear fraud. Some Iraqi politicians want to lower the legal age of consent to 9 years old. The Onion buys Infowars. A US defense contractor pays out 43 million USD for its role in torturing Abu Ghraib detainees. Over in Peru, China's building a megaport - and no one's sure what will happen next. All this and more in this week's strange news segment.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn the stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt,
my name is Noah.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
They call me Ben. We're joined as always with our
superproducer Dylan the Tennessee pal Fagan. Most importantly, you are you.
You are here. That makes this the stuff they don't
want you to know. If you are hearing this strange
news segment on the day it publishes or the evening,
let us be the first to welcome you to November
(00:53):
twenty fifth, twenty twenty four. As people reckon the calendar.
We have so many updates, we have so much strange
news from across the globe. Maybe one that would be
interesting for us to kick off with here is, do
you guys hear about that Swedish leader who's terrified of bananas?
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Uh?
Speaker 4 (01:15):
No, but I can relate.
Speaker 5 (01:18):
I don't trust the shape and the peel and you
slip on them, you're dead. I mean, come on, if
Mario Kart has taught us anything.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
Yeah, but they're also radioactive.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
They are Yes, that is true. You know, the story
of the banana is fascinating on its own, given the
fact that you know, the reason banana candy, banana flavored
candy doesn't taste the same as bananas in your grocery
stores entirely because the gross Michelle almost got wiped out
right and replaced by the cavendish banana.
Speaker 4 (01:50):
It's a nuts of.
Speaker 3 (01:50):
Story, maybe more for ridiculous history. We do have to
give a quick trigger warning to our pal Paulina Berg,
who is a Swedish minister with an intense phobia of bananas.
Apparently part of it is due to physiological reasons. She
(02:13):
has a strong allergy to bananas, and in multiple emails
regarding you know, various international or domestic appearances, her team
goes out of the way to say that no bananas
are allowed on the premises entire.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
Wait, so she's actually allergic to the bananas.
Speaker 3 (02:36):
Let's go to a quote. Let's go to a quote
she distrustful of them, like me, Well, let's go to
the you know, we love a primary source. Brand Berg
told an outfit called Expressing earlier, she said, quote, it's
sort of an allergy. You could say, huh, it's something
that I get professional help with. Oh, I have a
(03:00):
phobia of bananas, so I don't know.
Speaker 5 (03:05):
It reminds me a lot of the Chuck character on
Better Call Saul, who is allergic to electro electromatic you know.
And that's a you know, a story we've talked about too,
but it is yet to be fully recognized by medical science.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
It's like cats with cucumbers, you guys.
Speaker 3 (03:20):
Well they mistake them for reptiles.
Speaker 4 (03:24):
Okay, No, it's not like that, so well maybe it
might be.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
Who are we to plumb the depths of every individual mind?
We'll tell you after this gold open and we've returned.
Speaking of phobias, here's one that I'm sure has stood
out to all of us at some point in the darkness.
(03:52):
The constant fear that a bear may approach you and
break into your.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
Car with a banana.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
With a banana or a cucumber, you know, or both,
just a dual wielding the most dangerous produce.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
Want some produce, it says, you know.
Speaker 5 (04:13):
I mean, let's just can we at least all agree
that bananas do have a bit of a sinister vibe.
Speaker 3 (04:18):
I mean, they're useful for scale in a non metric system.
They're also untrustworthy because a banana goes, a banana goes
from perfect to bye bye so quickly.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
I was examining the one banana I have left after
my son got here on Sunday. We purchased it on Monday.
As we're recording today, it is Wednesday. I swear it
is bad.
Speaker 3 (04:41):
It is terrgo. They go quick.
Speaker 4 (04:44):
Yeah, you can freeze them.
Speaker 3 (04:46):
You can freeze them. That's a great note. But the
larger rules. But bears, so we all So That's where
I'm going, right, Are we unanimous on this? Do we
all have that completely understandable, ever present fear that a
bear dual bananas and cucumbers might break into your car?
Speaker 2 (05:03):
Yes, ever since I've seen that black bear like literally
in my cul de sac. Yes, I'm actually worried about.
Speaker 4 (05:09):
That, Ben.
Speaker 5 (05:10):
This is a fear I didn't know I had until
you manifested it into existence with.
Speaker 4 (05:14):
Your very words.
Speaker 3 (05:15):
Oh geez, just gave you the words for that vibe. Man,
It's been with you cradle to grave. California has seen
a lot of bears breaking into cars, but it appears
someone has been leveraging this again universal fear. I'm joking
to perpetrate some crime, and we love a good silly crime.
(05:39):
The California Insurance Department started noticing something was awry when
four LA residents were arrested on previous Wednesday earlier this November.
They were accused of defrauding insurance companies out of nearly
one hundred and forty two thousand U S. Dollars by
(06:01):
claiming a bear had randomly showed up and damaged their
luxury vehicles, and they provided they provide a video footage
of what they said was a bear moving within two Mercedes,
popping into a Rolls Royce and claimed, you know, they
(06:23):
needed the insurance payout. Apparently it was a guy dressed
as a bear as part of a just delightful conspiracy.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
Okay, Ben, I'm looking at a photo on this ap
article you shared it.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
Yeah, and there there is a bear suit that looks
like it has a shirt on for some reason, and
it looks like there are two claw like weapons that
you would hold in your fists.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
To do the damage.
Speaker 4 (06:57):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (06:58):
It's also it's fascinating because you say shirt, I feel
like it looks like a lap coat. Yes, like doctor
bear is so the bear quote unquote the woosh woosh.
Bear reportedly damaged a twenty ten Rolls Royce ghost, which,
(07:18):
just so you know, is an amazing piece of art,
often confused with a car. It was look the video
shows a bear trashing the car. They gave it to
the insurance company. And here's my favorite quote from the
California Insurance Department. They said, quote upon further scrutiny of
(07:39):
the video, the investigation determined the bear was actually a
person in a bear costume.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
Yeah. Yeah, yeah yeah.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
So the four people, Ruben tom Rizaian Ararat, chirknian vahe
Mura Kanyan, and Alif Zuckerman, we're all arrested on charges
of insurance fraud and of course conspiracy. San Bernardino County
(08:09):
District Attorney Office said we don't have time for this.
I'm kidding.
Speaker 4 (08:14):
No.
Speaker 3 (08:14):
They said they're going to do their job. So I
don't know, man, it might be a sensitive time to
order bear costumes. Our thoughts go out to all the
furries out there, you know what I mean?
Speaker 2 (08:27):
Oh, I know what you mean. But I'm just looking
at pictures of twenty ten Rolls Royce ghosts.
Speaker 3 (08:33):
Beautif see you see what I'm saying. Art confused with
a car.
Speaker 5 (08:38):
Well, and can I just say my thoughts are always
with all the furries out there.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
Just why we have a few furries who listen Confirmed
furries guys. Oh yes, very kind, awesome humans that we've
interacted with.
Speaker 4 (08:50):
Dude.
Speaker 3 (08:51):
Also, furries are great. You're not messing up anybody's life
by doing what you want. You're not harming other people.
I love it. I love when our pal Josh Clark
was telling me a while back. He was telling me
he was trying to get into a furry convention in
Atlanta and security was super high. And I asked him, well,
you know, Josh, what's going on with that? And he said, Ben,
(09:14):
believe it or not, a lot of folks are mean
to these people.
Speaker 5 (09:17):
And I was not joking when I said I often
think of furries because it is a live and let
live kind of lifestyle and I think it's delightful and
if it gives them joy, I say, more power to them.
And those costumes are very elaborate and really demonstrate a
lot of craft.
Speaker 2 (09:32):
Generally, don't come with those clow fists though.
Speaker 3 (09:35):
Right, No, that was to mess up the cars for
the Insurance podcast, So hashtag not all furries or no
tall furries, depending on how you read this. It's a
super Bowl superb Owl kind.
Speaker 4 (09:47):
Of word joke.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
We have a little bit of time before we move
on to our next few stories. I would like to
ask you, guys, there's a lot of geopolitical stuff at play.
Syria is now having his water cut, the EU is
doing a little bit of quid pro quo with Chinese
tech giants. A rock is lowering the age of consent
(10:09):
from eighteen to nine years old.
Speaker 4 (10:12):
That is not good clip.
Speaker 3 (10:14):
Yeah, yeah, do you want to talk about that one
for a second.
Speaker 6 (10:17):
No, No, I guess also experiencing declining birth rates, and
this is some sort of I'm sorry, I'm just grasping
a straws here.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
I would say, like, as much as personally I don't
want to talk about it, let's at least get the
facts out there so when people see that headline they
understand what is happening.
Speaker 3 (10:39):
Yeah, this is important and we need to be very
aware of this. All of us joined around at the
proverbial campfire this evening. This bill has not gone through.
It is a proposed legal change. The current age of
consent legally is eighteen years old. In the nation of
(10:59):
a Rock. If this bill passes and becomes law, it
will lower the age of consent to nine years old.
It will not have a men max requirement for the
age of someone marrying a nine year old, which means
conceivably it could be a very much older person an adult.
(11:22):
Iraq's parliament is a coalition enterprise and right now the
folks running the legislative roost are a coalition of Shia
Muslim parties. They're seeking to overturn Law one eighty eight,
better known as the Personal Status Law, which has been
(11:42):
around since nineteen fifty nine. It's supposed to be irreligious
or secular, meaning it is not impacting certain people differently
based upon their religious creeds. However, this is the second
time Shia have attempted to amend that Personal Status law.
(12:04):
They were not able to change it in twenty fourteen,
try it again unsuccessfully in twenty seventeen. This has largely
been rejected, thank goodness, due to female activists and female
politicians in the country. But it has a lot of
momentum right now and it's seen I don't know I
(12:28):
so we have to wonder what these kind of things
that would hopefully never pass in any country, we have
to wonder what their motivation is. Is it to victimize children?
Speaker 5 (12:40):
I mean, it certainly seems to take a lot of
agency away from children. I mean, maybe that's even too
diplomatic a way of putting it. But a nine year
old doesn't have the ability to make that choice for themselves.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
It doesn't have the ability to consent.
Speaker 5 (12:58):
Now, so this is a bit of a bastardization of
a law that is intended to protect children.
Speaker 3 (13:06):
Yeah, it's an attack on it. And we could even
argue if we look at the larger context, which we
don't have time to do in our new segment.
Speaker 4 (13:14):
But what we.
Speaker 3 (13:14):
Can say is it's possible this is an attempt to
earn some higher ideological legitimacy for the base for supporters,
but it will inevitably lead to child marriage. You know,
in a country where per the latest statistics, some twenty
eight percent of women are already married consentially or non
(13:37):
consensually by the age of eighteen, this personal status law
is still a bag of badgers because it does allow
for religious marriage in place of secular marriage. So a
religious leader can officiate thousands of marriages per year up
to and including children as young as fifteen. And you know, doubtlessly,
(14:02):
given the number of us listening along tonight, there are
several of us who have been involved in marriages at
quite a young age. And it may it may have
worked out, But nine nine years old, that's too far.
Speaker 4 (14:17):
That is like, that.
Speaker 3 (14:18):
Is technically physiologically gross.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
I hadn't even learned how to play magic the gathering
at that age.
Speaker 4 (14:28):
Where are you?
Speaker 2 (14:29):
Well, well, I guess what I mean is I'm just
trying to imagine who I was if I was married
at nine?
Speaker 3 (14:35):
Like what?
Speaker 2 (14:37):
Because you're not you yet, not even close to the
like an actualized human being.
Speaker 3 (14:46):
Yeah, so this is a tough one. We do want
to raise awareness of this. We also want to give
great thanks and appreciation to Coalition one eight eight uh,
an Iraqi based group of femal activists who are opposed
to allowing this law to pass. Please let us know
(15:07):
your thoughts if you have experience in a rock or
if you are in a rocky national conspiracy atiheartradio dot com.
We're gonna pause for a word from our sponsors, and
as we do so, shout out to the Psychic Crime
Syndicate in Sydney, Australia. They all got arrested. How did
they not see that coming?
Speaker 5 (15:35):
And we've returned with another piece of strange news.
Speaker 4 (15:38):
Strange indeed, it's like something out of.
Speaker 5 (15:41):
An Onion article, but it actually involves The Onion, the
satirical newspaper that's been around since the eighties and in
recent years has pivoted to more online kind of meme
type presence, where like sometimes the headline and the picture
alone is what gets shared. I got to wonder what
their click through rate is on those. It's really shareable stuff,
(16:02):
really fun, and it's been nice to see them kind
of you know, popping up more and more. Apparently they
are in fact about to reboot the print version of
The Onion, which I think is also cool, in an
effort to contribute to like raising their online subscription numbers.
So kind of like an old school way of propping
up a new school business model newer anyway.
Speaker 4 (16:25):
But The Onion, in fact, again.
Speaker 5 (16:28):
And something that sounds like a story they would write about,
has purchased, or has one a bid to purchase Alex
Jones's Info Wars Empire, at the very least his website.
Speaker 4 (16:42):
This is pretty wild stuff.
Speaker 5 (16:45):
I mean, it's like it's almost like cards against humanity,
like buying up that lot to prevent Elon Musk from
doing it. Like I just you gotta love to see
this kind of bizarro satirical activism, sort of like the
stuff that John Oliver does at the end of his
episodes where he'll like literally buy all of the you know,
(17:07):
leftover kitchen equipment from a red lobster in last week tonight.
So I don't know, I was sorry to know exactly
where to start the main story and then it's ongoing,
is that, you know? Obviously, Alex Jones lost a massive
defamation lawsuit class action lawsuit filed by the parents of
(17:27):
children who were killed in the Sandy Hook shooting. We've
covered this pretty extensively due to Alex Jones's flagrant abuse
of his platform in calling this false flag attack, saying
that there were crisis actors involved in not only that,
but you know, literally asking his followers to kind of
(17:49):
go after the parents of you know, these tragically murdered children.
Speaker 4 (17:56):
And he lost big time.
Speaker 5 (17:58):
You know, I believe he owes the families that were
involved in the class action one point five billion dollars
in pr puts it thusly for spreading false conspiracies at
the elementary school shooting in Newton, Connecticut never happened, as
followers then harassed and threatened them for years. So Jones
(18:19):
is basically on the hook for just about everything. He owns,
his entire business empire, multiple wings of his parent company,
which I believe is called Free Speech LLC or Free
Speech Systems. Rather, he has a division of that that
has for many years pedled these kind of doomsday prepper kits,
(18:40):
like bucket kind of meals, things like that, but also
like bone broth and all of these pretty, you know,
snake oily kind of life extension remedies. Right, guys, Does
that kind of sum up the case as far as
where we're.
Speaker 4 (18:55):
At right now?
Speaker 3 (18:56):
Sure? I believe so. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (18:57):
I just just Jones is on the hook for a
lot of money and that is going to involve the
liquidation of all his assets, and this bidding process was
part of that. So apparently the Onion and their parent
company which I'm not quite sure again it's the Onion
where the joke ends and the truth begins. But apparently
(19:18):
their parent company is called Global Tetrahedron LLC. But then
it's also a kind of an illumination Global unlimited type
figure within the lore of the Onion, and we're going
to get to that in a minute. And hear a
statement from their fictional CEO, Bryce P. Tetrator or tech Trader.
Speaker 2 (19:36):
So that is like a global three dimensional like pyramid, right,
that's right, Okay, okay.
Speaker 5 (19:43):
Yeah, Global Tetrahedron. But I think it is the name
of their parent company. But again it represents a lot
of like shadowy lore and they have this fake CEO,
Bryce P. Tet Trader, who has released a statement, a
fictional statement which we will get to.
Speaker 4 (19:58):
But the Onion and their parent company, whether or not.
Speaker 5 (20:01):
That's what it's called and whether that's real, were one
of only two bidders in a process intended to liquidate
this asset InfoWars dot Com. The Onions bid, however, for
Free Speech Systems was named the winning bid after this
bankruptcy auction. The proceeds of the sale were intended for
(20:22):
Sandy Hook families in order to pay them and make
them whole for the pain and suffering and anguish that
they were put through by Alex Jones again to the
tune of one point five billion dollars. He is not liquid.
He cannot just pay that out. It's going to require
all of this various liquidations of his assets. If the
purchase goes through successfully, it would basically allow the Onion
(20:46):
to have their way with Jones's Info Wars brands, which
they have lampooned pretty mercilessly for many years. They plan, apparently,
according to some statements, for the company to relaunch the
info Wars platform is a parody, which, if we're being honest,
a lot of the time, that's what it felt like
and of itself.
Speaker 4 (21:07):
So let's go to this quick.
Speaker 5 (21:08):
Statement from this faux CEO that I think it really
sums up the Onions position on all of this, and
I think there's some really good writing here. Here's why
I decided to buy info Wars. Today we celebrate a
new addition to the Global Tetrahedron LLC family of brands,
and let me say, I really do see it as
(21:29):
a family. Much like family members, our brands are abstract
nodes of wealth, interchangeable assets for their patriarch to absorb
and discard according to the opaque whims of the market.
And just like family members, our brands regard one another
with mutual suspicion and malice. All told, the decision to
acquire info Wars was an easy one for the Global
(21:51):
Tetrahedron executive board. They then go on to describe what
they plan on doing with the portion of the website
that did sell these vitamins and stuffing it says here,
we are halting their sale immediately. Utilitarian logic dictates that
if we can extend even one CEO's life by ten minutes,
diluting these miracle elixirs for public consumption is an unethical waste. Instead,
(22:15):
we plan to collect the entire stock of the info
Wars warehouses into a large vat and boil the contents
down into a single candy bar sized omni vitamin that
one executive I will not name names may eat in
order to increase his power and perhaps become immortal.
Speaker 4 (22:30):
All will be revealed in due time.
Speaker 5 (22:32):
For now, let's enjoy this win and toast to the
continued consolidation of power and capital, infinite growth forever.
Speaker 4 (22:39):
Bryce p. Tetrader, Global Tetrahedron CEO.
Speaker 3 (22:44):
Thank you, Bryce, and also big big credit to the
original writers of that commentary. I love the onion man.
I'm sorry, Noel. In case anybody missed it. Do we
have the blow by blow on what's happening with this acquisition?
Is it already done?
Speaker 5 (23:00):
We absolutely do. There are wrinkles upon wrinkles. Alex Jones
is bucking, He is pushing back. He is suing, essentially
saying that the bid was fraudulent, that the auction was
not held fairly, and that he is essentially asking the judge,
the bankruptcy judge presiding over this sale, to nullify it.
(23:23):
Jones's lawsuit calls the Onion's offer a quote flagrantly non
compliant Frankenstein bid and the black letter definition of collusive bidding.
He says the judge should disqualify the offer and instead
named the only other bidder, which was first United American
(23:44):
Companies and Alex Jones affiliated Friendly f UAC. FUAC affiliated
with Jones in his online nutritional supplement store. They bid
three point five million in cash. The Onion, on the
other hand, offered half that amount, but there was a sweetener.
The Connecticut families promised to forego in order to make
(24:04):
this bid go through some of their sale proceeds to
help beat the offer from FUAK. So this was in
the you know, the best interest and was the wishes
of you know, the winners of this class action lawsuit.
Reading from an NPR piece by Tovia Smith, the Onion
attorneys say that deal would result in the highest payout
(24:24):
to the other creditors, including a smaller group of families
who want a separate defamation suit against Jones in Texas,
and did not offer to forego any proceeds. Alex Jones
argues the offer was based on quote fake dollars and
that the rules of the auction were changed at the
last minute in what he describes as a conspiracy against
(24:45):
him in order to benefit the Onion and the Connecticut
families and to deny FUAC a fair chance of winning
the bid. He referred to it as monopoly money and
refers all the while on a plan to rig the process.
WHOA and A US Bankruptcy Trustee Christopher R. Murray is
overseeing these bankruptcy auctions, and he filed court papers as well,
(25:09):
dismissing what he referred to as a barrage of baseless allegations,
referring to them as just a disappointed bidder's improper attempt
to influence an otherwise fair and open auction process.
Speaker 2 (25:20):
Dang Man I was looking at that AP News article
you connected us to their NOLL and it was talking
about from this guy named Ben Collins, who I guess
is also associated with the parent company. That's right, And
I'm just trying to understand this whole thing where it's
a company making a bid and then there's also a
(25:41):
background agreement with people who would actually be accepting the
payment of the bid. That to me does feel weird,
just does feel surface.
Speaker 5 (25:50):
I agree, there's something I don't understand this world. This
is not my wheelhouse. It does feel like the rules
were changed a little bit, but it was changed in
order to I mean, the whole point of liquidating this
stuff is to pay out the participants, the winners of
this lawsuit. So it would be in the best interest
for the outcome to give them the best deal. And
(26:12):
while the cash offer for the Onion was less than
the FUAC cash offer, which is three point five million dollars,
Onion only offered one point five million. Their caveat of
helping to take some of the proceeds and pay other
creditors that Alex Jones owes money to would ultimately benefit
the families of the Sandy Hook victims in the end.
Speaker 3 (26:34):
Which is the most important part it is, but.
Speaker 2 (26:36):
It's slippery still.
Speaker 5 (26:38):
I don't quite understand the machinations here. Well, I want,
of course, I want the onion to win. I don't
fully understand how this stuff, in these little behind the
scenes kind of machinations work.
Speaker 4 (26:47):
It does seem a little weird.
Speaker 3 (26:49):
Well, it's it's auctions with stakeholders, you know, so people
have a prioritization to when they can step in. There's
an order of operations for what can or cannot be
so when or when we you know. One of the
one of the best summations of this I have found
recently was from the New York Times. Shout out to
(27:11):
Elizabeth Williamson and Benjamin Mullen, not related to Ben Collins.
I hate to say it, but I don't think all
Ben's hang out just yet. They said that they're talking
about some of the stuff you were signaling just a
few minutes ago, Which is that the bid, because is
still technically a bid to acquire info Wars, has gotten sticky.
(27:32):
It's gotten messy. It's slippery. Your buddies at FUAC are still,
you know, coming in eleventh hour trying to fight against this,
and I think the most important thing, again, as I
said at the very beginning of this, is to like
prioritize the survivors of Sandy Hook who had their lives
ruined by this disinformation.
Speaker 4 (27:54):
Well a million percent.
Speaker 5 (27:55):
And it also feels to me that for an organization
affiliated with Joeans to win the bid is completely counter
to that, because they're obviously just going to like put
their resources into replatforming Alex Jones in some way, and
we don't certainly know exactly what their intentions are. But
I'll just end this segment before we go to a
quick break with a quote from Robbie Parker, whose child
(28:18):
Emily was killed in the twenty twelve Sandy Hook shootings
there in Connecticut, said, through their lawyers, the dissolution of
Alex Jones's assets and the death of Info Wars is
the justice we have long awaited and fought for. So
it seems to me like that's the only outcome that
would be acceptable. And for the Onion to just perma
(28:39):
lampoon the stuff and turn it into the satire that
it deserves to.
Speaker 4 (28:43):
Be, I think is a win for everybody.
Speaker 5 (28:47):
Let's take a quick break here where from our sponsor,
and then come back with one more piece of strange news.
Speaker 2 (28:56):
And we've returned. We're going to go over several updates here.
Speaker 4 (29:00):
Guys.
Speaker 2 (29:01):
Hey remember a guy named Jack to Shara?
Speaker 4 (29:04):
Jack to Shara?
Speaker 3 (29:06):
Wait wait wait t E I X E R I A.
Speaker 2 (29:10):
That's the one.
Speaker 3 (29:12):
How is Jack?
Speaker 2 (29:13):
Oh he's not great right now? Jack did Shara was
a Massachusetts Air National Guard member actually still is, just
on a probationary weird thing. But we talked about a
last April because he became a household name. He was
arrested and accused of leaking highly classified information to a
bunch of his friends on Discord and a couple other
(29:35):
places online where, at least from appearances, when we talked
about it in April, it was like a boastful thing.
Hey look what I got? Check this out? Oh yeah,
look at these secret documents.
Speaker 3 (29:48):
I'm impressive, you guys. I'm not just some other dude
talking mess on the internet. Here's some stuff they don't
want you to know. It turns out it was STDK
and the streets were watching.
Speaker 4 (30:03):
Is that correct?
Speaker 1 (30:04):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (30:05):
Not at first, because he was doing it for a
while before anybody caught on and they went, wait a second,
what is this Oh my god, this is like insider
information on the United States relations with Ukraine while the
active war is happening, and strategy about how the US
moved some things around in Ukraine, stuff that we as
(30:27):
the United States don't want anybody to know about for realsies.
So he got in trouble, got arrested almost immediately, and
then in March of this year, he pleaded guilty to
six counts of quote, wilful retention and transmission of national
defense information under the Espionage Act. And that was nearly
a year after his initial arrest. So took a minute
(30:49):
to get him through and he finally pleaded guilty. Well,
he was just sentenced to fifteen years one to five
years in prison by a federal judge.
Speaker 3 (31:02):
He did it, though, Matt, He did actually do these things.
Speaker 2 (31:06):
Correct, Um, he did do these things. Well, he at
least admits to doing these things. It would appear by
all counts that he did these things, and he is
being punished for it. And there are many quotes you
can find in places like the AP News where you
can search for this. Pentagon secrets leaker Jack Tikshera sentenced
(31:26):
to fifteen years in prison by a federal judge that
was posted on November twelfth. There are tons of quotes
that basically say, we have to make an example of
this guy. That's how I would put it.
Speaker 3 (31:37):
Yeah, I'd agree with that.
Speaker 4 (31:39):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (31:40):
Well, and it goes back to the problem that we've
discussed on this show before about classification. Who gets access
to classified secret documents? Who gets access to the stuff
that they really don't want us to know? How easy
is it to get that kind of access, and what
are the consequences for mishandling it? Right? Well, there it
(32:03):
gets deeper in here through the court case where basically
his defense attorneys are saying, he well, I guess I
can just I'll read this from the AP News article quote.
Defense attorneys had described to Share as an autistic, isolated
individual who spent most of his time online, especially with
his discord community. They said his actions, though criminal, were
(32:26):
never meant to quote harm the United States, and he
had no prior criminal record. Instead, his intent was to
educate his friends about world events to make certain they
were not misled by misinformation.
Speaker 3 (32:39):
Okay, okay, So painting it as a well intentioned yet
super not traitorous action on his behalf and that's you know,
that's that's a very there may be some validity to
that argument.
Speaker 2 (32:54):
Right, Well, that's a good point because it is no
you're right, though, you're absolutely right. But I think when
it comes to sentencing, you should take some of those
things into account, right, not whether or not you broke
specific laws, but why what were you trying to do.
It's not the same as giving secret documents to a
known enemy, right, because you're acting as a spy, or
(33:15):
you're getting paid, or you're being coerced in some way.
This is basically a kid going you, guys, there's crazy
stuff happening in Ukraine right now, because you know, everybody
was seeing back in the in those times, seeing information
about what's what's happening in Ukraine and freaking out a
little bit because it looked like an active New World
(33:36):
War that was starting up, and it kind of still is,
as we're about to talk about. But that's that's different
from being a spy. But again, the prosecution basically and
the federal judge who sentenced him, said yeah, that doesn't matter.
We've gotta we got to put this thing down.
Speaker 3 (33:54):
Yeah, And for anybody wondering the Espionage Act in the
United States is super duper old in comparison to the
country it comes from, Like nineteen seventeen, it has not
been universally applied. Just to be clear, so, fellow conspiracy realist,
when our pal Matt is talking about the numerous statements
saying someone needs to make an example of this guy, Jack,
(34:18):
we are very well aware, painfully aware that this does
not get applied in every situation. Got really close to
naming a couple of people who should have the Espionage
Act applied to them, But maybe tonight has not.
Speaker 2 (34:35):
That night, Nah, probably not.
Speaker 3 (34:38):
But you know what I'm talking about.
Speaker 2 (34:40):
I do too. In other strange news, guys, segue, here
is a little story from CNN written on November thirteenth,
twenty twenty four. I'm going to read the title US
defense contractor to pay former Iraqi detainees forty two million
dollars for its role in torture at notorious Abu Grab prison.
(35:02):
Abagrad prison, Guys, we covered that extensively when we talked
about black sites on this show, made a couple of
videos about it, made a couple of podcast episodes about it.
Abu Grab is one of those places that was functionally
a prison that used to be a place for wholey
different stuff, and then it was used to let's say,
(35:23):
enhancedly interrogate people for quite a while.
Speaker 4 (35:27):
That's rough.
Speaker 2 (35:27):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, that can be read as torture now,
especially given this court proceeding. So we'll just go to this.
This was three Iraqi men who endured what is considered torture,
full on torture at Abergrab prison over two decades ago,
so twenty years ago, and it was a US government contractor,
(35:48):
so a third party company that was responsible for this abuse,
which is kind of weird because of something we've talked
about in that Black Side's episode. A lot of the
let's say instructions, the playbooks or the let's say the
generalized playbooks for how to perform these enhanced interrogation things,
(36:09):
these putting people in stress positions, hitting people in certain
parts of their.
Speaker 3 (36:15):
Bodies, psychological manipulation, sexual ac humiliation.
Speaker 2 (36:19):
All came from government sources down to the contractors, who
then were the ones who actually did it. So it
is kind of a passing the blame thing, and in
this case, the well, they are the actual people who
are torturing, right, these contractors, but ultimately they were doing
it at the behest of government officials, which is sticky.
(36:42):
Not great.
Speaker 3 (36:43):
It's not kaka, but it is Kasi, right.
Speaker 2 (36:46):
Oh, CACI Premier Technology Incorporated. That's the defense contractor that
we're talking about. I'll just read this from that CNN
article quote. The plaintiffs alleged the company was hired by
the US government following the US invasion of Iraq to
interrogation services at Abu Grab, a US Army detention facility
where Iraqi detainees were brutally tortured. And hey, you want
(37:10):
to get into who these people were. It's a middle
school principle, a fruit vendor, and a journalist. And they
each received three million dollars in compensatory damages and eleven
million impunitive damages.
Speaker 3 (37:23):
And for larger context, folks, please consider obviously more than
just these plaintiffs, there were there were many more people
held in before the US took over, during the Hussein regime.
This was already a prison, So things just got worse
and worse and worse.
Speaker 2 (37:44):
Yeah, not great at all. And there are a lot
more people who went through that system and were tortured
who haven't yet to file a formal complaint like this.
And to sue you know, a contractor or the US
government anything else. We need to talk about this, guys
before we move on to the last update for today.
Good here, all right, here we go. This is a
(38:04):
big one, guys, Oh, it sure is. We've been hearing
a lot about tariffs lately, and specifically that the incoming
American presidential administration is going to or has pledged to
enact a lot of tariffs or taxes on goods and
(38:25):
products coming in from other countries into the United States.
We've heard anywhere from twenty percent tariffs to sixty percent tariffs,
ranging all the way up to two hundred percent tariffs.
A lot of this is just rhetoric or talk, right,
none of it's actually on paper yet, but it is
something that I wanted to bring up with you guys,
because there is an interesting story coming out of the BBC.
(38:48):
Was written on November fifteenth. Here is the title, and
on the surface it's not related. But then as we
start thinking about the future in the next couple of years,
couple of decades, it could be a major story. I
think the title is Mega Port Mega PRT opens up
(39:09):
in Latin America to Chinese trade as US looks on
why is this important? Let's I'm gonna read directly from
the top of this article is written by Robert Plummer
for the BBC. As the world waits to see how
the return of Donald Trump will reshape relations between Washington
and Beijing, China has just taken decisive action to entrench
its position in Latin America. And he goes on to
(39:32):
talk about one of the main platforms that now President
elect Trump was talking about, where these tariffs as highs
sixty percent, specifically on Chinese made goods. So if we're
thinking for d chess moves here, we're thinking big picture
global politics, China and maybe seeing the future, maybe hearing
some of this stuff taking action. This feels like something
(39:54):
that's been in the works for a long time, and
actually has been in the works for a long time.
China made the move to open Megaport, which has the
potential to create whole new trade routes that fully bypass
North America. Yeah, so potentially if the US, if you
just imagine a map with the US on it, if
(40:15):
you wanted to send any goods into that place, you'd
have to pay sixty percent, you know, extra on whatever
you are selling there. Now, imagine instead of doing that,
you just go a little further south to Latin America,
and now you can move stuff around the United States
if you need to. You can move stuff, you know,
further north, if you need to, You can fully bypass
(40:37):
needing to deal with the US at all, and even
further down the road, you cut off trade almost completely,
or at least whittle it down to almost nothing, which,
guys made me think about, what was that thing that
happened the Great Depression? And there's this guy, this president
named Hoover, and he he put forth the thing. It
(41:00):
was the Smoot Holly Tariff Act. Do you guys remember
hearing about this back in the day. Have you ever
covered that on Ridiculous History?
Speaker 4 (41:08):
Well?
Speaker 5 (41:08):
I certainly remember covering it an actual history class, but
it's been a long time and I haven't really thought
about it. Can you remind us and the listeners what
the Smoot Holly Tariff Act was all about?
Speaker 2 (41:19):
It was a very similar action back in nineteen thirty
to what is being talked about today in twenty twenty four,
where massive tariffs were put on any international goods coming
into the US, like very high tariffs.
Speaker 4 (41:34):
Well, how to work out then not great.
Speaker 2 (41:38):
It is considered, at least from what I'm reading via
the Cato Institute in several other places, as one of
the major contributing factors to ongoing economic issues following the crash,
right the stock market crash and at the very start
of what is considered the Great Depression in the United
States in the late nineteen twenties and nineteen thirties.
Speaker 3 (41:59):
Which still we we know is a terrible name, folks,
Great Depression. It just describes the magnitude of how crappy
things were. Nobody's saying it's you know, double plus good.
I love that you're bringing up that historical contact men, But.
Speaker 2 (42:14):
Make America great again, guys.
Speaker 3 (42:17):
Greatly expensive for imports. Sure, that's what's going to happen.
Speaker 5 (42:22):
You know, guys, I do have a question, and I mean,
you know, the moment that it appeared that Trump was
going to win the election, cryptocurrency markets went crazy through
the roof. The stock market went bonkers and has continued
to do so. So I you know, I just wonder
(42:43):
what is it about Trump's election that is so appealing
to the powers that be and the folks that are,
you know, movers and systems like these.
Speaker 3 (42:51):
I don't want to take us too far away from
this incident of the Chinese megaport, which is improved part
of the Belton Roade initiative. But to answer that question,
or at least give some context to it, we have
to realize that the United States is increasingly run by
business interest and business interests that feel that feel their
(43:18):
long term survivability will be advantageous under one administration or
the next. They will respond in logical ways to that,
which means investors will also follow up. What we're seeing
is a bunch of people kind of raising their hands
together and then saying, oh, this is great. We're all
(43:39):
raising our hands, kind of like when you do a
wave at the stadium.
Speaker 2 (43:42):
Yeah, oh yeah, but it is I don't know, guys,
maybe this is me reading tea leaves. It's exactly what
happened in nineteen twenty and nineteen twenty nine the stock
market hit its highest levels it had ever hit. Because again,
it's all speculation.
Speaker 3 (43:58):
Skilded age.
Speaker 2 (44:00):
It's what people think is going to happen, right, or
what people anticipate, and often that's tied directly to laws
that are not on the books yet, they haven't been
signed yet. But they are intercombissed in the way, right,
so people are anticipating a law coming into effect. I'm
just pointing out right now, on November twentieth, twenty twenty four,
(44:22):
that I'm looking here in the tea leaves that are
completely speculation on my part, appear to be very similar
to a situation where it gets really tough for any
country that is attempting to be super isolationists. The way
some of the things that have been said appear to
be pushing us towards or the way Hoover it hoped
(44:42):
exactly because the tariff theoretically is a way to bring
money into a government, right, Hi, tariffs mean, oh we're gonna,
oh my gosh, we're gonna make an extra twenty percent,
an extra thirty, maybe sixty percent on all these goods.
Speaker 5 (44:55):
But there's an economic argument that's just kicking the can
down the road, because is when you up those tariffs,
then that money has to come from somewhere, and it
often gets passed on to consumers.
Speaker 2 (45:05):
Well yeah, or the people who were bringing goods in
just say beat me here for you.
Speaker 4 (45:11):
That's what I and it goes so well, But that's
what I mean.
Speaker 5 (45:14):
It could cause a scarcity, and it could cause an
issue with supply and demand, and then prices because of
that scarcity could go up for consumers.
Speaker 3 (45:23):
The efficacy or the function, right, the economic function of
a tariff is protectionist. To your earlier point, Matt, it
is to protect domestic industries. However, if you are assigning
tariffs to things that do not have a domestic manufacturing capability,
then what you're doing is carrying costs toward the companies
(45:48):
and then toward the consumers. The foreign government and the
foreign companies exporting those goods will not experience a hit
directly in the same way. If I could to the
earlier point about historical context. History doesn't always repeat, but
it sure as heck rhymes. If I could plug one show,
please do check out Let's Start a Coup, which studies,
(46:12):
in part the economic factors that led to a high
level of instability in the United States government. And it's
not a one to one rhyme, but it's a Flanneriocotter
level slant rhyme. History is closer than it looks in
the rear view.
Speaker 2 (46:27):
Man, dude, all right, head over to the Cato Institute
and read the May seventh, twenty sixteen article. I know
it's from a long time ago, but this is like
history analysis stuff, so it doesn't really matter that much.
It is titled the Smoot Holly that is Smoot dash
hawl e Y Tariff and the Great Depression, and it
(46:48):
goes into essentially the trade wars that followed suit after
that legislation was passed, and also how the anticipation of
that legislation affected the stock market. Oh, it's all fastating stuff.
And then also read about that megaport for sure, because
that is a three point five billion dollar project run
(47:08):
by Costco Shipping Cosco Shipping. It's not the Costco that
you're probably aware of, not yet, oh man. And there's
a lot to learn about that. There's a lot more
detail in there too, and especially about that bridge and road.
Is that what it is? Bridge Belton Belt Belton Road Initiative,
which is a whole thing. I think we have an
(47:29):
episode on it, and if not, we need to just
do another one because there are lots of developments going
on there.
Speaker 4 (47:35):
Oh man.
Speaker 2 (47:36):
Okay, that's it for today's strange news.
Speaker 3 (47:40):
We can't wait to hear from you folks. Give us
the update if you happen to be in Peru or
Peruvian national we'd love some on the ground information about
that megaport which has cough cough, taken up some of
our time offlide. Look, we try to be easy to
find email, telefonic device all over the Internet. Speaking of segues,
(48:03):
how do people find us?
Speaker 4 (48:04):
There?
Speaker 5 (48:05):
Boy, hottie, that's a good segue, right there, Ben, You
can find us, in fact, all over the Internet of
the handle Conspiracy Stuff where we exist.
Speaker 4 (48:12):
On Facebook with our Facebook group here's where it gets crazy.
Speaker 5 (48:14):
On YouTube where we have video content Glora for your
perusing enjoyment. And on x fka, Twitter, on Instagram and
TikTok we're Conspiracy Stuff show.
Speaker 2 (48:26):
Hey, you want to call us, Our number is one
eight three three std WYTK. When you call in, give
yourself a cool name, a nickname probably or a code name,
whatever you like, and let us know if we can
use your name and message on the air. If you've
got more to say than can fit into that three
minute voicemail, why not send us an email.
Speaker 3 (48:46):
We are the entities that read every piece of correspondence
we receive. Be well aware, yet o't afreie. Sometimes the
void writes back, Send us the links, send us the photos,
send us the jokes. We cannot wait to hear from you.
We've saved a space, so come join us out here
in the dark conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 2 (49:27):
Stuff they don't want you to know is a production
of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn the stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt,
my name is Noah.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
They call me Ben. We're joined as always with our
superproducer Dylan the Tennessee pal Fagan. Most importantly, you are you.
You are here. That makes this the stuff they don't
want you to know. If you are hearing this strange
news segment on the day it publishes or the evening,
let us be the first to welcome you to November
(00:53):
twenty fifth, twenty twenty four. As people reckon the calendar.
We have so many updates, we have so much strange
news from across the globe. Maybe one that would be
interesting for us to kick off with here is, do
you guys hear about that Swedish leader who's terrified of bananas?
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Uh?
Speaker 4 (01:15):
No, but I can relate.
Speaker 5 (01:18):
I don't trust the shape and the peel and you
slip on them, you're dead. I mean, come on, if
Mario Kart has taught us anything.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
Yeah, but they're also radioactive.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
They are Yes, that is true. You know, the story
of the banana is fascinating on its own, given the
fact that you know, the reason banana candy, banana flavored
candy doesn't taste the same as bananas in your grocery
stores entirely because the gross Michelle almost got wiped out
right and replaced by the cavendish banana.
Speaker 4 (01:50):
It's a nuts of.
Speaker 3 (01:50):
Story, maybe more for ridiculous history. We do have to
give a quick trigger warning to our pal Paulina Berg,
who is a Swedish minister with an intense phobia of bananas.
Apparently part of it is due to physiological reasons. She
(02:13):
has a strong allergy to bananas, and in multiple emails
regarding you know, various international or domestic appearances, her team
goes out of the way to say that no bananas
are allowed on the premises entire.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
Wait, so she's actually allergic to the bananas.
Speaker 3 (02:36):
Let's go to a quote. Let's go to a quote
she distrustful of them, like me, Well, let's go to
the you know, we love a primary source. Brand Berg
told an outfit called Expressing earlier, she said, quote, it's
sort of an allergy. You could say, huh, it's something
that I get professional help with. Oh, I have a
(03:00):
phobia of bananas, so I don't know.
Speaker 5 (03:05):
It reminds me a lot of the Chuck character on
Better Call Saul, who is allergic to electro electromatic you know.
And that's a you know, a story we've talked about too,
but it is yet to be fully recognized by medical science.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
It's like cats with cucumbers, you guys.
Speaker 3 (03:20):
Well they mistake them for reptiles.
Speaker 4 (03:24):
Okay, No, it's not like that, so well maybe it
might be.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
Who are we to plumb the depths of every individual mind?
We'll tell you after this gold open and we've returned.
Speaking of phobias, here's one that I'm sure has stood
out to all of us at some point in the darkness.
(03:52):
The constant fear that a bear may approach you and
break into your.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
Car with a banana.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
With a banana or a cucumber, you know, or both,
just a dual wielding the most dangerous produce.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
Want some produce, it says, you know.
Speaker 5 (04:13):
I mean, let's just can we at least all agree
that bananas do have a bit of a sinister vibe.
Speaker 3 (04:18):
I mean, they're useful for scale in a non metric system.
They're also untrustworthy because a banana goes, a banana goes
from perfect to bye bye so quickly.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
I was examining the one banana I have left after
my son got here on Sunday. We purchased it on Monday.
As we're recording today, it is Wednesday. I swear it
is bad.
Speaker 3 (04:41):
It is terrgo. They go quick.
Speaker 4 (04:44):
Yeah, you can freeze them.
Speaker 3 (04:46):
You can freeze them. That's a great note. But the
larger rules. But bears, so we all So That's where
I'm going, right, Are we unanimous on this? Do we
all have that completely understandable, ever present fear that a
bear dual bananas and cucumbers might break into your car?
Speaker 2 (05:03):
Yes, ever since I've seen that black bear like literally
in my cul de sac. Yes, I'm actually worried about.
Speaker 4 (05:09):
That, Ben.
Speaker 5 (05:10):
This is a fear I didn't know I had until
you manifested it into existence with.
Speaker 4 (05:14):
Your very words.
Speaker 3 (05:15):
Oh geez, just gave you the words for that vibe. Man,
It's been with you cradle to grave. California has seen
a lot of bears breaking into cars, but it appears
someone has been leveraging this again universal fear. I'm joking
to perpetrate some crime, and we love a good silly crime.
(05:39):
The California Insurance Department started noticing something was awry when
four LA residents were arrested on previous Wednesday earlier this November.
They were accused of defrauding insurance companies out of nearly
one hundred and forty two thousand U S. Dollars by
(06:01):
claiming a bear had randomly showed up and damaged their
luxury vehicles, and they provided they provide a video footage
of what they said was a bear moving within two Mercedes,
popping into a Rolls Royce and claimed, you know, they
(06:23):
needed the insurance payout. Apparently it was a guy dressed
as a bear as part of a just delightful conspiracy.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
Okay, Ben, I'm looking at a photo on this ap
article you shared it.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
Yeah, and there there is a bear suit that looks
like it has a shirt on for some reason, and
it looks like there are two claw like weapons that
you would hold in your fists.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
To do the damage.
Speaker 4 (06:57):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (06:58):
It's also it's fascinating because you say shirt, I feel
like it looks like a lap coat. Yes, like doctor
bear is so the bear quote unquote the woosh woosh.
Bear reportedly damaged a twenty ten Rolls Royce ghost, which,
(07:18):
just so you know, is an amazing piece of art,
often confused with a car. It was look the video
shows a bear trashing the car. They gave it to
the insurance company. And here's my favorite quote from the
California Insurance Department. They said, quote upon further scrutiny of
(07:39):
the video, the investigation determined the bear was actually a
person in a bear costume.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
Yeah. Yeah, yeah yeah.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
So the four people, Ruben tom Rizaian Ararat, chirknian vahe
Mura Kanyan, and Alif Zuckerman, we're all arrested on charges
of insurance fraud and of course conspiracy. San Bernardino County
(08:09):
District Attorney Office said we don't have time for this.
I'm kidding.
Speaker 4 (08:14):
No.
Speaker 3 (08:14):
They said they're going to do their job. So I
don't know, man, it might be a sensitive time to
order bear costumes. Our thoughts go out to all the
furries out there, you know what I mean?
Speaker 2 (08:27):
Oh, I know what you mean. But I'm just looking
at pictures of twenty ten Rolls Royce ghosts.
Speaker 3 (08:33):
Beautif see you see what I'm saying. Art confused with
a car.
Speaker 5 (08:38):
Well, and can I just say my thoughts are always
with all the furries out there.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
Just why we have a few furries who listen Confirmed
furries guys. Oh yes, very kind, awesome humans that we've
interacted with.
Speaker 4 (08:50):
Dude.
Speaker 3 (08:51):
Also, furries are great. You're not messing up anybody's life
by doing what you want. You're not harming other people.
I love it. I love when our pal Josh Clark
was telling me a while back. He was telling me
he was trying to get into a furry convention in
Atlanta and security was super high. And I asked him, well,
you know, Josh, what's going on with that? And he said, Ben,
(09:14):
believe it or not, a lot of folks are mean
to these people.
Speaker 5 (09:17):
And I was not joking when I said I often
think of furries because it is a live and let
live kind of lifestyle and I think it's delightful and
if it gives them joy, I say, more power to them.
And those costumes are very elaborate and really demonstrate a
lot of craft.
Speaker 2 (09:32):
Generally, don't come with those clow fists though.
Speaker 3 (09:35):
Right, No, that was to mess up the cars for
the Insurance podcast, So hashtag not all furries or no
tall furries, depending on how you read this. It's a
super Bowl superb Owl kind.
Speaker 4 (09:47):
Of word joke.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
We have a little bit of time before we move
on to our next few stories. I would like to
ask you, guys, there's a lot of geopolitical stuff at play.
Syria is now having his water cut, the EU is
doing a little bit of quid pro quo with Chinese
tech giants. A rock is lowering the age of consent
(10:09):
from eighteen to nine years old.
Speaker 4 (10:12):
That is not good clip.
Speaker 3 (10:14):
Yeah, yeah, do you want to talk about that one
for a second.
Speaker 6 (10:17):
No, No, I guess also experiencing declining birth rates, and
this is some sort of I'm sorry, I'm just grasping
a straws here.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
I would say, like, as much as personally I don't
want to talk about it, let's at least get the
facts out there so when people see that headline they
understand what is happening.
Speaker 3 (10:39):
Yeah, this is important and we need to be very
aware of this. All of us joined around at the
proverbial campfire this evening. This bill has not gone through.
It is a proposed legal change. The current age of
consent legally is eighteen years old. In the nation of
(10:59):
a Rock. If this bill passes and becomes law, it
will lower the age of consent to nine years old.
It will not have a men max requirement for the
age of someone marrying a nine year old, which means
conceivably it could be a very much older person an adult.
(11:22):
Iraq's parliament is a coalition enterprise and right now the
folks running the legislative roost are a coalition of Shia
Muslim parties. They're seeking to overturn Law one eighty eight,
better known as the Personal Status Law, which has been
(11:42):
around since nineteen fifty nine. It's supposed to be irreligious
or secular, meaning it is not impacting certain people differently
based upon their religious creeds. However, this is the second
time Shia have attempted to amend that Personal Status law.
(12:04):
They were not able to change it in twenty fourteen,
try it again unsuccessfully in twenty seventeen. This has largely
been rejected, thank goodness, due to female activists and female
politicians in the country. But it has a lot of
momentum right now and it's seen I don't know I
(12:28):
so we have to wonder what these kind of things
that would hopefully never pass in any country, we have
to wonder what their motivation is. Is it to victimize children?
Speaker 5 (12:40):
I mean, it certainly seems to take a lot of
agency away from children. I mean, maybe that's even too
diplomatic a way of putting it. But a nine year
old doesn't have the ability to make that choice for themselves.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
It doesn't have the ability to consent.
Speaker 5 (12:58):
Now, so this is a bit of a bastardization of
a law that is intended to protect children.
Speaker 3 (13:06):
Yeah, it's an attack on it. And we could even
argue if we look at the larger context, which we
don't have time to do in our new segment.
Speaker 4 (13:14):
But what we.
Speaker 3 (13:14):
Can say is it's possible this is an attempt to
earn some higher ideological legitimacy for the base for supporters,
but it will inevitably lead to child marriage. You know,
in a country where per the latest statistics, some twenty
eight percent of women are already married consentially or non
(13:37):
consensually by the age of eighteen, this personal status law
is still a bag of badgers because it does allow
for religious marriage in place of secular marriage. So a
religious leader can officiate thousands of marriages per year up
to and including children as young as fifteen. And you know, doubtlessly,
(14:02):
given the number of us listening along tonight, there are
several of us who have been involved in marriages at
quite a young age. And it may it may have
worked out, But nine nine years old, that's too far.
Speaker 4 (14:17):
That is like, that.
Speaker 3 (14:18):
Is technically physiologically gross.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
I hadn't even learned how to play magic the gathering
at that age.
Speaker 4 (14:28):
Where are you?
Speaker 2 (14:29):
Well, well, I guess what I mean is I'm just
trying to imagine who I was if I was married
at nine?
Speaker 3 (14:35):
Like what?
Speaker 2 (14:37):
Because you're not you yet, not even close to the
like an actualized human being.
Speaker 3 (14:46):
Yeah, so this is a tough one. We do want
to raise awareness of this. We also want to give
great thanks and appreciation to Coalition one eight eight uh,
an Iraqi based group of femal activists who are opposed
to allowing this law to pass. Please let us know
(15:07):
your thoughts if you have experience in a rock or
if you are in a rocky national conspiracy atiheartradio dot com.
We're gonna pause for a word from our sponsors, and
as we do so, shout out to the Psychic Crime
Syndicate in Sydney, Australia. They all got arrested. How did
they not see that coming?
Speaker 5 (15:35):
And we've returned with another piece of strange news.
Speaker 4 (15:38):
Strange indeed, it's like something out of.
Speaker 5 (15:41):
An Onion article, but it actually involves The Onion, the
satirical newspaper that's been around since the eighties and in
recent years has pivoted to more online kind of meme
type presence, where like sometimes the headline and the picture
alone is what gets shared. I got to wonder what
their click through rate is on those. It's really shareable stuff,
(16:02):
really fun, and it's been nice to see them kind
of you know, popping up more and more. Apparently they
are in fact about to reboot the print version of
The Onion, which I think is also cool, in an
effort to contribute to like raising their online subscription numbers.
So kind of like an old school way of propping
up a new school business model newer anyway.
Speaker 4 (16:25):
But The Onion, in fact, again.
Speaker 5 (16:28):
And something that sounds like a story they would write about,
has purchased, or has one a bid to purchase Alex
Jones's Info Wars Empire, at the very least his website.
Speaker 4 (16:42):
This is pretty wild stuff.
Speaker 5 (16:45):
I mean, it's like it's almost like cards against humanity,
like buying up that lot to prevent Elon Musk from
doing it. Like I just you gotta love to see
this kind of bizarro satirical activism, sort of like the
stuff that John Oliver does at the end of his
episodes where he'll like literally buy all of the you know,
(17:07):
leftover kitchen equipment from a red lobster in last week tonight.
So I don't know, I was sorry to know exactly
where to start the main story and then it's ongoing,
is that, you know? Obviously, Alex Jones lost a massive
defamation lawsuit class action lawsuit filed by the parents of
(17:27):
children who were killed in the Sandy Hook shooting. We've
covered this pretty extensively due to Alex Jones's flagrant abuse
of his platform in calling this false flag attack, saying
that there were crisis actors involved in not only that,
but you know, literally asking his followers to kind of
(17:49):
go after the parents of you know, these tragically murdered children.
Speaker 4 (17:56):
And he lost big time.
Speaker 5 (17:58):
You know, I believe he owes the families that were
involved in the class action one point five billion dollars
in pr puts it thusly for spreading false conspiracies at
the elementary school shooting in Newton, Connecticut never happened, as
followers then harassed and threatened them for years. So Jones
(18:19):
is basically on the hook for just about everything. He owns,
his entire business empire, multiple wings of his parent company,
which I believe is called Free Speech LLC or Free
Speech Systems. Rather, he has a division of that that
has for many years pedled these kind of doomsday prepper kits,
(18:40):
like bucket kind of meals, things like that, but also
like bone broth and all of these pretty, you know,
snake oily kind of life extension remedies. Right, guys, Does
that kind of sum up the case as far as
where we're.
Speaker 4 (18:55):
At right now?
Speaker 3 (18:56):
Sure? I believe so. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (18:57):
I just just Jones is on the hook for a
lot of money and that is going to involve the
liquidation of all his assets, and this bidding process was
part of that. So apparently the Onion and their parent
company which I'm not quite sure again it's the Onion
where the joke ends and the truth begins. But apparently
(19:18):
their parent company is called Global Tetrahedron LLC. But then
it's also a kind of an illumination Global unlimited type
figure within the lore of the Onion, and we're going
to get to that in a minute. And hear a
statement from their fictional CEO, Bryce P. Tetrator or tech Trader.
Speaker 2 (19:36):
So that is like a global three dimensional like pyramid, right,
that's right, Okay, okay.
Speaker 5 (19:43):
Yeah, Global Tetrahedron. But I think it is the name
of their parent company. But again it represents a lot
of like shadowy lore and they have this fake CEO,
Bryce P. Tet Trader, who has released a statement, a
fictional statement which we will get to.
Speaker 4 (19:58):
But the Onion and their parent company, whether or not.
Speaker 5 (20:01):
That's what it's called and whether that's real, were one
of only two bidders in a process intended to liquidate
this asset InfoWars dot Com. The Onions bid, however, for
Free Speech Systems was named the winning bid after this
bankruptcy auction. The proceeds of the sale were intended for
(20:22):
Sandy Hook families in order to pay them and make
them whole for the pain and suffering and anguish that
they were put through by Alex Jones again to the
tune of one point five billion dollars. He is not liquid.
He cannot just pay that out. It's going to require
all of this various liquidations of his assets. If the
purchase goes through successfully, it would basically allow the Onion
(20:46):
to have their way with Jones's Info Wars brands, which
they have lampooned pretty mercilessly for many years. They plan, apparently,
according to some statements, for the company to relaunch the
info Wars platform is a parody, which, if we're being honest,
a lot of the time, that's what it felt like
and of itself.
Speaker 4 (21:07):
So let's go to this quick.
Speaker 5 (21:08):
Statement from this faux CEO that I think it really
sums up the Onions position on all of this, and
I think there's some really good writing here. Here's why
I decided to buy info Wars. Today we celebrate a
new addition to the Global Tetrahedron LLC family of brands,
and let me say, I really do see it as
(21:29):
a family. Much like family members, our brands are abstract
nodes of wealth, interchangeable assets for their patriarch to absorb
and discard according to the opaque whims of the market.
And just like family members, our brands regard one another
with mutual suspicion and malice. All told, the decision to
acquire info Wars was an easy one for the Global
(21:51):
Tetrahedron executive board. They then go on to describe what
they plan on doing with the portion of the website
that did sell these vitamins and stuffing it says here,
we are halting their sale immediately. Utilitarian logic dictates that
if we can extend even one CEO's life by ten minutes,
diluting these miracle elixirs for public consumption is an unethical waste. Instead,
(22:15):
we plan to collect the entire stock of the info
Wars warehouses into a large vat and boil the contents
down into a single candy bar sized omni vitamin that
one executive I will not name names may eat in
order to increase his power and perhaps become immortal.
Speaker 4 (22:30):
All will be revealed in due time.
Speaker 5 (22:32):
For now, let's enjoy this win and toast to the
continued consolidation of power and capital, infinite growth forever.
Speaker 4 (22:39):
Bryce p. Tetrader, Global Tetrahedron CEO.
Speaker 3 (22:44):
Thank you, Bryce, and also big big credit to the
original writers of that commentary. I love the onion man.
I'm sorry, Noel. In case anybody missed it. Do we
have the blow by blow on what's happening with this acquisition?
Is it already done?
Speaker 5 (23:00):
We absolutely do. There are wrinkles upon wrinkles. Alex Jones
is bucking, He is pushing back. He is suing, essentially
saying that the bid was fraudulent, that the auction was
not held fairly, and that he is essentially asking the judge,
the bankruptcy judge presiding over this sale, to nullify it.
(23:23):
Jones's lawsuit calls the Onion's offer a quote flagrantly non
compliant Frankenstein bid and the black letter definition of collusive bidding.
He says the judge should disqualify the offer and instead
named the only other bidder, which was first United American
(23:44):
Companies and Alex Jones affiliated Friendly f UAC. FUAC affiliated
with Jones in his online nutritional supplement store. They bid
three point five million in cash. The Onion, on the
other hand, offered half that amount, but there was a sweetener.
The Connecticut families promised to forego in order to make
(24:04):
this bid go through some of their sale proceeds to
help beat the offer from FUAK. So this was in
the you know, the best interest and was the wishes
of you know, the winners of this class action lawsuit.
Reading from an NPR piece by Tovia Smith, the Onion
attorneys say that deal would result in the highest payout
(24:24):
to the other creditors, including a smaller group of families
who want a separate defamation suit against Jones in Texas,
and did not offer to forego any proceeds. Alex Jones
argues the offer was based on quote fake dollars and
that the rules of the auction were changed at the
last minute in what he describes as a conspiracy against
(24:45):
him in order to benefit the Onion and the Connecticut
families and to deny FUAC a fair chance of winning
the bid. He referred to it as monopoly money and
refers all the while on a plan to rig the process.
WHOA and A US Bankruptcy Trustee Christopher R. Murray is
overseeing these bankruptcy auctions, and he filed court papers as well,
(25:09):
dismissing what he referred to as a barrage of baseless allegations,
referring to them as just a disappointed bidder's improper attempt
to influence an otherwise fair and open auction process.
Speaker 2 (25:20):
Dang Man I was looking at that AP News article
you connected us to their NOLL and it was talking
about from this guy named Ben Collins, who I guess
is also associated with the parent company. That's right, And
I'm just trying to understand this whole thing where it's
a company making a bid and then there's also a
(25:41):
background agreement with people who would actually be accepting the
payment of the bid. That to me does feel weird,
just does feel surface.
Speaker 5 (25:50):
I agree, there's something I don't understand this world. This
is not my wheelhouse. It does feel like the rules
were changed a little bit, but it was changed in
order to I mean, the whole point of liquidating this
stuff is to pay out the participants, the winners of
this lawsuit. So it would be in the best interest
for the outcome to give them the best deal. And
(26:12):
while the cash offer for the Onion was less than
the FUAC cash offer, which is three point five million dollars,
Onion only offered one point five million. Their caveat of
helping to take some of the proceeds and pay other
creditors that Alex Jones owes money to would ultimately benefit
the families of the Sandy Hook victims in the end.
Speaker 3 (26:34):
Which is the most important part it is, but.
Speaker 2 (26:36):
It's slippery still.
Speaker 5 (26:38):
I don't quite understand the machinations here. Well, I want,
of course, I want the onion to win. I don't
fully understand how this stuff, in these little behind the
scenes kind of machinations work.
Speaker 4 (26:47):
It does seem a little weird.
Speaker 3 (26:49):
Well, it's it's auctions with stakeholders, you know, so people
have a prioritization to when they can step in. There's
an order of operations for what can or cannot be
so when or when we you know. One of the
one of the best summations of this I have found
recently was from the New York Times. Shout out to
(27:11):
Elizabeth Williamson and Benjamin Mullen, not related to Ben Collins.
I hate to say it, but I don't think all
Ben's hang out just yet. They said that they're talking
about some of the stuff you were signaling just a
few minutes ago, Which is that the bid, because is
still technically a bid to acquire info Wars, has gotten sticky.
(27:32):
It's gotten messy. It's slippery. Your buddies at FUAC are still,
you know, coming in eleventh hour trying to fight against this,
and I think the most important thing, again, as I
said at the very beginning of this, is to like
prioritize the survivors of Sandy Hook who had their lives
ruined by this disinformation.
Speaker 4 (27:54):
Well a million percent.
Speaker 5 (27:55):
And it also feels to me that for an organization
affiliated with Joeans to win the bid is completely counter
to that, because they're obviously just going to like put
their resources into replatforming Alex Jones in some way, and
we don't certainly know exactly what their intentions are. But
I'll just end this segment before we go to a
quick break with a quote from Robbie Parker, whose child
(28:18):
Emily was killed in the twenty twelve Sandy Hook shootings
there in Connecticut, said, through their lawyers, the dissolution of
Alex Jones's assets and the death of Info Wars is
the justice we have long awaited and fought for. So
it seems to me like that's the only outcome that
would be acceptable. And for the Onion to just perma
(28:39):
lampoon the stuff and turn it into the satire that
it deserves to.
Speaker 4 (28:43):
Be, I think is a win for everybody.
Speaker 5 (28:47):
Let's take a quick break here where from our sponsor,
and then come back with one more piece of strange news.
Speaker 2 (28:56):
And we've returned. We're going to go over several updates here.
Speaker 4 (29:00):
Guys.
Speaker 2 (29:01):
Hey remember a guy named Jack to Shara?
Speaker 4 (29:04):
Jack to Shara?
Speaker 3 (29:06):
Wait wait wait t E I X E R I A.
Speaker 2 (29:10):
That's the one.
Speaker 3 (29:12):
How is Jack?
Speaker 2 (29:13):
Oh he's not great right now? Jack did Shara was
a Massachusetts Air National Guard member actually still is, just
on a probationary weird thing. But we talked about a
last April because he became a household name. He was
arrested and accused of leaking highly classified information to a
bunch of his friends on Discord and a couple other
(29:35):
places online where, at least from appearances, when we talked
about it in April, it was like a boastful thing.
Hey look what I got? Check this out? Oh yeah,
look at these secret documents.
Speaker 3 (29:48):
I'm impressive, you guys. I'm not just some other dude
talking mess on the internet. Here's some stuff they don't
want you to know. It turns out it was STDK
and the streets were watching.
Speaker 4 (30:03):
Is that correct?
Speaker 1 (30:04):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (30:05):
Not at first, because he was doing it for a
while before anybody caught on and they went, wait a second,
what is this Oh my god, this is like insider
information on the United States relations with Ukraine while the
active war is happening, and strategy about how the US
moved some things around in Ukraine, stuff that we as
(30:27):
the United States don't want anybody to know about for realsies.
So he got in trouble, got arrested almost immediately, and
then in March of this year, he pleaded guilty to
six counts of quote, wilful retention and transmission of national
defense information under the Espionage Act. And that was nearly
a year after his initial arrest. So took a minute
(30:49):
to get him through and he finally pleaded guilty. Well,
he was just sentenced to fifteen years one to five
years in prison by a federal judge.
Speaker 3 (31:02):
He did it, though, Matt, He did actually do these things.
Speaker 2 (31:06):
Correct, Um, he did do these things. Well, he at
least admits to doing these things. It would appear by
all counts that he did these things, and he is
being punished for it. And there are many quotes you
can find in places like the AP News where you
can search for this. Pentagon secrets leaker Jack Tikshera sentenced
(31:26):
to fifteen years in prison by a federal judge that
was posted on November twelfth. There are tons of quotes
that basically say, we have to make an example of
this guy. That's how I would put it.
Speaker 3 (31:37):
Yeah, I'd agree with that.
Speaker 4 (31:39):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (31:40):
Well, and it goes back to the problem that we've
discussed on this show before about classification. Who gets access
to classified secret documents? Who gets access to the stuff
that they really don't want us to know? How easy
is it to get that kind of access, and what
are the consequences for mishandling it? Right? Well, there it
(32:03):
gets deeper in here through the court case where basically
his defense attorneys are saying, he well, I guess I
can just I'll read this from the AP News article quote.
Defense attorneys had described to Share as an autistic, isolated
individual who spent most of his time online, especially with
his discord community. They said his actions, though criminal, were
(32:26):
never meant to quote harm the United States, and he
had no prior criminal record. Instead, his intent was to
educate his friends about world events to make certain they
were not misled by misinformation.
Speaker 3 (32:39):
Okay, okay, So painting it as a well intentioned yet
super not traitorous action on his behalf and that's you know,
that's that's a very there may be some validity to
that argument.
Speaker 2 (32:54):
Right, Well, that's a good point because it is no
you're right, though, you're absolutely right. But I think when
it comes to sentencing, you should take some of those
things into account, right, not whether or not you broke
specific laws, but why what were you trying to do.
It's not the same as giving secret documents to a
known enemy, right, because you're acting as a spy, or
(33:15):
you're getting paid, or you're being coerced in some way.
This is basically a kid going you, guys, there's crazy
stuff happening in Ukraine right now, because you know, everybody
was seeing back in the in those times, seeing information
about what's what's happening in Ukraine and freaking out a
little bit because it looked like an active New World
(33:36):
War that was starting up, and it kind of still is,
as we're about to talk about. But that's that's different
from being a spy. But again, the prosecution basically and
the federal judge who sentenced him, said yeah, that doesn't matter.
We've gotta we got to put this thing down.
Speaker 3 (33:54):
Yeah, And for anybody wondering the Espionage Act in the
United States is super duper old in comparison to the
country it comes from, Like nineteen seventeen, it has not
been universally applied. Just to be clear, so, fellow conspiracy realist,
when our pal Matt is talking about the numerous statements
saying someone needs to make an example of this guy, Jack,
(34:18):
we are very well aware, painfully aware that this does
not get applied in every situation. Got really close to
naming a couple of people who should have the Espionage
Act applied to them, But maybe tonight has not.
Speaker 2 (34:35):
That night, Nah, probably not.
Speaker 3 (34:38):
But you know what I'm talking about.
Speaker 2 (34:40):
I do too. In other strange news, guys, segue, here
is a little story from CNN written on November thirteenth,
twenty twenty four. I'm going to read the title US
defense contractor to pay former Iraqi detainees forty two million
dollars for its role in torture at notorious Abu Grab prison.
(35:02):
Abagrad prison, Guys, we covered that extensively when we talked
about black sites on this show, made a couple of
videos about it, made a couple of podcast episodes about it.
Abu Grab is one of those places that was functionally
a prison that used to be a place for wholey
different stuff, and then it was used to let's say,
(35:23):
enhancedly interrogate people for quite a while.
Speaker 4 (35:27):
That's rough.
Speaker 2 (35:27):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, that can be read as torture now,
especially given this court proceeding. So we'll just go to this.
This was three Iraqi men who endured what is considered torture,
full on torture at Abergrab prison over two decades ago,
so twenty years ago, and it was a US government contractor,
(35:48):
so a third party company that was responsible for this abuse,
which is kind of weird because of something we've talked
about in that Black Side's episode. A lot of the
let's say instructions, the playbooks or the let's say the
generalized playbooks for how to perform these enhanced interrogation things,
(36:09):
these putting people in stress positions, hitting people in certain
parts of their.
Speaker 3 (36:15):
Bodies, psychological manipulation, sexual ac humiliation.
Speaker 2 (36:19):
All came from government sources down to the contractors, who
then were the ones who actually did it. So it
is kind of a passing the blame thing, and in
this case, the well, they are the actual people who
are torturing, right, these contractors, but ultimately they were doing
it at the behest of government officials, which is sticky.
(36:42):
Not great.
Speaker 3 (36:43):
It's not kaka, but it is Kasi, right.
Speaker 2 (36:46):
Oh, CACI Premier Technology Incorporated. That's the defense contractor that
we're talking about. I'll just read this from that CNN
article quote. The plaintiffs alleged the company was hired by
the US government following the US invasion of Iraq to
interrogation services at Abu Grab, a US Army detention facility
where Iraqi detainees were brutally tortured. And hey, you want
(37:10):
to get into who these people were. It's a middle
school principle, a fruit vendor, and a journalist. And they
each received three million dollars in compensatory damages and eleven
million impunitive damages.
Speaker 3 (37:23):
And for larger context, folks, please consider obviously more than
just these plaintiffs, there were there were many more people
held in before the US took over, during the Hussein regime.
This was already a prison, So things just got worse
and worse and worse.
Speaker 2 (37:44):
Yeah, not great at all. And there are a lot
more people who went through that system and were tortured
who haven't yet to file a formal complaint like this.
And to sue you know, a contractor or the US
government anything else. We need to talk about this, guys
before we move on to the last update for today.
Good here, all right, here we go. This is a
(38:04):
big one, guys, Oh, it sure is. We've been hearing
a lot about tariffs lately, and specifically that the incoming
American presidential administration is going to or has pledged to
enact a lot of tariffs or taxes on goods and
(38:25):
products coming in from other countries into the United States.
We've heard anywhere from twenty percent tariffs to sixty percent tariffs,
ranging all the way up to two hundred percent tariffs.
A lot of this is just rhetoric or talk, right,
none of it's actually on paper yet, but it is
something that I wanted to bring up with you guys,
because there is an interesting story coming out of the BBC.
(38:48):
Was written on November fifteenth. Here is the title, and
on the surface it's not related. But then as we
start thinking about the future in the next couple of years,
couple of decades, it could be a major story. I
think the title is Mega Port Mega PRT opens up
(39:09):
in Latin America to Chinese trade as US looks on
why is this important? Let's I'm gonna read directly from
the top of this article is written by Robert Plummer
for the BBC. As the world waits to see how
the return of Donald Trump will reshape relations between Washington
and Beijing, China has just taken decisive action to entrench
its position in Latin America. And he goes on to
(39:32):
talk about one of the main platforms that now President
elect Trump was talking about, where these tariffs as highs
sixty percent, specifically on Chinese made goods. So if we're
thinking for d chess moves here, we're thinking big picture
global politics, China and maybe seeing the future, maybe hearing
some of this stuff taking action. This feels like something
(39:54):
that's been in the works for a long time, and
actually has been in the works for a long time.
China made the move to open Megaport, which has the
potential to create whole new trade routes that fully bypass
North America. Yeah, so potentially if the US, if you
just imagine a map with the US on it, if
(40:15):
you wanted to send any goods into that place, you'd
have to pay sixty percent, you know, extra on whatever
you are selling there. Now, imagine instead of doing that,
you just go a little further south to Latin America,
and now you can move stuff around the United States
if you need to. You can move stuff, you know,
further north, if you need to, You can fully bypass
(40:37):
needing to deal with the US at all, and even
further down the road, you cut off trade almost completely,
or at least whittle it down to almost nothing, which,
guys made me think about, what was that thing that
happened the Great Depression? And there's this guy, this president
named Hoover, and he he put forth the thing. It
(41:00):
was the Smoot Holly Tariff Act. Do you guys remember
hearing about this back in the day. Have you ever
covered that on Ridiculous History?
Speaker 4 (41:08):
Well?
Speaker 5 (41:08):
I certainly remember covering it an actual history class, but
it's been a long time and I haven't really thought
about it. Can you remind us and the listeners what
the Smoot Holly Tariff Act was all about?
Speaker 2 (41:19):
It was a very similar action back in nineteen thirty
to what is being talked about today in twenty twenty four,
where massive tariffs were put on any international goods coming
into the US, like very high tariffs.
Speaker 4 (41:34):
Well, how to work out then not great.
Speaker 2 (41:38):
It is considered, at least from what I'm reading via
the Cato Institute in several other places, as one of
the major contributing factors to ongoing economic issues following the crash,
right the stock market crash and at the very start
of what is considered the Great Depression in the United
States in the late nineteen twenties and nineteen thirties.
Speaker 3 (41:59):
Which still we we know is a terrible name, folks,
Great Depression. It just describes the magnitude of how crappy
things were. Nobody's saying it's you know, double plus good.
I love that you're bringing up that historical contact men, But.
Speaker 2 (42:14):
Make America great again, guys.
Speaker 3 (42:17):
Greatly expensive for imports. Sure, that's what's going to happen.
Speaker 5 (42:22):
You know, guys, I do have a question, and I mean,
you know, the moment that it appeared that Trump was
going to win the election, cryptocurrency markets went crazy through
the roof. The stock market went bonkers and has continued
to do so. So I you know, I just wonder
(42:43):
what is it about Trump's election that is so appealing
to the powers that be and the folks that are,
you know, movers and systems like these.
Speaker 3 (42:51):
I don't want to take us too far away from
this incident of the Chinese megaport, which is improved part
of the Belton Roade initiative. But to answer that question,
or at least give some context to it, we have
to realize that the United States is increasingly run by
business interest and business interests that feel that feel their
(43:18):
long term survivability will be advantageous under one administration or
the next. They will respond in logical ways to that,
which means investors will also follow up. What we're seeing
is a bunch of people kind of raising their hands
together and then saying, oh, this is great. We're all
(43:39):
raising our hands, kind of like when you do a
wave at the stadium.
Speaker 2 (43:42):
Yeah, oh yeah, but it is I don't know, guys,
maybe this is me reading tea leaves. It's exactly what
happened in nineteen twenty and nineteen twenty nine the stock
market hit its highest levels it had ever hit. Because again,
it's all speculation.
Speaker 3 (43:58):
Skilded age.
Speaker 2 (44:00):
It's what people think is going to happen, right, or
what people anticipate, and often that's tied directly to laws
that are not on the books yet, they haven't been
signed yet. But they are intercombissed in the way, right,
so people are anticipating a law coming into effect. I'm
just pointing out right now, on November twentieth, twenty twenty four,
(44:22):
that I'm looking here in the tea leaves that are
completely speculation on my part, appear to be very similar
to a situation where it gets really tough for any
country that is attempting to be super isolationists. The way
some of the things that have been said appear to
be pushing us towards or the way Hoover it hoped
(44:42):
exactly because the tariff theoretically is a way to bring
money into a government, right, Hi, tariffs mean, oh we're gonna,
oh my gosh, we're gonna make an extra twenty percent,
an extra thirty, maybe sixty percent on all these goods.
Speaker 5 (44:55):
But there's an economic argument that's just kicking the can
down the road, because is when you up those tariffs,
then that money has to come from somewhere, and it
often gets passed on to consumers.
Speaker 2 (45:05):
Well yeah, or the people who were bringing goods in
just say beat me here for you.
Speaker 4 (45:11):
That's what I and it goes so well, But that's
what I mean.
Speaker 5 (45:14):
It could cause a scarcity, and it could cause an
issue with supply and demand, and then prices because of
that scarcity could go up for consumers.
Speaker 3 (45:23):
The efficacy or the function, right, the economic function of
a tariff is protectionist. To your earlier point, Matt, it
is to protect domestic industries. However, if you are assigning
tariffs to things that do not have a domestic manufacturing capability,
then what you're doing is carrying costs toward the companies
(45:48):
and then toward the consumers. The foreign government and the
foreign companies exporting those goods will not experience a hit
directly in the same way. If I could to the
earlier point about historical context. History doesn't always repeat, but
it sure as heck rhymes. If I could plug one show,
please do check out Let's Start a Coup, which studies,
(46:12):
in part the economic factors that led to a high
level of instability in the United States government. And it's
not a one to one rhyme, but it's a Flanneriocotter
level slant rhyme. History is closer than it looks in
the rear view.
Speaker 2 (46:27):
Man, dude, all right, head over to the Cato Institute
and read the May seventh, twenty sixteen article. I know
it's from a long time ago, but this is like
history analysis stuff, so it doesn't really matter that much.
It is titled the Smoot Holly that is Smoot dash
hawl e Y Tariff and the Great Depression, and it
(46:48):
goes into essentially the trade wars that followed suit after
that legislation was passed, and also how the anticipation of
that legislation affected the stock market. Oh, it's all fastating stuff.
And then also read about that megaport for sure, because
that is a three point five billion dollar project run
(47:08):
by Costco Shipping Cosco Shipping. It's not the Costco that
you're probably aware of, not yet, oh man. And there's
a lot to learn about that. There's a lot more
detail in there too, and especially about that bridge and road.
Is that what it is? Bridge Belton Belt Belton Road Initiative,
which is a whole thing. I think we have an
(47:29):
episode on it, and if not, we need to just
do another one because there are lots of developments going
on there.
Speaker 4 (47:35):
Oh man.
Speaker 2 (47:36):
Okay, that's it for today's strange news.
Speaker 3 (47:40):
We can't wait to hear from you folks. Give us
the update if you happen to be in Peru or
Peruvian national we'd love some on the ground information about
that megaport which has cough cough, taken up some of
our time offlide. Look, we try to be easy to
find email, telefonic device all over the Internet. Speaking of segues,
(48:03):
how do people find us?
Speaker 4 (48:04):
There?
Speaker 5 (48:05):
Boy, hottie, that's a good segue, right there, Ben, You
can find us, in fact, all over the Internet of
the handle Conspiracy Stuff where we exist.
Speaker 4 (48:12):
On Facebook with our Facebook group here's where it gets crazy.
Speaker 5 (48:14):
On YouTube where we have video content Glora for your
perusing enjoyment. And on x fka, Twitter, on Instagram and
TikTok we're Conspiracy Stuff show.
Speaker 2 (48:26):
Hey, you want to call us, Our number is one
eight three three std WYTK. When you call in, give
yourself a cool name, a nickname probably or a code name,
whatever you like, and let us know if we can
use your name and message on the air. If you've
got more to say than can fit into that three
minute voicemail, why not send us an email.
Speaker 3 (48:46):
We are the entities that read every piece of correspondence
we receive. Be well aware, yet o't afreie. Sometimes the
void writes back, Send us the links, send us the photos,
send us the jokes. We cannot wait to hear from you.
We've saved a space, so come join us out here
in the dark conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 2 (49:27):
Stuff they don't want you to know is a production
of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Stuff They Don't Want You To Know News
Hosts And Creators
Matt Frederick
Ben Bowlin
Noel Brown
Show Links
RSSStoreAboutLive ShowsPopular Podcasts
Good Game with Sarah Spain
Good Game is your one-stop shop for the biggest stories in women’s sports. Every day, host Sarah Spain gives you the stories, stakes, stars and stats to keep up with your favorite women’s teams, leagues and athletes. Through thoughtful insight, witty banter, and an all around good time, Sarah and friends break down the latest news, talk about the games you can’t miss, and debate the issues of the day. Don’t miss interviews with the people of the moment, whether they be athletes, coaches, reporters, or celebrity fans.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
Crime Junkie
If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people.