Beer, Bias & Betrayal: Bud Light Goes Woke & Top Secret Military Documents Leaked | Debating ChatGPT On Affirmative Action

The Adams Archive

Welcome to another riveting episode of The Adams Archive with your host, Austin Adams! In today's episode, we'll be delving deep into the recent controversy surrounding Anheuser-Busch's VP of Marketing, who openly admitted to hiring employees based on sex and political ideology. We'll examine the implications of these hiring practices and discuss whether they align with the company's values.

Furthermore, we'll engage in a thought-provoking debate with ChatGPT on the merits and drawbacks of affirmative action, exploring its impact on society and the workplace.

We'll also discuss Alex Soros' frequent visits to the White House, drawing comparisons with Bill Clinton's connection to Jeffrey Epstein, and dive into NPR's dramatic exit from Twitter after being labeled as state-affiliated media. What does this say about the state of journalism and social media today?

Lastly, we'll explore the explosive leak of top-secret documents that revealed alleged U.S. spying on allies, the implications for international relations, and the insights gained on the U.S. perspective regarding the war in Ukraine and potential support for Russia from neutral countries.

Join us for an engaging and insightful episode as we dissect these controversial topics and much more. Don't miss out on this week's edition of The Adams Archive!

All the links: https://linktr.ee/theaustinjadams
Anti-Elite Club Apparel: https://antielite.club

Full Transcription:

 Hello, you beautiful people and welcome. To the Adams Archive. My name is Austin Adams, and thank you so much for listening. Today on the agenda, we are going to be discussing all about the recent marketing misstep, to say the least, by Anheuser Bush's VP of Marketing, who we will be listening to even further digging herself in a hole, uh, by talking about what seems to be, to me at least, slightly illegal hiring practices, leaning, uh, obviously towards her woke agenda that she has since shown her hand.

So we will talk about that. We will also talk about some recent photos that were released by hers after speaking out against, uh, the so-called frat culture that she was so against. There has since been photos leaked of Bud Light's, VP of Marketing, where she seemingly participated in these said frat.

Type events. So we'll look at that. Now. We will also discuss George Soros. Son, Alex Soros visited the White House under Biden's administration 14 times. Now, to put that in perspective, that is only three less times than Bill Clinton having Jeffrey Epstein. So, quite astonishing. Something that we will discuss at length now.

We will also be discussing NPR, quitting Twitter after being labeled as state affiliated media. I saw an article that called it a Rage Quit, which is pretty, pretty fitting. Now the last thing, but one of the most serious things that we will discuss is the documents that were released at well leaked.

There was over a hundred pages that were released, , that were leaked, and, they were doing a highly serious, highly serious very serious investigation in Washington this week. As records were detailing alleged us spying on allies. Insights into American thinking on the war in Ukraine, in at least two neutral countries, mulling plans to support Russia as things move on in this war.

So we will discuss all of that and more, but first, you know what to do. Go ahead and hit that subscribe button if it's your first time here. If it's not, or even if it is, go ahead and leave a five star review. Tell me something that you like about the show. Subject we should talk about. Whatever it is, please from the bottom of my heart, I would appreciate it.

Leave a five star review. Go ahead and hit that subscribe button. Head over to the subs Austin Adams dot.com. Uh, and we will be releasing podcast companions with all of the links, articles, all of it directly to your email, which includes the video podcast, short clips, the full podcast, all to your email every single week.

And then go ahead over to anti elite.club. Anti elite.club and you can check out the apparel. I've kept it small. In the meantime, there is the Pelosi Capital Insider trading hat, which is beautifully embroidered if I do say myself, say so myself, as well as the Protector children hoodie, and some other awesomeness like, uh, make love not viruses, hoodies or sweatshirts as well.

So go check it out. And speaking of Alex Soros, we actually have a mug that is the George Soros actor, a Crisis Actor's Guild mug. , which I found to be, you know, a little catchy. So check it out. Lemme know what you think. All right, now that's all I got for you. Let's go ahead and jump into.

Um, but anyways, $5 billion that they have lost since doing this marketing stunt. Now I'm somewhat familiar with marketing myself. There's probably one of the biggest rules, if not the biggest rule is knowing your target audience. Their target audience for Bud Light is generally not somebody with a trans flag in front of their house.

Those people are generally not drinking light American beer. Now, how far Bud Light Marketing has fallen? I remember growing up, they were always witty and funny and, uh, what was it? The, um, one of their campaigns that was great. It was like the, the gosh, I, I have to remember it was like the greatest Man who ever award or some, something like that.

But always quick, witty, um, always good sarcasm, right? Always great marketing. And this woman takes over from, you know, obviously coming from Harvard to the Wharton, uh, business school and then at, I don't know what she is, maybe 35 years old, taking over the VP of marketing of one of the largest, uh, beer companies in the world.

So maybe Bud Light itself when hiring this woman didn't know its target audience and, or maybe they knew exactly what they were doing, but if they did, this was a horrible, horrible misstep in. Terms of their business success, 5 billion in just like five days, and it's still going down. And I only think we're really gonna see the true implications of this because you have lost so many loyal, long-standing customers as a result of this.

Not only that, people aren't going to buy them at the shelves, which means that the liquor stores and, and grocery stores that we're holding these products are not going to buy them either. If people are not buying them. There is a whole supply chain that will be affected as a result of this terrible marketing move.

But let's go ahead and read this. This comes from the New York Post. It says, beer Colossus in Heiser Busch saw its value plummet more than 5 billion since the company announced his branding partnership with controversial transgender social media influencer, Dylan Mul. Since March 31st, shares of Bud Light Parent Company have nearly fallen 4%.

And as I checked earlier, I believe it was 5%, like 5.2%, knocking down the company's market capitalization from 132 billion to $127 billion. On Wednesday, the stock fizzled more than 1.5%. Uh, on Wednesday, the company is dealing with the fallout from conservatives over its deal with Mulvaney, the 26 year old Wow sh he looks super rough for 26.

Transgender influencer with more than 10 million followers on social media. Mulvaney fired back at critics Tuesday accusing them of bullying her because she's an easy target. Oh, are you? She as a guest on the OR Word onward. And Rosie O'Donnell podcast Mulvaney said her Tolles and trolls intentionally twist her words and actions in an effort to blast the transgender community.

The reason that I think I am so I'm an easy target is because I'm so new to this. Mulvaney said, I think going after a trans person, it says woman, but I refuse to call this person. A woman that's been doing this for like 20 years is a lot more difficult. I think maybe they think that there's some sort of chance with me, but what's their goal now?

It is down 4.9% as of the closing bell today. Um, so almost 5% more than the original 5 billion that they even just talked about there. That's an incredible loss for any company, $5 billion in market cap. Um, these people, they don't understand anything about me that I do or say. I don't really care about her opinion on this.

Mulvaney had posted videos and photos on social media promoting her sponsorship deal with Bud Light, which pro produced specifically made cans with Mulvey's likeness to commemorate the partnership. And, and in this video with this man, He's sitting there going, um, I guess there's some sort of March madness going on right now.

Um, I don't really know what that is. I guess it has to do with sports. I don't know about sports. I'm just a dumb woman. Like really? Cuz women don't know what March Madness is. Like. What? What a horrific, the, the, the biggest problem besides the fact, like, and again, I've talked about this before. I don't care what you do as an individual, you can identify as a fricking fork if you want to.

And I you do you, now, I'm not gonna call you a fork if you think you're a fork, but you're actually a human. Okay? I'm not participating in your mental illness, but you can identify as whatever you want. I don't care. I'm not gonna rip you apart for your, uh, mental anguish and your self-consciousness and your difficulty.

I, you know, and disassociation from your own body. I'm not gonna do that for you. I don't think that you deserve that. I think that in this case, This man is doing this for clout, so maybe deserves it more than most who are dealing with this. I don't think it's actually a real case of gender dysphoria that's being manifested through surgical, uh, attempts at correcting it, which never seems to help in any which way.

Um, but I, I do think that there's a better way of going about that, which to me, the most insulting thing that this man does is pretending like every woman is a fricking caricature, a caricature of what it means to be a woman, right? Frolicking in high heels. Um, you know, like all of the videos that this man does are like the most insulting, caricature depiction of what a woman actually acts like, like Valley Girl, 2004, mean girl's, high school woman in a sitcom.

Like just the most silly depiction of a woman that there can possibly be. And so that to me is insulting. I'm not even a woman and I'm insulted by it. So it says, um, it goes on to say that the backlash even prompted a local Missouri distributor to cancel an appearance by the famous Budweiser Clyde's Dale Horse due to fears for the safety of staffers.

Industry experts told the post on Tuesday that the controversy appears to have staying power and could lead to a full-blown boycott of Anheuser-Busch products. I believe so. I don't think there's any coming back from this. I think their general target market is going to absolutely, there's the only reason that you were drinking Bud Light for any reason at all, was just out of f sheer habit.

It wasn't because it tasted good. We know that for sure. There's so many other beers out there that you can go drink that still taste like shit and are still cheap that don't promote this type of ideology. So yes, this is absolutely going to have staying power Anheuser bushes. If you are in the stock market, you should absolutely be shorting.

Budweisers, uh, it's, it's, uh, the, the dollar symbol and then bud is the symbol for them on the stock exchange. So you should absolutely short Anheuser-Busch. I am not a financial advisor, so don't listen to anything that I say, but it seems like a pretty good bet that this is just gonna continue to keep going down.

Um, now let's go ahead and watch this video. Let's talk about the actual VP of marketing, because, you know, actually let's, let's touch on this. There it bring, it comes up here with, um, you know, let's, let's talk about this Kid Rock, who I love for this. Um, went on and did a video where he actually shot his, uh, full auto rifle, um, at a bunch of Bud Light, uh, uh, boxes of beer.

And there's this awesome picture in front of me of them just all exploding, uh, with a MAGA hat on, which is just amazing. So love that for Kid Rock. Uh, now the reason that I don't think Nike is having such backlash because they did the same exact thing. Nike did the same thing as Bud Light did. Same exact thing, but Nike's target market is not the same target market as Bud Lights.

That's what you have to understand. And that's the reason that Bud Light is going to have a tremendous loss of market cap, a tremendous loss of its stock value. And Nike has improved its stock value over the last couple days. There has not been any calls for boycotts. It has not been in the news. There's been no, you know, burn your Nike's campaign that's going on.

Although maybe there should be, and I won't be buying Nike from here on out. But, um, but this comes back to how, how do we change culture, right? Because right now, the, the theistic corporations that are out there, even not, maybe not even capitalistic because they're all owned by generally the same.

BlackRock. Um, but these corporatism type corporations that are out there, that are promoting these things, are doing so because they think it's going to win them favor, not even win them favor from the people that they are having as their target market. They think it's going to win them favor in the eyes of the elitist who own them from the World Economic Forums, from the Black Rocks and the Vanguards and the, the, the elites who own those companies who are pushing those ideologies like Alex Soros and George Soros, who were gonna talk about a little bit later.

That's who they're gaining the favor of. Here. I did see something that there was some sort of talk about a, I think it was a c e I score, which is like your woke score basically for companies that they're getting favor over, where they'll like pull some sort of association if these companies don't have a high enough score of wokeness.

And so maybe that's what's going on here, but here's how you fight back. 5 billion of market loss is a huge loss for Ann Heiser Busch. Huge loss you. That's, that's so much money. 5% of your value in five days, 1% per day. If that keeps up for 50 days, and I don't, I 100% think that that's just the beginning.

I, I think it's gonna be 20%, 25%. Again, I'm just shooting from the hip here. Don't listen to me. But, but I absolutely think that there is going to be a tremendous loss. And this is just the beginning because we're not even seeing, seeing the outcomes. We're seeing the people who are pulling their stocks out of this.

We're seeing people who are starting to short the stock as a result, but we're not seeing quarterly earnings statements. We're not seeing that yet. And when we see that it will be a blood bath, when we see the quarterly earnings for h Anheuser-Busch, a blood bath, bath, when we see it, and this is just the beginning, 5% is nothing compared to what it's gonna turn out to once we actually see the numbers.

Right. What we're seeing right now is a vanity reaction, but there will be a corporate there, there, there will be figures that come out. There will be, uh, quarterly earning statements that show when 50 40% of people who drink Bud Light, stop drinking it, stop buying it, which means the liquor stores who are sourcing it and the grocery stores that have it will stop purchasing it as well.

This is how you fight back from woke. This is how you fight back against the corporations who are shoving this ideology down you and your child's throat. 100% how we we fight back against this us. All right, so let's go ahead and listen to this. This is the interview with the VP of Marketing from Busch.

Her name is Alyssa Heiner Scheid, uh, she's a Harvard graduate. Imagine that, who then went to the Wharton School of Business? Um, I believe she had like some sort of like, Language and English degree from Harvard, which I don't know why the hell you go to Harvard. Harvard for an English degree to go into marketing.

All right. By the way, I'm drinking a real beer. This is a founder's, uh, Centennial ipa, which is quite delicious and doesn't taste like shit. And they have yet to shove their trans ideology down my throat if they have any belief in it, which I doubt they do. Okay, so drink real beer folks. All right. Um, maybe I'll start doing a, a beer review like, uh, you know, uh, bar stool, uh, Dave Portnoy does for pizzas.

If I, if I had to do a beer review on this founder's Centennial ipa. Let's see, how well does this go? It's an, an IPA featuring Centennial Hops. Huh, let's read it. Get ready to bask in the glory of this frothy heads floral bouquet relish the citrus accents from the abundance of dry hops. This one's sweet, yet balanced multi undertones.

Shake hands with the hop character for a finish that never turns too bitter delicious. All right, one sip. Everybody knows rules. Centennial IPA By Founders Initial reaction, I would give it a 7.3. I've had better IPAs, but it's pretty good. All right. And again, no, no woke trans ideology being shoved in my throat, which gives it multiple, multiple brownie points.

All right, so here's the vp, Alicia Alyssa Heiner Scheid, and she is going to speak on here, right? One thing that she talks about initially is evolving the Bud Light Brand. Now this is the clip that everybody was talking about, right? She talks about why she did this and why she's trying to shove this ideology down their throats and, and all of this stuff.

So let's listen to that first, and then we will listen to her talking about her hiring practices, which I think is a little bit even more egregious and probably downright illegal if you really dive into it. Um, so let's go ahead and listen to her. We do not attract. Young drinkers to come and drink this brand.

There will be no future for Bud Light. So I had around, in your own perspective and your own values, you know the person you are at Home Impacts and has a ripple effect on the Bud Light brand. Tell me about that a little bit. Yeah, I, I think number one, you know, I'm a businesswoman. Mm-hmm. I had a really clear job to do when I took over Bud Light and it was, this brand is in decline.

It's been in decline for a really long time. And if we do not attract young drinkers to come and drink this brand, there will be no future for Bud Light. So I had this, the brand was in decline only once you decided to promote trans ideology to your generally conservative target market. Let's be clear about this here.

If we go back and look at the last, I don't know, let's, let's look at the last five years of Bud Light. Let's see if there's been a single decline. Five years. A single decline. That was 5% in five days. Oh, this is a screenshot. So it's not gonna give me exactly what I'm looking for here, but I highly doubt it.

The brand started to be in decline once you started to make these types of decisions, right? Super clear mandate. It's, we need to evolve and elevate this incredibly iconic brand. And my, what I brought to that was a belief in I was looking for real men of genius. You remember that ad? That's good marketing, right?

Real men of genius. Let's watch that shit once this is over. But real men of genius is what I was thinking of earlier. I don't know what I said. Like great men or whatever the hell. No real men of genius, great marketing, Dylan Mulvaney, horrible marketing. Okay. What is, what do, what does evolve and elevate mean?

It means inclusivity. It means shifting the tone. It means having a campaign that's truly inclusive and feels lighter and brighter and different, and appeals to women and to men. Mm-hmm. And representation. Is it sort of the heart of evolution? You've gotta see people who reflect you in the work. And we had this hangover.

I mean, bud Light had been kind of a brand of fratty, kind of out of touch humor, and it was really important that we had another approach. So, long story short, super Bowl spot. Fast forward, I cast an incredible female choreographer who just brought incredibly positive, amazing energy to the spot. We cast Miles Teller and his wife Kelly Teller.

But it was really crucial to me that if you see that spot, Kelly is. Kelly is the heartbeat of that spot. You're seeing this whole experience through Kelly. She's the beating heart. She, I would sort of argue with sort of what propels you through that experience and, and that was intentional. Um, and then we had another really fun spot.

First spot out of the gate was the first time ever we'd had a female protagonist in this. Really cool, she was sort of cool as hell, bobbin and weaving through a bar. But anyway, listen, I'm not gonna pretend that there isn't so much more work to do from a business results perspective and of course from a representation perspective, but I feel like you, you have to put your money where your mouth is when you're trying to evolve a brand and elevate it and bring in new consumers.

So that's been incredibly important to me. Mm-hmm.

Bet she didn't expect a 5% stock loss in five days. Now you hear her talking about that, uh, the frat brand. Right. Let's, let's, we'll take a little dive back in time. A little dive back in time for the VP of Marketing at Anheuser-Busch when she's calling out her own target market. The people who purchased her products for being out of touch frat boys.

Little did she know somebody was gonna go to her Facebook profile, scroll a few years back and see photos of her Dr. Like filling up condom balloons, shotgunning beers, and doing everything that appears to. And looks to be her fraty passed. This says leaked photos have revealed that Bud Light's, vice President of Marketing, Alyssa Heiner, pardoned it up while attending Harvard University exhibiting behavior that one might expect to see at a frat house.

The images which are nearly 20 years old, would have remained buried in Hein, Hershey's Facebook albums. Had the beer executive not recently suggested that the brand she now represents should distance itself from its Friday past. The images, which are now attained from the daily caller from a source who discovered them on Hein Che's now protected Facebook page were from a 2006 event called the ISIS Senior Reversed Initiation Scavenger Hunt, um, which was.

To provide in 2000 to provide a positive environment in social network for women to flourish an article in the university's newspaper around the same time that the photos of Heide were taken. However, describe the scene of the club's gatherings as a haven for inebriated dit sea. In the photos, Heiner Scheide can be seen drinking beer, blowing up condoms, as if they were balloons and exhibiting other behaviors typically associated with intoxication.

17 years later, Heiner side is now calling on beer companies to cater to more than just the frat house crowd. I am a businesswoman. She says during a March 23rd appearance on the Make Yourself a Home Podcast, I had a really clear job to do, which is all basically just what we listened to. She went on to explain.

The representation is sort of the heart of evolution, and Bud Light has for too long been a brand of Fraty kind of out of touch humor since Henesey made those comments. The brand is partnered with Trans TikTok, influencer Dylan Mulvaney, A move that has been widely criticized and in some cases even led to boycotts, in some cases, very many at this point now.

What I find to be interesting is if you go a little bit even more back, because that's like, just punchy, good headlines, right? Oh, she called 'em frat boys and you know, maybe she's also fratty with her, you know, she's being a hypocrite obviously, and some of these photos are kind of funny. Um, but maybe, maybe don't make fun of your target market if you were your target market.

Uh, so let's go back and see what I find to be even more egregious than the, the, what she's doing as far as the promotion of trans ideology through a brand that is primarily conservative target markets, or even being a hypocrite by calling people fraty and then blowing up condom balloons and getting extremely intoxicated on pictures of Facebook.

Um, which you might be able to find, if you don't mind if I had one. Um, but, uh, let's go back and see what she talks about with hiring practices. Okay. She talks about her hiring practices and spills the tea a little bit further than she probably would've liked by talking about how she leans her hiring practices more towards hiring women and more towards hiring people who associate with her same ideology.

Almost word for word says this and that, my friends is illegal. If you choose to hire somebody specifically based on their representation of their sex so that you can have more people of that sex in your business, that is sexist, discriminatory, hiring practices not that hard to do. One plus one equals two, that's discrimination, and there is anti-discrimination laws.

So let's go ahead and listen to her boast about how she hires more women than men purposefully, again, discriminating as well as people who identify at the same beliefs as her. A k a woke. Here we go. Um, and I try to bring that honestly and how I wanna operate in the world. Mm-hmm. And I would say the most important thing about this job is that you, I have to prioritize bringing other people along the way, community and women.

I mean, it's just, it doesn't mean anything unless I am positively impacting other people. And so that's been just incredibly important to me. My decisions with teams, I mean, I, I try to build teams of people who maybe nobody else has taken a chance on them. I try to bet on people who haven't had the opportunity, bet on people with similar values as me, who are hungry and wanna do great things.

I try to bet on people. I hire people, aka I hire people who have similar values to me. I hire people who are primarily, I try to hire women. I, that, that is discriminatory, discriminatory practices. And I even tried to like argue this back and forth with G P T four, um, the other day. So I, I'll see if I can even pull that up.

Um, but I, I had it kind of argue against me and, and gimme the reason that this should be acceptable and how this is not racist or sexist, right? In nature, how is this not against anti-discrimination laws? Um, because to me it seems very, very clear and evident that this should be considered absolutely considered, um, discriminatory hiring practices.

Um, so here is what it had to say about that. Now, this was actually G P T 3.5. No. Did I do it with four? Let's see. So I've, I've found interesting ways to go about this with, with having G P T kind of. Converse back and forth with me. So what I said to it is, is hiring someone of a specific racer sex purposefully for the intention of growing the number of employees of that racer sex illegal.

It's said, I am not a lawyer, but I can offer some general information about employment Discrim. Oh my ears. That is horrible. Speechify, what are you doing to me? We need our man. Let's go with I like Harry. I like Harry. Let's go with Harry. Harry here. I'm astute. To share a better way to read. Perfect. Harry, here.

Perfect. Perfect. I'm astute. To share a better way to read. Give 'em a little bit of sped up and we're off to the races. So this is the conversation that I had with G P T yesterday when I was trying to, I was trying to work this through in my head. I was actually trying to figure out whether or not this is illegal or not.

So I said, is hiring someone of a specific race or sex purposefully for the intention of growing the number of employees of that race racer sex illegal? And here's what it responded. I am not a lawyer, but I can offer some general information about employment discrimination laws in the United States Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is generally legal for employers to discriminate against individuals based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin includes hiring practices.

However, there are some exceptions to this rule when employers are trying to increase diversity within their workforce or remedy past discrimination. Affirmative action programs, for example, may allow employers to consider race or sex as one factor in their hiring decisions, but only under certain circumstances.

Programs must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest, such as remedying, past discrimination, or promoting diversity. They also cannot impose an undue burden on other groups or create rigid quotas. It's may differ depending on the country or jurisdiction. So it is important to consult with legal counsel or seek advice from a local expert for specific guidance.

All right, so there was was a, it's initial response. So I said what allow, like what laws allow for the exception to anti discriminatory hiring practices, because to me, when you tell me that there are some exceptions for this rule, when employers are trying to increase diversity, what does increasing diversity mean?

How is affirmative action not actually racist? When you are trying to increase diversity, that means you are intentionally hiring one person who would normally not be hired. Based on qualifications over somebody who is not based on their sex race or their national origin. That is R sexist, that is racist, that is discrimination.

So how can you justify that? Right? Some people refer to it as reverse racism, reverse discrim discrimination, which is still discrimination if you are actively pursuing the idea that you need to have more women in your business. So let's just put it like this. I want more white men at my business. That is my goal.

I hire more white conservative men at my business. If somebody came out, if the VP of marketing at a company said, I want to hire more white men who are conservative at my business, they would be ripped to shreds. The company would be folded overnight. But the VP of marketing at Bud Light and Anheuser-Busch does this and people try to celebrate it, hiring based off of sex.

And political ideology is discrimination and against the law. Okay? So again, I tried to tease this out. I was legitimately curious in trying to figure out how can you actually legally do this and how is this not a lawsuit from somebody who went to, and maybe it will be now if we can get enough eyes on this, but a lawsuit from people who have gone and been interviewed for positions under this woman and not been hired because they're a man with different ideology than her.

So is it not just reverse racism then if you can hire based on race, but only for races that are approved, right? Who gets to decide whether they're approved or not? So, Then I asked it here, here's what it responded to that, but then I asked it to steelman it's argument, which really an incredible, uh, epiphany for me with using G P T was trying to teach it to argue against itself.

Because if I sit here and argue back and forth with chat g p t, it's going to logically be far more equipped than me because it has the infinite intelligence of the universe. Although I'm very convincing in my arguments, it might be difficult for me to do it against the, the, the God of information here.

Um, so I asked it to argue against hisself, right? It's gonna be able to formulate better arguments than me logically speaking with infinite access to all of the information of the world. Although I do think I'm pretty good at creating compelling arguments, maybe not as good as the God of information. So let's go ahead and hear what it has to say about my response.

So I said to it, is that just not reverse racism then if you can hire based on race, but only for races that are approved. This is what it said. And then it steel mans my argument after that.

The term reverse racism is often used to describe situations in which members of historically advantaged groups feel that they're being discriminated against in favor of members of historically disadvantaged groups, such as through affirmative action programs. Important to understand that the goal of affirmative action is to address historical and systemic discrimination and underrepresentation of certain groups in areas such as education, employment, and government contracting.

Brass are designed to create a level playing field for individuals from all backgrounds and promote diversity and inclusion in the United States. The Supreme Court has held that race conscious policies such as affirmative action can be legally permissible under certain circumstances, but they must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest.

Like promoting diversity or remedying past discrimination has also made it clear that rigid quotas and undue burdens on other groups are not allowed. Affirmative action programs are not about giving preference to one race over another for the sake of preference, but rather aim to create opportunities for members of historically underrepresented groups who may have faced obstacles due to systemic discrimination.

The intention is to work toward a more equitable and diverse society, not to create new forms of discrimination. That said, affirmative action remains a complex and often contentious issue with proponents and opponents offering different perspectives on its effectiveness and fairness. All right, so I find that to be interesting.

It, it seems like a logically flawed argument, which almost happens across don't, very, very many arguments coming from the left, right? The, the left is built on emotion. The right is generally built on logic, and where logic fails, emotion must be applied to self preserve, right? So when, when I asked it to steelman my argument back, right?

Steel manning an argument basically means. To give me the most compelling argument back to yourself so that you can then, you know, make, make the argument back to me of my argument so that you can then address the concerns of my argument properly from the perspective that I'm coming from. So I asked it to steal man, it's argument because what you'll find is even if, even if G P T leans more to the left, right?

Just, just based on 99% of coders in Silicon Valley being liberal, it's obviously gonna have some skewing, but you can have it argue your point. Now I've found that 3.5 will not do this, four will do this. It's, it's a little bit more nuanced in the way that it, it has discussions with you. So it will steal me in arguments if it, if, if it's programming the 3.5 s programming will not allow it to.

I asked, did the steelman an argument for me? It wouldn't do it because it didn't believe in the argument based on its flawed logic. So I asked, did the steelman, the argument that, um, That affirmative action is, in fact potentially racist or, or at least in, in its varied essence, not positive overall. So here, here was, here was the steelman argument by G P T against affirmative action.

A steelman argument refers to the practice of restating an opposing argument in its strongest and most compelling form. In this case, the steelman argument against affirmative action would emphasize the following points and meritocracy. Proponents of affirmative action argue that policies should be based solely on merit without considering factors like race, gender, or ethnicity.

Believe that giving preference to underrepresented groups can result in less qualified individuals being hired or admitted, which is unfair to other applicants who might be more qualified. First. Discrimination critics argue that affirmative action can lead to reverse discrimination. Disadvantaging individuals from historically privileged groups who may be more qualified, they say is inherently unfair and goes against the principle of equal opportunity.

Perpetuation of stereotypes and divisions. Some argue that affirmative action can inadvertently reinforce stereotypes and divisions by focusing on race or gender, rather than on individual qualifications and potential. Believe that this focus can perpetuate the idea that underrepresented groups need special treatment to succeed stigmatization of beneficiaries.

Another argument against affirmative action is that it can stigmatize beneficiaries, leading others to question their qualifications and accomplishments can undermine the confidence and self-esteem of individuals from underrepresented groups who may feel that their success is attributed to affirmative action rather than their abilities term effectiveness.

Critics also question the long-term effectiveness of affirmative action, arguing that it may not address the root causes of systemic discrimination, and may instead create dependence on such programs. Advocate for alternative solutions such as improving access to quality education and addressing socioeconomic disparities to create more sustainable change.

So there is its main points, right? I'll highlight them for you in case it's difficult to listen to our friend Harry. But it says, basically, equality and meritocracy. Opponents of affirmative action argue that policy should be based solely on merit, right? Not your race, not your skin color. That is the Martin Luther King argument.

I have a dream that one day, right? We won't look at people and judge them based on race, gender, or ethnicity. We are specifically judging people based off of race, gender, or ethnicity. Which means if you are proactively helping one group, you are actively, actively preventing another group based on gender, race, or ethnicity.

There is always a ne there is always going to be a, a negative outcome to the positive outcome for that one group as a result of, of this affirmative action. I didn't have any slaves. There's no reason that I shouldn't get into a university, I shouldn't get a job that, that I should have any, anything that's judged against me for my skin color.

No reason at all. It's literally reverse racism if that term holds any merit. It's what, if not just straight racism. Right? If you are, if you are not hiring me because I have white skin, if you are not having me in your university because I have white skin, because I have a penis, because I have right-leaning ideologies compared to left-leaning ideologies, that that is discriminatory in its essence and, and simply perpetuating, um, exactly what you were trying to combat.

Right? But you were just blind to it through emotion. Um, the second argument that it gave was reverse discrimination. Critics argue that affirmative action can lead to reverse discrimination, disadvantaging individuals of historically privileged groups who may be more qualified. Right? That's exactly what I just talked about, perpetuation of stereotypes and divisions.

Some argue that affirmative action can inadvertently reinforce stereotypes and divisions by focusing on race and gender rather than individual qualifications. Right? A hundred percent stigmatization of beneficiaries. Um, so it's basically saying that, um, somebody who is, uh, let's say they're black and they get hired somewhere or they go to a university, but they have less qualifications, they get a lower gpa, they have a lower s a T, but they get into the university because of their skin color.

That is going to further stigmatize the idea that they should get in, even though they have lower scores, that, that makes the argument that people who are black should not have high enough scores compared to Asians or white people or, you know, any other culture that, that are getting discriminated against, against in this case.

Right. Which again, is absolutely the case. Um, long-term effectiveness and, and not the case obviously that they shouldn't have high enough scores. They're just as intelligent and capable. Um, and that's why it, it is absolutely a stigmatization. Um, moving on, long-term effectiveness, uh, say that affirmative action, arguing that it may not address the root causes of systemic discrimination instead of basically just putting a bandaid on it.

So, so what I tried to do here is say, using only logic and not straw manning, because what I found was when I was having it argue against it, it was using emotional language. It was saying that, well, there's, there's, uh, certain people who are, you know, have histories of being discriminated against and so blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

It was, it was straw manning the argument not using logic. So I said to G P T using only logic and not straw manning the argument by bringing up affirmative action or laws simply from a philosophical and logic based perspective. How do you argue against 0.2, 0.2 being reverse discrimination? Critics argue that affirmative action can lead to reverse discrimination, disadvantaging individuals from historically privileged groups who may be more qualified, um, this they say is inherently unfair and goes against the principle of equal opportunity.

So I asked it to logically and without a strong argument, which is what it was presenting me prior, give me a logic-based philosophical perspective out outside of the bounds of what's available for rules within humanity, outside of the bounds of what's available for laws. Tell me specifically from a philosophical and logic-based perspective, how do you argue that hiring somebody based on race or sex is not racist or sexist?

Tell me that. Okay. And here is what I had to say.

A philosophical and logical perspective one could argue against. Point two, the reverse discrimination claim. By focusing on the concepts of fairness, context, and historical background and context, the concept of fairness can be understood differently depending on the context. In a society with a history of systemic discrimination against certain groups, equal treatment of all individuals without considering this context might not be truly fair.

Affirmative action policies aim to address historical disadvantages and promote a more inclusive and diverse environment by offering opportunities to underrepresented groups. If justice philosophically, one could argue that corrective justice should be applied in cases where historical discrimination has caused disadvantages for certain groups means that measures can be taken to rectify past injustices and promote a more equitable society.

From this perspective, affirmative action policies are not reversed discrimination, but rather a means of achieving corrective justice, filling the playing field. Critics of affirmative action often assume that all individuals start from the same position and have equal access to opportunities due to historical and systemic discrimination.

This is not always the case. By considering factors like race or gender in hiring and admissions decisions, affirmative action policies aim to level the playing field and create a more equitable environment. Balancing competing interests. From a philosophical perspective, one could argue that promoting diversity and addressing historical disadvantages are important societal values that must be balanced against the principle of equal treatment.

It is crucial to avoid undue burdens on other groups. Implementing carefully designed affirmative action policies can help achieve these competing interests without resulting in reverse discrimination greater good. The principle of utilitarianism suggests that actions should be evaluated based on their consequences, specifically by maximizing overall happiness or wellbeing.

Affirmative action policies can be seen as promoting the greater good by fostering a more inclusive and diverse society, which can benefit everyone in the long run, even if it results in some perceived disadvantages for certain individuals in the short term. Okay. There is its argument back to steel manning.

My argument, and I'll just give you the cliff notes on those. Again, fairness in con, in context, the concept of fairness can be understood differently depending on the context. Basically saying that if there's systemic racist or racism, uh, Or discrimination against certain groups equal treatment of the individuals without considering the context might not be truly fair.

Right. So, so in my response, the back to that would be is yes, I, I've seen certain documentaries. I've, I cannot recall the name of it. , I can see the cover of it in my head. Um, but I've watched documentaries. I, I believe that there has absolutely been systemic racism in our country. I, I am not blind to that.

I, I completely agree with that point. I believe that the, propor disproportionately black communities are affected through, drugs that were pushed literally by our government, like the crack epidemic, um, into more black communities through, through the ghettos in, in like the eighties, um, 100. 100% disproportionately affected them.

I absolutely agree to the fact that, that they are, , at a much higher rate of incarceration, which causes men to be out of the households, which causes, uh, uh, children to have far more issues in their upbringings. That that's like 100% statistically factual. There is absolutely been systemic racism.

There was perpetuation of racist ideologies by the same people who parents did have slaves however many years ago. Right. I I'm not blind to that. I agree with that. There is, there is systemic and, and or there or there. At least there has been systemic racism. I believe we are at a point in our culture where there, there is very little, very little that is going on that is against one minority group.

Statistically, it's just not the case. Okay. So fairness and context. I think when you're taking into consideration it's fir first point, a fairness and concept, a concept of fairness understood differently depending on the context. Um, history of systemic discrimination. Sure. But should we be dis perpetuating discrimination as an answer to that?

No. We should be plugging the holes in the boat. We should stop, stop the FBI and CIA from, uh, pushing crack into primarily black neighborhoods. We should, I, we should address the issues with our police forces where they're, you know, primarily perpetuating, uh, high incarceration rates. Now, that's not to say that those incarceration rates aren't merited by actual crimes, um, but that's a separate convers.

Um, it says the next point that it gave is corrective justice. Philosophically, one could argue that corrective justice should be applied in causes where historical discrimination has caused disadvantages. Same point applies, um, leveling the playing field. Critics of affirmative action can assume that all individuals start from the same position, have equal access to opportunities, however, do the historical, and it's all the same argument, balancing and competing interests, um, diversity and addressing.

Okay. And then the last one was the greater good. The principle of utilitarianism suggests that action should be evaluated based on their consequences, um, specifically by maximizing overall happiness or wellbeing. Affirmative action policies can be seen as promoting the greater good by fostering and more inclusive and diverse society.

Okay. Is it though, if it is specif. Perpetuating the, the very discrimination that it's setting out to solve in the first place, right? Nobody, nobody in today's world is blind to the fact that racism was not a thing, right? We all agree on that. We all agree that racism is wrong, at least a far, far greater percentage than those who disagree, right?

Like very, very, very, very small percentage of people are still extremely racist. Um, at least to my knowledge. And maybe, but compared to what it was, it's so much better than it was right now. That's not to say that it doesn't exist. It obviously exists, but the percentage is just very low. Um, so the idea that perpetuating that, that.

You know, through utilitarianism, the, the answer to racism is reverse racism does, does not seem to hold up well. Um, now it says, now, now what I said in response to this, so this is a really interesting way to, to, to tease out your own perspectives, right? When, when I'm not standing in front of another individual and, and in a heated argument, I can actually see some of these points that it's giving, right?

When you ask it to not only argue against me, but then steelman my argument and then argue against that steelman, and then argue back to those counterpoints, you're, you're going to really see all sides of an argument. I, I am open to being wrong and I've been wrong many times before, so I plan on changing my opinion on things in the future.

I, I am not held in my beliefs to the point where I, I think that I cannot be. And, and it gives some decent arguments and, and far more arguments than anybody else that you're gonna stand in front of you who is liberal or who is on the left is going to have in front of you without putting a motion in the way.

So utilize G p t this way, utilize chat g p t in a way that you can further understand the opposite side of things. If we use the, this, this tool in this way, maybe we can lessen the divide right now. When you ask it to argue against those points, it makes some great points back against that, uh, case. But I think that this is a, a really, really great way of utilizing this tool to make yourself more aware of the logical arguments that are being made, um, because far more often than not emotion is being applied.

And, and the people who are willing to have arguments like this, Not very common. Right? And, and, and, and even for me, right? And if I stand in front of somebody and I try to argue my points, there's going to be a point where there it, it becomes emotional. But when I'm sitting here arguing with a, a logic-based language model, it's very difficult to instill in, in, in their, inject emotion into the conversation.

So I, I thoroughly enjoyed doing this. I even did a secondary conversation with it about, um, when does life begin? Had to argue when life, when people believe life begins, and how it, it, it says it. It was a really interesting philosophical conversation that I had with infinite intelligence. Um, Because I truly, it's very, very difficult to, for me to see the, some of the logics in, in some of these arguments.

And, and generally it is such an emotional, uh, response and, and it's hard to even have conversations with people about this where it's not super emotionally charged. So I highly recommend that you have these, and to close this out for this conversation, I'll, I'll let you hear just what it had to say about, um, about arguing against the points that it's made, um, against the steelman argument.

Okay. So give me the, so basically what happened is I said, tell me why you disagree with me. Why do you disagree that this is not racist? Because to me it seems racist. So it made its arguments Now. I said, okay, I teased that out a little bit. Tell me more further. Don't, don't do it from a scare. Uh, um, don't, don't do it from the perspective of emotion.

Don't do it from the perspective of laws. Do it from a philosophical perspective without a strawman argument, cuz it was interjecting different arguments that didn't specifically speak to logic. Then I said, okay, great. Now argue against yourself as if you were me in the most compelling way. Then I had to argue against itself, back to argue against my points in its most compelling way.

And then I had to argue those points back. And you could probably do this infinitely, but it really does, um, allow you to see all sides of the argument. Um, so if nothing else, take away that from this. If you, if you're not thoroughly enjoying this conversation, then do argue against the points go made in the previous response.

One could emphasize the following counterpoints objective fairness. One could argue that true fairness should be based on objective criteria like qualifications and performance, regardless of historical context. Action policies by considering factors such as race or gender, may compromise the principle of objective fairness and lead to situations where less qualified individuals are chosen over more qualified ones quality before the law.

Critics of affirmative action could argue that individuals should be treated equally before the law, regardless of their group membership. Considering factors like race or gender in decision making, affirmative action policies may infringe upon this principle of equality, perpetuating divisions and stereotypes by emphasizing factors like race or gender, affirmative action policies may inadvertently perpetuate divisions and stereotypes, rather than breaking them down, excite you that focusing on individual qualifications and potential rather than group identity would be a more effective way to promote a diverse and inclusive society consequences for intended beneficiaries.

Affirmative action policies may have unintended negative consequences for the very individuals they aim to benefit. For example, beneficiaries of affirmative action may face doubts about their qualifications leading to a lack of confidence in their own abilities, or undermining their accomplishments.

In the eyes of others, sing root causes, critics argue that affirmative action policies may not effectively address the root causes of historical and systemic discrimination. They suggest focusing on alternative solutions such as improving access to quality education, addressing socioeconomic disparities, and promoting broader cultural changes to create a more equitable and inclusive society notion of meritocracy.

One could argue that affirmative action policies may erode the principle of meritocracy, which emphasizes that individuals should be rewarded based on their abilities and achievements rather than their background. Suggest that these policies may hinder the development of a truly merit-based society.

So I have found that to be interesting, right? A lot of what it talks about is, um, the one that I saw to be most interesting of that is the equality before the law. Critics of affirmative action could argue that individuals should be treated equally before the law, regardless of their group membership.

By considering factors like race or gender in decision making, affirmative action policies may infringe upon this principle of equality. Isn't equality what they are trying to gain in the first place, right? So if you're pursuing racist tactics to address inequality, aren't you further perpetuating inequality?

How? There's no logical argument against that, that I can see, and I have yet to see it presented here. Um, besides the flawed emotional logic that based on previous history, we should now be racist and sexist towards other groups in order to help move the needle more towards equality sooner. But when do you stop doing that?

Right? So, so at what point does, do, do you go from right, when do we say, all right guys, affirmative action's over now we're all equal. No, it's a, it may be a longer process to get there, but the way that you get to equality. Everybody being treated equally, not by tipping the scale with your toe for one person, because they're still where they're at, regardless of your affirmative action.

So in, in this argument of infinite, of, of, uh, what, what did I call it? Uh, information God, um, against, against itself, I, I still hold true in my beliefs. And, and again, maybe I, I'm gonna have these conversations with it and, and be convinced otherwise on, on other things. And I really, truly hope so because it's hard to have a, a, a conversation with, with people on other ideologies without it getting emotional.

Um, but this truly does allow it to be. It allows you to sit beside yourself and, and, and even just flex the muscle of listening. Um, so, you know, maybe next time we'll go through when does human life begin, which turned into a another interesting. Another interesting, uh, argument between me and G P T. All right, so that, that was, uh, that was that.

This episode's gonna go a little bit longer than I expected. Um, so let's move on. But first, hit that subscribe button. Leave a five star review. I, I hope you're learning something at least maybe how to leverage G P T as a tool for you to, to expand your mind, expand your consciousness, expand your worldview.

If you don't have a friend who's willing to sit at the table with you and drink an, an, a numerous amount of beers who has a, a completely different political ideology than you, then you might as well do it with, uh, information, God, because it, maybe, it may, who knows? Maybe your world worldview will change if it's in the face of something that is 100% logic based and, um, doesn't hold emotion within the argument.

As long as you know how to phrase the questions properly. And I think that the, the, the concept of steel Manning allows you to further tease out your own arguments and see its flaws. And then further tease out the, a flaws of the other arguments. And, and maybe the, the end conclusion is eventually that there's humanity on both sides of it.

And, and, and there there's some form of potentially logic applied to both. And, and, and in some portions, like I saw when I argued, where does life begin? I basically check made a G P T into admitting. Biological, uh, life begins even before conception. Um, so, so I found that to be interesting. So stick around for that, maybe in a, in a future episode where I'll tease that one out for you guys.

So the next article that we're going to talk about here is going to be why did George, why did Alex Soros, why did Alex Soros visit the Biden White House 14 times, times 14 times?

George Soros son visited the White House just since Biden took office. And this article goes on to say the son of pro crime, billionaire George Soros. And let's just point out the fact that this is gonna be a, a leaning article by that opening statement, but I don't disagree. Alex is raising eyebrows over more than a dozen White House meetings since December, 2021, where he met with multiple officials, including Then's Chief of Staff, Ron Klain, and several national security officials.

There's this picture of him immediately in this article, uh, which goes back to his Instagram page with 116 likes on it with this man in a white suit like a pimp in what appears to be some sort of party with somebody in the background laying on a table like they're about to be. With some, you know, 20 year old beautiful woman next to him.

Um, according to the White House visitor logs reviewed by Fox News and first reported by the New York Post, the 38 year old Alex Soros visited the White House over 14 times in his latest trips. Included visiting December 1st with then White House chief of staff Ron claims advisor Nina Sarva, who also worked on Biden's Presidential campaign, the log show.

Later that evening, the younger Soros was one of 330 people to attend a lavish state dinner on the White House's South Lawn, hosted by the president and First Lady Joe Biden, honoring French President Emmanuel Mcn in Macron's wife Bridget. It says a day later, Alex Soros, whose chair, whose chairs the powerful liberal grant making network Open Society foundations, founded by his dad.

Met with the both advisor to the Council of President Mariana Aam, and Deputy National Security Advisor, Jonathan Finer records show it's noticeable that almost all, with the exception of Ron Klain, who had the president's ear obviously were involved in national security. Um, Ukraine is a country where the Soros family has unfortunately boasted a lot of influence.

There is tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars being thrown around there. So I think that would be something we're circling back and coming. Com circling back on in the coming months or years. Despite George Sorrow's notorious way amongst political circles, uh, Palombo said that the younger Soros could someday boast even more power.

Noting Alex has been flaunting his influence on social media with pictures of himself alongside Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, former speaker Nancy Pelosi, and former President Barack Obama, his standing on 11 million of his own money. Now, that may seem like a drop in the bucket compared to his father, and it is, but it's not going to be that way forever.

The way that I would put it, George Soros over his career has spent more than 20 billion in Open Society Foundation, which is the vehicle by which he makes this spending has around 20 billion on its balance sheet. So when Alex takes over, he has a war chest that is basically able to, I would say, at a minimum, double the amount of damage that his father is going to do and probably more.

Here's a little deal, take a look. Official White House records revealing the billionaires eldest son had more than a dozen different meetings with top Biden officials since 2021, including four with the office of then Chief of Staff, Ron Klain. Matt Columbo is the author of The Man Behind the Curtain, the Secret Network of George Soros, and Matt joins me now.

Matt, walk us through how the Soros influence Machine is pulling the levers at the white. Thanks guys. Well, it's looking like Alex Soros is prime to take over the Soros Empire. Obviously his father in his nineties cannot do it forever. Um, this New York Post piece outlined 14 different White House visits, but I mean, we almost didn't even need the report.

You can go on Alex's Instagram, his Twitter, any social media, and it's almost like he's bragging to us. It is a picture of him and every progressive Democrat you can imagine, and really their left to counterparts overseas. Um, now of these 14 people he met, it is I think notable that almost all, with the exception of Ron Klain, uh, who had the president's ear obviously were involved in national security.

Ukraine is a country where the Soros family has, unfortunately moted a lot of influence. There is tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars being thrown around. All right. He's just saying everything that I. That he said only my voice is hopefully more present pleasant than his. Um, so pretty wild and the only person who I know of that was at the White House more than 14 times was, as I stated earlier, bill Clinton, having Epstein to the White House is the only thing that I find to be a little bit more concerning than the 14 times that Alex Soros has been there as well.

All right. So I find that to be interesting and in the face of that, I guess we will see later, um, on in time that this man takes over four. George Soros, which is, you know, sad to hear that there's going to be a succession there. All right. Next on our quick hits is going to be that N P R quit Twitter after being labeled state affiliated media.

And so basically Twitter called NPR State Affiliated media, basically calling them a propaganda arm of the US government. And then NPR came out and said, NPR is stepping away from Twitter, and this includes this N P R politics feed. Please read the thread to find other ways to find our network, including our Instagram and our newsletter.

How funny. So some people describe this as rage quitting, which is like the best way to describe this. NPR threw the controller and quit Twitter over being described as a propaganda arm of the United States. Um, so this article, which we will touch on real briefly, NPR stopped tweeting last week after being labeled State Affiliated Media.

And although Twitter sends tweaked the classification slightly to government funded media, the outlet has already made up. Its mine. Uh, it's a short article, so, but you kind of already get it. Um, the, the credibility of many, many of these companies is gone. And under that idea, I'm assuming it would probably be most of our news media outlet companies that would be labeled in the same exact way, but I did find that to be interesting.

And then last but not least, let's go ahead and talk about this. All right. The biggest leak. Since 2011 of US military documents, this says, and this comes from the hill. The biggest leak of classified document documents in a decade created a sprawling crisis in Washington this week. As records detailed alleged US spying on the Allies insights into American thinking on the war of Ukraine, and at least two neutral companies mulling plans to support Russia.

Penta gone. Officials are still reviewing the documents for validity, and the Justice Department is overseeing a criminal investigation of the leak. At least one of the documents containing casualty estimates appear to have been altered, but it's unclear how many of the roughly 100 records were manipulated in those documents that they're saying were altered, which you gotta remember when we go back to the ghost of Kiev and how much propaganda has gone into the war going on in Ukraine.

You have to remember how much propaganda has gone into this. So I don't think it's compelling to immediately write off some of these comparisons and they don't seem that far off. Um, the, the comparison said that there was, for every Ukrainian soldier or for every Russian soldier that died, four Ukrainian soldiers died, which to me just makes sense with how large Russia's, uh, military forces compared to Ukraine's, even despite the amount of help that they were getting from other NATO countries.

This goes on to say that the documents have circulated online since March and probably as early as January before, picking up attention last week after a New York Times report. There are many more documents to come, but the leak has already done a lot of damage forcing crucial US allies to respond in what has become an arguably embarrassing incident for Washington and the United States.

Here are the seven biggest revelations in this document so far. Now this is the seven biggest revelations that the Hill is willing to come out and say. Now it was a reminder The hill came out and called, uh, Robert Kennedy Jr. An anti-vaxxer in its opening headline. So I believe that the Hill has gone more left leaning and, and more state media than they were prior.

We saw that after they got rid of one of their, uh, more notable anchors who was, uh, prominent in speaking out against some of these types of things. Um, but here are the top seven things that they called us out as. And that's not to say that maybe there's more to come or that they're hiding some of these things, but, um, here they are.

Ukraine, air Defenses system in peril, munitions of for Soviet. Era, air defense, say Soviet era, air defense, Soviet air, air defense, Soviet air, air defense, um, systems deployed by Ukraine will soon run out potentially imperiling, uh, Kiev in the war against Russia. They basically have three weeks worth of munitions left for 89% of Ukraine's air defenses is what these documents leaked and said the, the next thing that that checks off the list here is Pentagon cast doubt on Ukraine's spring counter offensive.

Ukraine is expected to launch a major counter offensive this spring, but the US is doubting Kiev's ability to retake significant territory. A top secret document says it goes on to have the next one as US. Intel on Russia could now be. The documents also contain information about Russia's forces in Ukraine, which the US obtained through intelligence gathering all the buzz surrounding the leak is likely to lead to a crackdown in Moscow on communications intercepts and internal leaking.

Now, these types of leaks, I don't know if I'm exactly like waving my arm at as a great thing. This seems to be embarrassing for the United States. This this does not seem to be helpful to the United States in any which way. Um, that, you know, I, I'm not pro Ukraine and I'm not pro-Russia. I'm anti against this entire war and, and definitely anti against NATO encroaching on this war to start to send our children to war for this.

Um, but, uh, I do not think that this is like a positive win. This isn't like, uh, WikiLeaks coming out and saying that they were spying on us. You know, it's not against our government in a way that is helpful to the American people. This is just potentially hurtful in, in our military efforts. Um, it goes on to say that the next one is South Korea was concerned about supplying munitions to the us.

Um, it pointed to potential US spying on South Korea, a major ally in the Indo Pacific. So this document came out and said that we were spying in South Korea, and the leaked paper said South Korea was open to supplying the US with artillery shells to replenish American stocks. But privately, Seoul was concerned about the munitions being diverted to Ukraine.

So even South Korea was concerned that if they helped the US by supplying us with stuff that we would just give it right back to Ukraine. Um, it's said that a significant number of US leak documents were forged, citing a recent conversation between the defense chiefs from both nations. It goes on to say the Egypt.

Egypt secretly planned to supply Russia with rockets. Now the problem with this is that Egypt has been a historical ally of the United States. So to hear that they were secretly planning to support Russia is a pretty pressing issue for us. Right. And we're starting to see that, you know, who's drawing the line here?

Right. Egypt's pushing more towards Russia, China and Russia just decided to stop trading in the u s D for oil. Um, we we're, we're starting to see the line be drawn in the sand, and we're starting to see countries taking sides. And that to me is, is a pretty concerning thing to see. Right. And even the UAE agreed to work with Russian spy agents against the UK and the us.

Um, which again, primarily been a partner in the Middle East for us. Um, now maintaining close ties with Russia. So as we see things start to heat up, um, This document is not helpful for the United States. It's not helpful for the United citizenship. It's, it's sad to see that this has come out. Um, I'm not against things being leaked, but, but in this matter, I'm not just like rooting that all of this military intelligence got leaked.

I, I don't think that it's helpful. Um, so that's all I gotta say about that. All right. So I hope you guys learned something today. I hope you found out a little bit more about the Bud Light situation. Um, heard my facts, learned a little bit more about how to use G P T to, uh, you know, tease out your own arguments maybe a little bit better.

And, uh, that's all I got. So I hope you guys have a great week.