reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The three largest asset managers in the world, BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard, control over $20 trillion of people's money without their knowledge. These firms are major shareholders in companies like Microsoft, Apple, Disney, Pepsi, and Coca Cola. This lack of competition is concerning because when both sides of the competition are controlled by the same actors, it undermines the idea of a free market economy. The reason behind this control is that institutions like CalPERS and New York State Pension Fund, which are government actors, demand that these asset managers adopt certain racial and gender ideologies and vote shares accordingly in order to manage their money. This requirement extends beyond just California's money.

The wealthy business interests control everything, not politicians. They own land, corporations, and media. They lobby for self-interest, not critical thinking citizens. They want obedient workers, not informed individuals. The system benefits them, not the people. It's a rigged game, but many are unaware or indifferent.

Nicole Shanahan and Harmeet Dhillon discuss a broad critique of how culture, law, and politics are shaping America today, focusing on cancel culture, political power, and the fight over election integrity, free speech, and American ideals. - On cancel culture and authenticity: The conversation opens with a claim that pursuing political or cultural conformity reduces genuine individuality, with examples of how people are judged or pressured to parroting “woke” messaging. They argue that this dynamic reduces people to boxes—race, gender, or immigrant status—rather than evaluating merit or character, and they describe a climate in which disagreement is met with denunciation rather than dialogue. They stress the importance of being able to be oneself and to engage across differences without being canceled. - Personal backgrounds and the RNC moment: Nicole Shanahan describes an impression of Harmeet Dhillon speaking at the RNC, highlighting the sense of inclusion across faiths, races, and women in the party. Dhillon emphasizes that this is not about a monolith “white Christian nationalist” stereotype, recounting her own experiences from Dartmouth, where she encountered hostility to stereotypes and where merit-based evaluation (writing, argumentation) defined advancement rather than identity. - Experiences with California and liberal intolerance: Dhillon notes a pervasive intolerance in California toward dissent on topics like religious liberty and climate justice, describing a glass ceiling in big law for pro-liberty work and a culture of signaling rather than substantive engagement. Shanahan adds that moving away from the Democratic Party to independence has induced personal and professional consequences, such as colleagues asking to be removed from her website due to investor concerns, reflecting broader fears about association in liberal enclaves. - Diversity, identity, and national identity: They contrast the freedom to define oneself with the coercive “bucket” approach to identity. They argue that outside liberal coastal enclaves, people feel freer to articulate individual identities and values, while California’s increasingly prescriptive DEI training is criticized as artificial and limiting. - The state of discourse and the danger of intellectual conformity: The speakers warn of a culture where questioning past work or adopting new ideas triggers denouncement and self-censorship. They cite anecdotal experiences—loss of board members, fundraising constraints, and professional risk for those who diverge from prevailing views—claiming this suppresses valuable work in fields such as climate science, criminal justice reform, and energy policy. - Reform efforts and the political landscape: They discuss the clash between incremental, evidence-based policy and a disruptive, progressivist impulse. Shanahan describes attempts to fix infrastructure of the criminal justice system through technology and data (e.g., Recidiviz) that were undermined by political dynamics. They emphasize the importance of practical, measured reform and cross-partisan cooperation, the need to focus on American integrity and governance, and the risks of pursuing “disruption” as an end in itself. - Election integrity and lawfare: A central theme is concern about how elections are conducted and contested. Dhillon outlines a view of targeted irregularities in swing counties and cites concerns about ballot counting, observation, and legal rulings. She argues that left-wing funders have built a sophisticated, twenty-year, lawfare apparatus, using nonprofits and strategic lawsuits to influence outcomes, notably pointing to the Georgia ballot-transfer activities funded by Mark Zuckerberg and his wife. She asserts that there is a broader pattern of using C3s and C4s to push political objectives while leveraging the law to contest elections. - The role of money and influence: They discuss the influence of wealthy donors, political consultants, and media in shaping party dynamics, suggesting Republicans should invest more in district attorney races, state-level prosecutions, and Supreme Court races to counterbalance the left’s long-running investment in the electoral apparatus and litigation strategy. They acknowledge that big donors and activist networks can coordinate to advance policy goals, sometimes at the expense of on-the-ground, local accountability. - Tech, media, and corporate power: The dialogue covers the Silicon Valley environment, James Damore’s case at Google, and the broader issue of woke corporate culture. Dhillon highlights the disproportionate power of HR in big tech and how employee activism around identity politics can influence careers and policy. Shanahan notes that Google’s founders are no longer central decision-makers, and argues for antitrust and shareholder-rights actions to challenge what they see as woke monopolies that do not serve shareholders or society. - The path forward: Both speakers advocate for courage to cross party lines, work for principled governance, and engage in issue-focused collaboration. They emphasize the need to reform infrastructure—electoral, health, educational, and economic—through competency, transparency, and bipartisan cooperation, rather than through dogmatic, identity-driven politics. They close with a mutual commitment to continuing the conversation, finding common ground where possible, and preserving the core American ideal that individuals should be free to define themselves and contribute to the country’s future.

The speaker points out that major media outlets like CNBC, Fox, and CNN are owned by Vanguard and BlackRock, who are also the top shareholders of vaccine manufacturers Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson, and Moderna. They mention that Vanguard and BlackRock are also the top shareholders of flight companies that have implemented strict travel restrictions and of junk food companies. The speaker suggests that this control extends to social media platforms like Meta (formerly Facebook), Snapchat, Twitter, and Google, which are all pushing the same narrative as the media. They conclude that Vanguard and BlackRock are behind it all.

The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) is a bank that most people in business and banking don't understand. The BIS owns 40% of the assets of the 43,000 companies traded on capital markets and pulls down 60% of annual earnings. Its board of directors is composed of 15 governors of central banks. The media has been bought off and is hoodwinking citizens by peddling the corporate interests of the moneymasters that control the political establishment. Eighteen boards of directors sit on five giant media corporations, serving on boards from Monsanto to weapons to food. To understand power, understand who nominates candidates, not who votes for them. The percentage of the population that participates in the nomination process is less than 5%, and really less than 1%. The system is compared to a "democracy" where the only options are cheeseburgers or fried chicken.

A video showed 100 people all saying President Biden is sharp as a tack, questioning if they were told to say that. The speaker points out that if asked about Elon Musk, people would have varied responses, but here they all repeated the same words. This lack of diverse opinions highlights a lack of honest media and a lack of checks and balances on power.

Education will never improve because the "owners of this country" don't want it to. These "real owners" are the wealthy business interests that control everything, not the politicians who only provide the illusion of choice. These owners possess everything, including land, corporations, and the government. They control the Senate, Congress, state houses, city halls, and judges. They also own the major media companies, thus controlling the news and information the public receives.

Education struggles because the true owners of this country—wealthy business interests—control everything. Politicians are merely a facade, giving the illusion of choice while the real power lies with those who own the land, corporations, and media. Their goal is to maintain a population of obedient workers, not critical thinkers. They want people just smart enough to perform tasks but not question the system, which has been deteriorating for decades. As they seek to reclaim retirement funds and Social Security, the average citizen remains unaware of the manipulation. This is the reality of the American dream: it requires being asleep to believe it.

The US has twice as many toxic chemicals in the same products compared to other high-income countries. For example, US Quaker Oats, Mountain Dew, Heinz ketchup, and Doritos contain ingredients like high fructose corn syrup, yellow 5, brominated vegetable oil, and artificial colors, which are absent in their UK counterparts. The reason for this is that the same shareholders own the food and healthcare industries. Top shareholders of companies like Pepsi and Kellogg's also have major stakes in the healthcare industry. This creates a system where the population is poisoned through food, leading to increased healthcare needs and financial dependence, especially since the US spends the most on healthcare without universal coverage. These same entities also own major media outlets like Sony, Disney, CNN, Comcast, PBS, and Fox, enabling further manipulation of consumer behavior.

The media is controlled by a few corporations like Disney, Fox, Westinghouse, and GE. They can say whatever they want and silence those who disagree. They rarely talk about the negative aspects of the nuclear industry, like Westinghouse being sued for fraud or GE operating nuclear bomb plants. These corporations receive billions in subsidies from the government and use tax money to support congressmen. They also dump toxic waste and GE made the bullets that shot JFK. When you buy products sponsored on this show, you contribute to this chain. McDonald's was ignored because they made jokes about O.J. Simpson. Lord Michael and Barry went to the same high school.

A few mega corporations control various industries worldwide, with institutional investors holding the majority of shares. These investors are the same across different sectors, from food and technology to travel and mining. They own major companies like PepsiCo, Coca Cola, Facebook, Alphabet, and more. The power of these investors extends to raw materials, manufacturing, and even payment methods. This small group influences every aspect of our lives, from the products we use to the services we rely on.

Other countries graduate more scientists than the US, and education is to blame. Politicians hide behind the flag, the Bible, and children. The real owners of the country, wealthy business interests, control everything. Politicians are just there to make you think you have a choice. They don't want a population capable of critical thinking, just obedient workers. They want your retirement money and will give it to their Wall Street friends. The game is rigged, but most Americans remain ignorant. The American dream is a lie, and you have to be asleep to believe it.

"99% of the media is run by a single group of people, and that 1% that is not That's crazy." "A complete, like, ethnic Yeah. Monopoly, an ethnical monopoly." "They know exactly what they're doing." "through the media, do you have a lot of social control?" "I really believe our democs is the illusion of choice." "Republicans and Democrats. They all they all work for the same freaking people." "it's the illusion of opinion." "left one CNN, right wing Fox News, run by the same people." "They have you arguing over this, like, small stuff." "they all want you to agree on Israel." "there are certain things they want you to agree on, then you have to argue on it." "It's the illusion of opinion. Democracy, illusion of choice. The media, illusion of opinion."

Three Wall Street investment firms, BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, are the major stockholders of 95% of American corporations. This consolidation of ownership means that companies like General Motors and Ford, once owned by individuals, are now controlled by these firms. This situation arose from greed, with these firms strategically acquiring more and more assets. While their actions are legal, the speaker suggests that these firms influence the laws themselves.

Home media is controlled by a few corporations due to FCC deregulation. These corporations own networks like CVS and CNBC, allowing them to control narratives and suppress dissenting opinions. PCBs come from electric power plants. GE was boycotted for operating nuclear bomb plants. A footnote protects you from folks who doubt what you say.

A few corporations control home media, shaping opinions and silencing dissent. PCBs are harmful chemicals that can cause cancer. The nuclear industry rarely faces criticism, despite instances of fraud and operating nuclear bomb plants for profit. These issues are often overlooked or dismissed as insignificant.

Very few American political issues actually affect individuals. The Middle East wars and chaos primarily impact American corporations through trade, oil, and political alliances. Trade agreements with China have minimal impact on individuals, maybe affecting the price of goods. Corporations, however, gain or lose massive amounts of money based on these trade relations. The American government works hand in hand with American corporations. People are being brainwashed to believe they can change war and terror. While tragic, these issues do not affect individual lives.

The speaker points out that major media outlets like CNBC, Fox, and CNN are owned by Vanguard and BlackRock, who are also the top shareholders of Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson, and Moderna. They mention that Vanguard and BlackRock are also the top shareholders of flight companies and junk food manufacturers. The speaker suggests that this control extends to social media platforms like Meta, Snapchat, Twitter, and Google, which they claim are pushing the same narrative as the media. They emphasize that these companies are profit-driven.

Banking, social media, and other industries have seen significant consolidation, intertwining government influence with private companies. Although these companies are privately owned, their leaders often comply with government directives to avoid investigations and legal repercussions. This dynamic resembles the social credit system in China. The recent trucker strike illustrates how threats to essential services, like insurance, can exert control without direct government intervention. The insurance industry has also consolidated, leaving a few regulated companies that can effectively deny coverage if the government disapproves. There is no constitutional right to insurance, and thus no appeal process exists for individuals affected by these decisions.

Speaker 0 argues that the central business idea is to aim for monopoly and avoid competition, asserting that “competition is for losers.” He defines a valuable company with a simple formula: it creates x dollars of value for the world (value created) and captures y percent of x (the share of value captured). He stresses that x and y are independent: a very large value can be captured only a small fraction, and a modest value can yield a big business if the capture rate is high enough. To illustrate, he contrasts the US airline industry with Google’s search business. Airlines, though larger in domestic revenues (about 195 billion versus Google’s 50 billion in a given period) have lower profit margins and a long-history of limited profitability, with cumulative profits in the US about zero; Google, despite a smaller revenue base, is far more valuable. This demonstrates the difference in x and y across industries. He describes a spectrum from perfect competition to monopolies, noting that “there are exactly two kinds of businesses in this world: perfectly competitive and monopolies,” with little that sits in between. He contends that many companies disguise their true market power: monopolists pretend there is incredible competition to avoid regulation, while non-monopolists pretend to have monopolies by narrating their markets as larger than they are. The result is a distortion in how markets are perceived. Using examples, he explains the recurring lies: a monopoly will describe its market as vastly big with substantial competition; a non-monopoly will describe its market as very small. He cites restaurants as a typical example of a terrible business, where biotech or Hollywood filmmaking narratives may be used to inflate market size; in contrast, a dominant player like Google or Facebook often benefits from being a “monopoly in a dimension” rather than a broad, single market label. He emphasizes four monopoly characteristics: proprietary technology, network effects, economies of scale, and branding. In tech, software is especially strong on economies of scale due to zero marginal cost, enabling rapid scaling. He notes that a lasting monopoly matters more than a temporary one; being the last mover in a category (the last company in a category) is more valuable than being the first mover. He cites Microsoft as the last operating system, Google as the last search engine, Facebook as potentially the last social network, and argues that durable value comes from a monopoly that endures far into the future, where most value lies in cash flows years ahead (e.g., PayPal’s growth in years beyond 2011–2020 accounted for a large share of value). He discusses how to build monopolies: start with small markets to gain a large share, then expand concentrically; example trajectories include Amazon starting as a bookstore and expanding into many e-commerce forms, eBay evolving from pez dispensers to broader auctions, and PayPal’s early market of power sellers. He cautions against big markets—especially in “clean tech” eras—where too much competition can prevent durable monopolies. He notes several related ideas: branding can create real value, but it’s not always explainable; network effects often require a strong initial position to be valuable; and the durable value of a monopolistic model depends on long-term viability rather than short-term growth. He emphasizes that the temptation to rationalize success as the result of “the best product” or “the smartest people” can obscure the structural economics of x and y. Towards the end, he reflects on the broader history of science and technology, suggesting that scientists often do not capture value (y ≈ 0%), while some technologies create enormous societal value without corresponding personal rewards. He differentiates vertically integrated monopolies (Ford, Standard Oil) as historically valuable but less common today; he points to Elon Musk’s Tesla and SpaceX as examples of complex vertically integrated monopolies that coordinate multiple parts, including distribution, to capture profits. He highlights software’s unique advantage due to cheap marginal costs and rapid adoption, which helps monopolies scale, though the time dimension remains critical: most value lies far in the future, requiring durability over time. Finally, he critiques common rationalizations for competitive behavior, arguing that the structure of the market—whether x and y are large or small, durable or fleeting—matters more than narratives about science, software, or growth, and urges a reevaluation of competition as validation. He closes by inviting attendees to consider going through “the vast gate that no one’s taking” instead of the crowded, narrow doors of popular competition. Q&A highlights: distinguishing true monopolies from perceived competition hinges on the actual market size and characteristics; examples like Palantir and iPhone/PayPal illustrate varied monopoly signals (network effects, proprietary tech, branding, scale); lean startup thinking is criticized in favor of a more transformative, large-delta approach; and the idea of being the last mover is reiterated as central to lasting value.

There is no need for a formal conspiracy to control America. The people in power have similar interests and connections, such as attending the same universities and being part of the same clubs and boards. The number of major oil companies has decreased from 7 to 3, soon to be 2. In this country, choices that matter have been limited, with only 2 political parties and a handful of insurance companies. However, when it comes to less significant things like bagel flavors, there is an illusion of choice with 23 options.

Publicly traded companies like Pepsi, Nike, and Starbucks are in billions of dollars of debt. To maximize profit, CEOs take on debt to open new markets, then make more stock available to the public. Investment firms like BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street buy the stock, gaining enough ownership to influence corporate boards. Board members are aware that firms like BlackRock can replace them if they don't comply. BlackRock demands companies practice ESG, pushing climate change and social agendas. Failure to comply can result in the removal of board members and the CEO. Private companies like X and Bass Pro Shop are protected from this influence. Elon Musk made X a private company, preventing firms like BlackRock from leveraging it. Bass Pro Shop, controlled by its founder, doesn't promote social agendas. The speaker advocates supporting private companies and promotes his private homeschool community and books on topics like the Bill of Rights, free speech, and ESG.

I used to be a committed Democrat, supporting figures like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton. However, I've noticed a divide in Silicon Valley's social scene. There are two types of dinner parties now: one where everyone shares the latest views from The New York Times, which I no longer attend, and another where people engage in open discussions and have fun, like gatherings with David Sacks and others. This reflects a broader cultural shift towards more meaningful conversations. It's comforting to be with people who are thoughtful and insightful, rather than those who simply follow popular narratives.