D (3:44)

Thank you for having me. The reports of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Nargis Mohammedi are, in fact, horrifying. The credible report is about being beaten repeatedly with wooden sticks and battens, being dragged across the ground, parts of her scalp being teared out of her head, causing open wounds, repeatedly kicked in the pelvis, in the genitals, leaving her unable to sit, unable to live normally, with severe pain. And at the same time, the heavy interrogations have continued, the imitation intimidation have continued, and she continues to be denied adequate, sustained medical assistance. So this is consecutive cruel and inhumane treatment, a blatant violation of international human rights law.

B (4:55)

In the meantime, we have received a statement from her husband, who is himself a political activist. He is outside of Iran. His name is Ta' I Rahmani and he has written, nargis Mohammad Yehud, human rights defender, was savagely beaten and arrested with shocking and excessive violence. For years, both inside prison and outside, Nargis has done nothing but advocate for justice and human dignity. It is clear that this violence is deliberate, an attempt to intimidate her, silence her and force her to abandon her work. This treatment is cruel, unlawful and utterly indefensible. I mean, you're saying some of the same things, but your reaction to her own husband. I mean, it was her children who had to accept her Nobel because she couldn't come out of Iran last year. And I just wonder what you think about what he said.

D (5:52)

Well, we totally agree with Mr. Kamani that this is inhumane treatment. It's been going on for a long time. But we, as all other international observers, have observed the unlawful mass killings also in the last couple of weeks. And we see this brutal repression that followed the mass protest as another grim example of the repression from the regime. And the treatment of Nagis Mohammedi is being increased in the last weeks. So this is worrisome and we definitely worry about that. She will not be able to live any longer. She has heart disease. She has medical needs which is not being taken care of.

B (6:43)

You know, Mr. Fredas, talking about her health, I interviewed her when she was given a brief sort of medical furlough. And she spoke then about how she was kicked in the chest despite her known heart and other, you know, weaknesses and so it's important that you point out how grave danger she's in. But have you, as the Nobel committee spoken to, conveyed your concern and as you said, the fact that you consider this horrifying to the Iranian government, what can you actually do, if anything?

D (7:19)

Of course, that is the most important question. Of course, we have to appeal to the regime in Tehran to take. Uphold international law and to uphold their. To not have their violation of these laws, but also to appeal to the international community to persist in its effort to ensure that Ms. Mohammedi's safety is taken care of and to uphold the universal principle for which she so bravely stands for. So this is a call both to the regime in Iran, but also to the international community to put pressure on them so that Ms. Mohammedi's safety is taken care of.

C (8:08)

Let me.

B (8:09)

Because she is an incredibly brave person and she has endured a lot of prison time and the violence that you're now recounting, she, when I spoke to her, said that despite the dangers, she was absolutely committed to keeping on fighting for democracy. This is what she told me from Iran. Not even the prison walls and all these convictions can ever stop me. And I feel that alongside the Iranian people, I have to go towards democracy and equality. And I hope that we will see victory. And it may not be an easy path, but I am determined in my belief because of the conditions that exist in my country, Iran. So this is a very, very brave champion for human rights. She's obviously continues to. To play out exactly the reason you awarded her the Nobel Prize. What, what do you think? This kind of, and apparently according to her children, the maltreatment of her increased after she was awarded the prize. What does it say to you about. Sometimes, I know people are concerned. If we spotlight some of these people who are in danger, maybe it makes things worse for them. On the other hand, it also gives them, I suppose, a platform and international recognition.

D (9:39)

You're correct, Lee. That is always a very difficult part of the decision making for who should be the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. Because, yes, you say it could both protect you, but it could also highlight the dangers for Ms. Mohammedi. She has been a steadfast human rights defender for many, many years. She has taken those risks many years also before being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. But she continues to stand for what she believes in women, life, freedom for democracy of the people in Iran. And we've seen now how countless of women and men have risked their lives to the same things. Freedom, equality, basic human rights in Iran for a Long time but not least the last couple of weeks. And the reaction from the regime has been brutal.

B (10:40)

We were, as you were speaking, seeing images of the Nobel ceremony when she was awarded and it was her children who accepted it for her. Afterwards, I spoke to her daughter Kiana, and this is what she told me.

E (10:57)

The last time I saw my mother was when I was nine years old, which was in 2015. That was the last time I saw her. So it has been about eight years that I have not physically been in her presence. And it's been two years since I last heard anything from her. Phone calls have been absolutely blocked officially for quite a while. They keep on adding these extra months of sentence, as you say, after she received the Nobel Peace Prize, because the government now sees her as even more of a threat. They are finding new ways to silence her as much as possible and to isolate her from all contact with the outside world.

B (11:38)

So, Mr. Fredas, that was even before. What's happened to her right now? Can I just ask you, how did you get word of her current condition and the violence that's being meted out to her in prison?

D (11:53)

Well, of course, we do have close contact with the family. It's important also to say that we need to support her children, which were in Oslo, and to receive the prize on her behalf. These are from credible reports within Iran. Of course, I cannot say who they are because of their safety, but we are receiving credible reports about this brutal arrest, about the physical abuse, and about the ongoing situation of Ms. Mohammedi.

B (12:31)

Okay. Finally, President Trump is constantly talking about how he should be awarded the Nobel Prize. I'm obviously not going to ask you about that, but he is currently having talks in Washington with the Israeli Prime Minister. Most people think it's about what to do, maybe a military strike on Iran. But the fact is you just said that the international community should uphold and put as a central plank human rights. I don't know whether you agree, but they've never done that about IRAN in the 47 years of this republic. All they've talked about is nuclear and terrorism and this. I wonder whether you think that that is a big deficiency in the policy towards Iran.

D (13:15)

Well, our role is not to talk about what the policy of different countries should be. However, we appeal to the international community, whoever are in contact with the Iranian regime, that they should uphold the rule of law, should uphold the safety of protesters, and for this case, first and foremost, also the, the safety and the well being of our Nobel Peace Vice Laureate, Nargis Mohammadi. So to talk about These violations is necessary. And to demand the unconditional and immediate release of Nargis Mohammadi should also be part of those discussions.

B (13:59)

Well, Jurgen Friedness, the head of the Nobel Committee, thank you so much for putting this very important issue front and center and alerting the world. And of course, we are reaching out to the Iranian government for a response to all of these allegations. Coming up, a midwife in rural Iran defying the regime's restrictions on women. That's the focus of the Oscar nominated documentary Cutting Through Rocks. I speak to its directors. Demolition Man. That is what European security experts are calling President Trump. In this year's Munich security report ahead of the annual conference, its authors say that we are in an era of, quote, wrecking ball politics. With, quote, the US led post1945 international order now under destruction. Let's bring in NATO's former Secretary General and former Danish Prime Minister Anders Vo Rasmussen from Washington. Welcome to the program. You're in Washington and you're about to go to Munich. Let me just ask you, does that language strike you as pretty correct? Destruction, wrecking ball politics, Demolition Man.

F (15:21)

Yeah, I think it's a correct description of the current state of affairs. I'm very much concerned about the threat towards the transatlantic alliance. And my conclusion is clear. Europe must step up to the plate. We need to be able to stand on our own feet in Europe.

B (15:46)

How can you tell me? Because that's what Trump's allies say. They say, well, look, we're just stating the obvious, that Europe actually needs to pay more, do more after these 80 years for its own security and defense and prosperity.

F (16:03)

It's across the board. I fully agree with the French President Macron, who stated that Europe is in a state of security emergency. That's actually a very precise description of the current situation. We have to shift gear. Europe must be a superpower militarily, economically, politically, if we are to be taken seriously in Washington, in Moscow and in China.

B (16:41)

So you were obviously Danish prime minister, but also head of NATO, the transatlantic military defense alliance. I remember every time certain mostly French or German presidents used to talk about having a European army, the United States would say, no, no, no, no, we don't need that. Is there a little bit of a sort of now they say we do need it and perhaps Europe isn't as prepared as it should be.

F (17:10)

I think we need to strengthen the European pillar within NATO. I do believe that NATO will remain the cornerstone of European and North Atlantic security. But within NATO, we should strengthen the European pillar centered around a Coalition of the willing, a number of European countries capable and willing to do what is needed to defend ourselves in Europe.

B (17:38)

Is that because you don't think the United States, I mean, I think you just said you think it'll, you know, stay in NATO and it's not going to pull out. But there seems to be a rift and a lack of trust now, particularly the Greenland episode, has concentrated a lot of minds. Let me just quote this from the MSC report. Ironically, the President of the United States, the country that did more than any other to shape the post1945 international order, is now the most prominent of the demolition men. As a result, more than 80 years after construction began, the post war international order is now under destruction. We've talked a little bit about those words, but the President of the United States is very powerful. He runs a very powerful country, a very powerful military, and is able to essentially have his way. How do you come to a sort of a meeting of the minds? Because it's not just about, you know, paying more for your defense. He's interfering in European politics. He's, you know, using trade as a punitive and tariffs as a punitive or weapon. How do you deal with this kind of president?

F (18:53)

I think time has come to stand up against President Trump. There are limitations to his room of maneuver. I met members of Congress and I see there is a strong bipartisan support for NATO, for the transatlantic alliance. There is a strong bipartisan opposition to attacking Greenland in the American people. There is only a small minority that supports that aggressive action. And when President Trump threatened to impose extra tariffs on European countries that did not support his request to require Greenland, the Europeans decided, we are fed up with that behavior. We will unite. And they delivered a collective response to Trump. So there are limitations to his power. Time for flattering is over.

B (20:03)

Well, I was going to ask you that because this whole last year has been one of flattery, appeasement, trying to, you know, jolly him along and, you know, sort of make sure that he doesn't put even more tariffs on them. Do you think the Greenland issue then was a major turning point that will stick? That was a red line that they recognized and realized that they actually have to stand up because otherwise they're going to get rolled.

F (20:27)

Exactly. I think Greenland was a turning point. One thing is the Europeans decided to stand up against Trump. But also on the US Side, reasonable voices told the president that it would be crazy politics to militarily attack a NATO ally. There would be no support in Congress, no support in the American People, I think even in the American military, there were doubts if that would be a legal order. So it was a turning point. Previously, President Xi Jinping also demonstrated that to stand up against Trump pays, the only thing Trump respects is power and a firm stance.

E (21:24)

Hmm.

B (21:26)

Let me first ask you about Ukraine, because one of the other motifs of this year has been Donald Trump essentially treating, for the most part, the president of Ukraine as the adversary and the president of Russia as somehow, you know, the whatever, the ally. I realize there are negotiations and all sorts of things going on. Right now you're in Washington. Do you see any breakthrough that we might want to know about? Because, as you know, President Zelenskyy, according to the ft, has said that, you know, he's willing to have elections, a referendum on any peace deal with once it's agreed.

F (22:03)

I think President Zelensky has demonstrated a clear willingness to move to get a peace deal or a ceasefire. And I don't understand why the American administration continues to put more pressure on Zelenskyy than on President Putin. I have discussed that issue while being in Washington as an examp. There is a proposal in Congress, a bipartisan bill to impose strong sanctions on Russia, but that bill hasn't moved forward. And I find it quite disappointing and embarrassing that we are not able to put more pressure on Putin. The fact is Putin has no incentive to engage in constructive peace negotiations as long as he believes he can win on the battlefield. We have to change his calculus by putting more pressure on him economically and militarily.

B (23:09)

So then let me ask you, because there's been word that some European leaders are talking about direct engagement with Putin again, because they don't want to be cut out of any negotiations that are happening purely with the United States and Russia. So do you think that's a good idea? I mean, if Europe did engage, would that, could that up the pressure?

F (23:31)

Well, of course, it's always reasonable to talk with people, but I have noted that the Kremlin has refused to accept the stationing of troops from NATO countries on Ukrainian soil. It's not for Russia to deal with that. We decide ourselves if we want to deploy troops in Ukraine. But if Russia doesn't accept that we can deploy troops in Ukraine if we so wish, then I don't see any reason to have talks with Russia.

B (24:15)

And finally, you're in Washington. The Prime Minister of Israel, Bibi Netanyahu, is there, meeting with President Trump. All the word is that they're talking mostly about Iran. And I wonder what you think, because certainly many regional allies have been telling President Trump that they cannot afford another war in that region. What do you think is on the horizon?

F (24:39)

First of all, let me say I really admire the Iranian women and all Iranians that are protesting against the current regime in Tehran. And second, I hope that President Trump's strategy to put military pressure actually on the regime in Tehran while at the same time trying to move forward on negotiations will materialize not only in a nuclear deal with Iran, but also a broader deal to cut Iranian financing of the proxies, the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. And finally also to put pressure on the Iranian regime to respect human rights.

B (25:39)

Anders Fohr Rasmussen, former NATO chief and former prime minister of Denmark, thank you very much indeed for being with us. Now back to Iran. A new documentary lays bare the challenges faced by ordinary Iranian women under the Islamic regime, as shown by the experiences of one extraordinary person. Cutting Through Rocks follows Sarah Shaverdi, a midwife in a village in rural Iran who continually defies the conservative restrictions on women. She aims to become the first female counselor elected in her part of the country and once selected, to bring about change and progress to her community. But it is an enormous, possibly impossible task. Now, this is the first Iranian documentary ever to be nominated for an Oscar and its directors, Mohammad Reza Ayni and Sara Kaki are joining the program from Los Angeles. Welcome to the program. It's great to see you. It's a wonderful, wonderful documentary and it shows a whole other side of the of Iran and the challenges of ordinary people. Tell me why you decided to pick this woman in that part of the country. It's way to the northwest. Let me ask you first, Mohammad Riza.

G (26:57)

Yeah. Thank you, Christian. We are so happy to be here and talk about the film. Actually, this story started with Sara hiking here.

B (27:05)

I should have asked her first.

G (27:06)

I was in Tehran.

B (27:08)

Go ahead.

G (27:11)

Yeah, no worries. I can say that I was in Tehran. I'm coming from the community northwest of Iran, Azeri speaking community. And I have a lot of knowledge about the stories that are happening in the film. But for me as a male director to go there and make an intimate film about women was not possible. So I needed someone like Sara. And I'm happy that Sarah one day called me and told me about this story and asked me to go and work on this film cutting through rocks.

B (27:38)

So Sara, tell me about, yeah, tell me about the heart of this woman, Sara. She's also named that your subject. Tell me about her, what her life was and what change she was trying to bring.

C (27:54)

So Basically, when I got ahold of her through extensive research, I found out that I was faced with a tenacious individual who was trying. Towho had already done so much in her community by being a midwife and delivering 400 kids, by being the only female motorcycle rider in the northwest of Iran. And so she told me that she's thinking about running for a council seat. And of course there were a lot of opponents along her way and she wasn't sure if she would ever be elected. But luckily those that she delivered were 18 year old first time voters and she was able to receive a lot of support from men and women, both young teenagers, who wanted her to be elected.

B (28:47)

Okay, that's amazing. I hadn't really clocked that it actually was the kids who had delivered her, you know, who came out. But let's show this little clip of her sort of campaigning, driving her car and she's getting a lot of support from the streets. Here we go. I mean it's, it's very heartwarming. Mohammed, let me ask you, because she does get elected and it is amazing and she gets, you know, it's very celebratory, but then she starts facing pushback, particularly from the men who maybe didn't believe that she was actually going to be a counselor and take all the rights, including having the seal, the stamp that, that you need to, to officiate official documents. Tell me about, about that part of it and how you were able to cover that.

G (29:55)

Of course, it's a very good question actually. When we started working on this film, we had a lot of footage from the election part and then we had a sample reel and we showed it to our colleagues and one of them told us, guys, you have a story here, you have a film ready. A woman fights against patriarchy and she has some opponents and then she wins. But we decided to spend six years more on this film to see how she uses the power. It was really important for us to actually see how she challenges the traditions and how the others are responding to the changes that she's offering. And for us it was really important because every day we wake up reading crazy news coming from different parts of the world. So it was really important to see how a leader using the power to empower others, not controlling, not suppressing and not trying to decide for others, but trying to give them space and creating a safe space for everyone in her community. So we need more people like Sara, or at least we need to support people like Sara, leaders like Sara.

B (31:11)

Let me ask you, Sara, because Muammarza just talked about, you know, everyday waking up and reading things that are going on in the world, not to mention your own country in Iran, where the struggle on a broad stage for the kind of rights that Sara is trying to bring her little rural village is, is. Is intense. And it's obviously been very bloodily crushed. Today is the 47th anniversary since they declared that Islamic republic there. And I wonder what you're thinking about, about your own country right now.

C (31:49)

So obviously, the news that we've been receiving and the idea of not being able to be contacted, contacting our families for the nearly a week a few weeks back, was extremely devastating for us, and it has been for the entire nation, I would say. But on the other side, when we see a tenacious woman like Sara Shahverdi who is bringing hope and trying to shift the culture by thinking, let's think about her for a moment. We have this one woman, the only female motorcycle rider in the northwest of region. And we follow her for eight years. And we see at the end of the film that there are a lot of female motorcycle riders that are accompanying her. Now. Recently she shared with us that as a woman, to ride a motorcycle in this region is not a big deal anymore. Of course, there were a lot of backlashes around along the way, and we witnessed that in this movie. And she also brought that idea of land ownership, you know, shared land ownership. So when we see that this was not an easy journey for her, but when we see these little sparks of hope, that keeps me hopeful about what future can bring.

B (33:23)

And Sarah, your character, you're so sad. Go ahead.

G (33:28)

As you can imagine, we are so sad and upset about what is happening in Iran. And it's hard to explain with words. You know, this was the. You asked about, you know, you shared with your audience about. This is the first Iranian documentary film being nominated. So we wanted to share with our people, but regarding what is happening in Iran, it's even hard for us to celebrate that. But the only thing that give me hope about the future of our country is its people. People like Sara Shahverdi that you saw in the film, or people like Sara Haki as a director behind the camera and by having the same mission to bring change to the community. And actually we both believe that change could come from the community itself. And this is the result of many people that they are fighting and they supporting each other for a good change. And we are here not as politicians, but as storytellers. We have the responsibility to share those stories, to inspire each other and to Remind each other that change is possible in a very peaceful way.

B (34:43)

Let me play another clip because it goes to the heart of what you're saying about Sara in the film and the motorcycle riding and how she's trying to, you know, pay it forward for the other girls. Let's just play this little bit where she's teaching a young girl, Fereshte, how to ride a motorbike. I mean, it's, it's a great scene. Fereste herself, I think, gets in some trouble and Sara is summoned to court and she's interrogated eventually about her policies and about her identity. At one point, they even suggested, why don't you get a sex change or something like that. Because she doesn't come across as the most, you know, traditionally feminine person. Sara Haakee, how did you sort of COVID those sensitive issues as well?

C (36:01)

Let me start by saying that the idea of the way in which women bodies become target targets and battlegrounds are shared concerns worldwide. I have spent half of my life in Iran and the other half in the United States. And as a woman of color, as an immigrant, I see that here in the States as well. And so when we, as well as Sara were faced with this news, we were extremely surprised. And we actually realized that this is really also and that it's more about power rather than gender. They really wanted to say that being a woman and being powerful don't go together. And it was a form of humiliation and just really finding a way to stop her from doing the amazing work that she's doing very well did for over a year.

B (36:57)

It's a really amazing story and congratulations for your Oscar nomination. And of course, you two are married. I missed the headline. So. So it was interesting to see, you know, that work from a married couple. Mohamed Azar and Sara, thank you very much for being with us. And we will be right back after this short break. Now, protest and resistance can take many forms, including by canceling your monthly subscriptions. That's the thinking behind a new campaign by professor and author Scott Galloway. He's calling on Americans to stand up to Trump administration's immigration policies by unsubscribing from big tech companies that enable ice. And he's joining Hari Srinivasan to explain why economic strikes like these are, quote, a weapon hiding in plain sight and an effective way to take a stand.

H (37:54)

Christiane, thanks. Scott Galloway, welcome back. Recently you launched a campaign to resist and unsubscribe. In your call to action, you write, first, we must recognize that the president is unfazed by citizen outrage, the courts or the media responds to one thing, the market. The most potent weapon to resist the administration is a targeted month long national economic strike, A coordinated campaign that attacks tech companies and firms, enabling ICE to inflict maximum damage with minimal impact on consumers. Now look, people are going to listen to this idea and say, well, haven't the people that have been protesting in the freezing cold in Minneapolis had an effect? Mean, what is your boycott trying to accomplish in addition?

A (38:38)

Yeah, well that's first off, Hari. It's good to see you. That's the operative term is in addition. I think protests are really inspiring. It just feels good to do something with other people. I think labor strikes are powerful. Getting people registered to vote. Media coverage like you're doing is important. But if you look specifically at where the President has walked back plans to either annex Greenland or walk back tariffs really crisply, it's been when either the bond market falls or the stock market falls. And what I'd like to think we've zeroed in on is if you were going to find the soft tissue of the market right now, it would be 10 companies responsible for 40% of the S and P and that those companies are not only enabling this president or sometimes providing infrastructure for ice, but they're especially susceptible to a slowdown in subscription revenues. So if you were to try and send a message by not shopping for groceries from Kroger, you'd have to get five families to not buy any groceries for a year for the same economic impact as canceling one ChatGPT subscription based on the ratio of revenues to market cap. So I'm trying to figure out a way to impact and send a message to these corporate leaders who the President listens to and to the President with a minimal amount of disruption to consumers lives. And the free gift with purchase here is if like me, you go on to resist and unsub, you're going to find out you have four AT&T accounts, three of which serving iPads, one with a BlackBerry that you haven't used in eight years. You're going to find you have three Apple TV plus accounts. You can find your subscriber to Amazon, one health that you didn't even know you didn't cancel six years ago. So in sum, this is a high impact way to send a message and you might save some money along the way.

H (40:28)

So you target a group of companies, you say two categories. One is called the ground zero and one is called the blast zone. You say ground zero and blast zone. Businesses don't represent the totality of complicity, but rather the jugular of American authoritarianism. Which companies are in which category and how did you decide?

A (40:46)

Well, what I call ground zero is big tech. Companies that trade for trillions of dollars in market capitalization are effectively the people sitting around the table when he prostrates them out for a photo op and who he seems to be obsessed with and quite frankly had figured out that it's a pay for play administration where if they give the President enough money they might have their deal approved or they might be able to skirt tariffs or they might be lining up for government backed debt financing of their data centers or chip facilities. So essentially ground zero is big tech platforms and that's Apple, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and then the blast zone is companies that have much lower market caps but are enabling directly ice, whether it's AT&T Hilton, there's a variety of companies that are specifically and directly aiding ICE's efforts. But I want to be clear, I'm not. As a guy with some economic security, I don't feel like it's up to me to be or my right to be the arbiter of telling who to subscribe from. What I'm trying to make it easy for people to unsubscribe and send a message. And also you may decide that you want to just pause it and then resubscribe in March or you might decide that you didn't need this stuff and you want to keep sending a message. What I'm trying to do is send a signal to consumers that a weapon hiding in plain sight, if like me, they want to send a message and they want to feel as if they're doing something, that that weapon is the most radical act in a capitalist society and that is non participation. And all of us could probably afford to spend a little bit less. Similar to dry January where a lot of people recalibrate their alcohol intake after a month. This is a chance to recalibrate your automatic renewal subscriptions where you probably are spending too much money.

H (42:45)

You've got yourself a protest cynic in the past. What changed?

A (42:48)

You know Hari, when I, when I saw Secretary Noem describe Alex Preddy, an ICU nurse serving veterans, as a domestic terrorist and claim that he was brandishing a weapon with intent to massacre federal agents, I was so rattled by that statement, both in terms of a lack of respect for the dead and sort of this Orwellian call to ignore our eyes and ears, that I decided I wanted to do more than just Hector from the cheap seats and one of the reasons I've been able to have such a nice life is when I was younger, I wasn't that afraid of public failure. I've started a lot of businesses, applied for jobs I wasn't qualified for. And I worry as I get older, I'm getting much more prone and comfortable with complaining and hectoring and not acting. So I wanted to get on the field and I wanted to do something. And like Dan Harris says, action absorbs anxiety. This feels really good to actually be trying to do something, you know, I.

H (43:48)

Wonder if this kind of a protest works, if it's long enough as you've described. These are enormous companies. Can't they just ride this out? Will they even notice if, let's say tens of thousands of people unsubscribe, but they have millions of customers?

A (44:06)

Oh, 100%, but, you know, death by a thousand cuts. If there's enough cuts, you do have an impact. I'm very analytical. I'm getting between 60 and 100,000 or we're getting between 60 and 100,000 unique visitors to the site resistantunsub.com I've loaded both all the site analytics, my email inbox, my social media platforms, screenshots to both ChatGPT and Clothe, the free versions, and asked it to estimate the number of unsubscribes we're on track for in February. And right now it's saying we're going to do somewhere between 100 and 200,000 unsubs. I feel like that my math is that'll take out somewhere between 150 and 200 million in market cap out of these companies. My goal is to take a billion. That is not enough. And what I am finding, I've heard from 20% of the CEOs and the way it's been described to me, is the product management teams and management. Middle management's talking about it, but it's not a discussion at the board level yet. But I feel this is just another action in addition to protests, in addition to getting people to register to vote, in addition to media coverage and the great people of Minneapolis, what they're doing. You know, I want to be a small hair in the horse's tail that people notice, but you're right, I'm not. I'm not. So far, I gotta be honest, the administration hasn't backed down. And these companies, I'm not sure I've noticed, but that. I don't think that's a reason to stop. I think every effort counts for something.

H (45:37)

You know, when you hear from these CEOs, when you hear from these different companies, a lot of them will probably tell you, look, nothing that we're doing is illegal. And some of them might use the rationale that, look, my responsibility is to the shareholders of this company and the pension funds and everybody else to make sure that the stock stays up. And it's also a slippery slope. If I decide to back away from this administration or the next one, what am I going to do? How do I keep track? What's your response to them?

A (46:07)

I try to tell them that I think history is pretty blunt and clear around this and I'm remiss to compare this administration to the Third Reich. I think that's unfair. But I think we can draw analogies from late stage Weimar Republic where there was a loss, there was inflation, there was a loss of cultural and economic standing of middle class men. And also you had industrial captains of industry who basically made a deal with some of the fascists, including Hitler himself, that said, if you crush the unions, will ignore this slow burn towards fascism because you're going to make us much richer. And what I hear from these CEOs privately when they text message me is that they're very upset about what's going on, but nobody wants to go first for fear that they're going to be smacked down hard. A good autocrat punishes whoever goes first. So what I'm trying to encourage them to do is to take collective action. But Hari, on a more personal level, what I say to them is, what's the point of having all this money and building such an amazing company if you don't have some fidelity to the rule of law, competitiveness, basic rights. A lot of these folks are immigrants themselves. Of these companies, you know, what do you want to be remembered for? And at a minimum, stop using the term stakeholders, which everyone was using, and just use the term shareholders. Because it feels as if you're ignoring stakeholders, including the US immigrants, the Constitution. But I do have empathy for the fact that unless it's collective action, it's going to be very difficult for any one firm to go first. But I am shocked and disappointed that more of these individuals have not spoken out when they are speaking out privately to each other, but they don't want to speak out publicly. So, you know, again, I go back to the notion, how do you want to be remembered? What's the point of having all this money if you can't be at least nod to some of the principles that have given you so much wealth and helped you build such an Amazing company.

H (48:08)

Yeah. I wonder if we have seen examples of protests that work and protests that don't. I mean, there were calls for people to boycott Tesla while Elon Musk was taking a chainsaw through different government agencies. You had a significant response to, to Disney, for example, when Jimmy Kimmel was canceled for a few days. You know, is this, is it the actual protest or is it the visibility? Is it you and I talking about it that makes a difference?

A (48:40)

That's the correct question. So I've done a deep dive around. First off, let's be clear. The majority of economic protests don't work. They come and go and have no impact. And it's like a tree falling in the forest. And I'll give you two examples, the most recent, Disney and Jimmy Kimmel. When Disney decided to put Kimmel back on the air, the number of unsubscriptions was actually declining. It was media coverage and the impact of their brand that they were worried about. And if you go back to the Montgomery, Alabama strike that people point to as kind of the example of a successful strike, history likes to depict it, or most people think of it as a brave woman refusing to give up her seat. It was actually a 12 month sustained boycott where Dr. King organized carpools. And over the course of a year, the municipal Transportation authority was losing a quarter of a million dollars a month. And then after a year they decided to desegregate the buses. So the reason I'm not calling for a one day strike, I'm calling it for the month of February and I may leave the side up if I can get enough momentum. Maybe we continue it. Ad companies take companies off. But generally speaking, the economic strikes that work are cumulative. They build over time. And it's more about, interestingly enough, not only media coverage, but traditional media coverage.

H (50:01)

Right now it seems like it's really hard for the average American family to extricate themselves from the companies on your list. You know, 83% of U.S. households are shopping with Amazon, which is 40, 40% of all the U.S. e commerce in the country. Right. And when you look at the platform of Amazon where there are thousands of small retailers who really need Amazon to survive, I mean, this seems so inextricably linked that I mean, we don't have kind of a fair marketplace where we can just say, well, I'm not going to use Amazon, I'm going to use this other one that's just as good.

A (50:39)

You're exactly right. When industries are allowed to consolidate to the point where there's just basically oligopolies of non monopolies, they're able to extract greater rents not only in terms of price but in terms of a lack of options. One of my homes in America, I don't like coal fired plants but I'm still going to turn on my lights and that's the only electricity that's offered comes from a coal fired plant. When there's a small number of tech platforms who basically control the media, control e commerce, control search, it gets increasingly difficult to unsubscribe. I think we need a trust buster here to ensure that there are choices which ultimately create a retransfer back of capital and power from shareholders and organizations to labor and to consumers. But the reason why it's so hard to unsubscribe from Amazon prime is what you said. There's just very little choice and very few substitutes and you find that across all these big tech platforms. So in sum, a concentration of industry and monopoly power extracts rents across a variety of dimensions.

H (51:43)

Scott Galloway, professor, podcaster and now activist@resistantunsubscribe.com thanks so much for your time.

A (51:50)

Thank you Hari. Always good to see you.

B (51:54)

And finally, an act of remembrance and resistance at the Olympics. Ukrainian skeleton racer Vladislav Hiroskovich is sporting a helmet helmet that shows images of Ukrainian athletes killed in the war. The Olympic committee says that while they feel his grief, the helmet goes against guidelines. But he told CNN's Amanda Davis that he would defy those rules.

A (52:19)

And I will wear it for the race day. These people sacrifice their lives and because of that I'm able to be here today. I'm able to be at the Olympics and I will not betray them.

B (52:33)

Heroic words indeed. That is it for now. Thank you for watching and goodbye from London.

F (52:47)

News cycle making your head spin.

A (52:49)

The have I Got News for you.

F (52:51)

Crew is here to help with a comic take on the week's headlines. New episodes Saturdays at 9 on CNN and next day on the CNN app.