1/30/23 BP Partners: LastPass, Billionaire Censorship and The French General Strike!

Breakingpoints dot com. Hi, I'm Matt Stoler, author of monopoly focused newsletter Big and an anti trust policy analyst. I have a great segment for you today on this Big Breakdown. It's about how Wall Street and passwords intersect. Now, passwords are an inescapable part of our lives. I have a

lot of passwords, and so do you. I actually have a list, and I tried to count the number I have and I counted nineteen just for the sites and apps that start with the letter A. Of course I can't remember them all because they try to have different passwords for different sites. Now, a cottage industry of solutions has common gone in waves, all trying to help us safely create, store and use dozens of different passwords while

only having to remember one to unlock them all. And in the past few years, a handful of startups competed to be the leader in cross platform password protection and storage. A very popular password management program is called last Pass. In twenty nineteen, the software provider that owns last pass is called Logmian was purchased, however, by two private equity firms,

Francisco Partners and Evergreen Coast Capital Corporation. Now, two weeks after the purchase, last Past raised prices on those who are basically locked into its system. So who are Elliott Management and Francisco Partners. They are what are known as private equity firms, which are giant pools of money run by financiers who buy stakes in private companies and hopes they can sell those stakes for a profit later on.

That seems fine, it's just investment, but for a variety of legal reasons, the financiers behind private equity by companies without putting themselves at risk. If anything goes wrong, the company might go bankrupt or lose money, but the financiers

themselves don't. They are protected by corporate law, and that creates an incentive for destructive behavior because financiers can make a lot of money if things go well, but can't really lose that much if things go badly, they're really losing other people's money, and they're blocked from even losing too much of that. So private equity firms are very short term oriented and tend to make their money by buying companies then raising prices on customers, cutting workers, or

undermining the quality of the product. And this might long term hurt the enterprise value of the company, but in the short term it increases the amount of cash generates and so the amount that they could flip that company for. In this case, Elliott Management and Francisco Partners made Last Pass unusable unless customers paid, and this was active, making it slightly less annoying to pay than to move all

your passwords to a different firms products. Okay, so then late last year, so that's one thing, right, that's pretty annoying, but it kind of happens. Here's the real problem. Late last year, information began to trickle out regarding new management or lack thereof at Last Pass. Apparently hackers had stolen encrypted password vaults from the company, and this hack was all over the internet. Here's what one security pundit said about the breach, But there were many of them who

are talking like this. Last Pass has effectively suffered the worst breach possible for a password management company like it. It could get a little bit worse if they were truly negligent, like willfully malicious, but in terms of not wanting it to happen, it's pretty much as bad as it can get. Last Pass employees fell victim to a

phishing attack in which hackers successfully obtained proprietary information. Phishing, which is spelled with a pH, is when a hacker sends an email or message purporting to be from a reputable source in order to induce someone to reveal personal information, to click on a link, and then often get access to an entire system. So they did this to last

Pass employees and it worked. Now months later, the hackers then used this knowledge to launch an even more sophisticated phishing attack, which subsequently laid led to a data breach during which they took almost all last Pass user data. Though much of it is encrypted, or so it would seem, last Pass Management is under no requirement to tell us exactly what happened, and with the data hackers fished from last Pass, scammers are going to try and trick users

into giving them their passwords for years to come. Now, last Pass itself recommended some extreme measures, including in some cases changing every password you stored in Last Pass. Kind of defeats the whole point of having a password manager. Okay, so the situation can look like a simple hack, something that happens all the time, But let's not lose sight of the root cause here, which is not hackers or port it practices, but a business model focused purely on

financial extraction. Last Pass is one of dozens of examples since poor quality is common in private equity owned software, which means cybersecurity vulnerabilities quickly follow. For instance, the New York Subway was hacked through commercial software it used called Pulse connect Secure. This software was owned by Ivante, a software roll up owned by private equity firm Cheerlake Capital

Group and THA Associates. A few years ago, thousands of companies and government agencies were hacked through this software of a private equity owned company called Solar Winds, which was controlled by the private equity giant Toma Bravo Partners. And now there's last pass. Now, every one of these private equity transactions makes the world ever so slightly worse, And at this point it's time to recognize that ownership and management of software firms by private equity them itself is

a security risk. We can't eliminate hackers trying to do bad things, trying to steal passwords, trying to steal identities and money, but we can change the law to stop Wall Street from burning down the companies who build products designed to protect us. Thanks for watching this big breakdown

on the Breaking Points channel. If you'd like to know more about big business and how our economy really works, you could sign up below for my market power focused newsletter Big in the description, Thanks and have a good one. Joining us now on Counterpoints is the Lever News is

David Sarota. David, welcome, Thanks for joining us, Thank you, thanks for having me, and so we wanted to have you on to talk about some of the latest reporting from Lever, particularly this piece that we can put up here now, the lawsuit that could freeze speech against billionaires by Jordan Yule of Lever News. And so this is about a kind of a defamation case that has been filed against a Beto O'Rourke that could have dramatic implications for the role of money and politics going forward. Can

you talk a little bit about this lawsuit? Sure. During the course of Beto o'rocks scubernatorial campaign, he criticized Republican Governor Greg Abbott for accepting a one million dollar donation from a major oil and gas company CEO pipeline company CEO after weeks after the legislature and Abbot signed a bill it included basically a loophole in weatherization mandates for fossil fuel infrastructure. This was after the storm that shut

down the Texas power grid. So a bill comes through the legislature, it includes language to exempt various parts of the natural gas infrastructure from its mandates, which would require them those companies to make more investments in weatherization. And soon after that happened, the CEO of the company made a one million dollar donation to Governor Abbot. Beto o'rot criticized that, insinuating that it was corrupt, that it was essentially a quid pro quo, it was a reward for

the legislation moving that moved through the Texas legislature. And now the CEO is suing veto O'Rourke saying this is a defamatory saying that criticizing and insinuating that the donation is corrupt is essentially libelists. And what's important here to understand is that this case revolves in part around whether the legal system sees the CEO of this company, Energy Transfer, and the CEO's name is Kelsey Warren, whether the legal system sees people like him as public or private citizens.

Basically a private citizen, it's easier for that person to prove libel a public citizen, the threshold is much much lower. The idea being that if you're in the public arena, the back and forth over your political activity, it has much more flexibility. There's much more allowed for a much

more wide ranging debate. This is a huge free speech case because ultimately, if the courts rule for the plaintiff and say that effectively criticizing money in politics as corrupt money goes in legislation comes out, you could face a political candidates across the country could face financial ruin and financial punishment for saying that in the context of an election. Yeah, I was just going to ask David, what's on the

line here. If we extend this to potential hypotheticals and other campaigns in the future, depending on how this case is ruled, what might that look like going forward? This example, we have a gas executive, but what would that look like in another case, or how might that come up in campaigns if the decision goes in a bad direction. Sure, Look, I mean I think you know you look across the country and there's big debates about where pipelines can be built,

whether fracking and drilling happen. Lots of money goes into the political system from the fossil fuel industry, and what this could do is say to political candidates campaigning in the context of that that if you criticize big donors from the fossil fuel industry or really any industry, and you suggest that the money that's going into the political system is buying something, is going into that system to influence anybody, that you could face a situation where you

are not only sued. Look, anybody can sue anybody in America, but you're not only sued by the donor, but that the courts have created a precedent making it easier for the courts to side with the plaintiff and punish you as a candidate. So essentially it's a message to candidates

that talk about money in politics at your peril. And the term gaslighting is overused in our discourse, but I actually think it really does apply here in this way, in that you're being asked to look at something and see it for what it obviously is, but then being told that you can't describe what it's so very obviously is. And so forget politicians, what about the public here? And what about the press? I would think half of my reporting over my career would constitute defamation if this actually

goes through. Well that's for other reasons, yes, for other reasons. The other half would be defamation for different reasons. But yours, probably one hundred percent of the reporting you've done throughout your career is connecting the dots between money going in and legislation coming out. So what does this do to shows like this or journalism like the kind that you

do over at the lever It's a great question. I mean, yes, the media writ large, no matter what side you're on, should be concerned about this, about the precedent that it could set if we say the legal system says that the CEO, a billionaire CEO of one of the largest pipeline comes companies in the country making million dollar donations.

If the legal system says that person, for the purposes of the law, is a private citizen, not a public figure, that creates a precedent saying that you're right, not only political candidates, but news organizations, advocacy groups and the like on all sides of any issue can face punishment for connecting the dots. It really is a way to freeze free speech against the powerful. And here's the thing. This case is in a court in Austin where, if not

all the justices are elected, they were Democrats. It's an elected court, but it moves to the Texas Supreme Court that is chock full of Republicans. So the case can be appealed by the plaintiff to a much more Republican dominated Supreme court, a Texas Supreme Court, and if he wants,

it can be appealed to the US Supreme Court. To me, this is the biggest free speech case, or at least one of the biggest free speech cases in the country in the society right now, and there's been a lot of talk about free speech with Elon Musk's social media. This is a direct assault on free speech, on the ability and I want to be clear, I know there are some conservatives say, oh, you know, I'm excited that Beto o'rouric is, you know, potentially in legal trouble here.

That's the wrong way in my view to look at this. This is not only about Beto O'Rourke. This is about the entire discourse that how are conservatives going to feel the next time they criticize a democratic billionaire and a democratic billionaire can use this precedent if it's set to go after them, that it is a way to chill speech against or criticizing billionaires wealthy corporations that have unlimited legal resources to file these kinds of cases. I'm just

going to ask that as well. Next with this question of as conservatives have tried to sort of squeeze all the juice out of the populist moment and rhetoric and level all kinds of potentially defamatory accusations against you know, Mark Zuckerberg. If this case were to go in a certain direction, it absolutely would affect their ability to make those arguments. Have you seen any pickup from anyone on the right that's concerned about the implications of this case.

I haven't. And I think part of it, though, is that there's not a lot of awareness of this case, and I think maybe there's a presumption that the courts will throw it out. I don't presume that, knowing that while it is in a democratic dominated court right now, a lower court, it can move up to a republican court. And the question with our courts now, are they going to behave in a partisan way? I mean, on its face, look,

let's be honest. On its face, the idea that the CEO of one of the largest pipeline companies in the country, who's made a million dollar donation into the political system, the idea that that person is just a private citizen is just preposterous and absurd. But this is a politically active company, a politically active billionaire. I think this is

not in my view, I'm speculating here. This is not just about, as the plaintiff said, it's you know, he experienced mental anguish when O'Rourke was criticizing him, and I think it's less about you know, his individual feelings and more about an effort to try to set a precedent about what can be said and what can't be said

about the rich and powerful he can afford the therapy. Yes, and they also they bring up mean tweets in reply, like you said, when you look at little the lever quotes the attorney, his attorney saying, when you look at the comments that his followers put in on his tweets, they believe a Rourke. They believe that mister Warren is a criminal that has engaged in profit over lives of Texans. So literally citing you know, mean mentions replies saying that

this has done kind of you know, created mental anguish. Yeah, and it's no fun to get ratioed, right, sure, but you're sure. I mean I kind of enjoy it sometimes actually shutting down free speech because you don't like getting radio insane, insan, completely insane. And also for any conservatives who are happy that O'Rourke might be out a million dollars, really bad news for them. Guy is super rich. He

married into a very wealthy family. So nobody. Again, That's why I go back to that's why I think this is not necessarily only about this case. I think it's about trying to create a larger legal precedent. Yeah, and billionaires fund these attacks on other billionaires, so I'm curious to see how those are discourse around around this. Sometimes

they fund these attacks. Last question, did your reporting turn up any indication that this is one of those politically strategic lawsuits that's funded by kind of an organization that is trying to create legal crimps on political speech for the benefit of billionaires or is this just a mentally anguished billionaire who just wants to lash out at bet Well.

I'll say this, we haven't discovered that yet, but there are definitely motives that this particular billionaire has that we're going to be reporting in a couple of other stories, in other words, engagements and entanglements that he's been in before. So it's not just he randomly kind of popped up and did this. So stay tuned for our reporting on that, which Well I'm sure wind you in court next right after bet orourk David, thanks so much for joining us,

great reporting, Thank you, thanks to both of you. All right. A Maximilian Alvarez, I'm the editor in chief of the Real News Network and host of the podcast Working People and This is the Art of Class War. On breaking points. France was rocked this past week when well over a million working people across the country took to the streets to protest President Emmanuel Macron's proposed changes to the country's

beloved pension system. Macrome, who was in his second and final term, is pushing to raise the official retirement age from sixty two to sixty four years, and this is not the first time that Macron has pushed for such reforms.

In true diehard neoliberal fashion, Macron managed to piss off practically the entire country three years ago by attempting to force through drastic changes to the French pension system, prompting a general strike that brought everyone from railroad workers to teachers to even museum workers and ballet dancers to the streets in one of the largest mass demonstrations that the

country has seen in a generation. Now. That was right before COVID nineteen turned our world upside down, and I actually published a special episode of my podcast Working People in January of twenty twenty, in which I interviewed eight French workers who were on strike at the time about why they were hitting the streets and why they were

fighting so hard to maintain the existing pension system. One of those workers was Mattheu Boulredat, a train operator and general secretary of the Versailles branch of the CGT Union or the General Confederation of Labor in France. In this Breaking Points exclusive segment, I'm honored to be joined by Mattheu once again, who is calling in from France as

we speak now. Due to the time sensitivity of this interview and the time difference between the East Coast of the United States and France, I could not make it down to DC to the Breaking Points studio to record this interview, so we're recording it today on Sunday, January twenty second from the Real News Network studio here in Baltimore. Matthew, thank you so much for joining us today on Breaking Points. Brother, it's great to see you again. Thank you, Thank you

very much. Max, thank you very much to call me again. Well, I know you got a lot going on and I really appreciate you calling in. It's been a busy week. And before we get to the strike this past week, I wanted to actually take us back to that moment before COVID nineteen in December of twenty nineteen, in January of twenty twenty, when you and your fellow workers hit the streets once again in opposition to Macron's proposed changes

to the pension system. Now, I imagine a lot of folks who are watching this may not remember that too well, or maybe don't know about it at all. So can you just give our viewers and listeners a little background on what those the size of the strikes three years ago, and what they were really about. Yes, of course, first of all, I own you an apology. Excuse me for my bad English. Of course, because I'm French, so I'm lazy,

and especially about my bad accent. My accent, but I think my English is better than your French, so you have to figure out that. So, yes, thank you for this question about twenty twenty, because it's very important. It's the roots of this situation. Now, the president Macron was very confident. Okay. So you try to break our pension system in twenty nineteen December, okay, just like I think three weeks before Christmas, okay, and so we start and

unlimited strike for our stronger sector, unionist sector. Those so, for example, the transport workers you mentioned the opera, It was very important of course there are not plenty, but it's very symbolic. Okay, the postman's, the fireman's, including the camera from refinery or from electric power. And so we start this unlimited strike the December fifth, and there also a sector less strong. Okay, they joined us every Tuesday

for a general strike and massive demonstration in Paris. So it was a huge moment because it was like, for example, for me, I do literally fifty three days of strike, you know, so with two pay, because we have pay by months, not by weeks, two pays with zero a row literally, so it was a huge adventure, you know, a huge fight, and finally we won. We won against him. He take back his bill, and it put it in his natural place, in natural space, the basket, the trush garbage.

So it's and for example, the people from collecting garbage in Paris, in Marseille, the second city of France, was in stride and stride during three or four weeks. So can you imagine the bourgeois. He finally smells the real life on Paris because they have mountained the hill of garbage in all the street in Paris. The tourist was gone, the Palace of Versailles was closed, the Effel Tower was closed,

the underground was tough, et cetera. Because we fighted to defend the legacy of our grandfather who fights against the Nazi fascist occupation. And after the war they build our

social security system. Okay. I know in the USA a lot of politicians called a socialist, and one of the target one of the things they hate is our social security system because is the efficientists in the world, and it's the system we guarantee the less number of pension they are poor in all over the world, less than in USA, of course, but less than in Germany, in England, in Italy, etcetera, etcetera, because we have a very generous system.

For example, the common law is the pension in the common law is sixty two for everybody, okay, and the for the highway, for example, our system it's fifty seven. But for the drivers as me, our system is the punsion in fifty two years old. So basically, in eight years I will do punsion man, and I can and I can do a good travel to meet you in Baltimore and visit your great country. So that that that's that's that's a great legacy, you understand, Okay, I insist

because I know in USA it's definitely not the same system. Okay, So that's a big legacy and we want to keep it. And after there is this crazy COVID pandemic situation in all over the world. So Macrow's stop his attacks. And now he was really acted and it guess what he did it again, you try again to attack our pension system. So the new bill plan in next July two more years for everybody. So for me it will be not

fifty two, it will be fifty four. For the common people it will be not sixty two, it will be sixty four, okay, and the other things. Because there is a troll in the bill. It's you have to work until sixty two, but in sixty two you have not the full pension. You can you can go become pension air, but very poor, and if you want the full pension, you have to continue until sixty seven. So basically the choice to the working class it's you have to choice to be a poor punsionaire in sixty two or a

grandpa an old man at work in sixty seven. Not the choice for us. That's the statistics. The studies from the University from the public organism, from the government, the claims that's sixty four. It's the point where the majority of the manual workers, of the poor people, of the people with casual job dying or start to dye in So it's there this pension bill, it's really it's a

retreatment for the dead people. That's very important because if you are if you work outside on the cold weather or the hot weather, if you walk during the night, very early in the morning, if you if you work with asbestos or with many a tiica laser, et cetera, et cetera, all this difficult condition of work for the majority of the poor people of the working class. Okay, you lose between seven and twelve years of life. That's the point. So it's why it's important to have a system.

We guarantee for our for we the working class, an early retreatment because we will dying soon. That's a problem. So we fight for this principle. We fight for our our by respect to our grandfather who fought for this system against Nazi fascists. We fight for us, and we fight for the next generation. Even for the working class they are not born now. We fight for them. We fight for principle. That's very important. So three days ago we was on general strike. There is seventy percent of

the schools was closed in the entire country. The train, the buses, the metro, the airport was paralyzed, the factory was closed, the refinery was the pipes was turned off, et cetera, et cetera. And we was about two million people in the street in the entire country, including half million people in Paris. And we claim not one years more,

not one euro less. That was our claims. And because the government doesn't want to negotiate with us, we decide a new day of general strike for January twenty one, no thirty one, sorry, thirty one, so in two weeks, ten days basically, and if they still not want to negotiate, we will start in the beginning of February. Then limited strike like in twenty nineteen. I'm sorry, maybe I was long and confused. No, no, that was That was great, brother.

I mean again, it's really important for folks watching and listening to this to have that context. And I wanted to kind of ask you if we could, if we could talk a little bit more before I let you go at that principle at the heart of everything, because I know there are gonna be a lot of folks here in the United States who are thinking, well, I don't have a pension system that allows me to retire at age sixty two, so why should the French have one? Right?

And the French, you and your and your fellow workers are looking at our system where people like my parents will never be able to retire where they work until they die, often in debt, the the the even the notion of retirement is becoming a thing of the past, as you know, and you guys are saying, we don't want what you and the United States have, right. We want the system that we fought for after World War Two because we believe there is more to life than work.

Could you could you? Could you, like I guess, if you could talk directly to people in the United States and beyond about why that is such a sacred principle that it would bring millions of people to the streets. Yeah, you know, it's a it's tricky, uh. The history as many tricks. The working class of the United States, the United States, Sorry, was the lighthouse of our fight in France. Our may day It's coming from your your your martyrdom in Chicago. Okay, we we we we follows you followed,

followed you. You give them the start of the struggle in all over the world. The beautiful strike in Chicago, the beautiful strike in for example, in Patterson, New Jersey. Uh, A lot of a fight in a Mussachusetts, et cetera. And I know I know this stroke from the Republican Party.

They called the Massachusetts taxas set. And it's very important to fight as working class because and I know it's difficult, but I think you are you are, you have the age to listen to that, you're you're a growing up guy. Santa Claus doesn't exist. I know, I know it's difficult to to hear, but Santa Claus doesn't exist. We we don't have collective agreements. We don't have good wages, we don't have pension systems. We don't have free school and

education for all people. Because a sovereign, a president, a good prims minister, a good Congress give it to you to us. We have that because our grandfather or father fight for this. That's very important, and they fight for this, and the majority of them they don't. They could not profit of the benefits of that. They fight for that, for the future, for the children. And we have this legacy in our hands. So who the fuck are we if we don't fight to keep it and to give

this legacy to our children. You know that that's the point today. You know, for example, in twenty nineteen, just an example about this principle. In twenty nineteen, uh, they ask to us an agreement. Okay, we passed the bill, but not for you, for the workers in two years, so you can keep it. And they call that the

grandfather close, you know, the grandfather agreement. But if we accept that, if we have accept that, which grandfather, we are not a very good, not a very cool grandfather, okay, a very bad grandfather, a grandfather who said to his grandchildren, okay, for keep my profits, I cut yours. No no, no, no, no no, for keep keep my benefice, I cut you. So I'm a father, I hope one day will be a grandfather, and I fight for me, but for my daughter. And I'm proud of that, and I'm proud of that.

And so to the American people, I will tell you to you, mhm, we are workers, and we are proud to be workers because we create all the beautiful things in the world. The trader they create nothing. The CEO, they create nothing that we the workers, the working class, we have gold in our ends from nothing from the nature. We create buildings, train with bread, especially in France, because I know you have not bread good likely in France. I'm sorry about that. And we create all the wealthy thing,

all the beautiful things in the world. And we prove that when we are on strike, because we prove when we stop the works, the friends collapse. So we prove that we are the only the only class, the walking class. We have the only class. We create something. So they have to respect us, and they have to share with us all the profits we create for them, for the companies. So we want, as a margat save give me my money back. I create, you know, I create the profits.

I want my share and I want it to know. Hell yeah, I think that's beautifully put man. And uh yeah, let's make Margaret Thatcher proud. And it wasn't an unexpected I said from exactly unlikely, Comrade Margaret Thatcher. Well, and I know I got to let you go, but I just wanted to stress for people watching and listening, how

important what you said is right? Because this is something that I see all the time in the reporting that I do for the Real News, for Breaking Points, for my podcast Working People, so often I talked to workers who were going on strike not because they want a better contract for themselves, but because they know that if they accept a contract that a company is offering, that every worker who comes in after them is going to get screwed. Right that this is what happened when Kellogg's,

the serial company, went on strike. They knew that the contract was going to protect the benefits and wages of workers who had been there for a long time, but for new workers they were going to get shit. And the old workers said, we're not going to, you know, take the benefits for ourselves and leave everyone else out to dry. We're going to go on strike for everybody.

And that's what you all are doing in France is you you want to keep a system that allows people to retire with dignity, that allows people to enjoy some of their life without having to work until they die. And you're doing that not just for yourselves, but you're doing it to carry on the legacy of the generations that came before you, and you were doing it to pass that legacy on to the generation. That the point and how you can explain you have to work until

seventy and there is a alpha. There is like six million, ten millions of young people from the next generation. They're unemployed. How you can explain that, how you can accept this system? You know, if you, if you, if you have your new life pension, the life, you give your job to a young guy, and that's great. That's a sickle of

the life, you know. Uh, May I just please before go, just say a big hello to all my brothers and sisters in USA, especially to comerat from the Ruffer and what a proofer Local thirty six Union in La Uh my comrades, brothers and sisters from a school job teacher from Minneapolis, and from my very great camera and I met in the last Congress of the World Federation of Trade Unions, the new cameras organized from the Starbuck Coffee. Big up to you. You are great, You're beautiful, especially

in your country. I love you really, really, and like Joe Hill said, is better than than Like Joe Hill said, don't moon organized, no mourn organized. I think that's beautifully put baby. And I guess the final question, like you said there's a new date the end of this month, January thirty first, where you and workers are going to

be hitting the streets again. What can folks inside and outside of France, What can working people do to show solidarity with you and your fellow countrymen on January thirty first. That's an important question because since we create the May Day in the nineteenth century, the international story dearity between walkers was very, very important to help us to win, because I think your lost enemy when you are on strike during days and days, weeks and weeks, is the

feeling of loneliness. That's a big enemy, Okay, because it's a psychologic war. You need to be support. You know, the buses there have no borders. The buses, they have no borders. They could be nationalists, but there have no borders. They work together to to to break us. So we have to have to to be no borders between working class and support each other. So we can just make a sign, take a pictures, put it on the social media.

That's very important. We can make a meeting with in university or in your union or in your district to support us, and maybe we can have a zoom zoom connect to exchange. That's possible. We can collect money and send it to support people. That's that's a solution too. And there is another thing. You can come. You can come to meet us, fight with us. Max. You are

my guests. I tell you you are my guest. We will host you, will feed you, you will demonstrate with us, and you can and tell you people literally on the picket lines no problems. It's very important to have delegation

to support each other. There is a waves in the all over the world, waves of struggle and strike, of course in the north of Europe, but in South America, in India, in Bangladesh, UK yea UK that this movement whose name enough is Enough is a beautiful movement, and we go, we go in the picket line to support them. The thirty one of March, there is people from Britain and from Greece coming in Paris to demonstrate with us.

I think it's very important to show to the brothers and sister the message, the sentence you are not alone. Oh yeah, so I couldn't have said it better myself, and that is Matthieu Bouleredat, a train operator and general secretary of the Versailles branch of the CGT Union in France. Mattheu, thank you so much for joining me today on Breaking Points. Brother, I really appreciate it. Thank you very much. We're sending all of our love and solidarity from here in Baltimore.

Thank you all for watching this segment on Breaking Points. Be sure to subscribe to my news outlet, the Real News Network, with links in the show notes. See soon for the next edition of the Art of Class War. Take care of yourselves, take care of each other. Solidarity forever.