Podcasts about so trump

So Trump did the right thing over the weekend with some misdirection, the usual suspects are mad, so what can we expect going forward. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Trump administration has been peddling to the American people that its deportation effort would focus on immigrants who had been convicted of crimes. However, new reporting suggests that is not the case.The administration is mindlessly and callously sweeping up undocumented men, women, and children. Given that statistics show undocumented workers pay an estimate $100 billion dollars in taxes each year, this aimless deportation operation will absolutely 1. hurt human beings and families, 2. hurt the US economy, and 3. hurt US tax revenue. So Trump's deportation policy is a lose-lose-lose proposition.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Trump administration has been peddling to the American people that its deportation effort would focus on immigrants who had been convicted of crimes. However, new reporting suggests that is not the case.The administration is mindlessly and callously sweeping up undocumented men, women, and children. Given that statistics show undocumented workers pay an estimate $100 billion dollars in taxes each year, this aimless deportation operation will absolutely 1. hurt human beings and families, 2. hurt the US economy, and 3. hurt US tax revenue. So Trump's deportation policy is a lose-lose-lose proposition.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Much has been made of the hallucinatory qualities of OpenAI's ChatGPT product. But as the Wall Street Journal's resident authority on OpenAI, Keach Hagey notes, perhaps the most hallucinatory feature the $300 billion start-up co-founded by the deadly duo of Sam Altman and Elon Musk is its attempt to be simultaneously a for-profit and non-profit company. As Hagey notes, the double life of this double company reached a surreal climax this week when Altman announced that OpenAI was abandoning its promised for-profit conversion. So what, I asked Hagey, are the implications of this corporate volte-face for investors who have poured billions of real dollars into the non-profit in order to make a profit? Will they be Waiting For Godot to get their returns?As Hagey - whose excellent biography of Altman, The Optimist, is out in a couple of weeks - explains, this might be the story of the hubristic 2020's. She speaks of Altman's astonishingly (even for Silicon Valley) hubris in believing that he can get away with the alchemic conceit of inventing a multi trillion dollar for-profit non-profit company. Yes, you can be half-pregnant, Sam is promising us. But, as she warns, at some point this will be exposed as fantasy. The consequences might not exactly be another Enron or FTX, but it will have ramifications way beyond beyond Silicon Valley. What will happen, for example, if future investors aren't convinced by Altman's fantasy and OpenAI runs out of cash? Hagey suggests that the OpenAI story may ultimately become a political drama in which a MAGA President will be forced to bail out America's leading AI company. It's TikTok in reverse (imagine if Chinese investors try to acquire OpenAI). Rather than the conveniently devilish Elon Musk, my sense is that Sam Altman is auditioning to become the real Jay Gatsby of our roaring twenties. Last month, Keach Hagey told me that Altman's superpower is as a salesman. He can sell anything to anyone, she says. But selling a non-profit to for-profit venture capitalists might even be a bridge too far for Silicon Valley's most hallucinatory optimist. Five Key Takeaways * OpenAI has abandoned plans to convert from a nonprofit to a for-profit structure, with pressure coming from multiple sources including attorneys general of California and Delaware, and possibly influenced by Elon Musk's opposition.* This decision will likely make it more difficult for OpenAI to raise money, as investors typically want control over their investments. Despite this, Sam Altman claims SoftBank will still provide the second $30 billion chunk of funding that was previously contingent on the for-profit conversion.* The nonprofit structure creates inherent tensions within OpenAI's business model. As Hagey notes, "those contradictions are still there" after nearly destroying the company once before during Altman's brief firing.* OpenAI's leadership is trying to position this as a positive change, with plans to capitalize the nonprofit and launch new programs and initiatives. However, Hagey notes this is similar to what Altman did at Y Combinator, which eventually led to tensions there.* The decision is beneficial for competitors like XAI, Anthropic, and others with normal for-profit structures. Hagey suggests the most optimistic outcome would be OpenAI finding a way to IPO before "completely imploding," though how a nonprofit-controlled entity would do this remains unclear.Keach Hagey is a reporter at The Wall Street Journal's Media and Marketing Bureau in New York, where she focuses on the intersection of media and technology. Her stories often explore the relationships between tech platforms like Facebook and Google and the media. She was part of the team that broke the Facebook Files, a series that won a George Polk Award for Business Reporting, a Gerald Loeb Award for Beat Reporting and a Deadline Award for public service. Her investigation into the inner workings of Google's advertising-technology business won recognition from the Society for Advancing Business Editing and Writing (Sabew). Previously, she covered the television industry for the Journal, reporting on large media companies such as 21st Century Fox, Time Warner and Viacom. She led a team that won a Sabew award for coverage of the power struggle inside Viacom. She is the author of “The King of Content: Sumner Redstone's Battle for Viacom, CBS and Everlasting Control of His Media Empire,” published by HarperCollins. Before joining the Journal, Keach covered media for Politico, the National in Abu Dhabi, CBS News and the Village Voice. She has a bachelor's and a master's in English literature from Stanford University. She lives in Irvington, N.Y., with her husband, three daughters and dog.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children. Full TranscriptAndrew Keen: Hello, everybody. It is May the 6th, a Tuesday, 2025. And the tech media is dominated today by OpenAI's plan to convert its for-profit business to a non-profit side. That's how the Financial Times is reporting it. New York Times says that OpenAI, and I'm quoting them, backtracks on plans to drop nonprofit control and the Wall Street Journal, always very authoritative on the tech front, leads with Open AI abandons planned for profit conversion. The Wall Street Journal piece is written by Keach Hagey, who is perhaps America's leading authority on OpenAI. She was on the show a couple of months ago talking about Sam Altman's superpower which is as a salesman. Keach is also the author of an upcoming book. It's out in a couple weeks, "The Optimist: Sam Altman, OpenAI and the Race to Invent the Future." And I'm thrilled that Keach has been remarkably busy today, as you can imagine, found a few minutes to come onto the show. So, Keach, what is Sam selling here? You say he's a salesman. He's always selling something or other. What's the sell here?Keach Hagey: Well, the sell here is that this is not a big deal, right? The sell is that, this thing they've been trying to do for about a year, which is to make their company less weird, it's not gonna work. And as he was talking to the press yesterday, he was trying to suggest that they're still gonna be able to fundraise, that these folks that they promised that if you give us money, we're gonna convert to a for-profit and it's gonna be much more normal investment for you, but they're gonna get that money, which is you know, a pretty tough thing. So that's really, that's what he's selling is that this is not disruptive to the future of OpenAI.Andrew Keen: For people who are just listening, I'm looking at Keach's face, and I'm sensing that she's doing everything she can not to burst out laughing. Is that fair, Keach?Keach Hagey: Well, it'll remain to be seen, but I do think it will make it a lot harder for them to raise money. I mean, even Sam himself said as much during the talk yesterday that, you know, investors would like to be able to have some say over what happens to their money. And if you're controlled by a nonprofit organization, that's really tough. And what they were trying to do was convert to a new world where investors would have a seat at the table, because as we all remember, when Sam got briefly fired almost two years ago. The investors just helplessly sat on the sidelines and didn't have any say in the matter. Microsoft had absolutely no role to play other than kind of cajoling and offering him a job on the sidelines. So if you're gonna try to raise money, you really need to be able to promise some kind of control and that's become a lot harder.Andrew Keen: And the ramifications more broadly on this announcement will extend to Microsoft and Microsoft stock. I think their stock is down today. We'll come to that in a few minutes. Keach, there was an interesting piece in the week, this week on AI hallucinations are getting worse. Of course, OpenAI is the dominant AI company with their ChatGPT. But is this also kind of hallucination? What exactly is going on here? I have to admit, and I always thought, you know, I certainly know more about tech than I do about other subjects, which isn't always saying very much. But I mean, either you're a nonprofit or you're a for-profit, is there some sort of hallucinogenic process going on where Sam is trying to sell us on the idea that OpenAI is simultaneously a for profit and a nonprofit company?Keach Hagey: Well, that's kind of what it is right now. That's what it had sort of been since 2019 or when it spun up this strange structure where it had a for-profit underneath a nonprofit. And what we saw in the firing is that that doesn't hold. There's gonna come a moment when those two worlds are going to collide and it nearly destroyed the company. To be challenging going forward is that that basic destabilization that like unstable structure remains even though now everything is so much bigger there's so much more money coursing through and it's so important for the economy. It's a dangerous position.Andrew Keen: It's not so dangerous, you seem still faintly amused. I have to admit, I'm more than faintly amused, it's not too bothersome for us because we don't have any money in OpenAI. But for SoftBank and the other participants in the recent $40 billion round of investment in OpenAI, this must be, to say the least, rather disconcerting.Keach Hagey: That was one of the biggest surprises from the press conference yesterday. Sam Altman was asked point blank, is SoftBank still going to give you this sort of second chunk, this $30 billion second chunk that was contingent upon being able to convert to a for-profit, and he said, quite simply, yes. Who knows what goes on in behind the scenes? I think we're gonna find out probably a lot more about that. There are many unanswered questions, but it's not great, right? It's definitely not great for investors.Andrew Keen: Well, you have to guess at the very minimum, SoftBank would be demanding better terms. They're not just going to do the same thing. I mean, it suddenly it suddenly gives them an additional ace in their hand in terms of negotiation. I mean this is not some sort of little startup. This is 30 or 40 billion dollars. I mean it's astonishing number. And presumably the non-public conversations are very interesting. I'm sure, Keach, you would like to know what's being said.Keach Hagey: Don't know yet, but I think your analysis is pretty smart on this matter.Andrew Keen: So if you had to guess, Sam is the consummate salesman. What did he tell SoftBank before April to close the round? And what is he telling them now? I mean, how has the message changed?Keach Hagey: One of the things that we see a little bit about this from the messaging that he gave to the world yesterday, which is this is going to be a simpler structure. It is going to be slightly more normal structure. They are changing the structure a little bit. So although the non-profit is going to remain in charge, the thing underneath it, the for-profit, is going change its structure a little bit and become kind of a little more normal. It's not going to have this capped profit thing where, you know, the investors are capped at 100 times what they put in. So parts of it are gonna become more normal. For employees, it's probably gonna be easier for them to get equity and things like that. So I'm sure that that's part of what he's selling, that this new structure is gonna be a little bit better, but it's not gonna be as good as what they were trying to do.Andrew Keen: Can Sam? I mean, clearly he has sold it. I mean as we joked earlier when we talked, Sam could sell ice to the Laplanders or sand to the Saudis. But these people know Sam. It's no secret that he's a remarkable salesman. That means that sometimes you have to think carefully about what he's saying. What's the impact on him? To what extent is this decision one more chip on the Altman brand?Keach Hagey: It's a setback for sure, and it's kind of a win for Elon Musk, his rival.Andrew Keen: Right.Keach Hagey: Elon has been suing him, Elon has been trying to block this very conversion. And in the end, it seems like it was actually the attorneys general of California and Delaware that really put the nail in the coffin here. So there's still a lot to find out about exactly how it all shook out. There were actually huge campaigns as well, like in the streets, billboards, posters. Polls saying, trying to put pressure on the attorney general to block this thing. So it was a broad coalition, I think, that opposed the conversion, and you can even see that a little bit in their speech. But you got to admit that Elon probably looked at this and was happy.Andrew Keen: And I'm sure Elon used his own X platform to promote his own agenda. Is this an example, Keach, in a weird kind of way of the plebiscitary politics now of Silicon Valley is that titans like Altman and Musk are fighting out complex corporate economic battles in the naked public of social media.Keach Hagey: Yes, in the naked public of social media, but what we're also seeing here is that it's sort of, it's become through the apparatus of government. So we're seeing, you know, Elon is in the Doge office and this conversion is really happening in the state AG's houses. So that's what's sort interesting to me is these like private fights have now expanded to fill both state and federal government.Andrew Keen: Last time we talked, I couldn't find the photo, but there was a wonderful photo of, I think it was Larry Ellison and Sam Altman in the Oval Office with Trump. And Ellison looked very excited. He looked extremely old as well. And Altman looked very awkward. And it's surprising to see Altman look awkward because generally he doesn't. Has Trump played a role in this or is he keeping out of it?Keach Hagey: As far as my current reporting right now, we have no reporting that Trump himself was directly involved. I can't go further than that right now.Andrew Keen: Meaning that you know something that you're not willing to ignore.Keach Hagey: Just I hope you keep your subscription to the Wall Street Journal on what role the White House played, I would say. But as far as that awkwardness, I don't know if you noticed that there was a box that day for Masa Yoshison to see.Andrew Keen: Oh yeah, and Son was in the office too, right, that was the third person.Keach Hagey: So it was a box in the podium, which I think contributed to the awkwardness of the day, because he's not a tall man.Andrew Keen: Right. To put it politely. The way that OpenAI spun it, in classic Sam Altman terms, is new funding to build towards AGI. So it's their Altman-esque use of the public to vindicate this new investment, is this just more quote unquote, and this is my word. You don't have to agree with it. Just sales pitch or might even be dishonesty here. I mean, the reality is, is new funding to build towards AGI, which is, artificial general intelligence. It's not new funding, to build toward AGI. It's new funding to build towards OpenAI, there's no public benefit of any of this, is there?Keach Hagey: Well, what they're saying is that the nonprofit will be capitalized and will sort of be hiring up and doing a bunch more things that it wasn't really doing. We'll have programs and initiatives and all of that. Which really, as someone who studied Sam's life, this sounds really a lot like what he did at Y Combinator. When he was head of Y Combinator, he also spun up a nonprofit arm, which is actually what OpenAI grew out of. So I think in Sam's mind, a nonprofit there's a place to go. Sort of hash out your ideas, it's a place to kind of have pet projects grow. That's where he did things like his UBI study. So I can sort of see that once the AGs are like, this is not gonna happen, he's like, great, we'll just make a big nonprofit and I'll get to do all these projects I've always wanted to do.Andrew Keen: Didn't he get thrown out of Y Combinator by Paul Graham for that?Keach Hagey: Yes, a little bit. You know, I would say there's a general mutiny for too much of that kind of stuff. Yeah, it's true. People didn't love it, and they thought that he took his eye off the ball. A little bit because one of those projects became OpenAI, and he became kind of obsessed with it and stopped paying attention. So look, maybe OpenAI will spawn the next thing, right? And he'll get distracted by that and move on.Andrew Keen: No coincidence, of course, that Sam went on to become a CEO of OpenAI. What does it mean for the broader AI ecosystem? I noted earlier you brought up Microsoft. I mean, I think you've already written on this and lots of other people have written about the fact that the relationship between OpenAI and Microsoft has cooled dramatically. As well as between Nadella and Altman. What does this mean for Microsoft? Is it a big deal?Keach Hagey: They have been hashing this out for months. So it is a big deal in that it will change the structure of their most important partner. But even before this, Microsoft and OpenAI were sort of locked in negotiations over how large and how Microsoft's stake in this new OpenAI will be valued. And that still has to be determined, regardless of whether it's a non-profit or a for-profit in charge. And their interests are diverging. So those negotiations are not as warm as they maybe would have been a few years ago.Andrew Keen: It's a form of polyamory, isn't it? Like we have in Silicon Valley, everyone has sex with everybody else, to put it politely.Keach Hagey: Well, OpenAI does have a new partner in Oracle. And I would expect them to have many more in terms of cloud computing partners going forward. It's just too much risk for any one company to build these huge and expensive data centers, not knowing that OpenAI is going to exist in a certain number of years. So they have to diversify.Andrew Keen: Keach, you know, this is amusing and entertaining and Altman is a remarkable individual, able to sell anything to anyone. But at what point are we really on the Titanic here? And there is such a thing as an iceberg, a real thing, whatever Donald Trump or other manufacturers of ontologies might suggest. At some point, this thing is going to end in a massive disaster.Keach Hagey: Are you talking about the Existence Force?Andrew Keen: I'm not talking about the Titanic, I'm talking about OpenAI. I mean, Parmi Olson, who's the other great authority on OpenAI, who won the FT Book of the Year last year, she's been on the show a couple of times, she wrote in Bloomberg that OpenAI can't have its money both ways, and that's what Sam is trying to do. My point is that we can all point out, excuse me, the contradictions and the hypocrisy and all the rest of it. But there are laws of gravity when it comes to economics. And at a certain point, this thing is going to crash, isn't it? I mean, what's the metaphor? Is it Enron? Is it Sam Bankman-Fried? What kind of examples in history do we need to look at to try and figure out what really is going on here?Keach Hagey: That's certainly one possibility, and there are a good number of people who believe that.Andrew Keen: Believe what, Enron or Sam Bankman-Fried?Keach Hagey: Oh, well, the internal tensions cannot hold, right? I don't know if fraud is even necessary so much as just, we've seen it, we've already seen it happen once, right, the company almost completely collapsed one time and those contradictions are still there.Andrew Keen: And when you say it happened, is that when Sam got pushed out or was that another or something else?Keach Hagey: No, no, that's it, because Sam almost got pushed out and then all of the funders would go away. So Sam needs to be there for them to continue raising money in the way that they have been raising money. And that's really going to be the question. How long can that go on? He's a young man, could go on a very long time. But yeah, I think that really will determine whether it's a disaster or not.Andrew Keen: But how long can it go on? I mean, how long could Sam have it both ways? Well, there's a dream. I mean maybe he can close this last round. I mean he's going to need to raise more than $40 billion. This is such a competitive space. Tens of billions of dollars are being invested almost on a monthly basis. So this is not the end of the road, this $40-billion investment.Keach Hagey: Oh, no. And you know, there's talk of IPO at some point, maybe not even that far away. I don't even let me wrap my mind around what it would be for like a nonprofit to have a controlling share at a public company.Andrew Keen: More hallucinations economically, Keach.Keach Hagey: But I mean, IPO is the exit for investors, right? That's the model, that is the Silicon Valley model. So it's going to have to come to that one way or another.Andrew Keen: But how does it work internally? I mean, for the guys, the sales guys, the people who are actually doing the business at OpenAI, they've been pretty successful this year. The numbers are astonishing. But how is this gonna impact if it's a nonprofit? How does this impact the process of selling, of building product, of all the other internal mechanics of this high-priced startup?Keach Hagey: I don't think it will affect it enormously in the short term. It's really just a question of can they continue to raise money for the enormous amount of compute that they need. So so far, he's been able to do that, right? And if that slows up in any way, they're going to be in trouble. Because as Sam has said many times, AI has to be cheap to be actually useful. So in order to, you know, for it to be widespread, for to flow like water, all of those things, it's got to be cheap and that's going to require massive investment in data centers.Andrew Keen: But how, I mean, ultimately people are putting money in so that they get the money back. This is not a nonprofit endeavor to put 40 billion from SoftBank. SoftBank is not in the nonprofit business. So they're gonna need their money back and the only way they generally, in my understanding, getting money back is by going public, especially with these numbers. How can a nonprofit go public?Keach Hagey: It's a great question. That's what I'm just phrasing. I mean, this is, you know, you talk to folks, this is what's like off in the misty distance for them. It's an, it's a fascinating question and one that we're gonna try to answer this week.Andrew Keen: But you look amused. I'm no financial genius. Everyone must be asking the same question.Keach Hagey: Well, the way that they've said it is that the for-profit will be, will have a, the non-profit will control the for profit and be the largest shareholder in it, but the rest of the shares could be held by public markets theoretically. That's a great question though.Andrew Keen: And lawyers all over the world must be wrapping their hands. I mean, in the very best case, it's gonna be lawsuits on this, people suing them up the wazoo.Keach Hagey: It's absolutely true. You should see my inbox right now. It's just like layers, layers, layer.Andrew Keen: Yeah, my wife. My wife is the head of litigation. I don't know if I should be saying this publicly anyway, I am. She's the head of Litigation at Google. And she lost some of her senior people and they all went over to AI. I'm big, I'm betting that they regret going over there can't be much fun being a lawyer at OpenAI.Keach Hagey: I don't know, I think it'd be great fun. I think you'd have like enormous challenges and have lots of billable hours.Andrew Keen: Unless, of course, they're personally being sued.Keach Hagey: Hopefully not. I mean, look, it is a strange and unprecedented situation.Andrew Keen: To what extent is this, if not Shakespearean, could have been written by some Greek dramatist? To what extend is this symbolic of all the hype and salesmanship and dishonesty of Silicon Valley? And in a sense, maybe this is a final scene or a penultimate scene in the Silicon Valley story of doing good for the world. And yet, of course, reaping obscene profit.Keach Hagey: I think it's a little bit about trying to have your cake and eat it too, right? Trying to have the aura of altruism, but also make something and make a lot of money. And what it seems like today is that if you started as a nonprofit, it's like a black hole. You can never get out. There's no way to get out, and that idea was just like maybe one step too clever when they set it up in the beginning, right. It seemed like too good to be true because it was. And it might end up really limiting the growth of the company.Andrew Keen: Is Sam completely in charge here? I mean, a number of the founders have left. Musk, of course, when you and I talked a couple of months ago, OpenAI came out of conversations between Musk and Sam. Is he doing this on his own? Does he have lieutenants, people who he can rely on?Keach Hagey: Yeah, I mean, he does. He has a number of folks that have been there, you know, a long time.Andrew Keen: Who are they? I mean, do we know their names?Keach Hagey: Oh, sure. Yeah. I mean, like Brad Lightcap and Jason Kwon and, you know, just they're they're Greg Brockman, of course, still there. So there are a core group of executives that have that have been there pretty much from the beginning, close to it, that he does trust. But if you're asking, like, is Sam really in control of this whole thing? I believe the answer is yes. Right. He is on the board of this nonprofit, and that nonprofit will choose the board of the for-profit. So as long as that's the case, he's in charge.Andrew Keen: How divided is OpenAI? I mean, one of the things that came out of the big crisis, what was it, 18 months ago when they tried to push him out, was it was clearly a profoundly divided company between those who believed in the nonprofit mission versus the for-profit mission. Are those divisions still as acute within the company itself? It must be growing. I don't know how many thousands of people work.Keach Hagey: It has grown very fast. It is not as acute in my experience. There was a time when it was really sort of a warring of tribes. And after the blip, as they call it, a lot of those more safety focused people, people that subscribe to effective altruism, left or were kind of pushed out. So Sam took over and kind of cleaned house.Andrew Keen: But then aren't those people also very concerned that it appears as if Sam's having his cake and eating it, having it both ways, talking about the company being a non-profit but behaving as if it is a for-profit?Keach Hagey: Oh, yeah, they're very concerned. In fact, a number of them have signed on to this open letter to the attorneys general that dropped, I don't know, a week and a half ago, something like that. You can see a number of former OpenAI employees, whistleblowers and others, saying this very thing, you know, that the AG should block this because it was supposed to be a charitable mission from the beginning. And no amount of fancy footwork is gonna make it okay to toss that overboard.Andrew Keen: And I mean, in the best possible case, can Sam, the one thing I think you and I talked about last time is Sam clearly does, he's not driven by money. There's something else. There's some other demonic force here. Could he theoretically reinvent the company so that it becomes a kind of AI overlord, a nonprofit AI overlord for our 21st century AI age?Keach Hagey: Wow, well I think he sometimes thinks of it as like an AI layer and you know, is this my overlord? Might be, you know.Andrew Keen: As long as it's not made in China, I hope it's made in India or maybe in Detroit or something.Keach Hagey: It's a very old one, so it's OK. But it's really my attention overlord, right? Yeah, so I don't know about the AI overlord part. Although it's interesting, Sam from the very beginning has wanted there to be a democratic process to control what decision, what kind of AI gets built and what are the guardrails for AGI. As long as he's there.Andrew Keen: As long as he's the one determining it, right?Keach Hagey: We talked about it a lot in the very beginning of the company when things were smaller and not so crazy. And what really strikes me is he doesn't really talk about that much anymore. But what we did just see is some advocacy organizations that kind of function in that exact way. They have voters all over the world and they all voted on, hey, we want you guys to go and try to that ended up having this like democratic structure for deciding the future of AI and used it to kind of block what he was trying to do.Andrew Keen: What are the implications for OpenAI's competitors? There's obviously Anthropic. Microsoft, we talked about a little bit, although it's a partner and a competitor simultaneously. And then of course there's Google. I assume this is all good news for the competition. And of course XAI.Keach Hagey: It is good news, especially for a company like XAI. I was just speaking to an XAI investor today who was crowing. Yeah, because those companies don't have this weird structure. Only OpenAI has this strange nonprofit structure. So if you are an investor who wants to have some exposure to AI, it might just not be worth the headache to deal with the uncertainty around the nonprofit, even though OpenAI is like the clear leader. It might be a better bet to invest in Anthropic or XAI or something else that has just a normal for-profit structure.Andrew Keen: Yeah. And it's hard to actually quote unquote out-Trump, Elon Musk on economic subterfuge. But Altman seems to have done that. I mean, Musk, what he folded X into XAI. It was a little bit of controversy, but he seems to got away with it. So there is a deep hostility between these two men, which I'm assuming is being compounded by this process.Keach Hagey: Absolutely. Again, this is a win for Elon. All these legal cases and Elon trying to buy OpenAI. I remember that bid a few months ago where he actually put a number on it. All that was about trying to block the for-profit conversion because he's trying to stop OpenAI and its tracks. He also claims they've abandoned their mission, but it's always important to note that it's coming from a competitor.Andrew Keen: Could that be a way out of this seeming box? Keach, a company like XAI or Microsoft or Google, or that probably wouldn't happen on the antitrust front, would buy OpenAI as maybe a nonprofit and then transform it into a for-profit company?Keach Hagey: Maybe you and Sam should get together and hash that out. That's the kind ofAndrew Keen: Well Sam, I'm available to be hired if you're watching. I'll probably charge less than your current consigliere. What's his name? Who's the consiglieri who's working with him on this?Keach Hagey: You mean Chris Lehane?Andrew Keen: Yes, Chris Lehane, the ego.Keach Hagey: Um,Andrew Keen: How's Lehane holding up in this? Do you think he's getting any sleep?Keach Hagey: Well, he's like a policy guy. I'm sure this has been challenging for everybody. But look, you are pointing to something that I think is real, which is there will probably be consolidation at some point down the line in AI.Andrew Keen: I mean, I know you're not an expert on the maybe sort of corporate legal stuff, but is it in theory possible to buy a nonprofit? I don't even know how you buy a non-profit and then turn it into a for-profit. I mean is that one way out of this, this cul-de-sac?Keach Hagey: I really don't know the answer to that question, to be honest with you. I can't think of another example of it happening. So I'm gonna go with no, but I don't now.Andrew Keen: There are no equivalents, sorry to interrupt, go on.Keach Hagey: No, so I was actually asking a little bit, are there precedents for this? And someone mentioned Blue Cross Blue Shield had gone from being a nonprofit to a for-profit successfully in the past.Andrew Keen: And we seem a little amused by that. I mean, anyone who uses US health care as a model, I think, might regret it. Your book, The Optimist, is out in a couple of weeks. When did you stop writing it?Keach Hagey: The end of December, end of last year, was pencils fully down.Andrew Keen: And I'm sure you told the publisher that that was far too long a window. Seven months on Silicon Valley is like seven centuries.Keach Hagey: It was actually a very, very tight timeline. They turned it around like incredibly fast. Usually it'sAndrew Keen: Remarkable, yeah, exactly. Publishing is such, such, they're such quick actors, aren't they?Keach Hagey: In this case, they actually were, so I'm grateful for that.Andrew Keen: Well, they always say that six months or seven months is fast, but it is actually possible to publish a book in probably a week or two, if you really choose to. But in all seriousness, back to this question, I mean, and I want everyone to read the book. It's a wonderful book and an important book. The best book on OpenAI out. What would you have written differently? Is there an extra chapter on this? I know you warned about a lot of this stuff in the book. So it must make you feel in some ways quite vindicated.Keach Hagey: I mean, you're asking if I'd had a longer deadline, what would I have liked to include? Well, if you're ready.Andrew Keen: Well, if you're writing it now with this news under your belt.Keach Hagey: Absolutely. So, I mean, the thing, two things, I guess, definitely this news about the for-profit conversion failing just shows the limits of Sam's power. So that's pretty interesting, because as the book was closing, we're not really sure what those limits are. And the other one is Trump. So Trump had happened, but we do not yet understand what Trump 2.0 really meant at the time that the book was closing. And at that point, it looked like Sam was in the cold, you know, he wasn't clear how he was going to get inside Trump's inner circle. And then lo and behold, he was there on day one of the Trump administration sharing a podium with him announcing that Stargate AI infrastructure investment. So I'm sad that that didn't make it into the book because it really just shows the kind of remarkable character he is.Andrew Keen: He's their Zelig, but then we all know what happened to Woody Allen in the end. In all seriousness, and it's hard to keep a straight face here, Keach, and you're trying although you're not doing a very good job, what's going to happen? I know it's an easy question to ask and a hard one to answer, but ultimately this thing has to end in catastrophe, doesn't it? I use the analogy of the Titanic. There are real icebergs out there.Keach Hagey: Look, there could be a data breach. I do think that.Andrew Keen: Well, there could be data breaches if it was a non-profit or for-profit, I mean, in terms of this whole issue of trying to have it both ways.Keach Hagey: Look, they might run out of money, right? I mean, that's one very real possibility. They might run outta money and have to be bought by someone, as you said. That is a totally real possibility right now.Andrew Keen: What would happen if they couldn't raise any more money. I mean, what was the last round, the $40 billion round? What was the overall valuation? About $350 billion.Keach Hagey: Yeah, mm-hmm.Andrew Keen: So let's say that they begin to, because they've got, what are their hard costs monthly burn rate? I mean, it's billions of just.Keach Hagey: Well, the issue is that they're spending more than they are making.Andrew Keen: Right, but you're right. So they, let's say in 18 months, they run out of runway. What would people be buying?Keach Hagey: Right, maybe some IP, some servers. And one of the big questions that is yet unanswered in AI is will it ever economically make sense, right? Right now we are all buying the possibility of in the future that the costs will eventually come down and it will kind of be useful, but that's still a promise. And it's possible that that won't ever happen. I mean, all these companies are this way, right. They are spending far, far more than they're making.Andrew Keen: And that's the best case scenario.Keach Hagey: Worst case scenario is the killer robots murder us all.Andrew Keen: No, what I meant in the best case scenario is that people are actually still without all the blow up. I mean, people are actual paying for AI. I mean on the one hand, the OpenAI product is, would you say it's successful, more or less successful than it was when you finished the book in December of last year?Keach Hagey: Oh, yes, much more successful. Vastly more users, and the product is vastly better. I mean, even in my experience, I don't know if you play with it every day.Andrew Keen: I use Anthropic.Keach Hagey: I use both Claude and ChatGPT, and I mean, they're both great. And I find them vastly more useful today than I did even when I was closing the book. So it's great. I don't know if it's really a great business that they're only charging me $20, right? That's great for me, but I don't think it's long term tenable.Andrew Keen: Well, Keach Hagey, your new book, The Optimist, your new old book, The Optimist: Sam Altman, Open AI and the Race to Invent the Future is out in a couple of weeks. I hope you're writing a sequel. Maybe you should make it The Pessimist.Keach Hagey: I think you might be the pessimist, Andrew.Andrew Keen: Well, you're just, you are as pessimistic as me. You just have a nice smile. I mean, in all reality, what's the most optimistic thing that can come out of this?Keach Hagey: The most optimistic is that this becomes a product that is actually useful, but doesn't vastly exacerbate inequality.Andrew Keen: No, I take the point on that, but in terms of this current story of this non-profit versus profit, what's the best case scenario?Keach Hagey: I guess the best case scenario is they find their way to an IPO before completely imploding.Andrew Keen: With the assumption that a non-profit can do an IPO.Keach Hagey: That they find the right lawyers from wherever they are and make it happen.Andrew Keen: Well, AI continues its hallucinations, and they're not in the product themselves. I think they're in their companies. One of the best, if not the best authority, our guide to all these hallucinations in a corporate level is Keach Hagey, her new book, The Optimist: Sam Altman, Open AI and the Race to Invent the Future is out in a couple of weeks. Essential reading for anyone who wants to understand Sam Altman as the consummate salesman. And I think one thing we can say for sure, Keach, is this is not the end of the story. Is that fair?Keach Hagey: Very fair. Not the end of the story. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

I've been in London this week talking to America watchers about the current situation in the United States. First up is Edmund Fawcett, the longtime Economist correspondent in DC and historian of both liberalism and conservatism. Fawcett argues that Trump's MAGA movement represents a kind of third way between liberalism and conservatism - a version of American populism resurrected for our anti-globalist early 21st century. He talks about how economic inequality fuels Trumpism, with middle-class income shares dropping while the wealthy prosper. He critiques both what he calls right-wing intellectual "kitsch" and the left's lack of strategic vision beyond its dogma of identity politics. Lacking an effective counter-narrative to combat Trumpism, Fawcett argues, liberals require not only sharper messaging but also a reinvention of what it means to be modern in our globalized age of resurrected nationalism. 5 Key Takeaways* European reactions to Trump mix shock with recognition that his politics have deep American roots.* Economic inequality (declining middle-class wealth) provides the foundation for Trump's political appeal.* The American left lacks an effective counter-narrative and strategic vision to combat Trumpism.* Both right-wing intellectualism and left-wing identity politics suffer from forms of "kitsch" and American neurosis.* The perception of America losing its position as the embodiment of modernity creates underlying anxiety. Full TranscriptAndrew Keen: Hello everybody, we are in London this week, looking westward, looking at the United States, spending some time with some distinguished Englishmen, or half-Englishmen, who have spent a lot of their lives in the United States, and Edmund Fawcett, former Economist correspondent in America, the author of a number of important books, particularly, Histories of Liberalism and Conservatism, is remembering America, Edmund. What's your first memory of America?Edmund Fawcett: My first memory of America is a traffic accident on Park Avenue, looking down as a four-year-old from our apartment. I was there from the age of two to four, then again as a school child in Washington for a few years when my father was working. He was an international lawyer. But then, after that, back in San Francisco, where I was a... I kind of hacked as an editor for Straight Arrow Press, which was the publishing arm of Rolling Stone. This was in the early 70s. These were the, it was the end of the glory days of Haight-Ashbury, San Francisco, the anti-war movement in Vietnam. It was exciting. A lot was going on, a lot was changing. And then not long after that, I came back to the U.S. for The Economist as their correspondent in Washington. That was in 1976, and I stayed there until 1983. We've always visited. Our son and grandson are American. My wife is or was American. She gave up her citizenship last year, chiefly for practical reasons. She said I would always feel American. But our regular visits have ended, of course. Being with my background, my mother was American, my grandfather was American. It is deeply part of my outlook, it's part of my world and so I am always very interested. I read quite a bit of the American press, not just the elite liberal press, every day. I keep an eye on through Real Clear Politics, which has got a very good sort of gazetteer. It's part of my weather.Andrew Keen: Edmund, I know you can't speak on behalf of Europe, but I'm going to ask a dumb question. Maybe you'll give me a smarter answer than the question. What's the European, the British take on what's happening in America? What's happened in this first quarter of 2025?Edmund Fawcett: I think a large degree of shock and horror, that's just the first reaction. If you'll allow me a little space, I think then there's a second reaction. The first reaction is shock and terror, with good reason, and nobody likes being talked to in the way that Vance talked to them, ignorantly and provocatively about free speech, which he feels he hasn't really thought hard enough about, and besides, it was I mean... Purely commercial, in largely commercial interest. The Europeans are shocked by the American slide from five, six, seven decades of internationalism. Okay, American-led, but still internationalist, cooperative, they're deeply shocked by that. And anybody who cares, as many Europeans do, about the texture, the caliber of American democracy and liberalism, are truly shocked by Trump's attacks on the courts, his attacks on the universities, his attack on the press.Andrew Keen: You remember, of course, Edmund, that famous moment in Casablanca where the policeman said he was shocked, truly shocked when of course he wasn't. Is your shock for real? Your... A good enough scholar of the United States to understand that a lot of the stuff that Trump is bringing to the table isn't new. We've had an ongoing debate in the show about how authentically American Trump is, whether he is the F word fascist or whether he represents some other indigenous strain in US political culture. What's your take?Edmund Fawcett: No, and that's the response to the shock. It's when you look back and see this Trump is actually deeply American. There's very little new here. There's one thing that is new, which I'll come to in a moment, and that returns the shock, but the shock is, is to some extent absorbed when Europeans who know about this do reflect that Trump is deeply American. I mean, there is a, he likes to cite McKinley, good, okay, the Republicans were the tariff party. He likes to say a lot of stuff that, for example, the populist Tom Watson from the South, deeply racist, but very much speaking for the working man, so long as he was a white working man. Trump goes back to that as well. He goes back in the presidential roster. Look at Robert Taft, competitor for the presidency against Eisenhower. He lost, but he was a very big voice in the Republican Party in the 1940s and 50s. Robert Taft, Jr. didn't want to join NATO. He pushed through over Truman's veto, the Taft-Hartley bill that as good as locked the unions out, the trade unions out of much of the part of America that became the burgeoning economic America, the South and the West. Trump is, sorry, forgive me, Taft, was in many ways as a hard-right Republican. Nixon told Kissinger, professors are the enemy. Reagan gave the what was it called? I forget the name of the speech that he gave in endorsing Barry Goldwater at the 1964 Republican Convention. This in a way launched the new Republican assault on liberal republicanism. Rockefeller was the loser. Reagan, as it were, handed the palm to Rocket Goldwater. He lost to Johnson, but the sermon they were using, the anti-liberal went into vernacular and Trump is merely in a way echoing that. If you were to do a movie called Trump, he would star, of course, but somebody who was Nixon and Reagan's scriptwright, forgive me, somebody who is Nixon and Reagan's Pressman, Pat Buchanan, he would write the script of the Trump movie. Go back and read, look at some of Pat Buchanan's books, some of his articles. He was... He said virtually everything that Trump says. America used to be great, it is no longer great. America has enemies outside that don't like it, that we have nothing to do with, we don't need allies, what we want is friends, and we have very few friends in the world. We're largely on our, by our own. We're basically a huge success, but we're being betrayed. We're being ignored by our allies, we're being betrayed by friends inside, and they are the liberal elite. It's all there in Pat Buchanan. So Trump in that way is indeed very American. He's very part of the history. Now, two things. One is... That Trump, like many people on the hard right in Europe, is to some extent, a neurotic response to very real complaints. If you would offer a one chart explanation of Trumpism, I don't know whether I can hold it up for the camera. It's here. It is actually two charts, but it is the one at the top where you see two lines cross over. You see at the bottom a more or less straight line. What this does is compare the share of income in 1970 with the share of the income more or less now. And what has happened, as we are not at all surprised to learn, is that the poor, who are not quite a majority but close to the actual people in the United States, things haven't changed for them much at all. Their life is static. However, what has changed is the life for what, at least in British terms, is called the middle classes, the middle group. Their share of income and wealth has dropped hugely, whereas the share of the income and wealth of the top has hugely risen. And in economic terms, that is what Trumpism is feeding off. He's feeding off a bewildered sense of rage, disappointment, possibly envy of people who looked forward, whose parents looked forward to a great better life, who they themselves got a better life. They were looking forward to one for their children and grandchildren. And now they're very worried that they're not those children and grandchildren aren't going to get it. So socially speaking, there is genuine concern, indeed anger that Trump is speaking to. Alas, Trump's answers are, I would say, and I think many Europeans would agree, fantasies.Andrew Keen: Your background is also on the left, your first job was at the New Left Reviews, you're all too familiar with Marxist language, Marxist literature, ways of thinking about what we used to call late-stage capitalism, maybe we should rename it post-late-stage-capitalism. Is it any surprise, given your presentation of the current situation in America, which is essentially class envy or class warfare, but the right. The Bannonites and many of the others on the right fringes of the MAGA movement have picked up on Lenin and Gramsci and the old icons of class warfare.Edmund Fawcett: No, I don't think it is. I think that they are these are I mean, we live in a world in which the people in politics and in the press in business, they've been to universities, they've read an awful lot of books, they spend an awful lot of time studying dusty old books like the ones you mentioned, Gramsci and so. So they're, to some extent, forgive me, they are, they're intellectuals or at least they become, they be intellectualized. Lenin called one of his books, What is to be Done. Patrick Deneen, a Catholic right-wing Catholic philosopher. He's one of the leading right-wing Catholic intellectuals of the day, hard right. He named it What is To Be Done. But this is almost kitsch, as it were, for a conservative Catholic intellectual to name a book after Vladimir Lenin, the first Bolshevik leader of the Russian Revolution. Forgive me, I lost the turn.Andrew Keen: You talk about kitsch, Edmund, is this kitsch leftism or is it real leftism? I mean if Trump was Bernie Sanders and a lot of what Trump says is not that different from Sanders with the intellectuals or the few intellectuals left in. New York and San Francisco and Los Angeles, would they be embracing what's happening? Thanks, I've got the third again.Edmund Fawcett: No, you said Kitsch. The publicists and intellectuals who support Trump, there is a Kitsch element to it. They use a lot of long words, they appeal to a lot of authorities. Augustine of Hippo comes into it. This is really kind of intellectual grandstanding. No, what matters? And this comes to the second thing about shock at Trump. The second thing is that there is real social and economic dysfunction here that the United States isn't really coping with. I don't think the Trumpites, I don't think the rather kitschy intellectuals who are his mature leaders. I don't think they so much matter. What I think matters here is, put it this way, is the silence of the left. And this is one of the deep problems. I mean, always with my friends, progressive friends, liberal friends, it's terribly easy to throw rocks at Trump and scorn his cheerleaders but we always have to ask ourselves why are they there and we're here and the left at the moment doesn't really have an answer to that. The Democrats in the United States they're strangely silent. And it's not just, as many people say, because they haven't dared to speak up. It's not that, it's a question of courage. It's an intellectual question of lacking some strategic sense of where the country is and what kinds of policy would help get it to a better place. This is very bleak, and that's part of, underlies the sense of shock, which we come back to with Trump after we tell ourselves, oh, well, it isn't new, and so on. The sense of shock is, well what is the practical available alternative for the moment? Electorally, Trump is quite weak, he wasn't a landslide, he got fewer percentage than Jimmy Carter did. The balance in the in the congress is quite is quite slight but again you could take false comfort there. The problem with liberals and progressives is they don't really have a counter narrative and one of the reasons they don't have a counter-narrative is I don't sense they have any longer a kind of vision of their own. This is a very bleak state of affairs.Andrew Keen: It's a bleak state of affairs in a very kind of surreal way. They're lacking the language. They don't have the words. Do they need to reread the old New Left classics?Edmund Fawcett: I think you've said a good thing. I mean, words matter tremendously. And this is one of Trump's gifts, is that he's able to spin old tropes of the right, the old theme music of the hard right that goes back to late 19th century America, late 19th century Europe. He's brilliant at it. It's often garbled. It's also incoherent. But the intellectuals, particularly liberals and progressives can mishear this. They can miss the point. They say, ah, it doesn't, it's not grammatical. It's incoherent. It is word salad. That's not the point. A paragraph of Trump doesn't make sense. If you were an editor, you'd want to rewrite it, but editors aren't listening. It's people in the crowd who get his main point, and his main point is always expressed verbally. It's very clever. It's hard to reproduce because he's actually a very good actor. However, the left at the moment has nothing. It has neither a vocabulary nor a set of speech makers. And the reason it doesn't have that, it doesn't have the vocabularies, because it doesn't have the strategic vision.Andrew Keen: Yeah, and coming back to the K-word you brought up, kitsch. If anything, the kitsch is on the left with Kamala Harris and her presentation of herself in this kitschification of American immigration. So the left in America, if that's the right word to describe them, are as vulnerable to kitsch as the right.Edmund Fawcett: Yes, and whether it's kitsch or not, I think this is very difficult to talk to on the progressive left. Identity politics does have a lot to answer for. Okay, I'll go for it. I mean, it's an old saying in politics that things begin as a movement, become a campaign, become a lobby, and then end up as a racket. That's putting it much too strongly, but there is an element in identity politics of which that is true. And I think identity politics is a deep problem for liberals, it's a deep problem for progressives because in the end, what identity politics offers is a fragmentation, which is indeed happened on the left, which then the right can just pick off as it chooses. This is, I think, to get back some kind of strategic vision, the left needs to come out of identity politics, it needs to go back to the vision of commonality, the vision of non-discrimination, the mission of true civic equality, which underlay civil rights, great movement, and try to avoid. The way that identity politics is encouraged, a kind of segmentation. There's an interesting parallel between identity politics and Trumpism. I'm thinking of the national element in Trumpism, Make America Great Again. It's rather a shock to see the Secretary of State sitting beside Trump in the room in the White House with a make America it's not a make America great cap but it says Gulf of America this kind of This nationalism is itself neurotic in a way that identity politics has become neurotic.Andrew Keen: Yeah, it's a Linguistic.Edmund Fawcett: Neurosis. Both are neurotic responses to genuine problems.Andrew Keen: Edmund, long-time viewers and listeners to the show know that I often quote you in your wonderful two histories of conservatism and liberalism when you, I'm not sure which of the books, I think it may have been in conservatism. I can't remember myself. You noted that this struggle between the left and the right, between liberalism and conservatives have always be smarter they've always made the first move and it's always been up to the liberals and of course liberalism and the left aren't always the same thing but the left or progressives have always been catching up with conservatives so just to ask this question in terms of this metaphorical chess match has anything changed. It's always been the right that makes the first move, that sets the game up. It has recently.Edmund Fawcett: Let's not fuss too much with the metaphor. I think it was, as it were, the Liberals made the first move for decades, and then, more or less in our lifetimes, it has been the right that has made the weather, and the left has been catching up. Let's look at what happened in the 1970s. In effect. 30-40 years of welfare capitalism in which the state played ever more of a role in providing safety nets for people who were cut short by a capitalistic economy. Politics turned its didn't entirely reject that far from it but it is it was said enough already we've reached an end point we're now going to turn away from that and try to limit the welfare state and that has been happening since the 1970s and the left has never really come up with an alternative if you look at Mitterrand in France you look at Tony Blair new Labor in you look at Clinton in the United States, all of them in effect found an acceptably liberal progressive way of repackaging. What the right was doing and the left has got as yet no alternative. They can throw rocks at Trump, they can resist the hard right in Germany, they can go into coalition with the Christian Democrats in order to resist the hard right much as in France but they don't really have a governing strategy of their own. And until they do, it seems to me, and this is the bleak vision, the hard right will make the running. Either they will be in government as they are in the United States, or they'll be kept just out of government by unstable coalitions of liberal conservatives and the liberal left.Andrew Keen: So to quote Patrick Deneen, what is to be done is the alternative, a technocracy, the best-selling book now on the New York Times bestseller list is Ezra Klein, Derek Thompson's Abundance, which is a progressive. Technocratic manifesto for changing America. It's not very ideological. Is that really the only alternative for the left unless it falls into a Bernie Sanders-style anti-capitalism which often is rather vague and problematic?Edmund Fawcett: Well, technocracy is great, but technocrats never really get to do what they say ought to be done, particularly not in large, messy democracies like Europe and the United States. Look, it's a big question. If I had a Leninist answer to Patrick Deneen's question, what is to be done, I'd be very happy to give it. I feel as somebody on the liberal left that the first thing the liberal left needs to do is to is two things. One is to focus in exposing the intellectual kitschiness, the intellectual incoherence on the one hand of the hard right, and two, hitting back in a popular way, in a vulgar way, if you will, at the lies, misrepresentations, and false appeals that the hard-right coasts on. So that's really a kind of public relations. It's not deep strategy or technocracy. It is not a policy list. It's sharpening up the game. Of basically of democratic politics and they need to liberals on the left need to be much tougher much sharper much more vulgar much more ready to use the kinds of weapons the kinds of mockery and imaginative invention that the Trumpites use that's the first thing the second thing is to take a breath and go back and look at the great achievements of democratic liberalism of the 1950s, 60s, 70s if you will. I mean these were these produced in Europe and the United States societies that by any historical standard are not bad. They have terrible problems, terrible inequities, but by any historical standard and indeed by any comparative standard, they're not bad if you ask yourself why immigration has become such a problem in Western Europe and the United States, it's because these are hugely desirable places to live in, not just because they're rich and make a comfortable living, which is the sort of the rights attitude, because basically they're fairly safe places to live. They're fairly good places for your kids to grow up in. All of these are huge achievements, and it seems to me that the progressives, the liberals, should look back and see how much work was needed to create... The kinds of politics that underpinned that society, and see what was good, boast of what was and focus on how much work was needed.Andrew Keen: Maybe rather than talking about making America great again, it should be making America not bad. I think that's too English for the United States. I don't think that should be for a winner outside Massachusetts and Maine. That's back to front hypocritical Englishism. Let's end where we began on a personal note. Do you think one of the reasons why Trump makes so much news, there's so much bemusement about him around the world, is because most people associate America with modernity, they just take it for granted that America is the most advanced, the most modern, is the quintessential modern project. So when you have a character like Trump, who's anti-modernist, who is a reactionary, It's bewildering.Edmund Fawcett: I think it is bewildering, and I think there's a kind of bewilderment underneath, which we haven't really spoken to as it is an entirely other subject, but is lurking there. Yes, you put your absolutely right, you put your finger on it, a lot of us look to America as modernity, maybe not the society of the future, but certainly the the culture of the future, the innovations of the future. And I think one of the worrying things, which maybe feeds the neurosis of Make America Great Again, feeds the neurosis, of current American unilateralism, is a fear But modernity, talk like Hegel, has now shifted and is now to be seen in China, India and other countries of the world. And I think underlying everything, even below the stuff that we showed in the chart about changing shares of wealth. I think under that... That is much more worrisome in the United States than almost anything else. It's the sense that the United States isn't any longer the great modern world historical country. It's very troubling, but let's face it, you get have to get used to it.Andrew Keen: The other thing that's bewildering and chilling is this seeming coexistence of technological innovation, the Mark Andreessen's, the the Musk's, Elon Musk's of the world, the AI revolution, Silicon Valley, who seem mostly in alliance with Trump and Musk of course are headed out. The Doge campaign to destroy government or undermine government. Is it conceivable that modernity is by definition, you mentioned Hegel and of course lots of people imagine that history had ended in 1989 but the reverse was true. Is it possible that modernity is by-definition reactionary politically?Edmund Fawcett: A tough one. I mean on the technocracy, the technocrats of Silicon Valley, I think one of their problems is that they're brilliant, quite brilliant at making machines. I'm the machinery we're using right here. They're fantastic. They're not terribly good at. Messy human beings and messy politics. So I'm not terribly troubled by that, nor your other question about it is whether looming challenges of technology. I mean, maybe I could just end with the violinist, Fritz Kreisler, who said, I was against the telegraph, I was against the telephone, I was against television. I'm a progressive when it comes to technology. I'm always against the latest thing. I mean, I don't, there've always been new machines. I'm not terribly troubled by that. It seems to me, you know, I want you to worry about more immediate problems. If indeed AI is going to take over the world, my sense is, tell us when we get there.Andrew Keen: And finally, you were half-born in the United States or certainly from an American and British parent. You spent a lot of your life there and you still go, you follow it carefully. Is it like losing a lover or a loved one? Is it a kind of divorce in your mind with what's happening in America in terms of your own relations with America? You noted that your wife gave up her citizenship this year.Edmund Fawcett: Well, it is. And if I could talk about Natalia, my wife, she was much more American than me. Her mother was American from Philadelphia. She lived and worked in America more than I did. She did give up her American citizenship last year, partly for a feeling of, we use a long word, alienation, partly for practical reasons, not because we're anything like rich enough to pay American tax, but simply the business of keeping up with the changing tax code is very wary and troublesome. But she said, as she did it, she will always feel deeply American, and I think it's possible to say that. I mean, it's part of both of us, and I don't think...Andrew Keen: It's loseable. Well, I have to ask this question finally, finally. Maybe I always use that word and it's never final. What does it mean to feel American?Edmund Fawcett: Well, everybody's gonna have their own answer to that. I was just... What does it mean for you? I'm just reading. What it is to feel American. Can I dodge the question by saying, what is it to feel Californian? Or even what is to be Los Angelino? Where my sister-in-law and brother-in-law live. A great friend said, what it is feel Los Angeles you go over those mountains and you put down your rucksack. And I think what that means is for Europeans, America has always meant leaving the past behind.Edmund Fawcett was the Economist‘s Washington, Paris and Berlin correspondent and is a regular reviewer. His Liberalism: The Life of an Idea was published by Princeton in 2014. The second in his planned political trilogy – Conservatism: The Fight for a Tradition – was published in 2020, also by Princeton University Press. The Economist called it ‘an epic history of conservatism and the Financial Times praised Fawcett for creating a ‘rich and wide-ranging account' that demonstrates how conservatism has repeated managed to renew itself.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Grab your popcorn and your antacid.After a mind numbing week of schizophrenic headlines and market mayhem it seems Trump has backed off from his civilization ending tariff rhetoric. Even Fox News hosts are admitting this wasn't 12D chess but a massive blunder which has succeeded only in normalizing chaos in America, weakening the dollar internationally and strengthening trade relationships between BRICS nations and emerging markets.So Trump tucked tail, but not before priming the pump for insiders to cash in on the announcement with some pretty blatant insider trading. I have renamed him ‘Pump & Dump Trump' … I think it's fitting.Ultimately, nothing has really changed in Groundhog Day political hell. In a nutshell, both China and the USA have dumped crushing tariffs (trade taxes) on their own citizens since 2017 and are calling it a ‘trade war”. Convenient for them isn't it?Even crazier? Trump is now using the crisis that he himself created to bring back the ‘essential vs. non essential' rhetoric of COVID to determine what companies get tariff pardons while championing a bill to make it easier for him to declare national emergencies and circumvent judicial review.Alas, the #UNIPARTY chaos continues, uncertainty prevails, markets restrict into survival mode, debt and deficits grow, the money printing continues and inflation rages on.And all you got was a stupid hat.Today we cover the headlines which have dominated the week with lots of Q&A and commentary from our live chatters on Rumble, Facebook and Twitter. I cannot wait to talk to you all!!Tune in LIVE ——> https://rumble.com/v6rwucd-realitydc-heats-up-tariff-whiplash-pump-and-dump-schemes-and-scheming-influ.htmlStart COOKING with toxin free ceramic!! The 100% toxin free P600 sizzle set is 55% OFF for the SJ audience!! Go to https://www.chefsfoundry.com/joy today to claim the limited time discount!Watch LIVE TODAY and follow the SJ Show on Rumble HERE: https://rumble.com/c/TheShannonJoyShowShannon's Top Headlines April 10, 2025:A Timeline Of Tariffs, China & USA: https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/us-china-trade-war-tariff-retaliations-timeline-2017-to-2025-lawsuits-125041000509_1.htmlInsider Trading On The Tariff Wars? https://croakycaiman.substack.com/p/the-call-heard-around-the-swamp-whenCOVID Trump Is Back - Essential Vs Non-Essential Businesses Get Favors: https://x.com/ShannonJoyRadio/status/1910316141655777595Elon Gives Himself A Not So Small DOGE Treat: https://www.ft.com/content/ede5b41d-4b97-494f-b8ce-4f13b11f9ad1?accessToken=zwAGMm1-SDdwkdPt5bQdS5dJT9O4zk8TsR-a0Q.MEUCIQDWE362nT6DOvCxRDP80ENwwV97EreEqYyJ1Zc1OWmnfgIgVyZadHM76Yng2wpEdqv7WLq3hncX0kYUCGnPyRwmnVM&sharetype=gift&token=42578836-67db-403d-b1fb-335c29e2247dSilver Still Looking Nice: https://www.mining.com/ubs-tells-investors-to-buy-silver-amid-trump-tariff-turmoil/SJ Show Notes:Please support Shannon's independent network with your donation HERE:https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=MHSMPXEBSLVT6Support Our Sponsors:Please help us welcome an AMAZING new sponsor Blackout Coffee!! Here is a GREAT deal just for the Joy audience - 20% off your first order—just head to https://www.blackoutcoffee.com/?p=Y7GEtILQS and use code joy at checkout.SJ Collagen SPECIAL DEAL!! Get your Native Path collagen 45% OFF with a stock up special for the SJ audience! www.getnativepathcollagen.com/joyBe ready before you need it! Stock up now and protect your family. Go to https://www.allfamilypharmacy.com/JOY and use code JOY10 for 10% off your order.Colonial Metals Group is the company Shannon trusts for all her metals purchases! Set up a SAFE & Secure IRA or 401k with a company who shares your values! Learn more HERE: https://colonialmetalsgroup.com/joyLightly prepped and READY to go. Always be prepared for ANY emergency with The Satellite Phone Store! Everything you need when the POWER goes OUT. Use the promo code JOY for 10% off your entire order TODAY! www.SAT123.com/JoyPlease consider Dom Pullano of PCM & Associates! He has been Shannon's advisor for over a decade and would love to help you grow!Call his toll free number today: 1-800-536-1368Or visit his website at https://www.pcmpullano.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

So Trump is an idiot. That's not news. But what is news is how remarkably quickly the economy is tanking thanks to his "tariffs for 'Murica" plan. And here at the bottom, you and I will feel the greatest weight of this crash while the world looks on, watching the US just beat the shit out of iteslf for no apparent reason.  PLUS some words from Richard Wolff on Econ 101 and thes times, the Panama Canal purchase on hold, and more!  

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found Click On Picture To See Larger Picture Trump unveils the first gold card visa, Liberation Day has now passed and the fake news and the economist are pushing doom and gloom. Trump set everything up to force the Fed to lower rates, low inflation, jobs, low energy. The Fed is trapped. The economic is going to boom, the window is closing for the [CB]. The [DS] is panicking, DOGE and Trump are figuring out how the money laundering scheme works, who is getting the kickbacks and how they over through the government. Trump made an announcement that DOGE found something incredible, could this be how they use the SS numbers to cheat in the elections, or is this about the kickbacks or something else. Trump put out the information so the [DS] makes a move. Panic everywhere.   (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Economy Trump unveils first $5 million ‘gold card' visa US President Donald Trump unveiled the first “gold card”, a residency permit sold for $5 million each, aboard Air Force One on Thursday. Holding a prototype that bore his face and an inscription “The Trump Card”, the Republican president told reporters that the special visa would probably be available “in less than two weeks”. Source: breitbart.com https://twitter.com/WallStreetApes/status/1908019051676434850 https://twitter.com/CollinsforTX/status/1907811075766047118 impose them. Trump sued over China tariffs  President Trump was sued  over the 20 percent tariffs he imposed on Chinese goods i It marks the first known legal challenge against Trump's tariffs, which have fulfilled a campaign promise and rattled financial markets. The lawsuit contests Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), arguing the law authorizes asset freezes and similar economic sanctions, but not tariffs. “Congress passed the IEEPA to counter external emergencies, not to grant presidents a blank check to write domestic economic policy,” the lawsuit states. Source: thehill.com The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 is a United States federal law that grants the President broad authority to regulate international economic transactions during a national emergency. Enacted on October 28, 1977, it's codified under Title 50 of the U.S. Code, sections 1701-1707. The act was designed to replace the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, narrowing the scope of presidential powers to peacetime emergencies rather than wartime scenarios. Under IEEPA, the President can declare a national emergency in response to an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to the U.S. national security, foreign policy, or economy that originates largely from abroad. Once declared, the President can block transactions, freeze assets, and impose economic sanctions on foreign entities or individuals. The law requires the President to notify Congress of the emergency and provide periodic updates, but it doesn't mandate Congressional approval to maintain the emergency.   To cut your tariff, buy American stuff So Trump's tariffs should benefit the trade-deficit U.S. even if they ignite a trade war.  But a trade war is far from inevitable.  Reciprocal tariffs create incentives for countries to buy from the U.S. in order to sell to the U.S.  Vietnam, for example, bought $13.1 billion from the U.S. in 2024, whereas it sold $136.6 billion to the U.S.  To bring down Trump's 46% tariff rate on Vietnamese products, Vietnam will probably negotiate with Trump, agreeing to buy more U.S. products. During his first term, Trump's tariffs,

In this episode of The Missing Secret Podcast, John and Kelly discuss the concept of why people don't always see things like we do. And they discuss what is the effect on both of us and them. During this podcast John points out that sometimes the difference of opinion has no real impact. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. And everybody processes information differently. That's why there is a difference of opinion. But sometimes there is more at stake. It's more than that a difference of opinion. It's right or wrong. The opinion that is right is always the one that is closest to the truth, or what we would define as reality. The truth is reality.John talks about Elon Musk sending an email to all 2 million federal employees telling them to respond to see if there are real people behind the emails. As John and Kelly discussed it, they had different opinions. Processing the same information but differently. But it's just a matter of opinion. Then John talked about the Ukraine more. Trump saying Ukraine started the war. A clear falsehood. Now we've moved from something that is just an opinion to something with real consequences. Over 1 million people have been killed in this war. Biggest war in Europe since World War II. Clearly Trump is wrong. Ukraine clearly did not start the war. So Trump is clearly wrong. And the decisions he's making for the United States are to our detriment. Because he's ignoring the truth. And that's the point. When people have a different opinion, sometimes it's just a matter of opinion.But sometimes there is way more at stake. Key is to tune into what is the truth. The position that is closest to the truth, which is reality, is the opinion that is correct. John talks about teaching his think it be it methodology to his class at the University of Texas. Most of them are fully on board. Excited about what they're learning. But if a few are resisting it, then they are doing it at their own peril. Because their own successes is on the line. And to deny something that clearly is proven to be true and based on science, is to their detriment. But it's their choice.Buy John's book, THE MISSING SECRET of the Legendary Book Think and Grow Rich : And a 12-minute-a-day technique to apply it here.About the Hosts:John MitchellJohn's story is pretty amazing. After spending 20 years as an entrepreneur, John was 50 years old but wasn't as successful as he thought he should be. To rectify that, he decided to find the “top book in the world” on SUCCESS and apply that book literally Word for Word to his life. That Book is Think & Grow Rich. The book says there's a SECRET for success, but the author only gives you half the secret. John figured out the full secret and a 12 minute a day technique to apply it.When John applied his 12 minute a day technique to his life, he saw his yearly income go to over $5 million a year, after 20 years of $200k - 300k per year. The 25 times increase happened because John LEVERAGED himself by applying science to his life.His daily technique works because it focuses you ONLY on what moves the needle, triples your discipline, and consistently generates new business ideas every week. This happens because of 3 key aspects of the leveraging process.John's technique was profiled on the cover of Time Magazine. He teaches it at the University of Texas' McCombs School of Business, which is one the TOP 5 business schools in the country. He is also the “mental coach” for the head athletic coaches at the University of Texas as well.Reach out to John at john@thinkitbeit.comLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-mitchell-76483654/Kelly HatfieldKelly Hatfield is an...

President Trump was issued a referendum on November 5: Clean up the filth, trim the fat, and take out the trash. So Trump rolled out the MAGA Diet. He's moving quickly to get us all on it. Dan Bongino becomes Kash Patel's deputy at the FBI, with rumors that Matt Gaetz will be working with them, too. (Pinch me.) Trump fires the chair of the Joint Chiefs as new polling suggests a disturbing disconnect between Democrats and reality. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna calls for all members of the House and Senate to be drug tested as federal workers receive a homework assignment that will weed out people not working and expose fake people on fake emails collecting pay and defrauding the American people.

Trump sent out his utterly un-American post again this morning: "He who saves his county does not violate any law." It's a statement, a belief, that cannot coexist with our Constitution, cannot coexist if we're a nation of laws. So Trump is forcing Americans to choose: Him or the rule of law. What say you America? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today on Welcome to Cloudlandia, We start with the mysterious drone sightings over New Jersey, exploring the thin line between conspiracy and curiosity. These nocturnal aerial visitors become a metaphor for our complex modern world, where information and imagination intersect. We then investigate the profound impact of cultural icons like Mr. Beast and Kylie Jenner, examining how influence transcends traditional expertise. Our discussion reveals how public figures navigate changing landscapes of leadership and visibility, offering insights into the evolving dynamics of success and social capital. The episode concludes by challenging our approach to information consumption. Drawing from personal experiments and wisdom from thought leaders like Warren Buffett, we explore strategies for staying informed in a noisy digital ecosystem. Our conversation provides practical perspectives on navigating media, understanding cultural shifts, and maintaining perspective amid constant information flow. SHOW HIGHLIGHTS We explore the presence of drones over New Jersey, questioning whether they are linked to government surveillance or civilian activities, while considering the broader context of misinformation and conspiracy theories. Dan and I discuss the concept of anticipation being more stressful than actual experiences, suggesting it as a contributor to mental distress. The impact of cultural icons like Mr. Beast and Kylie Jenner is examined, highlighting their influence despite lacking traditional skills in their fields. We ponder on how cultural shifts are altering perceptions of corporate leadership, using a hypothetical scenario of a CEO's public safety being compromised. The dynamics of news consumption are analyzed, contrasting real-time news feeds with curated platforms like RealClear Politics to understand how they balance diverse political viewpoints. I share my experience with digital abstinence, noting the benefits of reduced distractions and the negligible impact of disconnecting from the continuous news cycle temporarily. The concept of "irrational confidence" is explored, discussing how it characterizes overachievers and can be cultivated over time to foster personal growth. We reflect on long-term investment strategies inspired by Warren Buffett, emphasizing the enduring need for certain products and industries. I consider the importance of balancing cultural awareness with the need to filter out unnecessary noise, contemplating changes in my information consumption habits. Insights from personal experiments in digital and media consumption are shared, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between transient cultural information and lasting knowledge. Links: WelcomeToCloudlandia.com StrategicCoach.com DeanJackson.com ListingAgentLifestyle.com TRANSCRIPT (AI transcript provided as supporting material and may contain errors) Dean: Mr Sullivan. Dan: Mr Jackson are the drones looking down on you. Are the drones looking down on you. Dan: I mean, how many do you have up there? What is going? Dean: on with these drones. Dan: Yeah, I bet there's just a bunch of civilians fooling around with the government. Dean: Yeah, I wonder you know like you look at this. I think it's so. I wonder you know like you look at this. I think it's so amazing that you know we've had a theme, or I've been kind of thinking about this, with the. You know, is this the best time to be alive or the worst time to be alive? And I mentioned that I think probably in every practical way, this is the best time, but the anything in the worst time to be alive column just the speed and proliferation of, you know, conspiracies and misinformation and the battle for our minds. You know, keeping us in that. You know everything is just enough to be. You know where you're uncertain of stuff. You know there's a lot of uncertainty that's being laid out right now in every way. I mean, you look at just what's happened in the last. If we take 2020, fear you know. Dan: Well, tell me about it. I'm not very much of that 2024. Tell me about it. I experience very much of that. But why don't you tell me about that? Because I want to note some things down here. Dean: You know what? Dan: Every month, more money comes in than goes out. What more do you need to know besides that? Dean: I agree with you. I'm seeing the light here. It's just on the top level. We went through an election year which is always the you know the highly funded, you know misinformation campaigns or you know putting out there. So everybody's up on high level. Dan: Are you talking about lies Are? Dean: you talking about lies? Are you talking about lies? Who knows Dan? Dan: When I was growing up we called them lies. Why so many extra letters? I mean lies, that's a perfectly good Anglo-Saxon word. Why is Greek and Roman stuff in there? Dean: I think that's the thing, If we just simplify it. But if we bring it down to lies and truth, it's much more. Dan: I like lies and truth. Dean: Yeah, it's much more difficult to discern the lies from the truth. Dan: Yeah, he's telling a lie here, folks, his mouth is moving Exactly. Dean: You know that's the truth, but I just look at that. It's like you know the things that are. You know the things that are happening right now. Like you look at even with the government, even with the congressional hearings or announcements on, almost just like a matter of fact, oh yeah, there's aliens, there's totally aliens. There's. They've been here for a long time. We've got some in, we've got all the evidence and everything like that. But you know, carry on, it's just kind of so. It's so funny. Stuff is being like, you know, nobody really is kind of talking about it. And then you get these drone situations in New Jersey, all these drones coming out and the government saying I know nothing to see here, nothing going on there. Dan: Well, my take if you're going to be using drones. New Jersey would be my choice. You know I put drones over New Jersey. Not a lot happening there. Dean: All the memes now are that it's some highly sophisticated, you know fast food delivery service for Chris Christie. That's all the meme things. They're on a direct pipeline delivering fast food to Chris Christie. That's just so funny. Dan: Yeah, yeah. Well, you know, I mean the whole point is that civilians could do this. I mean, I think everybody probably has the you know, or certain people do have the technological capability now to put up drones, you know, and just put some lights on them and put them in the night sky I'm sure anybody does that and then you know, and then you'll be on social media. Dean: Somebody will film you and everything like that you know it's at night and they're mysterious. Dan: Always do it at night, never do it during the day You've got to use the right words to describe them too, dan, you've got to use the right words they're mysterious drones. And if you practice you can get them to fly. In formation it looks even more interesting. I'm swooping a little bit in formation, everything else, well, I don't believe there's aliens. Dean: Okay, good Everything else yeah. Well, I don't believe there's aliens, so you know I mean. Dan: I don't believe there's anything more alien than people I've already met. That's what. Dean: I mean yeah. Dan: You know I've met some alien thought forms on the part of some people. But see, I think you got to make a fundamental decision about this up front. This is worth thinking about or it's not worth thinking about. Yeah, okay, so I made the decision. It's not worth thinking about that. If something new develops, I'll probably know about it in a very short period of time, and then I can start responding to it. Yeah, but about six months ago a new resolution plunked into place in my brain, and that is I'm not going to react to an experience until I actually have the experience. Dean: So say more about that. Dan: Rather than making up a fantasy or the possibility that there's an experience to be it. Actually you're getting. I think mental illness is having an experience before you've actually being afraid of an experience before you've actually had it. It's the anticipation of having an experience that I think causes mental illness. Dean: That's true, isn't it? Dan: Yeah, I mean, that's like yeah, I haven't seen Probably not the only thing, probably not the only thing about mental illness, but I think that would qualify as an aspect. It certainly is a paranoia, certainly an aspect of paranoia, yeah, but things are moving. I think we're witnessing one of the greatest innovations in the history of the United States right now. Can I tell you what it is? Would you be interested? I'm all ears. Yeah, President is elected, and then there's this period from the day after the election until the inauguration. Dean: Yes. Dan: And it's basically been fallow. Nothing grows during that time and Trump has just decided why don't I just start acting like the president right after the election and really create a huge momentum by the time we get to the inauguration? Let's be so forceful right after the election that all the world leaders talk to me. They don't talk to the existing president. That's his name. I forget what I forget Joe, joe, joe. All right, that's the name, that's the name of the beach, that's the name of the beach, I just find it remarkable how, around the world, everybody's responding to the incoming president, not to the actual president. That's the truth. I think he's, and he's getting people. There's foreign policy changing. You know there's foreign policy, mexico, their foreign policy you know, their export import policy is changing. Canada export import policy is changing. Canada export-import policy is changing. And all he did was say a word. He said I think we're going to put a 25% tariff on both of you. And all of a sudden, they're up at night. They're up at night. Dean: I happened to be, in Toronto when all that was being announced. I happened to be in Toronto when all that was being announced and all the news was, you know, that there's an emergency meeting of all of the premiers to discuss the reaction to Donald Trump's proposed tariff. You know, you're absolutely right. Everybody's scrambling, everybody's. You know, they're definitely, you know, thinking about what's coming. You know. Dan: And then he goes to Paris for the opening of, you know, they're definitely, you know, thinking about what's coming, you know. And then he goes to Paris for the opening of, you know, the you know, the renovation of Notre Dame Cathedral. Yeah, looks good, by the way, I don't know if you've seen the pictures. It looks really good. I was in there. You know I've been to Paris, I think I've been to Paris three times and I went the first time. I said, oh, I've been to Paris, I think I've been to Paris three times and I went the first time. I said, oh, I have to go to Notre Dame Cathedral. And I went in and I said, gee, it's dark and dingy and I'm not sure they even clean. You know, clean the place anymore. And all it takes is a little fire to get everybody into cleanup mode, and boy, it looks spectacular. So Trump goes there and it's like he's the emperor of the world. You know, all the heads of state come up and they want to shake his hands and everything like that. I've never seen anything like that with an incoming president. They want to get on his good side and everybody's giving them money for his inauguration. Mark Zuckerberg's giving them money. The head of Google's giving them money for his inauguration. Mark zuckerberg's giving them money. The head of google is giving them money. Jeff bezos giving them money. Abc's giving them 15 million. That'll just go into his library library fund. Yeah, and everything else. Wow. You know, I've never seen them do this to an incoming president before. Yeah, time magazine called him the person of the year Already. I didn't even know there was a Time magazine. Dean: I'm actually thinking. I've been, I've been like thinking, dan, about my 2025, you know information plan and you know I've been kind of test driving this idea of you know, disconnecting. Where I struggle with this is that so much of the insights and things that I have are because I, on top of culture, you know, I think I'm very like tuned in to what's going on. I have a pretty broad, you know, observation of everything and that. So where I struggle with it is letting go of like at the vcr formula, for instance, was born of my observation and awareness of what's going on with mr beast and kylie jenner and these, you know, that sort of early thing of knowing and seeing what's going on you know before many of our contemporaries kind of thing. Right, many of our people are very decidedly disconnected from popular culture and don't pay attention to it. So I look at that as a balance. That part of it there's a certain amount of awareness that is an advantage for me might be affected if I were to be blissfully unaware of what's going on in culture, you know. Dan: Yeah, I don't know. I mean you could put Charlotte on to the job you know, yeah, and that's so I look at that. Charlotte. For our listeners, charlotte is Dean's AI sleuth. She finds out things. She's a sleuthy integrator of things that Dean finds interesting. You ought to talk it over with her and say how can I stop doing this and still have the benefit of it? Dean: Yeah, my thing. I think that where there might be an AI tool that I could use for this, but Charlotte, from what I understand, is bound by her latest update or whatever. She's got access to everything up to a certain date. She doesn't have real time information in terms of the most recent stuff. Have you heard, by the way, dan, what is? We're imminently away from the release of ChatGPPT 5, which is supposedly I want to get the numbers right on this. Let me just look at a text here, because it's so overwhelmingly more powerful than ChatGPT 4. The new ChatGPT5 has 10 trillion gpus compared to chat gpt4, which is 75 billion. So the difference from 75 billion to 10 trillion sounds like a pretty impressive leap. Sounds like a pretty impressive leap, and that'll put it over the top of you know, the current thing is a 121 IQ, and this will bring it to being smarter than any human on the planet. Dan: And so we don't even know, but not at doing anything particular. Dean: No, I guess not. I mean just the insight processing, logic, reasoning, all of that stuff being able to process information. I'm still amazed I was talking. Dan: When it comes out. Three months after it comes out, will you notice any difference? Dean: I don't know. Dan: That's what I'm wondering, my feeling is that I'm not even sure what cat GPT is two years after it came out, because I haven't interacted with it at all Right, I've interacted with perplexity, which I find satisfying. And you know, yeah, there's an interesting. I read an interesting article on human intelligence and it said that by and large, there's an active, practical zone to human intelligence where you're above average in confidence and you're above average in making sense of things, and it seems to be between 120 and 140. Dean: Yes, 120, 140. Dan: And about 40, 140,. Your confidence goes down as you get smarter and your awareness of making sense of things gets weaker, gets weaker. And from a standpoint of communicating with other people, the sweet zone seems to be 120 to 140. Dean: Yeah, yeah, I think you're right. I think that, yeah, yeah. Dan: You've got above average pattern, You've got above average pattern recognition and you've got good eye-hand coordination you know, in the artisans of the word that you can see something and take action on it quite quickly. You have the ability to do that, and probably in new ways, probably in new ways so you don't have a lot of friction coming the other way. You know when you do something new? yeah, but iq, you know, iq, iq is one measurement of human behavior yeah but there's many others that are more prominent, so yeah, I think this is you know, I think silicon Valley has a big fixation on IQ because they like to compare who's got the biggest. They like to compare who's got the biggest, but I'm not sure it really relates to anything useful or practical beyond a certain point. Dean: Well, it's not actionable. There's no insight in it, not like knowing that you're Colby, knowing that we're 10 quick starts is useful information. Dan: Yeah, it's like having six quick starts together with some alcohol. Right, it's a fun party. Dean: Yes, like you said your book club or your dinner clubs, our next-door neighbor our next-door neighbor's husband and wife and Shannon Waller and her husband. Dan: Our quick start out of the 60 is 56. We just have the best time for about three or four hours Good food, the wine is good and everything else. We just have the best time for about three or four hours Good food, the wine is good and everything else. And regardless of what happens transpires during those four hours, the world is completely safe from any impact. Dean: Right, exactly, it's so funny it's not going to leave the room. Yeah, everybody's safe, yeah. Dan: Go back to culture. What do you mean by culture when you say? Dean: culture. What? Dan: do you mean by culture? When you say culture, what do you mean? Dean: I mean, like popular culture, what's happening in the world right now, like having an awareness of what, because I'm a good pattern recognizer and I see and I'm overlaying things. I'm curious and alert and always looking for what's with Mr Beast and recognizing that neither one of them has any capability to do the thing that they're doing. Mr Beast didn't have the capability to make and run hamburger restaurants and Kylie didn't have any capability to run and manufacture a cosmetics company, but they both were aligned with people who had that capability and that allowed them to have a conduit from their vision, through that capability, that if they just let people know their reach that they've now got a hamburger restaurant and you can order on Uber Eats right now or you can click here to get my lip kits. You know, access to those eyeballs, that's all. So I look at that and if I had not, if I had been cut off from you know, sort of I would say I'm in the tippy top percent of people of time spent on popular culture. I guess you know, and I look at it as I look at, it's a problem in terms of a lot of time and a lot of you know that mindless stuff you would think like screen time, but all the inputs and awareness is just monitoring the signal to get and recognize patterns. You know. So I'm real. Yeah, well, let me throw you a challenge on the culture side. Dan: get and recognize patterns, you know. So I'm really sorry, yeah, well, let me throw you a challenge on the culture side. Dean: Yeah. Dan: Okay. So in New York City there's going to be a meeting of you know, I guess it's a shareholders meeting for a big health insurance company and the head of one part of the health insurance company is walking down the street. Somebody shoots him in the back and kills him, kills him the CEO, and they, yeah, they catch up with him. You know, a week later and you know he's arrested in a McDonald's in Pennsylvania and they find all sorts of incriminating evidence that he in fact is the person who was the shooter. And now he's got, you know, he's got sort of a manifesto about that. These CEOs are doing evil and even though he doesn't think that his action was an admirable action, it had to be done. I would say that's a cultural factoid because up until now being a CEO is like being an aristocrat in our capitalist society. I get a CEO and now the CEOs are trying to be invisible and they're hiring like mad new security. So all the status value of being a CEO got disappeared on an early morning sidewalk in New York City because somebody shot him. Shot him in the back, you know, I mean it wasn't a brave act, shot him in the back, but the reason is that you, as a CEO, are doing harm to large numbers of people and someone has to stop you. I would say, that's as much a cultural fact as Mr Beast or Kylie Jenner. Dean: Yeah, I mean, would you say that again? Dan: I mean, I think, every CEO in the United States. Dan: United States has instantly changed his whole schedule and how he's going to show up in public and where he's going to be seen in public where he doesn't have large amounts of security, with one action broadly communicated out through the social media and through the mainstream media. He just changed the whole way of life for CEOs. I would say that's a cultural fact. It's a negative one. You're talking about positive ones, but I believe for every positive thing you have, there's probably a corresponding negative one. I'm struck by that You're just not going to see CEOs around anymore, and I mean, half the value of being a CEO is being seen around and they just removed the whole reward for being seen around, just removed the whole reward for being seen around. Dean: Yeah, I wonder, you know like I mean. But there are certain things like other I don't know that it's all CEOs. You know, like I think, if you are perceived as the part of the vilified, you know CEOs, the almost back to Occupy Wall Street kind of things, if you're a CEO of a company that's viewed as the oppressor, like those insurance things, but I don't know if that's true for the CEOs of NVIDIA and OpenAI and Tesla, and you know what I mean. Dan: I think, if you're yeah, I wonder, but we'll see, but we'll see, we'll see. Dean: Yeah, yeah, are you the people's CEO? You know, I think. Dan: Yeah, I mean my yeah. Somebody once asked me about this, you know. They said how well known would you like to be? And I said just be below the line where I would have to have security. Dean: Right, yeah, if you look at it, can you think of anybody? Dan: I wander around Toronto on my own. I go here and I go there and everything else, and nobody knows who I am. That's my security. Dean: Nobody knows who I am yeah, but you wonder, like you know, if you look at the level of fame of you know you? You've mentioned before the difference between Warren Buffett and Mark Zuckerberg. Warren Buffett is certainly very famous, but nobody's mad at him. I guess that's part of the thing. He's very wise, or viewed as wise. Dan: He's usefully wise. Dean: Yeah, exactly. Dan: Investing according to his benchmarks and his strategies has proved very valuable to a great number of people. Dean: Agreed. Dan: Plus, he's got a fairly simple, understandable lifestyle. He still lives in the house he's lived in for the last 40 years, still drives a pickup truck and his you know the entrance to his home is filled with boxes of Diet Coke. Dean: Cherry. Dan: Coke Cherry Coke, cherry Coke. Dean: Cherry Coke, not Diet Coke. No, I'm not. That's a subject, I'm not an expert in Cherry Coke. Dan: Cherry Coke, not Diet Coke. That's a subject I'm not an expert in. Dean: That's the funniest thing. Right, that's one of my top two. Dan: Warren Buffett, you have merit badges in that area. Dean: Yeah. But I think culture, you know, I don't know, I'm trying, it's a slippery beast, this thing culture you know, it's a slippery, slippery beast and you know there's I think that's part of the thing, though it's like the zeitgeist you know is, I think, having an awareness zeitgeist gosh, you just had to slip in a german word, didn't you? Dan: you just had to get a german word, yeah I've been sort of fixated on schadenfreude for the last month. I've just been why I've just been watching the democrats respond to the election and I'm fully schadenfreude. I've been fully schadenfreid for the last month. But zeitgeist, the spirit, I think that translates into the spirit of the times. Dean: Yes, that's exactly what it is. That's what I meant by. That's what I meant by. I'm very like, I think I'm at the tippy top of the you know percentiles of people who are tuned into the zeitgeist, I think that's. I would be self-reportedly that, but yeah, and I don't know, but at the cost of there's a lot of useless stuff that gets in there as well, you know, and negative, and you're faced with all of it. So, my, my filter, I'm taking in all the sewer water kind of thing and having to filter it through rather than just, you know, pre-filtering, only drinking filtered water. Dan: You're getting rid of the fluoride drinking filtered water. Dean: You're getting rid of the fluoride. Yeah, exactly, winter haven. Florida, by the way, is one of the first in the country to be getting rid of fluoride on the oh no, this will happen really quick. Dan: Oh yeah, it was just that. Dean: I, I just said I just saw that winter haven was like one of the first movers you, you know, polk County Florida is removing and, by the way, polk County Florida is now fastest growing county in the country. So then, so there you know, 30 something, 30,000 something people that we grew by, yeah, so, new. Dan: You're to date right, you're to date Over the last 12 months, over the last 12 months. I guess that's how they measure it yeah. Dean: So my thought, dan, was that I was looking to. You know, like my tune in to the zeitgeist is on a daily, real-time basis, I'm getting the full feed, right. No, no filters. Yeah, what I was thinking. What I was wondering about was if I were to change the cadence of it to more sort of filtered content, like I would say what you do, your, you've chosen a filter called real clear politics. Right, that's your, that's your filter, and you probably have five or six other filters that are your lens through yeah, it would be the go-to every day. Dan: You know I start the morning and. I go on my computer, I go to the RealClear site. So it's. RealClear comes up as RealClear politics, but then they have about eight other RealClear channels. RealClear politics, RealClear markets, RealClear world. Realclear defense, energy, health science, you know, and everything like that. But the beauty of it is that they're aggregators of other people's output. So you know everybody's competing to get their articles on real clear. You know the New York Times competes to try to get. You know, get every day maybe one or two of its headlines, supposedly for most of my life. The most important newspaper in the world and they have to compete every day to get something of theirs onto the real clear platform. And it seems very balanced to me, right to left from politics. You know, politically, if I look at 20 headlines, I would say that five of them are real total right, five of them are total left and there's a lot of middle. There's a lot of middle about things like that, you know about things like that, you know, and then I'll punch on them, and then that takes me right to the publication or the site that produced the headline, and then I might see three or four things and I discover new ones. I discover new ones all the time. And it's good and there's a lot of filtering that's being done, but I do. They're not interpreting these articles. They're just giving you the article. You can read the article and make up your own mind about it. Now they do some editing in some cases because they interpret the headlines and they have a sidebar where there's topical areas where it's clear to me that real clear has created the headline. That's not the originating. Dean: You know the originating source of the article that's kind of like that's the drudge playbook, right yeah? Dan: I used to like drudge but he went wacky. He went wacky so I didn't read him anymore. Dean: Yeah. Dan: These guys are pretty cool. They're pretty cool. They've been going now for a dozen years anyway, as I've been aware, and they seem really cool. You know they carry advertising. That's not if I'm thinking of horses. I don't get horse ads, you know. 10 minutes later you're done. Dean: Something like that. Dan: But they do have their advertising model, but I don't, you know, I'm not interested in buying anything, so it doesn't really affect me, but that's really great. You know what's really interesting. Peter Zion, you know I'm a big fan of his. And he's got a blog and he came out about a month ago saying I'm going to put in a new approach and that is, you'll always get your free blog and video to go along with it. So it's written and then it's also got the video, but it will be a week later than when I put it on, and if you want it right away, it'll cost you this much. And I'm giving all that money to some cause. Okay, so I'm fundraising for some cause and I just went a week with no Peter Zine and then I started getting it every day and it makes no difference to me whether I got it last week or this week, okay, and so I just waited a week and I'm right up to date again as far as I'm concerned. Dean: Right yeah. Dan: Like when Syria fell. You know, the Syrian government collapsed last week and he had nothing on it until seven days later. I want to go over, but he's adjusting his format now. He says I'm going to give you four stages to what's actually happening. So you know, he's experimented with something and he's finding that he has to adjust his presentation a little bit just for people saying you know? You know, I'm going to tell you over a three-day period what happened. This happened on the first day, this happened on the second day, third day and this is where we are on the fourth day, and everything else and that's good. I like that. Everything else you know and everything, but that's part of the culture. You know it's part of the culture. Dean: Yeah. So my thought like my sense of culture. Dan: it's what culture is. Whatever's happening right now that you're interested in, yeah, it seems to show some interesting movement. Dean: Yeah, I think you're, I think you're right. I mean, my thought was of experimenting, was to go to more of a rather than a minute by minute, always on direct feed to the zeitgeist is going through a daily. You know, I had a really interesting two days at strategic coach in Toronto just a couple of weeks ago, when you know I was. I referred to it, as you know, workshopping like it was 1989 with my phone. Dan: You were practicing, practicing abstinence. Dean: Yeah, I was, and what I learned in that was, and I did it two days in a row with zero contact with the outside world, from nine o'clock to five o'clock when the workshops were going on, no checking in at the breaks or at lunch or, you know, no notifications. You know dinging while I'm in the workshops. It was certainly anchoring, you know, presence to me in the in the workshops, but also noticed that nothing really happened. You know like I didn't miss anything in that five, in that nine to five period. You know I got a bunch of emails over the day but there were maybe two or three that were like for me or of any real interest or necessity for me. You know I have two inboxes. I have a, you know, my, my dean at dean jackson. My main mailbox is monitored by, you know, people, stakeholders in the, you know, because sometimes an email will come in and if it has something to do with our realtor division, diane is in there and sees that and can respond, or Lillian is able to respond. But then I also have my own, a private email just for me, that I give to my friends, and whenever you email me, that's the email that you use and those ones are not. Those aren't seen by anybody but me. But there's even far fewer of those that come through than come into the main one. Dan: Well, it's an interesting experiment that you're doing here, because it seems to me that one is the world is changing all the time. As far as news is concerned, the world is. I guess that's what news means. You know that things are changing, but if you don't pay attention to it over a long period of time and you don't feel inconvenienced, by it then, probably, it wasn't important probably it wasn't important, yeah, you know, and like I'm in six and a half years now with no television you know right and and you know, I've gone through two, two full presidential elections without watching television and yet I don't feel that I've missed anything important by not watching television Because I have real clear politics and I have a computer and I get videos. I can go to YouTube. And if somebody's giving a talk somewhere I can watch, where on television you would never get the whole speech. You know you would be broken up with commercials and everything like that. And then you have some commentators telling you what you were supposed to think about that, which I don't really require that I'm perfectly able to understand what I'm thinking about it and everything like that. So I don't know, I don't know. Well, my thought experiment. Dean: You know what you? Dan: should do is say what kind of cultural information is sugar and what kind of cultural information is protein, I get it, and so that's kind of where I was thinking. To me that's where you're going. Dean: I'm thinking about slowing down the cadence so, and to have a daily, like you know, something like real clear and you know there's thinking about where that is filtered sort of thing for me, thinking about where that is filtered sort of thing for me. And then weekly, you know, like I think, if I just looked at, if I went to print as a thing, if I were to say, you know, time Magazine, newsweek, the Inc Magazine, people Magazine, like I think, if there were some things that I could and the Weekend Wall Street Journal, I think with those you could, that would be kind of a really good. I don't think I would miss out. Dan: I'm really big on the Weekend Wall Street Journal, I think that's a great print. That's a great print medium. I literally haven't read Time magazine. I don't know, maybe 20 years or, but it seems like they're probably on top of what's even if it's slanted, you're going to get a sense of what the core thing is. Dean: That's actually right. Yeah, I know. Dan: A lot of Democrats canceled their subscription over the last three or four days because Trump person of the year. Yeah exactly. See, now, that's an interesting piece of information, yeah yeah, what they wrote about him I don't find interesting, but the fact that certain readers they must have made him look good, you know, for that sort of cancellation, you know you know it's like this is being categorized as the kiss the ring phase. Dean: That's what abc there was being characterized. That time magazine kissed the ring by making him person of the year abc. You know, kissing the ring, giving him 15 million dollars, and well, they didn't $15 million. Dan: Well, they didn't give him $15 million, they were required to give him $15 million yeah exactly, and George Stephanopoulos has to apologize publicly for defaming him as he should. As he should, yeah, for defaming him, you know, as he should, as he should. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Dean: So Trump's got to have at least one court case. Dan: Trump's got to have at least one court case going in his favor. Dean: Yeah. Dan: Yeah. Dean: But I look at that as you know, that's a really. I think that would be a really useful thing. Would certainly get me back three or four hours a day of yeah you know, of screen time. It would give me more dean time to use, because it would certainly condense a lot of that but you have some interesting models that are, I would say, are cultural models. Dan: I would say more cheese, less whiskers is a cultural model. I mean, if you have it as a thought form, you can see, you can simplify happenings around you. You know, that seems a little bit too much whiskers, exactly, too much whiskers. Yeah, that seems like a fine new cheese. Yeah, that seems like a fine new cheese. For example, taylor Swift gave $100 million in bonuses to everybody who helped her on her tour. Dean: I don't know if you saw that. It's crazy $200 million. Dan: The truck drivers, the ones who got $100,000. They got $100,000. And her father delivered the checks. That seems like a really. That's like a fondue, that's not just cheese. Dean: That is only the finest cheese fondue. Yes, exactly, that's so funny. Dan: when they hit it big, they're real jerks and they're real pricks and she's not. She's showing gratitude. That's very much a cheese. That was a very cheesy thing for her to do. In your model, that's a very cheesy thing for her to do. Yeah, in your model, that's a very cheesy thing. Dean: Yeah, yeah, absolutely. I look at you know another thing that's happening is I don't know whether you've followed or seen what Deion Sanders has done with Colorado football over the last two seasons, but he basically went from the basement of 1-11 team the worst team in college football to the Alamo Bowl in two seasons and Travis Hunter just won the Heisman Trophy and he could quite possibly have the top two draft picks. Dan: His son didn't win the Heisman Trophy Hunter. Oh, you're saying Travis Hunter? I? Dean: was saying Travis Hunter. He could possibly have the top two picks in the NFL draft between Jadot and Travis Hunter and it's just, I mean, it fits in so perfectly with my you know, 100 week, you know timeframe there. That that's, I think, the optimal. I think you can have a really big impact in a hundred weeks on anything but to go from the basement to the bowl game is like it's a really good case study. But that really is. You know, I often I think there's so many things that play like a crystal clear vision of what he was trying to accomplish In his mind. There's no other path than them being the greatest football team, the greatest college football team in the country. That's really it. Building an empire. That's certainly where he's headed and his belief, that's the only outcome. You know it's so. I was. I read a book and, by the way, I'll have an aside on this, but I read a book years ago called Overachievement and it was a book by a sports psychologist at Rice University and his assessment of overachievers people who have achieved outsized results. One of his observations is that, without fail, they all have what he characterizes as unreasonable confidence or irrational. That's irrational confidence. That's what it is, and I thought to myself like that's a pretty interesting word pairing, because who's to say how much confidence is rational, you know, yeah, it's kind of it's it's and first of all, I. Dan: I don't think the two words even have anything to do with each other I don't either. Dean: That's why I thought it was so remarkable. You know, I think irrational confidence I mean, yeah, spoken by. Dan: spoken by someone who I thought it was so remarkable, irrational confidence. I mean spoken by someone who probably has very little. 0:46:50 - Dean: I mean interesting right Like people look at that, but I thought I've overlaid it with your four C's right Is that commitment leads to courage? Yeah, that commitment leads to courage First of all. Dan: I think it can be grown. I'm a great believer that commitment can be grown, courage can be grown, capability can be grown, confidence can be grown. It's a cycle. It's a growth cycle. It's like ambition. It's like ambition. I'm much more ambitious today than I was 30 years ago way more ambitious and 30 years ago I was 50. That's when most people are kind of are peaking out on ambition when they're 50. I mean I was in the valley 50 years ago, compared to where I am now, but I've always treated ambition as something that you can grow, and my particular approach is that the more you can tap into other people's capabilities for your projects, the more your ambition can grow. It's an interesting thing. Irrational confidence. Dean: Yeah, and I thought that you know, so it's pretty interesting. Dan: There must be a scale somewhere, you know, get on the scale, please. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Rational, oh, he's above. Rational, above irrational, oh, that's totally irrational confidence. Dean: yes, he's just setting himself up for disappointment. That's like I think're in the confidence of living to 156. That's irrational. Yeah, it is till I fail, exactly. Yeah, but that's okay, it's not going to make any difference to you. I always love your live, live, live pattern. It's not going to affect you. Dan: Live live, live, go on. Dean: I saw somebody doing an illustration, Dan, of how long it takes for the world to adapt to you not being here, and the gentleman had his finger in a glass of water and he pulled it out. Dan: Watch, yeah, watch, how long the hole lasts. Dean: It's the truth, you know, yeah, yeah. Dan: I don't know if you got a hold of that book. Same as Ever, the Morgan Household book. Dean: I did. I've read it and it's fantastic. It's good, isn't it? It really is it kind of calms you down. Dan: You know it kind of calms you down. You know I told Joe Polish I said you know how to get that guy as a speaker. I think he's great and anyway, you know he said he makes he has that one great little chapter on evolution. How long it takes, you know, like evolution, three or four million years, and he says stuff that you know is lasting over a long period of time you know is really worth paying attention to, really worth paying attention to. You know that and I find one of the things that you know at my advancing age at my advancing age is that I can see now things that were are equally true today as they were 50 years ago yeah, I see that too. Dean: Absolutely see that too. Absolutely, see that through. I'm on the cusp right now. Like you know, we're coming into 2025. And so this is the first time I started thinking about 25 years ahead was in 1999. That 25 year timeframe, you know, and certainly when I made those, you know five or three stock in. You know investment decisions. But looking back now, you know there were clues as to what is what was what was coming. But there are certainly a lot of through line to it too. You know, like I think, what I did choose was you know it's still Warren Buffett, it's still Berkshire was a great as a 10 times or more stock over 25 years. Starbucks and Procter and Gamble they're equally. Those were durable choices. But you know what was what I could have, what was there? Looking back now, the evidence was there already that Amazon and Google and Apple would have been rocket ships. You know guessing and betting, dan. It's like guessing and betting with certainty. Or you know where you think, like I think, if we look and maybe next week we can have a conversation about this the guessing and betting for the next 25 years, you know. Dan: Yeah. Dean: Yeah. Dan: I think he Warren Buffett. He said that Gillette, I like Gillette. He said I think men are going to still be shaving 25 years from now. Dean: That's what he said. That was. What was so impactful to me is that he says I can't tell which technology is going to win, even five years from now, but I know that men are going to go to bed and they're going to wake up with whiskers. Some of them are going to want to shave them off. King Gillette is going to be there, like he has been since 1850. Dan: And it's like railroads, he's very heavy into railroads. We're going to be moving things. People are still going to be moving things. Dean: I had a really good friend. Dan: Trains will still really be a good way to move things from one place to another. Dean: Isn't that funny. I had a good friend in high school. His big insight was he wanted to start a pallet company because no matter which direction things go, you're still going to need to stack them on a pallet and move them. Put my mom there. So funny which direction things go, you're still going to need to stack them on a pallet and move them, put them around there. Dan: you know so funny that pallet. They're really good. Yeah, I love it All right. All right, we're deep into the culture, we're into. It's an interesting word. It's an interesting word but anytime you talk to somebody about it, they have very specific examples that are their take on culture. And you talk to someone else and maybe culture is everybody's views on culture. Maybe that's what the culture is. Dean: Maybe, maybe, all righty. Okay, have a great day. I'll talk to you next week. Bye, bye. Dan: Okay, have a great day. I'll talk to you next week, okay, bye, bye, okay Bye.

Keith unveils our 2025 National Home Price Appreciation Forecast. Learn the factors driving the housing market and discover why Keith's predictions have been spot-on for the past 3 years. Gain the insights you need to make strategic real estate moves in the year ahead. Don't miss this must-listen episode packed with actionable real estate insights. The Fannie Mae home purchase sentiment index rose, indicating growing consumer confidence. Trump's immigration and tariffs policies and their potential impact on housing demand and labor market disruption. Hear about the impact of the under supply of housing in the US and the potential impact on home prices. Will you please leave a review for the show? I'd be grateful. Search “how to leave an Apple Podcasts review” or for Spotify. Show Notes: GetRichEducation.com/533 For access to properties or free help with a GRE Investment Coach, start here: GREmarketplace.com GRE Free Investment Coaching:GREmarketplace.com/Coach Get mortgage loans for investment property: RidgeLendingGroup.com or call 855-74-RIDGE  or e-mail: info@RidgeLendingGroup.com Invest with Freedom Family Investments.  You get paid first: Text FAMILY to 66866 For advertising inquiries, visit: GetRichEducation.com/ad Best Financial Education: GetRichEducation.com Get our wealth-building newsletter free— text ‘GRE' to 66866 Our YouTube Channel: www.youtube.com/c/GetRichEducation Follow us on Instagram: @getricheducation Complete episode transcript:   Automatically Transcribed With Otter.ai    Keith Weinhold  0:00   Welcome to GRE I'm your host. Keith Weinhold, today is the day that I'm giving you our 2025 national home price appreciation forecast. You'll get the exact percent that I expect home prices to rise for Fall next year. Learn the factors that really move prices. Importantly, I follow up and you get the results of previous years forecasts too. Will it be a holly jolly forecast or more Grinch like today on Get Rich Education.     Mid-south home buyers. I mean, they're total pros, with over two decades as the nation's highest rated turnkey provider, their empathetic property managers use your ROI as their North Star. So it's no wonder that smart investors just keep lining up to get their completely renovated income properties like it's the newest iPhone. They're headquartered in Memphis and have globally attractive. Cash Flows, an A plus rating with a better business bureau and now over 5000 houses renovated. There's zero markup on maintenance. Let that sink in, and they average a 98.9% occupancy rate, while their average renter stays more than three and a half years. Every home they offer has brand new components, a bumper to bumper, one year warranty, new 30 year roofs. And wait for it, a high quality renter. Remember that part and in an astounding price range, 100 to 180k I've personally toured their office and their properties in person in Memphis, get to know Mid South. Enjoy cash flow from day one. Start yourself right now at mid southhomebuyers.com that's mid south homebuyers.com   you know, whenever you want the best written real estate and finance info. Oh, geez. Today's experience limits your free articles access, and it's got paywalls and pop ups and push notifications and cookies disclaimers. It's not so great. So then it's vital to place nice, clean, free content into your hands that adds no hype value to your life. That's why this is the golden age of quality newsletters, and I write every word of ours myself. It's got a dash of humor, and it's to the point because even the word abbreviation is too long, my letter usually takes less than three minutes to read, and when you start the letter, you also get my one hour fast real estate video. Course, it's all completely free. It's called the Don't quit your Daydream letter. It wires your mind for wealth, and it couldn't be easier for you to get it right now just text GRE to 66866, while it's on your mind, take a moment to do it right now. Text GRE to 66866.   Corey Coates  3:12   you're listening to the show that has created more financial freedom than nearly any show in the world. This is get rich education.   Keith Weinhold  3:28   Welcome to GRE from North port, Florida to North Pole, Alaska and across 188 nations worldwide. I'm Keith Weinhold, and you are listening to get rich education episode 533 Yes, your favorite slack jawed real estate podcaster here is indeed the GRE founder. I'm also an active Forbes real estate council member, best selling author. I write our weekly Don't quit your Daydream newsletter. And perhaps most importantly, I am an active real estate investor, I am here to help you invest well in real estate, and that is because most Americans have enough saved for an absolutely incredible single day of retirement. Look the content that you choose to listen to will shape your behavior, it'll even gradually alter your identity over time and forge your dreams. Middle class financial advice will keep you squarely in the middle class. They get robbed of the fruits of their labor through taxes. Get robbed of their purchasing power through inflation, and they get robbed of their financial future by staying financially illiterate. I mean, if you're grinding hard and sacrificing experiences to be debt free at 36 well then that means you aren't using other people's money. You, it confirms that you've got no leverage. Why celebrate that? Celebrate financial freedom or a great vacation, or, you know, anything else, like with your friends and family to the Canary Islands. I mean, that's stuff that's worth celebrating, that's extraordinary in this one and only life that you got. I love the old African proverb, if you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together. You and I are on this journey together. Dream of living the life where you just give a light touch to some of your investments while they are building your wealth, just adjust the sales of your ship a little here and there. Now. We'll get into the big picture real estate forces in my exact percent home price appreciation figure shortly. But doesn't that sound amazing where you can just do this? I mean, that's what I do. I just give a light touch to my investments. For example, at the beginning of this month, I looked at the statements as they came in in emails from my property managers in various real estate markets, like I usually do now when you have a perfect month as a real estate investor, US landlords, or should I say, housing providers, acknowledging last week's show we develop our own vernacular. A perfect month is when you have 100% rental occupancy and no repair items. Once though you have more than about five rental units, it's hard to ever have a perfect month. It's always good to budget something toward long term vacancy and maintenance. But I had a pretty good month last month. For some reason, my properties needed a few new appliances, a replaced fridge. Here, a new microwave. There, a lot of appliances like a fridge, you know, they can still look pretty close to new, even if they're used. That's fine for a rental. This was just a $280 fridge replacement, for example, in this one rental, single family home of mine. So yeah, just that monthly scan of your property manager statement, seeing that income and expenses look kind of reasonable to you, and then going about your day and the rest of your month. Now, it wasn't always that way for me. As I started and grew, I self managed my own properties for the first six or seven years, and sometimes, you know, something will happen where I want to get more proactive and maybe take, say, a 90 minute block of time to shop for lower insurance premiums if I see those rates rising in a certain market or something like that, but that's how it feels to give a light touch to your active direct real estate investments. Keep that going, because this is all happening while you keep other people's money working for you, the banks, the governments and the tenants.    Hey, something that's become newsworthy, an index measuring consumer confidence in the housing market, rose again last month, and that is the latest sign that potential property buyers and sellers are growing more accustomed to today's mortgage rates and prices. The Fannie Mae home purchase sentiment index that has now increased to 75 points. So the index has risen 11 points or more than 16% in the last year. So there is, however, not one shred of evidence, for example, that sub 3% mortgage rates are coming back anytime soon, maybe not even in this decade or in your entire lifetime. Who really knows? I mean, it's soon going to be three years since the Fed began their aggressive rate hiking cycle and the market and consumer expectations are finally adjusting and settling down, and that right there that factors in just the touch to the housing forecast that I'm going to deliver to you today. And before I get into that, since we are get rich education, do you know what the federal funds rate is like, what it really means? Let me explain this to you in a way where I think you'll not only learn, but I'm going to give you an example so that you can actually remember it. And I'm going to over simplify it, the federal funds rate, that thing that Jerome Powell and his committee set, that is the rate that banks pay other banks to borrow from each other. It's a little over 4% right now. Okay, let's just say it's 4% here's why the federal funds rate is typically lower than mortgage rates. Say that Wells Fargo pays bank of America this 4% federal funds rate to borrow so that Wells Fargo can then turn around and lend the funds to you for a real estate mortgage loan. All right. Well now you can see that Wells Fargo had to pay Bank of America 4% that's why, when you go get your real estate loan from Wells Fargo, you can understand and see why they'd have to charge you, say, 7% in order to make a spread. That is why mortgage rates are higher than the federal funds rate. Wells Fargo made the spread of 3% because they borrowed at four, and they lent it to you at seven, and you yourself you borrowed at seven because your tenant pays your interest and principal for you, and you get the leverage and all of the other benefits. So again, the federal funds rate is the rate that banks pay when they borrow from other banks, and since they need to make a spread arbitrage, this is why mortgage rates are higher. Again, that's oversimplified, but I think that's a way where you can really remember what that is and why that is that way. All right.    Well, with that lesson understood, let's talk about the big national home price forecast for next year. And here's what's interesting. Look at the forecasts that my peers have made. All right, I've already got the forecasts from 16 other housing analytics platforms here, and they have all predicted that home prices will rise next year, all 16 of them, but they've all forecast something different. And everything we're discussing today, by the way, is nominal, meaning, not inflation adjusted. All right. Note that the average of all these platforms, all 16 of them, is a 2.8% gain for next year. All right, if you look at all of them the range, the highest is Goldman, Sachs at 4.4% and the lowest is Moody's Analytics at just 310 of 1%   I'll tell you now that my forecast today, it wouldn't even fit on this chart, it is going to be off the chart. And this is something that might ramp up your intrigue. Maybe you think I would look at this and choose something safe, and since I have the benefit of seeing how 16 others have weighed in that, I'll just pick something in the middle of that. Oh, no, not at all. This is an independent forecast. So since our forecast is off the chart, then that means that what I'm going to tell you today either has to be higher than the highest, which is that 4.4% from Goldman Sachs, or lower than the lowest, which is that 310 of 1% from Moody's. Yes, it is outside of those brackets, busting the bookends today. And as I lead up to it, I will detail the reasons why the calculus that went into this forecast. So before we're done, yes, you will get the exact percent number that I expect existing single family home values to increase by or decrease by next year. It is the fourth straight year that I'm doing this. And now a lot of people make whimsical predictions, you know. But today, you're gonna get something that you rarely, if ever get accountability, because I'm also going to show you the results, you'll see how well my forecasts have actually performed each of the past three years. Sheesh, don't you wish everyone followed up on the prediction that they made now, oh gosh, most housing price crash Predictions Fail Faster than your average New Year's resolution. All right, we need first historic context in order to put this future that we're talking about into perspective. Let's look at how bad other predictions have been this is something that Yahoo Finance recently pointed out, the year by year, reasons that people thought housing prices would crash Since 2012 so we're talking about the past 13 years here, starting in 2012 it was shadow inventory. Remember that that never came true. 2013 higher mortgage rates. 2014 in that year. People thought that housing prices could tumble hard because QE was ending in October of that year. That is quantitative easing, which is dollar printing. I mean, basically QE, that's just the Genteel way of saying inflation. In 2015 they thought a manufacturing recession would make home prices crash. In 2016 home prices were back to their pre global financial crisis high. Well, people thought that seemed shaky. In 2017 I don't know what it was. No one had a good reason. But the word crash just gets attention, so some media tried to scare people with that headline. Anyway, in 2018 it was mortgage rates went from 4% up to 5% seriously like that was the top reason. In 2019 it was that home price growth was cooling off in 2020 of course, it was the COVID 19 pandemic in 2021 it was mortgage forbearance in 2022 it was that mortgage rates hit 7% that was the first time we saw those in a while, even though 7% is still below the long term average of seven and three quarters percent in 2023 it was historically low housing demand. People thought that would bring down real estate prices. In 2024 it was sustained higher mortgage rates and an uptick in inventory. And what's it going to be in 2025 I don't know. Clickbait artists will have some other farcical reason why home prices will crash. Just watch, all right, well, with that, look back every year since 2012 of course, real estate prices definitely don't always go up. In fact, when we look at a longer term history, the national home price appreciation rate every year since World War Two. Like I told you on a previous episode, there were only two periods where home prices fell, that's over a period of 80 to 85 years. There was just 1% attrition in 1990 and then the only appreciable loss period, of course, were those years around the 2008 global financial crisis, where you really probably could consider that an all out crash, prices were down more than 20% nationally, more than 40% 50% in some markets, all right. Well, how did that concerning period compare to now? Well, 2008 is when conditions were largely opposite of what they are now that is back 2008 we had an oversupply of homes, and it was all supported by poorly underwritten mortgages, meaning the borrower really couldn't afford the payment. And also that's when people had low or no equity in homes, so they just walked away, so borrowers had no equity to lose, nor any credit score to protect, and it was oversupplied there about 17 years ago. I mean, that era was so bad and also such an anomaly, that home prices actually fell below the replacement cost, if you can believe that, meaning that you could ostensibly buy existing property for less than the cost that it would take to build a property, then all right. Well, all three of those conditions are opposite. Now today, we have an under supply of homes. Secondly, we have carefully underwritten mortgages, and thirdly, we have record high equity positions, about 300k on average. People are not walking away from that unless things got absolutely dire. All right, with that historical context. So here we are building up to my factors for the forecast, and then the big reveal of the percent figure here, before we're done, to be clear, what I'm providing is the projected sales price of existing single family homes per the National Association of Realtors, stat set. All right, so why existing? And not include the new builds into that? Well, first of all, there are way more existing home sales. Then there are new build sales each year. And see, the thing is, though, that tracking new build that really skews the numbers, because what can happen is, one year, you might have a ton of luxury new build homes. Well then that skews the numbers up too much. Or then there's the more nascent trend of what's happening lately, building smaller homes this past year in order to help with affordability and building smaller that can skew the numbers down. So sticking with existing homes that allows us to keep things more same same. Today, you'll learn about what goes into my forecast and the factors that actually don't matter as much as you would think, like the incoming Trump administration. You'll also hear an important clip from Trump in a few minutes for the second week in a row, I'm bringing you the show from a fairly interesting place, Anchorage, Alaska. This city of 300,000 people, is at sea level. The west side is confined by a coast. The east side is confined by mountains. It's a modern US city. There are high rise buildings and convention centers and freeways and a really convenient International Airport. What's interesting about being in America's northernmost city right now? Anchorage is. That Saturday, just a couple of days ago, that was the winter Equinox for half of the globe, the entire northern hemisphere. And here, the sunrise time is about 10:15am, and sunset about 3:45pm, that right there is just five and a half hours of daylight. That's it, but it feels like more than that. It feels closer to perhaps seven plus hours of daylight, because at high latitudes, the sun barely drops below the horizon, so therefore you get more Twilight on either end of sunrise in Sunset. Well, this is a real estate show, so I hope that's not too much of an astronomy lesson for you here. But anchorage can never get 24 hours of daylight or darkness, because it simply is not far enough north. In fact, when I fly from, say, the center of the 48 states out here. I travel more west than North. The thing for you to remember is that the only places on the globe that can get 24 hours of daylight and darkness are inside the Arctic and Antarctic circles. They're at 63 and 1/3 degrees of latitude or greater, and Anchorage is just 61 I've been skiing here, but suffice to say, with a lot of darkness, it's been a good place for me to study research and put my effort into this forecast that I'm sharing with you today, which you'll hear after the break.    This week's episode is supported by ridge lending group. It's the same place where I get my investment property mortgages and refinancings, you can go ahead and originate your loans at the same place I get mine, that is Ridgelendinggroup.com.  Also freedom family investments, you can make a loan and get a stable return of 7% 8% or Even 10% yet still have some measure of liquidity. Why park your funds at a bank? You can learn about their private money loans by texting FAMILY to 66866, if you want 8% or more on your money while it's on your mind, just text FAMILY to 66866, and see if it's right for you. I'm your host. Keith Weinhold, more next you're listening to get rich education.    Oh geez, the national average bank account pays less than 1% on your savings, so your bank is getting rich off of you. You've got to earn way more, or else you're losing your hard earned cash to inflation. Let the liquidity fund help you put your money to work with minimum risk. Your Cash generates up to a 10% return and compounds year in and year out. Instead of earning less than 1% in your bank account, the minimum investment is just 25k you keep getting paid until you decide you want your money back. Their decade plus track record proves they've always paid their investors 100% in full and on time. And you know how I'd know, because I'm an investor in this myself, earn 10% like me and GRE listeners are text FAMILY to 66866, to learn about freedom. Family investments, liquidity fund on your journey to financial freedom through passive income. Text, FAMILY to 66866.   hey, you can get your mortgage loans at the same place where I get mine at Ridge lending group NMLS, 42056, they've provided our listeners with more loans than any provider in the entire nation, because they specialize in income properties. They help you build a long term plan for growing your real estate empire with leverage. You can start your pre qualification and chat with President Caeli Ridge personally. Start Now while it's on your mind at Ridge lendinggroup.com that's Ridge lendinggroup.com   Tom Wheelwright  24:08   This is Rich Dad Advisor Tom Wheelwright. Listen to Get Rich Education with Keith Weinhold, and Don't Quit Your Daydream.   Keith Weinhold  24:24   welcome back to GRE. I'm your host. Keith Weinhold, with the factors that are weighing into my home price appreciation determination for next year. Here now all of these factors matter, but I'm generally going to start with less weighty factors and proceed more toward the weighty factors Trump tariffs. Could Trump tariffs increase materials costs, the cost of materials that go into homes? Well, yes, of course, they could. Could it also increase the labor costs that go into those homes, if, say, businesses decide to onshore. Sure in order to avoid paying the tariffs, yes, and you would have to pay a higher wage to Americans. That's obviously inflationary, but applying tariffs is slow, and it takes a long time to trickle through, okay? But here's the thing, even the threat of tariffs can produce inflation, and we already have the threat that's something real. And now see if you're a consumer and you want to buy a new washer, dryer set or a microwave, well, you're more motivated to do that today, not in a year, because this threat of tariffs might mean that that appliances price will spike. You might want to buy your new car now, if you anticipate the terrace could be coming and it's going to affect that well, the apartment building owner feels the same way before she or he buys 48 washer dryers for their apartment building. Home Builders and remodelers they want to get their materials orders in now, in some cases, whether that's for concrete, drywall, lumber, any component that goes into a home where they think that a tariff could jack up the price, you really need to be paying attention to whether you think this is going to happen or not. So Trump likely means more inflation, and that correlates also with sustained higher interest rates of all kinds, including mortgage rates. And there's no certainty there. There is just that correlation. Now, a lot of real estate investors anticipate that a president with a real estate investor background like Trump Has he is going to return 100% bonus depreciation and extend his tax breaks, okay, all of these things, especially that bonus depreciation, can really enhance your tax situation, but that's not part of the home price appreciation forecast for next year. Okay, we're just looking at next year here. How about mortgage rates? How is that going to factor into home prices for next year? Mortgage rates hardly matter. And the newer listener that you are, the more of a surprise that is, rates are about 7% now, a lot of experts think they're going to go to 6% in a year. But who knows? I mean, a year ago, everyone thought rates would be substantially lower today. But here's the thing, it's not just a who knows. It's almost a who cares about what mortgage rates will be when it comes to prices. Because, like I've shared with you before, since 1994 mortgage rates have risen 1% or more seven different times, and home prices went up all seven times.  Long time listeners like you, you already know this, so for the complete backstory on the why, you can listen to earlier episodes, but the short story is that higher rates, you gotta look at what's happening when there are high rates that's a confirmation that the economy is strong, and when the economy is strong and people feel secure in their job, what do they do? They buy a home. So mortgage rates matter, but a person's personal economy matters more when they make a decision to buy a home or not. A sharp fall in rates that correlates with a recession. So higher rates usually lead to higher home prices, something that almost everyone in real estate thinks of oppositely. On weeks with lower rates this year, we did have lower housing inventory, and with higher rates, we had higher inventory. So that did affect that the next factor is more important than tariffs and mortgage rates, and that is Trump and immigration. Okay? Because this affects the supply versus demand component of housing, something supremely important. Well, more immigrants mean more housing demand, pushing up prices and on immigration, who really knows how many of this surge of fresh immigrants are going to be deported? Will it only be the illegals, or will it be others? Or will it be none at all? Or will it be something else, will trump deport everyone? I mean, that is not easy to do, and it's really expensive. Here are Trump's latest public remarks on how he's going to treat recent immigrants to the US. The interviewer is Kristen Welker from NBC, and she's heard shuffling some papers here too. So don't let that throw you off as you listen to Trump.    Speaker 1  29:39   You raised the point that the logistics are complicated. You said yourself, everything's gone. You mean you need 24 times more ICE detention capacity just to deport 1 million people per year, not to mention more agents, more judges, more planes. Is it realistic to deport everyone? First of all, they're costing us a fortune, but we're starting. With the criminals, and we got to do it, and then we're starting with others, and we're going to see how it goes   Keith Weinhold  30:06   well there, before Trump's first day in office for his second term, see he's already saying we'll see how it goes with deporting immigrants. He now realizes how costly that is. If there is mass deportation, housing demand goes down, but we'd also have fewer laborers, which a lot of those immigrants are, to build the new housing that our country needs. So there's somewhat of a canceling out effect there. It could mean higher home prices because it could even mean higher home prices because most fresh immigrants are renters. They aren't occupying homes that they own anyway, and just how many people we're talking about here, the Pew Research Center estimates that 13% of construction workers are undocumented. That disruption to the labor market that can produce higher inflation, because the slowdown in home building means less supply and higher prices. Now let's get to the biggest factor before I provide my track record, and then the big number, and that is more on the housing supply versus demand. So yeah, it's really fundamental economics. That's the core driver of next year's anticipated home price change. All right, let's start with supply. How undersupplied of housing are we still in the US? Well, an update on the Fred active listing count, and this is for single families, condos and townhomes. It's that we are up off the bottom, but we're still a good 40% or so below the equilibrium point where demand meets supply. America grew its available inventory 27% this year, pretty significant, and next year, it might grow another 15 or 20% that's my best guess. All right then, well, let's try to project future supply by what you have to do is look at new housing starts. That means shovels in the ground. That means taking a backhoe and excavating for spread footings, digging that trench that you're going to pour concrete into, starting homes from the ground up. Well, we don't have enough starts either not enough. In fact, we could be digging a deeper hole with the under supply at our current level of building, US housing under supply will grow by over 200,000 homes per year if we continue at this low level of building. And would you consider all housing types, single family homes, apartments, mobile homes, condos, ADUs, everything? Freddie Mac estimates that we are currently under supplied by a whopping 3.7 million housing units. Now, you probably heard figures like that before, but let me put it into perspective. At two persons per home, our shortage is greater than what could house the entire population of Libya. That's what we're talking about here. And some agencies estimate we're even more undersupplied than the 3.7 million homes. Now, of course, I'm making only a national forecast today. There are regional variations in some Texas and Florida sub markets, they have built plenty of new build single family homes now, let me tell you something scary. What if your income dropped by a third, making 1/3 less in the future than you do right now? Like that would be a moment of panic for a lot of people, you and your family, as you hold that thought when it comes to supply, this year had historically low home sales. When I talk about sales, these are not prices. This is different. This is the volume of sales. Next year, there will likely only be a few more sales than this year, and there weren't many this year. Now see for you, as an individual real estate investor and a consumer that goes grocery shopping, you know, you are interested in real estate prices, but the industry, if you work in the industry, like as a builder or as a real estate agent or even a furniture provider, they are more concerned about the number of home sales. This sales volume that I'm talking about, and here's what's going on, normal is about 5 million home sales per year. It was over 6 million during the pandemic, and now we're down at 4 million. So I mean, in a short period of time to go from 6 million down to 4 million, that is a drawdown of transactions by a third. So just imagine if you are a home builder or a real estate agent, or you're in the retail furniture business and your volume is down by a third. I mean, what would happen to you if your income were down by a third? And you're in one of those industries and you don't have a way to pivot, so that is scary stuff for that subset of people. Well, while all of that was happening to sales volume, lower and lower volume. Home prices have just kept ticking up these past few years. All right. Well, that was supply, and there is one last factor to weigh before I reveal the forecast number, and that is demand. There is a long way to go before there is enough housing inventory for the pent up demand in the housing market, pent up demand from these people that can't quite afford a home. Demographics is destiny. You know, it is one of the easiest things to project, because demographics is a known forget immigration here, because I already talked about that just domestically, the US had its own high birth rate years from 1990 to 2010 and most people don't know about this. Many of those years between 1990 and 2010 there were over 4 million births annually, and that peaked in the year 2007 All right, you might be wondering, so what? That's the past? What about the future? Well, in housing prices, that right there is the future, with today's first time homebuyer now being a record 38 years old, like I told you about a few episodes ago. Alright, if you add 38 to the year that they were born, 2007 that home buyer demand won't peak until the year 2045 so that is a big part of where the demand just keeps coming from, and is going to keep coming from this wave of demographic demand that might not slow down much until the 2050s and what could slow prices is if a major recession that included a lot of job losses were eminent, that could slow home price growth. But nobody expects that. you know something, on future demand, What if health and fitness influencer Brian Johnson is right, and Earth now has the first generation not to die. What would that do to real estate prices? Have you ever thought that through that would really expand housing demand, but that wouldn't affect things for a couple decades. All right, well, let's talk track record and understand that it is pretty difficult to predict the future, and I have made all these forecasts at the end of one year, just before the forecast year even starts, just like I'm doing today, and here's how I've done at the end of 2021 for 2022 I forecast 9-10% home price appreciation the year ended, and in 2022 they came in at 10% so I got that one right. For 2023 before that year even began, I forecast 0% just that home prices would stay flat. And by the way, so many people were calling for a housing price decline that year because mortgage rates had risen. But as we know here on the show, when mortgage rates rise, home prices typically do too. And I also said back then was supply so low, I don't really see how home prices could fall. Well, the year ended, and sure enough, they came in at 0% and all of this is published in on record. You can go back and find all this, in fact, for 2024 you can hear the forecast that I made near the end of last year for 2024 and you could do that by going back and listening to Episode 481 this is episode 533 that was 52 weeks ago, and you will hear that my forecast back then for this year's home price appreciation was 4% this year is not quite over, plus housing data lags somewhat, in fact, through October, however, they were 4.1%   we've almost got that November number, not quite, but it's very likely going to end up being 4% this year, just like I had forecast at the end of Last year, but it's still officially to be determined. Before I gave the awaited fresh forecast for next year with what looks to me like really nailing the forecast spot on three years in a row now you might be wondering something, how did I know? How did I have the foresight to know that and nail those. Forecasts. You know, at this point, I have to concede that there's probably a little luck that has come into play, but this is what I do. I study research and even participate in the National residential housing market. What you're getting is my best estimate. It's not any sort of promise or guarantee. I mean, like all other 8.1 billion human beings on earth, I don't have a crystal ball, and a streak like this has gone on for three years, but it cannot go on forever. So this is what I can best surmise. So really, for 2025 The short story is that I expect more buyers than homes, which creates bids and buoyant prices. I also expect continued inflationary pressure. Those are the two chief factors that went into this. We don't ever revise our forecast mid year. This is it. For 2025 I expect home prices to increase by 5%. Yes, there it is 5% projected appreciation for next year. And to be clear, that is the NARS national median existing single family home price, the same stat set that I have cited all four years again, it is nominal, meaning, not inflation adjusted, so at Christmas or New Year's or your next dinner party, when You see your slack jawed brother in law that thinks the housing market is always going to crash, give the dude a hug and a turkey leg and tell him that I expect plus 5% and pass me the wishbone for good luck on our fourth consecutive housing price appreciation forecast, I really hope that this helps with planning your own portfolio moves, whether that's you owning more income property next year or doing a refinancing, or how you think about your own primary residence. And do you like the forecast that I've done here near the end of each year ever since 2021 if you do let us know, write us or leave us voicemail at get rich education.com/contact let me know you can always get a hold of us there year round with any type of feedback or questions.    Hey, if you appreciate this show here, do you think that you could help me out in one small way? Call it my Christmas gift request. There's only one item on my Christmas list, and it should only take a couple minutes of your time and none of your money. Leave a podcast rating and review for the get rich education podcast on Apple podcasts or Spotify, or wherever you listen, the rating is the five star thing. The review is a few short sentences about why you like the show. I would really appreciate the gift from you, and I will read your review myself too. If you don't know how to do it right inside those listener apps, just open up a browser tab and search how to leave an apple podcast review, or Spotify podcast review, or whatever platform you prefer to listen on it would feel like a little Christmas gift to me after all these years, I'd love your feedback given that way. Tell me what you think, and thanks from me and the entire team here at GRE Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays. Until next week, I'm your host. Keith Weinhold, don't quit your day dream.   Speaker 2  43:46   nothing on this show should be considered specific, personal or professional advice. Please consult an appropriate tax, legal, real estate, financial or business professional for individualized advice. Opinions of guests are their own. Information is not guaranteed. All investment strategies have the potential for profit or loss. The host is operating on behalf of get rich Education LLC, exclusively.   Keith Weinhold  44:06   The preceding program was brought to you by your home for wealth building. Get rich education.com    

Many of President-elect Donald Trump's announced cabinet nominees are well respected and will likely have an easy path to Senate approval. Others, not so much. So Trump has proposed doing something no president has ever done before: Skirting the Senate approval process altogether via recess appointments. This appointment scheme delegitimizes Trump's cabinet picks, sets a […]

Many of President-elect Donald Trump's announced cabinet nominees are well respected and will likely have an easy path to Senate approval. Others, not so much. So Trump has proposed doing something no president has ever done before: Skirting the Senate approval process altogether via recess appointments. This appointment scheme delegitimizes Trump's cabinet picks, sets a dangerous precedent for future administrations, and is likely unconstitutional. John Yoo is the Emanuel Heller Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley, a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and a Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution and Stanford University. Yoo was a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the general council of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the former head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department. His most recent book is The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Supreme Court (Regnery, 2023) with Robert Delahunty.Read the transcript here. Subscribe to our Substack here.

Welcome to The Daily Wrap Up, a concise show dedicated to bringing you the most relevant independent news, as we see it, from the last 24 hours (11/11/24). As always, take the information discussed in the video below and research it for yourself, and come to your own conclusions. Anyone telling you what the truth is, or claiming they have the answer, is likely leading you astray, for one reason or another. Stay Vigilant.  !function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/u2q643"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble");   Rumble("play", {"video":"v5m3ai2","div":"rumble_v5m3ai2"}); Video Source Links (In Chronological Order): (23) Staceyjbird on X: "@decensorednews @TLAVagabond You don't understand. He gets a large say in who gets in. Thats what it's been from the beginning. Quit with the propaganda.

Tia Levings, New York Times bestselling author of A Well-Trained Wife, opens up about her harrowing escape from Christian fundamentalism and reclaiming her life. Tia discusses the impact of religious pressure, the lies behind Christian nationalism, and her healing journey from trauma. Learn how Tia chose progress over fear, created healthy boundaries, and now advocates for societal change.If you have any questions about this episode or want to get some of the resources we mentioned, head over to LesleyLogan.co/podcast. If you have any comments or questions about the Be It pod shoot us a message at beit@lesleylogan.co. And as always, if you're enjoying the show please share it with someone who you think would enjoy it as well. It is your continued support that will help us continue to help others. Thank you so much! Never miss another show by subscribing at LesleyLogan.co/subscribe.In this episode you will learn about:Insights into the dangers of Christian fundamentalism and nationalismHow Tia navigated trauma from religious control and rebuilt her identityThe impact of high-control religion on self-development and individualityTia's healing process and journey to reclaim her life after escapingHow she uses visioning and journaling as tools for self-growthEpisode References/Links:Tia Levings InstagramTia Levings WebsiteA Well-Trained Wife! Pre-order LinkReligious Trauma ResourcesGuest Bio:Tia Levings is the New York Times bestselling author of A Well-Trained Wife, a memoir detailing her escape from Christian patriarchy. Her next book, The Soul of Healing, releases with St. Martin's Press in 2025. Tia's work sheds light on the abuses of Christian fundamentalism, religious trauma, and evangelical patriarchy, and she has been featured in Salon, HuffPost, and Newsweek. A sought-after speaker, she's appeared in Amazon's docu-series Shiny Happy People and her social media content has garnered millions of views. Based in Jacksonville, Florida, Tia is a mother of four and enjoys hiking, travel, and painting. If you enjoyed this episode, make sure and give us a five star rating and leave us a review on iTunes, Podcast Addict, Podchaser or Castbox. DEALS! DEALS! DEALS! DEALS!Check out all our Preferred Vendors & Special Deals from Clair Sparrow, Sensate, Lyfefuel BeeKeeper's Naturals, Sauna Space, HigherDose, AG1 and ToeSox Be in the know with all the workshops at OPCBe It Till You See It Podcast SurveyBe a part of Lesley's Pilates MentorshipFREE Ditching Busy Webinar Resources:Watch the Be It Till You See It podcast on YouTube!Lesley Logan websiteBe It Till You See It PodcastOnline Pilates Classes by Lesley LoganOnline Pilates Classes by Lesley Logan on YouTubeProfitable Pilates Follow Us on Social Media:InstagramThe Be It Till You See It Podcast YouTube channelFacebookLinkedInThe OPC YouTube Channel Episode Transcript:Tia Levings 0:00  We've all had hard, bad experiences, but it's what I was able to do with it that I'm able to move forward and do more things as a whole person. I don't consider myself broken anymore. I don't consider myself scarred. I consider myself whole. And to get there, I did everything that healing has to offer.Lesley Logan 0:20  Welcome to the Be It Till You See It podcast where we talk about taking messy action, knowing that perfect is boring. I'm Lesley Logan, Pilates instructor and fitness business coach. I've trained thousands of people around the world and the number one thing I see stopping people from achieving anything is self-doubt. My friends, action brings clarity and it's the antidote to fear. Each week, my guest will bring bold, executable, intrinsic and targeted steps that you can use to put yourself first and Be It Till You See It. It's a practice, not a perfect. Let's get started. Lesley Logan 1:02  Be It babe. Get ready. If you haven't read the book that we're going to talk about, then you need to take a pause and order her book. It is very informative, is very important, is very needed. We have our guest, Tia Levings, today and I'm actually going to try to make this as quick as possible, because I just want to get into her brilliance. So she is the New York Times bestselling author of A Well-Trained Wife, and she does have another book coming out. And she escaped the patriarchal fundamentalist Christian life, where there was just so much trauma and abuse that she was going through. And then we talk about her journey in that. And also we talk about why she's doing what she's doing today, and what's so important about it. And she's had so many be it till you see it, moments in her life, like truly so many, and she still is. And I just find her absolutely one of a kind and truly amazing. And I am so excited for you to hear this podcast. So take away your distractions. Enjoy this and if you haven't read A Well-Trained Wife, then please do. It's a beautiful book, and it's an important example of things that are happening to women and people every day. And you know, it's very easy for us to judge what we don't know, and then we can know it, and we can have some empathy for it, and we can also kind of understand why things are going on and how also can we reach out? What is it that we can do? So here's Tia Levings. Thank you so much for being a listener on the show. Thank you, Tia, for being a guest on the show. I'm so excited for everyone to hear you, and if they don't know you yet, to know you. All right, loves Here you go. Lesley Logan 2:35  All right, Be It babe. I'm gonne be honest. I don't fangirl very much. I'm a fan girl a little bit for now, because I have heard this woman on another podcast over a year ago, at the time they're recording this, and then when I heard she was gonna have a book and I'd have to wait till the summer of 2024 and I was like, I hate the publishing world. Why are we waiting so long? Tia Levings is our guest today. She is the author. She's a bestselling author. New York Time's Bestselling Author, congratulations, of A Well-Trained Wife. I absorbed this book as quickly as I could. And then I was kind of bummed that I put it down, and I was like, well, I, maybe, I should have (inaudible) much longer. Tia, in case they don't know you, can you tell everyone who you are and what you rock at? Tia Levings 3:10  Yes, I am the New York Time's Bestselling Author of A Well-Trained Wife. I'm still practicing saying that. It's my memoir of escape from Christian patriarchy, and I educate on the abuses in Christian fundamentalism online. So a lot of people meet my work through either just like you did, an interview or my reels or my social media platform. Lesley Logan 3:28  Yeah, your reels have been so informative. So we're recording this right now in the summer of 2024 we're before the election, and one of the things that I've loved about your work that you've put out there is explaining to people why some of these rules and laws and things people want to change, why people would want that to happen? Because I can sit here and go, why would anyone want that? And then you're and then you're so good be like, well, this is how they live, and this is why it's like that. And so it's been really fascinating. I was able to share with my husband, and then as I listen to your beautiful book, I would tell Brad, I pause and go, here's what's going on in her life right now. I would share with him, so he probably feels like he knows you, too. So you have your book, and it's about your story. And in the beginning of your book, you talk about being a young girl going to church. And it took me back to my parents were very into church, went every single Sunday, we also were church hoppers. So there's part of your story that part of me goes, oh, my God, this could have been me. I went to a Christian university. I went to Assemblies of God. So, speak in tongues, you know, dance in the aisles. A little more fun. Tia Levings 4:35  A little more fun. Lesley Logan 4:37  Just a little more fun. But you had stomach issues and anxiety and just like this worry and fear and so but I noticed that in your book, as you tell your story, you also then continue to try to be this good Christian woman. And I was like, oh my god, she was being it till she saw it in a way that was negatively affecting her. So can we talk a little bit about, about like, Why? Why you were doing, why were you trying to fit in so much, and how did that affect you? Tia Levings 5:07  I love this question because what you're really describing is faith. And faith is the idea that you can become this thing, you can grow in this way that you aren't yet, but if you do these things, then you will achieve this and you trust that you will get there. And that's tangled up in fundamentalism because they drop the promise constantly that if you follow this formula, you will achieve this promise. And the promise they kept showing me was acceptance, love, blessing, prosperity, happy family, happy husband, happy parents. I am a very sensitive person, and I came onto this planet with a lot of big feelings and a lot of raw nerve endings and expressing out how do I get loved? What do I have to do in order to be loved and accepted and safe? And I'm hyper aware to everything. So I think that there is a personality piece to this. I think there's a cultural piece, a family history and generational trauma piece. There's a lot of things that went into little Tia became a people pleaser, really, at a very early age, and I was in a culture that sent almost exclusively messages that I needed to change myself in order to be desirable, so I was very eager to follow those formulas and fake it till I make it because I didn't want to burn in hell. I didn't want rejection. I didn't want, I didn't want to be miserable or unhappy or called a heretic or, you know, cast out so that, that's it. Lesley Logan 6:34  Yeah, and I think how many young people, especially young women, you know, I think you describe a lot of our listeners, highly sensitive, highly empathic. You know, they would say that they're a people-pleaser. And we've said on the show before, guys, people-pleasing has gotten very few people anywhere. Yeah, if you have found someone who people-please their way to the top, please, by all means, send in my way. I'm happy to figure this out, but it broke my heart, because I was like, oh, my god, yeah. I remember being like, oh, how do I be even better at being this Christian girl who shows up because you don't want to be the, of course, you don't wanna be the things they say could happen to you, and, of course, you want all the things that they promise. So it is interesting how your sister, you mentioned in your book, is not the same way, did not end up in the same path. Tia Levings 7:20  Monica, she's just not as sensitive. I don't know how to describe it. We come from the same family, but she's just not as sensitive. She's sensitive in a different way,. I think. She understood that exteriors were exteriors and internals were internals. And I think there's some, probably some family stuff that is just her experience of our family is different than my experience. And so to give you an idea, I was born with a tooth and I had colic. I was my mom's firstborn. We have a very different bonding experience than my sister, who was born compliant and affectionate and calm and so she didn't have, I think, the same creative rage, I think, to feel wanted (inaudible) she was wanted. Lesley Logan 7:21  Wow. I think if you were a firstborn, I was gonna say, are you firstborn? Because there's something like, I am a firstborn. I also think, my siblings and I were born, my mom was 21 when she had me, and 25 when she had my brother. There's three of us in there, so she. Tia Levings 8:20  Everyone has a different experience of your mom. Lesley Logan 8:22  Yeah, everyone has a different experience because, you know, that's a young mom, first of all, with not a lot of help, and she ended up having some postpartum issues that definitely affected how my brother was even raised, and so it's so, you are correct there, and I think that's really important for us to dive into. And I think when you guys read her book, you'll understand. You might have a sibling or a cousin, like, how did you end up like this? But it's just like, it's a, we, no one is like, a constant. You know, we're all kind of changing. Okay, so I want to explore some things. You mentioned fundamentalism. I think there's an interesting problem in our life today that there's Christians and then there's Christian nationalism and there's fundamental, like, can you kind of explain some of the differences? Because I know that there might be some Christian listening, who might I'm not trying to discount or make fun or truly ignore, that that is something that you might believe in. But there are differences in what Christianity was, or it should be, or is, and then what Christian nationalism, fundamentalism, is. Tia Levings 9:21  Yeah, thanks. I like being able to draw these distinctions, because I think they're just really relevant to where we are today. And my number one pushback that I always receive is not all Christians. And I'm like, I am very aware that all Christians are not the same, painfully aware, that is, that has been the glaring truth of my life. So at least, bottom, you know, Christianity is a belief system that the only thing you need to belong is belief, is proclaim your belief. And so a lot of people have used the word Christian throughout history because it's so broad and it's just part of our world religions and our and our archeological history, it means different things in different time periods. And so I think in like, I'm Gen X and when I grew up in the 80s, Christianity was pretty like it was a lifestyle. It was a belief choice. It was a belief system, different than Catholicism or Judaism or Buddhism. But it's just one of the world's religions, and there was a mainstream presentation of it. And in previous times in history, maybe there was more agenda attached to it, but in the 1980s it really felt like you could just decide to be Christian or not. You could take your kids to church. You could be more devout or not. There wasn't a larger framework and agenda you were buying into when you decided to be a Christian. It was your decision for your life, and it was your personal walk with Christ. That is not what it is today. Today it is in a political movement. It is buying into entire ideologies and groups that don't really have anything to do with Jesus whatsoever. Whereas I was more familiar with different denominations and flavors of Christianity when I was growing up, like you mentioned, Assemblies of God is different than Southern Baptist, but we have enough in common that we might sit at the same table. It's not like that anymore among Christians and Christian nationalists, because they're so divorced from Jesus. Christian nationalism, buys into this fundamentalism that's been rising over 50 years, that's been, that has a political agenda that has dominionist theology at its core, which is that Christianity should take over the entire globe and they truncate or that's not the word I want, they co-opt into evangelisism, because that's how the Mets, the Methodists spread. You evangelize your belief system, either through your lifestyle, your words and deeds, or through active missions. And so it helps spread this message. But it's, it's one of the lies I hope to uncover with my work the most, because this, what I'm from, is not just an alternative lifestyle or a belief in Jesus. This is a political ideology bent on dominating the rest of the culture, and that's why it's important to unpack it and examine it. Lesley Logan 11:54  Yeah, I think I'm an elder millennial and so I grew up in the 80s and the 90s, and I never remembered people's business of politics even entering a conversation on a Sunday. It just wasn't (inaudible).Tia Levings 12:09  Technically, it's a law for them to tell you how to vote, and we kind of adhered to that back then. Lesley Logan 12:13  Yeah, we did. And you just kind of loved everybody you know. And my parents were those Christians, like, you moved in the neighborhood, and they would show up at your door and they bring you food. And if someone passed away, they're like, how can we help you? How can we like, they took my mom, took pregnant teenagers off the street who've been kicked out of their houses. That's the type of person we were and if you're nodding along because that sounds familiar to what you're used to, that is not what they're preaching today. Because it's really like, it's I don't see them taking anyone's kid in. I see all them wanting to kick everyone's kids out that don't believe it in the way they believe. And that, to me, is so antithetical. And you're like, what Bible are we reading? How are we doing this? Tia Levings 12:55  Today is about legislative morality and making their views make, by force, making, forcing you to comply with the way they believe and getting involved in politics to the exclusion of any American plurality or democracy, and it's taken them years to get here. This didn't just happen. This is not one President's fault. This is a long standing strategy that does involve our lifespan, but we were too little, and it was too new to really be a force in our formative years. Lesley Logan 13:23  Yeah, so I guess, like you've read this, you wrote this amazing book, and in this book, you talk about and I also found it very fascinating, because you say, people say, not all Christians, and in your marriage, in your life, in this world, you went through many different types of different churches, and they seem to just get, continue to get worse and worse. As far as, like, what you as a woman could do and even what your kids could do, you know, obviously, with, the book is here, so you've got out, so we're not spoiling anything, but you all have to, like, the story is just incredible. You have to read it. But I guess I want to go to the after the book, because after the book ends that part of your life, because there's another be it till you see it moment, like you went through a healing process. It just is intense. And I guess maybe we can talk a little bit like, what does years of abuse or years of control do to a body? And how did you get to a place where you could actually write them? I mean, you're a writer, so that's not the problem. But like, get the point where you could actually tell the story, and not almost relive it? Tia Levings 14:24  Yeah, I love that question too, because it's really more my focus once I get this off my chest, you know, I have to tell you what broke me before I can tell you how I healed from it. So I have another book underway called The Soul of Healing. And the contrast of these two books is that in the beginning of A Well-Trained Wife, I'm a child who should be developing as a child. I should be developing my sense of self through normal child development, which is denied you in high control religion. They do not want to nurture individuality. They do not want you to become your best and highest self. They don't want you dreaming and daydreaming of what you can become. You're supposed to become what they want you to be. That's the whole goal. Tia Levings 14:58  When I was in recovery when I broke out of that, I was faced with a dilemma. I had to become someone, become who I am. But I had had no self-development. There was no foundation there. There was just like this broken heap of rubble to put back together and say, okay, I'm going to kind of make a person out of this. And I couldn't have done it without vision and imagination and healing. I did it with 10 years of trauma therapy and putting myself back together. As far as the challenges go, like, what's broken? How can I heal this? How can I address this trauma? All of that happened, and the writing was a piece of that. The writing was, it started out as a therapeutic journal, and then it developed into a novel, because I thought I would tell this hard story with some distance, emotional distance to it. But that's where I was at the time. I wasn't able to say this happened to me. And then it was a book with a pseudonym, because I tried someone else's name on that didn't fit either. And then finally, as I get through my healing and I have become Tia, I'm ready to tell my story of what happened to Tia. And all of that is becoming who I wanted to be, and it's, it's a building process. I have a vision board that somewhere in the middle, there, I eventually hung alongside of it a victory board, because my visions were coming true, and I had needed to mark them as accomplishments, and I became a real different, I have a different life today that you can see in pictures, because they came they came true. Lesley Logan 16:20  Okay, hold on, okay, I love a vision board, like, I still have this vision board. You don't know this yet, but my listeners do. I had three stints in my life where, like, I was without address and, I never had to sleep on the streets, I always had a car or a couch to crash on. So I'm very, very grateful. And I was also had a job, and so I like also tell people it's just sometimes expensive to get into housing. But I, during one of my last stint of that, I did a vision board, and my new apartment was so small I had to, like, just put it in the closet, and I would pull it out every once in a while, and I'd go, oh my god, that's happened. Oh my god, that's happened. But I didn't realize I should have put a victory board, and so now we should all have almost like a book. It opens up and you could, oh, you're great. So okay, so okay, okay, this is so good. The amount of be it till you see it you've had then you had a be it till you see it to become Tia. That is something I don't think we ever give people credit for. I'm sure there's so many people are like, oh, look at her. Now she got out, and now she's this, you know, spokesperson, who's just like, charging up and trying to call these people out, but there was 10-plus years of you becoming you.  Tia Levings 17:25  Yeah, it's very important. I was a shocked, broken mess in 2007 when I escaped, and that was a time when there wasn't the same amount of resource trauma, informed resources didn't really exist yet. Language didn't exist. I certainly wasn't in a habit of accurately naming my experiences. So I had to learn how to call what happened to me by its actual name. I had to learn how to externalize the story with honesty and stop putting like rose-colored glasses on and daydreams and idealism. I had to stop protecting so that I could be honest from the page. That's one of the things you see reflected in my book, is that I speak very plainly about really hard things. That's the reflection of being able to say what happened to me in no nonsense terms, that was a growth step. And so all of that together builds to somebody who has a voice and has learned how to use it. It's not something I had. In 2007 I couldn't have ordered a pizza because I stuttered and stammered too badly to have a conversation with a stranger without so much anxiety that I would have just shut down. And today I can do an interview like this. That all took practice. Like, right now, I'm practicing because I want to be able to do Tiktok lives. And I've never gone live on Tiktok before, two days ago. So I'm practicing in five minute increments on Tiktok. It's that kind of like little have a vision of where I want to be and I want to, I need to practice the mechanics of it, and so I give myself time to practice and envision and all of that. But there's also a lot of grief work involved in that. I don't want to gloss over the grief work, because being able to envision what I want for Tia meant I had to first contend with what it cost me. I can't just envision myself back to 20 and start over. I have to have a new vision for Tia at 50. What does Tia at 50 look like, and what can she do with what she's been given? Lesley Logan 19:14  Oh, my God, you're 50.Tia Levings 19:15  I am. Lesley Logan 19:16  Oh my, gorgeous. Anyways, I know because that's the other thing I don't think people even give themselves credit for. They like leave the job, they leave the relationship, or they leave the religion, and then they don't realize that there is a grief process, because you are grieving what was, what you lost in doing that, what, you can't get time back? I can't imagine you going through all the things you went through in trying to heal yourself and also be a parent to your beautiful children. And so, because we have so many moms who listen when you have a baby and you didn't even have them at the hospital, you had your first at home. I still, somehow, they still insert mom guilt, somehow it comes in. It's not, it's like, so how, what did you have to tell yourself to go through that? Because you had to also give yourself permission to take care of you so that you could take care of them. Tia Levings 20:09  Yeah. So during the years that I was healing, I was raising four children and also going through a vicious divorce and custody investigations. And, you know, it wasn't pretty, it wasn't bad. I just saw it ends with us, and I got so angry because she hands over, in the movie, this is a spoiler, in the movie, she hands her newborn to her abuser and says, I would like a divorce, and no mom from abuse is going to, number one, put her newborn in the father's hands and give him potentially volatile news, that's not going to happen. But also he's like, oh yeah, I think we should, oh yeah, I agree with you. Thank you. No abuser says that. That is not what it's like to leave domestic abuse. So I had a big process to go through, and I had children to raise and life to change, and I had been, you know, always resisting the internal fundamentalism in our home in their early childhood and try to raise them the way that I wanted to. But it was a different scenario when I had teenagers and I didn't have fundamentalism, telling me I had to churn out this cookie-cutter. So it was kind of wild west in some regards. I had a second husband during those years. We had that to contend with. And so there was a lot, there was a lot happening. And just like knowing what TIA is, isn't, it was a question. It was, still a question, I hope it's always a question. The only thing I promised myself was that everything that I'd been through had already taken enough time. It had already taken my life. It took my past. It took my childhood. It took my children's childhood. It took my virginity. It took all the glossy imagery that they promised and never delivered on. It was not going to get my present and it was not going to get my future, because that was the only thing I had control over. So that was my promise to myself, was it changes from here on out. Lesley Logan 21:47  Yeah, thank you for bringing up that movie. I haven't seen it. I saw your post on it, and then I saw, like, people are, like, backlashing up, like, lively, and they're trying to figure out why. And I'm like, I don't think it's any of these reasons. I think what people aren't saying is what they can't always articulate what you did so well, just like, this is unbelievable. This is not how it works. And they didn't have anyone who got experience with it on that movie. Because I just think that you would really, yeah, so, but that's a different episode. Okay, so here's the thing that I find fascinating about you, and I'm so grateful for you, because you're putting towards the things like, I like, even though I grew up somewhat in my, I don't think I ever there's parts of me I watch Tiny Happy People with you in it. I was like, oh, I do think my parents got that book at some point. We were never on the blanket, but we were spanked sometimes. I was like, this is because God loves you. And like, I was, so there's some interesting things that I think my parents tried out and then also let go of because they were very much into football. And my grandparents' version of church was watching, oh, my god, I can't think of it right now, but it's like a Sunday night prayer movie with angels. It's not coming to my mind, but like. Tia Levings 22:52  Touched by an Angel? Lesley Logan 22:53  Touched by an Angel. Yes, we watched every Sunday. My grandma's like, this is church, we're going. So I had some outside influence I think that really kept my life away from that. But, so you, but you have now, because you can, you can pinpoint these things, what I find so fascinating is that you are spending time trying to help people understand what fundamentalism is, what we're looking at here. And I, one, commend you, and I'm grateful for you. But two, and I'm also wondering like, why are you doing that? Tia Levings 23:21  Because somewhere around 2015, yeah, I think it was 2015, I realized that everything I'd run away from, and then I escaped and with the risk of my life and losing everything and leaving everything behind, all of that was coming from my country, and there was be no, there was no hide and be quiet and be anonymous about it anymore. It was you need, you have a story to tell. You know what it's like to live in that America because you lived in that America, being the only people who can tell what it's like to live in Project 2025, or the Christian patriarchy, to that extreme, is somebody who's lived it and but there's not very many people who can talk about it. They are, if they survived at all, if they got out, they haven't done the work to tell the story without re-traumatizing themselves, they haven't, don't necessarily, have the same talents and gifts for clarity or for being able to write or being able to put themselves out there. And so I knew I'm like, well, there's a handful of people who can do this, and I'm one of them, and I have a responsibility to tell the story and to get the workout. The situation has only intensified as I made that decision. My book is timely and we knew that two years ago, we knew that four years ago, and it just keeps getting more timely. And I'm like, please read it before the election. Lesley Logan 24:35  I know, that's why I posted today, because I was like, I don't think I get this I want, I'm gonna try get this episode out for the election. But I was like, how can I get this book in everyone's hands because what kills me is that people continue to say on any post about Project 2025, oh, Trump's doesn't know anything about this. And I am like, okay, because there's a picture of him with the, like, you want to just go, you want to shake people. You're like, what are you doing? We can't shake them, that would be abuse. But your book is so timely. And also you can spot things and almost, in a way, translate, because it is all English. It's just that it's a different worldview. So it's a different language, and you can translate it. For those of us who are going, what is going on and what does this actually mean? Tia Levings 25:18  Even with Project 2025, the mechanics of it matter. So Trump not only knows about it, but he's president because of it. The Heritage Foundation, you might remember this, there was a push in the first Trump election, in the, in that election cycle. Two, they didn't like him, the Evangelicals didn't like him, and they wanted to pick someone like Ted Cruz or Chris Christie. And there was this debate over who's going to be the Republican candidate, and Trump was popular, but not so much with evangelical voters, more with the MAGA crowd. Then all of a sudden, boom, Jerry Falwell Jr. and Franklin Graham endorse him, and it's like this pivot. Everyone's like, what we're endorsing Trump now? The reason why they did that was because they're involved with the Heritage Foundation and the architect of Project 2025. Project 2025 founders and architects decided that a popular president could get their Supreme Court justices in and can get their legislation through. So they went with the most popular president and put him in office as a figurehead. He's there because of them. So it is bigger than him. It is ludicrous that he would pretend that he doesn't know about it when 80% of his administration was staff appointees from those organizations, it was 110 conservative organizations. And so that's why it also will outlast him if they swap him with another candidate, for example, Vance, or anyone else like him, if they're endorsed by the founders of Project 2025, we are in the same boat and that's what lands us with this legislation, with the Supreme Court appointees we've had, and with Speaker of the House, Johnson, like that kind of trend. Lesley Logan 26:52  I know that's the thing that so, concern's the wrong word, sometimes you're just like, okay, how, it's, you start to go, how do you take a group, this is such a huge group of people, and if we escape one at a time, like Tia, you escaped, we're going to be in this forever. Obviously, you're sharing these amazing things that are helping us understand it. How do you see a possibility for us to, I don't, I don't want to say, break the spell, but help them see that I feel like they don't realize they're being used, and that, I think pisses me off the most, but they're being used, and that Tia Levings 27:24  They're being (inaudible) not wrong about that. They're under mind control. They're under a spell. We know that in our bodies, you know we can feel that in our bodies. What I do about it is I choose the other way. I choose light, I choose life. I choose energy and progress. I want humanity to continue evolving and progressing as a society, not going back to puritanical times. There is a reason why we're not Puritans anymore, like, many reasons. We like progress and technology and goodness and education and rights. There's, our society moved forward because we don't want to be like The Scarlet Letter and Nathaniel Hawthorn and you know, all of, all of the things that were true in the 1500s. We choose life. So I choose life. I choose to go forward. That means I choose political ideologies and groups that maybe I don't agree with 100% but they're moving in the right direction. They're protecting my agency to continue to vote. I wasn't allowed to vote in Christian patriarchy. We will lose our right to vote in Christian patriarchy. I don't want that, so I vote for people who protect my right to vote. That makes sense? Lesley Logan 28:25  Yeah, no, it totally does. With all this stuff where you have to kind of like, especially right now, especially in the time that we're in, guys, I think we're 74 days out from when we're recording this. How are you protecting, so how are you protecting yourself? Because every day you have to look at this crap and translate it for the rest of us, it really, absolutely, is like a touch point of my day to see what you're okay, I'm not crazy. This is what I'm seeing. This is very helpful. And, oh, this is why it's going on. So you are definitely helping so many people who are trying to figure out what they're seeing, right? But how are you protecting yourself? And I guess, continue to be it till you see it as being Tia? Tia Levings 29:00  Yeah. So Tia needs a lot of time to sit on the floor. I need time to be unplugged. I need time to stretch and move and get sunshine and walk. I'm really clear on my boundaries, and I use them every day. I also like a good, flexible boundary, not a rigid one. So that means sometimes I take a little step back and then take a few days off. I'm fortunate that my, I mean, it's the twisted curse of content that I make, it's still really timely and relevant, which allows me to repurpose older content sometimes when I need to take a little break from always diving into the most current issue. I'm also really grateful that there are so many other voices joining this that I'm not the only one out there. There's a lot of creators that all have their own strengths for explaining things, interpreting things, and sometimes there's a current event that'll come up, and I'll just like, I'm sitting this one out. I've got the middle of (inaudible) book release, or I've got something else, let the others carry it, and they do. And I know that we're not like, putting our heads together and deciding that, but I know that we're all doing that. We're all aware that this is a movement, and it's a counter-movement of intelligence and love and strength, and sometimes we need to set it out. It's also, interestingly enough, many of us are introverted, and so I noticed that you do what we can do, and then we understand that that's where our limit is, and I go take care of my needs, like my nervous system regulation is my top priority. So that's what I mean when I say I need to go sit on the floor. If I'm feeling overwhelmed or tired or something, I'll just sit down, and let the planet support me, and let everything, like all the energy fields, just kind of come down and the energy drop. Lesley Logan 30:35  Thank you for sharing that I think so many people here need to hear like you, to have gone what you went through, and also to be so aware of what you need, that is a superpower, because there are so many people here who haven't gone through that journey, who do not know how to sit down. Tia Levings 30:51  Right and we're caught in this new cycle full of urgency, and my promise to myself, one of many, but one of them is that I resist urgency. I want a life that resists urgency. So if someone's prodding me to hurry or push or forcing me to do something, I'll go the other way, just to spite them, because I'm not going. I was like, when I was a toddler, I would sit down. My tantrum style was to sit down and throw a fit and I think, oh, she just knew what she was doing. She just knew. No, no, I'm not going in there. No, you can't make me. Channel my inner two-year-old a little bit.Lesley Logan 31:22  Yeah. Oh my gosh. I think you mentioned that in your book, and you mentioned you have a second book. So I feel like I don't, you probably can't talk too much about it, but did you always know you were gonna write the second book? Did it come through after this first one was finished? Do we get to have more Tia? Like, more?Tia Levings 31:39  It's called the soul of healing, and it's how I healed and how you can, too. It's a survivor's guide to do the thing that I did, because that's the follow up question I always get, and why we're having this interview. You did this, you went through this big story, and you put yourself back together, and that's what's fascinating. It's not, so, just a parade of the bad things that happened to me. We've all had hard, bad experiences. But it's what I was able to do with it that I'm able to move forward and do more things as a whole person. I don't consider myself broken anymore. I don't consider myself scarred. I consider myself whole. And to get there, I did some things that, I did everything that healing had to offer. So I was like, this really is a second book. It was, this book would have been way too much for that. So it sold really well, really quickly, in preorders. And that meant I was given the opportunity to sell the next one so close, on the heels of it. So The Soul of Healing comes out in 2025, probably in the summer, early fall. Lesley Logan 32:38  Great. We don't have to wait because, like, too long, because, like, I already knew I was gonna buy a year ago. I already knew it was a deal. And let's just say, I think maybe the hard conversation is like a lot of us are hoping that come this election, that things will go the way joy is presenting itself, and then we'll just move on. And can you give, be the bearer of bad news, but the bearer of honesty, which is, what if they lose, hopefully they lose, what can we expect? Maybe, you're not a future teller, but do they just keep going? Because that means they just do. They've had 50 years of trying, so what do you see? Tia Levings 33:14  I think that if they lose, which I which I ardently hope they do. Because it's terrifying if they win, if they lose, that we'll see a large chunk of people quietly awaken when their disillusionment falls away, when they see the emperor has no clothes. It gets contagious, becomes contagious, and so I think we will have societal change. There will always be a core of fundamentalism. You know, running through the tradwife movement is massive, and it is part of this. Those are people who are not going to like spin on a dime because it's November and the election went one way that I don't think they're the majority. So I think that the more we move forward, the more we crowd out antiquated ideas that don't bear good fruit. And generations, I have a lot of hope in generations, this new rising Gen X and below. I've always had technology. They have access to more psychological information than any other generation in all of humanity. I have hope for that. I think that's going to take us optimistic places.Lesley Logan 34:17  Yeah, I do. I believe. I believe it too. I hope for that. Okay, I mean, I just want to spend all I just want to hang out with you. So, just so you know, I'm coming through Georgia, can we have coffee? We're gonna take a quick break, and then we're gonna come out and find how people can find you, follow you, get your book, and then your Be It Action Items. Lesley Logan 34:37  All right, Tia, where do you like to hang out? You mentioned TikTok lives? Where can people just absorb as much of your amazingness? And where can they buy your books? Tia Levings 34:45  Yeah, I'm on every social platform except for Twitter. Don't do Elon. I'm at @TiaLevingswriter on all of those. I hang out on Instagram the most, and I do have a private readers group if you want to do book discussion and help me launch my books, it's AWTW readers, it's free, it's just private, so that we can talk about stuff, and I might have my substack, TiaLevings.substack.com, which is the anti-fundamentalist, where I share an active deconstruction process in our headlines, family news, current events, and we'll also what I'm deconstructing personally now, and I'm on TikTok. Like I said, I'm trying new things. I've always been unafraid of technology. I want to learn how to do it, but it's really just enough time and bandwidth things. So we'll see what happens there. I just realized I was feeling a little intimidated by a process, and I wanted to deal with that, so that's why I'm doing that. Lesley Logan 35:36  Thank you for, that's a great little, like, yeah, we for (inaudible) why don't we explore wine and see what's going on? You don't have to, but you can just at least understand it. Okay, you've given us so much and, oh, by the way, you have, I believe you have a freebie on, like, the fundies thing as well. If you're in a fundamentalist situation, you're like, unclear. If your family is like, you have that as well in your sites as well. Tia Levings 35:57  Yeah, if you go to tialevings.com I have tons of resources on there, and one of them is the Fundie Cheatsheet. You'll get it if you sign up for my emails and it, it gives you all like the insider terms of what I'm talking about, where I'm from, and also peaks to see where it's going. Lesley Logan 36:11  Yeah. Okay, super cool. Okay, so bold, executable, intrinsic, targeted steps to be it till we see it. What do you have for us? Tia Levings 36:19  Oh my goodness, these were hard to narrow down. My bold, my bold steps, okay, so spend time with yourself is the number one. Like tune out all the noise. Learn how to sit in silence. Learn how to move in walk. I do this when I'm walking a lot, and I try to become my own best friend. I pay attention to my nerves and what's coming up in my body, and I honor that, even if I don't have language for it. And then I spend a lot of time envisioning. I don't believe you can become something with intention unless you can see it. So I need to be able to see it. So I do vision boarding my journaling. I've practiced many times in the mirror being able to speak or smile or do the things. So whatever it is I'm trying to be. I try to really spend time envisioning what it's like to live a daily, ordinary life as that person, and then make those changes as I go. I don't know if those are beady enough for you (inaudible).Lesley Logan 37:13  They are. They're brilliant, they're brilliant, they're wonderful. Yes, they're as amazing, more amazing. I thought they'd be from you. Just, yeah, you should know, you probably do already, because you've done so much work, but you're a gorgeous, incredible, smart human who is so generous. And I'm just so grateful that we got to have this moment and that you took time out of your busy promotion of your amazing, bestselling book, because it's really important to me, and I think every one of my listeners needs to hear it so listeners needs to hear it. So thank you. So you all are going to get the book if you haven't gotten already, because I told you to.Tia Levings 37:48  Thank you so much. Thank you.Lesley Logan 37:49  Oh, are you kidding? Like, I have only ever self-published and I did a terrible job of it, and that's so hard. Well, first of all, first of all, I didn't know you should have an audience first. So there's that. It's still, people still get it, and it's such a niche book anyways. But I have had so many friends who written books, so many people who've been on this it is so hard to authentically get on the bestseller list. It is very easy, if you're a dick on the side that we won't discuss, to have your family buy a bunch of books for you or your friends or a group you know, but you for you and other authors like you, authentically getting there because single people bought a book and told their friends about it. So you, just like incredible achievement, and I hope you continue to celebrate. Lesley Logan 38:35  Thank you again for being here. You guys, how do you use these tips in your life? Make sure you tag Tia and tag the Be It Pod and get her book for your friends, because this, for us to overcome what is actually trying to happen, and not just the US and many, many places where they're trying to control women, specifically, we have to be educated on what it looks like so that we can make sure it doesn't happen. Because we can be it till we see it in the ways we want to be and the life we want to have and we want a vision. So thank you, Tia, so much for being here. Until next time, everyone, Be It Till You See It. Lesley Logan 39:01  That's all I got for this episode of the Be It Till You See It Podcast. One thing that would help both myself and future listeners is for you to rate the show and leave a review and follow or subscribe for free wherever you listen to your podcast. Also, make sure to introduce yourself over at the Be It Pod on Instagram. I would love to know more about you. Share this episode with whoever you think needs to hear it. Help us and others Be It Till You See It. Have an awesome day. Be It Till You See It is a production of The Bloom Podcast Network. If you want to leave us a message or a question that we might read on another episode, you can text us at +1-310-905-5534 or send a DM on Instagram @BeItPod. Brad Crowell 39:45  It's written, filmed, and recorded by your host, Lesley Logan, and me, Brad Crowell.Lesley Logan 39:50  It is transcribed, produced and edited by the epic team at Disenyo.co. Brad Crowell 39:54  Our theme music is by Ali at Apex Production Music and our branding by designer and artist, Gianfranco Cioffi. Lesley Logan 40:01  Special thanks to Melissa Solomon for creating our visuals. Brad Crowell 40:04  Also to Angelina Herico for adding all of our content to our website. And finally to Meridith Root for keeping us all on point and on time.Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/be-it-till-you-see-it/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

For some reasons Donald Trump is threatened by the fact that Kamala Harris worked at McDonald's in her youth. He has even accused her of making it up. So Trump decided that he would work at McDonald's for a day, but even THAT was exposed as a sham, a con, a show. As New York Magazine put it: "So in an effort to highlight his claim that Kamala Harris never worked at McDonald's, Trump pretended to work at a closed McDonald's where he served pretend orders to supporters pretending to be customers." The most accurate nickname for Trump really is "Don the Con".If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support us and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

For some reasons Donald Trump is threatened by the fact that Kamala Harris worked at McDonald's in her youth. He has even accused her of making it up. So Trump decided that he would work at McDonald's for a day, but even THAT was exposed as a sham, a con, a show. As New York Magazine put it: "So in an effort to highlight his claim that Kamala Harris never worked at McDonald's, Trump pretended to work at a closed McDonald's where he served pretend orders to supporters pretending to be customers." The most accurate nickname for Trump really is "Don the Con".If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support us and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Jack Smith has filed his opposition to Trump's motion to dismiss based on the Supreme Court's ruling in the Fischer case. In Fisher, the Supreme Court ignored the text of the federal statute that criminalize conduct that "obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding" and invalidated the convictions of the insurrectionists who did exactly that. So Trump filed a motion saying, in substance, "invalidate my conviction too," seeking to have thrown out HIS charges for obstructing the congressional certification of Joe Biden's election win. Glenn discusses Jack Smith's response which exposes the absurdity of Trump's claim.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support us and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Jack Smith has filed his opposition to Trump's motion to dismiss based on the Supreme Court's ruling in the Fischer case. In Fisher, the Supreme Court ignored the text of the federal statute that criminalize conduct that "obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding" and invalidated the convictions of the insurrectionists who did exactly that. So Trump filed a motion saying, in substance, "invalidate my conviction too," seeking to have thrown out HIS charges for obstructing the congressional certification of Joe Biden's election win. Glenn discusses Jack Smith's response which exposes the absurdity of Trump's claim.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support us and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

So Trump can't even go golfing anymore. Everyone's trying to kill him. The level of evil is the highest it's ever been. This is a battle of Good vs Evil. Let's expose the lies and discuss solutions. ~Todd & Casey Follow us on x and ig: @toddspears1776 @SoundBoardLord Business Inquiries: Casey@inthehotseatmedia.com Todd@inthehotseatmedia.com Buy Our Shirts: HotSeatMerch.com Music by: TwoYearOldBear Love Ya Miss Ya Mean It! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today, we're talking all about the recently-released Confession of Evangelical Conviction:-        What the confession is and what it says-        Why we signed it and got involved promoting it-        How the American church got to the point where a confession of very basic political theology like this is necessary-        And after that conversation, we talk the many layers of Christian nationalism involved in the debacle at Trump's recent trip to Arlington National CemeteryMentioned on the episode:-        The Confession of Evangelical Conviction, and the associated resources-        The video we produced to promote the confessionCredits-            Follow KTF Press on Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. Subscribe to get our bonus episodes and other benefits at KTFPress.com.-        Follow host Jonathan Walton on Facebook Instagram, and Threads.-        Follow host Sy Hoekstra on Mastodon.-        Our theme song is “Citizens” by Jon Guerra – listen to the whole song on Spotify.-        Our podcast art is by Robyn Burgess – follow her and see her other work on Instagram.-        Editing by Multitude Productions-        Transcripts by Joyce Ambale and Sy Hoekstra.-        Production by Sy Hoekstra and our incredible subscribersTranscriptIntroduction[An acoustic guitar softly plays six notes in a major scale, the first three ascending and the last three descending, with a keyboard pad playing the tonic in the background. Both fade out as Jonathan Walton says “This is a KTF Press podcast.”]Sy Hoekstra: When we first started doing this work and we published our anthology, we went on a couple of podcasts about it. A common thing that people asked of us at the time was, where do you think the White American church, where do you think the like 81 percent of the church, the White evangelical church that voted for Trump is going? And the first time I said it, I sort of surprised myself and I was like, look, it's being cut off the vine for not bearing good fruit and thrown in the fire. There's been a long time coming of a divorce, like a complete split between White evangelicals in America and followers of Jesus.[The song “Citizens” by Jon Guerra fades in. Lyrics: “I need to know there is justice/ That it will roll in abundance/ And that you're building a city/ Where we arrive as immigrants/ And you call us citizens/ And you welcome us as children home.” The song fades out.]Sy Hoekstra: Welcome to Shake the Dust, seeking Jesus, confronting injustice. I'm Sy Hoekstra.Jonathan Walton: And I'm Jonathan Walton.Sy Hoekstra: We have a great show for you today. We're doing something a little bit different. We are talking about a bit of a movement, a little, a confession that we have signed onto that we're a part of that we're producing some media around that you may have seen by the time this episode comes out. And it's a confession of sort of evangelical faithfulness to Jesus in a political context. And it is probably a little bit off the beaten path of kind of some of the political commentary that we normally engage in. And we wanted to talk to you about why we think it is a good and strategic thing for us to do during this season, give you some of our thinking behind how we kind of strategize politically and think about ourselves as part of a larger theological and political movement.So I think this will be a really good conversation. We're also gonna get into our Which Tab Is Still Open and talk to you about Christian nationalism and whiteness through the lens of Donald Trump doing absurd things at Arlington National Cemetery [laughs].Jonathan Walton: Yes.Sy Hoekstra: But we will get into all of that in a moment. Before we do, Jonathan Walton.Jonathan Walton: Hey, remember, if you like what you hear and read from us at KTF Press and would like for it to continue beyond the election season, I need you to do two things. Go to KTFPress.com and become a paid subscriber. Now, you could also tell other people to do that as well if you've already done that. We've got a ways to go if we're going to have enough people to sustain the work, but we think it's valuable, and I hope you do too. So go to KTFPress.com, sign up, and that gets you all of the bonus episodes of this show, access to our monthly Zoom calls with the two of us and more. So again, KTFPress.com. Become a paid subscriber.What is the Evangelical Confession of Conviction, and Why Is KTF Involved?Sy Hoekstra: All right, Jonathan, let's get started in our conversation. We've signed onto this document called The Confession of Evangelical Conviction. We've produced some media around it. First of all, what is it and what does it say?Some Basic Political Theology That We Need to Restate at This Cultural Moment with UnityJonathan Walton: [laughs] Well, I think the question of what it is, it's words [Sy laughs]. Like there's these things that we put together, it's words. And I think the reason that it's powerful is because of when and how it's said. And so these are basic confessions that every Christian should believe, but it seems like the reason that we're doing it right now and that I've signed onto is because there are seasons when the discipleship and formation of the church needs to be plain and centered. And so being able to say, “I give allegiance to Christ alone,” and then have that be reverberated across denominations, across movements of quote- unquote, Christians around the country that are usually so disparate, they usually don't communicate, they usually disagree with each other in very public ways, to say, “Hey, hey, hey.”We need people to understand who don't follow Jesus, that when Gandhi said, “I like Christ, I don't like Christians,” that's part of the problem. We are part of that problem. Where we don't articulate what we know, what we believe, what we know to be true. I think this is an articulation of that, speaking particularly to a cultural and political and social moment that needs the clarity that Jesus can bring.Sy Hoekstra: Yeah. So this is just to get into the weeds of it. It's a confession signed by I would say, the sort of extreme ends, at least to the people that we know about right now, I don't know who's gonna sign it in future, but center-right to more progressive left. And the basic confessions, like the seven statements of the confession are, “We give our allegiance to Jesus Christ alone. We will lead with love, not fear. We submit to the truth of Scripture. We believe the Gospel heals every worldly division. We are committed to the prophetic mission of the Church. We value every person as created in God's image.” And “We recognize godly leaders by their character.” So this is very basic theology [laughs] like you said. And you got a little bit at why it matters to put this out there, why we are involved. I agree with you. I think it's more about the context and it's also about who is saying it more than it is about the content.Because, and by the way, we should say we are giving you our reasons for signing this and why we think it's important. This is not… like there's a group of people that were involved in writing it, so there's lots of people involved who we don't know precisely why they signed [laughs] or precisely why the people who wrote it decided it was necessary. We're talking to you about our opinions. So to me, if you have something that says we pledge our allegiance to Christ alone, that's a rebuke of Christian nationalism to me.We judge godly leaders by their character, that's a rebuke of people who argue that Trump is a godly leader or a leader who has been appointed by God in some way or another. So those are important things to say. And it's with people across a pretty big spectrum of, as I said, the political range. Would Jonathan and I go a lot further than this if we said what we thought is important for political discipleship? Yes, we would, and you know that, because you've heard our other episodes. Or if you haven't, go listen to our other episodes [laughs]. We would go a lot further than that, yes. But we think, I think it's good to work with a broad range of people during a political campaign.Reaching a Broad Audience and Pushing the American Church to ChangeSy Hoekstra: Like I think when you're talking about discipleship at a moment when tensions are extremely high around theology and politics, it is good to do these kinds of things where you are trying to scale your efforts.Where you're trying to reach as many people as possible in the hopes that you will change some minds, both so that they will more faithfully follow Jesus, and in this specific context, so they won't vote for Donald Trump. That's one of my personal reasons for being involved in this [laughs]. And that's how you do campaigns in general. That's how campaigns operate. You try and call as many people as you can. You try and put commercials out there as widely as you can toward your targeted audience, whatever. Not in the hopes that the vast majority of the people who see it are going to suddenly be like, “Oh my goodness, I agree with everything you say,” but in the hopes that you'll reach enough of the people whose minds you can change to make a difference in their decision when it comes to November.You will reach them and you will start to be one of the people who affects their choices, is what I'm trying to say. So I don't know, that's kind of the strategy of it from my point of view. It is a similar way of thinking to me from the anthology. When we published the anthology four years ago, it was different because we were letting people say their own beliefs. And it was people from all over the spectrum kind of saying why they weren't voting for Trump in whatever way they saw fit [laughs], on whatever topic they saw fit. That was our approach. But this is the way some other people are going to do it, and we're gonna be happy to work with them in that way.Jonathan Walton: I think for me, I see the political strategy of it. I see the strategery that's happening, to use a word from SNL. My hope is that…Sy Hoekstra: From SNL 25 years ago [laughs].Jonathan Walton: Yeah. My hope… [laughs]. It was such a great sketch. “Strategery,” it was so good. “I'm the decider” [Sy laughs]. So I think one of the things that stands out to me, particularly in reviewing it more and assign it and then come on board, is, I hope that this is a Belhar Confession type moment for the United States and followers of Jesus. Particularly, because when we look at the Dutch Reformed Church, the Dutch Reformed Church was the theological backbone and framework for apartheid in South Africa. They gave the covering for those things to happen. It gave theological and moral legitimacy to a movement that was oppressive, violent, exploitative, and un-Christian at every level. Because there are Christian leaders who are willing to say, “You know what? This is really good. This is actually right. This is good and just, and God intended this.” And we have the exact same type of nonsense happening in the United States.There are quote- unquote, prophets and apostles and preachers and teachers and publishing houses and Amazon independent book publishers rolling out materials that say, “America first.” America is the kingdom of God. America is the kingdom of heaven. America is this baptized land on the earth, as opposed to being a land that is rooted in land theft, genocide, violence, patriarchy, greed and exploitation. Which it is that. It's actually not the kingdom of God at all. And so I hope that this creates a groundswell that goes beyond November 5th and beyond January 20th. And could this be a pivot point of orientation for people who followed Jesus to say, “You know what? Actually Jesus didn't say any of that.” If all of these people, right, left, middle, above, otherwise are saying this, maybe I should consider. “Oh, Randall Balmer said that, and Mercy Aiken” [Sy laughs]? “Shane was there too? Alright. Shane is on the same page as Curtis Chang and Sandra Van Opstal? Alright, let me jump in and get on this.” That's what I hope happens, is that it becomes impossible to avoid the question of allegiance to Jesus, or allegiance to the United States. Just like in South Africa the question was, are you pledging allegiance to apartheid or are you gonna follow Jesus?Sy Hoekstra: I totally agree with that. And I would say that it is 100 percent in line with the sort of premise of this podcast, which is helping people shake the dust and walk away [laughs] from the places where the word of God is not accepted as Jesus put it. And you let your peace return to you and you move along on your way.Jonathan Walton: Yes.How Did We Get to the Point Where This Confession Is Necessary?Sy Hoekstra: So let's actually talk about that thing that you were just saying. The thing where all these people from these different walks of life are coming together to make this specific statement at this time. How did we get here, aside from the obvious thing that Donald Trump is very good at uniting people who oppose him [laughter]. How did we get to this point in the church in America?Jonathan Walton: I think we need to narrow the scope a little bit.Sy Hoekstra: Okay.Jonathan Walton: Of how we got to this point, I think I would start at Acts 2 [laughter]. But, and then the church and then the alliance with the empire to escape persecution. Constantinople like Nicea, I mean…Sy Hoekstra: Let's focus on America.Jonathan Walton: Yeah, let's focus on the United States.Sy Hoekstra: [laughs] Zoom in a little bit.The Moral Majority Took Us Very Far down a Path Away from JesusJonathan Walton: I think that one of the pivot points in the United States is 2008 in the ascendance of Barack Obama. With Barack Obama, you have what was roiling and starting with Al Gore, but like can Christians vote for Democrats and still be Christians? Because with the ascendance of the moral majority, with what Randall Balmer talks about this coalescing around abortion as a position, and then the policies laid out by Jerry Falwell. And there was a conference in 1979 in Houston. Lots of organizations came out of that gathering. And so when those types of things occur, I think we are living in the wake of that wave, but that wave wasn't really challenged until 2008 when many, many, many, many people said, “Oh, I wanna vote for Barack Obama.”And so with the ascendance of Obama, then the question particularly among the Black community from evangelical Christians is like, can you be a Christian and vote for Obama? And that was talked about extensively in Tamice's book, Faith Unleavened, which is amazing. And that scene that she describes of the dissonance between the White evangelical church that she was sitting in, and the conversation she was having with her grandma on the phone, who she called Momma.Sy Hoekstra: Where her family was having a party because Obama had been elected and her White church was having a mournful prayer service.Jonathan Walton: Yeah. I think a lament session basically, for the United States being now overtaken by a demonic force. And so I think if we start there and move forward, like if this was a ray coming from a point, then the line actually starts to diverge from there, from the center point. And now we are actually so far apart that it's very, very difficult to justify what's happening. So if we're at our end points right now, we have followers of Jesus legitimizing sexual violence by saying Trump is fine. You have followers of Jesus legitimizing fraud, saying that that's fine. You have followers of Jesus legitimizing insurrection, saying that's fine. We are way, way down the road and very far apart from these basic confessions.And so I think people that are co-opted and indoctrinated by Fox News and the conservative White evangelical and conservative Catholic and conservative… because there's a smattering of Christian movements that have so aligned themselves with political power that it is very apparent even to non-Christians, that this is not Christ-like. And so I think for us, similar to the church in South Africa, to say, “Hey, we need to just make very plain every person is made in the image of God, and you shouldn't enslave, violate and steal from people.”If we could articulate that and do that, and have a movement around that, then I think that is how we got here, is that basic tenets of following Jesus have stayed the same, but forces, institutional, the powers, the principalities, and also people who chose to align themselves with that have taken the ball and run so far down the road that even people who don't follow Jesus and folks who just have basic biblical engagement are seeing that this is just not the way. And so I think followers of Jesus across the spectrum are starting to say, “You know what? This is a moment that we can actually speak into.”The White Evangelical ChurchA Divorce between White Evangelicals and Followers of JesusSy Hoekstra: Yeah, I agree with all that. I think, I mean, look, when we first started doing this work and we published our anthology, we went on a couple of podcasts about it. A common thing that people asked of us at the time was, where do you think the American church, where do you think the like 81 percent of the church, the White evangelical church that voted for Trump is going?” And the first time I said it, I sort of surprised myself, but I was like, “Look, it's being cut off the vine for not bearing good fruit and thrown in the fire.” That's it. There's been a long time coming of a divorce, like a complete split, I think, between White evangelicals in America and followers of Jesus.Jonathan Walton: Right.Sy Hoekstra: White evangelicals have had a whole long history of being involved in, as you said, in the exact same way that the Dutch Reformed Church was involved in apartheid, just being involved in everything. Every [laughs] terrible thing America's ever done, we've been there cheering it on and supporting it in all kinds of ways. And I think a lot of what Trump in particular, and it's sometimes a little bit hard to put my finger on why it was him, but Trump in particular, I think highlighted to a lot of Christians who viewed themselves as kind of like just nice, gentle, center right Christians who were a part of a larger movement where maybe there were some people who were a little bit off the deep end, but overall, these institutions and these people are trying to accomplish good things in the world and follow Jesus faithfully, realized that that wasn't the case.I think there are a lot of people who realized that they actually had opinions about what it meant to follow Jesus that were dramatically different than the average person in their institutions, or the average evangelical Republican.Policy Debates for White Evangelicals Have Been a Cover for Power HungerSy Hoekstra: Peter Wehner, I think would be one of these people, who writes for the New York Times. He was a George W. Bush speech writer. He recently wrote an article saying, “Look, Donald Trump has explicitly said that if you took one of these super restrictive state abortion bans and you passed it in Congress and you put it on my desk, I would veto it. I would not pass a national abortion ban.”Jonathan Walton: Right.Sy Hoekstra: Which for the pro-life movement, that's the end goal. That would be [laughs], that would be the thing they've been fighting for for decades [Jonathan laughs]. And he has said, “I will not sign this.” And do you hear anything about that from Franklin Graham [laughs]?Jonathan Walton: So Al Mohler was on the Run-Up of the New York Times this week, when you listen to this probably like two weeks ago, talking about how, “Hey, Donald Trump just said he's not gonna sign a national abortion ban. What's your position on that?” And his position hasn't changed, because again, it is framed as you all are the radical people, not us. We are the victims, not you. There's a constant revision of reality that they are gonna continue to turn out and communicate that is rooted in fear and a lust for power and control and dominance. And that is toxic as all get-out, and obviously un-Christian.Sy Hoekstra: Yeah, that was the end of my point, was that a thing that people have been arguing for a long time, which is that, this focus on abortion, this focus on prayer in school, or this focus on whatever the evangelical issue of the day is, has in fact been about power from the perspective of the leaders.Jonathan Walton: Right.Sy Hoekstra: Maybe not the rank -in-file people like marching and the March for Life or whatever.Jonathan Walton: Exactly.Sy Hoekstra: But the leaders are after power, and they always have been. That's what, if you go back a couple years to our episode with Mako Nagasawa, the first episode of season two where we talked about abortion. That's what his whole book is about, is the history of abortion policy and how it's almost never been about abortion. It's almost always been about something else like anti-immigrant sentiment or professionalizing the medical profession or whatever. It's always been about some other issue of people trying to establish themselves and gain power over somebody else. That's what I think a lot of people are realizing, and so a lot of people who are, I think more to the right in the group of people who have signed this document that we have are on that journey, like are in the middle of it.Or not in the middle of it, but they've been going on it for a few years and they've been rejected by who they thought were their people for saying things like, “Hey, should we maybe adhere a little more closely to the teachings of Jesus?” [laughs] And now they're saying, okay, they've gotten to a point where they're like, “I need to draw a line in the sand. I need to make something clear here.” And that I think is different. That is genuinely different than eight years ago when everybody was, a lot of people in the middle were just kind of waffling.Jonathan Walton: Yeah. Yeah, right.Sy Hoekstra: Were not really sure what to do yet. And they still viewed the people on the far right who were all in for Trump as possibly a minority on their side, or possibly just something like a phase people were going through. Something that would flare up and then die, and it just didn't turn out that way. I think that's kind of how I view a lot of how we got to the place that we are now.Jonathan Walton: Yeah.Sy Hoekstra: Again, zoomed in on America and not looking at the entirety of church history, which is where you wanted to go [laughter].Jonathan Walton: Yeah. And I mean, and I'll name some of the people that are key to that. So, Kristin Kobes Du Mez, like her book Jesus and John Wayne, Jemar Tisby's book, The Color of Compromise. And we could also throw in some Christianity adjacent, but loved by them books as well. So like all of the quote- unquote, anti-racist books, where people who are trying to leave the race-based, class-based, gender-based environmental hierarchy that White evangelicalism enforces, like I wrote about that in Twelve Lies as an explicit book. But you could say that Ibram X. Kendi's book is trying to get away from that. That White Fragility is trying to get away from that. That all of these books pushing back against [laughs], what now is called like Trad Wife and all these different things, it's trying to push back against these things. They're trying to call people to another reality because the one that some people have found themselves in is deeply unhelpful and not Christian.Sy Hoekstra: Yeah. I feel like that's been like you're refrain of this podcast. “And also, not Christian” [laughs].Jonathan Walton: Not Christian. Right.Sy Hoekstra: And not Jesus.Jonathan Walton: Right.Sy Hoekstra: Do we have any other thoughts on this subject, or do we want to jump into our segment?Jonathan Walton: I just think people should go sign it.Sy Hoekstra: Oh, yeah.Jonathan Walton: And there's a fun bible study there that [laughs] we talked about two weeks ago on the podcast and spread the word about it. I think it's gonna be a good thing.Sy Hoekstra: Yeah, the link to the website, the people who organized it, Jonathan said, “Hey, you can put the Bible study that we talked about in our last episode up, if you want a place for people to go to scripture on these subjects.” And they did.Jonathan Walton: Yeah.Sy Hoekstra: So that's cool. We will have the link to the confession in the show notes, as well as the link to the video that we created, which has a bunch of the signers of the confession reading parts of it, which we would love it if you would all share as widely as possible on your social media, and share the confession as well. We hope that this, as I said, changes somebody's hearts and minds, has some good effect on some people both in their discipleship and in their politics, which is what we're all about.Jonathan Walton: Yeah. Amen. There's actually a worship album that came out too. So along with Phil Vischer's cartoons for kids that can be shown in churches, there's a Return to Love album by a bunch of folks that you all may know like Will Matthews, Crystal Lewis, Ryan Edgar. These are folks that have led worship in great places that the evangelical world has followed for a long time. And so having worship leaders willing to call us out as well is pretty great. Along with Phil Vischer, because these videos will definitely be great for kids.Sy Hoekstra: Is that worship album already out?Jonathan Walton: Yeah, it's out right now [laughs]. You could click on it.Sy Hoekstra: I don't know how they did that that fast. That's incredible [laughs].Jonathan Walton: Hey man, listen. There's a thing called the Holy Spirit.Sy Hoekstra: [laughs].Jonathan Walton: And I think we all know that when Jesus moves, Jesus can do some things.Which Tab Is Still Open?: Trump at ArlingtonJonathan Walton: And so let's get into our segment, Which Tab Is Still Open?, where we dive a little deeper into one of our recommendations from the newsletter. And remember, you can get our newsletter for free by signing up for the mailing list at KTFPress.com. You'll get recommendations on articles, podcasts, and other media from both of us on things that will help you in your political education and discipleship. Plus, you'll get reflections to keep you grounded and hopeful as we engage in this challenging work together. News about KTF and what's going on, and a lot more. So go get that free subscription and a paid one too. Alright. So this is your recommendation, so let's jump into it.Sy Hoekstra: This actually has a lot to do with what we were just talking about.Jonathan Walton: Yes, it does.Sy Hoekstra: This is all about Christian Nationalism [laughter]. And Trump kind of stepping in it when it comes to dealing with his Christian Nationalist followers. So here's the story, and the article that I recommended in the newsletter was actually, it both gave the details of the story, but it was actually for me, an example of kind of the thing that I was critiquing [laughs]. It was an Atlantic article, and basically the facts of what happened are as follows. Trump went to Arlington National Cemetery, which if you don't know, is I just learned the second, not actually the largest, the second largest national cemetery in the country.Jonathan Walton: Oh. Huh.Sy Hoekstra: The largest one's on Long Island, Jonathan, I had no idea.Jonathan Walton: What!Sy Hoekstra: [laughs] Yeah.Jonathan Walton: [laughs] I did not know that.Sy Hoekstra: So the people who are buried in Arlington are soldiers who served in active duty. Some of them died, some of them were retired and passed away later. And then like very high ranking government officials, like Supreme Court justices or presidents or whatever. So Trump went and visited a specific spot that had I think 13 soldiers who died during the evacuation of Afghanistan when there was a suicide bomb attack from the Taliban.Jonathan Walton: Right.Sy Hoekstra: And he did this basically to highlight Biden administration screw ups. You didn't handle this evacuation well. And so because Harris is part of the administration, he's criticizing his opponent. And he went and took some pictures, which is fine, but he then was like specifically taking pictures in this area and like narrating a video talking about Biden screw ups and everything. And an employee of the cemetery pointed out correctly that campaign activities are illegal under federal law [laughs] at Arlington National Cemetery. And they kept going anyways. And they got in a little bit of an argument with her, and then later to the press said that she is mentally ill and was having a mental health crisis in that moment, and that she needed to be fired.And, fortunately the cemeteries said, “No, that's all a lie, and she was correctly telling you that you shouldn't have been doing what you were doing and et cetera.”Jonathan Walton: Right.Sy Hoekstra: But there were a number of people, and I don't know if this is a majority or anything like that, but there were actually some Trump supporters who viewed this as a violation, like something that Trump really shouldn't have done. He was being disrespectful to the dead, the troops who were there, by doing partisan stuff at the National cemetery. It was not necessarily about the things that he was saying, but just by conducting yourself in a way that you're not supposed to conduct yourself at a national cemetery.Sy's Experience with Arlington and it's Strong Christian NationalismSo here's my in for this. I have a very long history of military [laughs] service in my family. Somebody in my family went on Ancestry.com one time, and I have a direct ancestor who was a drummer boy in the Continental Army with George Washington [laughs].Jonathan Walton: Oh, wow.Sy Hoekstra: And somebody who enlisted in the Union Army during the Civil War. And my great-grandfather was in World War II in Korea, grandfather was in Vietnam. And my grandfather who was in Vietnam, he died when I was about 10. My grandmother remarried a very highly decorated army colonel also from Vietnam, who he passed away and we had a funeral for him at Arlington. And Arlington does like 20, 30 funerals a day. So if you're a rank-in-file soldier, it's like a very, it's an in and out thing [laughs]. But because of either his rank or his awards or both [laughs], it was an event, Jonathan. It was like, we had the bigger, more beautiful chapel, and then we had a procession, because I can't see, I can't tell you how many it was, but at the very least, dozens of soldiers with a commanding officer taking his casket from the church to the burial site, there was a 21-gun salute. There was the presentation of the flag with the shell cases from the 21-gun salute to my grandmother. It was a big thing.Jonathan Walton: Yeah.Sy Hoekstra: And if you've been to Arlington, you know that one of the key messages there is that the people who served America and the army served the kingdom of God, served Jesus. That is what they did. They served, and they may have died serving heaven [laughs] effectively. And so what that means is this is one of the holiest sites for Christian nationalism. This is one of the places where you go to be reassured with some of the highest level, like some of the world's greatest pomp and circumstance. The world's most convincing showing of pageantry and religious activity that the United States Army and the people who died serving it are also serving God, which is, you can't get more Christian nationalist than that.Jonathan Walton: Yeah.Sy Hoekstra: Which is also why we have talked about Christian nationalism, actually far more common than people think it is [laughs]. It is absolutely normal in how we talk about the military. So what I think happened here with Trump is that because what I believe about Trump is that he's a conman to the core. He is pure... he's like self-interest incarnate [laughs]. He is out to promote Donald Trump and nothing more, and nobody more than that.Jonathan Walton: Right.Sy Hoekstra: I think he forgot that his self-interest can actually diverge from Christian nationalism [laughs]. I think that he forgot that he can step on his people's toes in a way that he doesn't want to. And he's basically going to look out for where those things diverge in future in order to not have this happen again. Because he's just there doing what he does, which is promoting himself anytime, anywhere at all costs. And he forgot that one of the things that he harnesses, which is Christian nationalism, is not actually something that he believes in, and so he can misfire [laughs]. The irony to me is that I want to gain enough power to do anything and not be held accountable for it to better myself in my own position, is a pretty good summary of how kind of the operating principle of the US military in our foreign policy has been for so long.So it's actually, it's like [laughs], it's two entities, a former president and the US military kind of clashing in their basically excuse making for their own unaccountability and their own sin. Which is how I view the Christian nationalism of a place like Arlington. What I just said Jonathan, is [laughs] blasphemy to a [laughs] lot of the people that I probably, to some people that I know personally. So I will just acknowledge that. But that is what I believe, and I think is true to the Bible. So hopefully you can at least give me that credit [Jonathan laughs]. Jonathan, boy, did I just talk for a long time. I'm sorry. I actually had in the outline that I wanted to ask you first what your thoughts were before I went on my rant, and I just couldn't help myself. So, [laughs].Jonathan Walton: Well, Sy, I mean…Sy Hoekstra: Jonathan, what are your thoughts?Jonathan Walton: I think one, I just appreciated the explanation of the closeness, why it's still open for you. Because I think when I was writing Twelve Lies, I wrote about the military, and I wanted to say, “Oh, they're only going to these types of communities to get people.” That would've been my hypothesis or was my hypothesis, but the research proved different.Sy Hoekstra: And when you say that, you specifically mean exploiting like poor Black and Brown neighborhoods?Jonathan Walton: Yes.Sy Hoekstra: You're saying like, “We'll get you into college, we'll give you benefits, et cetera, if you come fight and die for us.”Jonathan Walton: Exactly. And so…Sy Hoekstra: Potentially die for us.Jonathan Walton: Right, there's this exchange that's gonna happen for your body. Whether alive or dead, there will be benefits and resources for you or your loved ones. And so I went in with that lens, but what my research showed me was that the majority of people who serve in the military are family. Their parents were in it, their grandparents were in it, their cousin was in it. It's actually like only about two percent of the United States population is affiliated with the military. We're recruiting from the same groups of people. And this would also be true for law enforcement. People who were in it essentially raise their children and bless and send them into it as well as most often. It's not actually about income.The income, if I remember correctly, was between 50 to 70 thousand dollars a year in a household, which in a rural area is at the time, 10 years ago, felt like a living wage. And so that reality was also something that's interesting for me. So when Trump came out against Mark Milley, when Mark Milley challenged him to say, “Hey, you will not use me, quote- unquote, the military, as a prop in your racism, standing in front of St. John's church holding that Bible up,” which was literally the distorted cover of our book, our anthology, because these things were happening. When he insulted John McCain, that was a moment where the military and I think those who are beholden to Christian nationalism tried to speak up. Tried to say, “Hey, we won't do this.” But then the ball continued down the road.I don't know what the fallout of the Arlington stuff will be, but I do know based on Up First the NPR podcast this morning in the morning that we're recording September the seventh, they said the military and the employees actually let this go. But the reason they brought it back up was because Trump got on Truth Social , used platform and stature to say, “This did not happen. There was no altercation. This person had a mental health episode.” And when you go into that, that's where I think the, “We will not be disrespected” thing kind of came up. Like what do you mean? No, we're gonna talk about this and we're gonna name that. You will not desecrate this holy site. Holy in holy site of Christian nationalism, as you were saying.So I hope that there are more people that are offended, because I think that if we allow ourselves to be offended, to be bothered, to be uncomfortable, then maybe there will be some movement. Because I think you're absolutely right. He is, you said self-interest incarnate. I think that is a great quote [laughs].Trump Cheapened the Spiritual Cost People Pay to Be in the MilitaryJonathan Walton: What's painful to me, so I too have, my father was in Vietnam. My brother was in the Navy, my uncle was in the Army. My other uncles were in Vietnam. And Brodnax, the town where I'm from, has many gravestones from Vietnam and Korea. And so what is fascinating to me is the level of belief that you have to have to commit acts of atrocity or commit acts of violence. Like Shane Claiborne would say, we were not made to kill people, you have to be taught to do that.And I am in no way condemning a soldier or a person who's in military service, who's listening. That's not what I'm saying. I'm observing, it costs us something to do these things. And I think the thing that Trump did was cheapen the cost that many, many, many thousands of people have paid for something that they thought was a collective interest blessed by God when Trump said, “No, you are a pawn in my game. And I will use you for my benefit.” Now you again, you will have people that say that's what's happening anyway. Trump is just doing in like what everybody else does behind closed doors. But I think that tension that he articulates or brings up for us, I hope it's allowed to rise to the surface, and then we can have a conversation about the cost.Like the silent war in the military right now is that even soldiers who have not seen active duty are committing suicide. I hope it brings to the surface the, like my dad, Agent Orange ruined some of his life. They're still figuring out what the effects of that were. You have people who are saying they support troops in one hand, but then voting against resources and benefits for them in the other hand, when the legislation comes up. Lauren Boebert did that yesterday. I hope that the perceived belovedness of our veterans and military versus the reality of how they're exploited and taken advantage of and dismissed and cast aside, we would actually acknowledge that and then do real work to ensure that they don't end up on the street.They don't end up stuck on painkillers. They do get the medical resources they need. They do get the mental health support that they need. Their families do get the resources that they need on and off-base and not just a discount at the PX. If that could be the conversation because of this, then I'd be very glad.Sy Hoekstra: Yeah. Just one more thing you said there. You said lots of people use the military as pawns and it's true. Or like props for their campaigns. It is just another one of those things about Trump where he will just do what everybody else did, but he'll turn it up to 11 [laughs].Jonathan Walton: Yeah, no, yeah. It's true.Sy Hoekstra: Everybody else, every politician, if they have a military background, if their family does, if they can visit a military site or whatever, they do it all the time. And even if their love for the military or for America is real, it is also true that they use them for their campaigns [laughs]. Use them to prop up. That has been… since we elected George Washington, the general of the Continental Army, has been true [laughter]. Right?Jonathan Walton: Right.Sy Hoekstra: So Trump is just the one who says, “Whatever your rules of decorum are, I'm going to break them.” And in most cases, that is actually his appeal. “Yes. I break rules of decorum and there's no consequences. And that's because these elitist can't tell me what to do and we need to take back power.Jonathan Walton: Oh Lord have mercy, Jesus [laughs].Sy Hoekstra: You need someone like me who can just break through all this nonsense.” You know what I mean?Jonathan Walton: Right. Yeah.Sy Hoekstra: That's usually his appeal. And in this case, it just happened to be that he crossed the wrong line for some people. I'm sure there's a lot of people who probably don't care [laughs].Jonathan Walton: Right. It may not wrangle a lot of people, but I hope it wrangles the right people.Sy Hoekstra: Yeah.Jonathan Walton: And him stretching out this poop that he stepped on and not wiping it off his foot and continue his campaign, I hope that roils people. He is a disrespectful person.Sy Hoekstra: Yeah.Jonathan Walton: And for Christians, literally James chapter four, it's that God opposes the proud. We are called to be humble people, and so I pray for Trump. I pray for his family. Not that he would win an election and all those things, but literally that they would come to know Jesus. Literally that they would know the freedom in him. Literally, that they would be able to experience the freedom that money cannot purchase and privilege cannot provide for you. And so I say all these things in hopes that everyone who is watching what happens is disquieted because we should not be comfortable with what's happening. Especially as followers of Jesus [laughs].Sy Hoekstra: Yeah. Amen to that Jonathan. Amen.Jonathan Walton: Yeah.Sy Hoekstra: I think we'll wrap it up there. Just as a reminder, as we finish, please again, go to KTFPress.com, get that newsletter and sign up as a paid subscriber to support everything that we do. We're centering and elevating marginalized voices. We're helping people seek Jesus in their discipleship and in their politics. We really do need some more support than we have right now if we're gonna make this sustainable kind of past this election season. So please do come and sign up as a paid subscriber at KTFPress.com. Our theme song is “Citizens” by Jon Guerra. Our podcast Art is by Robyn Burgess, transcripts by Joyce Ambale, editing by Multitude Productions. I am the producer along with our lovely paid subscribers. Thank you so much for joining us, and we will see you in two weeks.[The song “Citizens” by Jon Guerra fades in. Lyrics: “I need to know there is justice/ That it will roll in abundance/ And that you're building a city/ Where we arrive as immigrants/ And you call us citizens/ And you welcome us as children home.” The song fades out.]Jonathan Walton: Give me one second. One moment. I'm gonna get the name right so that you don't have to go edit this later [Sy laughs]. … So yes, we… Robert Mohler. The—Richard Mohler. Al Mohler. That's his name [Sy laughs]. Al Mohler [laughs]. It says R dot Albert Mohler. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.ktfpress.com/subscribe

Get ready to rethink everything you know about the Democratic Party! In this explosive episode of Connecting the Dots, I sit down with historian and author Jeremy Kuzmarov to reveal how the party's messaging has quietly embraced militarism—and what it means for America's future. This isn't just another political chat; we're diving deep into the hidden history behind today's headlines, exposing the bipartisan grip of the military-industrial complex on both parties. Jeremy and I break down how Democrats have shaped U.S. foreign policy, fueling wars and global interventions that have real-world impacts on immigration and international relations. If you're ready for a raw, eye-opening conversation on how our political system prioritizes power over peace, you won't want to miss this! Tune in for insights that challenge the status quo and uncover the urgent need for a more balanced, humane approach to politics, both at home and abroad. Watch or Listen now to join the conversation! Find me and the show on social media. Click the following links or search @DrWilmerLeon on X/Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Patreon and YouTube!   Hey everyone, Dr. Wilmer here! If you've been enjoying my deep dives into the real stories behind the headlines and appreciate the balanced perspective I bring, I'd love your support on my Patreon channel. Your contribution helps me keep "Connecting the Dots" alive, revealing the truth behind the news. Join our community, and together, let's keep uncovering the hidden truths and making sense of the world. Thank you for being a part of this journey! Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:00:00): Hey, here are a couple questions. Has the messaging from the Democrats changed over the past few years? Is the messaging more jingoistic, more saber rattling, have they become the party of militarism? Let's find out Announcer (00:00:22): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:00:30): Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon. I am Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they happen in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historical context in which they take place. During each episode, my guests and I have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between these events and the broader historic context in which they occur, thus enabling you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live. On today's episode. The issue before is militarism and messaging. My guest is a man who holds a PhD in American history from Brandeis University. He's the managing editor of Covert Action Magazine. He's the author of five books on US Foreign Policy. He's the author of a piece at Covert Action entitled DNC Convention Features former CIA director who was in charge of drone programs that killed thousands. He is Dr. Jeremy Komaroff. Jeremy, welcome to the show. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:01:39): Thanks so much for having me. Great to be with you. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:01:41): You open your peace in covert action as follows, Leon Panetta was drowned out by anti-war activists when he spoke at the 2016 convention, but not this time. Former CIA director, Leon Panetta, who was the director from 2009 to 2011, was among the featured speakers on the final day of the DNC in Chicago on August 22nd when Kamala Harris accepted the party's nomination as its presidential candidate. Jeremy, does this represent just a shift in rhetoric, or is this a shift in policy and a shift in direction? Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:02:25): Well, I think we see a lot of continuity. I mean, Panetta was there in 2016. He's giving the same kind of speech eight years later. In 2016, he was really promoting these anti-Russia themes, anti Putin. This was the forerunner of the Russia gate. They were already attacking Donald Trump as a Russian agents. And his speech in 2024 was the same kind of thing. It was really very jingoistic militaristic in that speech. He was invoking the glory of the Obama administration assassination of Osama Bin Laden or alleged assassination because there are a lot of different theories about what really might've gone on there. And the official story was shown to be a lie. Seymour Hirsch had a piece that was very good, and he compared it to Alice Wonderland, and their rhetoric was so far out there as to what really is known to have happened. And yeah, there are a lot of question mark or they dumped the body at sea, so there are no autopsy and some question if that was even Bin Laden. (00:03:31): Some people believe he died years earlier from renal failure. But in any event, that's the kind of thing they were doing just touting the War on terror. The US military Panetta said something that America made mistake of trying to be isolationist in the 1930s. And there's this kind of insinuation, you can't appease Putin as if he the new Hitler and America was not really isolationist. It was a global empire starting the late 19th century when it acquired the Philippines and Puerto Rico and Cuba and function as a global empire from that time period. So it never really isolationist. And FDR had this major naval buildup in the Asia Pacific that essentially provoked the Pacific War. It was a horrific war. So I mean, he obviously doesn't know his history that well, but this is just theater. Yeah, it's a very hawkish theme. He's a dancing and his speech echoed Kamala Harris' speech, anti-Russia themes, pro-military themes. (00:04:36): So that's what you get nowadays out of the Democratic party. And yeah, I mean there were booze of Panetta in 2016, but it was quiet this time around. It seems that people are just trying to mobilize around Harris and the EM of the anti-war movement. I mean, there were protestors outside of the convention. A lot of that centered exclusively on Israel Palestine. So I don't know. I mean, I think the protestors in 2016 were part of the Bernie Sanders faction. Maybe they had some hope in the party then, but now I think anti-war people have no hope in the Democratic Party. So they left or somewhere outside protesting. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:05:21): Well, in fact, that was really the crux of my question, Panda's rhetoric versus the convention's response. And does the convention's response, or some might say lack of response, indicate that there's a serious shift in the party, particularly as we look at how easily war mongering legislation gets passed through Congress, through the democratic elements of Congress as it relates to funding for Ukraine and funding for Gaza and more jingoistic rhetoric as it relates towards China? Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:06:01): Absolutely, and I think it's telling that Robert Kennedy and Tulsa Gabbard are considered more peace candidates and they've made a lot of statements critical of US foreign policy, especially regarding Ukraine. Less so for Kennedy, and I think also Gabbard, Israel, Gaza, but definitely Ukraine. They've both been very critical and called for easing of relation with Russia. And they've warned about the threat of nuclear war and that we're in an era and new Cuban missile crisis, they've compared it to, and they were booted out of the party. I mean, Tulsa, they were treated horribly beyond just debate. I mean, Gabbard, she was in one of the CNN debates or televised debates in 2020 as she was running in the primary. And she was viciously attacked by Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris and others who dominate the party in kind of Neo McCarthy I term, and they called her a Putin stooge. (00:07:01): And a Bashir saw theologist because she wanted to, she was against the covert operations in Syria and the escalation of conflict. And somehow they called her all these kind of names and really treated her in the way that Joseph McCarthy would recognize or victim of McCarthyism with reminiscence of that. So she was totally driven out of the party. Now you find they're more on Fox News. I mean, I think the Republican, they're trying to capitalize on the disinfection of many pacifists and peace oriented people with the Democrats, and they're trying to recruit them and draw them into the fold. And that's why they brought in Kennedy and gather. But personally, I think that they're just, they're very cynical operative and their Republican party are just trying to get that vote. But they're not really peace oriented party either. And Trump's foreign policy was very bellicose and aggressive in many ways, certainly toward Latin America. (00:08:00): The drone war, Trump escalated the drone war, escalated war in Somalia, and he's very aggressive and very xenophobic and threatens a major escalation, I think with China. So I think it's just a cynical ploy by the GOP to try and get these disaffected people are disaffected with the Democrats and by recruiting Kennedy and Gabbard to create this persona as a new peace party. But I don't think they really are a peace party. And so those of us who are really committed to pacifism, anti imperialistic politics really have nowhere in the mainstream American politics, and I think we should work on developing our own independent parties. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:08:47): Before I get back to your piece, you mentioned in your earlier answer a reference to people trying to compare former President Trump to Hitler. And I was at the RNC when JD Vance was, his name was placed in nomination and he accepted the nomination. And I was doing my standup after the nomination. And I was saying as I was closing my analysis, I said, I find it very interesting, if not ironic, that a guy who just a couple of years ago was comparing Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler is now his vice presidential nominee, and we'll be standing next to him on stage. I said, how does that happen? And when I said that, there was a guy standing next to me who turned to my cameraman and said, you guys have to leave. You have to leave right now. He was allowing us to use his space, so he was able to tell us that. But my point is, as soon as I said that, you guys got to go, you got to go right now. Explain that because I find it amazing. And only now would something like that happen in our politics. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:10:11): Yeah, well, I think it is increasingly out of the Twilight Zone. I mean, well, firstly, I think a lot of the rather is a bit overblown. I mean, I think Trump, there are a certain fascist theme in the GOP and there are concern about ascendant fascism and authoritarianism both among both parties. I mean the scapegoating of immigrants in the GOP, the extreme nationalism, ultra militarism like veneration of the military, that bears fear that the GOP leaning the fascist direction. I mean, I think some of the rhetoric about Hitler may be overblown, but yeah, it's totally ironic that he was calling him Hitler, as you say, and then he's the nominee. So that's just insane. But why did they kick you out? I mean, you were just repeating a fact that is known to be a fact, and that goes to the growing authoritarianism we see that can't, the kind of conversations we're having are not tolerated in the mainstream. And just a journalist doing his job and just reporting on something is being removed that Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:11:22): And can get you arrested and detained in airports and have your home raided by the FBI, as with Scott Ritter and O'Malley Yella and the three, Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:11:37): Yes, this is, yeah, I think what we're seeing is, yeah, more overt form of authoritarianism. And I think it's showing the flaw of American democracy. I mean, on paper there has been a democracy, but in reality for years and generation dissidents have been ostracized and marginalized and faced a lot of persecution, maybe not physical violence, although I mean under FBI Cual Pro, there were a lot of victims of state repression, people who were unjustly incarcerated sometime for decades, there were people killed. I mean the FBI infiltrated leftists in radical groups with the goal of destroying them and creating divisions. And in the Black Panther, they orchestrated murders. So I mean, there very violent, undersized underbelly of American politics. And that's coming more to the surface more and more. And I mean, you see, look, mark Zuckerberg said that Biden administration told him to censor Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:12:45): The Hunter Biden laptop story. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:12:47): Yeah, well, the hunter bought laptop and relate to COVID-19. And without your view on that, people should have a right to express it, but Zuckerman was told to censor viewed that criticized the government position. And then yeah, you have these raids going on Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:13:04): A minute, a minute, a minute because it's important. I think that people really clearly understand that the point that you just made about Zuckerberg, that's not your opinion. He stated that in a letter that he wrote to Congressman Jim Jordan. And so those who want to wait a minute, what is Jeremy talking about? Right? Google it. You can read the letter for yourselves. It was sent last week and Zuckerberg made those very clear statements and was apologetic for having done what he did in censoring those stories on Facebook because he has since come to understand that contrary to, as he was told, those were not Russian propagandist talking points. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:13:56): Exactly. Yeah, you're absolutely right about that. And another fact is that Tim Waltz made statements supporting censorship if it was related to misinformation, and that seems to be the line in the Democratic Party, but they use misinformation. Could be anybody who's simply critical of the government. They call it somebody who criticizes government policy in Ukraine or vis-a-vis Russia. They say he's promoting misinformation or Russian propaganda, or the same for the Covid narrative. They question the dominant narrative. And I found the review of waltz's statements. He promoted misinformation. So for instance, he claimed that carried out chemical attacks on his own people, and that was refuted by scientists like Theor Postal did a very detailed scientific study, and I did an article and I interviewed postal and he showed me his data and this guy, the top flight MIT scientist, and he repu these claims, his analysis, and he was very neutral. (00:15:02): He wasn't really on any side of the war, and he wasn't even particularly political. It was a very objective scientific study that based on the angles, those attacks had to have occurred from certain areas that were controlled by the rebels, not the Assad government. And that other attacks didn't think that there were chemical attacks, one of those bombing of a fertilizer plant. In other case, some stuff may have been planted like dead animals to make it look like an attack because people would've been dead. He said, he showed me photos and he had images of photos where people who were on the scene would've immediately been killed if there was actually a chemical weapon attack the way they described it, and they weren't affected or sick in any way. So in any event, that's just an example of waltz can be seen to have promoted misinformation. (00:15:57): So based on his own statements, he should censor himself. But the broader point is the American constitution and the American Republic was founded on the deal to free speech, and that's what we should have. And this cancel culture. I think too often on the left, people support censorship under the GU of a cancel culture. And I think that's very dangerous, and I think people are smart enough to see which ideas are good or bad for themselves. They don't need to have this censorship. It serves no purpose, even for somebody who is promoting bad things or false information, you don't have to censor because people are smart enough to see there's no evidence behind what he's saying, which is often true, sadly, of the US government, and that's why they lose credibility. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:16:45): I've asked this question of a number of guests, Caleb Moin and I think Dr. Gerald Horn and a few others that talking about censorship in the United States, engagement in censorship, that if you look over history, particularly since World War I, this whole idea of censorship really comes to a height when the United States feels threatened. And then once the perceived enemy is vanquished, then the whole focus on censorship tends to wane if not go away. And so I'm wondering if now because we're seeing heightened censorship, if that's an indication to you how threatened the United States empire feels? Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:17:34): I think so. Yeah. Censorship goes hand in hand with war. War is the enemy really of democracy. And we've been in a state of permanent war since nine 11, and I think they've manufactured this new Cold War for sustaining the military complex police state, which has to go hand in hand with censorship. And we've seen more authoritarian forms of government, even toward the domestic population, heightened militarized policing in inner cities. We've seen the government stripping funding from vital social programs, and that's automatically going to generate more and more dissent and dissatisfaction with the government and living conditions. So they have to ratchet up censorship and more authoritarian, greater authoritarianism, and that's the only way they could sustain their power, and they've really lost their governing legitimacy. People, if you talk to people from all walks of life, whether in liberal areas, conservative, you find almost universally people distrust the government and they're not happy with the direction of the country, and more and more are speaking out. So they have to censor them and try and control the media and channel any descent they want to channel it and co-opt it. And that's why a lot of the media has been co-opted their CIA or FBI, infiltrators and media, even alternative media. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:19:06): In fact, to your point about people being dissatisfied with the direction of the country, if you go to real clear politics, those polled 26.9% believe the country's heading in the right direction. 63.4 believe that the country's on the wrong track. So again, I try my best to give as much data as I can to support the positions that are being stated so the people can understand that this is substantive analysis that we're providing because talk without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter here. Let's go back to your piece you write, Panetta said that Harris would fit the bill as a tough commander in chief to defend the USA against tyrants and terrorists, according to Panetta. Harris knows a tyrant when she sees one and will stand up to them, unlike Donald Trump, who Panetta suggested had coddled dictators such as Putin and effectively told them they could do whatever they want. Why is that exchange or that recounting by Panetta troublesome to you? Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:20:18): Well, firstly, yeah, and the statistics you're citing indicate that many Americans are increasingly seeing their own government as tyrannical. And this is the kind of tired rhetoric we've seen over and over to justify these foreign adventures and unjust and unnecessary wars that further divert our treasury away from actually solving the problem in our society. And yeah, we see, Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:20:45): Wait a minute, and many will tell you, because I've been having this conversation for at least eight years, that that's the intent, that the objective has always been to heighten the sense of insecurity within the country so that social program funding social safety net funding could be shifted away from the public to the private military industrial complex. And they talked about this when Obama came into office, they talked about this, I know I have it backwards. When Clinton came into office, they talked about this when Biden came into office, they said the narrative is more subtle with the Democrats, but the objective is still the same. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:21:32): And the rhetoric, as you see, they're really attacking Trump from the right and they're positioning themselves as more hawkish. And that's why a lot of the neoconservatives have moved into the Democratic party. And William Christol, who this neo-conservative, intellectual, and a great cheerleader for the Iraq war, he sent out a tweet, Leon Panetta quoting Ronald Reagan at the Democratic Convention. This is my Democratic convention or a CIA director quoting Ronald Reagan. And yeah, you see from that statement you read, Trump is somehow soft on the Russian, but if you actually look at Trump's policy toward Russia, he pulled out of the INF treaty, which is a very good arms limitation treaty. He ratcheted up these sanctions from hell on Russia. He ratcheted up arm sales to Ukraine, for instance. He sold javelin anti-tank missiles, which Obama had up to that point hadn't sold. So he would not soft at all. (00:22:31): And he was plotting regime change. I mean, there's a lot of continuity in foreign policy. You see a lot of continuity among administration. So Trump's approach really was not very different from Obama. He's just kind of expanding on things Obama was doing. And then Biden takes it to a further level of provoking all out war and attacking Russia directly. So the rhetoric is meaningless, but yeah, it's designed to inculcate fear. I agree with your analysis that they just try and make us fearful and on edge whether it's of the next disease pandemic or the next threat. I mean, they're always playing up the threat of North Korea or Iran. I mean, look at North Korea. I mean North Korea was bombed back to the Stone Aid by the United States during the Korean War and the US pumps South Korea with weaponry and stores nuclear weapons there. I mean, obviously North Korea is going to respond. (00:23:27): I mean, developing a nuclear weapon is their only way to save their country and survive as a nation. I mean, they see what happened to Libya, but our media doesn't present it in that way, or our political elites, they present it like North Korea as some major threat to us led by this crazy dictator. But they give no context for why North Korea would invest in nuclear weapons or missiles and how a lot of their weapon development is just designed to protect themselves from the threat of renewed invasion and being destroyed again, that they were in the Korean War, but they never give the history of the context. So the public who believes that rhetoric as in fear of North Korea one day, Iran, another day, Putin is presented in the most demonized way, conceivable a totally kind of cartoonish way as this evil Hitler type figure. So we're supposed to fear him one day, and that's how they do it, and that's how they justify this huge military budget that's approaching a trillion dollars now. And yeah, I mean the government spends a pittance on social welfare programs and education and healthcare infrastructure. I mean, that's what the government should be doing, should be helping to create a better society, better living conditions here at home. But instead, they spend a trillion on weapons. And that comes back. And now you have the law like the USA Patriot Act and 1290 D program where all that Pentagon weaponry gets put into our police forces who become more like occupying armies in inner cities and their mistreatment minority groups. So it's an ugly picture. Yeah. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:25:13): You mentioned Libya, and I think we can tie this to your piece. You mentioned Libya, and people need to remember that the execution of Libby and leader Muammar Kadafi took place under the Obama administration. Hillary Clinton was his Secretary of state, and it was Hillary Clinton, and I believe Samantha Power that convinced then President Obama to execute Kadafi. And so if we understand a lineage of thought from Hillary Clinton, her predecessor Madeline Albright, she was a student of Brzezinski who was a Russia phobe. And so there's a lineage of thought within the State Department, and now we have to understand that Vice President Harris is an acolyte of Hillary Clinton. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:26:18): And Hillary Clinton is a very dangerous figure. And I wrote a book on Bill Clinton and I did a lot of research on their career bill's career as the governor of Arkansas. So I learned a lot about Hillary, and even from that time, she's very corrupt individual. Clinton was tied with the national security establishment. He oversaw a major covert operation in Arkansas to the Nicaragua and Counter-revolutionaries, and they laundered a lot of money through illicit Proceed, and they were bringing back drugs as part of these arm smuggling operations. And Hillary worked for the Rose law firm and was representing clients who were involved in money laundering in Arkansas banks. And she was always known as a hawk. So she very unprincipled corrupt person who was involved in also all kinds of shems to raise money for Clinton's campaigns that should have put her in prison. (00:27:16): And then she was always known as a warhawk. She evolved into a major warhawk. There was a very good article in the New York Times, the Rare Good article, New York Times magazine called Hillary the Hawk, and it surveyed her career going back to the Kosovo War. She was a big proponent of the bombing there. She supported the Iraq war, every war she supported, and her hawkishness came out on Libya where she was gloating after Kadafi was lynched. She gloated, we saw he died and she was so happy about it and giggling. And I mean that was a disgrace comparable to Iraq. I mean, Libya was a well-functioning country under CA's rule. I mean, he may have had certain authoritarian features, but he used Libya's oil resources to develop their economy to invest in education. I met a number of Libyans who were able to get free education abroad that Libyan government paid for their education abroad, and they came back to work to develop their country. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:28:20): Wait a minute, wait a minute. To that point, I was teaching at Howard University at the time, and I came across some Libyan students and I asked them who was paying their tuition and they didn't understand the concept of tuition. They were saying, well, wait a minute. Why would you pay to go to college? Help us understand. They could not put their head around Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:28:50): Paying Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:28:51): For tuition. And I believe, I don't think it's a stretch for me to say that at the time that Kadafi was the leader of Libya, that Libya was the most one of, if not the most stable country on the continent. It had one of the strongest economies on the continent. And Kadafi was developing his country, developing his agriculture. He was, as they called it, greening the desert. Libya had some of the purest water in the world, some of the deepest water, the water table. And one of the big issues was he saw himself as an African, not an Arab. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:29:36): And I visited Zambia, my ex-wife was from Zambia, and I visited there in 2007 and Kadafi came during my visit and he was greeted as a hero because he was using Libby as well, resources to promote development projects across the African continent. And he was seen as somebody who stood up for African and was carrying on the tradition of Pan-Africanism figures who revered in Africa like Kwame Nama and Nelson Mandela. And he was seen an heir to that tradition. And then he was overthrown and treated worse than a dog. And Libya has now seen the return of slavery, violent extremism has come into the country, just pure chaos. And a lot of Libyan have had to flee to Europe and then the European under perilous conditions in these boats. And then Europeans complain about immigration. I mean, they turn Libyan to a hellhole and the cost in lives, and it's just sickening. (00:30:38): And Clinton was just laughing all about it and thought it was funny. And I think Kamala Harris seems to be on that intellectual level. She laughs at inappropriate moments. I've seen her. She doesn't seem to have a good grasp of world affairs, and she's close with some terrible leaders around the world, like the Washington Post report that she has developed as vice president, an unusually close relationship with Ferdinand Marcos Jr. And he's the son of one of the worst dictator of the US support in the Cold War Fernan Marco Sr. Who looted the Filipino treasury and killed who knows how many dissidents. And his son seems to be picking up where the father left off. He jailed Walden Bellow, who's a great intellectual in the Philippines, who is running for an opposition party, and they're building up US military bases in Philippines to confront China. And Harris went to ink some base deal a couple of years ago, and there were a lot of protesters for her visit. But yeah, this is one of the dictators she's very close with. So she's following this imperialistic tradition, and yeah, there should be, well, again, a lot of people have left the Democratic party. They see no hope in it, but it's troubling when this is supposedly the more liberal and humane party and this is what they're doing. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:32:07): And folks, we're connecting the dots here. That's the purpose of this podcast, is connecting, linking dots, linking historic events so that you can see the trend, you can see the pattern, you can understand what's really going on behind the scenes. Let's go to Vice President Harris's speech at the convention. She says, as commander in chief, I will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world, and I will fulfill our sacred obligation to care for our troops and their families. She'll always honor their sacrifice as she should, but the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world that now Jeremy seems to be really throwing good money after bad because the issue now, at least in terms of the geopolitical landscape, is economic. It's not militarism. It's the United States that seems to be using militarism as its only weapon. And I use that euphemistically against this unipolar to multipolar shift with the rise of bricks and the Chinese cooperation organization, their fighting an economic war with militarism. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:33:40): Yeah, and actually it was ironic that she made those statements and that week the New Yorker published these photos from 2006 Haditha Massacre where the US military massacre, all these Iraqi civilian, and there were these horrible photos you may have seen of children who had been shot by us Marines or soldiers. So having the most lethal military force in the world, what does that mean? You go into a country like Iraq and shoot up women and children. I mean, is this something to strive for? And then as you say, this military force is getting us nowhere. I mean, it's just causing backlash against the United States. I mean, yeah, look, in Africa, all these new governments have come in and they're kicking out the US military. They don't want the bases in their country. Like in Niger, for example, a huge drone base that was removed. And I mean Ukraine Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:34:40): Just recently, a couple of soldiers within the last couple of days were harassed Incaa. And Dr. Horn was saying that this is not an isolated incident, that when you see something like this happening on the streets of tur or as many still know it as Turkey, that this is an indication that the people are rising up, not the leadership, the people. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:35:08): Absolutely. And we see, yeah, the United States is a paper tiger. I mean, look at Ukraine, billion and billion, the weaponry and Russians are gaining more and more territory every day. It's reported that even as Ukraine is taking the war into Russia, Russia's taking more territory in Eastern Ukraine every day than they were before. Israel is doing nothing in Gaza. They just leveled the place killed. According to the Lancet report, now it's about a month ago, 186,000 civilians. Now they're attacking people in the West Bank, but they've achieved nothing militarily and the United States wars were all failure in the last generation. You have Libya. I mean, they turn countries into chaos, but it's ultimately they don't achieve the broader goal they set out. I mean, look at Afghanistan 20 years and they achieved nothing, and the Taliban came back in and it's just Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:36:04): Money. Well, Lockheed Martin and McDonald Douglas made a hell of a lot of money in Afghanistan. They achieved something. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:36:10): Yeah, that's all they Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:36:11): Achieved. Stock value went pretty high. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:36:15): And I think the public needs to channel their revolt against those company in the military industrial complex. Their hard-earned taxpayer dollar. They're getting absolutely nothing for it. People are getting killed around the world that weaponry has coming, being sent to us police forces after the military used equipment. It's creating a more authoritarian environment here. And a few fat cats, what they used to call merchants of death are getting rich. And there should be a revolt against those people because they've grown rich off the misery and death of other humans. And it's not a way to run an economy or society rooted in violence and just the wealth of tiny number off the misery of everybody else. And horrific weapon we've never seen in human history, the kind of horrific weapon they're developing now. It's unfit for humanity, and there is movements to try and get universal bans on certain kinds of weapons, and that should certainly be supported as well Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:37:17): In her speech. She also said, let me say, I know there are people of various political views watching tonight, and I know you know, I promise. Oh no. And I want you to know, I promise to be president for all Americans. You can always trust me to put country above party and self to hold sacred America's fundamental principles from the rule of law to free and fair elections to the peaceful of power. Well, when you look at the data and you look at the polling, an overwhelming majority of Americans, even Jewish Americans, want an end to the United States involvement in the genocide in Gaza. Now, she's saying that she promises to be the president of all Americans, but she and I put this on her because this was her convention, would not allow a Palestinian spokesperson, a representative of that position on the stage. Is that tone deaf or is it evidence that she's a Zionist and she's down with the, Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:38:37): Or both? Well, I think it's an illusion. They were trying to claim at the convention that she was working tirelessly for a ceasefire and for peace in the Middle East. And that's simply a lie the Biden administration has. It's been a joint US Israeli operation in Gaza. And we should recognize that Israel is basically a proxy of the United States empire in the Middle East that the US has used Israel. The reason they've given all those weapons to the Israelis over years now is that Israel has served the key function for the US Empire in the Middle East and accessing Middle East oil. Israel provides US military bases, and it does a lot of the dirty work for the US Empire going back years. For instance, in the six day war, the Israelis humiliated the US nemesis, Kamala del Nassar, who was like Kadafi, started as a pan arabist, and he was in the mold of Nassar who had moved to nationalize the Suez Canal and nationalize the oil resources and was forged alliances with Syria and forged the United Arab Republic with Syria and was promoting Arab unity so the Arab states could go strong in the face of Western imperialism and reclaim control of their chief natural resource oil. (00:39:58): And obviously the CIA tried to overthrow Nassar. They even sent in Kermit Roosevelt, a coup master who had been in Iran, but he failed. But Israel did the job in the sixth day war. They humiliated Nassar. And by that point, Israel was getting a lot of the US weapons already starred in the Kennedy administration where he basically opened the spigots. And Johnson was a huge supporter militarily of Israel. And Israel also carried a lot of covert operations in Africa that have served US interests, including countries like in Congo where they help access the mineral wealth of the Congo. So Israel has gone after the Assad dynasty was an enemy of the United States and West because they were more alive with Nassar in whose day and the Soviet Union, and they're more nationalistic so that the regime the US doesn't like and they've used Israel to Israel has been bombing Syria for a long time now and has tried to gone after Asad. (00:40:57): So these are just examples of how Israel does some of the dirty work of the United States and functions as a proxy of the United States. So the country basically are arm in arm together, and they may pay for public relations purposes. If Netanya has seen a bit extreme among some of their base or among some of the electorate, they may try and take a public distance or say they're trying to moderate his behavior, but I think that's more for public relations. They continue to provide him the weapons he needs, and they're not going to do anything. The last president who had a kind of even handed approach in the Middle East was to some extent with Dwight Eisenhower, who when Israel and Britain and France invaded Egypt, and after Nassar nationalized the Suez Canal, Eisenhower imposed sanctions on Israel and threatened why their embargo and even to punish Israel and the United Nations, but they would never do that today. (00:41:55): They're just giving cover and the weapons and diplomatic support in the UN for Israel's conduct and ethnic cleansing or genocide, whatever you want to call it. And I think they support the US imperialists support the project of a greater Israel, the Israeli far right that their goal is to expand the Israeli polity to basically remove the Palestinian and to use their land for broader projects, canal building to increase the water resource in Israel, access offshore oil. And the US supports that. Could they want a stronger Israel because that's their proxy in the Middle East and the US wants to dominate the Middle East and its oil resources for the next several generations, and they need Israel for that. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:42:46): We could spend a whole nother hour on this next question, but if you could just clarify a point that you made that you just made. You mentioned Kermit Roosevelt, you mentioned the United States going in and overthrowing Nassar, and you said they failed in, oh, you said they failed in Iran. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:43:09): Sorry. They failed in Egypt. They succeeded in Iran. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:43:12): See, okay, see that. Okay. Kermit Roosevelt and Norman Schwartzkoff Sr went in and overthrew Muhammad Ek and installed the S Shah. That's why I wanted clarification. I thought you said, and I could have misunderstood you. I thought you said they failed in Iran. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:43:32): No, and my point was they succeed in Iran, Kermit Roosevelt with a coup master. Then they sent him to Egypt to get rid of that thorn in their side, Albu master, because his pan-Arabism. But there he failed. Nassar was very popular, and he couldn't work the same magic, or they didn't have the right people to get rid of him. So that's when Israel stepped in and it was beefed up by us armed supplies. And in six days, they humiliated him and they provoked that war. It's been admitted by top Israeli leader than generals that they provoked that war. They humiliated Nassar, and three years later he died. And he was replaced by Anmar Sadat, who was much more west and abandoned his Pan Arab ideology. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:44:16): And also, again, this could be a whole nother show, but just quickly, you were talking about Israel being a US proxy, and you've mentioned this before, but I think it's folks, we're connecting the dots here, pay attention. We're connecting the dots. Ukraine is operating in a similar fashion as a US proxy in that part of the world as Israel is acting in the Middle East. And so because look, folks, the Ukraine war is lost. It's lost. And people say to me, Wilmer, you said that the war would be over in two years. And I was right as Putin wound up negotiating with, I'm drawing a blank on the Ukrainian president's name, Zelensky, vmi Zelensky. And he holds up the paper and says, we negotiated a settlement. The US sends in Boris Johnson to say, we're not going to accept this. The West will not. Hence the war is ongoing. Ukraine has no tanks of its own. They're now having to go into their prisons and empty their prisons to send convicted murderers to the frontline. They don't have an army of their own anymore. They don't have artillery of their own anymore. They don't have jets of their own anymore. Everything they're using comes from NATO and comes from the West. And it's a very same situation in Israel. Again, that could be a whole show of itself, but I just wanted to quickly connect the dots between the proxies in Israel and the proxies in Ukraine. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:46:05): And I would add the point that the United States and the people of those countries should understand, and I think this is American Jews should understand that the United States doesn't care about the people. They're using them for their own agenda. And look, Ukrainian has suffered terribly through their lines with the United States. They never would've gone to war with Russia, Ukraine and Russia got along. They had some issues, but they resolved it. And maybe the Ukrainian felt slight in some way toward the Russians, but they weren't stupid enough to take up arms against the Russians and annihilate themselves. But they thought because they had the United States and all these weapons that they could take on the Russians, and they made the same mistake as Napoleon or Hitler. I mean, the Russians are, I spent time in Russia. They're very patriotic people, and they will defend their country. (00:46:58): And this was a war provoked by the United States that basically used, and the Russians know this, that the US was using Ukraine, a battering ram against Russia, and they're going to defend themselves. And the Israeli case, look, the Israelis Israeli security has suffered tremendously. Now they're inviting attacks from all their enemies and they've shed so much blood, they're going to invite vengeance and retaliation against them, the security situation, very poor in Israel. I would not want to live in Israel, and they could invite one day their own destruction. Already, they've compromised the moral of their society. Israel was founded as a haven for Jewish people, and a lot of the very idealistic people were part of the original Zionist movement. I mean, the kibbutz was a concept of a cooperative model of an economy. But look at Israel today. It's this armed military state that is pariah around the world because of the atrocity that's carried out with support by the United States doing the United States dirty work. (00:48:05): And it's eviscerated its own democracy. I mean, it's become very repressive there. Journalists who are trying to report on what's going on in Gaza have been, I don't know. I think they've been certainly blacklist, if not jailed or shot. I mean, it's just a evolved, a violent authoritarian state. That's king of assassination. Mossad carries out assassinations around the world. It's hate and fear. It has an extreme right-wing government, this is not the ideal of a lot of the original Zionists. And a lot of American Jews are very uncomfortable the direction of that society they should be, and it could invite their own destruction one day. So I mean, that's a lesson you can take. If you lie with the empire, they'll use you for their own purpose and ultimately they'll spit you out. I mean, ask the Kurds, ask the Hmong and Lao, they've used proxies in other countries, and those proxies got totally destroyed like the Hmong and Laos or the Kurd, and they'll abandon them when it doesn't suit their agenda. They may find somebody else. And Ukrainian society has been destroyed. 500,000 youth have been killed. They don't even have enough people. How are they going to run their economy when all the youth of the country have been killed? Others had to flee. They don't want to fight the front lines. Yeah, they've sacrificed them as ponds in this war. It's sad. And Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:49:29): Lindsey Graham, Senator Lindsey Graham goes to Ukraine and encourages the Ukrainians to fight and to continue to fight. And let me just give you a quick analogy. Imagine a boxing match, and one of the cornermen is getting paid not for the win, but for the number of rounds his fighter engages in. And so that's Lindsey Graham, he's the corner man, his guy. Both of his eyes are damn near shut. He can't breathe. His lips are swollen. His head has all kinds of knots on it, and he keeps sending his guy out there to get slaughtered because he gets paid by the round instead of the knockout. Is that a fair analogy? Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:50:20): Absolutely. Yeah. And I studied the history of the Vietnam War, and one thing I remember and I used to show students the TV history of the Vietnam War, and they had one, it was made in the eighties. They had one segment on the Secret War in Laos, like what I was saying with the Hmong who they used to fight the left-wing, Beth Lao and William Colby came on, was interviewed some years later. He was the CIA director. And he said, oh, well, that was a great project for us. The Hmong lasted 10 years is exactly what you're saying. Yeah, they lasted 10 round, but then they got killed. All of them. The Hmong were decimated, and they had to send, that's what the Ukrainians are doing, the hm. Had to send 14 year olds to the front lines. And a sea operative said, started to feel bad. (00:51:06): He is like, we're sending these 14 year olds on these planes to be killed, and I know they'll be killed. And I'm telling their parents, I'm patting them on the back and they'll be killed next week. And that's what's happening with Ukraine. And Graham won't send his own kids. I mean, if they're the real reading the fight, fight a war, you have to fight. If you're a real man, you'll fight it because there's a real reason your community's under attack or there's a real threat of Hitler. But instead they manufacture these wars and cowardly send and manipulate other people to fight and die. And that's the worst form of cowardice and manipulation I could think of in human society Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:51:45): As we wrap this up and folks we're connecting dots. And if you don't like what we're saying, if what we're saying makes you angry, as Malcolm said, if my telling you the truth makes you angry, don't get angry at me. Get angry at the truth. And you can look all of this up. I want to get back to your piece you quoted, and you mentioned this earlier, but Panetta quotes Ronald Reagan at a speech at the DNC, and he emphasized the isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to government. You write, Panetta ended his speech by highlighting that Harris was a good choice to reinvigorate American world leadership as she worked with 150 foreign leaders as vice president served on the Senate Intelligence Committee, worked closely with VMI Zelensky of Ukraine to fight against Russia. And you go on a number of things. You say that Panetta provided a litany, my word, not yours, of misinformation and disinformation in that part of his speech. How so? Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:53:00): Well, I mean, the whole speech is disinformation because he has this mythical, romantic view of the killing of bin Laden that's not rooted in the reality. And then, yeah, he's claiming the US was an isolationist in the thirties, but the US was a global empire starting the late 19th century. And in the 30, the FDR had been the head of the secretary. I forget his position, but it was with the Navy, and he headed the Navy and he was a big naval enthusiast, and he initiated a massive naval buildup in the Asia Pacific. And then he historian believed that the key factor that provoked a Japanese counter response and led to the Pacific War. So where's the isolationism? I mean, it's not the accurate history, but I mean these conventions just about political theater. But I mean, yeah, quoting Reagan. I mean, Reagan is the icon of the Republican. That's not even your party. So what is he doing quoting Reagan? Reagan? Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:54:04): Well, he's Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:54:05): The thing that bar a right wing extremist. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:54:07): Barack Obama said that Reagan was his favorite Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:54:09): President. I know. And it shows how far to the right the whole American spectrum has been because Reagan, when he came up in the sixties, was viewed as a right wing extremist, certainly by people in the anti-war and countercultural movement. And his whole theme was to attack the mess at Berkeley. And the student, how dare they question the Vietnam War. And then when he came in, he veered American politics sharply to the right. He cut the corporate tax rate and he ramped up us militarism in Central America, and he wanted to avenge the Vietnam War. They call them Rambo Reagan. And you can't get, this is like an icon of militarism and fascism, and they're quoting him. So I mean, what kind of party is this? And we have two right-wing parties in our country. The political spectrum has shifted so far to the right, and it's created dystopia. (00:55:04): We're discussing here where we invest trillion dollars on warfare, these morally bankrupt wars. And our own societies is filled with pathologies and majors, social ills, and we never address them. So they grow worse and worse. And we're not investing in our youth and education. I mean, where I live, the teachers are so poorly paid, it is just a disgrace. And you have third world conditions like the schools. They were protests in my state a few years ago, and I covered those protests for local newspaper. And there were people showing me on their phone who taught in schools in rural areas. I traveled in Africa and third world country. Then what they're showing me is from a third world country. There were no proper sanitation in their school. There were not enough seats for the students. And these are high school teachers trying to keep them in school. So I mean, the government is failing its citizens, and this is Reaganomics 1 0 1, so we've got to get beyond that. But they're touting this guy as a hero. That's terrible. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:56:06): And again, I think this will be the final question, but the longer we talk, the more questions because of your insight, you mentioned that we're dealing with two right wing parties. Are we dealing with two right wing parties that are representing different interests of the right winging elite? Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:56:30): Yes, absolutely. The GOP has always been rooted in the oil industry, the extractive industry, because their environmental policy is very favorable to big business and extractive industries and big oil. I think the military industry that hedged their bets now with both parties traditionally, like in the Reagan era, the Republican and the Reagan Republican got a lot of support in states that had big military industry. Like California used to be a center of the Republican domination and states like Arizona and the Southwest. But I think the Democrats under Clinton started courting the military contractors, and now they hedge their bets on both parties. I mean, there are a certain cultural issue, the right wing, the evangelical churches who were very gung-ho about things like against abortion. That's a certain spectrum that supports the Republican party. The Democrats go for this diversity, and they court the African-American vote, but they do so really based more on symbolism than actually delivering for the black population. (00:57:45): I think something that the black population, I think we'll see more and more than maybe leaving the Democrat. They're not getting anything. They're just getting the symbolism of some black elected officials, but they're not getting benefits to their communities. And there have been studies about this, and I heard Michael Eric Dyson, who was it? Yeah, it was Michael Eric Dyson came to where I live, and he gave a talk. He had done a study, it was him, it was, sorry, TVIs Smiley who used to work for PBS. He did a big study on black America in the state of black America, and he found it got worse under Obama, a certain core thing like income and business ownership and education because the Democrat weren't delivering on concrete social program that would benefit their community. So it's more of the symbolism and that's how they get votes. Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:58:38): And as we get out, I want to read this quickly because again, folks here on connecting the dots, we connect the dots, we provide data to support statements made. You talked about the defense industry funding both parties and Dave Calhoun, who was the CEO of Boeing. When asked in July of 2020 who Boeing would prefer Trump or Biden Boeing, and this is from CNBC, Boeing CEO. Dave Calhoun said that he was confident that whoever wins the White House in November, whether it's Donald Trump or Vice President Biden will continue supporting the defense industry. I think both candidates, at least in my view, appear globally oriented and interested in the defense of our country. And I believe they will support the industries. They'll do it in different ways and they'll have different terms, different teams for sure. But I don't think we're going to take a position on one being better than the other. And Dr. Jeremy Komarov, that I think is clear evidence of the points you made that we're dealing with two wings on the same bird. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (00:59:56): Absolutely. And viewers can go to open secrets.com and look at, well-known politician where they get their money. I mean, look up Joe Biden because I've done it. You'll see he gets a ton of money from Lockheed Martin. And yeah, the Democrats in some, I think they're getting more, Democrats now are getting more from the military contractor because they're even more hawkish, especially on Ukraine. That's been a big boon for a company like Boeing and Lockheed and surveillance industry. So I think they like Democrats even more now. And Democrats are positioning themselves to the right and more hawkish on foreign policy and even the border. I have an article next week on the border issue. Democrats are more to the right than Republican as far as spending on border surveillance. And that's a big, big industry, border surveillance drones, and that's part of the military industrial complex. Dr. Wilmer Leon (01:00:53): So I said, this was the last question. This is the last question, and you can just answer this, yes or no, all this conflation of the border, whether you're Donald Trump or whether you're Kamala Harris, whether you're Joe Biden or whoever, all of this talk about the border building, the wall security systems, drones a lot of money on the border. They don't talk about the US foreign policy that is driving people from Columbia, from Guatemala, from Mexico to the border because the United States policy is decimating their economies. And quick point people, you can look this up. About three weeks ago, Chiquita Brands was convicted in federal court in Florida of sponsoring death squads in Columbia. And now Chiquita Brands has to pay millions of dollars in reparations and damages to these victimized families in Columbia. Kamala Harris isn't talking about that. Donald Trump is, you want to deal with the border, deal with the decimation of these. Why are, ask the question, why are Haitians coming here? Because the United States is trying to rein, invade Haiti again, Jeremy, that in and of itself is another show. 30 seconds, am I right? Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (01:02:16): Yeah, absolutely. And there's no debate about that, and it's been a bipartisan in foreign policy that caused that vast immigration. And also you have to look, that caused the wreckage in those economies and societies, and you have to look at the free trade agreement. The Clinton administration promoted the nafta, and that helped decimate Mexican agriculture and forced a lot of the Mexicans to come to the United States. So nobody questioned the free trade laws. That's a big factor inducing immigration, including, especially from Mexico. So they ought to address revising those laws and creating a fairer world economy, but that might erode us primacy and the primacy of dollar, and they don't want that. So it's better to beef up the border, boost the coffer, the Lockheed Martin, instead of doing that, Dr. Wilmer Leon (01:03:10): Dr. Jeremy Komarov. In fact, here's one of the books. War Monger. I got it. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (01:03:17): Oh, great. Thank Dr. Wilmer Leon (01:03:17): You. Oh, hey, man. Great. Great work. Great, great work. Dr. Jeremy Kumar, thank you so much for joining me today. Dr. Jeremy Kuzmarov (01:03:25): Thank you. Great conversation. Dr. Wilmer Leon (01:03:28): Hey folks. Thank you all so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wimer Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow and subscribe. Leave a review, share the show, follow us on social media. You can find all the links below in the show description. Remember, this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge, talks without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter here on connecting the dots. See you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Wimer Leon. Have a great one. Peace. We're out Announcer (01:04:11): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.

So Trump doesn't like the smell of marijuana and that state legislatures need to “prohibit use of it in public spaces.” Well, color I don't give a !@#$. Is Trump self-aware? This is a man who has 5 kids with three baby mamas.He was such a horndog that he cheated on his first wife and destroyed his family. He has been found civilly liable for sexual assaulting a woman in a department store fitting room. Let's see, he allegedly had sex with a porn star. You once said that you had so much sex in the 90s that it was your personal Vietnam because you managed to avoid STDs. You laughed about vaginas being landmines and referred to yourself as a brave soldier because of it. You famously said you were such a star you could grab women by the pussy.So excuse me, but who the !@#$ do you think you are? Who died and made you the morality police? The ethics police? I don't need you patrolling decency.***You can check out Ladies Love Politics website to read a transcript/references of this episode at www.ladieslovepolitics.com. Be sure to follow the Ladies Love Politics channel on TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Truth Social, Brighteon Social, Threads, and Twitter. Content also available on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever else you stream podcasts. Background Music Credit:Music: Hang for Days - Silent Partner https://youtu.be/A41A0XeU2ds***REFERENCES: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/13/tobacco-industry-trump-administration-ties https://publicintegrity.org/politics/donald-trump-inauguration-bankrolled-by-corporate-giants/ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/13/tobacco-industry-trump-administration-ties https://people.com/politics/trump-boasted-of-avoiding-stds-while-dating-vaginas-are-landmines-it-was-my-personal-vietnam/ https://youtu.be/h822LPnM5uw https://ash.org/trump-admin-tobacco-ties/

So Trump & Elon had a Chat on X + Beer & Psalms Sign up for The FLF Conference 2024 (Prodigal America) https://flfnetwork.com/prodigal-america/

So Trump & Elon had a Chat on X + Beer & Psalms Sign up for The FLF Conference 2024 (Prodigal America) https://flfnetwork.com/prodigal-america/

So Trump & Elon had a Chat on X + Beer & Psalms Sign up for The FLF Conference 2024 (Prodigal America) https://flfnetwork.com/prodigal-america/

So Trump asked for more secret service before his rally incident but was ignored, allegedly

So Trump was shot, just listen.

Top Psychologists John Gartner and Harry Segal are joined by Dr. John Talmadge, one of the first to have written about Trump's dementia, as they address Trump's fixation on vengeance and peel back the layers of his rapid cognitive decline. Make sure you join us here on Patreon to support our work and gain access to exclusive perks: patreon.com/ReallyAmericanMedia Our site: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/really-political Subscribe on iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/really-political/id1742461616 Subscribe on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6AEHmPMAqDlLJEbMgXq1iJ Subscribe on Amazon Music: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/83ca7283-59fb-4cb7-a34b-03c4b0218f29 Subscribe on iHeartRadio: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-really-political-169545670/ Welcome to another addition of Shrinking Trump, where we meet each week to present the mounting evidence of Trump's mental decline and early onset dementia. This week was particularly telling for Trump, as he attempts to deal with the reality of his conviction on 34 felony counts. Our guest Dr. Talmadge is a Dartmouth University grad and former clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of Texas. His article from 2015, described Trump as demented, and suffering from malignant narcissism. “Trump's dementia is generally overlooked because of the florid, colorful, and newsworthy nature of his malignant narcissism,” Talmadge wrote. In this episode, Dr. Talmadge explains how Trump's mental deficits and his attempts to conceal them are laid bare in the way he communicates. “With my background, I was struck very quickly by his language, his inability to handle complex ideas, and his difficulty adapting to novel situations,” Dr. Talmadge said. “The fact that he doesn't talk with people, he talks at people, which is called compensating for your deficits.” You are not going to want to miss Dr. Talmadge's diagnosis, in detail, of four of the most significant psychological symptoms that serve as evidence of Trump's mental decline. On today's show, our hosts give us their diagnosis of a pandering, lie-filled, interview the Fox and Friends “B Team” gave to Trump over the weekend. They'll break down Trump's wildest statements from the interview and explain why that kind of unchecked, biased presentation of his lies is so dangerous. “He told lies about the conviction,” Harry said. “They asked him not one question about the charges. Not one question about the substance. They accepted his story that it's all made up.” Our hosts will also examine how Trump's paranoia and malignant narcissism allows him to energize his supporters by creating false threats based on generalities. “He said that there was someone with a machete in a McDonald's,” Dr. Segal said. “It turns out there was once someone with a machete outside of McDonald's. So Trump reads this one little clip, and now suddenly it's an invasion of criminals who are going to chop you to pieces with their machete.” And finally - I hope you'll enjoy this week's segment of Good News, Bad News, where our hosts absolutely rip apart WSJ journal coverage of Biden's mental health, based on statements made by, as Dr. Segal said, “Kevin McCarthy, a pathological liar and psychopath.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Opening Monologues. Host and callers respond to the bogus Trump conviction. Gut check knowing the wrongitude. As predicted, the fix was in. So Trump raises $200M in 48 hours. Yet another elite backfire, another of the sick formalities we must observe en route to replacing our corrupt Ruling Class. Notes on the hazy blur of propaganda. Calm and cool MAGA poised for victory 2024. UFC crowd blows the roof off for Trump. Worse than useless GOP. Psychology of Marxism. Leftist poison for SCOTUS. Hat tip to honky-tonker Charley Crockett. With Great Listener Calls.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Find me and the show on social media @DrWilmerLeon on X (Twitter), Instagram, and YouTube.  Facebook page is www.facebook.com/Drwilmerleonctd Our guest this week, Craig "Pasta" Jardula has a substack newsletter here (you should subscribe!) and find him on Instagram and X/Twitter @YoPasta FULL TRANSCRIPT: Wilmer Leon (00:00:00): Here's a question for you. Riddle me this as we sit here today on the 29th of May. According to real clear Politics, president Biden's approval rating right now sits at 40.2%. He's got a 56.4% disapproval rating. Folks we're only six months away from the November election. The Libertarian party recently concluded its National Convention in Washington dc. It was tense at times, but when they came out of their convention, the party announced that its delegates selected Chase Oliver to lead them in the 2024 presidential election. While former President Trump claimed that he would've absolutely won the nomination if he had wanted it. What impact will this have? Announcer (00:01:01): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge. Wilmer Leon (00:01:10): Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon. I'm Wilmer Leon. We have a tendency to view current events as though they occur in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historic context in which most events take place. During each episode of this podcast, my guests and I have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between these events and the broader historic context in which they take place. This enables you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live. So for insight into the Libertarian Party convention and the broader impact that it might have on the November outcome, let's turn to my guest. He's the co-host of the Convo couch and am wake up on Rock Fin. He's also the host of Pasta to Go, Craig Pasta Jardula. Craig, welcome to Connecting the Dots. Pasta Jardula (00:02:10): Thanks for having me on. Dr. Wiler. Wilmer Leon (00:02:12): So you just came back from the Libertarian party convention. A lot of folks weren't even aware that the convention was taking place in Washington dc So what were some of your major takeaways, and who is Chase Oliver? Pasta Jardula (00:02:30): Those are some great questions. I mean, my first takeaway is really to tell you the truth. Dr. Wiler is, wow. As a person who's gone to many Democratic conventions, the nomination process is already pretty much known. Who's going to be picked, who's going to come out victorious? You already know who's in the lead when it comes to whatever position there very few times is there a race that's up for grabs? This thing, when it came to the presidential nomination, it was up for grabs until the very end. But (00:03:05): Several days before that process, there was so many conversations going on and I walked around that convention asking the libertarian members, is there a place for me? Is there a place for a leftist libertarian in your party? Is there a place for a person who believes in central planning or believes that Medicare is a human right? Is there a home for me? And the answer was yes, that this particular party has had a grassroots movement within it. The ME'S caucus has taken most of the power and they have opened up their tent and they want libertarian minded people, and they pretty much are coalescing around three issues. Freedom of speech. We heard a lot about censorship and big tech and what they're doing to suppress people's voices. We heard about freedom of Oppress. They have what's called the big three. You got that sign right behind me. (00:04:02): It says, free Ross. No, that's not free. Ross Barot, that's free. Ross Ulbrich, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. And then the last message was an anti-war message in which they were very, very stern. They had shown that the Mees caucus embodies the party of Ron Paul, a non-interventionist, peace-loving party. And we had a lot of conversations about that. Yeah, it's a libertarian convention, so you'll hear words like property rights and the free market. It will come into play, but not as much as I thought. It was kind of a clear understanding that I wouldn't be agreeing with them on their economic views. But everything else, those other issues we strongly agree on. So it was just an amazing convention. The process in which they select their president and their vice president is awesome. It's a true democracy. It took some time, but it is a true democracy. So I just came out with my head up high and just the big thumbs up for the Libertarian party and for Angela McCardle, who happens to be the chair and the Mees Caucus. The interesting thing is though the Mees caucus didn't get a president on their ticket. So they have some work to do, still repairing relationships with other caucuses and other factions of the Libertarian Party. But overall, I thought it was one of the best conventions. I've been to a lot of great conversations and a lot of nuance, Dr. Wilmer. Wilmer Leon (00:05:37): It sounds a lot like the conventions of old, I remember I'm showing my age now, but I remember, I want to say the 64 convention. I might've been five years old at the time or the 68 convention when there was suspense when they would go to the floor in the great state of Arkansas, how do you vote? And the great state of Arkansas votes, blah, blah. And in many instances, you had to wait for the polling from the floor and the tally of the delegates in order to determine who the nominee was going to be. So it sounds a lot like the conventions of old. Pasta Jardula (00:06:19): Yeah, I mean, I wasn't even born until 1973, but I did go back and watch a lot of the 1968 conventions, and I think we're going to see a lot of that moving forward. And that's the difference between these conventions, obviously the non, Wilmer Leon (00:06:34): Wait a minute, wait a minute. Because to that point, I believe we're going to see a lot of that in August at the Democrats Convention, because I have been saying for the last, at least year and a half, I don't believe Joe Biden is going to come out of that convention as the Democrat's nominee. I believe based on the numbers that I gave at the top that they know, and we're seeing a number of articles, we've been seeing articles to this point since September and very prominent Democrats have been writing, Joe, no, this is not going to work. So I believe that they're going to go into the convention talking Joe Biden, but something is going to happen. Don't know what that is, but Joe's going to whisper in his ear. Joe, do not waddle out there. I don't walk towards the light, Joe, it's not for you. Pasta Jardula (00:07:34): I'll do you one better. Dr. Wilma. I think he already knows. I think his goal is just make it to the convention Joe, get to the convention grandpa, and then we'll switch out. And I think we should probably start taking some serious bets on who that is. I still think it's going Wilmer Leon (00:07:48): To be Gavin Newsom. It's going to be Gavin Newsom and his, well, the ticket is going to be, I believe Gavin Newsom and Christian Whitmer from Michigan, Pasta Jardula (00:08:03): I think. Pete Buttigieg. Wilmer Leon (00:08:05): No, Pasta Jardula (00:08:06): I think it's going to be, they have to now because the libertarian candidate is a gay candidate. So now they're going to have to counteract the Libertarian party to get some of those votes. You got to get a gay guy on the ticket. They might do that. Wilmer Leon (00:08:19): I would say to you that Whitmer will offset the anger and the ire of women because they're going to have to jettison Kamala Harris. And in order to quell some of that dissent and that unrest, they're going to have to have a woman. She Whitmer might. Now, how about this? Whitmer might be at the top of the ticket. Buttigieg could be her vp. Pasta Jardula (00:08:46): Nah, I'm not buying. Wilmer Leon (00:08:48): Oh, and there's another reason, and there's another reason Pasta Jardula (00:08:51): I think Pete Buttigieg would kind of soothe that part of the party that might want a woman, they'll settle with a gay guy. I think Wilmer Leon (00:09:00): He was such a horrible candidate the last run, and he's been a horrible secretary of transportation, Pasta Jardula (00:09:08): But Democrats don't care about that. Their party hacks anyways, they're going to go for the blue no matter who Wilmer Leon (00:09:15): Most Pasta Jardula (00:09:15): Of the social issues. And that's all they do. Wilmer Leon (00:09:18): Would that then they'd stick with Biden? Pasta Jardula (00:09:20): Well, I don't think Biden even can. Okay. I don't know if he's going to even make it to that convention, Dr. Wilmore. Wilmer Leon (00:09:28): No, I'm with you. I'm with you on that. And another thing, why I think Whitmer is important is because they can't win without Michigan. And right now, based upon the damage that Biden has done in Michigan relative to the Gaza issue, I think they have to have her in the mix in order to put Michigan back in play. Pasta Jardula (00:09:55): Well, maybe, Wilmer Leon (00:09:58): Maybe Pasta Jardula (00:10:00): Dr. Wilma, I didn't wake up to talk about these Democrats. They're driving me nuts. Wilmer Leon (00:10:03): No, I didn't either talk about Pasta Jardula (00:10:05): Libertarians Wilmer Leon (00:10:05): That just popped in my head. Okay, so excuse Pasta Jardula (00:10:11): Chase. Wilmer Leon (00:10:12): Go ahead. Who is Chase Pasta Jardula (00:10:13): Oliver? Let's get back to who Chase is because I think it is important right now because I did kind of question a lot of people. I questioned Angela, the chair at a press conference if they thought this was going to be a lost opportunity because they have established themselves as a third party. So many people are concerned about censorship, they're concerned about Julian Assange and their freedom of speech. I mean, heck, even Trumpers, if you ask them their biggest criticism of Donald Trump, a lot of them will say, Julian Assange, Dr. Wiler. So they're concerned about that. They're concerned about Israel Palestine, they're concerned about Ukraine, Russia, certainly from a financial point of view, that they're sick and tired of so much of our tax dollars going over there. So I asked Angela McCardle if she was concerned that they're going to come out of this convention, the Libertarian party, without a strong candidate, at least without a well-known candidate, if that was a missed opportunity. And she really said, well, listen, we're going to set them up with that opportunity to go out there and make a pitch to the people. And Chase Oliver over the weekend going into it. I didn't know who he was. I've been researching him since the convention ran Wilmer Leon (00:11:23): For Congress from Georgia, didn't he? Pasta Jardula (00:11:25): Senate, he ran for Senate. That's the reason why they forced a runoff with Senator Raphael Warnock and Herschel Walker. Got it. I went back and watched his debate the other day. I think there was a seven or eight candidate debate. I can't remember exactly how many, but I watched a majority of at the Libertarian party, I was in and out of it, and he won that debate. And this guy is also campaigned in 50 states. So it tells you a lot. The Mees Caucus, where they dropped the ball is they had David Smith. He was going to be the chosen one comedian David Smith, very popular, well-known guy going to get the young vote, going to get the freedom vote, but he decided not to run. He dragged his feet a little bit, and it really kind of paralyzed me, says caucus, where they couldn't get a reputable candidate. (00:12:13): And a lot of people questioned the guy they were putting forth. His name was Mike Reinwald. He had a little bit of a Joe Biden moment on Saturday night where he kind of got lost on stage. He admitted that he had eaten an edible Dr. Wilmer. And it was kind of one of those moments where it was like, oh no. All right. And unfortunately for him, even though he was in the lead for most of the rounds of voting, he got sniped at the very end. And it just shows you campaigning. This guy, he went to 50 states and that old saying, you got to go out there and knock on doors. Well, you put the work in, you do the work and then you'll reap the benefits and Chase Oliver, whether you like him or you love him, you don't even know who he is. (00:12:55): He did the work to get on that stage and to get that nomination. And the more I look into him, even though I don't agree with him in a lot of views, and he has those pure libertarian views, I was one of the first to interview him when he won the nomination. But the more you look at him, the more you like him. And he is the first openly gay LGBT candidate. I don't think he goes around from what I've seen, I haven't seen a lot of video of him going around and pushing his sexuality. But he does mention it, and I think he's mentioning it as a way of campaigning. You know what I'm saying? I really think he's doing that because he understands that there's a vote out there. He can coalesce and get in there. The more I look at him, the more you like him, I think you're going to see this guy have a strong chance and make some noise. (00:13:44): I think he's going to surprise a lot of people. But right now the party is split and they're going to have to get behind stage or back doors or in the rooms, Dr. Wilma, they're going to have to find a way to come together. But they had a spirited convention. The Mees caucus was taken on the other caucuses and the other groups. So they're going to have to find a way. But there's a lot of good things to like about Chase. He's sharp, he's smart, he's energetic, he's willing to do the work. He speaks well. He has a strong message. And if he can fine tune that message and he can talk the leftist like myself in you, he can find a way to kind of create and coalesce that the group of the libertarians to come forth and get out there and hit the ground running. (00:14:29): He's not a known candidate, you know what I'm saying? But let's see what he can do. I would say he's an old school, typical libertarian. He will talk about the free market. I asked him about gain of function. I kind of threw the trick question out there for, Hey, would you ban gain of function on day one? Explain gain of function. For those that don't know well, gain of function was the testing they did with the coronavirus and other viruses where essentially, and once again, not a scientist, Dr. Wilma, but if you to create the cure, you got to create the virus and the disease itself. Well, that's really, really bad. And I don't think we need any more global pandemics. And this is the part where it's hard for libertarians what I'm saying. They don't want the government banning anything. And Chase is one of those guys and he says, I'd rather kick it to the free market so we can hold them more accountable. (00:15:15): Now, I'm going to tell you, I disagree with you 1000%, right? No, you ban it. You do not allow gain of function to be no testing for gain of function. No free market. You get rid of it. But once again, he's those old school libertarians where they just kick it. The government can't do anything. They don't want the government banning anything. They don't want the government dictating anything. Chase has that challenge talking to the populist to come out there and find the message that works. I asked him about Medicare for All, and he answered the question, and he's got to fine tune it a little bit more. He started off with saying, listen, I understand we don't want to have a system that leaves people behind, that makes people go debt on their medical bills. But once again, the government, you know what I'm saying? (00:16:01): We don't want government controlled healthcare program. They're just going to screw it up more. So he does have to find a way, and I think the Libertarian party has had years to do this, to understand that they have to take their message and kind of shape it in a way that leftists or conservatives can digest that message and understand it. Because I think there is a misconception that Libertarians just want the free market to be the free market to enrich themselves. No, they want to go into the free market. They don't want government, the tyrannical government telling them what to do. It's actually more of a compassion. They're removing the mechanism which keeps the little man down. Those regulations, they believe is about forming monopolies and keeping the little guy down. So he's got to fine tune that message and then stay on message, and we're going to see what he can do moving forward. Wilmer Leon (00:16:55): Well, I don't want to get into a libertarian debate, but there is a place for government in the process. But it starts with we the and your question about Medicare for All, for example, that is a perfect place for government to intervene to ensure that everybody has healthcare. But what you have to do is take the private sector interest out of it. We, the people have to control the government. But again, I don't want to get into a libertarian conversation. You mentioned Chase is gay. So talk about the demographics here because we know that, I don't know what the numbers are in terms of the number of gay people in the country, but there's a growing political population of gay people in the country, L-G-B-T-Q, people in the country, and there is money in that demographic. So talk about what was the demographic that you saw at the convention? Pasta Jardula (00:18:08): Well, I did see a small LGBT community, a trans community, a person identifying as a woman. It wasn't like a Democratic convention. It's completely different where people will probably wear pins at a rainbow pins and they'll let you know that they're gay. You didn't see that at the Libertarian party. And once again, as I went back and I watched a lot of speeches, there were times where Chase, he led with the fact that he was gay, but he didn't overplay that card. So I don't think that he will kind of push that message. But I think once again, he understands. It's a political tactical move to say that because he understands that there is a large gay demographic in the United States that will vote for him just because he is gay. And there's also a lot of women out there who are very compassionate towards gay people, and they will also vote for him because he is gay. (00:19:04): So I think he understands and sees that demographic. He's not going to lead with that. He's going to lead with more of his libertarian values and talk about the issues. And he does that well too. You know what I'm saying? He doesn't make it a point to tell you that he's gay. In fact, I didn't know he was gay. And so I went back and researched and I saw some tweets and all that. But that's the thing that they're attacking him on right now. His fellow libertarians have a problem with the fact that he said that the government shouldn't ban puberty blockers or transitioning medications. And there are libertarians out there where it's a little nuance right now that even though they believe the free market exists, but they also believe that their ultimate sovereignty rests within their own personal sovereignty, if that makes any sense. (00:19:50): That what they put in their body is more about their liberty than it is what they're allowed to do or not allowed to do within their workplace or what the employer's allowed to do. I mean, that message is out there. It's a little confusing. There's a little back and forth with some of those guys. There's a lot of libertarians that don't like that side of it. But once again, his belief it, it's not about his position on gay people, which makes him have that position. It's about his position on what government can and cannot do. It's traditional old school libertarian values. And I think he has to find a way to get that message forward. Wilmer Leon (00:20:30): So that takes me to the governing question, which is because when I hear libertarians, I hear a lot of theoretical. I hear a lot of ideological, but then I get to, okay, where's the rubber meet the road with this free market direction that they want to go? Okay, give me the practical applications of this. How do you govern? So with that, when you walked away from the convention, what were your thoughts on how are you going to govern if you win? Yeah, Pasta Jardula (00:21:14): Yeah. Well, you know how the feeling I got Dr. Wilma was that they're willing a lot of them to compromise. I did find libertarians that say, no, you don't have a home here. Pasta, you have socialist views. You're not allowed to come in our party, get out of our party. But the majority of the people you talk to, people like Angela McArdle, talk to people like MJ to Ray. You talk to people like Dave Smith, they're opening up that tent and saying, all right, we agree on a set of core values, so we won't agree on these values, but yeah, there's a home for you here to come here. So that kind of transitions into how they think they will govern, right? In other words, they're not going to get everything they want. The biggest cheer of the weekend was, and the Fed. And the Fed now more libertarians, they get into office. (00:21:58): That doesn't mean they're going to go complete Libertarian values all the way. They're going to shrink the government down to nothing. But I think they'll take a little, if you're like an ice sculptor, right? Little hacks of the ice here and there. And I think that message that they're sending out there is like, okay, we're not going to be able to eliminate government. We understand that, but we want to hack a lot of it off of that ice sculpture so that therefore somebody understands our message and they'll push for less government intervention. The people will understand that, and it will be part of their core ideology when they're choosing their politicians or they're choosing their government. They'll understand that they don't need too much government. And I got to agree with 'em. Dr. Wilma, I'm with you. I believe there's a role a government should play when you talk about our healthcare. (00:22:48): We got a sick care system, so I don't want the government overreaching too much. And when people say, well, pasta, what's your vision of Medicare for all? When you say that Medicare or healthcare is a human, right, what do you mean? Well, I'd like to see a compromise like a libertarian system where the poorest of the poor, so they don't get swept under the rug, get some sort of stipend, some sort of money where they can go tax write off maybe, and they can go choose the healthcare that they want, that they seek. Right now, you buy into the healthcare system, you got to take the healthcare that they say you have to have and you have to take. And that's what we learned during Covid. So I think that their overall ideology will somehow blend into the juice bowl, you know what I'm saying? And then become this different type of flavor, and they're not going to get everything they want. But this is a party, I think, with the leadership that they're willing to compromise somewhat as long as their core values are heard and understood. Wilmer Leon (00:23:46): Good. I'm going to say something very simplistic for the sake of making the point. When I listen to the libertarian message, I say, that's great for white folks. They can walk around all day and talk about liberty and freedom, and we don't need a government. But when you start talking to African-Americans, when you start talking to people of color who have been subjected to Jim Crow, who have been subjected and continue to be subjected to extra judicial action by police, when you have a citizenry that has to turn to the government for protection against racism and white supremacy in the United States, that libertarian message of as little government as possible, that starts, I believe, to cause problems as, for example, we're still fighting for voter protection. We're still fighting against gerrymandering. We're still so, or a woman's right to choose, for example. So again, that's very simplistic, but I think there is some validity to that point, your thoughts. Pasta Jardula (00:25:10): Well, I'm going to hook you up with a guy by the name of MJ Toray, and you should have a conversation with him and really talk to women, because I understand what you're talking about, about, I think you also understand too that the Democratic Party, right? They're the ones who exploit those things that you, oh, Wilmer Leon (00:25:27): There's no question about that. That's Pasta Jardula (00:25:28): Why you have Trump. That's why you have more black people voting for Trump more than ever before. And the liberty minded people within that party understand that. And they come to you and like, well, listen, you got it all wrong. We're not pushing back against the government. We don't want to see you do well as a black man, Dr. Wilmer is that we want to look at you as an individual with a mind and a brain and his own thoughts, and we want to protect that. Wilmer Leon (00:25:53): We want to, yeah. And tell that to the cop that's pulling my son over because he's 22 years old driving my Jaguar, and they don't think a black kid should be in a car like that. And now he's standing on the side of the road in fear of his life. Fair enough. See me as an, yeah, that all sounds great. That sounds like my girl by the Temptations. That all sounds, I love that song. But so anyway, okay. I just wanted to Pasta Jardula (00:26:24): Make, lemme just make a comment about that because that's important, right? Because fair enough for me it's very important. Yeah, but and when you make, but that's a Wilmer Leon (00:26:32): Reality. Yeah. Pasta Jardula (00:26:33): Yeah. But the Libertarians, they want to take away all forms of powers that oppress people in the market and in the criminal justice system. I mean, I've never met a group Wilmer Leon (00:26:44): Of people, people and see, that's a pipe dream. Yeah. That's like the dude walking on the stage and having had the edible. They're high. Pasta Jardula (00:26:50): No, they're not. They're Wilmer Leon (00:26:52): No wait minute. No, because it's not the law as it relates to oppression. It's the people that use the law. So you need the Supreme Court to say, you can't do that. You need the federal judiciary to say, no, you can't do that. So that's why I say there are instances where you need the government to protect the people, and that's a big issue I have with the Libertarians. Pasta Jardula (00:27:30): Well, I don't know where Dr. Wilmore where you're at right now, but the government is not protecting any of the people. I'm Wilmer Leon (00:27:36): Not saying that it's going Pasta Jardula (00:27:38): The opposite way. Wilmer Leon (00:27:40): But see, I'm not saying that it is. I agree with you that it's not, but that doesn't mean in my mind, that doesn't mean you get rid of the government. That means you force the government to do what the founding documents of the country said the government was supposed to do protect. They want free speech. Well, that's the first amendment, force the government to uphold those civil rights and civil liberties as opposed to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Pasta Jardula (00:28:19): Well, I think that they don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think they're all about protecting those freedoms, especially when you talk about their civil liberties. But let's talk, for instance, about the case of Breonna Taylor, right? Yes. Okay. The libertarians who did the most work on the Senate floor, it was Rand Paul libertarian roots who said her name. Remember that? Say her name, say her name, and it was screaming out in the streets. Say her name. He's like, dude, I said her name where it meant most on the floor of the Senate. What are you doing over here? And this is the misconception. And I think that whole, that situation that Rand Paul got when he came out of that Republican convention and the BLM protestors and the Democratic protesters were around him and screaming at him, well, who pushed for no-knock warrants? At the end of the day, it was Rand Paul. It's the Libertarians who if you get rid of no-knock warrants, who's that going to protect? Most knock Wilmer Leon (00:29:13): Women who pushed against no-knock Pasta Jardula (00:29:15): Warrants? Yes. Against to push to, yeah, Wilmer Leon (00:29:18): That's not what Pasta Jardula (00:29:18): I meant to say. Who pushed to get rid Wilmer Leon (00:29:20): Of Pasta Jardula (00:29:21): The morning? My coffee hasn't kicked in yet, ladies and book, but who pushed to get rid of the no-knock warrants? It was Rand Paul. I have a guy, Josiah, who's a libertarian in Tennessee who's pushing for those same type of reforms. Now, at the end of the day, you're saying, we're getting rid of no-knock warrants for everybody, but who does affect most the black community people? Wilmer Leon (00:29:44): Because Pasta Jardula (00:29:44): That's who they use it against most, right? They start kicking down doors. So there's a way of, I think the libertarian mentality, there's a way of taking out the fangs and the teeth of the government and that allowing to exploit things and move things, even though you look at it as a civil liberties kind of change, it really does affect and help the black community more Wilmer Leon (00:30:10): Hire you. They need to hire you. And I mean this very, because when you just said take out the fangs of the government, that's a different message than eliminating the government. But again, I don't want to spend the whole time talking about the, well, Pasta Jardula (00:30:31): Dr. Wilma, last thing, when you shoot for the stars, you end up on the moon, right? You get something, you get some Wilmer Leon (00:30:38): Progress. Well, my dad always said, boy, when I tell you to shoot for, no, the adage is Shoot for the moon, and if you miss, you'll land amongst the stars. My father would always say, son, if you shoot for the moon, land on the goddamn moon. But anyway, anyway, that's what my dad would tell me. I love your Pasta Jardula (00:31:01): Dad. Wilmer Leon (00:31:03): I love a guy. Quickly, you mentioned Julian Assange, and I never want that name to be just, and I'm not attributing this to you, but I never want his name to be mentioned without the explanation of who he is and what he is suffering at the hands of this oppressive government and why we need to a couple minutes quickly. Julian Assange. Pasta Jardula (00:31:30): Well, I mean Julian Assange, there's a lot of talk. Gabriel shipped him. Julian's brother was at the Libertarian convention, and I think that Julian Assange, and that's the thing, I mentioned the name ea. I mentioned Leonard Peltier because they had their big three. They had Julian Assange, they had Edward Snowden, they had Ross Ulbrich right behind us over there. And they even got Donald Trump to mention that he would commute the sentence of Ross Ulbrich. And I think that was amazing to do. So I think he's been jailed unjustly. But Julian Asan minute Wilmer Leon (00:32:03): Really quickly. So Trump's speech was live. He didn't send in a tape. He wasn't at the convention, but he Pasta Jardula (00:32:13): Did. He was at the convention? No, he Wilmer Leon (00:32:15): Came to the, okay, my mistake, Pasta Jardula (00:32:17): My Wilmer Leon (00:32:18): Mistake, my mistake. Okay, go ahead. My mistake. No, he Pasta Jardula (00:32:20): Was at the convention. He came to the convention. In fact, he wasn't seeking the nominee because he can't because he's already on the Republican tickets. So he couldn't do that. But he was seeking the votes, and he understood that they were going to come out of that convention with somebody who wasn't that popular. And let me tell you something, that I really gave it up to Donald Trump, because that was not going to be a friendly room. He got booed by a lot of libertarians, but the Libertarians at least sat there. They listened to him. They cheered a little bit when he said something he liked and they booed him when he said something, he didn't. But at the end of his speech, he mentioned Ross. Now, I think a lot of people who went in there Trumpers, Dr. Wilmer, because you had your libertarians that were there, but you had a bunch of Trumpers that showed up too to see him. When those Trumpers went in there, they saw free Ross. They were like, is Ross Perot in jail or something? Didn't even know who Ross Ulbrich was. So it's the truth though, doctor, it's the truth. (00:33:10): They learned something about who Ross Ulbrich is, and at the end of the speech, he said he would commute his sentence. The Libertarian Party was able to get those concessions. And that's the amazing thing of what's going on in that party right now, because they are the third party and people are sick and tired of this government and what they're doing. So they're looking to this Liberty party, and that's what I mean about the shooting for the Stars ending up in the moon, whatever the case may be, is that they understand right now that their message of liberty, their message of personal sovereignty is ringing true more than ever. So they came into there, they learned who Ross Ulrich was, and more than anything, it was amazing that they got Donald Trump to say, okay, you know what? I'll make a statement. I'll commute Ross Ulrich's sentence, and he's serving, I think he's sentenced to three life sentence. He's already served 11 years, the kid. So I mean, I think it's really powerful and it can show you what a third party can do if they wield their power properly. And that's what that came out of that convention. Wilmer Leon (00:34:06): Back to Julian Assange. Pasta Jardula (00:34:08): Yes. Oh, I'm so sorry. My bad. Wilmer Leon (00:34:11): Go Pasta Jardula (00:34:11): Ahead. Well, Assange talked about Assange is one of the guys. They understand that's why they had Gabriel ship in there. They understand what's going on with Julian Assange. And there were some people I think that either well Wilmer Leon (00:34:23): Explain to my audience outside of the Libertarian convention, explain to the audience why Julian Assange's name and why Julian Assange is so significant and why he is being tortured by the United States government through Britain. Pasta Jardula (00:34:44): Well, I mean, not to go back to the convention, but I think that's why Donald Trump couldn't pardon Julian Assange because of what Assange has done. It's not that Julian Assange as a person is a whistleblower who exposed the government and the military for their war crimes. It's the mechanism in which he created WikiLeaks itself in which whistleblowers can get that information out there. And at times, a lot of times, the whistleblower doesn't even have to know who they're blowing the information to and understand that it will get out there, which will protect both parties, but that mechanism itself in which it shines a light on what the government and the military is doing. And more than anything, Dr. Wilmer, the government doesn't want you to know you, the people, what they are doing. They want to operate in back doors. That's why they are jailing this guy and keeping him quiet. But it's not just about jailing him and torturing him to, it's about sending a message to everyone out there. I said this before, I'll say it again. They're not coming for Julian Assange. They're coming. They're Wilmer Leon (00:35:45): Coming. Pasta Jardula (00:35:46): All of us. They're using Julian Assange to get to us because if they can charge somebody under the espionage act for journalism, then they can silence anybody and everybody at all times. You can be some lonely dude at home sending a tweet out that's powerful, and there can be a knock on your door and they can come arrest you for opening your mouth and exposing the government. That's how significant Julian Assange is, and that's why he needs to be freed. It's not just about freeing one man. It's about freeing a society and saying a society has a right to hold their government accountable. That's what Julian Assange means to me. Wilmer Leon (00:36:23): So he's languishing right now in Belmar Prison in isolation. He's been in isolation for like seven years, and the United States has been asking Britain to extradite him. He's an Australian citizen, not an American citizen, but the United States wants to charge him in violating the Espionage Act because he's a journalist through WikiLeaks. He has published a lot of incredibly embarrassing and war crime information about acts committed by members of the United States government and the United States is using him as the example, not only to the New York Times and the Washington Post and the LA Times, but to programs like Pasta to Go and connecting the dots. Those of us who are using alternative methods of media to speak the truth to the world, and they want to be sure that the government wants to be sure that they can control the narrative. They call it former President Obama called it the New York Times conundrum. (00:37:28): He did not want to persecute Assange because he knew that major American newspapers had used information from Assange, had published information from Assange. So if you attack him, you got to attack them. And so he was going to let Julian Assange go about his day. Donald Trump decided he would try to extradite Julian Assange, and now Joe Biden is doubling down on the Trump administration decision to extradite Assange. So I found a point on that. Honestly, they don't want Assange to set foot on American soil, right? Because if he comes here, all bets are off. So again, I never want to mention have his name mentioned and not explain to those who don't know why the name of Julian Assange is so significant. Pasta Jardula (00:38:27): And Dr. Wilmer, they said he won his appeal, but what did he win more time in Belmont Prison, right? He won Wilmer Leon (00:38:33): The right to appeal with his appeal. He won the right, and what they want to do is they want to drag this process out for as long as they can, hoping that he dies or goes utterly insane in Belmar, in solitary confinement. They don't want him here as much as they are trying to play the cards as though they do want him here. No, they want him to die there. Okay, so with that, oh, so switching gears now, let's play word association. I'm going to throw out a name and you tell me what comes to mind. Nikki Haley, Pasta Jardula (00:39:15): War, Wilmer Leon (00:39:18): War and more war. (00:39:22): She just visited Israel and she signed her name on artillery shells staying saying, finish them. Finish them. We love Israel. Love Nikki Haley. Now, Donald Trump has come out and said, it was like around the 11th or 12th of May, somebody from his campaign came out and said that she was on the short list of potential VP nominees. Then Donald Trump came out on his whatever account he has, truth social account, and said, no, that ain't going to happen. So what is she doing? Is she still vying for the vp? Is she vying for 2028? Is she vying for the role of Secretary of Defense? What is she doing? Pasta Jardula (00:40:20): She's earning a paycheck and she's doing what she's supposed to be doing for the Hudson Think Tank. A lot of people don't understand who the Hudson think Tank is. It's a NGO think tank that is promoting war all over the place, as can be, and all they do is promote war, war, war. Well, she's now on their board. She's now a representative of them, and that's what she's doing. She's appeasing the people who are aligning her pockets. Let's not forget that at one point when she left office, she was almost broke, but then all of a sudden she changed her red rhetoric. She upped it up the war mechanism. She turned the dial up to nine, and now all of a sudden she's got the pockets filled. She's been made straight or square or whatever the term is and stuff. She's getting paid to spew the rhetoric that she's spewing, and that's what she's doing. She's now part of that Steve Bannon Hudson Think Tank Institute where they're just paid to be neocons war mongers, and that's what she's doing. She's doing it for the love of money. Wilmer Leon (00:41:28): When we look at Rafa, so when I say Rafa, what does pasta say? Pasta Jardula (00:41:38): Dr. Wiler, I was going to ask if you can give me one of those therapy sessions. I don't know what kind of doctor you are because I'm not stunned. I'm not shocked, but I'm almost numb at this point, right? They just won't stop. There is no such thing as a red line. They started their bombing campaign, the IDF did in the north. They moved everybody down to the south. They told people to continuously move. Now they got 'em in an area where they can't go anywhere. It's tent city and they're bombing, and it just, I'm numb to what's going on. Every time I hear this stuff or I see an image on Instagram or X or TikTok, it doesn't surprise me anymore, and I'm scared about that. I really am. It makes me think that where are we in this society? I understand that we are unplugged for what's going on outside our borders, but you can't avoid this. (00:42:35): You can't ignore this, and I don't know what to do. Well, what we can do to shake people to the core and make them wake up and understand what's going on, and we need to somehow stop this. I was a little disappointed that there were protests for Israel and Gaza, right? Palestinian pro-Palestinian protests, but there were no protests for the Ukrainians and what's going on, the people of the Donbass in Russia, Ukraine. I mean, I understand that a lot of people aren't aware of what's really going on and how this started, but all in all, I mean, I'm shocked that nobody's waking up and screaming about this. They're bombing tents, refugee camps, sending people on fire. You're seeing fathers and mothers pulling their children out of wreckage and rubble. I mean, what's going to happen here? I think we talked about this before the show. (00:43:33): It's like there's no red line for these people, even though they act as if there is one. And the thing about it is, is that when it comes to Donald Trump or it comes to Joe Biden, it doesn't make a difference who gets in office. The song is still going to remain the same. They're going to let Israel do what they want. And as a matter of fact, they're not just going to let Israel do what they want. Ladies and gentlemen, they're going to use your tax dollars to fund their bombing campaign. So I'm just at a loss. I don't know what to do, what to say, how to wake people up. But you know what? As long as people can go on with their lives and they're here in America and they don't have to worry about bombs being dropped on them, I think they'll largely ignore what's happening on the other side of the globe. And it is just, the only word I can use is sad. Wilmer Leon (00:44:21): Today on the 29th of May on the Washington Post, there's a piece says, the Biden administration says that Israel's bombing of Rafa did not cross Biden's red line. And the reason is because Biden's red line is based upon a ground assault, not an heir assault. (00:44:55): Joe Biden, and this isn't partisan, this is humanitarian. We're not talking parties, we're talking people. We're talking humans. We're talking women and children. And Joe Biden told Netanyahu last week, if you go into Rafa, that's a red line. We will not allow that red line to be crossed. So the IDF bombs, to your point, a refugee camp, in fact, it was called a safe zone. These people were told, go here to avoid annihilation. Go here and you will be safe. They went where they were told to go, and they're being exterminated, and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and the spokespeople for the State Department say, no, that does not cross our red line. Because we said to Israel, no ground assault. Pasta Jardula (00:46:24): You're just as lost for words as I Wilmer Leon (00:46:26): Am. When you look, I got a lot of books. I got a lot of books in here. Yes, I got a lot of books in my house, and I've read a good number of the books that are here. I don't have the language. I don't have, can't find in any of the, I would call it barbarism, but I don't want to insult barbarians. I mean, Pasta Jardula (00:46:55): Yeah, Wilmer Leon (00:46:56): Go ahead. Go Pasta Jardula (00:46:57): With the kangaroo courts that they have for Julian Assange, but we don't want to insult kangaroos. Once again, this government, I mean, I think the number one message that we have to understand so we can try to find a solution to this problem is, number one, we understand that there never will be a red line for the United States when it comes to Israel. They're going to allow them to do what they want to do. A lot of our congressional members, I'm going to say most, but a lot of them have dual citizenship with Israel. Wilmer Leon (00:47:28): They're, they're trying to bring Netanyahu to speak before a joint session of Congress. Pasta Jardula (00:47:35): Well, they're paid off by apec. They're paid off by those lobbyists. I mean, I don't know what we can do at this point and understand. I mean, and to hear to me, I just listened to the rhetoric that comes out of this whole situation. Wilmer Leon (00:47:52): Wait minute, wait minute, a minute. I got to make one more point. Please, please. Because when I say the speaker of the house, whatever his name is, Mike Johnson. Pasta Jardula (00:48:05): Yes. Wilmer Leon (00:48:06): Mike Johnson is offering for the fourth time to bring Netanyahu before a joint session of Congress, the leader of the Senate. Pasta Jardula (00:48:24): Mitch McConnell? Wilmer Leon (00:48:25): No, no, no, no, no. Chuck Schumer. Chuck Schumer. Chuck Schumer's in on the game. Folks need to understand a state visit as with Ruto from Kenya that took place last week to be able to speak before a joint session of Congress for a foreign leader, that is the ultimate reward. They all, just about every world leader would love either a state visit or to speak before joint says. So for Joe Biden to say, I've got a red line for Joe Biden to say, we're not going to send these artillery shells, and then to turn around and send 2000 pound bombs or whatever it is, it's bs. It means the word means zero. And when your language means nothing, pasta what you got. Pasta Jardula (00:49:28): Well, I don't know what you got. You got a whole bunch of, I don't want to use the word, it's too early in the morning, and I don't think it's a PG 13 word. Let's just put it that way because that's the only way to describe it. But I think people Wilmer Leon (00:49:42): Excellent is how about that? Pasta Jardula (00:49:45): Let's go with that so we can go on the air with it and we won't get trouble by the FCC. Listen, it kind of reminds me, do you remember when Zelinsky was going to Congress for the first time and Nancy Pelosi was walking across the floor all giddy with a flag? I mean, to me, it made me sick because I understood what was going on. It's never about race. It's never about religion. They might throw those excuses out there, just like right now. Wilmer Leon (00:50:12): It's never about democracy. Pasta Jardula (00:50:13): Yeah, it's about money. It's about geopolitics. It's about leadership. It's about control, understanding that people have to use the plebs. They don't care about you, and they're going to, no matter what they do, they're going to do what they want to do. I mean, the majority of people in the United States are overwhelmingly against this war in Russia, Ukraine, and what are they doing? Dr. Wilmer? They're trying to send more weapons in money. They don't care when it comes to Rafa. I heard some clown on the radio the other day saying, well, the IDF dropped all these leaflets out there warning people. They were going, wait a second. Where are they going to go? Maybe they can go by the beach. Maybe they can go by the beach. There's nowhere left for them to go at this point Wilmer Leon (00:51:00): Into the Sinai Desert. Yes, that's their, if Egypt allows them in only into the desert, Pasta Jardula (00:51:11): That's it. That's it. Or they can get on that pier and pretty soon and then ship them on out of there. I think that might be the last thing that we see. I think that's what that a lot of that pier was all about. It was about, and that's what this war was always about. In my mind. It wasn't about Hamas. It wasn't about fighting terrorism. It was about gentrification and ethnic cleansing because they want that land. Wilmer Leon (00:51:37): What did Jared Kushner say? What did Jared Pasta Jardula (00:51:41): Property once they get it all cleaned up, right? Wilmer Leon (00:51:43): Property, what is Donald Trump? How did Donald Trump make his money? Real estate, this is a real estate deal that the administration, it doesn't matter which one, because they've all been involved in the same game. This is just an escalation of the same game. It's a real estate deal. Pasta Jardula (00:52:14): Yeah, but Dr. Wilmer, I mean, you got to admire the ruling classes, tactics and whatnot. I mean, education wise, how much do we learn about the Holocaust, about the most oppressed people in the world, and now they are a protected class Jewish people, and that's not being antisemitic. It's just so many years of understanding and learning and being taught about World War II and the Holocaust. Wilmer Leon (00:52:42): God's chosen people, Pasta Jardula (00:52:43): FISM is allowed, is conditioned to people. It's programmed and conditioned to people to accept an actual genocide and ethnic cleansing going on right now. So I mean, you got to admire the tactics in which they use. They've set the table for this. They brought the steak down, but they already had the salt and pepper there with the steaks off the knives and the forks, and now they're just sitting down and eating. Wilmer Leon (00:53:07): In fact, folks should go back and look up. There was a piece about a week or maybe 10 days ago, again, in the Washington Post, and I hate to keep quoting the post, but sometimes they do get the story right, where they exposed New York, mayor Eric Adams, they got access to a WhatsApp stream of communication where a number of billionaires, the former CEO of Starbucks, Michael Dell, the CEO of Dell computers, they were through WhatsApp communicating with Eric Adams about going into Columbia, doing away with those protesters because they're afraid of losing control of the narrative. And this comes to mind, based upon what you just said about what we've been indoctrinated with, what we have been taught. They're afraid that those protests are going to result in losing control of the narrative. I believe they've already lost control of such and that they're gasping. It's the last kicks of a dying mule, which are the most dangerous. And I think that's what we're seeing play itself out. Your thoughts, Craig Pasta, our doula, Pasta Jardula (00:54:32): The last kicks of a dying mule are the most dangerous. Wow. You're so right about that. I love that. Do you mind if I borrow that and use that? That's a great one. Wilmer Leon (00:54:40): You are more than welcome. It isn't mine. Pasta Jardula (00:54:43): That's the thing. You know what they say? Dr. Wilman thieves steal, but geniuses like yourself, they borrow. I'm going to borrow that from you. And I've been saying this somewhat similar. Similar, it's that when people are put in desperate measures, they make desperate moves and desperate decisions, and these are going to be the most desperate of decisions. But there's a book out there that I peaked at years, many years ago, and it made me realize, and I bet the book, because a friend of mine told me, because I was told around the dinner table that, oh, when it came to slavery that, oh, it was the tribe leaders in Africa that sold out their own people. And there was a book called Lives. My father told me, I think it was called, I can't remember. That's Wilmer Leon (00:55:26): It. Pasta Jardula (00:55:26): Yeah, that's it. But this information is deep down embedded in us, right? And it's going to take a long time to get everybody programmed. And the problem is now, today is where we are at and what we're doing right now, right? We're doing these conversations as independent media on the outer limits because the narrative is always controlled by the government and the mainstream media. They work hand in hand. So no matter what for us to get our information out there, and this is what we need, we need more people. It takes a village, right? We need more people out there singing and screaming our message, getting people to understand, we got to deprogramming, deprogram the programming that's already in place, and that's just going to take some time, and we just got to keep at it no matter what. I think we're the last line of defense. The NIDA jenko and all the other type of mechanisms, the silence people for the disinformation, they are the disinformation themselves, and we just have to come with facts and figures and let people know the truth and try as hard as we can to do so. Wilmer Leon (00:56:34): I'm glad that you said that because as we get out, as we wrap this up, folks that listen to my SiriusXM show, for example, I have people on like Miko, ped and lathe, oo, from Lebanon and all kinds of folks, and in fact, I got to get you on inside the issues. So I'll get calls from Zionists and I'll get calls from NeoCon saying, the show IST Balanced Wilmer, you had Miko pellet on. Or I'll have a rabbi on to talk about the Torah and why, according to rabbinical law, the state of Israel isn't supposed to exist, so on and so forth. And I'll tell him, well, no, I'm the counterbalance. (00:57:23): You will not find balance in this discussion. I am the counterbalance. If you want that narrative, read the New York Times. Read the Washington Post. Turn on Rachel Maddow. Listen to Joy Reed. You'll get all of that chatter on the mainstream. You want to get a balance to that. Then turn on pasta to go turn on connecting the dots. This is where there's a reason you don't hear Dr. Gerald Horn or see Dr. Gerald Horn on M-S-N-B-C. There's a reason you don't see Dr. Richard Wolf on M-S-N-B-C or Dr. Linwood Tahi, because they don't want you to have that information. Take me out, Craig Jara. First of all, where do people go to experience the brilliance we know as pasta? Pasta Jardula (00:58:25): I mean, please, I'm turning red here, and thank you so much for Dr. Wiler for having me on. I do love listening to you on all your shows, and I'm truly honored to come on with you. I really do mean that, but I will leave everybody with this because that's something we hear all the time. A lot of people said the same thing when we did these independent media shows. Oh, you're only telling one side of the story. It's kind of funny how I don't hear you saying the same thing. Same towards the mainstream media, which the government and the mainstream media, they control the message. They control the narrative Wilmer Leon (00:59:01): And the messengers. Pasta Jardula (00:59:02): They control everything. The messenger. So I mean, it's kind of crazy, and it is hypocritical when they say these things. We are the counter narrative to what has been going on because at the end of the day, the government, the mainstream media, all they are is the propaganda out there, the ruling class, and they're going to say whatever they want to say to keep their narrative intact, and their people are just lucky out there that it's not just us. This is a movement. Like I said, it takes a village that there's more of us coming out of this whole situation. We're going to have more of our voices out there. We're going to have more of the truth, more of a pushback. And at the end of the day, I think what we've created here, even though we're operating in small spaces, our message is going to continue to grow. So I'm not going to stop and I'm going to keep pushing, and I'm going to keep getting the message out there. And thank you so much, Dr. Wilmer for having me on. I've had an amazing time. Wilmer Leon (01:00:01): Craig Pasta Jar, doula, where do people go for am Wake Up. I know that's on Rock. Fin Pasta to Go, where do they go? Pasta Jardula (01:00:11): Well, I only dip into am, wake Up every once in a while now, so I'm not doing that show full time. But Pasta to Go, I have on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and I do it on Rumble, I do it on YouTube. We have a Twitter. I always tell people to go to my personal Twitter because it's easy to remember at yo pasta. Yo pasta. Just go over to at Yo pasta. You can find all the links to all the fun stuff we do. We like to get the boots on the ground. I got a small team, but I got an effective team, and we're going to Mexico. Dr. Wilmer, they got an election going on that they do. And as you know, the security state and the government is trying to find a way to go into Mexico without their permission to go after what they say is the cartels. Wilmer Leon (01:00:53): Lindsey Graham wants to bomb Mexico. Pasta Jardula (01:00:55): Yes, he does. He does. And I patch McCain, right? That dude, Crenshaw. He wants to go into Mexico, a sovereign nation whenever they wants. And the Green Berets. So we're going to go out there and we're going to talk about their election and we're going to provide some transparency to show they actually have a government of and by the people and we have no right to go in there. Wilmer Leon (01:01:19): Craig Pasta jar doula, my man. Thank you so much for joining me today. Greatly, greatly appreciated. Pasta Jardula (01:01:26): Thank you so much, Dr. Willer. Wilmer Leon (01:01:28): Folks, thank you all so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wiler Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow. Please subscribe, leave a review, share the show, follow us on social media. You can find all the links below. Go to the Patreon account and make a contribution. These things aren't cheap, and again, you can find all the links below in the show description. Folks, remember that this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge. As I tell you all the time, talk without analysis is just chatter and we don't chatter on connecting the dots. See you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Wilmer Leon. Have a great one. Peace. I'm out Announcer (01:02:25): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.

A seemingly drunk Marjorie Taylor Greene was having a good time at Trump's New Hampshire victory party this week, and she wanted to make sure that everyone knew it. She managed to get herself interviewed by a right wing network where she said, while slurring her words horribly, that political consultants for people like Nikki Haley should go to jail for working for a losing candidate. The woman is even more unhinged after she's had a few.Also, Donald Trump has won the first two Republican contests by fairly decent margins, and now the apparatus of the Republican Party is calling for everyone to unify behind him. But looks can be deceiving, and the real numbers from Trump's victories show that he has little to no path to victory in a general election. Moderate Republicans and Independents want nothing to do with him, and he can't win with only the MAGA coalition behind him.And a former Trump staffer that had previously served as a director for his New Hampshire campaign in a previous election was forcibly removed from Trump's victory party in New Hampshire after he posted a picture of himself with a smiling Alina Habba. Habba's presence has called into question her honesty and integrity, as she told the judge the day before that she was sick and the trial was then postponed. The former staffer was removed after posting the picture but right before the news broke on NBC.Finally, Donald Trump is tired of the primaries, and he's ready to be crowned the king of the GOP. The only thing standing in his way is his last remaining opponent, Nikki Haley. So Trump is now going scorched earth against Haley and all who support her, and in a post on Truth Social Trump threatened to expel and ex-communicate any Republican who gives money to Nikki Haley going forward. That's a rather empty threat, and it shows that Trump is trying to bully his way to the top.Subscribe to our YouTube channel to stay up to date on all of Farron's content: https://www.youtube.com/FarronBalancedFollow Farron on social media!Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/FarronBalanced/Twitter: https://twitter.com/farronbalancedInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/farronbalancedTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@farronbalanced?lang=en 

Shownotes and Transcript Dr Steve Turley has been enjoying the liberal meltdown in his recent videos and he joins us to give us an analysis of what is happening.  The legal case against President Trump keeps hitting roadblocks making all those with 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' so mad.  Whatever they throw at 'The Don' just boosts his poll numbers.  And the J6 narrative is unravelling with all the footage being released by the new House Speaker.  Even Vivek is openly opposing the liberal consensus.  And with Biden's poll ratings tanking and Alex Jones returning to Twitter there is much to be joyful about. Steve Turley (PhD, Durham University) is an internationally recognized scholar, speaker, and author who is widely considered one of the most exciting voices in today's growing patriot movement. Dr. Steve's popular YouTube channel has over 1 million subscribers and daily showcases his expertise in the rise of nationalism, populism, and traditionalism throughout the world. His videos, podcasts and writings on civilization, society, culture, education, and the arts are widely renowned. Connect with Dr Steve and join the movement of Courageous Patriots... WEBSITE:           https://turleytalks.com/ X:                        https://twitter.com/DrTurleyTalks YOUTUBE:         https://www.youtube.com/@DrSteveTurleyTV PODCASTS:       https://podcasts.apple.com/am/podcast/turley-talks/id1520478046 Interview recorded 14.12.23 Connect with Hearts of Oak... WEBSITE            https://heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        https://heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  https://heartsofoak.org/connect/ TRANSCRIPTS   https://heartsofoak.substack.com/ Support Hearts of Oak by purchasing one of our fancy T-Shirts....  SHOP                  https://heartsofoak.org/shop/ *Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast. Check out his art https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on GETTR https://gettr.com/user/BoschFawstin and Twitter https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20  Transcript (Hearts of Oak) Dr. Steve Turley, it's wonderful to have you back. Thanks so much for joining us once again. The honour's all mine, Peter. It's great to be back with you. Good to have you. And of course, if people are not following you, which I can't imagine, but in case they're not, at @DrTurleyTalks is your Twitter or X, however you want to call it, and @DrSteveTurleyTV on YouTube. And of course, turleytalks.com is the website, turleytalks.com. All those are in the description, whether we have people watching on different media or whether they're listening on the podcasting apps on the go. Everything is in the description. Now, Dr. Steve, one of your titles of your videos caught my eye. Many of them catch my eye and many of the thumbnails catch my eye as well. But it was the, has the liberal media meltdown begun?  And there are a lot of things happening, I think, to be hopeful about. And of course, you often bring out a hopeful side where I think sometimes we may be guilty of seeing the doom and gloom and the negative. So yeah, you're challenging the narrative on so many issues. I think I wanted to pick up on some of those, the collapse of the narratives that we've seen. And maybe we can start on the legal case against President Trump. And obviously this is to make sure he does not run because he is the biggest threat to the establishment. And that seems to be unravelling. Do you want to maybe let us know, again, half our audience is US, half is UK, but let us know what's been happening on that legal side? Yeah, it's absolutely fascinating. So, you know, there's been several indictments against President Trump, but the main one, the one that's kind of leading it all is what's known as his J6 indictment, his, an indictment for supposedly criminal behaviour in a deliberate attempt to overthrow a Democrat election on January 6th, where our electors are certified and legitimated by Congress. We go by an electoral college here. You need 270 electoral votes to win. Every state in our 50 states has a certain number of electoral votes. And then you send electors, 270 of them, you win. That's basically, you send them to Washington, D.C., they get confirmed, they get certified, legitimated by Congress, and you win. And there was a debate back a few years when this was happening of whether or not the vice president is the presider over the proceedings could actually reject electors largely because of ongoing controversies in their states or whether or not you could send alternative electors based on those controversies from your state. And then the vice president has leeway. He has some freedom to determine which electors is going to be, is going to recognize. That's all just part of the debate. I think it's relatively settled. We do have it historically. It's been over 100 years, but we do have some precedent where the vice president can come in and exercise some, shall we say, judicial privilege in determining which electors he's going to receive or send back and then have the state work out the issue and then come back at another date, say, you know, January 18th or whatever, just set an arbitrary date for those states to work out whatever, uh, election controversy is issues. They still have that, uh, play out. Well. Trump is being accused of criminal behaviour in promoting alternative electors and promoting the vice president to reject the electors that were sent because of the controversy surrounding the November 3rd election. And Jack Smith is the special counsel who is leading these charges. He has a history of pushing, as I understand it, bogus charges against people. He has a very, very bad overturning rate when it goes through the appellate process, the appeals court, the higher up court. A lot of his convictions actually get overturned because he seems to be a little bit on the seedy side of things. Anyway, what happened is that Trump's lawyers filed for appeals against Judge Chutkan's decision not to grant him or not to recognize his immunity as president. And Chutkan is also a very controversial figure. She's considered very radical, left-wing and the like. And the D.C. court circuit is seen as very radical and left wing and the like. So what Trump's lawyers have been doing is they filed these appeals to higher up courts, the appellate court process to overturn Chutkan. And now they the the appeal process may reject those appeals and send it back to Chutkan's court. But as long as those appeals are playing themselves out, Chutkan can no longer conduct court. She no longer has jurisdiction over the issue, over Trump and the litigation that he's facing as long as this appeals process goes on. Now, Jack Smith knew that was going to happen. And this appeals process can take months. He knew that was going to happen. So he kind of, we have the expression here. He jumped the shark. It comes from a happy days. The old, if you guys all know the old happy days sitcom with Fonzie and all that, when they, when their ratings were tanking. They had a program devoted to Fonzie getting on some jet skis and jumping over a shark area. And I forget it was in Hawaii or something like that. It was just this absurd attempt to try to get, garner attention or try to get people to take them seriously again. Well, Jack Smith has jumped the shark. He's taking Trump's immunity claim all the way directly to the Supreme Court. He's actually bypassing all appellate courts, going directly to the Supreme Court. And then the Supreme Court said, fine, yeah, we'll take a look at it. But we're not going to tell you when we're going to rule. And that ruling could be this summer. It could be next. It could be the following year. We just don't know. It just depends when they put on the dock. So what happened is Jack Smith demanded, basically, in his appeal to the Supreme Court, You got to settle it. Whatever your decision is, you got to settle it in this session, this Supreme Court session. He never explained why they had to settle it in the Supreme Court. He never explained why such a decision was needed to be hastened and the like. And we all know why, because he needs it before the 2024 election. So he's basically overtly admitting that this whole thing is a political sham, that the court trial is scheduled right now for March 4th. Nobody thinks that's even remotely going to happen, not even remote, even before all of these appeals were being filed. Now that it's in the hands of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court usually doesn't, you know, they don't publish their decisions until the summer. They'll make a decision now, but they won't publish it till the summer. Nobody's even taking that date seriously. And so it looks like Trump won't even be in trial before the 2024 elections. And so Jack Smith, Chutkan and Biden, they're all, even DeSantis in a sense, because the only way DeSantis could ever possibly have a chance is if Trump was somehow removed because he was convicted, which wouldn't even happen in and of itself. You can vote for anybody you want as president here in the States. I mean, we see it all around the world, Lula in Brazil, or even Netanyahu in Israel. I mean, there's plenty of people have been indicted who get who get elected no problem so anyway the uh right now you just have the weaponized legalist proponents with egg on their face and Trump looks like he's going to he's going to cruise through 2024 as things stand now we'll see what they come up with in terms of trying to take him out.  Yeah because I always wondered why DeSantis was running I assumed that he was expecting the legal case to move forward and Trump to be stopped. But the more legal issues are thrown at Trump, the more successful he is doing in the polls. And I can imagine some strategists, there must be a few of them somewhere in the Democrat Party, wondering what we're trying is not happening. And the last thing, I guess, the opponents want is Trump in court months before election, because that simply plays to his supporter base over a deep state. You got it. And I don't think they understood this. It's part of, I get, I think we're seeing the same thing in Britain. Our ruling class just occupies such a different cultural space than the rest of the population, the vast majority of the population. They didn't recognize that when they took a mugshot of Trump, they would be moving him from one cultural sphere into another cultural sphere. Prior to the mugshot, he was a New York billionaire president. After the mugshot, he suddenly shared an experience that many people, particularly in our underclass, have experienced or know someone. So if you ask anybody in our inner cities, how many New York billionaire presidents do you know? Zero. But if you ask them, well, how many people do you know who've been unfairly targeted by the man? Who've had mugshots, been arrested? Well, all of a sudden that number goes up exponentially. So Trump in just that one act, in that one picture too, you know, pictures are worth thousands of words, in that one act, the deep state where they recognized him or not moved him from one cultural space where he's actually in many ways very much removed and aloof from your average citizen to another cultural space that has tremendous amount in common with your, you know, your average citizen. So that's where the populism starts to kick in. They don't recognize that we're going through a legitimacy crisis right now. I think it's both Europe, particularly Western Europe and the United States, where every poll shows that virtually all of our public institutions, from our government to our media, to our judicial systems, all are haemorrhaging trust and confidence among the people. If I recall, there was Matthew Goodwin, a good British scholar, I'm sure you know him. He did, in his book on nationalist populism, they did a study back in the 1960s, 70% of Brits saw the government operating for the good of most or all. Today, it's basically 19%. I mean, it's just literally plummeted. And in the United States, it's even worse. In many respects, the United States may be the single most divided country on the planet right now. I mean, that's not an exaggeration. The gap that exists between our ruling elite and the people is growing more and more by the day. And that's precisely why I think every time you see Trump becoming a victim of weaponized legalism his polls go up every single time. And I couldn't agree with you more. I think if he got convicted it might be the biggest landslide we've ever seen. How does the J6 narrative fit in this because the footage is out, speaker of the house released it all. I thought Tucker had released it but maybe I don't know, the speaker has now released it. And you put a video out, could it actually be your latest video on Vivek Ramaswamy on with CNN and challenging the J6 narrative and taking great joy in the fact that maybe CNN viewers had never come across this before and enjoyed that platform. But how much does the J6 narrative and the videos release that information? How much does that fit in with kind of where Trump is and maybe challenging some of the narrative going against him? It is. Well, again, J6 was used and we talk a lot about, say, like what happened with Alex Jones. J6 was used against Trump very much like the Sandy Hook shooting was used against Alex Jones. It was an effective tool that the regime uses to isolate and seclude dissent. That's a very, very important technique. We can develop that a bit more. So J6 was for three years, almost three years now, right? It was a very effective weapon against not just Trump, but the whole MAGA movement and America First that we're all in the end insurrectionists. That's what we are. Give us a chance and we'll just overthrow the government and install some authoritarian despotic rule. That is falling apart. That's just collapsing, especially, like you said, with the larger footage that Tucker had released when he was with Fox and just more and more of the footage that's been coming out via the network society where we have instantaneous access to digital information, bypassing the legacy media, the way email bypasses the post office, basically. So I think Vivek did a good job in that. In that CNN slaughter was, I think he articulated the process that a lot of people were going through. If you had asked me three years ago, you know, did the FBI set up a bunch of well-meaning, but perhaps overzealous patriots, I would have, I would never have believed it. But then, of course, we had the whole Russian collusion fraud of 2016, and that cost us $30 million with a special counsel and the like. We had the whole Jussie Smollett race victim hoax. We had the whole Brett Kavanaugh is a racist. We had the whole COVID lab leak theory is nothing but a conspiracy theory. We had the Covenant Catholic school kids were a bunch of racists at a pro-life rally, of course. Racists at a pro-life rally, you just let that hit you. Every life is sacred, but darn it, I'm a racist. Right. You know, the notion that Hunter Biden's laptop was just Russian disinformation. Suddenly people start to say, wait a minute, we we're getting lied to all the time here. Maybe there is something to this J6 setup. And so I think that's in many respects, as I know, just on a personal note, I can't even count the amount of people I've talked to who've told me. They always thought so-and-so was a crackpot who believed in a deep state and conspiracy theories and so forth. And he said, I'm a believer now. After all of this, I'm an absolute believer. And then the polls are proving it. The vast majority of voters here do believe the FBI had some involvement in it. And of course, we have court documents that prove there were FBI agents in informants among the crowd. There's still no confirmation of how many. There's a Louisiana Congressman who believes there's upwards of 200 that were in the crowd. And so the entrapment charge seems to be pretty clear. You know, we have a governor Whitmer, Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan, and there was a whole like conspiracy to kidnap her. We're finding out that was a conspiracy that was actually constructed and concocted by by the FBI to entrap some, I guess, militia members or people part of a patriot movement out there. And they were, I think all of them were exonerated in court and the juries were very apologetic. They even had to go through this. So more and more people recognize, yeah, there is a deep state that does try to entrap its citizens in a manner comparable to a Banana Republic. And now you have a president, former president, who's the chief opposition candidate, who's being literally trumped up with bogus charges. And they're recognizing something's not right here. And the de-legitimation continues to go on. That's the key. I think the division in our nation grows with every passing day. And you've done a number of videos on Biden's poll ratings. I mean, you've got years worth of footage, basically, if you look at those poll numbers dropping, dropping. Obviously, everyone says, well, it's the economy, stupid. Generally, that's what hits election chances. But then with everything else coming in, along with Biden being, not knowing what day of the week it is, never mind when he is being led off stage. How do all those factors play? Is it simply inflation or is it all those other factors that are playing into those? I mean, horrendous poll numbers. Yeah, no, I think so. I think you set that up well. I think something much deeper is going on.  Again Matthew Goodwin, I think, caught it very well in his book on national populism. If people haven't read that, yeah... I went to his book launch. I loved it  Yeah it's, Matthews... I don't know if you've had him on your program, we got to have him on our our respective programs because he is really, and he and he's, well I should finish my sentence. He's really doing excellent work and he's bearing a lot of criticism from the woke academic world that says you're not allowed to even think in the categories. Eric Kaufman is another one at the University of London, a Canadian expat out there. Yeah, Matthew would call it a realignment, political realignment. I think it's absolutely right. I think you're seeing very same things happening both across the pond, both sides of the pond. Back in 1960, 50% of the British population ascribed very strong loyalty to one of the major parties, either Tories or Labour. Again, that figure today has dropped to like 10%. I think it was like 13%, exactly. Just a huge, huge drop. We're seeing something comparable here. What's happening is that because both parties, in our case, Republicans and Democrats, are just perceived as just occupying just such a different cultural space from their constituents, it's opening up opportunities. I think it was Eric Kaufman who actually refers to them as bootleggers. It's opening up opportunities for bootleggers, right? So a bootlegger, You know, just for just we're all clear, you know, here in the States, we banned alcohol for a while during Prohibition. And bootleggers were the ones that provided alcohol in the black market for people who wanted it. When people want something, but the government isn't providing it, they're going to go and look for bootleggers to get it. What we're seeing all throughout Europe, all throughout Europe, 300% increase in nationalist populist parties just over the last 10 years, and they're winning, right? You guys are no longer in the EU because of a bootlegger. We're seeing bootleggers rise up. We're seeing third, what I like to call third party candidates that is outside of your centre right, centre left parties rising up and giving the people, voicing the concerns of the people. I mean, you just had that amazing election in the Netherlands a couple of weeks back with Geert Wilders. I mean, I honestly believe, there was a time I thought he could pull it off back in 2017. I think it was the last major election. It could have been at the tail end of 2016, where he's really, really close. And then Mark Ruda ended up basically stealing his platform. And they were able to paint him as the extremist and blah, blah, blah. Those days are done. People see the establishment as the extremists because the establishment refuses to represent their values, interests, and concerns and continue to represent the values, interests, and concerns of the elite ruling class. Again, I think it was Matthew Goodwin. I'm going to fudge the data. I don't have it exactly in my head, but there was a Chatham House, the think tank study that found that it was something like 60, 70% of MPs believe that immigration is always good, whereas only about 20% of the voting population believe the same. So the discrepancy between the worldviews is so dramatic. What we have to understand here in the United States, Trump is a third-party candidate that won a major party nomination. He's not a Republican. He's not a George W. Bush. He ran against George W. Bush. He ran, and you're seeing it now with Nikki Haley and Chris, Chris, Christie, sorry, I always say Krispy Kreme. We have a donut shop here called Krispy Kreme. So Krispy, we also call him Taco Bell. You know, I, sorry, we've all been Trump-ized here, you know, but he turns everything into a WWE match, but yeah, he, you know, Trump is running against the establishment, Republican establishment, every bit as much as he's running against the Democrats, he's a third party candidate. Who got a major party nomination. And so you can't, in my opinion, a real assessment of what's going on can't limit the dynamics solely to the economy. You have to see this radical realignment happening as well. And that's what we're seeing. We saw it in 2016 with the white working class who had always voted Democrat in every single presidential election since 1988. Iowa, for example, voted for Mike Dukakis back in 88 when George Herbert Walker Bush got over 400 electoral votes. They were one of the 10 states that voted for Dukakis. Well, today, as of 2016, they're now voting 10, 20% for Trump. We had almost 200 counties in Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, very, very white working class counties that had voted for every Democrat candidate since 1988, suddenly switch en masse and vote for Trump, some with a 40-point swing. We saw, again, very similar dynamics happening during Brexit with the working class vote in Britain, as well as the December 2019 national elections where you had regions voting for the Tories that had never voted for the Tories, ever. And Boris Johnson, of course, destroyed that coalition because he's again, he's part of this aloof cultural class that might play populist, but it fell apart. And again, I think the Republicans are experiencing the same thing. Hence why. And to me, this is very important. When you put in a candidate other than Trump, the polls all re-equalize. Now all the Democrat constituents go back to the Democrats. Ohio is in play if you get rid of Trump. I've seen polls, if you put DeSantis in there, you put Chris Christie. Biden wins Ohio in a landslide. Very, very working class state that goes about 10 points pro-Trump. Would suddenly either be a swing state or would turn blue. So I think it's more than just the economy. I think it's this mass realignment of the working class toward a Trumpist populist paradigm. And now we're seeing the non-white working class join up with that. Obama won the non-white working class with a 70% margin back in 2012.  Biden now has the non-white working class. He's winning them by only a 10% margin. So it's a stunning collapse. And they're not swinging to Republicans. They're swinging to Trump. So that's why Trump has got to do what Boris Johnson failed to do. And that is he's going to to have to, if he wins, he's going to have to command the authority to turn the Republican Party into a fully nationalist, populist, traditionalist party. As long as they remain globalist, their fate, I think, is going to be the same as the Tories. I agree. And you touch on immigration. I think immigration is a key thing because here, our conservative party have promised tens of thousands of our immigration numbers and we're now up to 700,000. And the same there. I mean, Texas could build a wall and they're still arguing, discussing it. So I think that's a key issue. And I think that's, I mean, we even, I think you put a video up recently, even CNN having to read out those poll numbers and announce Trump ahead in a number of states. And I know we've had we've had Brandon Straka on before, the walk away campaign and Democrats beginning to realize that this is not the party they signed up to. And tell us about that, because it's the left media beginning to admit what the polls are telling them. And that is because Democrats are walking away. Yeah, no, you're absolutely right. That's it. When we'll set it down, the Democrat coalition's unravelling. That's one of the reasons why Biden is is is falling apart. And the only gift we could give them is to put someone other than Trump in. If you want to realign their coalition, that'll do it because voters don't trust Republicans and Republicans are giving them a wonderful opportunities not to trust them. They try. They tend to stab them in the back every chance they get. Yeah, we've had a couple of some sort of really impressive studies of late. There was something called a split ticket analytics study. That was a meta study of national trends going on politically. And then Democracy Corps did more of a micro study of late on just the battleground states. So again, because we're an electoral college, we're all clear because we're an electoral college system. Forget California, they're going to vote blue. Forget Texas, it's going to vote red. Florida's going to vote red. Blue states, and sorry, our blue is liberal, right? And our red is conservative. I know it's the opposite there. Right, exactly. But hopefully everyone could translate, right? Just mirror it. And so for us, it comes down to about seven purple states, right? So that'll work. Seven purple states. They could go either way. And what is so fascinating, particularly in that democracy core study, is they really looked at the battlegrounds. And that's what we try to do in our polls. We try to look at what's going on nationally, some national trends, but then you're going to have to drill down and see if those trends are corroborated and what's going on in the battleground states. Because Biden could be doing great nationally. He might be up two, three points in a poll, but that's only because the poll is skewed more to the population centres in LA and San Francisco and New York and Chicago. They're they're going to vote blue no matter what. The question is, what's going on in those purple states? And when you look at the purple states, it really does look like the Democrat coalition has unravelled. When they divide up their voter demographics and they look at Gen Z and millennial voters, when you break them down by race, so you get really nitty gritty in the demographic breakdown. Gen Z white voters favour Trump by 30 points. It's stunning. Now, these are more or less you're under 30 voters, to make it simple. And millennials, I think, are between 30 and 40, something like that. So Trump is winning the white Gen Z vote. And again, overwhelmingly by 30 votes. The white millennials are voting for Trump by 20 points. Latino voters in the battleground states, Trump is winning them. He's winning them by three points. Nationally, it's Biden by around five points, but that represents a 20 point decline from 2020. When it comes to blacks, this is probably the most astonishing number. Trump right now has black support. Even the New York Times has admitted that no Republican has seen in half a century. He's up around 20 points. It's just we haven't seen this with any Republican candidate. Biden right now nationally. He's winning the black vote with 52% of the vote But that's down 30 points from 2020. He won the black vote far above that 85-90%. So Trump is seeing black support like we've not seen before. Women, I mean the battleground polling shows that Trump actually has a 25 point lead among not just white women, but even unmarried white women. It's the unmarried. We, married women tend to vote Republican in the United States. They tend to be much more traditionalist. It's the unmarried women that tend to be the Republicans women problem. They talk about unmarried white women now are with Trump by 25 by 25 points. We're even finding that he's within the hair's breadth of winning the college vote, those with college degrees. So in the United States, I'm sure it's comparable in Britain, there's a tremendous political difference between those who have college degrees and those who don't, so-called working class. And working class right now are just overwhelmingly voting Trump and are increasingly voting Republican, whereas the college degrees tend to overwhelmingly vote liberal. They kind of got what we say they got woke. You know, that's not going on in 2024. Now, Trump is even leading actually among women with college degrees, white women with college degrees. It's just, so we're seeing, in effect, the Democrat coalition just unravel right before for our very eyes. And now, yeah, you have articles coming out on CNN saying Joe Biden has an electoral math problem. I mean, it's a nice way of saying he can't win as these polls are playing themselves up, because it's not that Trump just has leads in these battleground states. He has leads that are far beyond the margin of fraud, which is around one or two percent. You can play around with the vote up to about 1% or 2%. Beyond that, there's really... You know, you've exhausted all the precincts that you can suck out some extra votes from. So he's winning by four, six, eight, 10 percent in these battleground state polls. And there's just, they're freaking out. They know they can't do 2020 again with the massive mail-in ballot campaign that they had. So they're left to the weaponized legalism to try to take Trump out through through a conviction, but like you said earlier, convict him, as things stand with this process of de-legitimation his poll numbers are even going to go higher.  Well you, that's the meltdown on the political side and the legal side and a massive part to disseminate information is the media and you've done quite a bit also on the meltdown in the media, specifically the woke media. I think nothing signifies that more than Alex Jones going back on X or Twitter. And Musk said he would put it out to the polls. Here in the UK, we've seen our most probably high-profile controversial figures would be Katie Hopkins and Tommy Robinson, and they have both also been reinstated to Twitter. Tell us about that, because it is a joy to watch the left freaking out at free speech being allowed to reign. Yeah, and just let that hit you, right? Just so that a free press, a free media is freaking out over free speech. It's, I mean, what's up is down, what's down is up. Yeah, well, I think we all know what they're really freaking out about. And they're finding their mechanisms, their tools of social control being wrenched away from them. They are ultimately upset that Elon Musk is effectively disrupting one of the regime's most important tools of social control, which is the establishment's ability to isolate dissent. Silencing dissent seems to involve two things. When you read scholars of censorship, they focus on these two dynamics quite often. I've found this very, very fascinating because we all focus on one dynamic, and that's the censorship proper, knocking somebody off the platform. We saw that with, obviously, Katie Hopkins and Tommy Robinson alike. We saw it with Alex Jones. Just, you remove the microphone. That's it. You turn off the microphone, knock them off, problem solved, right? Well, scholars have noticed when you go all around the world and you look at censorship techniques from authoritarian governments. No, they know that the person is popular enough. You could turn off their microphone, but they're still going to have an audience. You can still have public meetups, right? Email lists, direct mail, whatever. There's all kinds of ways you can still drum up social dissent if the person is popular enough. So that's why it can't just be the censorship proper. There's another step to this, and authoritarian regimes use this all the time. It's what leftist dissidents like Noam Chomsky refers to as manufactured consent. And this is largely the role of the Western media. This is the role the Western media has been given, as it were, by the establishment or is carved out for itself by the establishment. What our legacy media does here is they put forward a uniformity of not narrative. It doesn't matter if you're looking at ABC, NBC, CBS, or channel four, BBC, or whatever. It doesn't matter what you're looking at. It is a uniform narrative. Everyone is reading off the same script. That's very important because if everyone is reading off the same script, no one person is saying it. That's very important, right? Our founding fathers had a saying that we need to hang together or else we're going to hang separately. They were going against the crown, as it were. And that's very much the principle. We need to hang together. We need a uniform message. And that way, no one person is saying it. We're all saying it. And that uniform message, Noam Chomsky did a very, very good job in analyzing this. The uniform message plays, it always plays off of pre-existing sentiments, pre-existing loyalties, prejudices, whatever you want to call them. But the key is that the narrative, the uniform narrative, manipulates those pre-existing sentiments in such a way that strengthens the power of the regime. And that's exactly what they did to Alex Jones. The media unilaterally depicted Jones. And again, that's the key. Everybody is saying it. He's a crackpot. He's a crazed conspiracy theorist. He's a threat to democracy. He's a Putin stooge.  He wants you to poison yourselves in the midst of a pandemic. And the piece de resistance, he is a cruel harasser of parents mourning over their murdered children. That was the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting, actually, which happened about 15 minutes from where I grew up in Connecticut. So the key here is that the uniformity of the media's message deliberately creates, it aims to try to create a massive us, we the people, versus a very tiny, small them, or in this case, him or her. And the reason why they're doing it, massing that kind of support, ironically, playing off of our sensibilities of poor parents who are mourning their kids and so on. The reason why they're doing that is to silence any and all dissent against the regime. So that's the key. It's not just the censorship. That's bad enough. But again, if the person's popular enough, they'll find other ways of reaching people. No, no, no. Manufactured consent is the means by which you destroy that popularity. The media's unanimous narrative that deliberately seeks to isolate and thereby silence any and all dissent from the regime is its principal tool to increase its power and its manipulation. And so I think that's why it seemed to, for so long, work so well with Alex Jones. He seemed to have been pushed off the stage, and Tommy Robinson seems to have been pushed off that stage. Again, it's not just the microphone that got silenced. People didn't want to be be associated with them anymore because of this uniform narrative that plays on our sensibilities in such a way that exploits them to increase the power of the regime. That's the key. And so what did Elon Musk do? He provided a massive communication network platform that invites these personalities back and thereby disrupts the unanimity of the media's narrative. And destroys their ability to isolate and seclude dissent. That's the key, I think, to the significance of what Elon has done. And notice now what they're doing to Elon. It's the same thing. It is. And to finish off on this, you've got the schizophrenia of the legacy media. I mean, I saw Piers Morgan in the UK was interviewing Zuby, the rapper, And they were discussing Alex Jones and Piers was saying, well, how dare you? How can you have Alex Jones on Twitter? And they're arguing about whether you could or not. But then I think back, well, Piers Morgan had Alex Jones on his show maybe six months ago, eight months ago. So he's happy to have him on his show because the left realise it's a boost of, I mean, the left must have been, the media must have been so sad whenever Trump didn't turn up at those primaries. because it does boost that rating. And going into election year, they want Trump, but they don't. That's the same thing, the debate on the social media. I mean, Twitter actually being free, that is a game changer. Not that Twitter is where everyone finds, it is part of society, but everything else, you've got TikTok, you've got so many avenues of information. And I think I'm curious to see how those play out in an election year with the mainstream media being desperate to get a glimpse of Trump for their ratings, but the new media, the Twitter is actually opening up and free speech reining. Yeah, you're absolutely right, Peter. We talk about a lot on the channel, this phenomenon known as the network society. We are moving into a very quickly, if not, we're already there, I think in many respects, we're in a whole different social order in many ways. So back in the day, social order was primarily determined by proximity. And so in the 19th century, early 20th century, it's where the great cities, industrialized cities amassed. And then we had a whole media world rise up around them, you know, from the Washington Post to the New York Times, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the L.A. Times, the Chicago Tribune, the London Times, the Wall Street Journal. They all revolve around these massive population centres, because if you wanted to go anywhere in the world for like, you know, if you want to go up the social ladder, you had to be where the action was happening. If I want to make it in the country music, I had to move to Nashville. Or if I want to make it in finance, I had to move to Wall Street or London. If I want to make it in gambling, I had to move over to Las Vegas. You had to be where the action is happening. We don't have to do that anymore. One of the most famous singers right now is Oliver Anthony. You probably see the rich men north of Richmond. And Oliver Anthony became this massive, massive country music hit, not by making it big in Nashville, not by getting signed by any kind of New York record executive. He made it big because of a camcorder and YouTube singing in his backyard in rural Virginia. And he ends up on the Joe Rogan show.  Exactly, exactly. Who again, and you just keep pushing that, who again is an independent content creator, totally independent of any kind of major network and so forth. So what we're living in the midst of now is the recalibration society, not around proximity, but around networks. So all you need is access to the network, namely the internet, just like you and I are doing right now. We're across the pond from each other, and yet I feel like I'm closer to you than somebody just 10 feet away from me over here. We now have access to what's going on, irrespective of proximity. You don't have to be where things are. You just have to tap into what things are, as it were. And what does that mean? That means now we all have access to disestablish, decentralize digital information instantaneously. We don't need a legacy media mediating it for us. They don't have a monopoly over that information anymore. The first pictures of some event around the world don't come to us from satellite trucks with CBS News splashed across the windows. They come from people's smartphones. Everybody with a phone is now a cameraman and everybody with a social media platform is now a commentator. We all have access to the same information, which means now we can fact check the fact checkers. We can fact check the legacy media in real time now. And they don't know how to handle this because they're still living as if the big mass industrial age is the primary mechanism of social order. It's not anymore. It's networks. It's instantaneous, disestablished, decentralized digital information. That's why the independent content creator with Tucker Carlson being probably the king of them right now, the independent content creators, the future of it. It's not big conglomerate media corporations like Fox. They're losing They're losing viewers. CNN is losing viewers. MSNBC is losing viewers. All the major newspapers are losing readers because the independent content creator who has just as much access to the information as anybody in the media is seen as more trustworthy precisely because they're not under the pressures, the professional pressures of pushing that uniformity of message. Absolutely. And that Tucker Carlson network will be one that we are all watching intrigued at what comes out of that. But Steve, thank you so much for coming. I love just picking off some of those videos that you've touched on, on the meltdown on those different sectors. So thanks so much for coming along and sharing your thoughts on those. Oh, thank you, Peter. It's always an honour to be here. Many of your viewers may know I got my doctorate across the pond at Durham. And I always, always love visiting with my British brothers. So thank you, sir.

Former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner at McCarter & English, discusses the Special Counsel giving Mark Meadows, Donald Trump's former Chief of Staff, immunity in the January 6th case. Bob Van Voris, Bloomberg legal reporter, discusses the testimony of Sam Bankman-Fried. June Grasso hosts.     FULL TRANSCRIPT:     This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. We had begun our jury selection process this morning, but I've been informed that there is a change of plea, and then there was another change of plea and another as the dominoes started falling in the Georgia racketeering case accusing Donald Trump and eighteen others of scheming to keep Trump in power after he lost the twenty twenty election. How do you plead to count fifteen conspiracy to commit filing false documents in indictment number two three SC one eight, eight, nine, four seven guilty. Four have now pleaded guilty, including three lawyers. Sidney Powell pleaded guilty to six misdemeanors last Thursday. Kenneth Chesborough pleaded to one felony the next day, and on Tuesday, Jenna Ellis pleaded to one felony. Tearfully, I believe in and I value election integrity. If I knew then what I know now, I would have declined to represent Donald Trump in these post selection challenges. I look back on this whole experience with deep remorse. Here to discuss how all this flipping affects the case against Trump is Michael Moore of Moore Hall, the former US Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia. So Michael, four down, fifteen to go. How significant are these please? I think it's significant anytime that you have a co defendive flip, and the lawyers flipping are a little bit of a different bird baby than we normally see. When I listened to miss Ellis and the charges against her, you heard a lot about the Trump campaign, You heard about her direction from others. She called the more senior, more experienced lawyers, and that seems to me probably where the biggest jeopardy lies, and that is with those lawyers who have instructed her to do something. So it sounded like that would be potentially mister Eastmann and mister Giuliani. And of course if they have pressure on them and they were then to cooperate, then they may get to the next level, which would be closer I think to the former president. These are all sweetheart deals, aren't they? The lawyer's deals they are. They are unusually liked. I mean, remember that this case had been tagged as essentially the largest election fraud case in history or something like that, and it's will be a massive reco case, and people are basically walking away with a slap on the wrist. They up with probation, no jail time, and a first offender plea, which means that at the end of a certain period of their probation and the completion of those requirements, the charges are since the dismissed, so that with no record, they can vote, they can have a gun, they can do all those things once they have completed the requirements that the court set out. So they're unusually light, and they are especially like when you compare them with the sentences received by people who were involved at the Capitol on January the sixth, many of whom had jail sentences, some of them very significant. So it's maybe a little bit like the architects of the building are not going to jail, the construction workers who worked on the building are. That's sort of how I see it. So I can see why Willis gave the deals at this point to Powell and Chesbro so that she wouldn't have to go to trial against them early and reveal evidence to Trump. But why give a deal such a good deal to Jenna Ellis? I think probably she has made some statements that the ba will find useful against other people in the indictment. I don't know necessarily that that's Trump, but I think she probably gave them enough information to at least move forward. And also too, I mean, she was essentially a mouthpiece for other folks involved with the campaign, and her culpability I think was probably less than other people who may have been more of a puppet master than she was. CNN I believe is reporting that Willis is talking to six more defendants who will be left to go to trial once it comes time for trial. I mean, does she have a number in mind besides Trump? I think maybe a half dozen people or a few left that will be left standing. And those may be Trump and Juliani, that may be one Eastman, maybe another, people who think they have different constitutional arguments to make. They may be stronger arguments. It will be interesting to see how Metas is involved. I mean, we've heard that he was offered some of me into your cut a deal with Jack Smith. That's very interesting to me given the statements that he has made in the Georgia case, especially during his motion to remove the case to federal court. And you know, essentially he came to Atlanta in federal court and said everything I was doing was lawful. This is part of my job and it's protected activity, and it should entitle me as a federal official to move my case to federal court. And it sounds like to the contrary. When he got to Washington, d C. He decided that he wanted to cut a deal with the special counsel and tell him that, well, I don't know that I was doing the right thing, and I tried to tell the former presence that he was telling lies or whatever. I'm not quoting again, but something to that effect. I don't think those are necessarily consistent positions, and it'll be interesting to see how that plays out. So I don't know if mss Willis at this point, given the objections that he made to have his case tried in Fulton County, will look a favorably on a potential plya offer from him. So he may be one of the few that remain. That's really interesting because he has a very experienced attorney representing him. Do you let your client testify in a federal case to something that's going to cause you jeopardy in a state case? Yeah, I don't think you do. And I think that's the problem. And I do think he has a very good lawyer. I just think some of the statements that he may have made in the federal court here in Atlanta may not be exactly consistent with positions that he has taken to the special counsel. And I don't know how you claim that what you were doing was part of your actual lawful role as a chief of staff then suggest somehow that what you were doing, you know you had objections to because you thought your boss was not tell the truth in this kind of thing. So those will be maybe inconsistencies, and what we have to see actually the substance of each statement side by side. We haven't seen those yet. But any inconsistencies certainly give room to attack credibility with a witness, and may give fodder to a defense attorney to raise objections, and certainly may give some interest at least to a prosecutor to the side when or not you know that witness needs to be put on, is a cooperating witness, or with that witness independent needs to simply move forward toward trial. So this scenario is what they think about when they say the dominoes are falling, Well, it is. You know, if you think about a line of dominoes, a circle of dominoes or whatever, you know, you can pick a domino in the middle of the line and push it to the right or the left, and only the ones in the direction that's falling are going to continue to fall. And so that's why prosecutors try to work from the bottom up. They want to push some that has information at the bottom to try to get to the top. And some people argue you should work your way down. That's not necessarily tear to those people who are much less culpable, but you push generally from the bottom of the top. Cut deals with the people who are less colpable to try to get people who are really the masterminds or the more guilty of the organization. Here, I think there has been some middle of the line pushing, if you will, and the dominoes have fallen, maybe in one direction, which is why I think you saw ultimately deal cut with Jenna Ellis. Now whether or not she then also can have information toward the top, I don't know. But when we saw Ms Powell, mister chesbro Ls, you know, in Er Please, I think that was a section maybe of this arrangement of dominoes and arrangement of dependence, and that sort of has now concluded itself. But for the other lawyers who remain in the case, the key will be in the bridge the prosecutor will have to make will be getting from those folks in fact, to the people at the top of the line, And the question is what information do they have that will get in there. I don't know if miss Powell has information about that or not. She was president of meeting. She may have information about who said what. At the same time, I don't think that she's gonna be able to put the former president's things with prints on Coffee County as we get there, I do think, and I thought this was sort of telling of the things to come. When Miss Ellis made the comment that she was simply doing what she had been advised to do, I think you're hearing a preview of the defense we're going to hear from the former president. That is, in fact, I was simply doing what my lawyers told me I should do, or what I had a right to do. I was simply following legal advice at the time. And then I think we open up the can of executive privilege whether or not he's allowed to rely out information from lawyers and advisors. We know that the president is not covered by the Hatch Act any president, and so this whole issue, well, was it a campaign or were you the president? That may not be a hurdle as we go forward, and so I do think you're going to hear a lot about Look, I was doing what my lawyers and advisers told me to do. I had taken advice from a number of different councils, some of them had different opinions. I had to make a choice. I felt like we had legitimate move forward on the alternate electric scheme as told to me by mister Chesbro. He cited to me the issue in the circumstances in the Hawaii case from the nineteen sixties or whatever it was. And so this is what you're going to hear and ultimate fly. I think many of the decisions and the ultimate outcome of this case is going to rest not on allegations made in a trial court, but ultimately what an appellate court and like the United States Supreme Court besides, is appropriate evidence and an appropriate charge. When we're talking about former president of the United States being charged in for conduct occurring while in fact he was president of the United States. And so whether or not the appellate courts look at that and say, well, he does have some privilege or some immunity, I think that that's still an open question. Yeah, a question that may be answered first in the DC federal case. Thanks so much, Michael. That's Michael Moore, the former US attorney for the Middle District of Georgia. Welcome back to real estate investing. Made simple grant cardone here in the Cardones On every Monday, I said, Steve, would I pay you last month? Steve was paid thirty one twenty dollars last month because he invested at Cardoncapital dot Com, Cardoncapital dot Com, Cardoncapital dot Com. The Supreme Court declined to hear a case involving a lawsuit against real estate management company Cardone Capital and its CEO for making misleading statements in YouTube and Instagram videos. The lawsuit was dismissed on other grounds, but the core issue remains. Does hyping investment projects or touting crypto tookens on social media make someone a seller who can be sued under federal law by investors who are defrauded or who bought an unregistered security. To put it another way, what happens when a ninety year old securities law meets social media. Joining me is Ann a business law professor at tu Lane University. So, and let's start with the basics. The very basics tell us about the securities laws and where this definition of seller becomes important. Okay, So Section twelve is from the nineteen thirty three Securities Act and it basically has two separate provisions. The first is that a purchaser of a security that was sold unregistered when it should have been registered has a right to sue the seller. Basically, it's a right of recision. They can give the security back and ask for their money back minus any income they've earned on it. So they can sue whoever sold it to them if it was sold in violation of the registration provisions. And then secondly, they can sue anyone who sold it to them or who solicited the purchase if the prospectus or sales documents contained false statements. Now, sometimes there's a bit of a debate about what counts as a perspectus, but what it comes down to is that this is sometimes a more attractive option than say, more traditional ways of suing for false statements like Section ten B, which is the anti fraud statute, because if you sue for false statements in connection with essentially these unregistered security sales under section twelve, you don't have to show that you relied on the false statement, and you don't have to show that there was any intent to make a false statement. And so how did the Supreme Court define a seller in nineteen eighty eight, So in the case of Pitter versus Doll, there was a question of who counts as a statutory seller. In other words, Section twelve speaks of people who sell securities. So the question was, do you have to be actually the person who transfer the title me to you or could it be other people who are somewhat involved with the sale? And the court first said it has to be either a direct transfer of title or it has to be someone who solicited the purchase. But they drew a distinction between someone who is somehow involved and had something to do with the buyer actively going out and purchasing the security, and instead they said they have to who have actually solicited and had some kind of relationship with the buyer. They rejected a test that would be somehow like people who are just substantially participate in the sale. So that was interpreted by courts to mean that you could only be liable under section twelve if you literally transferred title it was your security and you sold it to someone else, or if you had some kind of direct contact with a relationship with the buyer so that you induced the purchase that way. So in our world of social media, where venture capital firms and others are hyping investment projects online, are courts having a difficult time determining whether they're sellers or not. Yeah. So the issue here is that after pinter versus Doll, there were a bunch of cases involving what were basically registered offerings. They were registered offerings, they were IPOs, where people sued for false statements in the IPO documents. Now there's a cause of action specifically for that false statements in a register statement under section eleven, and they would also sue under section twelve because Section twelve has liability both for unregistered offerings, which these weren't, or for false statements and a perspective, and courts rejected the Section twelve liability looking at pinter in a lot of cases where there was no direct contact with the buyer. So for example, issuing companies, it was their security, but they sold in a firm commitment underwriting, meaning the underwriters bought the securities from the issuer. The underwriters then sold to the public. The purchaser would try to sue the issuers inter Section twelve because the issuer's name is all over the perspectives, it's like their company, it's their securities being sold, and the courts would say the issuer did not have enough direct involvement with this particular sale to this buyer to justify imposing Section twelve viability. Now, you could still have other forms of liability because these were registered offerings, but you couldn't have liability under section twelve. So the court reading Pinder vicious now very narrowly to mean you have to have had some kind of contact with a relationship with the buyer. So now we fast forward to crypto, and the problem is there isn't an alternative scheme because crypto, assuming it's a security, which is a whole everything. But let's assume it is a security. If crypto is a security, it's not registered. So the liability regime that was available in those IPO cases for registered offerings is not available to these shareholders. So for these shareholders, Section twelve is sort of the main potential avenue of liability other than the anti fraud laws, which are much harder. So they're suing under section twelve because that's it, and what we've seen now is too appellate. Court said direct contact. We never said that what are you talking about, known as it's talent is a solicitation. As long as you make these public statements in advertising urging people to buy, that's a solicitation, even if there's no personal relationship. Meanwhile, there are at least a couple of other decisions that say, no, we're sticking to the old interpretations of pinter that there have to be this kind of direct relationship. And then you have courts that are sort of like saying in a case against Coinbase that Coinbase with air drops and materials about particular securities, that wasn't a solicitation. But it's not exactly clear why, you know, the court just says that's not enough. So we don't know exactly what's enough or what exactly the regime is going to be the Supreme Court decided not to take a case involving cardone Capital. Well, that was the case that was Actually it wasn't a registered offering. I believe it was under Regulation A. So Regulation A is an exemption from a full on registered offerings, but it does require some degree of filing and disclosure with the SEC. So it wasn't an unregistered offering. But because it's not registered offerings, the standard protections available in registered offerings are not available to purchasers. Instead, the only liability available would be, you know, just straight up fraud, which is again very hard to prove, or Section twelve liability. That's what's available. And so this real estate company, they use social media to advertise the officering that was filed with the SEC, they had documents with the SEC and so forth, and shareholders claimed that these advertisements were solicitations. In the Ninth Circuit agreed and repudiated. I mean, you know, some of the case law that had held there must be direct contact hadn't come out of the Ninth Circuit, So at very least it was disagreeing with the other courts that had imposed something like a direct contact requirement. But the Supreme Court denied sort. I mean, there are any number of reasons why they could have denied CIRT. But one possibility is that the social media cases are new. They're you know, looking to this old precedent that was generated under IPO situations, and you know, it may take some time to work through the court. You know, if you ask an average person, it doesn't seem like the difficult question. They're online, they're soliciting, Yeah, they're selling. What makes more difficult, Well, because the interesting thing is that the word solicit it doesn't actually appear in the statute. Nothing in the statute says imposing liability for solicitation, but the statute says is imposing liability for selling. The Supreme Court's interpretation of selling in Printer versus Doll, this case from nineteen eighty eight is the one that imposed this concept of solicitation with this very specific kind of definition. And to be honest, Printer doesn't seem to really understand how security sales works. There are parts of it display a kind of lack of understanding. For instance, there's a line in it that says you can't have liability for a seller's seller. That if you sell to somebody and that person sells to someone else, the original seller isn't going to be liable. But that's a firm commitment underwriting, and courts have been struggling with that. The sec has been struggling with that ever since Pinter versus all held it. So, you know, this concept of solicitation and exactly how we're defining it is not in the statute. It comes from the Supreme Court case launch. So now we're all trying to figure out what the Supreme Court met and how you translate a case in nineteen eighty eight to today the Ninth and the Eleventh Circuits? Are they in sync their rulings, Yeah, they seem to be following the same path that you know, at the very least, these sort of widespread social media campaigns are sufficient. But what's really unclear is like what would be like, I mean, once you take away the requirement of direct contact, which is how courts seem to be reading it before, then there's the question of well, how much urging is enough? And that was exactly what happened with coinbase, where you know, Coinbase technically it did have direct contact. It was talking to its customers and it you know, it does whatever it does to say, you know, here's an airdrop of a new security or whatever, and a court said, well, that's just not enough. So now we have all kinds of questions, like if social media is permissible, if you don't have the restriction of direct contact, then how much urging is enough to qualify solicitation? Given that in Pinter, the Supreme Court's concern was, we don't want just substantial participation to be enough. And the reason we don't was because we want people to have certainty as to when they are potentially liable or not. It's important that we have certainty direct contact. At least that's a rule. It may not be the best rule, it may not be the most functional rule, but we know what it means. We know when we see in. Now we're in this space where it's not clear what's going to be enough. Why don't these quotes sellers want to register just to be safe. So first of all, the crypto people, I'll say that these aren't securities anyway, But the whole point is that if you register them, there's a terrific amount of disclosure you have to make, and there's very strict liability if those disclosures are false That's why courts could get away for so long saying well, we won't have Section twelve liability for these IPO situations because there were alternatives. There's some very strict liability for false statements. If you register, you have to do a terrific amount of disclosure. It's very expensive and you're risking this liability. And a lot of crypto people say that the registration requirements, like the disclosure requirements that attach, are simply not suitable for crypto, Like they ask for things that don't make sense in the crypto context, like principles of an organization when it's a decentralized autonomous organization, or addresses when there is no address. So the crypto people will say that, not only is disclosure expensive and opens us up to all this liability, but the SEC hasn't updated the registration requirements to really makes sense in a crypto world. So then will it be up to the Supreme Court to clarify this so that there is clearer guidance? Very possibly. I mean, you know, there's a lot that could happen in between now and then. I mean, first of all, if all the circuits come to settle on something I mean, the Supreme Court doesn't have the kind of passion for securities cases that say I do. So if the circuits coalesce around a principle that's coherent, then the Supreme Court may not step in at all. And you know, we can all argue about it. But you know, I'm not convinced that crypto is, you know, the wave of the future. So at some point, if crypto has becomes less popular, then we may just see less of these cases. I mean, Regulation A was how this came up in the Ninth Circuit, and that will still exist because that's sort of a formal disclosure space for securities that you don't want to do full registration for. But reggae isn't really that popular to begin with, So I mean, if crypto becomes less of a thing, it may simply be that the disdute kind of settles down by itself. Well, it's been great to talk to you, Anne. I love your enthusiasm about securities law. That's Anne Lipton, a business law professor at Tulane University. This is not about Donald Trump versus Michael Cohen or Michael Cohen versus Donald Trump. This is about accountability, plain and simple, but it did seem a lot like Michael Cohen versus Donald Trump, as Trump's former lawyer and fixer took the stand against him this week in New York State's two hundred and fifty million dollars civil front case against the former president, And it also seemed like Trump saw it that way. He's a lie trying to get a better deal himself, having word and what played out during Cohen's testimony at times seemed more like a TV legal drama than a real trial. Joining me, as someone who was there for I'm going to save the show, Pat Patricia hurtadd O, Bloomberg Legal reporter, Pat, this was the first time in five years that Trump and Cohen have come face to face. What was it like in the courtroom where there were just about twenty feet from each other? They had a stair doown match. When it came time for Cohen to take the stand, Trump his whole body was pivoted with his seat turned to look at the witness box. Did the prosecution start by having Coen testify about his past crimes? He described what he played guilty to. Of course, he's backtracked from what his actual crimes were, and you know, sort of said that he didn't commit some of the frauds that they assert that he committed. But the State Attorney General's office was asking him basically to describe what he was supposed to do for Donald Trump, and he said between twenty twelve until twenty fifteen, each year, Trump would ask him to come into his office along with Allen Weisseelbergen, you know, basically asked him to quote unquote re engineered the finances and ask him, you know, how much do you think I'm worth? And then Trump would say I'm actually not worth three point seven billion, it should be eight billion, And he and Weiseelberg would have to go back and go through the numbers and reevaluate all the properties and assets to come up with a figure that Donald Trump had decided was his networth. So Donald Trump was just getting this figure, you know, out of thin air. Yees. Basically, Donald Trump wanted something, and so they would go back and he and Weislberg would put their heads together and try to value assets, be it golf courses or whatever, so that they would achieve the number that Trump named. And Alan Weiselberg, who was the former Trump Organization CFO, has already testified at the trial. Did he confirm these meetings. This is the first time we've had an insider's book about what these meetings were about. Weiselberg was very cagy when he testified. Weiselberg is a descendant. He, along with Donald Trump, was sued by the State ag so he wasn't very forthcoming and helpful. And so this is the first time we're getting descriptions of the eating happening with Trump calling them in. He said, basically, his boss called him in and told him what he wanted. Were there any surprises in the documents that Coen testified about. Well, I mean, it's just kind of shocking to see these things because then we were shown the actual statements of financial condition and the statements about Trump's net worth, and they would say, like Trump is worth eight billion dollars or something like that, and they would say, oh, by the way, we're adding the thirty percent premium to the fact that this is a golf course that has been constructed in good condition. And so basically, you know, Trump is giving credit for the brand because the building's complete and the constructions is finished. You know, that's like saying my house is worth thirty percent more because I keep the upkeep nicely outside and I have a nice little window box outside, you know. He said, I was tasked by mister Trump chewing increased the total assets based upon a number he arbitrarily selected, and my responsibility, along with Alan Weisserberg, predominantly was to reverse engineer the various different asset classes and increase those assets in order to achieve the number mister Trump had tasked us to do. That's the heart of this case. I mean, Leticia James, the New York Attorney General, asserts that Trump has inflated his assets. Where the argument was and the Trump people as law. You know, there's all these disavowals and declarations that warn the reader of these documents to say, you know, we don't really stand by these documents. They're just the number, right. And we saw this document from twenty fourteen where Trump was trying to fly that Buffalo Bill's football team and he claimed to be worth eight billion dollars, and that was a big discussion. Trump's lawyers were saying that it's no fair, you can't bring this in. No evidence, this claim of trying to buy the Buffalo Bills was ever made to anybody, and he didn't buy the Buffalo bills, So what's the harm? No foul, right, And the judge allowed it finally into evidence because the AG's office says, well, you know what, he claimed that this was his network, and these are the documents that went to Morgan Stanley, which was accepting bids. So Trump claimed he wanted to put in a billion dollar bid to buy the Buffalo Bills in twenty fourteen, and he claimed to be worth eight billion dollars and he had Deutsche Bank bankers back him with, you know, in a testing letter from Deutsche Bank saying that he was valuable and they had seen his net worth. When Michael Cohen is saying, hey, it's all the house of cards built on nothing. And was it Michael Cohen's testimony that got the AG started investigating Trump. Cohen's claims have basically triggered all sorts of investigations. He testified about seven different congressional investigation. It prompted an investigation of the hush money case. It prompted all kinds of investigation of Trump and his assets. Now we stand here, and I'm not saying that he's the only whistleblower, but he was the insider that said this is what Trump was doing, and it started everybody looking at him. And certainly this case originated from Michael Cohen's complaint. And I understand that the cross examination got nasty pretty quick. Yeah, I mean, you know, Cohen's a lawyer, and he got very offended when Alena Haba, who is Trump's lawyer, started asking him questions about that he lied to a federal judge, just like he lied to his wife on his tax return. And Cowen got very angry, and there was a lot of back and forth, you know, asked an answer. It was like a movie watching people arguing and bickering on the stand. Was like, Cohen is a lawyer, and he objected, he goes objection, so he is a witness objected through Alena's question. You don't see that other day, No you don't. And you know, at one point Alena shot back, do not on me, Copa, You're not on your podcast, you're not on CNN. Answer my question. So you can see there's a little bit of drama planes on both sides. This is Cohen, I'm objecting to your question. And at one point, probably we've all heard, you know, when the judge will say that question was asked and answered, and that's an objection, and Cohen said, asked an answered because she kept repeating about four times, did you lie to Judge Pauli, who was the federal judge he pled guilty too, And then subsequently Cohen claimed that he was forced to play guilty by his lawyers and he hadn't really committed some of the crimes that he pled guilty to originally, and this is in front of a judge. So all of this is yeah, so this is like right, this is exactly right. There's almost like two divergent trials going on at the same time. There's the trial that's being held if you had a jury, and the lawyers are being very dramatic and even the witness to you know, oh a check. And you're watching some kind of like reality TV show someone playing a lawyer, and that's being played too, as if there were a jury, and that might be more effective if there were a jury, but there isn't a jury. And obviously it seems like some of the lawyers know they have a very important client in his name is Donald Trump, so they're asking questions to please him. And then again you have the one person who is the jury of one who is judge and Gaurance who's deciding this. So that's what I said. It's like a parallel universe. There's two parallel trials, the one that's being played out Bible parties in the well as well as the one that's actually going on before the judge. And he has to keep reminding the lawyers you know, actually there's no jury here. I'm the trier of fact. So did Trump react during Cohen's testimony that you could say, Oh, he had his arms crossed and he was really he muttered something under his breast. I could not hear someone else claiming they had heard him say something about Cohen's credibility. But he was obviously very annoyed, and like I said that, he literally turned his entire chair around so that his arms crossed to glare at Cohen. And more drama to come, as Ivanka Trump has been ordered to testify. That may be as soon as next week. Thanks so much, Pat. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado. So today we're announcing a federal lawsuit against Meta met of course, is the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, for knowingly harming the mental health of young social media users. In short, Meta intentionally designed its social media platform to be more addictive to kids and young people. Forty one states are suing Meta platforms, claiming it exploits young people for profit by building an addictive features that basically hook kids on Instagram and Facebook, harming their mental health. At a press conference by the Attorney General of Washington State, two teenagers describe their struggles trying to cope with social media side like Instagram. The worst part was these pictures and videos were never ending. The addictive algorithm and the constant flood of new content kept me glued to my phone, and before I knew it, I began to hate myself and the way I looked. This all happened before I turned thirteen. So I would go on my phone and tending to do other things, and then instinctively start opening up Instagram, opening up different social media platforms without even meaning to, and then getting stuck in the cycle of scrolling seeing other people's lives and interactions. Joining me is Matthew Shettenhelm, Bloomberg intelligence analyst so Met. The federal lawsuit says Meta did not disclose that its algorithms were designed to capitalize on young users, dopamine responses, and create an addictive cycle of engagement. So the allegation is that Meta specifically designed an algorithm to teenagers. That's exactly right. So the lawsuit takes aim at a number of features that are sort of fundamental to how Meta designed its social media platforms. Using data about the teens to send them content that keeps them scrolling and keeps them reading, sending them notifications that keep them coming back to the service as soon as they look away from it. Using the like system that entices them and draws them in and pushes them to put more content out there. And the allegation is that Meta knew that its social media service was harmful to teens, but it withheld that knowledge and misled users and proceeded to deliver its product to teens. Anyway, there's a separate lawsuit actually in this same federal court that goes to the design of the product itself and whether that violates product liability law or whether face Book was negligent in designing it. This suit's a little bit different. It's not about the design itself. It's about did Meta lie, did it mislead users? And a lot of this is based on the whistleblower who released internal documents in twenty twenty one. Yeah, I think that's the real start of this, when Francis Hoggin came out with her release of the internal documents suggesting that Facebook knew more about the risk to children than it was letting on. So this has really been playing out ever since that moment. Now Facebook disputes her allegations and says that they're overblown, and that's the sort of allegation that would be tested in this case if it gets past a motion to dismiss. Meta said, we share the Attorney General's commitment to providing teens with safe, positive experiences online and have already introduced over thirty tools to support teens and their families. Do you know what kind of tools they're talking about. I think these are features like there are settings that teens can put on the product to turn off after so many minutes on the product. I think there are a handful of features like that that they have added. If you go into the settings, you can turn off the data that is used about you for ads. I think as a practical matter, these features may not be used all that frequently. I know my teenager doesn't jump to find those features, and I suspect that's true of many other teams as well. So I think the negotiation here before this lawsuit was filed with the States likely trying to push Meta to find more features and more effective features. And I think eventually, if you saw this lawsuit settle, you might see a push for even more in that direction. Thanks Matt. That's Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Matthew Shettenhelm, and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law, and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to BloombergSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Donald Trump finally made it back to Iowa this past weekend, and it wasn't exactly the warm reception that he was hoping for. In addition to being greeted at an Iowa football game by a mix of cheers and middle fingers, the former President was also greeted with a banner demanding to know "Where's Melania?" Melania Trump has been completely absent from the campaign trail, raising speculation that things aren't so good for the Trumps at home.Also, according to a new report, moderate Republicans in the House of Representatives are now at their wit's end with Speaker Kevin McCarthy because he's given the extremists the keys to the car and they are driving the Party right off a cliff. And, believe it or not, it isn't the impeachment charade that is giving the moderates cause for concern - they are terrified of a looming fiscal deadline that could result in a government shutdown that Republicans will pay the price for. And finally, Donald Trump went ballistic over the weekend after both The Wall Street Journal and Fox News talked about the fact that he isn't popular outside of his MAGA base, and somehow this led to the former President thinking that Rupert Murdoch - who owns both outlets - is somehow not mentally all there anymore. So Trump has now challenged Murdoch, his sons, and even President Biden to take the same mental acuity test that he claims he "aced" several years ago. They don't need to compare acuity tests - they need to be taking psychological evaluations.

So Trump is in New York being arraigned today, it's history in the making. What's funny about this is we're actually heading to New York for the school holidays, this is the last day I'll be on air for a couple of weeks, so we're heading back at a time of Trump dramas. This is ironic because the last time we were in New York was a long time ago, 2016, and we were there for work covering the Presidential election. At that stage, back in the pre-Trump era, everybody thought Hilary Clinton would win. Nobody believed Trump could be President, bar Trump himself of course, so we did a dangerous thing people do, which is write him off. Everybody it seemed had written him off, not just us, and all media were at the same place election night – Clinton HQ. We were stationed at her campaign headquarters and I was busy having photos taken at the lectern with the flag saying, Mrs President dangling from it. There was celebrities everywhere – the whole shebang had shut down 11th Avenue, there were outdoor stages, Katy Perry was singing, live screens, food trucks, supporters up the wazoo, and media by the mile. It was all on. The mood was celebrator, until it wasn't. We all know the story. The tables turned, the numbers started coming in, and with it the shock. Trump was going to win. Now, suddenly the mood changed. This was now a very volatile time to be in New York. My husband was, at the time, working two jobs both ends of the day - which meant he had to do shows back to NZ at 2am NY time and 10am NY time - to his ZB and Seven Sharp jobs. This also involved being woken by producers at all hours being told to go get footage and audio of protests in the streets etc. It was exhausting. The place was swarming with police and protestors. It was a crazy busy chaotic time, so we decided New York was just a hectic, chaotic, and crazy place. But we hadn't given it a fair crack, a work trip is not the same as a holiday. We vowed when we left that we'd go back one day as tourists, to have a holiday there and just enjoy the place. So fast forward seven years and we're finally heading back. But look whose rearing their head again just as we do?  Can you believe it? Why does Trump have to make everything about him? How is it we only visit New York twice in a seven year period, and both times Trump is looming large in the news, the place is swarming with cops and secret service, with protests forecast to unfold. On the one hand we get to witness New York during two historic events – a Presidential election and a President getting indicted. But I wouldn't mind being in New York without the protests if possible? Graham Norton was on Mike's show yesterday, he's currently holidaying in New York too, and he said it's the best place in the world for ‘old peoples fun'. Which sounds right up my husband's alley But he qualified that statement as meaning,  it's got great restaurants, exhibits, shows, they deliver things so you don't have to walk too far, and it's easy to get a cab anytime. It's perfect, Graham Norton said, for the older tourist. Which I guess now is us! So I'll keep you posted on my Instagram and I'll let you know how it went when we get back. And I just hope all the Trump drama has died down by the time we arrive, so we can actually get around and enjoy the place.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

So Trump's probably getting arrested...

Another message for the justice department regarding the time when Trump said on national TV hey China if you're listening hey Russia if you're listening why don't you hack those computers something like that! Well that's f* #cyberterrorism! And if these rumors of Russian submarines and Chinese spy balloons are correct, Fn #BLAMETRUMP!!! Trump made a phone call to Putin and he made a phone call to China's president XI, two of some of his favorite f* dictators! Trumpy Von SHITLER told Russian and Chinese leaders to send some spy balloons and submarines! And to escalate the possibility of a conflict between Russia China and the United States. Trump called on them to help him, because Trump knows he's going to f* prison for the rest of his life if he is lucky and doesn't get the f* death penalty for all his treason and terrorism. So Trump begged Putin to bail him out and send some submarines! At the same time he is telling us that it's easy to solve the problem of the war between Russia and Ukraine. He is setting himself up to look like a hero duhhhhhh

Another message for the justice department regarding the time when Trump said on national TV hey China if you're listening hey Russia if you're listening why don't you hack those computers something like that! Well that's f* #cyberterrorism! And if these rumors of Russian submarines and Chinese spy balloons are correct, Fn #BLAMETRUMP!!! Trump made a phone call to Putin and he made a phone call to China's president XI, two of some of his favorite f* dictators! Trumpy Von SHITLER told Russian and Chinese leaders to send some spy balloons and submarines! And to escalate the possibility of a conflict between Russia China and the United States. Trump called on them to help him, because Trump knows he's going to f* prison for the rest of his life if he is lucky and doesn't get the f* death penalty for all his treason and terrorism. So Trump begged Putin to bail him out and send some submarines! At the same time he is telling us that it's easy to solve the problem of the war between Russia and Ukraine. He is setting himself up to look like a hero duhhhhhh

Elon Musk just revived his bid for Twitter Inc. at his original offering price of $44 billion — or $54.20 a share — thereby avoiding a courtroom fight. (Musk made the proposal in a letter to Twitter on Monday, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.)So, after six months of brainless brawling bedlam, it looks like Twitter now goes to Elon.But should this critical social platform go to someone with the attention span of a fruit fly and the impetuousness of Donald Trump, just because he's finally now willing to pay what he bid for it?That depends on whether buying Twitter just a simple market transaction, like buying soap. Or has Twitter come to have a set of social roles and purposes that make it more like a public space such as Times Square, or a public utility — where the question of who owns it looms large? I no longer have any idea what Elon wants to do with Twitter. He has talked loosely about “free speech” but, of course, the First Amendment applies to government — not to a billionaire's folly. He's said Donald Trump should be allowed back on, but exactly why? So Trump can have a more efficient means for continuing his attempted coup?Today he tweeted that buying Twitter is an “accelerant to creating X.” What's X? It's “the everything app.” Earth to Elon: Can you be a tad more specific? Through the entire on-again-off-again melodrama, Elon has behaved like a one-man version of the Three Stooges. After expressing interest in a seat on the board, he rejected it. “I'm not joining the board. This is a waste of time.” Then he said he'd “make an offer to take Twitter private” because “fake users will make the numbers look so terrible” that it should be a private company. Then he made a bid, but didn't even begin due diligence until a month after announcing it. Then he got cold feet because he feared fake users made the numbers look too good. Then he said he didn't care about the economics of the deal. And then had “no plan” for how to finance or manage it. And then he tried to back out. And was sued. And now …He made it up as he went along. As did his inner circle of billionaires. Larry Ellison, the CEO of Oracle, messaged Elon that he was in for “a billion … or whatever you recommend.” What about … um … business strategy? Analysis? Thought?Marc Andreessen, a top Silicon Valley venture investor, assured Elon that $250 million is available “with no additional work required.” Blank check? Jason Calacanis, an angel investor and entrepreneur, told Elon, “You have my sword,” an apparent reference to the movie The Lord of the Rings.Antonio Gracias, another investor and a former member of the Tesla board of directors, told Elon that free speech is “a principle we need to defend with our lives or we are lost to the darkness.” What? Mathias Döpfner, CEO of Axel Springer — headquartered in Berlin — urged Elon to buy Twitter and then have Axel Springer run it (“Would be a real contribution to democracy” and “fun.”) We're now in Never-Never Land, folks. One texter, identified only as TJ, exhorted Elon to “buy Twitter and delete it” and “please do something to fight woke-ism.”So my Office Hours question this week: Does the public have a legitimate interest in who buys Twitter? Is this social media platform more like a bar of soap or a public square? And, based on your answer, is there anything that the government — representing the rest of us — can or should do about Elon's bid?Please note: Subscribers to this newsletter are keeping it going. Thank you! We also appreciate you sharing this content with others and leaving your thoughts in the comments. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.” ― Franklin D. RooseveltThe same week Mark Zuckerberg admitted the FBI pressured him to deep-six the story of Hunter Biden's laptop, Joe Biden called the populists on the Right “semi-fascists.” From the FBI's raid on Mar-a-Lago, to the use of social media to police the Biden administration's idea of “misinformation” to the surveillance of political enemies of the state by an all-volunteer army of social media users — “semi-fascism” is all around us. Naturally, this gave many hyperbolic Twitter users a jumping-off point to get those juicy, juicy likes, as they continue to cheerlead Biden in all the wrong direction. So let's get a few basics out of the way, shall we? The side policing speech are the “semi-fascists.” The side demanding ideological compliance? Also, the “semi-fascists.” The side throwing political prisoners in solitary for upwards of a year with no charges? “Semi-fascists.” The side that dehumanizes and scapegoats whole groups of people and encourages cutting them off from the economic system? “Semi-fascists.”The side with the FBI pressuring Big Tech to suppress negative information about a political candidate? You guessed it. The “Semi-fascists.” The power of the Democratic Party is shrinking and focusing on the most elite in our society. Their attention has narrowed significantly to the point where they are alienating more voters than they are attracting. From the Wall Street Journal's interview with Ruy Teixeira:We're living in a country where most institutions are dominated by graduates of colleges and universities that have made it their mission to proselytize on behalf of crazy ideas. That includes the Democratic Party to a vastly greater extent than the GOP, especially the post-Trump GOP.Mr. Teixeira acknowledges that this is a development “The Emerging Democratic Majority” failed to foresee: “We didn't anticipate the extent to which cultural liberalism might segue into cultural radicalism and the extent to which that view, particularly as driven by younger cohorts, would wind up imprinting itself on the entire infrastructure in and around the Democratic Party—the advocacy groups, the foundations, academia of course, certainly the lower and middle levels of the Democratic Party infrastructure itself.”Voters chose Biden partly because they believed he was a moderate. Instead, he's become a kind of George Spahn figure who passively allowed the Manson family to overtake Spahn Ranch. No, I'm not comparing the “woke” fanatics to the Manson family, but it is important to understand what we're dealing with here.Biden's ongoing dehumanization of Trump supporters is dangerous because of how people on the right, or those who push back against the newfound religious zealotry on the New Left, is reaching dangerous levels not seen since 1930s Germany.This example of the reaction to Ben Shapiro appearing at a podcast event is funny but also downright chilling. They don't fear Shapiro because he's an Orthodox Jew. They fear him because of his political views. Can you remember any other time in American history where opinions held contrary to one's own made people feel “unsafe”? You can just feel that one, can't you? Like a punch in the gut. You don't just dismiss something like that. At least The Babylon Bee, still banned from Twitter, mocks the whole concept:You can see why so many still turn to Trump out of desperation because Trump is not scared of them, even with everything they've thrown at him. Even facing an inevitable indictment, Trump just mocks them. How does the American system survive someone they can't control? They've never had to deal with a Donald Trump, that's for sure. Trump is testing the Constitution every day, proving why it is such an important document. The Constitution is the only thing preventing our current government from graduating from “semi-fascists” to full-blown fascists. Or how they used to refer to Stalin's regime “red fascism.” They use their systems of power to subvert Democracy, violate the Constitution, and weaponize the Department of Justice. As long as the media backs them up and the polls work in their favor, they won't stop. One of the great things about social media is that supposedly everyone has a voice online. But now, under Biden and in our post-2020 environment, our government is using Big Tech as a filter to violate the First Amendment, using “misinformation” or “disinformation” as a catch-all for speech they don't like. I posted a Tik Tok video of a high school coach ruminating on the Mar-A-Lago raid. He said he didn't believe the claims of a rigged election until he saw just how far the Democrats were willing to go to get Trump. His video was honest, heartfelt, and, more than anything, his right as an American to speak his mind. Youtube removed the video citing “misinformation.” When I appealed, telling them they had become authoritarians, I got this response:You can watch that video for yourself on Rumble. Sites like Rumble, Substack, Gettr, Truth Social and other alternative platforms give the illusion that there is equal access to all, but if you've been online a while, you know what it means to be dumped from the major organs of the new economy online. These big sites got there first. We trusted them by handing over our attention, information, relationships, shopping behavior, and history. Now, they have betrayed that trust. Will the Real Fascists Please Stand Up?So many people don't understand the word “fascism.” They throw it around because it plays well on Twitter and cable TV. It seems so unequivocal. Trump is bad. Fascists are bad. So Trump must be a fascist. Here is how Yuval Noah Harari defines Fascism in Lessons for the 21st Century:“The word “fascism” comes from the Latin fascis, meaning “a bundle of rods.” That sounds like a rather unglamorous symbol for one of the most ferocious and deadly ideologies in world history, but it has a deep and sinister meaning. A single rod is very weak, and you can easily snap it in two. However, once you bundle many rods together into a fascis, it becomes almost impossible to break them. This implies that the individual is a thing of no consequence, but as long as the collective sticks together, it is very powerful. Fascists therefore believe in privileging the interests of the collective over those of any individual, and demand that no single rod ever dare break the unity of the bundle.”If Trump had been a fascist, there would not have been any protests in 2020. Protesters would have simply been shot on the spot or thrown in jail. There would have been no CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times or any newspaper criticizing him or even existing at all. Do you think the speaker of the House would have ripped up a speech if standing behind a fascist? Do you think a fascist would have allowed nonstop dehumanization and bullying on Twitter every second, not to mention on late-night comedy shows and awards shows? Stephen Colbert? Arrested and convicted without a trial. Bill Maher? Solitary confinement. Hillary Clinton would have been locked up. AOC along with her.With fascism, you don't have to worry about bothersome things like due process, presumption of innocence, freedom of speech, or Democracy. You have absolute power and control over the state, which has absolute power over the citizenry. You can't tell me the zealots on the Left wouldn't want that. Sure, you might say, Trump, denied the results of the 2020 election, making him a fascist. But that makes him someone who has an unpopular opinion of something. Perhaps you find that bad or scary or an abuse of power and bad for the country but calling it “semi-fascist” is a reach. MSNBC, CNN, and many of the legacy media outlets painted January 6th as a “fascist coup” and did a very good job using video footage of a riot as a powerful piece of propaganda. But a violent protest against the government is not “fascist.” The crackdown of that riot is fascist, especially when they used powers put in place after 9/11 against their own citizens.None other than Vladimir Putin called this out, which is yet another example of how the Biden presidency and the insanity over Trump is weakening America's standing in the world. We look like a broken, fragile nation in our non-stop attacks against a former president and his supporters. Because of the Democrats' dominance of Twitter, media, government, Hollywood and all other major institutions, as they've become more uniform in their ideology and more militant in their demands that you go along with them, we are beginning to see the darker side of “collectivism” at work. After William H. Strauss and Neil Howe wrote The Fourth Turning in 2007, Roy H. Williams and Michael R. Drew took on the theory of the generations and tweaked it slightly in their book, Pendulum: How Past Generations Shape Our Present and Predict Our Future. They transformed Howe and Strauss' 80-year generational cycle into two 40-year cycles. One is the “me” cyle (individualism), and the other a “we” cycle (collectivism). Looking over the patterns of history, they have noticed that the pendulum shifts in one direction until it wears out its welcome, then it swings back in the other direction. Their overall hypothesis is that humans always take a good thing too far. When that happens, the pendulum spits and grinds and eventually swings back. We're now at the worst part of the “we” phase, the witch hunts, reaching its peak in 2023. Here it is right on schedule. The only question is how bad it will get in the coming year. They write:The second half of the Upswing of “We” and the first half of the Downswing from it (2013–2023) bring an ideological “righteousness” that seems to spring from any group gathered around a cause. The inevitable result is judgmental legalism and witch hunts. The origin of the term witch hunt was the Salem witch trials, a series of hearings before county court officials to prosecute people accused of witchcraft in the counties of Essex, Suffolk, and Middlesex in colonial Massachusetts, between February 1692 and May 1693, exactly at the beginning of the second half of the Upswing toward the “We” Zenith of 1703.Senator Joseph McCarthy was an American promoter of this witch-hunt attitude at America's most recent “We” Zenith of 1943 (see the “House Un-American Activities Committee,” 1937–1953); Adolf Hitler was the German promoter (see the Holocaust, 1933–1945); and Joseph Stalin was the Soviet promoter (see the Great Purge, 1936–1938). Our hope is that we might collectively choose to skip this development as we approach the “We” Zenith of 2023. If enough of us are aware of this trend toward judgmental self-righteousness, perhaps we can resist demonizing those who disagree with us and avoid the societal polarization that results from it. A truly great society is one in which being unpopular can be safe.In a free market Capitalist country like this one, consumers ideally have the power. We tell the corporations what to do, not the other way around. The more we migrate to online spaces, the less power we will have as consumers. Neil Howe marks 2008 as the year that sparked the Fourth Turning. The Wall Street meltdown and subsequent crisis supposedly kick into gear events that will eventually take us to a major shift, a war, or some kind of revolution. We can feel the battle underfoot right now with the complete takeover of all institutions of power and government vs. the populist uprising of the working class. The ultimate outcome remains uncertain. But 2008 is also the year Vivek Ramaswamy targets as the moment the corporations swapped “woke” ideology for any sort of concrete solutions to the problem of rising monopolies. He says that marriage was one of convenience. It meant the activists felt heard and catered to while the corporations had the freedom to do whatever they wanted without the activists breathing down their necks:And the net result was the birth of this new woke industrial complex, a new force a new Leviathan. In modern American life that was far more powerful than what Thomas Hobbes envisioned 400 years ago, far more powerful than what our founding fathers envisioned 250 years ago when they put into motion, a three part system of government with checks and balances not envisioning a fourth branch of government in the private sector itself. That would suck the lifeblood out of the constitutional government that we put into motion. And it is a new monster that actually duped both sides into submission. The old left that used to be skeptical about the aggregation and misuse of corporate power was defined and deflected by the fact that actually, they were distracted by the fact that these new guys are going to advance the causes the progressive causes that we love so much that they forgot about their principled opposition to settling political questions through corporate power.Conservatives were duped into submission by memorizing and reciting slogans that we all memorized back in the 1980s, saying that the free market can do no wrong without recognizing that that free market does not exist today. And that's the story of how both sides actually contributed to the creation of possibly the most powerful force in modern American life, this merger of state power and corporate power. “Woke capitalism,” as Ramaswamy calls it, is still not “semi-fascism.” Once Biden took power in 2020, however, he then took the iron throne at the top of all of it. It's more than just the activists and the corporations. Now, it's the administration executing top-down activism for much of the same reasons the corporations did it - so that we would all look the other way as they abused their power against ordinary citizens.In other words, how convenient to have a scapegoat like MAGA where suddenly their Constitutional rights no longer matter because they've been so dehumanized by the media, the blue-checks and now, Joe Biden. But if their Constitutional rights no longer matter, neither do ours. Now is the time to push for a new amendment to the Constitution, an “Internet Bill of Rights” of sorts to protect ordinary Americans against the “semi-fascist” forces that seem to be all around us in just a few short years. At the very least, all Americans should have access to the new “town square” and hub of most of our growing economic systems online. We still live in a Democracy, but it is something we will have to fight for. The Democrats won't. It will have to be up to the Republicans, should they take back Congress, to stand up to the powerful monopolies that now threaten the very foundations of our free country. The six-year-long hunt to get Trump, the FBI's involvement in suppressing potentially damaging information, the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago, and the inevitable indictment of Trump we know is coming are all much bigger threats to our Democracy than Trump will ever be. Get full access to Free Thinking Through the Fourth Turning with Sasha Stone at sashastone.substack.com/subscribe

Canary Cry News Talk #510 - 07.18.2022 Recorded Live to Tape! BATTLESHIP CHRISTIANITY: Good Guys with Guns, 2024 Elections, Monkeypox, Row 33   PODCAST T-2:42   HELLO, RUN DOWN HOOK - harry legs/kamala 6:14 V / 3:32 P Clip: Palestinians play US National Anthem for Biden entrance Clip: Kamala says words about Roe v Wade                 `   INTRO - EXEC PROD 13:55 V / 11:13   TOPIC 1 - biblical  BIBLICAL 26:42 V / 24:00 P Christian Nationalism Drove These People Out of Their Churches (Vice) Matthew 26:52 “…all who take the sword will perish by the sword…”   GUN CONTROL 57:16 V / 54:34 P  Three people are dead after a man opened fire in an Indy mall. Shooter was killed by 'good Samaritan,' police said (NBC)   PARTY TIME 1:08:14 V / 1:05:32 P   FLIPPY  FLIPPY UPDATE1:11:04 V / 1:08:22 P  Meet Plato, an AI That Gains Intuition Like a Human Baby (CNET)    BREAK 1: TREASURE - Supply Drop + Producers 1:18:40 V / 1:15:58 P   TOPIC 2 - polyticks  GREAT RESET 1:29:33 V / 1:26:51 P Clip: News anchor, Ian Collins, LOVES the Great Reset   TRUMP 1:34:23 V / 1:31:41 P Clip: Saudi Trump Democrat Propaganda piece Note: Premise, SA responsible for 9/11; Trump deals with SA; So Trump did 9/11    JAN 6  1:43:16 V / 1:40:34 P Clip: AOC Claims ‘Inside' Gov Actors Helped January 6 Protesters, Still Unsafe (DailyWire)   UKRAINE 1:49:42 Zelenksy fires top spy over Russian “insiders” (politico)   BREAK 2: TREASURE - Voicemails + Under 7.77  2:00:55   TOPIC 3 - covid/monkeypox   2:15:18 COVID/WACCINE Fauci says he plans to retire by end of Biden's current term (CNN) Menstrual changes after Covid jab may be far more common than previous (NBC News)   MONKEYPOX  2:28:42 ‘Shocking' Monkeypox Screw-Up Means We Now Face Two Pandemics (DailyBeast)  → 3 mass vaccination sites open in New York City in fight to stop monkeypox outbreak (ABC)   BREAK 3: TALENT - Audio/Jingles  2:45:34   TOPIC 4 - artificial intelligence  2:50:35 AI As AI language skills grow, so do scientists' concerns (Wapo) AI Art Is Challenging the Boundaries of Curation (Wired)   BEAST FASHION/METAVERSE    Linkin Park new tech project Hologram, turns your NFT into skin (The Byte)   BREAK 4: TALENT - Visual Art   TOPIC 5 - antarctica/33/climate   33 Some United Airlines Planes Don't Have Row 33 — Here's Why (Travel Leisure)   CLIMATE CHANGE Clip: UK halts flight as runway has melted (SkyNews)   BREAK 5: TIME/END   This Episode was Produced By: EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS Anonymous**   Producers Thorn, Spearsdesert, Anonymous2, Isaac G, MORV, Sir JC Knight of the Technosquatch, LX Protocol V2, Runksmash, Darrin S, Sir Casey the Shield Knight, Sir Scott Knight of Truth, Gail M, Veronida D   Audio Production Psalm40 Jonathan F   Visual Art Dame Allie of the Skillet Nation Sir Dove Knight of Rusbeltia MrJag MartyB   Microfiction Runksmash: In the barren wastes Troop 322 pushes on, their destructive cobot in tow. It was thirteen minutes past midnight when they arrived at the research station, where just before they knock their synthetic hearts attempt to revitalize their frozen skin.   CLIP PRODUCER Emsworth, FaeLivrin, Epsilon   TIMESTAPERS Mondays: Jackie U Wednesdays: Jade Bouncerson Fridays: Christine C   SOCIAL MEDIA DOERS MissGBeauty   ADDITIONAL STORIES The Pegasus Project: Spyware crisis continues; failure to clamp down on industry (Amnesty) Clip: Panama protest as inflation destroying economy WHO declares highly-infectious Marburg virus outbreak in Ghana (Global News)  EXPLAINER: The Unification Church's ties to Japan's politics (AP)  Metaverse expert predicts the future of the internet (CNN) Family Hopes to Send 11 yo Son's Ashes to Moon to Make 'Greatest Dream' Come True (People)  Florida family begins fundraiser to send ashes of space-loving 11-year-old son to moon (NY Post)  STUDY: 99% Of COVID-19 Data Websites Secretly Track Users (National Pulse)  FBI Launched inquiry into NIH funding Wuhan Lab, Emails Show (Epoch/Blacklisted) Polar Preet, 33, aims to be first woman to cross Antarctica solo, unaided (SkyNews) Berkeley/Google AI Researchers Introduce ‘Director' (MarkTechPost) Note: Travelers, The Director quantum AI RadNet scores 2 FDA clearances for AI programs in breast, prostate cancers (Fierce Biotech) If not Trump v Biden in ‘24, then who? Politicians showing signs they could be in the mix (Insider) Pentagon Got $58 Billion More Than It Asked For This Year (Fiscal Times/Yahoo) Researchers develop computer model predict if a pesticide will harm bees (ScienceDaily)    MORE LINKS TAKE THE SURVEY HERE: https://bit.ly/39VCG4D LINKTREE: CanaryCry.Party SHOW NOTES: CanaryCryNewsTalk.com CLIP CHANNEL: CanaryCry.Tube SUPPLY DROP: CanaryCrySupplyDrop.com SUPPORT: CanaryCryRadio.com/Support MEET UPS: CanaryCryMeetUps.com Basil's other podcast: ravel Gonz' New Youtube: Facelikethesun Resurrection  Gonz' Video Archive: Facelikethesun.Live App Made by Canary Cry Producer: Truther Dating App

In this week's episode, we discuss Elon Musk buying Twitter and the potential implications of the recent transaction. We also discuss whether Elon Musk is attempting to save the freedom of speech, or if he is actually just attempting to purchase mass amounts of human data for his plan to implant your brain. Megan Fox comes out and tells us that she and Machine Gun Kelly drink each other's blood, and the VA decides it is more important to send our doctors to take care of illegal immigrants than our own veterans. All of that and more on this week's episode! The Patreon begins at only $5 and includes weekly bonus topics, full video episodes, and more! Sign up now at: https://Patreon.com/redpillrevolt ----more---- For all the articles, videos, and documents discussed on this week's podcast join our substack!  Podcast Companion Substack: https://redpillrevolution.substack.com ----more---- Please consider leaving a donation for all of the hard work that goes into this ad-free podcast. I love doing what I do and can only continue through your generosity and support!  Donate https://givesendgo.com/redpillrevolution  ----more----   Full Transcription: Welcome to Red Pill Revolution. My name is Austin Adams. Red pill revolution started out with me realizing everything that I knew, everything that I believed, everything I interpret about my life is through the lens of the information I was spoonfed as a child, religion, politics, history, conspiracies, Hollywood medicine, money, food, all of it, everything we know was tactfully written to influence your decisions and your view on reality by those in power. Now I'm on a mission to retrain and reeducate myself to find the true reality of what is behind that curtain. And I'm taking your ass with me. Welcome to the rebel. Hello, and welcome to red pill revolution. My name is Austin Adams. Thank you so much for listening today. I'm very glad you are here. This is episode number 26 of the red pill revolution podcast, and we have had some really interesting things go on in the last week. So we're just going to jump right into it. I really don't know what else to do here, but just really just jump into these really interesting topics. So the things that we're going to discuss today are as follows. We're going to go into a conversation about the blood the blood lost of Megan Fox and machine gun Kelly. If you haven't seen that clip yet, it's very ominous, very creepy of Megan Fox discussing the way that her and machine gun Kelly S basically drink each other's blood. Oh no, that's a conspiracy. We don't talk about those things. They're not real. You can't say that, but I can because she did. So we're going to talk about that. The next thing we're going to discuss is going to beam the veteran's administration sending medical staff from the VA down to the Southern border. Now that the Act has been, or is being repealed. And we're going to have this flood of migrants coming into our country. They're now sending the help that is normally for our soldiers down to the border. So we're going to discuss that. We're also going to discuss the sheer hypocrisy that has been involved in the Twitter takeover of sir Elon Musk. I think that's his new name, sir? Elon Musk. So we're going to talk about that in the last podcast last week that we discussed, we didn't know yet that this had happened. It had not happened yet. So Elon Musk, if you did not know, has taken over Twitter, he is now the largest shareholder and will effectively be running the company, which is incredible from a freedom of speech standpoint, but also quite weird from the standpoint of somebody who questions, everything and has a few questions about Elon Musk. At this point. Now I've been in the Elon Musk fan. Until this point. And I had some of you guys, some of the commenters raise some questions here regarding the trustworthiness of Elon Musk from last week's clip, where I talked about Elon Musk being the iron man of the real world or of this reality because somewhere in a different reality, there might actually be an Ironman, but of this world, it's about the closest thing we get is Elon Musk. And I discussed that in a lot of people chimed in and said, maybe he's not the hero that I think he is. And in fact, even worse, maybe Elon Musk. Is the villain. So we're going to discuss that today and some of the comments from people, some of the conversations and some of the weirder things that have gone on in Elon Musk's history. So we're going to discuss that. We're also going to look at the white house looking at repealing section two 30 in section two 30 is basically a way for them to now that they're so scared about Elon Musk, having Twitter for them to essentially bypass it and take it to the government level where they can control speech now from the backend. Now that Elon Musk has come out and said that, he's going to follow the legality of it, not the whims of the extreme left. So we're going to discuss those things. We also have a few other topics we're going to discuss, including Google launching a new woke writing function, which is. Inclusive language, basically, they're going to re they're going to put a notification in front of you if you're not using the right pronouns, you're in your middle school speech or your middle-school document that you're writing for school. They're now going to push their woke ideology through words, through, through a word document, literally your thoughts and they're trying to shape them. So a lot of things on the horizon today, those are just some of them. And then the last one is going to be the DHS basically testifying that it's creating a disinformation governance board on the backs of the department of Homeland security, putting out a statement surrounding calling people terrorists, who disagree or so descent in the government. They're now coming up with a disinformation governance board, specifically on the backs of Elon Musk, securing Twitter. Wow. That's going to be a lot. We'll see you. This might take all day, but we'll get it all in there. We'll discuss it all. And some of it, you might catch on the Patreon. So the first thing I need you to do before we discuss some of these topics is go ahead and click that subscribe button. I know you want to it's right there. I know you might've heard this and you might already be subscribed. And if you are, I appreciate you more than you could ever know, but if you are listening to this and you're not subscribed, go ahead right now. It's good for you. It's good for me. It's good for the universe. It's good for spreading the truth now that we actually have places to do go ahead and click that subscribe button, leave a five-star review. I know there's some of you who are subscribed and I appreciate it more than you. But the next step that you can take for me, you're just leaving a five-star review and maybe write in a nice little comment in there about, whatever it is that you appreciate about this podcast. It would mean the world to me, and it would be a good karma for you and all it takes us two seconds, two seconds, a little tippity tap, go ahead and do it. Next thing is the substack. Go ahead and subscribe. stacked.com. Redpillrevolution.substacked.com actually. And you'll get the podcast companion, which we're back on track with following this week. So excited to get that back that out. Get that back out to you guys. A red pill revolution dot  dot com and then the Patreon $5. Get you. Bonus content gets you access to this court server gives you the entire video podcast and you can get that at patreon.com/red pill revolt. That's all I got. Let's go head and jump into the very first clip that I have for you today, which is going to be around Megan Fox, basically just outwardly discussing. I don't know if she got the memo that you're not supposed to do this, but Megan Fox came out and said that her machine gun. Drink each other's blood. Could you imagine a celebrity in Hollywood, nonetheless drinking the blood of another human individual for pleasure. Now we're not allowed to do that. And if you do, you definitely can't talk about it. But here, Megan Fox is talking about the fact that her machine gun Kelly drink each other's blood, which is in the conspiracy world. Not something you're able to discuss on these mainstream media is, but apparently if you are Megan Fox, you can do so here it is Megan Fox discussing this it's a, just a few drops, but yes, we do consume each other's blood on occasion for ritual purposes. Only it is used for a reason. And it is controlled where it's let's shed a few drops of blood and each drink it he's much more haphazard and hectic and chaotic where he's willing to just cut his chest open with broken glass and be like, take my Sol. It doesn't not happen. Let me tell you maybe not exactly like that, but it, a version of that has happened many times a version of that has happened many times as Sheila. The version of that, where he takes broken glass cuts, open his chest, and then like a demon. If you see that video and you saw the way that she just went about that, she looked like a demon. He goes, let me drink VR. Like she was really weird there. So yeah, apparently that just happens very often. According to Megan Fox that she's drinking the blood of Megan, not Megan Kelly machine, gun Kelly, but apparently they're on the train here of Adam to the list of celebrities that we actually know 100% are drinking the blood of other humans. And this time maybe we can even discuss this without getting, thrown into a shadowy box of the worst things you could possibly say, and then being shadow banned into oblivion. But if you do get you out of band, apparently just go to Twitter now and that's going to be the way to go. But at this point it's really interesting, right? The adrenochrome conversation. I think that's one that is very. Been a hot topic in the depths of the conspiracy world for a while. And it really hasn't had too many mainstream conversations like this one that bring it up. Now it doesn't seem to me, is this seems more of a satanic ritualistic which not to say that the adrenochrome situation isn't involved in that, but th this seems like a weird I don't know, it's it doesn't seem like that to me, it doesn't seem like you're drinking the blood of your spouse. For the adrenochrome, because then you would, the whole idea, if you haven't heard of the adrenochrome conspiracy, here's how it goes. The idea is basically that if you go back long enough in history, you'll see that there's a bunch of our ancestors. And especially the specifically ones in power who along the lines have had dropped seeds, basically that they drink the blood of individuals who are in extreme amounts of stress. Because when your body's in an extreme amount of stress, it produces this chemical adrenaline and subsequently this also a chemical called adrenochrome, which flows through your bloodstream and then celebrities and the elite, and the famous people of the world. Basically drink that to get. And if you look back far enough, if you look back towards the Royal bloodline and if you're deep into the conspiracy world, you already know a little bit about that. But the idea is that if you go back into the Royal bloodline, the blood bloodline of the British elite, they're the Royal family, and you look far back enough, you'll see that there's somebody called Vlad, the Impaler and Vlad. The Impaler is a unique individual and unique individual because he feasts off of the blood of his enemies and he doesn't just do it for the taste. He does. He does it in a way that he puts them in the most extreme amounts of pain possible in, and he used to have people that would sit around a long there's actual paintings during the time where Vlad, the Impaler was sitting at a table around all of these dead bodies in consuming the blood of his enemies in front of his own, and his own, higher up military individuals and there's stories and poems about this that we know from back during that time. And so we know factually historically, there are people who have drank the blood of other individuals and put them into stressful situations to get high. And we know that has started through the Royal bloodline is where there's the more, most consistent historical accounts of this, obviously, because those are where the conversations stick around for awhile. But we know that historically it's Vlad, the Impaler was a very famous individual, a part of the Royal bloodline who then passed his ways down is where the conspiracy goes that this came from even before him. But the Royal family ever since who is tied into this, we know this from prince Harry. Who are not prince Harry Prince Andrew, I'm sorry. Who came out and said that he specifically was related to bled the Impaler once they did a DNA check. So we know historically and factually that there is parts of the Royal blood line, the Royal family that has historically and factually drank the blood of people and incited the most horrific events towards these people before they drink the blood specifically to get this adrenochrome okay. So they're in, that's passed down through generations and turned into this whole, blackmail situation where people are doing it and they don't talk about it in Hollywood. And this is where the whole underground child trafficking. And this is a real thing. If you go on the dark web right now, you can search adrenochrome and you can find this product being sold online right now. And the idea where children come into play with that as it's the most purest blood that you can get in this whole dark crazy. I'm sorry that we went there so early into this podcast, maybe I should have put Megan Fox a little bit lower on the agenda here. Cause we got deep really fast anyways. So there is a little bit about the adrenochrome conspiracy now where this comes into play and where I think this is interesting is I don't think this is that this isn't them drinking, just the way that she talked about it didn't seem like that because if this was that they wouldn't be talking about it. So frivolously, it would be a far darker, deeper conversation. And she definitely wouldn't be coming out and speaking about it in an interview. So this seems to be some weird, hype devil. Craziness now, obviously it's tied into that in some way, shape or form, but I don't think it has to do with adrenochrome but this one is a weird conversation to see somebody just outwardly, just like the way she just talked about it to me was. I guess exactly how you would expect somebody to talk about it. If they're actually drinking their spouse's blood for fun or whatever for ritual. So anyways, let's move on to some lighter geopolitical topics, not even geopolitical but more state side on this one that the topic that we're going to be discussing next is the VA doctors are being sent down to the Southern border on the backs of the law being repealed. That basically stopped a lot of the immigrants who were coming in from just flooding our gates. And now we know that they are literally flooding our gates. We've seen videos upon videos and on the border, hundreds of thousands of people have crossed the border. I don't know if that's a factual number, but it sounds good, but I'm pretty sure I'm fairly positive. It's pretty close to that. And so what's happening here is the VA is sending doctors down to the border that would normally be responsible for our veterans that would normally be responsible for purple hearts with legs missing or people with PTSD or whatever. So many individuals who are military veterans who lack care. And I know this because I am one of them. I have VA coverage and it is atrocious. It's atrocious when we're not sending a large amount of our doctors to the border to handle people who shouldn't even be coming over here, let alone getting free healthcare in lieu of the veterans who are needing it. So let's watch this video. It discusses a little bit. There's a, I believe a Senator or a Congresswoman who speaks up on this and grows one of the individuals here. So let's watch that and see what they have to say about it. Yes or no answer is that the department of Homeland security planning to reallocate resources, doctors and nurses from our VA system intended to care for our veterans to help care for illegal immigrants at our Southern border Congresswoman let me be clear because an inter-agency effort is precisely what the challenge of migration requires, and it's not specific to 2022, nor 2021 north 2020, where the years proceeding.   But I'm just  asking you a yes or no question. Are you planning on taking resources away from our veterans to help deal with the surge at our Southern border? That's a yes or no question actually, Congresswoman the resources that the medical personnel from the veterans administration would allocate to this. Is under the judgment of the secretary of veterans affairs, who prioritizes the interest of veterans above all others for very noble, incorrect reasons. Do  you know if  you've, have you had any conversations about reallocating those resources? I have not personally, but of course our teams, our personnel have, and I'd be very pleased to to follow up with you. Yeah. Our veterans need to know that the care that they've earned is going to be provided to them and not to those at our Southern border. The other thing, so that's what it is. Just what I already talked about with you. She's arguing with him saying the fact that you guys are going to send physicians who are specifically allocated by our tax dollars, by the money that we spend from our hardworking citizens to go help illegal immigrants crossing the border because you made shitty policy decision. What how is that acceptable? How are we just gonna, like the fact that our politicians just do, they think things through, do they even realize how this looks like when you're taking doctors specifically who were supposed to be taking care of what, how many doctors are out there that you could have paid money to go do this, but you have them on a shitty salary. That's why the VA care is so bad. The VA care is so bad because they pay the doctors who are just getting out of school. They pay their way through school, so that, and then they put them on a contract. So they have to come work for the VA after they get out of school. And they only get through school through the VA's money. So they get all of the shittiest doctors who went to the shittiest schools. No offense. If you're a VA doctor, I think what you're doing is great that you're helping veterans. But it doesn't change the fact that a lot of times the care is subpar and the care is subpar because the pay is sub-par and when you pay people less money, you generally get lower quality candidates. And so they have these people on a really low salary, one that's already contractually obligated to be fulfilled on their end. And they're in there manipulating the asset here of the doctors to send them directly to the border, to bypass our veterans who are in need. How many veterans are going to have extremely long? I remember when I was calling the VA to get a pretty serious. Look at, I had I don't even remember exactly what it was, but it was a heart like a SVT was what it's called. And then basically what it is like you're we were trying to figure out what it was and but it was like 36 weeks or 36 days out, two months out, whenever I called it was like the most ridiculous times. And then they came up with this thing called the veteran's choice program, where if you were 30 days or more out from the time that you could get an appointment with the physician or a specialist that you were looking for, that they would allow you to schedule an appointment at a local doctor's office. And as soon as I pulled that card with them, what's so funny is so I would call them up and say, Hey, I need an appointment to see a cardiologist. And they would say, okay, it's about a 42 days out. We'll go ahead and schedule the appointment with you right now. I said, okay, that's not going to work. I need it to be sooner than that. And they would say I'm sorry, sir. We can't do any sooner than that. I would say. If it's 42 days, that's outside of the 30 days and I'd like to elect the veterans choice program and go see a local doctor and what they would do is they go, oh I just found on in 29 and a half days from now, just, I just found this random appointment sitting here on my calendar. And you can get seen 29 and a half days from now. And so they would find a way to basically push people off as far as they could, until they elected the choice program. And then they were directed specifically to find an appointment for you within the 30 day timeframe so that you wouldn't be able to elect choice. So all in that to say that what they're doing here is wrong because the waiting times are already crazy at the VA. They're already ridiculous, like 30, 40 days out. If you have something that you believe was a heart attack, that's very concerning and I'm a young, healthy individual, right? Nothing wrong with. As far as I'm concerned than according to the VA, because they never saw anything or took care of it. So to me, it's if that's happening to me, how concerned would I be? If I was 72 years old, 78 years old with these issues from world war two, or, from Vietnam, would you be, wouldn't be 70 if you were in world war two. But if you were in Vietnam and then you're a war veteran and you have all of these issues and now you get pushed out 15, 20, 30, more days because they're sending your doctor who you fought for their country for. They're sending your doctor now to the border to take care of people who don't even have United States citizenship let alone, who should be the most respected individuals in the United States is combat veterans, especially disabled combat veterans who have the scars of our nations war decisions on their backs. And to take that in and give those allocated assets, those doctors help to somebody who is not even a part of our country. How does that make any sense? How does that make any sense? It's got to, it's so frustrating to me to know that the way that there it's literally just virtue signaling. And I don't even know if this is virtue signaling. I don't know what to call this, but to me it just, it makes no sense. It's frustrating. From a veteran's perspective, it's frustrating from a United States citizen perspective to know that they're just, bypassing the people who deserve the care the most to give it to people who are not even a part of our country, it makes no sense at all. So speaking about weird governmental hypocrisy, let's go ahead and watch this video. So if you didn't know, Ilan mosque bought Twitter. Elon Musk bought Twitter for $44 billion. And now Twitter, the left, the mainstream media are all freaking the fuck out about it. They have no idea what to do. They're so scared of people being able to say things that they don't like, and they are freaking out about it to the point where they're so blinded by their hate, that they don't even see their own hypocrisy, which we'll see here, which is a news anchor from MSNBC discussing what he believes to be Elon Musk's the downfall of our society based on the information that Elon Musk, being able to censor people at his will like a dictator according to this man. So let's see how ridiculous this is. Cause if you haven't seen this clip yet, it's. If you have to be so blinded to not really it almost seems like satire. It almost seems like a joke that this man can not even see himself in the mirror saying these things and realize how, just how ridiculous it really is. So let's go ahead and we'll watch that. No, the point is people who work with this stuff, they understand how important this is. I'm not telling you, you need a Twitter account. I'm not telling you. You have to jump in the ocean to study whether the ocean levels are rising. I'm just telling you this thing matters a ton. Do you? World's richest person who is very good at accumulating wealth and power thinks this is worth spending tens of billions of dollars on because frankly he thinks it's that valuable. And he thinks it may help him. Trump, by the way, today is claiming he won't even return to Twitter. If the ban were lifted, but few take what Donald Trump says seriously on that score. So what is happening? This is far bigger than Trump or Elon Musk. They are symptoms of the world we're living in where technology has outpaced any of our ability to deal with it. That's true. Whether you're a parent trying to figure out what you can and can't let your kids do at various ages. It's true. If you are a democracy like the United States that used to regulate media ownership and say, Rupert Murdoch can't have too many local TV stations and newspapers in one town. They have laws for that, that are still on the books, but the Congress hasn't gotten around to limiting whether someone can own all of Twitter. And as we discussed in one of our special reports, just last week, if you own all of Twitter or Facebook or what have you, you don't have to explain yourself. You don't even have to be transparent. You could secretly ban one party's candidate or all of its candidates, all of its nominees, or you could just secretly turn down the reach of their stuff and turn up the reach of something else. And the rest of us might not even find out about it until after the election. Elon Musk says, this is all to help people because he is just a free speech. Philosophically clear open-minded helper, a world helper, if you will, is that true? Should you take him at his word? Should you care about this? Whether you have a Twitter account or not, this is important. This is important stuff. This is important stuff to know if it's just so funny. Cause if you would've played that four months ago, three months, two weeks ago, it would have sounded like a Tucker Carlson bit. Like it would have, it would've sounded like a alt right media silence, talking, conspiracy, talking points like this man is a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist forever. Even taking the idea that Elon Musk or the leader of Twitter or any social media company for that matter, whatever alter the outcome of an election. Oh, this man needs to be banned. This man needs to be silenced. He can't be allowed to go around saying these things. We should take away any platform that he has completely get him away from the ears of the peasants, who might be able to hear these small fringe minority of ideas. You literally, you can't listen to that and just go this man here himself, does this guy really not see what he's doing? Like you literally just outlined every problem you outlined, the entire reason that he spent this money, you just really gave us the whole talking point of the right of the conservative of the free speech app. Solutionists like Elon Musk refers to himself, which he was about to call them, but it sounded too positive. So he said philosophical, whatever. It's so funny to me that this man had zero, zero self-awareness to know that he was literally describing the entire reason that Musk bought Twitter to begin with. You can turn the knob in silence. People who disagree with you, you can eliminate people of the entire party. Like the sitting fucking president of the United States that got his Twitter platform taken from him, the sitting president of the United States was eliminated from a social media platform. And this dumb ass has the balls to sit in front of us and contemplate the potential idea that somebody else could do the same to him on his side. I don't have words for the stupidity of this, man. I can't even imagine it's sitting in a room with this guy. He's saying these things and now just like busting out laughing and just be like, do you fucking hear yourself, man? Do you hear the words that are coming out of your mouth? Because you're literally describing every problem that everybody on the entire side of the political spectrum that you disagree with has outlined for years literally have been the victims of this have been silenced, literally sitting here in front of you right now. I have no platform with 50,000 legitimate, organically built followers stripped away from me because I posted a Senate, hearing a Senate hearing that they didn't like that didn't follow their narrative about the Biolabs literally right here. And this man's gonna try and to have hypothetical's about the potential of his side to being affected by this. Maybe you shouldn't have implemented this on your side to begin with. Maybe if you weren't stopping the sitting president from speaking out on the social media platform during his presidency all, while you let the leader of Al-Qaeda on there all, while you let the boogeyman Putin himself still have a Twitter today with the Kremlin, all the, while you eliminated our sitting president from having a voice, I'm one of the biggest social platforms in the world. And now you're scared of the repercussions. That's what it is. You got your way for so long, all those right. Wingers, all those conspiracy theorists that you got silenced in the name of your truth. Nah. Wow. It's coming for you. Now you have to worry about being silenced and you're scared. You're scared because the monster that you built, that you built a, you built this entire platform on a tower of lies on, on on the silencing of any dissent on the banning of anybody who disagrees with you. And you now are going to see the repercussions of that. And you're scared of it. That's what he's saying here. Cause he knows this is how it's been. He's done. He's sitting in front of us speaking on the TV. He can't be dumb. Yeah. He might be for sure, but he knows he's scared because. This is the problem. When you silence speech, this is the problem, especially when you have a democracy, is that every four years, the democracy changes every four years. There's a new leader. Every four years, something is going to shift. And if you silence enough people on the other side of the pendulum always swings back and eventually it's going to come for you. And he's scared. And they should be because there should be that thought in the back of his mind, all these extreme left wing ideologies, right? And there are literally very extreme left wing ideologies, far worse than the, what are the white right wing ideologies that are scary. What freedom of speech freedom to right to bear arms don't talk to my children. Sex in kindergarten, maybe some things like that. Those are some really radical conservative ideas. They're scared and they don't know what to do. And so they're running around with their their, like a chicken with their heads cut off because it, because they have no idea the repercussions of what they have built, the silencing machine will come for you to eventually, because you always have to agree. You always have to agree with whatever individual is at the helm, and you might not agree on everything. And the second you don't agree on one thing, the second you deviate from that line just a little bit. Now you're the one being silenced. Now you're the one losing your platform. So now we know the. They're scared and they should be scared now that they have project Veritas nice and close up on that ass, finding out the truth. So we had a whistleblower from within Twitter, sending an audio file to project Veritas of their all hands on deck meeting, which was a meeting where the CEO and some board members and the CMO and a few other people that don't matter. Not that any of those people matter anyways, basically getting together and all whining and bitching and moaning together about the fact that they have to deal with Elon Musk buying out their company. I really wish the second thing that went through that deal went through. I wish I could have been a fly on the wall in Twitter. It must've just been like how many green haired they Z Sobbing It just must've been like every liberal, libs of tick-tock video combined in a single room. And it just would have been the most brilliant comedy to be able to watch this meltdown play out. It's I hope we get more of these videos, but here is the all hands on deck meeting. And this is specifically the CMO, the chief marketing officer of Twitter speaking out on this topic specifically. So I actually have the full transcript. I pulled the video, wrote up the transcript for it. I'm going to include that as a separate sub stack this week for you guys. So go ahead and sign up right now. Red pill revolution that substack.com. You'll also get the sub stat companion, which will have all the articles, all the videos in that full transcript for you guys right down there. It'll also include the audio podcast. It'll also include the video podcast so you can get it all right to your email. Every single. And not have to worry about going into apps and finding stuff and all that whole deal. You can just get it right to your email inbox. So pretty awesome. Go ahead and sign up right now. Red pill revolution that sub stack.com for the podcast, companion, as well as the full transcript of this Twitter meltdown meeting, which I seem to enjoy reading a little bit more than I do listening to these things because the audio is not great as you'll see here. But I hope you can, it's not terrible, but you can still make everything out. But I think the transcript, you can just get through it a lot faster and it's a 45 minute meeting of them bitching and moaning. So maybe you don't want to hear that, but you can skim it and get the gist probably a little bit easier. So let's go ahead and start this video. And how did the board and Mr. Musk plan on dealing with a mass Exodus considering the acquisition is by a person with questionable. The question of attrition as product stated, one of the themes of today is continuity and ensuring that Prague and this leadership team continues to operate the business successfully on behalf of our users on behalf of our customers. And that has obviously been a big topic of discussion at the board. And as I mentioned in an area that is important to Elon Musk as well, because the important of Twitter as a service with no board in place who will keep Ilan accountable and how you don't want me to clear in public that a large part of the reason he bought the platform was because of our moderation policies and disagreements in how we deal with health is puts Twitter service and trust and safety, as well as anybody who cares about how on the platform in a very difficult position, greater service, the corner for policies and the capabilities we've built around content model. I find a mental to keeping quitter safe and growing. I believe that there is a lot of work we have to do to continue making that better. Sometimes that means more thoughtful moderation. Sometimes that means making things simpler. Sometimes that means changing product incentives to be able to solve problems to products sometimes instead of policies during the last all hands, you said that you trust Elon Musk, the correct quote was we trust him. So who is we and talking to Elon, what made you trust him? And based on the conversation I had with him, when we were excited to have him join our board, that was because at the major shelters. And an opinionated user we've wanted that Weiss in our boardroom so that we could learn. Is there an updated understanding on what free speech means? The question behind the question here, which is where my us product goal as a private company in the future, once this deal closes to best gain perspective on this, as I said earlier, we'll find ways to bring it on for Q and a, with all of you to understand better what his vision for the future of cricket might look like. Did you just hear that last question she asked? What does freedom of speech like w let me go back. Cause I think that's, probably the single most important part of that entire video while I, rubbed some, there we go, got a little bit of substance on my Desk here. All right. So now that's taken care of the part of that video, to me, that was the most concerning was the very last question there. And obviously she started that by saying that the, her new boss has questionable ethics, which is probably, could you imagine being like joining a company and immediately making a statement to every single individual within the entire company that the new owner of your company has questionable ethics? Like not even just saying he's bad at business, not saying that, he's a liar, just that he's his moral character entirely as a question here by this chief marketing officer. Okay. Now the more pressing issue here, I think was that last question, which was let's go ahead and run that. She says, is there an updated understanding on what free speech means? What do you realize? Free speech is a ver okay. Free means unhindered UN UN kept free. You don't know what the word free means. Lady. You're the executive on Twitter and you don't know what free speech means. Freedom of speech. Is there an updated understanding on what free speech means? Maybe what the law goes by is free speech and everything else is a hindrance. And isn't an opinion. And can literally be changed at the whim of whoever is in power. Is there an updated understand? No, it's the same understanding that we had when our country was established in 1776 and the constitution was written the same understanding of the freedom of speech. The same idea of free speech back then applies today, which means don't tell people what they can say, unless they're violently threatening somebody and have the intention of following through, or if they yell fire in a crowded movie theater, as people like to point out, okay, that's about it. And maybe even doxing, let's throw that one in there, even though it's not a specific law. It has to do with harassment. So it's in there somewhere. We've talked about that before, but freedom of speech means unhindered speech. That is exactly what Ulama said, which means that if we're going to put these policies in place, they should, if there is anything that is done to hinder freedom of speech, it should piss off the most radical 10% of the left equally, as much as it pisses off the most radical 10% of the right. And if you do that is equal opportunity and in an equal way for this platform to thrive and still hold the idea of freedom of speech, because then it's not an opinion, it's an opinion based, but when you see people like Milo Yiannopoulos, whatever his name is, Alex Jones, Donald Trump literally point me to a liberal who's been kicked off of the platform for speaking out on liberal talking points. You can't right. So for you to ask, what is the updated understanding of free speech is just the most ridiculous, disgusting, exact reason that Elon Musk bought the platform to begin with is because you can't even define the freedom of speech. You idiot anyways, all the more reason to be happy about this, all the more reason to be excited. Now we are going to see the government, sorry about that. The government, the white house is looking to see what they can do as we'll see on what's on your radar, Bobby or Robbie, or pretty sure it's Robbie. I don't know whatever this guy's name is. Oh, whereabouts to see it. The white house is now considering ways that they can step in for Twitter and start silencing your speech anyways, on these platforms and see if they can implement totalitarianism from their end, since the way that they've been doing it from the backend through Twitter and lobbying and quid pro quos and Saudi Arabian government ties and all of these crazy things. Now they're looking at re basically putting a new laws into place so that they can do it from the government standpoint, which is going to be much more difficult to accomplish because there's a constitution between them and accomplishing this goal. And there wasn't that with Twitter, maybe when there should have been. So let's go ahead and see you. Is that it has on his radar today. All right, Robbie,  what's on your radar. Yesterday in my radar, I explained why so many members of the mainstream media are losing their minds over Elon Musk, acquisition of Twitter. They're afraid that if must makes the platforms, rules more favorable for free speech, their power to control the conversation and brand all dissenting views as disinformation and harassment, that power will come to an end. So it should come as no surprise that the Biden administration is expressing similar. I'll be more cautious concerns about must Twitter takeover as well. Here was white house, press secretary, Jen, Saki, reacting the other. And just a quick one on  the breaking news, Twitter, agreeing to let Elon Musk purchase and make this purchase. Do you have a response to that? And does the white house have any concern that this new agreement might have president Trump back on the platform? I'm not going to comment on a specific transaction. What I can tell you as a general matter, no matter who owns or runs Twitter the president has long been concerned about the power of large social media platforms. What they have that power they have over our everyday lives has long argued that tech platforms must be held accountable for the harms they cause. He has been a strong supporter of fundamental reforms to achieve that goal, including reforms to section two 30. And  so that wasn't the only time Saki mentioned section two 30, either he or she is responding to a question, which I believe is from our dear friend Philippine. And we would support taking including reforming section two 30, enacting antitrust reforms requiring more transparency. And the president is encouraged by the bipartisan support for or engagement in those efforts.  So why the sudden interest in reforming section two 30 now that Elon Musk is set to take control of Twitter. Now, in fairness, the interest is actually not sudden, Biden has long held that section two 30 should be eliminated. He previously said, quote, section two 30. It should be revoked immediately, should be revoked. Number one for Zuckerberg and for other platforms. So confusingly Democrats have managed to bring many Republicans on board with this idea of changing or getting rid of section two 30, no less than authority than former president. Donald Trump has railed against two 30 at a Georgia rally a year ago. He said that we have to get rid of section two 30, or we won't have a country. And in fact, Republicans who support getting rid of section 2 38. They're getting played by Biden, Saki, et cetera, because without section two 30, social media would become even more hostile to conservative speech. And many viewers are probably asking right now, okay. What even is section two 30. So allow me to explain section two 30 is a federal statute that protects internet platforms from some speech related liability. For instance, if I say something defamatory in this video, I can be sued just like anyone else, but YouTube cannot be sued because section two 30 treats me rather than YouTube as the speeding. So the reasons for having this law are I think fairly obvious if YouTube, Twitter or Facebook, we're legally responsible for all speech on the platform. Then they would have to moderate way more aggressively. Maybe only people with blue check marks would get to post. It will maybe you'd have to fill out an application and prove that you wouldn't post content that could get the platform in trouble. Something like that. Section 2 38 creates the legal regime that permits the internet to exist as it does right now, without gatekeepers reviewing posts or videos before they appear on the platforms. Now, of course I disagree with many of the individual content moderation decisions that the platforms make, people are not wrong to complain that the moderation has been to. So that's interesting. It seems he's pointing out that it's almost like a double-edged sword here is if you do so I guess, as he just explained to section two 30, basically says that Facebook can not be held liable. If you say some stupid shit on their platform and get in trouble for it, it's not like you are writing it. I don't know. What's a good example of that. It's not it's not like they're going to ever be held liable for a situation where you did something wrong. They're a, they're just a platform for you to do your work on it's if you wrote S Hit-list on Google docs. Like Google is not going to be sued for that hit list. It seems like a pretty ridiculous idea. But when you start to break it down, there is some valid points to this where it says basically the idea is that they're trying, they're going to hold Twitter, liable, hold Elan, Musk liable. If they allow certain voices to be raised and to say certain things that they deem inflammatory, maybe that don't violate the law, but they deem inflammatory. So then that would cause a chain reaction from the social media companies, where they would have to come in and begin heavily moderation for fear of backlash from the government or legal ramifications for things that their users are saying. In which case they would have. Incentive to begin mass bannings to begin silencing of people. Like he said, almost make people verify who they are and this whole deal, which is interesting, because that is something that Elon Musk has said he wants to do with. Which has caused all people to have to verify their identity, to get a blue check mark, or to even be on the platform he's hinting towards. It seems so which a lot of people have problems with. The idea is that it's supposed to be eliminating these Saudi Arabian, swarm bots, and it's supposed to be eliminating all of these trolls that are out there under the bridge talking about Q spirochetes and it's supposed to eliminate all of that. And so that's something that Elon Musk has come out with, which is basically having to identify yourself on the internet with some sort of like driver's license. W which you don't even need to vote now, but you need it to sign up for Twitter. So there's a problem with that. For some people where the heat, there's becoming a more loss or more use tracking of identity and the things that you are in specifically saying and outcomes for those things. If it's maybe not something they like, so that's one problem that comes up with that. So we'll watch another minute or so of this clip and then we'll move on. Cause I think this, the section two 30 conversation, this is an interesting one though, because it is, if that's their next move, if they see Elan buying Twitter for 44 billion, especially with the elections coming up maybe they're starting to scramble. So they move their Rook to, Five. So they're trying to figure out what, what plays do we have as a response to this? Because this is not good for, this is not something we expected is the idea, right? Because if all of the information that's on the surface level of this, imagine what is actually going on behind the scenes, because Elan, isn't just frivolously doing this for some overarching bold idea of freedom right there. There's probably even if that is the reason he in his intellect is going to break that down to a far more complex reasoning underneath that as to why it's not just going to be for freedom of speech, right? Because he must have a very deeper perspective on the ramifications of that, not being the way that things are that I would be interested to hear, not just the, general tweet that it's for the greater good of humanity. If it is, I would love to hear. A longer form conversation as to why, because if that is the case, great, good on you. I really appreciate it. And I think that if nothing else is and that there's the was something we'll get into next is the hero or villain conversation. But even if he is, somebody, the question and then there's questionable ties and family histories, and some things like that this still points the needle back in our direction, right? In the direction of freedom of speech and the direction away from liberal extremism and in ideologies about stifling free speech platforms it is still for the greater good, no matter what his intentions are, which could be, scraping the intellectual data of billions and billions of human thoughts that are all in a singular place at one time for the last 10 plus years. To then download into a chip that he is able to create AI with and then put into your brain that takes over the world. Even if it's just for that, it's still good for now. It's still good. In the short-term that we get to actually have a platform that's freedom of speech based, even if the outcome is destruction and death, which it always does anyways. So I know I digress. So section two 30, let's watch another minute or two of this, and then we'll move on.  He handed, we have countless examples of that, but getting rid of section two 30, wouldn't fix that problem. In fact, it would make it much, much worse because there would have to be much more approving of what posts are appearing now, political figures like Biden and. I think they realize that, which is why they do want to see the law abolished without section two 30 companies like Facebook and Twitter, they'd have to carefully screen content. They purged problematic posts, which of course means purging more of the kind of posts that they already pursue aggressively, which is exactly what the Biden administration wants. They want more purging of content that they don't agree that relates to COVID. And other things of that nature, there's no doubt they want it even more desperately. Now that Elon Musk is taking over Twitter and we'll possibly have a different regime and allow more, more free speech kind of content. So there'll be no better way to throttle this new Twitter that Musk is creating than to subject it to endless frivolous lawsuits that are currently kept at bay by section two 30 as Steve Del Bianco of net choice, a tech trade association, put it the biggest threat to Elon Musk. Vision of a less moderate Twitter is section two 30 reform, which is why it's not surprised at all to hear Jen Psaki mentioning it repeatedly the other day. All right. So I get that. I think we get to just to that, to me, it's just something that, it's a card that they're trying to wave that they have. I think they're trying to show that they're not being one-upped by a single man, which they are at least that's the mainstream question here. So beyond that let's dive a little bit further into this Elon Musk conversation. Cause it's a really interesting discussion. Once you get a little bit deeper into it and you start to dive into some of the concerns of people, like the thing that I just mentioned there, which is the idea that you know, Elon Musk. So he had a few tweets here about the the purchase and about the competition that he is currently seeing between his platform and truth social. So he points out here that truth, social, which he says in parentheses is a terrible name. And so again, Elon Musk says that truth, social. Parentheses is a terrible name that exists because Twitter censored free speech. And that is the reason alone, according to Elon Musk. And then he goes on to show in the tweet before that truth social is beating Twitter in downloads and is the most highest ranked app on the app store right now for free app. Now it's funny to me that Elon Musk is still not saying it in a negative way, true social really. Isn't a great name. I saw another person comment on there. Something about how retreat thing, which is like a thing where you can do. And I am on true social as of like yesterday or today. So red pill revolt on truth, social. If you're on there at red pill, revolt, go give me a follow. I'll be posting all my stuff on there, excited about that. I will probably have a Twitter too, and just link the two. But but I do think there's a use case for both. And so yeah, Elan must speaking out saying how Twitter is being beat out by true social right now, which according to Elon Musk is a terrible name, which he said should have been changed to a trumpet instead, which would have been an awesome name. I think a trumpet instead of true social was definitely the move, but they, unfortunately Donald Trump, wasn't able to consult Elon Musk's marketing team on this one. But definitely a great name trumpet. Maybe he should change it to it. Just to jump on the craziness train here. That'd be hilarious if we woke up tomorrow and it was called trumpet, but anyways, so there is a weirdness to this. And then I guess the weirdness to me is the fact that truth, social and Elon Musk purchasing Twitter. So truth, social opening up to the general public and Elon Musk purchasing Twitter basically essentially happened on the same exact day. What are the odds of that? Two of the two singular. Opportunities or shifts within the social media history in the last decade or two, right? Like what has happened in the last two decades that are in the last decade? That has been a bigger shift than true social coming out with the president of the United States, coming out with his own social media app. That was, is huge. There's millions of people on it right now, and a bunch more joining it as we speak as it's the number one app on the app store. What are the odds that, that opening up and a billionaire iron man, like figure within our society purchasing Twitter on the same exact day, what are the odds of that? And so there's a whole idea surrounding this and some I'm sure we'll see better, and better thoughts come out surrounding this process and why these things are happening. But what I got for you right now is that it's a, some people are saying it's an effort. So Trump basically came out and said that he was not going to have a Twitter account. He said, I am sticking with truth, which is weird because he's not actually even using it. And if you know how much Trump loves Twitter, it's weird that he's not jumping on the opportunity here. So the idea is that there's something going on here and that this is all it just seems like a big play, right? It seems like these things that the coincidence is too ridiculous. It makes no sense to me that both of the two biggest things to happen in the social media world literally happened on the same day. No chance at all. Cause this should have been horrible for true social. Which is almost maybe speaks to the idea that it's. The people are probably more fed up with this shit than they are willing to go crawling back to Twitter because daddy Ilan bought it. There. They're more like, fuck you. I'm going to this one because it's even more like they, they believe in truth, social and Trump than more than they do in the Elon Musk at this point. And I think that's shows where we're at as a society and how divisive we've gotten to it, to where it's we don't want your life raft. We want an entirely different country to take the boat from. We don't even want anything to do with you guys anymore. We're going to go over here. We're going to, we're going to go to where we don't have to deal with, th to have to deal with the opportunity of somebody having even the access to do because true social is an open platform. All of the coding is available. You can look through it so you can see anytime there's changes, it's open. So if they change anything and you can see in the algorithms that they're starting to shadow banned people, you can see these changes. So the idea is that prevents them from doing things that would make you fucking hate them. It seems fairly straightforward. So the true social app is open source Twitter, as it speaks right now is not Eli. My sassy lady wants to take it there. How many of these things will be able to implement? It will be, there'll be interesting to see, but he has taking it private so he can do a lot of these things without having to worry about board members or shareholders in the FBI or the FEC, federal exchange commission, FEC F CC. I don't know, whichever one came out and said that they were not going to step in because some, some organization called crew came out and spoken and asked the FEC. To basically block Elon Musk from purchasing Twitter. And they said, what bitch, we're not doing that. That's not our job. That's not what we're supposed to be doing. That has nothing to do with us. This is what the, what, this is financial outcomes. This is how this works. So now the next interesting part of that is, is that to me, it's there's, so there's a few little things that I've seen floating out there around conspiracies as to why this happens. A decent amount of people are saying that the. Not for the betterment of humanity that Elon Musk's coming out and saying, these things is an all a show because he's a billionaire elite and his mom had ties to, I don't know some type of like Saudi Arabian deals. I don't know if I've seen people speak up on his mom's ties to the deeper, darker, deep state. And then the fact that Elon Musk took billions in or millions in grants to start as companies from the government that he just so happened to get. And then there was things about Elon Musk saying that he believed in a he believed in the idea of a universal, basic income. And so there was a an image that I had that basically pointed out all of the things that pointed Elon Musk to having similar belief systems as the world economic forum. And that's a scary thought, right? Like he, I have not seen any pointing to him in his association with the world economic forum. However, there is ideas that his mom was tied in with the, the deep state or whatever. But I don't know. I'm an Elon Musk fan boy I think he's, he's I think he might be sent back from the future and the fact that Wernher Von Braun the NASA. And I said Nassi because he's a Nazi, a literal Nazi who was tried during Nuremberg trials, who is brought over to the United States under operation paperclip wrote a fiction book about a man who took and colonized the, or colonized Mars. And his name was Elon Musk. Without the mosque, it was just Ilan. It would've been way crazier if it was Elon Musk, but he wrote ever Wernher Von Braun, the Nazis scientists that we brought over under operation paperclip. I wrote a fiction book like during the fifties about a man who took the human race to colonize Mars. And that's exactly what Ulan must does. So there's just some weird put on your tinfoil hat, things that are going on here. That makes me question, what is actually happening with the Elon Musk situation. And should we be questioning him more than we are currently, should we be asking more questions about his history and should we not just be wholeheartedly diving into the idea that he's the white Knight coming in to save the day? I don't know. I it's very easy to just, fan boy about Elon Musk. He's a very smart man. Obviously he's built many companies. He has a very much more career very much more charisma, so much more charisma. He has a lot more charisma than then the other billionaire that I've seen and going on Joe Rogan, his long conversations that he's had, the whole smoking weed thing during the Joe Rogan podcast and on his stock tumbling, and then going up better than, but like, how do you not be a fan of this man? And when you get to this point in society where everything is questionable, right? Everything deserves a question first before you take it in wholeheartedly, it makes you want to still question him. And sometimes I think you just, you can't be too quick to eat your own, right? Because if this is it's just, it's hard to differentiate what is truth and what is a setup? And who's manipulating what, and but I think in this case, like I said, last time, $44 billion to purchase something as is a fair buy in of my trust. Especially if you say, if it's for the freedom of speech now, where it gets squirrely is what I mentioned before is that he also so happens to run a program called neuro link. And he also happens to believe that's going to lead to AI symbiosis with humankind. And if you want it to do that, and you want it to build that AI, you would probably want the single largest data points of human consciousness than anywhere else in the world. And that might help you along a little bit. And you could do that by buying Twitter and buying every single data point. Now I'm sure you could ask. Get the data off of Twitter, at least majority of it without paying $44 billion. Like I'm sure some type of coding genius could like back it up into a hard drive and steal everything for less than that. So maybe there's that because it's more about having to steer the ship, I guess that makes a little bit more sense to me. The idea is that he's taking it to scrape the data to turn it into AI. That is then going to turn us into the slaves of a bunch of, circulating Dyson vacuums with knives. And we're just going to, clean their floors instead of their them cleaning ours. The idea is that eventually they're going to take over the world, and it's going to be Elon Musk fault because he bought Twitter. Now that seems pretty farfetched. And I think that the explanation that I had earlier, which is the fact that he has a. He, he has a 10 step idea about where this goes from here if left uncorrected. And I think that he may be trying to correct those things before they happen. But time will tell, is he the hero? Is he the villain? I don't know, but I do know that he admitted to believing that socialism was a good way. He also admitted to wanting a universal, basic income. He also said that he wanted, he believed that AI would eventually, basically take over human lives and that we would basically morph into a human AI symbiotic relationship with the world. This all this craziest than this too. So I don't know, but it seems to me. Like I'm still in Ilan fanboy. So I don't know what your opinion is, but feel free to let me know at red pill revolt on Instagram would love to hear from ya. All right. So let's go ahead and check out the next thing here, which is going to be the last topic. And that is about the mayor. Cause I don't know what that is, but this is off of Fox news and it discusses somebody testifying that the department of Homeland security is creating a disinformation governance board. And that's what we were talking about before where she actually, I guess that's the video that we watched, which is them discussing the idea that they're going to so I'll read this article to you. It says re Lauren Underwood cited reports on how minority communities are being targeted and then misinformation campaigns and asked mayor coz what DHS will do to. Mayor Casa disinformation, a disinformation governance board had recently been created and would be led by under secretary for policy Rob Silver's co-chair with principal, deputy general counsel Jennifer Gaskell. It says in quotes, the goal is to bring the resources of the department of Homeland security together to address this threat. Adding that the department is focused on the spread of disinformation in minority communities. And Fox news has reached out to the DHS seeking more information on the disinformation governance board hours later. Political reported that Nina Janka wicks, who previously served as a disinformation fellow at the Wilson center will head the board as executive director. Then it shows a tweet. It says cat's out of the bag. Here's what I've been up to the past two months and I've been quiet. GENCO it's tweeted honor to be serving in the Biden administration at DHS gov and helping shape our counter, this information efforts. They literally made a ministry of truth. They just did it. They came up with the department of Homeland security, came out with a counter disinformation campaign or a counter disinformation. It, what in the world where have we gotten a governance board of the truth? The ministry of truth is here folks, a disinformation governance board under the Biden administration. How is this, like I read at the beginning of the pandemic, I read 1984. And maybe I'm the reason for all of this. How many times is I if I would have never read that book with these things not be happening because it seems like we're getting so close, like how is a governing body? Are you able to dictate and determine what is truthful and what is not truthful? What is fact and what is fiction? What is the right opinion to hold on a topic? And what is disinformation? What is harmful, right? What is harmful disinformation now in the, in that, in line with the With the terrorism advisory bulletin that we discussed, like three, four or five episodes ago that they dropped basically stating if you so dissent within the government or make people have a difficulty agreeing with the government if you're like somebody who speaks out against them, that they can label you a terrorist, which is allows them to do all sorts of things under the Patriot act. Disgusting. So to me, I don't know where this is going. I want to see the best in this situation and just be happy with the fact that we have somewhere to go. We not only one place, but two places. And I think we're seeing the public choosing right now with the fact that truth,

Donald Trump's suits against Facebook and Twitter are, unfortunately, about as likely to succeed as were his challenges to the 2020 election. In the election cases, his claims appeared to be frivolous.  The social media complaints, however, are far from frivolous, at least in intent. But the legal theories they assert are ridiculous. Facebook and Twitter are private entities. They are not governed by the first amendment. The first amendment's ban on content-based censorship does not apply to private actors. It really is that simple. So Trump's legal team decided that they needed to find away to cloak Facebook and Twitter in the garments of state action. The complaint fails to do that, miserably. It will be summarily dismissed, and the dismissal upheld by the federal appellate courts. The issues it raises will not be heard by the United States Supreme Court. Indeed, I doubt many constitutional law professors would give a student submitting such a complaint a grade for anything other that a stilted form of creativity: a C+ might be warranted by a lenient grader. First, the complaint simply asserts that Facebook is a state actor because it buckled under to government pressure in censoring speech. That's ridiculous. Facebook and Twitter do enjoy the benefits of a legislative grant of immunity for the material they publish as a result of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Congress is considering eliminating the immunity. Facebook and Twitter did respond by censoring folks it deemed to violate its hate speech and violent speech policies. But that doesn't make Facebook and Twitter state actors. There's no case that upholds such a theory. Second, the complaint contends that Facebook and Twitter enjoy an unconstitutional delegation of Congressional power. This is plainly illogical. Congress doesn't have the power to regulate speech; it never delegated that. It did threaten to withhold a benefit, but that is not the same as delegation. Trump missed a better theory.  His team should have argued that Facebook is a constructive public trust. That is, that Facebook enjoys a public benefit in the form of immunity from suit; in exchange it should be required to adopt first amendment norms. This would take a decision of the Supreme Court to uphold, but at least the theory has conceptual integrity. If this is the opening salvo of Trump's 2024 campaign. I say find another candidate, or, Mr. Trump, find new and more creative lawyers. This suit does not pass the straight-face test. Join Norm Pattis's growing subscriber base on Patreon. And give Law and Legitimacy a 5-Star rating on your platform of choice and leave a review! --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/norm-pattis/support

So Trump admits he's trying to make it hard, if not impossible, for people to vote by mail. And today, the Postal Service has warned states that mail delays may result in ballots not arriving in time to be counted. If that isn't trying to fix the election in advance, I don't know what is. That's the first part of tonight's podcast from NFN Radio News. Part Two is from a blog by Chris Waldron on Not Fake News.biz in which he comments about Fox News Judge Jenine's mysterious suggestion that Joe Biden won't even be on the ballot come November. What does she think is going to happen? Chris speculates about that in his commentary, that I'll narrate. So take a listen to “Trump's Version of Fixed Election,” and then “Trump's October Surprise: Revealed.” From Not Fake News.biz. Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-lean-to-the-left-podcast--4719048/support.

Conventional Media Was Surprised It's hard to believe has been a year since Donald Trump shocked everybody, at least everybody in the conventional media, Wall Street, all the pundits, professional politicians, anybody who has anything to do with Saturday Night Live... Nobody believed that Trump a snowball's chance in Hell of winning the White House. Hillary Clinton had already picked out her china patterns, she had this big glass ceiling that she was going to shatter in her victory party.  So everybody believed that Trump was going to lose and Hillary was going to win even after the polls closed. It took about an hour or two for reality to set in. Conventional Media Was Surprised So now it has been a year.  Of course the stock market has gone up a lot during that year, in fact, the market was up just under 21% in Trump's first year.  Of course, Trump never lets you forget this because he constantly talks about it, but he says this stock market rise is unprecedented - and that is a lie! Why do you have to go out of your way to lie when 21% is still a big move.  In fact if you go back to Eisenhower, which is almost 70 years, this is the fifth biggest rally for a President's first year.  That's still not bad, it's fifth place. The guy in last place is George W. Bush. Not Unprecedented Unfortunately, Bush was elected in 2000 and the market tanked that year, it was down 20.4%.  That is the worst performance of any President. Trump is #5, but let's look at #1; Number one was Bill Clinton - Democrat, 1996, his second term, the market was up 31.7%. So that's a 50% greater rise than Trump's first year, yet Trump is claiming that this is unprecedented.  Kennedy, first term, 1960, the market was up 28.4%. In third place, Barack Obama's second term the market rallied 23.9%.  Then George Bush (41), in 1988, the stock market rallied 21.7%. So Trump is certainly in the top third, but his first year is not unprecedented.

So Trump has won the Whitehouse... What does that mean to you as an oil and gas professional?

Are pistol duels still a thing?,So Trump can't beat Hillary?,Armed civilians saving lives,Anti gunners glossary of words.