← Digital Social Hour
Digital Social Hour
Erik Huberman vs. Bryan Calcott: Should the Government Protect You From Yourself? | DSH #1753
01:25:19
Loading summary
Transcript334 lines
- [00:01]
A
Without some sort of government intervention, the. I guess you're saying the onus is on the individual to be educated and an expert, but in everything that has to do with their health, well being, safety, etcetera, you think that the entire spectrum of that needs to fall on the individual.
- [00:18]
B
Well, and I think that when things become necessary, I think that's what inspires action is ultimately what it comes down to. And I think now that. I mean, here's. And here's the reality, and people might not want to admit this, and I think this is why the libertarian message is not more popular. People are lazy. Oh, totally, is what it comes down to. You understand what I'm saying? They are lazy and they want it. You know, it's like people want a government hero to come in and fucking save them.
- [00:52]
A
All right, guys, another debate for y' all today. We got Eric and Brian. Main topic today will be government regulation. Thanks for joining us, guys. Of course. I'd love to start off with some positions and then we can get into the counter arguments. Okay, who wants to go first?
- [01:04]
B
Go first?
- [01:05]
A
Yeah, I mean, I think so I'll be arguing for some government intervention because I'd say in the simplest way to put it, in the short term, we're all dead, as John Maynard Keynes said, and if we don't have some sort of government protection to protect ourselves, the societal costs are gonna outweigh the preventative costs. Okay.
- [01:23]
B
Yeah, so we actually discussed a little bit as well. We agree on a lot as far as what we want to accomplish. We're just more debating, I guess, you know, the most effective measures. So my stance is that. Well, first of all, I believe that the government doesn't have the right to protect you from yourself. It does, however, have the duty to protect other people from using force against you. And so I think when we're talking about things like we'll just delineate, you know, that, like, we're in agreement with the government having, you know, the right and the duty to protect you from other people interfering with your rights.
- [01:53]
A
Yeah.
- [01:54]
B
But then when it comes to, I guess, you know, government intervention and government assistance, government protecting you from yourself, that's where I feel that the regulation leads to the very corruption that it's trying to eliminate. And the main reason why I think that is because I think we're still cave, you know, cavemen. And I think that we only act when it's necessary.
- [02:16]
A
And.
- [02:16]
B
Yeah, and, like, I love to use food as an example. And so, like, I am obsessed with regenerative agriculture. I think that it is the most important decision we make three times a day. If there was one policy or not policy, but consumer decisions, because I'm a libertarian, that I could change, it would be about food. And so people say, well, you would want government regulation. And I say no. I actually think that government regulation is the reason why this current food system exists. And I think it's because, like, if you go to the store and you pick up a box of food and it has a label on it says USDA organic or whatever you want, you have trust in the government and trust in this regulation. And because of that, you don't hold out your magnifying glass and you don't become an educated consumer. And lo and behold, when we start to dig, we see that the corporations have the ability to influence these regulations and have the ability to put things that clearly aren't organic into organic food. And so to me, it's because people, people have the belief that the government is there to save them when it comes to things like food. They don't, they don't act, they don't act to protect themselves. And then because of that, I think that the very corruption that we're trying to eliminate actually takes place as a result.
- [03:29]
A
So on that point, let's take what's happening currently with Maha and you've got a lot of talk about the artificial dyes are like the big topic, you know, red 40, et cetera, still in food supposedly going to be transitioning out over the next couple of years with pressure from the government and regulation from the government. There doesn't seem to be any shortage of demand there though. There's plenty of information, especially right now, that it is horrible for you, but people are still buying it. And so the issue becomes, and where I agree again, this is where we're on the same page. A lot of this stuff there is absolutely government corruption, including organic. And some of the stuff that happens out there, you're educated on it, I'm educated on it. The vast majority of people aren't. And even when there is plenty of information about how bad this is for you, Skittles are not having a problem with their sales right now. And so at that point, without some sort of government intervention, the, I guess you're saying the onus is on the individual to be educated and an expert, but in everything that has to do with their health, well being, safety, etcetera, you think that the entire spectrum of that is needs to fall on the individual.
- [04:35]
B
And I think that when things become necessary, I think that's what inspires action is ultimately what it comes down to. And I think now that, I mean, here's, and here's the reality and people might not want to admit this, and I think this is why the libertarian message is not more popular. People are fudgeing, lazy. Oh, totally is what it comes down to. You understand what I'm saying? They are lazy and they want, you know, like people want a government hero to come in and fudgeing save them.
- [05:01]
A
But I think that expecting someone. So another good example is PFAS plastic water bottles. Like, aside from the trash in the ocean, now we found out it's trash in our own bodies. The only reason we know that is because scientists decided to do a study. If they hadn't done that study, am I expected to figure that out myself? Like without again, some sort of societal pressure or someone specifically solving this? Maybe it's not always government, but those are a lot of times funded by government. In fact, you've got the laptop. I don't know who funded the study on PFAS and water bottles. This is all in some ways government intervention or government participation. And it goes back to what you said, is that, you know, when you're harming other people, it becomes an issue. And I, you know, say that feeding people bad food is harming other people, from a corporation to an individual. But then it goes into what you just said about corruption, which is like, yes, but that also causes corruption and the mic and do you throw the baby out with the bathwater where it's like, yeah, we need a better, like going back to organic. We need a firmer definition of organic. That's an issue. But not having any regulation on what organic is, I think then you end up with Monsanto taking over the world.
- [06:08]
B
So I agree with a lot of that. But I guess one of my main criticisms is, is that we go back and forth with politics all the time. Sure, right. We like this candidate, we like that candidate, we pass this law, blah, blah, blah, and nothing fudgeing changes. Yeah. You understand? Yeah.
- [06:22]
A
But is that true, though? I mean, again, I think in general I agree with you. Like, politics is one of my least.
- [06:28]
B
Okay, I don't want to, I don't want to speak in absolutes, but for the most part, I don't think that there's, I don't think that there is, is enough change. You know, like there's still glyphosate in food. I mean, there's still horrible foods that are out there.
- [06:40]
A
It is.
- [06:41]
B
So I just look at it from, like, the effective. The effective standpoint. And I just ask, like, when is enough enough? Like, when do we finally accept that the current system as is. Is. Isn't producing the results that we want and admit that I think that it's a structural problem. And what I tell people all the time is that to me, democracy is a failure. Instead, I believe in what I call a consumerocracy. And I think that if people were more aware of the ability that they have to change the world, to change the political landscape through their consumer decisions, I think that there would be more change and you know what I mean? Just, like, more positive impact as a result.
- [07:19]
A
And I think I agree with you. But I also think that people are pretty aware of that. You see that with, like, politics now with people. You know, there's a lot of boycotts for different reasons and things like that. I think people have used that in some ways, but. And I also believe government is way too slow. I just don't know if the answer is to just eliminate their participation completely. Like fixing the problem versus removing the.
- [07:37]
B
Yeah, well, I guess then the question becomes, you know, what. Right. What duty does the government have to, like, protect people from themselves? Like, if. And we were just talking about Appalachia, and I'm not trying to single out anybody from Appalachia. I mean, there's a lot of good people in Appalachia, but, like, there's a lot of people that just don't give a shit about their health. And was it because they were born in these unbelievably poor counties, you know, in these rural places? And if they were born in different circumstances, you know, like, that's.
- [08:08]
A
It could be Maslow's. It could be, you know, if. If your needs aren't met, like, the last. If you can get food, period. I don't care what it is. I need food. You're going to eat whatever is available. And this is where I agree with you on the government obligation side. The fact that fast food's cheaper than organic food is crazy, but that's where we are.
- [08:23]
B
But when you come down to it, it's really not. So do you know about, like, government subsidies?
- [08:26]
A
Right. No. Exactly. And that's the stuff that I do like. I think we both agree there's not a. It's not binary here. There's a lot of problems with government subsidizing certain foods. Corn. It's why it's such a big crop in the US that creates problems and creates huge health problems that, you know, we've Seen the trends on the health side, but the information's there. And that's where I have trouble with the idea of government not protecting people from themselves. The problem is, you know, whether it's religion or government that creates societal norms or we are cavemen, I completely agree with that assessment. And so while I agree, okay, so you draw the line of harming other people. So no murdering, no robbing, like all that important. Like, I think we. That can be off the table. We both agree on that. But then I think again, if you're not placing some sort of restrictions on what people can do to themselves, you end up with. And let's say you don't have any welfare, let's say you don't have any subsidized medicine. There's no Medicare, no Medicaid. If you screw up your body in 30 years when you're dealing with diabetes and losing a wag, you gotta figure out how to pay for that yourself. And if you can't, you're gonna be dead on the street. That's society. I mean, if there's an example of a society where that's worked, I'd love to know about it. But to me, it kind of sounds like socialism in the opposite way where it's like, on paper. In theory, it'd be great if everybody would be motivated by this and then everybody would rise to the occasion. But in practice, I don't think that's how people work. I think people will. Very specific quote. But I had a young Gen Z that used to work for me hanging out and he mentioned that he was racking up a bunch of debt and traveling all over the world because fuck it, he'll deal with it when he's 40. Okay, guess what? When you're 40, you're going to deal with it and you're going to be like, God, I was a stupid kid. And these people. And I think people have that mindset. When you're young, when your prefrontal cortex isn't fully developed, you're going to do things that are stupid. That because there's no regulation. Same thing with, you know, again, do we draw the line on children drinking, children smoking, that's themselves. Let's say we're not talking about drunk driving. We're talking about a kid pounding a fifth of vodka at 15 years old. Should that be legal? Because that's. We're just talking about. And so then is it children? Like all these different lines. I do believe there's certain things that, like the subsidies in terms of farming that probably are ill, you know, ill advised. There's a lot of negative outcomes to government intervention, but there's also a lot of things that I think people won't handle themselves.
- [10:41]
B
Let's talk about, like the war on drugs and alcohol, because, I mean, I think that's a good, good topic.
- [10:46]
A
Shout out to today's sponsor, Quint. As the weather cools, I'm swapping in the pieces that actually gets the job done, that are warm, durable, and built to last. Quince delivers every time with wardrobe staples that'll carry you through the season. They have fall staples that you'll actually want to wear, like the 100% Mongolian cashmere for just $60. They also got classic fit denim and real leather and wool outerwear that looks sharp and holds up. By partnering directly with ethical factories and top artisans, Quince cuts out the middleman to deliver premium quality at half the cost. Similar brands, they've really become a go to across the board. You guys know how I love linen and how I've talked about it on previous episodes. I picked up some linen pants and they feel incredible. The quality is definitely noticeable compared to other brands. Layer up this fall with pieces that feel as good as they look. Go to quint.comdsh for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. They're also available in Canada, too.
- [11:53]
B
So the war on drugs that is based on the belief that the government has the right to protect you from doing harm to yourself.
- [12:00]
A
Yes.
- [12:00]
B
For the first 75 years of this country's existence, it was actually believed that any sort of drug law was unconstitutional. The founding fathers clearly believed that the government did not have the right to protect you from yourself. If you look at the Constitution and it's saying you have the right to these things, and the government will make sure that there is no intervention from outside forces. But it is ultimately up to you to go out there, pull yourself up by your bootstraps. When it comes to drugs, we're saying, oh, no, no, no. We, you know, we have the ability to protect it from ourselves. And you look at it and you say, okay, well, here's this, here's this regulation. And ultimately, what was the result? Did we stop drug use? No. Did we create massive amounts of harm both to individuals, to communities? If you look at it, you know, it's like 90% of the harm associated with drugs does not come from the drug itself, but comes as a result of the prohibition against the drug.
- [12:52]
A
Wow.
- [12:52]
B
And, yeah. And so that, to me, it needs to be a learning lesson. Now, do I think the government should do absolutely nothing when it comes to drugs? I wouldn't say nothing, but I don't think that its effort should be directed towards laws and regulation. So if we took all of that money and we said, hey, you have the right to do whatever you want to do with your body. So as long as you are not harming other people, we are not going to come in and use force against you, but let's use power instead. And I think that that's the real, I guess, essential component of government that we fail to recognize is that we're just so focused on force that we, like, forget about the bully pulpit and we forget about the power that government can have. So it's a thought experiment. We can't answer it outright, but we can say all that billions, if not trillions of dollars we spent on the One. This is the story of the One. As an H VAC technician, he and his digital multimeter are in high demand. So when a noisy office H vac turns out to be a failing blower.
- [13:54]
A
Motor, he doesn't break a sweat.
- [13:56]
B
With Grainger's easy to use website and product information. He selects the product he needs to keep everything humming right along. Call 1-800-GRAINGER clickranger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done. War on drugs, if we would have spent it. Education, harm reduction, you know, things of that nature. And not the way that California did it, because California definitely. I was just. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And that's the thing. It's like when you bring this to people, they're like, well, look at California. And it's just like, look, what I'm talking about is not California.
- [14:28]
A
Was that the DARE program you're talking about?
- [14:30]
B
Well, not just.
- [14:30]
A
No, that was fine.
- [14:31]
B
Yeah. Well, no, it's. It's so California.
- [14:34]
A
I think so.
- [14:35]
B
Well, I mean, California said, oh, let's, let's go this way. And it's drugs. People have the right to use drugs. And it's saying, well, okay, I believe that, but people don't have the right to shoot up heroin in the middle of the street.
- [14:46]
A
That's the part.
- [14:46]
B
And then take a shit on the street, you know what I mean? And like, do all these things. Like, look, I believe that, you know, you have the right to use drugs in the safety and comfort of your own home because then it's not impacting other people. But the moment you go outside of your home and you start, you know, impacting other people, that's when you Say, hey, you can't do that in this space because this is a public space.
- [15:07]
A
And completely agree with that as a stance. But, you know, play to play devil's advocate even on that level. There's a lot of things in society right now that are causing people to be unproductive members of society. And if you have in, if you what you end up having, it's not that those people, 20 years later just accept that they never made anything of them themselves. And you're not like, oh, you know, I'm not going to be successful and I'm going to have to, you know, squander for food and I'm going to have a tough life because I screwed around with drugs for 20 years, et cetera. They're going to resort to crime and stealing, which maybe you catch them, maybe you don't. And I just saw the stat in LA. 10% of home invasion culprits have been caught with all the home invasions going on now, that's where I live. So, you know, and I don't think it's a fault of the police force. I think it's just really hard to catch people. I've been robbed. A couple, not robbed, but.
- [15:55]
B
But that actually proves my point about the prohibition.
- [15:58]
A
So I agree with you. That's what I'm saying.
- [15:59]
B
The prohibition makes drugs expensive. But the other thing too is that if you actually look at the statistics, only about 10% of the revenue that's used to create that actually comes from crime and 90% of it actually comes from jobs and legal income.
- [16:14]
A
So stick with me, because I'm not okay. So, yeah, yeah, it's. What I'm talking about is you. You open this up, let's say, and some percentage of society now just sits in their house is doing drugs all day, and they get to the point where they need something, they try to steal it, maybe they get caught, maybe they don't. The impact on society 20 years later, we see it now, even where you've got the eat the rich thing example, and we talked about this on our last podcast, where it's like 98% of people don't want to work hard. And there's a broader stat there, but it's about 98% of people that do not want to just aren't in it for the intrinsic value of working hard anymore. And so knowing that you get a lot of people that now it's the fault of the people that worked hard that they're not successful. And so you take that now, extrapolate it to People that really just off for 20 years doing drugs and doing nothing and nothing productive with society. And now they blame society and you end up with crime problems, you know, these Klingons. And that's where the debate of is the preventative cost better or the cleanup cost better? Because I don't think you just like, again, the education thing, it's too late. Once they learn their lesson. People don't learn their lesson from being taught it from a DARE program. They learn it because they screwed up for 20 years and hit rock bottom.
- [17:24]
B
And.
- [17:24]
A
And sometimes they learn that lesson.
- [17:26]
B
See, I think they're like, I understand your point, but I think that if you dive into the statistics more, you kind of argue in, like, what comes first, the chicken or the egg. And this is like, when you start to dive into, like criminal justice statistics, you see just how bad it is. So, like, police officers will look at people that are arrested and they will say, you know, 90% of people that are arrested are high on drugs, therefore drugs cause crime. Right. But when you look at the statistic, guess what? Out of people that use drugs, only about 10% of the overall population that uses drugs commits other crime other than the actual act itself. Yeah. So I think that in. Once again, it's the problems you're talking about to me come from the prohibition and not the drug itself. So I think that if you could be shown that you'd say, hey, you know what? Maybe this prohibition isn't. You know what I mean?
- [18:15]
A
And I use it, by the way, to be clear. I think that war on drugs is a failure. And with you, I think that to some extent, people should be. And I actually like the idea of people doing their own home. What I'm saying is, if you like heroin, fentanyl, these harder drugs, you're not gonna be a functioning member of.
- [18:33]
B
Fentanyl wouldn't even be here if it wasn't for prohibition. That's the part that people don't want to accept, is that fentanyl is a direct result of the prohibition against drugs.
- [18:41]
A
Yeah. And so, okay, so let's just take heroin in that sense. You're not gonna be a productive member of society and be hooked on heroin. Like, it's just not a thing. Friends that have gone through it.
- [18:49]
B
But once again, that goes back to statistics. Only about 10, 10% of people who use drugs are actually addicts. The majority of them are high, are high functioning people.
- [18:57]
A
And I'm talking. And that's the thing is, do you have to manage to the lowest common denominator and that's where government comes in, is it's not the 90%. 90% that are doing it quietly in their home and never coming are probably not getting caught. Yeah, and maybe that's.
- [19:09]
B
So then, so there's an interesting question. Let's say that 10% represent the group that you're talking about. They're addicted to drugs. You, they commit crime in order to support their habit. 90% don't. Yeah. So then does the government really have the right to tell these 90% of people not only do you not have the right to use that drug that you can responsibly use, but we're actually going to create an environment where it's going to be more dangerous for you to use that drug. Because now if you're buying ecstasy, if you're buying all these things, you have to buy it on a black market where there's no regulation. And now this whole group over here that if they had safe access to drugs, even heroin, and they wouldn't overdose.
- [19:48]
A
You know who agrees with you? California liberals.
- [19:52]
B
You know what though? They don't, though. I don't just, I don't. It's, it's like, I'm sorry, but when you are in the public space, public safety has to be fucking number one in any society. Who lets public safety go to the point where people don't feel safe when they're in the public space and like we were just talking about Vince. Or to the point where you have armed people coming to your house and there is a five month old baby inside and you are telling me that you don't have the right to protect your family and that police officers are going to tell you that you should have taken a risk with a five month old baby inside. It's just like that is a complete and total breakdown of society where it's. Yeah.
- [20:32]
A
And that's where again, I, it's somehow the government is not regulating things they, I believe they should and they are regulating things they shouldn't. But in this case. So let's take that 10%, the heroin addicts that are. Addicts that are problems. What do you think at that point? What happens to that?
- [20:47]
B
Well, I think rather than spend money on prohibition, I think that you spend money on actual like rehabs, interventions.
- [20:54]
A
Okay, so you do believe in government intervention in that sense?
- [20:56]
B
Yeah. To me though, it's, it's an intervention is using power and not force.
- [21:01]
A
Okay.
- [21:02]
B
You understand? Like, I really, I guess I need to like dive into that deeper, you know, the distinction between power and force.
- [21:07]
A
Okay.
- [21:07]
B
And it's force is taking a right away from you. It's protecting you from yourself through force. Power is something more like, hey, I'm gonna educate you, we're gonna give you access to these things so that you can get off drugs. You know what I mean? Can't better yourself. So when it comes to food, yeah, like, I think all government regulation should be removed. But then all of that money that we would be spending on regulation, put that into education. Yeah, put that, you know, put that into these programs that. You understand what I'm saying? Like, I think that would have more of an effect. So I'm not saying absolutely don't do.
- [21:38]
A
But then once we go to the corruption, that's where, you know what General Mills or Kellogg's or whoever starts putting the food pyramid together for these guys. And that's what they.
- [21:46]
B
Don't even get me started. I'm just saying, don't even get me started.
- [21:50]
A
That's the education, because that's, I mean, that's where you still have the same corruption.
- [21:54]
B
Well then, then you have to. And so then we go back to the core issue that I'm sure we believe on is that you have to get fucking money out of politics. Yes. Plain and simple. Like you have to get money out of politics, not just with food. But I know people are going to call me crazy and conspiracy theorists, but I'm sorry, like when you dive into vaccines and you start to say, here's the scientific method, here is proper scientific methodology, and you start to look at these vaccine studies and there are numerous PhD research scientists. Not medical doctors. Medical doctors do not have training in research methodology. It's very, very, you know, surface level. You have PhD research scientists who are saying this was not properly done. We need to, you know, do move beyond studies of epidemiology, actually go to like long term observational studies. And they are instantly being thrown in the dark, being told that, oh, they're just quacks, they're French scientists and those are the ones actually practicing science. And you can follow the money back to pharmaceutical companies. And it's the same thing with cholesterol. People believe cholesterol is bad, and yet when you look at it, cholesterol is not bad. It is the oxidative stress that damages the, the cholesterol molecule. And guess what? If you control for the confounding variable oxidative stress and you remove oxidative stress, you actually show the complete opposite, that more cholesterol, more positive health outcomes.
- [23:04]
A
Wow. So high cholesterol is Healthy?
- [23:06]
B
Absolutely. If you remove oxidative stress, how do you do that? Well, oxidative stress, I mean, oxidative stress comes from a lot of things. It's mainly mitochondrial breakdown. So what happens is when the oxygen enters into the body, goes into the cell, and it's supposed to go into the mitochondria. If it goes into the mitochondria, it's used for oxidative phosphorization. It's used to produce ATP. That's where the majority of our energy comes from. We do have some anaerobic ATP production, which comes from the breakdown of glucose. So what happens is when the mitochondria starts to break down, it's the last. I think it's enzyme complex 4. There's an enzyme called cytochrome C oxidase. And that's actually where the last reductive process happens, where oxygen attaches to. When the mitochondria starts to break down because we're lazy, eating bad food, doing all those kinds of things, it starts to develop more of an affinity for nitric oxide. And so if the nitric oxide is inside the mitochondria, the oxygen can't get in there and it bounces off and it becomes a reactive oxygen species. And that reactive oxygen species is literally the root cause of every fucking disease out there. The reactive oxygen species, what goes over to the DNA does damage to the DNA. So guess what? Cancer genes are activated, like you fucking name it. It all comes from oxidative stress. There's a gentleman, his name is Chris Masterjohn. He has a PhD. I think that when it comes to research, nutritional science, like, he is a mad fucking genius. He almost has like one of those, you know, adhd, like, almost like autism brains. We were just like, this guy understands research like nobody's business. And he. He works with people and he does specific genetic testing to see issues that they have with the mitochondria. And that is his. That is his main focus. He is obsessed with the mitochondria. He fixes oxidative stress. And it doesn't matter what condition or what disease they have. After that, all of their symptoms clear up. So there's a theory that everybody has the same, you know, root disease. It's all ultimately oxidative stress and mitochondrial dysfunction. It's just that we have different symptoms.
- [25:06]
A
So I thank you because I was. That was sincere curiosity, but also took me to another thing, which is how do we expect the, I don't know how many 350 million people in the United States to Have all the information you just said and know whether to believe it or not.
- [25:19]
B
So I think what you're getting at is ultimately, you know, an appeal to authority. A lot of people, I guess we can't expect everyone to be scientists, right? We, we do.
- [25:30]
A
Which I'd say the appeal to authority has gone out the window with COVID Like nobody believes anybody. There's no.
- [25:35]
B
But I mean, on the left, they still do, do they? Fuck you.
- [25:39]
A
Well, sorry. They still believe.
- [25:40]
B
They will still tell you that masks were effective. They were still telling you the COVID vaccine was good.
- [25:45]
A
But they don't believe anything that comes out of Trump's cabinet.
- [25:47]
B
Oh, I know.
- [25:47]
A
We're in a post fact world where neither side can agree on the facts. So in that world, in the current world we're in, how do you then get rid of any type of regulation and then tell people to go figure it out for themselves, what they should eat, what they should consume, all that.
- [26:01]
B
So I, I think that if you get rid of money in politics, you could leave. You could leave every fucking law as it is.
- [26:07]
A
Yeah.
- [26:08]
B
And the government would function how it's supposed to function.
- [26:11]
A
Okay.
- [26:11]
B
We would not, we would not be so divided.
- [26:14]
A
We have zero debate on that one. I think Citizens United are one of the worst things ever pass.
- [26:18]
B
So absolutely. I think it all comes down to money and politics. I was telling Sean yesterday that, you know, I'm not just a little conspiracy theorist, I'm a grand conspiracy theorist. And I think that, I think that both parties, all politicians, both presidential candidates, I think they're fucking actors and I think they're handed a script. This is your role. This is how you're going to appeal to your base. This is what you're supposed to say. This is what you're supposed to say. And to me, how the Epstein files were just handled, 100% fucking proves it. And the reason why I say that is because the Biden administration had the Epstein files. Right? So that's, you know, we can start with the premise, just like what I was doing with Demon Chase yesterday. So Biden administration has the Epstein files, Right. And the Dems are saying Trump was in the Epstein files. Okay. Another premise is Biden, you know, or Harris. They wanted to win the presidency. If it was known to the public, it would have cost Trump the presidency. They didn't release it. So the question is fucking why?
- [27:17]
A
Right.
- [27:18]
B
You understand what I'm saying? And then Trump comes along, runs on it, and then all of a sudden says, oh, I'm not going to release it.
- [27:24]
A
Yeah.
- [27:24]
B
And so the mental gymnastics that both sides are playing right now, they're still, you know, making it seem like it's a red versus blue thing. And I'm sitting there saying, you guys don't fucking see that this. What this actually represents is that we do not have control of our government. Trump is a fucking actor. Biden was an actor. Harris was actor. They were all given a role in that. Like, it's scary. I'll be honest. It scares the out of me even say this. But there are the, you know, the puppet masters, the powers that be are lurking in the shadows, and those are the people that are ultimately controlling everyone. If you. It was Weinstein on the Diary of a CEO podcast, you look at that interview and how notably scared he was, looking at the host being like, I'm not going to answer that question, you know, and ultimately saying, like, look, it's not about what did Epstein do, It's about who created him. You know what I mean? Like, ultimately, who controlled him? Who put him in these positions to pull these politicians in these situations, to be able to fucking blackmail them? It's like, to me, it's just. It's. And the thing of it is is that they're giving each side their fucking narrative. So they're just pointing at each other rather than looking at the fucking government saying, whoa, this is a pretty revealing sign that says. And it's just. Yeah, but I mean, what is. But then it's like, if you want to get money out of politics, we need to answer the question of what makes people, like, be so divisive and ultimately be sheep and stick to their side and double down on ignorance and play mental gymnastics. We can point to the government all we want, but ultimately I think that it's our fault because we put up with this.
- [28:56]
A
It's confirmation bias. People have a really tough time admitting that they may have been wrong.
- [29:01]
B
Yeah.
- [29:01]
A
And so it's when once people have doubled down on one party or another, like, I have never. I registered as one party. I'm not going to say which one, but I voted both ways many times because I vote with what makes the most sense to me. And if you're right, then I've just been voting for whatever they tell me to vote for. But in general, I try to look at the actual policies and, like, which. What do I agree with? Not the not vote party line. And I think it's become tribal where it's like, if I'm wrong, like. And it's one thing that's fascinating to me Because I don't think any politician actually cares. Like they're all power hungry. Not, I shouldn't say all. Some local politicians I actually get, really get along with and think they're doing it for the right reasons. But federally, it's really hard to believe any of these people actually care about what they're causing. And it's interesting because both sides view their leader as this altruistic. They're going to be our savior. And the other person is, you know, the coming of the devil. And both sides believe that about the other side. And it's like you realize neither of them care about any of you. Like that's the irony of all of this. But.
- [29:58]
B
And I think it goes back to the fact that people are lazy and they want a savior.
- [30:01]
A
Yeah.
- [30:02]
B
And the people that have confidence in themselves and ultimately say, look, I don't really give a fuck what the government does. Yeah, I'm going to be successful, I'm going to be happy. The only thing I want to know is that if people are breaking into my home or you know, people are trying to use force against me, that I can call on the government, you know what I mean? Local police to come in and save me. And I think that the people that have achieved that in their lives, you know, like entrepreneurs, I don't think it's. To me, it's not surprising that you can. Even though we disagree, I still think you're a very objective individual and I don't think that you want to put massive weight into the government to come in and save you because you're a confident individual and you know, you know what I mean? Of your.
- [30:36]
A
Well, listen, I think the government's incredibly inefficient. Like the idea. When I see people talking about raising taxes to. I do think we have a problem with a wealth gap. Whole different topic. But I don't think the government solves that by taxing the rich. I'm like, don't give the government more money. That's the problem. So we do agree on that. I think that giving government more money, like you look at the, the railway in California is a great example of that. What is it, a $12 billion, like 1200 foot thing. Like there it's if go in the DMV, go into the post office has become atrocious. Like this is.
- [31:05]
B
There is a lot of homeless problem too with $27 billion. Where the did it go? So what I think too is, I think it's once again smoke and mirrors distraction. They say, oh, we need to tax Billionaires more. We need to tax billionaires more. And I'm just like, hey, guess what? If you want to do that, cool, let's do that. But first, can we go in there and can we actually do some forensic accounting and can we, can we see where this government money is going? Because I would bet you dollars to fucking donuts that 90% of government revenue ends up in the hands of third party fucking contracts that ultimately turns into profit for these fucking billionaires. Like, the government is the, is the perfect fucking client. And what happened in California with the 27 or 24 billion dollars of the homeless population? It's. There's still homeless people. You can't really point to one actual, like, real outcome from it. And you look at that money and you're like, wow, all of that money went to third party services. And all of those people that own those third party companies are all campaign contributors to Gavin Newsom.
- [32:03]
A
Right. Yeah. No, it's. The corruption is there. And we, we agree on that. It's. Yeah. And it's, it is. This function like Doge, I think, in theory was a great thing, but this is where it goes back to, you know, maybe your broad conspiracy theory has truth to it, because that's what Trump ran on, was that he was going to clean up the government. And then we took all this money we saved in these cuts.
- [32:22]
B
Yeah.
- [32:22]
A
And we put it into Border patrol and these other. In Border Patrol. I forgot what the comparison was, but the Border patrol's budget now is insane.
- [32:29]
B
Yeah.
- [32:30]
A
Not that I don't believe in a border, but like, why do we need that kind of military on our border? Like, that is insane.
- [32:36]
B
Yeah.
- [32:36]
A
And so part of this, the theory behind this representative government is that they're more informed than we are and going to make decisions for our best interest. I don't know that we're there anymore. And so that, that's where I agree with you now. But what I hope is, I do. Again, I think one of the big points here is getting money out of politics is number one. Because then they're. All they have to win is the society. It's not about the money anymore. They have to win over the popular vote, basically.
- [32:58]
B
Yeah.
- [33:00]
A
And so it's not. And you know what I'd worry about is then it's going to be maybe the richest person that can fund their own campaign. But I don't know how that works. But the. So if you can do that, then their interests aren't misaligned with society, because right now their interests are big corporations. Both sides, whatever. You know, whether it's, you know, even internationally with, you know, the Trumps doing business in the Middle east and all that, they have a very different align. Again, not saying that I disagree with every policy, but the general framework here is bad. And then we gotta take as much of the fluff out of government as possible so that they can focus on the things that we actually need protection for. And that's where it's like, if it's a binary conversation, we need government protection in a lot of ways in terms of. Especially what we talked about, in terms of harming other people. But when it comes to a lot of things that are thrown the government's way, that's where it's like we. We can probably list a billion things that the government does very poorly.
- [33:50]
B
Did you ever read Atlas Shrugged?
- [33:52]
A
Just part of it.
- [33:52]
B
Okay. I think that that is one of the most important books that people can read, not just for political reasons, but also personal reasons.
- [33:59]
A
And so what would a liberal say is wrong with it? What would be the counterargument to saying it's the best?
- [34:04]
B
Liberals don't like it. They say that she preaches self, which I. If you take a linear perspective and you try to force it upon her holistic understanding of things, then you can sit there and say that she's preaching selfishness, but she's really not. She's really preaching symbiosis in relationships that are sustainable. So she simply says that whether it's a personal relationship, a business relationship, whether it's government to individual, individual to government, it doesn't matter. If there is something that is being taken, there is something that should be given back. And ultimately that is how you eliminate waste, that is how you eliminate enabling people is ultimately what it comes down to. And so I'll be honest with you. Before that, I actually believed in some government regulation. I believed in capitalism, but I believed in government regulation to ultimately prevent corruption. Well, in that book, and I don't want to ruin it for people, because it's really just a fucking unbelievable book, but she has the class of the producers, and she has the class of the moochers. And the producers are the people that are going out there being innovative, the ones that are really moving society forward. And as a result, they get to profit from that. And then you have the moochers, and the moochers are the ones that preach social justice, preach, you know, disparity, preach unfairness, et cetera, et cetera, this, that, and the other. And they create government regulation to go out There and essentially tax the producers is what it comes down to. And then what happens is it's not as if what they're taxing the producers is, ends up truly helping society. It just ends up in the pockets of the moochers. You know, they're ultimately corrupt. And so it's a. She's using the Socratic method. She tells an amazing story. It's like unbelievably deep, like you know, rich characters. But she's using the Socratic method to say, okay, here's what you believe, let's follow to its logical conclusions. And so she says this is what would happen if all the producers stopped fucking producing and let the moochers, you know what I mean, have their way and they would ultimately drive society, you know what I mean, down, down into the ground is, is what it, you know, what it comes down to. So that's part of the reason why I don. Excuse me, I believe, you know, I personally love helping people. I want to help as many people as I can. Right. But if I'm going to give to someone and it's going to shield them from the consequences of their negative actions, which means that it's going to prevent self improvement from being necessary, then I look at it as if I'm not doing anything to help them and I'm ultimately enabling them. So while I can see a role for government being powerful in creating some kind of safety net for people, I also feel that you do have to be realistic about how that safety net can ultimately enable people. Are there people out there that if they just had a little help, they could literally change their life? Absolutely. But are there people that are going to milk the system and stay on it for the rest of their life because they're lazy? Absolutely. And so rather than this just we're going to be over here and give money out, you know what I mean? Not going to ask any fucking questions or out here we're not going to give any money out. It's just like, can we just be in the fucking middle and admit that both sides have reasonable reservations and say how do we take both of these reasonable reservations and how do we implement policy to where they're both considered?
- [37:18]
A
Yeah. And I 100% that we're on the same page there. What I would say using that context of producers and moochers, my worry in that society is that the vast majority are moochers by choice like would choose to be and that if you eliminate that opportunity, it doesn't mean that they just pull up their bootstraps and get to work and start producing. It's that a lot of them find the next way to create corruption and that a society free of corruption is a really difficult thing.
- [37:44]
B
Okay, but then what's the answer to that? Like if there's going to be people. This is more of an ethical question, I guess.
- [37:50]
A
Is it better to satiate the moocher.
- [37:52]
B
Or, or is the government required to enable a moocher? Is ultimately there's a question we're asking and that's, that's.
- [37:58]
A
And it will. And so then let's say from a self serving standpoint, are you better off satiating the moocher and paying a little larger tax to help the people that are going to mooch or are you better cutting them off and then seeing what they do on their own accord?
- [38:11]
B
Which is where I think we're talking about laissez faire, survival of the fittest.
- [38:15]
A
But are we. Because there's a difference between economic survival and actual survival. Where, yeah, does the fittest beat? Like that's where you get into back to cavemen. You get into massive crime. You get into things that, you know, I'm not going to go, you know, work in a field every day, so I'm just going to get a gun and come steal from you.
- [38:33]
B
Yeah.
- [38:33]
A
And so that's the part that I think it, you know, theory versus practice. Like if you look at any society that gets rid of those safety nets, those people don't just like, all right, I got to go get a job then some percentage.
- [38:46]
B
I guess the other thing I would say too is that I think that the only reason you need these safety nets now is because we don't truly live in a free market capitalist society. I believe we live in a society that's driven by cronyism. And I think that these people use these regulations in the name of social justice to actually eliminate real capitalism. And I, and that's part of what Ayn Rand was talking about in Atlas Shrugged is that this whole wealth gap that you're talking about, it's actually done in the name of social justice. And that's the ultimate corruption that you have to look at. And so me personally, I think we're always going to have a hierarchical society. Some people are going to want to work harder than others. You're going to have people like Sean who are young as want to be an entrepreneur, you know, I mean, done very, very well for himself. And you're going to have people that are just like, you know what, I'm okay with Having a construction job, you understand, it's just so as long as everybody. So as long as that construction worker is getting a fair wage, they are happy. And it's not allowing other people to live, you know, off of the surplus that he's creating, then that's okay.
- [39:45]
A
But I think the only place I've seen that work is when they made it religious, which is the caste system in India, where it's like, I'm okay where I'm born or where I sit. Because part of this is also opportunity gap. Like not everybody has the same opportunities. You know, meets the same people, gets in the same network. Like you mentioned Appalachia. It could be even, you know, South Central L. A Where maybe they're just never exposed to the network or the people they need to. To actually get that leg up. And the only people around them, I.
- [40:07]
B
Think it's more mentality. And the reason why I say that is because, like, if you're looking at, like necessary and sufficient causes, so you could say, you know, poor upbringing, poor social circumstances, if you're saying that this is both necessary and sufficient, then everybody that was born into those circumstances wouldn't be able to, you know, find their way out. What?
- [40:24]
A
Look at statistics. I don't think it's everybody because it's not. That's hyperbole. I think it's the. Statistically, what percentage you're going to have a percentage that make it out.
- [40:32]
B
And I think the powerful message, though, is the people that have made it out. Why don't we go learn from them and figure out how to take that message and spread it? So, like, criminal justice is a very big. Is a very big issue for me. I've spent seven years of my life in prison, and I will tell you that the criminal justice system is corrupt, ineffective. It fucking destroys lives. It does. It does more harm than good. Right? And I would love to be a proponent for criminal justice change, but I know that ultimately I'm probably not going to be able to change a criminal justice system. So where I'm putting the majority of my time and effort is into creating my build mental muscle brand. It's everything that I've learned the fucking hard way. I want to do a Kickstarter campaign where I want to put at least, you know, like a thousand of those books into the hands of inmates, you know, things like that. And so ultimately that to me would be more powerful and would have more of an impact than if I could go out there, you know what I mean, and change the government and then I look at it where it's like, I could go out there and we could change the criminal justice system and we could make it perfect and there would be a lot of people that wouldn't be impacted by the criminal justice system that they, you know, were brought into it. They would come out better, but there still would be people that just didn't give a shit. You know what I mean?
- [41:34]
A
So that's the problem with the system is again, it's still lowest common denominator. There are just bad people that need to be locked up and there are people that make mistakes, that learn from them and need another chance.
- [41:43]
B
I guess what I'm saying is that if I could go out there and change government or change people, I would change people before I change government. Because if you have people that are powerful and you change them first, then guess what? We really don't need government. And I think that the only reason why we need government is because people aren't powerful. They're not making the right choices. And so I think that if we, you know, because ultimately politics is supposed to be about improving the lives of people. And that's why I go back to the question of like, when is enough enough? Like when are we going to look at it and say, hey, this little experiment, you know, I mean with government, the way that we're going isn't necessarily working and usually has to get very.
- [42:17]
A
Bad for that to happen, which is a bummer. But I know the, the one thing I would say there is, I think on an individual level creating that change in individuals is amazing. And you know, we've done a lot of work on the charity side and with trying to bring bridge that opportunity gap. That's kind of what we focus on is like bringing marketing skills to inner city high school kids and helping get jobs so that they don't have to go down a bad path. Those kind of things is I think a big part of like the more like focused make a change in your community, but to change the societal problem. There's not a society in history that doesn't have a bunch of criminals in it and there's not a society. And historically also like how many, like the French Revolution, how many societies have had uprisings because of the disparity that happens when with the haven have nots. Now the argument is is the opportunity there or is it entitlement? And that's the part that becomes an interesting debate. You, you look at even the arguments happening right now. Social media drives a lot of this right now where it's nobody can afford a house anymore. Well, if you look at the actual affordability house from the statistics I've seen, the cost comparison of, you know, average wage to housing costs has gone up 4x the past 50 years, which is a lot. But the average square footage is doubled. Okay. So if you look at the full statistic, it's actually doubled, which is crazy. It's still twice as expensive to get a house as it was. But that doesn't seem as insurmountable as forex. And it's real statistics. But the way people are looking at this, it's like, that's bullshit and you've taken away my right to the American dream. So what do you do then? I would actually argue on your side of this government regulations, what's ruining housing costs, it's become too hard to build homes. But when you look at that and that social contract is broken, that's what I worry about. When you take away any type of subsidy you get in the short term, maybe long term, it works out things even out. But for a generation or more, you have now people that have no social protection that they're looking at all these people now in the world we live in now with social media going, they have a Ferrari, they have a house, I can't afford any of this shit. And it's because they me over you end up, even selfishly, you're going to end up with again a French Revolution style situation if they don't feel like they're being heard too.
- [44:26]
B
Yeah. And so, and that's part of the reason why, I guess I don't agree with liberals so much and why I me personally, I think that liberals are actually the true racists and I think the conservatives are not racist.
- [44:36]
A
I think there's a lot of truth in that.
- [44:37]
B
And the reason why I say that is because the liberal tells the black community you are oppressed.
- [44:44]
A
Right.
- [44:44]
B
You are weak and you cannot have access to the life you desire and deserve until the government and white people change what they're doing. So they're literally telling them like, you're still in change.
- [44:54]
A
Yeah.
- [44:55]
B
And you know, in order for you to live the life you want to live, you need to get out there and spend all of your time and energy on throwing these chains off.
- [45:02]
A
Yeah.
- [45:02]
B
And look, I get it, there are racist people in, you know, rural places, but the vast majority of like small town fucking white people are not fucking racist. And the only thing they care about, at least like the cowboys that I was raised with in west Texas is literally just your work ethic. And when you are a rancher, when you're a cowboy, you don't have the luxury to be fucking racist. The only thing that you can focus on is how hard does this man work? And, you know, is he an honest individual? And that's literally what I was taught from day one, you know what I mean, on how to judge an individual.
- [45:34]
A
I think, I mean, there's obviously truth. I actually do believe that there's a level of institutional racism that happens just because of the way things have been built. I mean, and this is where it goes more societally. Like the fact that you're born in South Central A, because of what happened way back, that that's where a lot of black people live and that's where you were born, does limit your opportunity. So there's a little bit of truth to that. What bothers me that's in line with exactly what you just said, is if you preach that you don't have any power because of your situation, then nobody rises to the occasion.
- [46:00]
B
Well, that's why Malcolm X said the worst community to the black or the worst group to the are the biggest enemy to the black community was the white liberal.
- [46:07]
A
Yeah.
- [46:08]
B
And I, I, because conservatives are saying, look, it's up to you. You're. You're powerful. Pull yourself up by the bootstraps. And so to me, it's like, you look at, like, there's a lot of, you know, black influencers who sit there and say, like, get over it. Who the cares? I'm a millionaire. I grew up in the ghetto. And so once again, to me, it goes down to, you know, preaching a message of power where it's like, look, can I admit that there's institutional. I don't, you know, I don't even want to say it's necessarily institutional racism because if you look at the statistics of upward mobility from, like, small rural towns in fucking Appalachia, it's worse than the fucking ghetto.
- [46:41]
A
If you look, it's more of a.
- [46:43]
B
Poverty thing than it is 100%. And it's just like, I can tell you right now from experience of the criminal justice system, when the criminal justice system gets you, it doesn't give a fuck about your skin color, literally does not care about your skin color. So, you know, maybe are they, are they policing more in, in, you know, communities of color? Okay, fine, you know, maybe they're sweeping, you know, more nets, you know, out there, so they're going to be pulling in more perpetrators. But once they, once they get you, like, it does not fucking care is what it comes down to. So even though there might be some institutional racism there, but the point is.
- [47:13]
A
Like, there probably is, and I think there is. That's not even the argument. The argument is, even if, no matter what, you're. The hand you're dealt, whatever it is, even if it's a terrible hand, yeah, play it to the best of your ability. If you just go, well, fucking fold, you get one life. Unless you believe in reincarnation, you get one life. So deal with what you have. And again, I'm gonna get butchered when this is live because they're gonna be like, easy for this one Jewish kid to say, but. And by the way, yes, it is. And I'm just talking about what I think. I've watched other people, how they've helped themselves. It's like, sure, take away all your own power, as you're saying, and then you're gonna live the life you live or do your best and it's going to be better. Will you be able to achieve as easily all the things that maybe I've been able to achieve with the way I've worked? Maybe not. I won't even. That's not even the debate I'm having. It's just for your individual experience. If you believe you have the more opportunity by going after it, which everybody does, then do it and live a better life. And that's the part that I think is taken away by those statements.
- [48:08]
B
And the other thing too is what's crazy is like, let's just say we have someone who was born in South Central. They've achieved the same, you know, level of wealth and experience that you have because they started so much further behind you. They're arguably probably going to be, you know, a better businessman and all of that because they've, you know, gotten through so many obstacles and just had that mindset of, I don't give a fuck what's in front of me. Guess what? I can handle it. I can find a way over it. And so that that's my thing is that I see, you know, a lot of people. I think there's a lot of people that, you know, have good intentions for these, you know, impoverished communities. And I just think that telling them that they need to go focus on protests and focus on changing the government rather than, like, focusing on yourself. Like, to me, it's all about self empowerment. And that's ultimately, like, why I'm a libertarian and why it's just like, look, government's going to do whatever the fudge government's going to do doesn't mean that we shouldn't necessarily focus on it. But all I'm saying is don't spend all of your time and energy on government, because government is not the fucking answer. And even if there's some corrupt bullshit going on right now, you can still change your life. You're still powerful enough. And the other thing too is it's like, look at how they do ultimately. Like, the corruption comes from money. And ultimately, where does that money come from? It comes from us in our consumer decisions that we make every day. So if you know what I mean, Ford is making trucks in China or Mexico, wherever the fuck they are. When you go out there and you look at your vehicle and you say, do I really need another one? You know what? I can make this one last. And I'm not giving any manufacturer a dollar of my fucking money until they do the right choice. It's like we could literally through the bully pulpit and through something like social media, if enough of us came together, we could fucking cripple them. Like, if this goes viral, this could literally go viral and we could fucking cripple them over fucking night. Not one politician was removed, not one law was changed. Nothing. And people just say, you know what? We hold the fucking power and we are not going to go out there and spend another dollar. Like, if you are a company and you are ultimately taking that money and you are breeding corruption with it, that's creating oppression and all these, like, unfair things. We're not giving you our fucking money anymore.
- [50:11]
A
So counterpoint to that, a couple, One, getting that information, spending the time to find out where is my car manufactured? That a lot of people don't have that time. Two, I don't have a lot of disposable income. My truck's broken down. I gotta buy a truck. The cheapest one's the one made in Mexico. As much as I hate that it's made in Mexico, I can't afford to.
- [50:27]
B
Do in the us I completely understand that. But the majority, I would say, of these, like, consumer decisions, I mean, they're trying to drive like a consumer. You know what I mean? A consumer fucking based economy. It's, guess what? You can not get that new. You know, there are a lot of people that cannot get that. So, and this is what I tell people is that, like, who you vote for an election every four years does not matter as much as the way you vote every day with your dollar. And that's why I say, like, I believe in a consumerocracy over a democracy.
- [50:54]
A
That I agree with. And I would say local politics matter way more to you than federal.
- [50:58]
B
Yeah.
- [50:59]
A
Like I, I got super involved with LA and Santa Monica politics because that's what really sees the impact. And you can make an impact.
- [51:05]
B
Okay.
- [51:05]
A
Versus, you know, especially in California. Doesn't matter who I vote for.
- [51:09]
B
Yeah. Yeah. Well, I mean, guess, I guess so you could look at it. What kind of money is needed to win a local election, how you have to. Versus what kind of money is needed? So the corruption, I mean, if you.
- [51:20]
A
Look at, it's about 10 bucks a vote.
- [51:22]
B
If you look at, if you look at Obama when he was running for Senate, he was a completely and totally different person. He was absolutely against GMOs. I was excited for him. I, I, when he got elected president, I was like, oh, my God, things are going to change.
- [51:39]
A
Yeah.
- [51:39]
B
And like, like always go back to food and, you know, he was against GMOs. Against GMOs. And then he's president and he's like, well, kind of got to look at the science. We're looking at the science and it. And you're just like, what the happened? And you look at who his agricultural secretary was, Tom Vilsack. And what's Tom Vilsack's nickname? Mr. Monsanto. And you can literally see this is how much glyphosate we sprayed when it was Bush. Obama came in with Tom Vilsack. Holy shit. That's how much glyphosate we sprayed. It's flat. He's out of office. We're back here. Boom. Biden's back in. It goes right back up. And that's what gets me about people on the left where those are the people who believe, you know, in helping the environment, who believe in healthy food. And you say, okay, well, who's Tom Vilsack? Well, I don't fucking know. And you, and you say, well, look, here are the statistics of how much glyphosate we've sprayed under Obama and under Biden. And if there's one substance that has destroyed human health, it's glyphosate. And not only that, though, but the majority of carbon that's in the air actually comes from topsoil depletion, specifically related to row crop, vegetable farming. And if there's one fucking substance that has absolutely decimated the soil, it's glyphosate. So you're telling me you care about the environment, supposedly, and you care about global warming. You believe in it, science this, science that, but yet you haven't spent enough time researching your candidate to know that your candidate actually sprays twice as much glyphosate as the past person.
- [53:00]
A
But this is something very specific. You are a very well researched. You, you know, you, you're well read. You understand what you're reading. 99% of people are none of the above. And so now, how do you deal with that? How do you actually get that information? Because politics, that's what they do.
- [53:17]
B
Instead, they just want us to be dependent on them.
- [53:20]
A
Right. And so they just state big, broad things like, I care about the environment and my opponent doesn't like, oh, see, we got to go with this guy.
- [53:26]
B
To hold true to my message. I actually don't blame the government. I blame the people.
- [53:30]
A
Okay?
- [53:30]
B
Because ultimately it's us being lazy.
- [53:32]
A
The information's there for sure.
- [53:34]
B
Yeah. Alexis de Tocqueville came over in the 1840s. He was from France, and he was going to do a study on American penal systems. But he was so taken back by what he believed to be true about democracies and how when he came over, he coined the term the tyranny of the majority. And his, his main statement was that democracies and majorities are more tyrannical than aristocracies and monarchies. And not a lot of people know this because they don't pick up books. But, you know, for eight years before we had the Constitutional Convention, we had the Articles of Confederation, which was the most radical form of democratic rule the world had ever seen. It was also the most oppressive. This is why the Constitutional Convention came about in an emergency like manner. And you had founding fathers that literally wrote in their journal articles, wrote in letters to each other. They said, I prefer monarchy to this form of democracy. And so if you really understand what the Constitutional Convention was about, the Constitutional Convention was trying to shield the levers of government from the corruption that comes with aristocracy and mocracy, but also from the corruption that comes with democracy. And what they were trying to do is they were actually trying to create a meritocracy. And they were just, you know, the media campaign was describing it as a democracy. And it ultimately comes down to the question of, is public interest and public opinion one in the same? Clearly, it's not unless you're living in a society of all PhDs. Right. And that's ultimately, you know, why democracies can be tyrannical is because you have uneducated, whimsical public opinion, and that governs. And so my perception of the state of politics in the world today is that we have the corruption that comes from aristocracy and monarchy at the same time as the corruption that comes from democracies. And then ultimately it's the powers that be in the aristocracy that are manipulating the whims of the democracy to create that tyranny that's ultimately keeping them in power.
- [55:26]
A
I think there's a lot of truth to that, honestly. And that's something I really look at with democracy is, you know, when you have an uneducated mass, or I would say a corrupted mass, meaning like they've been indoctrinated in some way, etc. Can they? People believe whatever they want to believe these days and it fits their own narrative. And so, and again this post truth world we live in, solving that becomes a huge order. But something that's necessary because it doesn't lead to anything good either.
- [55:55]
B
So, so what's the solution then?
- [55:57]
A
I think number one is getting money out of politics. Yeah, that is number one. Because if they can't spread that message the same way.
- [56:03]
B
But do we do that through force or we do that through education?
- [56:06]
A
Well you have to, that's the thing. I think education is the hope. But, and so, but I think, but.
- [56:12]
B
But then it comes down to then the very government, it's like this system is upholding this corruption and this system would literally. And, and that's kind of like I've gone on the lives of like Dean and Parker and you know, I've tried to say like, look, I don't vote. The reason why I don't vote is because I believe if you vote, I think you're telling them you believe the lie, that your vote matters. And I personally don't think that your vote matters.
- [56:32]
A
You vote locally.
- [56:33]
B
No, I do, I do not think your vote matters. And I think that when you do it, I think that you tell them you believe the lie. And I think that if the majority of people stopped voting in elections as fucking protest, I think that's what would scare the shit out of the government because they would say they don't believe the lie anymore. We need to do something. When you have all these people show up to the polls, they're laughing, saying hahaha, they believe the lie, they believe that their vote matters and it just ultimately doesn't.
- [56:59]
A
Yeah, I think on the federal level I agree. I've been too involved with state and local politics to know that it's, it's normal votes, normal counts and there's no, there's not games happening there now.
- [57:08]
B
Well, no, I think your Vote gets counted. I'm not saying that your vote doesn't get counted. I think your vote gets counted. But I'm saying your vote doesn't matter because this is just, you know, two sides of the same coin. They're both playing for the same fucking team. Got it. So I think when you go in.
- [57:21]
A
There, I'm saying locally.
- [57:21]
B
Yeah.
- [57:22]
A
You're getting like a random business owner that goes, I'll take a run at mayor. Like Santa Monica. Literally the mayor of Santa Monica right now owns a music store. Sorry. Yeah, she's not in the, like, you know, she's not in the Illuminati.
- [57:31]
B
But then, but then it's just like, you know, they are also dealing with state politics, you know, in a place like California. So they are going to have their hands, you know, kind of held. So that can they impact people in a small way? Yes, it depends.
- [57:44]
A
LA is going to be a little different because Newsom's definitely going to have a bass and all that. I agree with that. But like when you're. It's again depends on where you live. But like Santa Monica, that's why I, I live in Santa Monica. It's a local group of people that think they're doing the best for the people there now. Not always there are sometimes misguided, have their own agendas. All the same stuff you're doing with the bigger politics. But the money in it is like I think the, the mayor's last race, his, the mayor before Lana was I think $50,000.
- [58:09]
B
Okay.
- [58:09]
A
So it's like you're not talking about massive corporate money coming into these elections. It's people actually trying to make a difference.
- [58:14]
B
Well, especially with something like social media, you could probably spend a lot less.
- [58:17]
A
Correct. And actually get though PR signs still work for him.
- [58:21]
B
Yeah. Okay. Wow. Old school grassroots people drive around and.
- [58:24]
A
See the name and go, oh, that name. That's the other thing again. Back to leaving it to the people. The level of education people even look at for politics when they vote on elections. Again, your local politicians matter way more for your day to day life. Like how is the police going to be funded? How are fire department going to show up? Like how much is your water bill going to be? That's local politics. And people don't even know the names of their city council people.
- [58:48]
B
Yeah.
- [58:49]
A
And so what happens is they do these yard signs. You drive around, you recognize the names when you go to the poll. Like, oh, I remember seeing that name. And that's literally how people see that.
- [58:55]
B
That to me though, that to me, is concerning because now I'm voting on a ballot through simple name recognition rather than saying, and this might sound crazy, but I, I personally believe that if you haven't read specific books, if you haven't read the Federalist Papers, if you haven't read, you know, Locke to treat us of government. If you haven't, you know, Hobbes, Leviathan, all those, like, core political pieces, I don't think you should fucking have the right to vote.
- [59:21]
A
Damn.
- [59:21]
B
So that's your interest matters. Your interest matters, but your opinion means fudge all.
- [59:26]
A
So. And I think we fix that by making that a part of our education system, which is interesting, but I don't think, like, again, that's. We could have those arguments about every sort of right that we have. Should you have the right to speak if you're not educated? Should you have the right to bear arms if you don't know how to safely use one? Like, should you.
- [59:40]
B
Yeah.
- [59:40]
A
That's where you start getting into. Who decides whether you have the right? Who decides which things you have to read?
- [59:46]
B
Well, you have. It's like you have the right to do all these things. So as long as they're not negatively impacting other people.
- [59:52]
A
Right.
- [59:52]
B
So let's say if you're. If you're ignorant, vote is voting into pol. It's like war on drugs. Right. The war on drugs is based upon societal ignorance.
- [60:04]
A
Right.
- [60:04]
B
Ooh, drugs bag, outlaw goes away. And it's just happening right in front of you. No, this is clearly not the case. And you had people PhDs in criminology saying, if we want to stop drugs, if we want to stop all these bad things, this is what we should do. So it was within the public interest that drug use be reduced. Right. But public opinion actually came, you understand? Public interest came at the expense of public opinion. And you had educated opinion raising their hand saying, hey, guys, we should be trying this. And it's like, oh, no, no, no, no, no. And that's where you come down to the tyranny of the majority when it's uneducated.
- [60:37]
A
Totally. And that. And I agree with you. And so it's. Again, but I think that's where, you know, the way we've handled our education system in the US is a disaster. And, you know, we continue to fall behind here.
- [60:47]
B
Yeah.
- [60:47]
A
Which is something that needs to be addressed. Because that's the problem is if you have a democracy with an maybe it doesn't even need to be PhD level, if you have an educated mass, then democracy works pretty well. Because they can actually vote in their best interest, and then government can serve the majority, which is the whole intent. But if you end up with an uneducated mass that just follows social media TikTok headlines, then you end up with people voting against their best interest because they don't know better.
- [61:13]
B
And I think that's why things are almost getting worse is solely because of social media. Social media could be such a powerful tool, but ultimately it's coming down to egos and getting, you know, sound bites. And things aren't done in an honest debate style like this because guess what? This isn't going to get as many views as if you and I were going back and forth with each other, you know, getting gotcha moments, a couple.
- [61:36]
A
Gotcha clips out of this. But the majority of this, I mean. Yeah. What?
- [61:40]
B
No, but, no, but do people watch.
- [61:42]
A
The full podcast versus view it on. Our average view duration is about 15 minutes on a podcast. So what about. And, but like, what's your average. You don't have to show numbers, but like, how many more people listen to 15 minutes of a podcast versus watch? Oh, it's not even close compared to clips. That's what I mean. Yeah, like 95% of our views are clips. Exactly. So that's society right now. So then, you know, and I've learned a long time ago, you can't fight that trend. So how do you, within the framework we are in, how do you then fix that? Is it, you know, because people don't want to?
- [62:12]
B
Well, like, I think that's almost like catering to our. The base side of us. And so as long as you feed that base side of us, it's not going to go away. And so I think that you have to. It's like, you know, we were talking about the floods in, in Kerrville. Yeah. It's just, that's just people being addicted to wanting to feel like they're on the right side, being fucking righteous.
- [62:31]
A
And we have an outrage culture.
- [62:33]
B
Yeah.
- [62:33]
A
Want to be outraged. What was the thing I saw? Oh, then Sydney Sweeney thing. That's the new outrage thing. It's like, are we really, like, come on. Oh, the American eagle.
- [62:40]
B
There's, there's, there's, there's a play on words here. It's, you know, saying your eye color, all these things are, you know, related to genes. It could have been any color person in there saying the same fucking thing.
- [62:53]
A
She's pretty.
- [62:54]
B
Yeah, she's pretty. Yeah. It really, if anything, the ugly people could be outraged at the attractive people because that's really what it was more about, more so than fudgeing race, you know, I mean, so there's a group of ugly people saying, that's fucked up. Then I'd be like, all right, cool, you know, you guys have an issue, but I'm sorry, this wasn't fucking race, but they just had to make it race. But I think that goes back to that.
- [63:13]
A
There's probably a tiny group of people that are actually outraged. And then our media goes, ooh. And spreads it into this big thing. So I saw the same video of one woman talking about it shared on every single media site about this one woman preaching. And the Internet is outraged. Like, is it? Or is it this one woman that now everyone's jumping in.
- [63:29]
B
Well, that's what I was about to ask you too, is that if people didn't know that, oh, here's this fucking gene ad that just came out and oh, shit, I can turn this into a racist thing. And oh, fuck, I can get these viral clips and I can get paid. So now it's almost the incentive is to create this outrage culture. Because if I'm a fucking creator, I'm getting paid on views. So now it's like I am looking for outrage. And once again though, I go back to blaming people because ultimately it is our fault. We have to hold ourselves in check and we have to recognize these things in us and say, I'm not going to participate in that. I'm not going to give this creator any attention because all they're doing is fucking trying to create rage bait. They don't really care about the issues. They don't really care about was this racist or not. They just care about fucking views.
- [64:19]
A
But I think that's having a high expectation of people that have the ability to be self aware enough for that. And I think we don't. Like there are some people that will do that, including myself, that I like. The moment I start seeing people go down that path, I'm not interested because I don't need more rage in my life. It's more good. But the vast majority of people are. People run emotionally and that I don't actually know the science behind it, but I'm sure rage creates dopamine or some release of something that causes people to feel good in a fiery way. And so you get addicted to that feeling. And we've watched five years of people being locked at home and wanting to be outraged about something. This really started with COVID in terms of this trend of outrage. And it just, it's the next thing that people want to be outraged by. And it's the next cycle. Thankfully, they go away quick, but, like, they destroy things in the meantime and there's a lot of damage done. And it's this. You know, I even watched it with. We talked about Astronomer, which on the last, like, when we were just recording, we talked about, like, how funny it is that Gwyneth Paltrow jumped in and like, I am not one for adultery. I'm very loyal to my wife, love my wife, not that I don't. I actually have a very low respect for people that cheat on their spouses and who gives a shit who. We didn't even know who these people were. We don't even know. Like, no one knew what Astronomer was until this. And like, why is this. Why does everybody in the country now know this happened and who these people are? Why is this something that we are focused on? And that's something. And that's not new. This goes back to even the media cycles.
- [65:42]
B
This is a new platform. Right. I think it's like we're acting like a whole bunch of eighth grade.
- [65:47]
A
Correct. Because.
- [65:47]
B
Gossiping little shits. Because that's ultimately what it comes down to. But I had a question for you. Yeah. How do you think you get the most out of people? By expecting less of them or by expecting more?
- [65:57]
A
Definitely expecting more.
- [65:58]
B
So I think the only disagreement is that, and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but I think you could keep on going back of, you know, having these low expectations of people and then basing regulation and policies based upon that low expectation.
- [66:10]
A
I think, and I'm just saying broadly, you get them to rise to the occasion by expecting more, there's still the people that won't. And then what do you do about that? Because if you leave them to their own advices, I think you end up with a societal problem.
- [66:20]
B
Well, I see. I guess my only disagreement there would be that I think that that number would be a lot less than what you think it is. I think that if we started expecting more from our citizens, started saying, you are capable, you are powerful, and had these messages, you know, of positivity, I think that. I think that a lot of people and I would actually change.
- [66:39]
A
So. But nothing about anything I've read in.
- [66:41]
B
History tells me that in my counter to that would be going down the line that we're going down right now. I would say I can't even hope so. Because I would say there's nothing in history that shows me that, yeah, government and politics ever Fucking got it.
- [66:54]
A
That too.
- [66:55]
B
Got it. Right. So it's just like, I'm at the point where it's like, okay, enough is enough. It's time to have another kind of experiment to say, hey, let's take our heads out of our asses. Let's not double down on ignorance and let's say here are the things that aren't working.
- [67:08]
A
But, but do you think that's a broad, like tomorrow welfare is gone.
- [67:13]
B
So I, so the, the discussion we had yesterday when I was talking about religion and how I said that I'm a non theist, I believe the human condition is one of uncertainty. You cannot conclude with certainty there is a God. You can't, huh. Well, agnostic, in my, in my opinion, agnostic believes that they can form a conclusion of certainty. They just don't think they've acquired enough information. I'm just saying the overall condition of humanity is one of uncertainty.
- [67:35]
A
We have a similar outlook.
- [67:35]
B
Yeah. And so I think that the uncertainty is what scares the, out of people more than anything. So each scares me.
- [67:42]
A
I wish I could have each.
- [67:44]
B
And that's just. It is that I think that. Well, no, I'm just saying that I think that when you admit the uncertainty, I think that's when you really tap into your power and I think that's when you really start to figure things out. So I think that we as a society need to admit that we have not figured things out and that we have made mistakes and that rather than running from that fear of oh my God, but what's that going to create, we need to say, look, in order to figure things out, we first have to admit that we haven't figured things out. And that means that we have to say things are uncertain right now. And so ultimately I think that it's just that base human fear of wanting to run from the uncertainty. I think that that's ultimately what drives the political landscape and half the careers in society. Yeah, it's like religious people, they need certainty and in my opinion, they are willing to pull a bag over their eyes. It ignores some very, very, like to me, you know, very telling facts or archaeological record, et cetera, et cetera. But then you have the people on the science side where they, they've used science to quell that need for certainty. And it's like, no, we've figured everything out and we can rise above nature.
- [68:55]
A
And it's just like whenever someone says they're an atheist, I'm like, you're the same as the people you're making because they all seem to want to make fun of religious people. It's like, you can't be certain either.
- [69:03]
B
Well, and I'm not trying to toot my own horn, but every time I tell people about. Look, I think the human condition is one of uncertainty. And I think the people that are concluding there is a God with certainty and concluding there isn't a God with certainty are the ones that are the fucking causing the problems. And it's the same thing, too. The people that are certain Republicans are right and certain Democrats are right. It's like, you motherfuckers are causing the fucking problems. And the people in the middle are being like, I don't really know. I'm kind of uncertain. It's like, that's when you figure things out. You don't figure things out by doubling down on ignorance. And what's the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different fucking results.
- [69:36]
A
Chinese proverb. We'll see. You know that one?
- [69:39]
B
No, I don't.
- [69:39]
A
I don't know the exact story, but it's the idea of, like, you know, guy's son falls and breaks his arm, and so. Oh, my God, I can't believe that happened. You poor thing. Like, this is so bad. Your son's broken his arm. He's like, we'll see. Next day, army comes through town and drafts everyone, but doesn't take his son because he's got a broken arm, okay? Like, oh, you're so lucky he didn't have to go to war. We'll see. Next day, they all get awarded. You know, it just goes. The story keeps going. The story's not over. We'll see what happens.
- [70:04]
B
I understand to that point.
- [70:05]
A
It's an old Chinese proverb that I always. It comes up for me a lot in politics, okay? We'll say, like, can you believe he did the tariffs? Which, by the way, initially, all of my Republican and Democrat friends were all like, this is the dumbest thing I've ever seen, okay? And I'm like, I mean, it's funny. You guys were all fully supporting, like, a month ago, but, like, yeah, we'll see. And now here we are a few months later where it's like, did this really turn it. And by the way, who knows? Because I have friends that are very educated, liberal friends that are saying this is now killed trust in the US and blah, blah, blah. I'm like, we'll see.
- [70:32]
B
We'll see.
- [70:32]
A
Yeah, because nobody knows. And I totally agree with the idea of uncertainty.
- [70:36]
B
There's another Chinese proverb slash curse, and it translates to, may you live in interesting times.
- [70:45]
A
Well, we got our wish to.
- [70:46]
B
Yeah, I know. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. I have to say, it's definitely interesting times, but I, I think that it really comes down to. Is getting back to actual intellectual discussions.
- [70:59]
A
Yes.
- [70:59]
B
Where even if you disagree with someone.
- [71:02]
A
Yep.
- [71:02]
B
They're still a human being. They are not stupid. It's, you know, we can be talking about this piece of paper and I'm like, there's nothing there. It's this, that and the other. And you're looking at the same piece of paper. Well, I just don't understand that you're looking at it from a different perspective is ultimately what it comes down to. And then just remembering that if your beliefs are really yours and they really are that concrete, it's okay to question them. And when you engage in a discussion, you can say, hey, you know what? I'm going to start from zero. I'm going to listen to the other side. And if you can arrive back at those same conclusions, then you've just really made it yours and you've strengthened your position. Or if the individual that's sharing information with you has, you know, enlightened you, like, that's your friend. They've just helped you out. You know what I mean? It's not someone to be hated.
- [71:46]
A
Well, once you get over the emotional side of it debate and you actually get to like, just being intellectually curious.
- [71:51]
B
Yeah.
- [71:51]
A
It's fun because when you get proven wrong, you're like, oh, actually I never thought of it that way. Like, it's fun to have those conversations. And frankly, then you start wanting to have those conversations. But somewhere, again, the past few years with social media, it's become everyone's just shut everyone down and it's like, you know, dunk on people and it's on both sides and it's like this. That does need to stop because it goes back to even the basis of our legal structure in the United States. The idea of two people arguing can get to the right answer.
- [72:20]
B
Yeah.
- [72:20]
A
And not saying it's perfect, but it's pretty good. And if you stop the debates and you stop arguing and you aren't, don't allow for two sides of a conversation, you end up with a lot less solutions.
- [72:30]
B
Yeah.
- [72:31]
A
So agreed there.
- [72:33]
B
I think, I think the other thing too is you understand that there is like a third option and that it's just not black and white. There might be some gray area and both sides can be bright. You know what I mean? At the same time. And that we really should have policy that says, hey, here's how you incorporate both considerations. Like I said, there are going to be people that if they're just given a little government help, assistance, they're going to change their lives. And then there are some people that are going to be moochers. You know, I mean for the. And it's just like, how do we actually treat people as individuals and not numbers? And I think that's a big part of like government policy is that you want to get. It's criminal justice system. You are a fucking number. You are not a person. And it's like if you are going. And I'm not talking about like a crime of violence where somebody has, you know, interfered with the rights of someone else. Okay, they need to be incapacitated heroin in your. But that's, yeah, that's, that's, yeah, it's a complete opposite. Versus someone who's selling, who's using drugs versus someone who is 22 years old on the dean's list at their school, about to go to law school and it was their first felony and they got caught with a kilo of cocaine. Yeah. You know what I mean? It's just like, I'm sorry, but Yeah, I did five and a half years in prison at 22 years old and there is nothing asked, but that's what happened. There's not one person who didn't use drugs as a result of my incarceration. You know what I mean? And I've said this. If you could just show me one person whose life was positively impacted by my incarceration at 22 years old, I would be like, you know what, I'm glad I.
- [74:03]
A
Or even even like make an argument that you would have been that you're better off because you had that rehabilitation air quotes like, no, I agree with you.
- [74:11]
B
Yeah. And so that's the problem. Yeah. And especially with drugs too. It's that there is a demand for the crime. There's not a demand for the murder that you commit. There's not a demand for the rape that you commit. So if you go to prison, there's no demand. But if there's a demand for my product and you incarcerate me, the only thing you've done is put someone in my shoes or the person down the street. You just doubled their business.
- [74:32]
A
Yeah.
- [74:33]
B
That's the only thing you fucking did.
- [74:34]
A
Yeah.
- [74:35]
B
So agreed. Yeah. But I mean that comes down to letting public opinion govern public policy at the expense of public interest. Yeah.
- [74:44]
A
No, and that's again, that's where the education thing keeps coming back to, which is, again, where I spend a lot of my time on the nonprofit side. Just because I believe you teach a man to fish.
- [74:52]
B
Yeah.
- [74:53]
A
With a much better society.
- [74:54]
B
Yeah, absolutely.
- [74:56]
A
That was a pleasant conversation, fellas.
- [74:57]
B
Yeah, no, it definitely was.
- [74:58]
A
I don't even think if we need closing statements, because it sounds like you guys agree on a lot. Yeah. Do you think we need those?
- [75:03]
B
No, I don't. I guess the only thing is, I want to ask you a question. What do you think that we can do? What do you think that viewers can do to ultimately see to it that we don't give fuel to the fire that's ultimately consuming all of us? Like, how do we stop the rage bait? How do we stop.
- [75:18]
A
Well, so that part, I think, is going to be a little harder. I think this is kind of. I keep going back to use a framework. You're in. Rage bait's happening. So what's. What's working to our benefit with rage bait? Well, we just saw the Senate introduced a bill to stop Congressman being able to trade stocks.
- [75:31]
B
Okay.
- [75:32]
A
You look at that. That's been crazy. And people started calling it out, and it went more and more viral, and there's more and more outrage. And now someone in the Senate felt pressure to go put something forward and be like, no, this should stop. One of the people in the Senate that's probably not making all the money went, fuck this. So how do you do that with Citizens United? Because I agree with you. I think money out of politics is a great big step. How do you overturn Citizens United in a way that you put pressure on? And how do you channel that outrage to be like, guys like, this doesn't change. I don't, like, stop. Like, how do you get a message out there like, trump doesn't care about you. Kamala doesn't care about you. Biden didn't care about you. Whoever's next doesn't care about you. They care about the people donating billions of dollars to their campaigns because that's who keeps them in power. So how do you change that? You get rid of this bill that passed. When was that under Bush? I can't remember. Once it is.
- [76:16]
B
I think it was Bush.
- [76:16]
A
I think get rid of that and it goes back. At least it's a step in the right direction, because massive change on this kind of a level takes time. So you start there, and now they actually work for the people again. I'm not saying that politics have been great the past 200 years, but it was better than it is right now.
- [76:32]
B
Do you think that a corrupt system has the ability to right itself?
- [76:37]
A
I think in a general statement, probably not, but I think in this specific situation.
- [76:41]
B
So do you think that people. That we could use social media to essentially deal with that corruption?
- [76:46]
A
Yes, because it goes back to the informed masses.
- [76:49]
B
Okay. So it's something outside of the system, putting pressure in the system.
- [76:53]
A
And I think the ability to reach everybody very quickly and inexpensively with a message that matters is now second to none. And that's why I'm saying, like, use that outrage culture and that ability to get on social media to the advantage and get the messages out there that matter and educate people. There's a lot of noise too, but I think the right message gets through.
- [77:11]
B
Yeah, yeah, no, I can absolutely agree with that. I just think that people need to also be more conscious and say, look, I am not going to consume this rage bait anymore. Yeah. I am not going to, like, because.
- [77:21]
A
Ultimately that'll happen because I think people will naturally burn out on it.
- [77:25]
B
Yeah, I do.
- [77:26]
A
I think, like, we're in a time, you know, it's definitely true.
- [77:30]
B
Like when I first got onto like TikTok lives, I enjoyed going in there. At least I thought I did. And then when I realized that it's just an echo chamber.
- [77:37]
A
Yeah.
- [77:37]
B
And then it's not a real debate and discussion. If I hear it for two seconds.
- [77:41]
A
I'm like, oh, I have to exact same. And so, you know, it's anecdotal, it's my experience, but I'm watching other friends that are like, I'm done. Like, it's just, you know, and there's so many bots and so many other things. Pick a political argument you want to have and someone's fighting it with bots. So you think you're up against the world and nobody agrees with you and you're insane, or you think you're completely validated because look at all these people agree with me. It's like, those aren't people, those are bot farms in Nigeria. Like that's actually a thing right now.
- [78:05]
B
Have you seen the lives, though? Have you seen what that's all about, though?
- [78:07]
A
Which lives?
- [78:08]
B
Lives. TikTok lives. Yeah, yeah. That's like.
- [78:11]
A
Did they bought those too?
- [78:12]
B
I don't know if they bought those, but. But I mean. But they definitely have a massive following because they make money doing it.
- [78:19]
A
Oh, yeah.
- [78:19]
B
But it's just, it's. It's almost like Bloodsport arena where you have, you know what I mean? Parker and Dean and they will not actually debate people that keep it civil and have valid points. Why? Because it doesn't give their viewers the blood sport. And.
- [78:38]
A
But that's tabloids. That's. And what. This is what. We actually talk about this a lot at Hawk. When I'm trying to put out my content, there's engagement and then there's the right engagement. Like, if you want to reach an audience of outraged nobodies that aren't thinking for themselves, then you've done a good job. They're the worst type of consumer, the worst type of customer, the worst type of audience. But sure, keep screaming as loud as you can and seeing how you can scream louder the next time to get their attention. I actually wear this. The president of Disney Records, I started a company with a long time ago, and he was talking about Lady Gaga and she was crushing it. And he's like, you know, we'll see how her career goes. Which, it's gone fine.
- [79:12]
B
But she was already like, is that what you just said?
- [79:14]
A
Hold on. He was saying, I'm curious how much more this was. Peak.
- [79:19]
B
Okay.
- [79:19]
A
Yeah, right when she was like, you know, winning award, like, very much her peak career. And he's like, where do you go from here when you start by screaming? This is when she's wearing the meat costume and all that stuff. When you scream as loud as you can, what's next? Okay, and so again, not saying she didn't have a crazy good career, but what was the next step after there wasn't one. She has now lived off of what she did and she's still doing tours and she has acting and she's done well. Don't get. She's done incredibly well. Not shanking away from that. I'm just saying, if that's where you are, what's the next step when you start screaming as loud as you can? And so for a lot of these guys, they go for what gets the most engagement. And I just talked to a very prominent social media personality that I've known for a decade, him and his social media manager that made him this, you know, millions and millions of followers, et cetera. I was talking to them about their strategy and they're like, we talk to what we actually believe in. Not always what's going to get the most engagement, because we know our audience is going to build off people that really respect who we are, not just an audience. Because that's where for the social media influencers out there, a lot of them make that mistake. They just speak to what's going to get the audience, and they fall off very quickly.
- [80:19]
B
Well, I tell people too, that, like, if you want to monetize a following, TikTok's the worst. YouTube is the best. Yeah, TikTok is more about, you know, engagement and entertainment, but you're not really going to be able to monetize that following. And the other thing, too, is how the content even finds you. It's one thing if you're scrolling through an algorithm, it's another thing if you're going in YouTube, you have a genuine problem. How do I build resilience? How do we become a better entrepreneur, Things of that nature. And so now you're finding that content through your action, through a search volume. And then if a person is speaking with authority, that's the kind of engagement you want. I tell people this all the time. I would rather have 10,000, 10,000 subscribers on YouTube than a million on TikTok. And I guarantee you will make more off of YouTube because it's honest and information. It doesn't have the same smoke and mirrors. You know what I mean? That Tik Tok does. But you look a lot of these creators on Tik Tok, and they might have millions, but part of the reason why they're pushing lives so much is because they're. They're monetizing their lives. If I send you a galaxy and it cost me $15, you as the creator get 750, and Tik Tok get 750. So that's part of the reason why they do the blood sport where it's like, Dean and Parker will bring in these, you know, ignorant Trump supporters and just absolutely eviscerate them. And their audience loves it. And they're like, here's a galaxy, here's this, here's that. And I was adding up one time, and I was just like, these guys are making a thousand dollars an hour doing this. Damn.
- [81:33]
A
That much?
- [81:33]
B
Man, I tell you. Well, you know what's crazy is if someone comes on there and they call them out and they say you're just doing this to make money, yada, yada, yada. It's like reverse psychology. The fucking viewers love it. And they'll start sending them, like, direct things. 25 bucks, 50 bucks, 100 bucks, like, it literally goes off. And I'll be honest with you, I. So there's agencies that handle TikTok lives, and a lot. A lot of the big creators are with these agencies. And so I really am starting to wonder if some of these people going up in these lives and being the opposition. If those aren't people coming from the fucking agency to drive the engagement and drive the fucking monetization plants. Yeah.
- [82:09]
A
I will say sometimes they're not ballsy enough to do it, but, yes, there's definitely some are plants.
- [82:15]
B
If I'm an agency.
- [82:16]
A
Yeah.
- [82:16]
B
And you're my creator. And I'm getting a percentage of how much revenue you generate from TikTok live, I am watching it obsessively, and if I see that, I might not even even tell you. So it might not be dishonest on the creator's part, but I'm gonna go out there and train these to get in this live. And if I need to tell you, hey, you know, Frank and Thomas are in the live, please let them in. I'm sure as hell gonna do it, because I know that they're gonna say the right thing, you know, create the right rage bait and just get people to start giving you all those donations again.
- [82:41]
A
I think that. I don't think this is, like, a societal shift. I think it's a fad.
- [82:45]
B
Yeah.
- [82:45]
A
In that way. I think that it's going to be something else.
- [82:48]
B
It'll burn out. It's sugar for fuel versus fat for fuel. Yeah. It's a quick dopamine high, but it's not sustainable.
- [82:53]
A
No wonder they're lucky. Live 12 hours a day. That makes sense now.
- [82:56]
B
Wow. You. You can add it up. Absolutely.
- [82:58]
A
Harry's live, like, 12 hours a day, too. Harry Sisson.
- [83:02]
B
Okay. Yeah.
- [83:02]
A
He's another one of those kids. But, yeah, Parker and Dean are always live.
- [83:05]
B
I know. They're, like, obsessed with it. Yeah. I. I'm going in there. Parker. Parker drops me.
- [83:10]
A
Yeah.
- [83:11]
B
I got Dean so good. He was in Texans for Trump or whatever. He was actually, you know, a participant in the live. And so she let me in, and it was the other guy. I'm really important, or whatever the he calls himself. And so I asked both of them, and I said, do you think if a prosecutor has withheld exculpatory evidence that that is a bad enough offense that they should forever be barred from holding public office? And they both said, absolutely, like, resounding yeses. Right out the. Right out the gate. And I said, well, you both just admitted that Kamala Harris should forever be barred from holding public office. They crashed the fuck out, like, literally. And this is not something I'm making up. I was in San Francisco when she was a district attorney for San Francisco and progressives hated her. And it was all over the news. And the thing of it is that you don't even have to take my word for it. You can go and you can read the actual court transcript of the judge eviscerating her, telling her how much of a dishonest piece of shit she was. So then the mental gymnastics that they. And, like, fucking Dean. Crashed the fuck out, left, was trying to do research, came back, was saying this, saying that it was just like, no, Dean, sorry. It's not right. And, I mean, he crashed the out on it. And it's like, you don't have to take my word for it. Here's a candidate that you are supporting that you are saying is better than Trump because Trump's a piece of shit for doing all these things, et cetera, et cetera, yet you're supporting a candidate. I'm sorry, a prosecutor withholding exculpatory evidence. You are a piece of shit.
- [84:39]
A
Well, and I think that's where the fallacy on both sides comes in, is like, let's be real. They're both pieces of shit.
- [84:44]
B
100.
- [84:45]
A
100. That's where it's like, no, neither one. One's a saint. So, like, let's not figure out which one's in the best interest of serving what we're trying to get.
- [84:52]
B
To me, I think the perpetuation of all political problems comes from us saying, we're okay with choosing a lesser of two evils. And I think that when we vote, we say, we're okay with choosing the lesser of two evils. And so I, like, there has to be a line in the sand, and we have to say, no more. I will not choose a lesser two evils. But the thing of it is, is that I think this is a political strategy. Both parties run a candidate that the other side hates so fucking much that when you get into office, there is one standard. You are not the other candidate. So the Epstein files in. Trump, guess what? People do not fucking care. Because they hated Kamala Harris so much. And Kamala Harris could have gotten into office and could have done anything. She could have become the next Hilter, and they'd say, you know what? At least she's not Trump.
- [85:36]
A
Yep.
- [85:36]
B
And that's me. It's just like, I refuse to play that game.
- [85:39]
A
Right? Gentlemen, thanks for your time today.
- [85:41]
B
Yeah.
- [85:41]
A
Thank you so much.
- [85:42]
B
100. Man. That was great, man. Yeah.
- [85:44]
A
I hope you guys are enjoying the show. Please don't forget to like and subscribe. It helps the show a lot with the algorithm.
- [85:49]
B
Thank you.