The Iran War Lies They’re Still Telling... | Jackson Heaberlin | DSH #1925

Summary

Podcast Summary: Digital Social Hour — "The Iran War Lies They’re Still Telling..."

Host: Sean Kelly
Guest: Jackson Heaberlin
Episode: #1925
Date: April 21, 2026

---

Episode Overview

In this candid and thought-provoking conversation, Sean Kelly welcomes Jackson Heaberlin to discuss the rampant misinformation surrounding the current U.S.–Iran war, the shifting political narratives—especially among MAGA conservatives—and the broader ramifications for America’s foreign policy, economy, and moral direction. The exchange also delves into tangential but deeply connected topics: immigration and mass deportations under Trump’s administration, America’s economic uncertainties, the search for objective truth, and the interplay between law and religion.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Iran War: Lies, Misinformation, and Political Dissonance

• Rampant Online Misinformation:
  Jackson highlights the contradictory narratives pushed online, especially among MAGA conservatives, who have quickly shifted from non-interventionist stances to supporting extensive military conflict.

  • Quote:
    “It’s weird because it’s as if, like, some of these MAGA people have, like, cognitive dissonance, like they can’t recognize the story’s changing. Like, a week ago, didn’t you say that we weren’t at war and we were just conducting strikes?” (00:03 / 06:54)

• The Nuclear Threat Card:
  Jackson points out how claims of Iran’s nuclear capability have been exaggerated to justify military action, much like previous conflicts (Iraq).

  • Tulsi Gabbard’s statements refuting an immediate nuclear threat have shifted some public perception.
  • Many Americans, Jackson included, express fatigue and skepticism toward the nuclear threat narrative.
  • Quote:
    “I was very tired of the… nuclear threat angle that’s been brought out time and time again. You know, we saw it in Iraq.” (01:54)

• War’s Unfolding and Strategic Implications:
  Jackson predicts a prolonged war, citing the topographical and demographic complexities of Iran—comparing it to Vietnam and Afghanistan.

  • Killing symbolic leaders like the Ayatollah will not result in quick resolution.
  • Professor Jang’s prediction that the U.S. will lose the war is discussed, due to Iran’s fortification and challenging terrain (05:18).
  • Quote:
    “Iran is a fortress country. It’s mountainous all around the outside with small population centers interspersed within… very concerning reality, because this seems like a very challenging topography for American soldiers.” (04:50)

• Cognitive Dissonance in Conservative Circles:
  Jackson laments the reversal in MAGA attitude from opposing Middle Eastern wars to now justifying broad intervention in Iran, which conflicts with Trump’s original “no new wars” promise.

  • Quote:
    “It is very disappointing to see many of the MAGA constituency not recognize that clear incongruency.” (00:50)

Timestamps:

• Opening misinformation discussion: 00:00–01:10
• MAGA stance reversal: 00:34–01:11, 06:31–07:17
• Iran war logistics and outcome: 02:19–05:18

---

2. Economic Fallout: Cost of War and Social Burdens

• Financial Toll of Middle Eastern Wars:
  Jackson states that $12 trillion out of the $30+ trillion U.S. deficit can be traced to Middle East wars, nearly half the national deficit.

  • Quote:
    “You look at the US deficit, an estimated 12 trillion of the over 30 trillion deficit is from Middle Eastern wars.” (02:59–03:08)

• Opportunity Cost:
  There is concern over the trade-off between war spending and domestic benefit programs, deepening the affordability crisis for average Americans.

  • Quote:
    “Should more of our deficit spending be going into the Middle East? Yeah, it doesn’t seem to have been a good cost before.” (03:08–03:33)

Timestamps:

• Economic discussion: 02:57–03:33

---

3. Immigration & “Mass Deportations” Under Trump

• Disillusionment With Deportation Efforts:
  Jackson, a former Trump supporter, expresses disappointment at the lack of effective mass deportations despite campaign promises.

  • Real deportation numbers are unsatisfactory; most “illegals” are concentrated in a few industries, yet workplace raids have been discouraged to protect the economy.
  • Quote:
    “The numbers aren’t there. They’re not going to get there.” (10:37–10:55)
    “Trump didn’t want to damage the economy. And that’s the reality of, you know, mass deportations. It’s going to damage the economy. It’s going to be hard, it’s going to be ugly.” (10:18–10:31)

• Cultural Impact & Political Capital:
  The aggressive optics of ICE actions may have eroded public support for deportations, possibly shifting future administrations away from hardline immigration policy.

  • Quote:
    “He damaged the political capital around mass deportations. People wanted it when he got in, now they don’t want it.” (11:00–11:19)

Timestamps:

• Immigration/deportation discussion: 08:23–12:20

---

4. U.S. Dollar, Social Security, and the Economy

• Ponzi Scheme Accusations & Financial Instability:
  Both Social Security and the US dollar (post-gold standard, petro-dollar era) are described as unsustainable, with younger generations paying into a system that will not pay out.

  • Quote:
    “People in America right now, in my generation, are paying into a Social Security network that they will never get back. It’s a textbook scheme.” (13:11)
  • Professor Jang’s view: “The US dollar is a Ponzi scheme” (13:35)

• Inflation Fears & Vanishing Middle Class:
  AI-driven booms, loss of manufacturing, and economic globalization erode the American middle class and dream.

  • Quote:
    “As the middle class goes away, so does the American dream. And conservatives need to wake up to that reality.” (14:11–15:05)

Timestamps:

• Social Security & dollar critique: 12:54–13:49
• Protectionism & middle class: 14:07–15:05

---

5. Purpose, Work, and Universal Basic Income (UBI)

• UBI: Necessary Evil or Society-Killer?
  Jackson is philosophically opposed to UBI and a welfare state, but admits it may become unavoidable with the rise of AI.
  • Quote:
    “When people obfuscate themselves from the process of creating their own means of existence... you get a people who don’t want to live, they don’t know what they’re fighting for and they don’t reach the ends that they want to reach. Purpose, you need purpose.” (17:01–18:15)
  • Work is seen as integral to personal purpose and mental health.

Timestamps:

• UBI & work: 16:56–18:24

---

6. Faith, Morality, and Laws: Christianity, Islam, and Epistemology

• Personal Journey to Faith:
  Both host and guest share their journeys from atheism to faith, focusing on the need for meaning and moral foundation.

  • Quote:
    “I was atheist until two years ago… I grew up agnostic.” (18:31–18:33)

• Christian Nationalism & Law:
  Jackson's view: laws should reflect the conception of 'good' predominant in the nation (in America, Christianity).

  • Quote:
    “If laws are meant to be surrounding what is good, and for most Americans the definition of good is whatever God wants, then obviously at some level a democracy would have laws that follow that congruency.” (19:01)

• Critique of Islam & Approach to Religious Criticism:
  Jackson is critical of Islam, ascribing rationality to open critique of religious ideas without bigotry.

  • Quote:
    “I don’t like Islam. I’m just a bad religion... I think Islam is wrong.” (22:14–22:19)

• Morality, Objective Truth, and Knowledge:
  Deep dive into the philosophical roots of morality, the Munchausen Trilemma, and how most truth claims are rooted in assumption.

  • Quote:
    “Any truth claim can’t be adequately proven... Murder being wrong feels as strong to me as me sitting on this chair...” (27:54–28:48)
    “Most of our conceptions of truth is based off of what you call, like normative assumptions.” (28:49–28:55)

Timestamps:

• Faith and law: 18:36–20:17
• Islam critique: 22:14–23:16
• Morality & philosophical digression: 24:17–31:46

---

Notable Quotes by Topic & Timestamp

| Topic | Quote | Speaker | Timestamp | |------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|------------| | War Misinformation | “It’s weird because… some of these MAGA people… can’t recognize the story’s changing.” | Jackson Heaberlin| 00:03 | | Nuclear Threat Narrative | “I was very tired of the… nuclear threat angle that’s been brought out time and time again.” | Jackson Heaberlin| 01:54 | | U.S. Deficit & War | “An estimated 12 trillion of the over 30 trillion deficit is from Middle Eastern wars.” | Jackson Heaberlin| 03:06 | | Terrain & War Difficulty | “Iran is a fortress country… a very challenging topography for American soldiers.” | Jackson Heaberlin| 04:50 | | Deportations & Politics | “He damaged the political capital around mass deportations. People wanted it when he got in, now they don’t want it.” | Jackson Heaberlin| 11:00 | | Social Security as a Ponzi Scheme | “People… are paying into a Social Security network that they will never get back. It's a textbook scheme.” | Jackson Heaberlin| 13:11 | | America’s Middle Class | “As the middle class goes away, so does the American dream.” | Jackson Heaberlin| 15:05 | | Universal Basic Income & Purpose | “Purpose, you need purpose. People need purpose.” | Jackson Heaberlin| 17:01 | | Faith & Morality | “I was atheist until two years ago… I grew up agnostic.” | Jackson & Sean | 18:31–18:33| | Law & Christianity | “If laws are meant to be surrounding what is good… most Americans…[define] good…[as] whatever God wants.” | Jackson Heaberlin| 19:01 | | Critique of Islam | “I think Islam is wrong.” | Jackson Heaberlin| 22:19 | | Objective Morality & Truth | “Murder being wrong feels as strong to me as me sitting on this chair…can't…differentiate those claims.” | Jackson Heaberlin| 28:48 |

---

Memorable Moments

• Jackson’s raw admission of disillusionment with both the MAGA movement and Trump administration’s handling of war and immigration (00:38–10:31).
• Nuanced critique of American foreign policy and the repetitive “nuclear threat” justification for war (01:54–04:21).
• Comparison of Iran’s war potential to Vietnam and Afghanistan and the deep dive on U.S. military struggles in rough terrain (04:28–05:55).
• Discussion on the shifting perception of military service and the treatment of veterans (20:48–21:50).
• Profound segment on objective truth, morality, and knowledge (24:17–29:48).

---

Additional Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:00–01:14 — Misinformation and introductory thoughts
• 01:33–01:54 — Tulsi Gabbard, nuclear threat skepticism
• 02:19–02:45 — Predictions on the duration and escalation of war
• 04:28–05:18 — War topography and historical comparisons
• 08:23–12:20 — Immigration and deportation efforts
• 13:30–13:49 — Ponzi nature of Social Security/dollar
• 14:11–15:05 — Middle class and economic protectionism
• 17:01–18:15 — The dangers of UBI and loss of societal purpose
• 19:00–20:17 — Christianity, morality and law
• 22:14–23:16 — Criticism of Islam
• 24:17–31:46 — Morality, philosophy, and faith

---

Overall Tone

• frank, deeply skeptical, and unfiltered; Jackson’s dissatisfaction with political leadership and media narratives is palpable.
• Discussions are intellectually wide-ranging, touching on geopolitics, domestic policy, philosophy, and personal faith struggles.

---

Summary for the Uninitiated

This episode of Digital Social Hour is a no-holds-barred, intellectually vibrant discussion on the lies and shifting narratives surrounding the Iran war, the failings of political movements to remain ideologically consistent, the immense financial and social costs of America’s wars, and the existential questions posed by economic and spiritual instability. Jackson Heaberlin’s analysis is critical and sobering, punctuated by moments of personal reflection and philosophical debate, making this episode essential listening for those seeking insight into America’s current political and moral crossroads.

Transcript

[A]

What are the lies and misinformation you're seeing around this war right now online?

[B]

I'm seeing a lot of lies. I'm seeing people saying that we're decimating them, they're destroyed. I don't think Iran has nuclear weapon capabilities. And it's weird because it's as if, like, some of these MAGA people have, like, cognitive dissonance, like they can't recognize the story's changing. Like, a week ago, didn't you say that we weren't at war and we were just connecting strikes?

[A]

All right, guys, got Jackson here. We're going to talk a little bit before the debate tonight with Brian Shapiro. Thanks for coming, man.

[B]

Thanks. Thank you for having me.

[A]

Absolutely. I'm excited to see you in action, man.

[B]

I'm looking forward to it. It's gonna be a big debate for me.

[A]

Yeah, it's gonna be a big one. How are you feeling with the whole Iran situation right now?

[B]

I've been really unhappy about it. I know, at least whenever I was supporting Trump in 2024, I actually really bought into the whole no new wars thing. And it's troubling seeing the way that many MAGA conservatives have just blindly rolled with this one because it's so obviously opposite of the MAGA platform. I mean, when you watch In 2016, Donald Trump literally talked to Jeb Bush and partially blamed his father for 9 11. These are crazy anti Middle Eastern war stances. And we're seeing such a reversal, and it's very disappointing to see many of the MAGA constituency not recognize that clear incongruency.

[A]

Yeah. How shocked were you when it was announced?

[B]

Unfortunately, I wasn't too shocked because obviously I'd seen some of the preparations. You know, I heard people saying it was going to happen, but there was still a level of dissonance because once I saw it actually hit, I really felt like I felt betrayed by Trump in a way, because I really did support him, really did buy into this Trump 2024 policy platform. And I feel as though time and time again, I've been let down.

[A]

People are starting to resign. They're saying Tulsi Gabbard might resign now.

[B]

I mean, absolutely. And when you watch Tulsi's statements at the hearing recently, she basically confirmed that there was no nuclear threat.

[A]

Yeah, that's concerning.

[B]

She literally said that there was no efforts to rebuild after the total decimation

[A]

back in, I think, June, the nuclear threat. They've played that card a few times now, though, so I think people are catching on.

[B]

Absolutely. Even whenever it first broke, I didn't fully buy into it. And obviously I wanted for more information, I think Tulsi Gabbard and people like Joe Kent have brough a lot of that finality to it. But for me at least I can say, like many Americans, I was very tired of the, the nuclear threat angle that's been brought out time and time again. You know, we saw it in Iraq.

[A]

How do you see it playing out from here? Obviously gas is already up. People are starting to feel it already a couple weeks in. Where do you see it going from here?

[B]

I think it's going to be electorally disastrous. I think it's going to be a long war. I don't see it that there's any possibility, and I said this on the first day the war broke. I don't think there's any way where you can kill the Ayatollah, these people's holy leader. Basically, it's like the Pope of Islam, from what I understand. I don't think you can ever just kill the Ayatollah in a Muslim country and expect that the war is going to end quickly. It's not that I like the Ayatollah, honestly. Him being dead is one of the better consequences of this war. But it's obvious this will have to be a long term effort.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And you see Pete Hegseth saying that, you know, he promised the six dead airmen that he would finish the job. What does that mean? To me, that means boots on the ground. To me that means long term conflict and lots and lots of casualties that I don't think need to happen.

[A]

Yeah, A lot of money, right?

[B]

Lots of money. You look at the US deficit, an estimated 12 trillion of the over 30 trillion deficit is from Middle Eastern wars.

[A]

Wow. It's almost half the deficit of the country.

[B]

That's absurd. That's absurd. And people talk about spending. You know, we're in a world where people are, you know, for better or for worse, criticizing benefits. And yet all these benefits are being thrown under, you know, Medicare cuts. And on top of that we're seeing another war in the Middle East. I don't see any way where it's. I mean, you talk about American peoples having the affordability crisis. Should more of our deficit spending be going into the Middle East? Yeah, it doesn't seem to have been a good cost before.

[A]

So that being said, should America get out of the Middle east completely?

[B]

It's kind of hard to say because I think right now we have to finish the job in Iran. I mean, it will spell actual destruction. We went in there, we started this big conflict. And as much as I'd love to say we should pull out, I think I understand that pull out would be more disastrous than going in. But, you know, weighing the two outcomes, I'm sort of undecided because, yeah, there'll be lots of casualties in the Iran war. Yeah. I don't think we should have started it. Yeah, I think it was under false pretense, but now that we're in, it's not so easy to get out.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

That's how a lot of these conflicts are. You know, they're galvanized against us, and the whole world is sort of coming down saying this has to be a finished job. Because obviously they probably did have nuclear refinement capabilities back in June. If they can rebuild, then that's a big threat.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

So it's not that I support the war at all, but I think a pullout's almost impossible. I think that may have been by design.

[A]

Wow, that's scary.

[B]

Very scary. I think this will be a long term problem.

[A]

Oh, my God. So another Iraq situation.

[B]

I can see it. Possible. Yeah.

[A]

Geez.

[B]

I mean, you look at Iran as a country too. Iran as a country. I think it's good to compare to Vietnam, for example. Vietnam obviously was a greatly challenging war due to its geography and topography. It's a very difficult map to navigate terrain. And you look at why the US failed in Afghanistan, it's because of the mountains. US troops struggle to fight in the mountains. Whenever we were pushing back the Afghan rebels, many times we would lose the fights out as they recessed into the mountains.

[A]

Right.

[B]

And Iran is a fortress country. It's mountainous all around the outside with small population centers interspersed within the sort of desert lands and some mountain villages. And so it's a very concerning reality because this seems like a very challenging topography for a topography for American soldiers.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And I mean, looking at the population, there's 100 million or 90 million people. That's a lot. Vietnam has, I think, around 30 million.

[A]

So 3x Vietnam.

[B]

Absolutely. And the terrain is possibly more difficult.

[A]

Wow. Professor Jang, who's been blown up, has predicted that the US will lose this war to Iran. Did you see that? Yeah, he's. He's been pretty spot on with some of his predictions.

[B]

I, I can see a reality where that occurs. I mean, Iran has always been understood to be a very, very dangerous war. I've talked about this a lot in the past. I mean, Iranian topography, as I just said, is virtually uninvadable it's been seen as it's a fortress country. It's surrounded from all sides with these large jagged mountains and all of their military bases are interspersed within them. It's hard to invade by design. You look at places like Tehran and yet Tehran is in the middle of the desert, but all around it are mountainous regions. This is very concerning.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

It's the type of conflicts that the US does struggle when and did struggle to win in Afghanistan.

[A]

A lot of people are fearing nuclear weapons will be involved with this war. Do you think that's a possibility?

[B]

To be frank, I see it as unlikely. I don't think Iran has nuclear weapon capabilities. And I think that Iran, even if they did start rebuilding now, which seems like they probably would, I think most countries that were invaded in this way probably would consider that even then. I think that people underestimate how rational people are generally when they get nuclear armaments. It's never a good thing to play with that and it's never a good thing to accept. But I still think that we're far from the threshold of deploying any nuclear weapons.

[A]

Yeah. What are the lies and misinformation you're seeing around this war right now?

[B]

Online, I'm seeing a lot of lies. I'm seeing people saying that we're decimating them. They're destroyed. This is meant to prevent a longer war. We've been at war for 47 years. It's like, cut me a break. We haven't been at war for 47 years. That was one of the funniest arguments. It's like the first day this war happens, everyone's saying, analysts are saying it could be four days. It's like, what the hell are you talking about, four days? Can I curse on you?

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

It's absolute bullshit. It's like, no, it's not gonna be a four day war. And then, oh, well, it's gonna be a couple of weeks. And oh, well, it's gonna be through September. And then, oh, well, it's gonna be as long as it takes. And it's weird because it's as if like some of these MAGA people like, have like cognitive dissonance, like they can't recognize the story's changing. Like a week ago, didn't you say that we weren't at war and we were just conducting strikes? And. And now you say we're ending a 47 year long war.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

How can these two things be true at the same time? They can't. It's just psycho.

[A]

It's weird. Yeah. After the Maduro thing, I think people thought it'd be another quick thing like that, you know.

[B]

Yeah. And I can get how, like as an, as a citizen, maybe that makes sense. But anyone who's politically activated, it's so obviously different because, I mean, you look at Iran, Iran is a very structured government. People imagine Iran as if it's just some caliphate with a leader who rules with an iron fist. And that's it. And although, of course, you know, the Ayatollah was at many levels a dictator. It has a long constitution. The constitution is longer than the US Constitution. It is very wide, it is somewhat rugged, and it has a long chain of command. It's not like Maduro, where if you pop them out and put a puppet leader in, there's no real system around it because there's a level of, I guess I forget the initial term, but there's a level of differentiation there in that type of administration that Iran has. It's clear this will be a long conflict. And Iran is like, I mean, I'm not saying they're one of the greatest countries in the world, but they're superpower.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

They have 100 million people. They have anti air cannons. They had, you know, they're a nuclear threshold state. This obviously isn't Venezuela, which has a crippling economy, hated leader.

[A]

Yeah. It's not an easy win. Yeah. By any means. Yeah. So Trump ran on no new wars. He also ran on getting the illegals out. How do you think he's done so far with the mass deportations?

[B]

I'm really disappointed. I can say it's one of those things where it actually does bother me at an emotional level, like, because I really bought into it. You know, I told friends and family I was actually too young to vote for Trump, but I told people to vote for him because I felt that he really would go about mass deportations. And now we're looking at it. And yes, he's trying. I do appreciate boots on the ground. It's good to see. But what people don't realize is the long term implications of these ICE deployments. What happens is, is there are ways to have mass deportations. We know where most of the illegals work. They work in three industries, agriculture, hotels, and construction. It's not as though we have to be going on the streets looking for them. They're at job sites.

[A]

Right.

[B]

So the question is, well, why aren't we raiding job sites? Because Trump got calls telling him not to.

[A]

Really.

[B]

There's a lot of reporting talking about this wow. So the question is, why are we not doing this to the fullest of our ability? You know, I supported mass deportations. I didn't support optical, like intensity. It seems as though the system around our mass deportations is being done in the most abrasive way possible, with the most, the least possible outcome. And it causes a moral issue for me too, because if you look at the self deportations, if we're not actually going to get mass deportations, then that means that 2 million illegals self deported, which means that yes, of course they're illegal, which is obviously bad, and yes, they should be brought home. But if you isolated in a vacuum, you have whatever, 20 million, 10 million illegals, and 2 million of them did the right thing and got the wrong outcome, they went home and they probably wouldn't have been deported. Wow. So you think about it. I mean, as a Christian ethicist, I think that's actually somewhat immoral.

[A]

I agree.

[B]

And you know, if you look at it from a grand scale, obviously, you know, go back home, whatever it takes, but it should be everyone back home. And I feel as though we could do that. You look at how Obama did mass deportations. It wasn't street raids and looking around on the streets, there are job sites to raid. We know where these people work. But Trump didn't want to damage the economy. And that's the reality of, you know, mass deportations. It's going to damage the economy. It's going to be hard, it's going to be ugly. So if you're going to get it done, you have to get it done

[A]

as fast as possible, right?

[B]

Absolutely.

[A]

Because if you drag it out, it makes it worse.

[B]

It feels as though we're trying to paint a picture to the base. The base wanted mass deportations. We want to show them that. We're giving it to you. People are screaming, you know, we're ripping people out of their homes. And as someone who wants mass deportations at a surface level, I'm like, yes, we're getting the mass deportations. And then you look deeper and you see the realities. And the reality is the numbers aren't there. They're not going to get there.

[A]

Likely.

[B]

You know, people say ISIS is running out of funding. We pulled out of Minnesota.

[A]

I saw that.

[B]

And on top of that, you look at what it's done to the culture. The political capital right now around mass deportations has had one of the largest dips of any, like, political campaign issue I've ever seen in my lifetime. Think about it. In 2024, everyone wanted mass deportations. Everyone wanted ICE. That's why Trump won for being real.

[A]

That's the reason he won the border for sure.

[B]

Absolutely. And Trump closed the border. That's the one thing I'll always say. Donald Trump has done an amazing job at closing the border and that's a really important thing. Yeah, he deserves his flowers for that. But what he did do also is he damaged the political capital around mass deportations. People wanted it when he got in, now they don't want it. That's a very scary reality because there was a world where if we had someone in who did them in a measured way and got people out by the numbers, that could have been an issue that every administration had to capitulate to. But now probably the next regime that runs will run on a sort of anti ICE platform. I think the Democrat regime. In 2024, after that loss, if we had good mass deportations, it's likely that in 28 they would have tried to posture as having good border security or good deportations. I don't think that's going to happen now. I think they've been pushed more to the left on the issue.

[A]

Geez.

[B]

And what do we get from it? 2 million self deportations and what, like a hundred thousand deportations? I mean, those numbers may be inaccurate, but I can tell you it's not satisfactory when you look at the numbers.

[A]

Yeah, because they say 20 million came in. Right. I don't know the exact number, but

[B]

it's hard to know. But I can say it's a lot less or a lot more that are going out.

[A]

That's scary, man. I didn't know they were running out of funds there.

[B]

Yeah, I've seen some evidence they may be running out of funds. There's some people talking about how ICE agents may not be getting their payments for their bonus sign ons.

[A]

Yeah, well, I know tsa, I believe is holding payments still. I just saw it today. USPS is going to run out of money next year. Social Security is going to be out of money in six years.

[B]

Yeah, it's the government shutdown, man.

[A]

Yeah, it's crazy.

[B]

You look at Social Security too. I'll fix that. So, yeah, that wasn't good. But I mean, you look at Social Security, it's a big problem for my generation. People don't understand. Social Security is essentially a Ponzi scheme. We pay in. And it says in the Social Security website that my generation won't be getting its full payments.

[A]

Oh, it already says it.

[B]

It already says it.

[A]

Wow.

[B]

So that's the reality is that people in America right now, in my generation, are paying into a Social Security network that they will never get back. It's a textbook scheme. It is, absolutely. And. And there was a big need for it. I mean, it's great that people can pay into a service and, you know, get payouts, but the problem is that we're not paying in what we're taking out, so it doesn't work that way.

[A]

Well, we could take it even further. Professor Jang says that US dollar is a Ponzi scheme.

[B]

Yeah. I mean, just with the removal of

[A]

the gold standard, the petrodollar. Yeah. Because these Saudi Arabian companies, whatever, are investing into the AI companies here. And it's like an AI bubble, which is keeping the dollar inflated at the moment.

[B]

Yeah, there's a lot of concerns there. I mean, when you look at the value of the US Dollar, it's obviously one of the main things. Asserting us is like the global hegemony. I think it's very important that we maintain that. And obviously people talk about the removal of the gold standard. I think if you look back, it unfortunately was necessary at the time, but it's unfortunate we ever had to be put in that situation.

[A]

Yeah. Do you think it's too late to go back to something like that?

[B]

I think it is, yeah.

[A]

Damn.

[B]

I think it's virtually impossible. I'm not an economist. It's one of my weaker points. But the more that I've read into it, it seems as though we're in the situation we're in now. We're in a globalist economy. And this goes back to another one of the reasons that I actually supported Trump so much, which is protectionism. Trump felt like a return to form with protectionist economics. The idea that we can have trade barriers from the globalist economy that will keep domestic jobs here. You know, my family, I grew up in West Virginia. And in West Virginia, it was a big factory economy, big middle class economy. And now we're seeing it more and more where people are either working $100,000 jobs or $40,000 jobs. That middle class is fading away. There's a lot of big impacts there because people very rarely jump from $40,000 a year to $200,000 a year. However, sometimes they jump from 70 to 150, 150 to 200. So that's what lateral economic growth is. That's the American dream. As the middle class goes away, so does the American dream. And conservatives need to wake up to that reality.

[A]

Yeah, I grew up middle class, so I'll speak anecdotally, but from what I've seen with my classmates that grew up, a lot of them, a lot of them are at that level or below at the moment.

[B]

Absolutely.

[A]

I know it's kind of early, like I graduated in 2015 high school, but it's not looking promising from. I grew up with like 800 kids in my class.

[B]

Yeah. Republicans had this thing often where they like to look at the left and say everything the left cares about is dumb. Because the left is dumb. But it's a very bad point because a lot of the issues, if you talk to a leftist and you really care about people, I think you'll agree on some of the problems. Just the solutions are different.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And I can say that I agree. The affordability crisis is one of the worst things to happen to this country. And the wealth gap is growing too fast. It should be this way.

[A]

Yeah. Very fast.

[B]

And so we have to say, like, are we going to sit here and lie to ourselves and say the wealth gap's awesome. We need everyone to be the rich or poor. It's like, no, that's not how that works. You got to love your fellow countrymen.

[A]

Yeah. So are you worried about the wealth gap?

[B]

I mean, absolutely. If you look in America, the top 1% and the bottom 90% have virtually the exact same share of wealth in America. That's a problem. The problem isn't people being rich. The problem is people being too poor. You need to say that if you're an American, you need to love all Americans. And if you love the American dream, you have to understand that the problem isn't that there are poor people. Some people should be poor. It's hard to say, you know, it's not pretty. But some people don't work very hard, aren't very capable, and probably shouldn't be making a very, very large amount of money.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

However, the big problem is the people who should be working in factories should be working in manufacturing. These medium skill jobs. They're all working in food service. That's not right. That's not utilizing our abilities. There was this big idea under neoliberalism that we could just educate people out of the lower class. We could educate them all into high skill workers and we'd all be engineers and programmers. Where'd that get us? Got us the largest wealth gap we've seen, I mean, I think in 100 years.

[A]

Are you opposed to universal basic income? Especially with the rise of AI?

[B]

It's tricky because it could become a necessity. I'm Generally opposed to any form of welfare state. I think people need to have some value to their work. Obviously with the rise of AI, this could become necessity. But I think if it's any way to be avoided, it's so integral. When people obfuscate themselves from the process of creating their own means of existence. You get a people who don't want to live, they don't know what they're fighting for and they don't reach the ends that they want to reach. Purpose, you need purpose. People need purpose. And more than just religion, obviously there's that absence of purpose, but in addition there's also the absence of purpose from your wealth. You need to work for your creation. You look at how man started, you know, hunters and gatherers, building your own homes, homesteading. It was a hands on existence. I think there's something to the fact that the more and more we obfuscate from that reality of creating the means of your life. I think that's a lot of why you see people depressed. Yeah, A lot of people, their only sort of way to fill that gap of creating their own livelihood is through painting or art or what they do after they get done working at McDonald's. And you just think it's a travesty because you need people to be able to create their own existence. I think that UBI will drive that gap further and further and further until people have no connection with their own creation.

[A]

Scary world.

[B]

It's a very scary world.

[A]

Yeah. Because I, me personally, I find a lot of purpose in my work.

[B]

Absolutely.

[A]

You know, I don't know what I do without work.

[B]

I don't know what I would either. It's what makes me wake up in the morning.

[A]

Yeah, it'd be very empty life, I think it would. And I used to be atheist, so I've kind of experienced it a little.

[B]

Me too. Yeah, I was atheist until two years ago.

[A]

Yeah. Terrible. Oh, really?

[B]

Wow.

[A]

Yeah, it's pretty.

[B]

Recently I grew up agnostic. Atheist, basically.

[A]

Wow. Yeah, let's dive into that. Because you said you're Christian now, so are you a Christian nationalist? Would you call yourself that?

[B]

When people say the word Christian nationalist, I have a very hard time understanding what they're driving at because in some places people mean like the church is the president. Obviously this seems as though it wouldn't work too well. However, people say that the laws should have no relation to Christianity and I find that a little bit laughable.

[A]

What do you mean by that?

[B]

I guess, I guess you have to say and you go back to the Fundamentals, what's the purpose of a law? A lot of people struggle to answer that question. But for me, at least my answer is to create a society where the most good is happening, with liberty where possible, obviously. And so you have to say, okay, well, good. What does this word good mean? Well, that's a hard question. Good is really transient. A lot of people. For a lot of people, good is just. I like this, I don't like that. So then we say, okay, that seems very arbitrary. And most Americans don't feel that way. Most Americans are Christian. So if laws are meant to be surrounding what is good, and for most Americans the definition of good is whatever God wants, then obviously at some level a democracy would have laws that follow that congruency. I don't see where the issue is. It's not as though church and morality are separate for Christians, they're identical. I'm a divine command theorist. I believe that goodness is just another word for what God tells me to do. I don't think there's anything else interesting as you have to say. If I want to do what's good, then obviously it's going to come from God. The reason that I believe murder is wrong comes from God.

[A]

That's in the Bible, right?

[B]

Yeah, of course. That's the Ten Commandments. That first commandment, thou shall not kill. Or it's really murder. But.

[A]

Yeah, what if you're in the military?

[B]

What if you're in the military? Well, that's not murder. Well, it depends. So I'm personally practicing Catholic currently.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And when you talk about like thou shalt not kill and the original translation is murder and which is an unlawful killing. And under Catholicism there's just war. So just war requires six criteria. I can't recall them off at the top of my head, but you know, it's being a. Yeah, there's just, there's reasons. There's just war criteria in Catholicism. So in that scenario, obviously people can kill and it's not murder in that scenario. But you have to be careful. Life is precious. Shouldn't be ending at willy nilly.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Especially not for oil money or foreign interests or.

[A]

Dude, I see so many veterans now so upset because they're, they're now finding out why they got sent off to the battlefield when they thought it was for something else.

[B]

It's heartbreaking.

[A]

It must be. Right?

[B]

It really is.

[A]

They lost people they love and care about because.

[B]

Exactly. I mean, you look at the, the gentleman who recently was dragged out of the Senate.

[A]

Yeah, that was awful.

[B]

It's terrible what we do to our servicemen in this country. I think as much as, like, you know, you look in history and one of the things that made America unique is how much we cared about our military. Back in the day, people didn't care about the military. People don't know this, but, like, back in the day, it was viewed as like, oh, you're a weirdo if you were in the military, like, a long, long time ago, like in, like. Like Athens.

[A]

Oh, really?

[B]

Yeah. Being a warrior wasn't as respected as it is.

[A]

Wow. Yeah. Now it's definitely respected. And we do care in the form of money. I think we fund a lot of money towards it.

[B]

Absolutely. We fund a lot of money towards it, which is a good thing at some levels. But I think it's just. It's troubling to see that guy getting dragged out of. I think it was the House of Representatives broke his arm. They broke his arm in a door frame. And it was that one. The senator broke his arm, too. I mean, how are you gonna do that? That's like resignation material.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

That's awesome. To break a serviceman's arm at a door who's protesting. And then all these Americans, who. All these MAGA conservatives were attacking him because he had a Muslim wife. Can you not say something correct just because he has a Muslim wife? Well, I'm Catholic. I wouldn't personally marry a Muslim woman because all my kids be Christian. But does that define the value of his statement?

[A]

Yeah, that's a big topic. And especially on the conservative side right now, the spread of Islam to the West.

[B]

Absolutely. And I can say for me personally, I'm. I. I don't like Islam.

[A]

You don't?

[B]

I'm just a bad religion. I'm a big believer. A lot of people have this weird mental barrier about criticizing religion where it's like, you can criticize anyone's belief, but religion, that's bigotry. And it's really weird when you break it down, because what is religion? It's just a belief about God. It's no different than my belief about, like, how law should be structured, to me, at least. And maybe it's. I grew up agnostic, so I'm not as personally connected for it, but I can say, like, I think Islam is wrong.

[A]

What's your biggest gripe with it?

[B]

There's a lot of gripes with it. I mean, the main area for me is that I think it's very odd to know that, you know, you talk about their view of Jesus, how Jesus was Sort of a, you know, he did rise from the dead, but it was fake. He was fake risen from the dead. And I wonder, like, why would God play this trick on humanity where for like 600 years, he made them think that Jesus Christ was God until the real guy, who was some pedophile in the desert, emerged?

[A]

It's like.

[B]

This feels a little bit odd to me.

[A]

Yeah, that's a weird one.

[B]

It's very weird. I find it all to be odd. I believe there's verses where Muhammad even talks about how he feared the devil may have been speaking to him. And if you read.

[A]

Wow, that's in the Quran.

[B]

Yeah, I believe so. And if you read the Revelations, they talk about how there will be no other prophets after me, no other angels. Don't believe another angel after me. How did Muhammad get his wisdom?

[A]

That's crazy. I'm. I'm rereading the Bible right now.

[B]

It's awesome.

[A]

Took 20 years off. I'm. I started with the New Testament.

[B]

That's great.

[A]

Yeah. I tried doing the Old one, but I don't know, it was boring.

[B]

The Old Testament's really weird. A lot of people don't understand. You talk about dispensationalists in America. A lot of people read the Old Testament. And this is why I think Catholicism is important, is because you can read these two texts as if it's a linear progression where all the laws apply, but you arrive at some weird conclusions. You can't wear mixed fabrics, like, you know, obviously. And that's where the Catholic Church helps with the Old Law and the New law distinction. There's ceremonial law in the Old Testament that no longer applies, and people don't recognize that.

[A]

Oh, really? So they kind of look at both,

[B]

and some people do, and it confuses them. Confuse them on the reality of what should still be followed, what shouldn't be. And they get in this weird ambient world of picking and choosing.

[A]

Right.

[B]

I think one thing that I find interesting too, is when you arrive at. People talk about genocide in the Bible and murder in the Bible. And I always think it's interesting to break it down because there's a lot of different approaches to it. Some people, when they talk about the Bible, they say, oh, well, this is absolutely evil under any circumstance. And you have to say, like, well, what does good mean to a Christian? Good generally just means whatever God chooses to do. If you don't believe that there's any real morality, there's no magical force that is good, and God is just telling us what we should do. Who are we to criticize? In a way, a lot of people find that to be unpleasing. But I would say that for most people, even if they're not Christian. I think most people are what I call like an ethical motivist, where when they say something is good or bad, that's basically the same as saying like, murder. Ugh, like murder. You like murder. But it's like, can you really say it's wrong? I can because I have God. But I find that most people can't adequately defense that.

[A]

I noticed that recently as I'm moderating debates, people can't actually explain their position. They can't, they just have a position, but they can't explain how they got there and why.

[B]

And that's why epistemology is so important. People can't go to the fundamentals of their understanding. Yeah, it's a scary area. It's like falling, sort of. Because when you step into the unknown of reality, you know, people like Descartes and you try and understand what really the basis of our, of our world is. It's a bit of a scary ambient void, but I think there's truth to be found there.

[A]

Yeah, it's got me, even me, like reevaluating my opinions and beliefs right now, to be honest, because a lot of people watching this. Your opinions are formed from what you consume.

[B]

It's true. It's very true. And it's easy to upset things blindly. It's easy to blindly say like, okay, well obviously this is wrong, and that's obvious. But then when you break down, you know, there's what's called the Munchenhausen Trilemma, which is, you know, an old skeptic argument, which is the idea that all three types of knowledge fail for one or more reasons.

[A]

Wow.

[B]

There's three types of knowledge claims. There's circular reasoning, which is, you know, I'm on a chair. Why am I on a chair? Because I'm being lifted up. Why am I being lifted up? Because I'm on a chair. This doesn't work, obviously. Then there's infinite reduction, which is everything is explained by something else. But eventually you reduce enough where something just has to be true at the bottom. What's that explained by? And then there's what most people go to, I find, which is dogma, which is just. This is true. It's obviously true. It's obviously not a defensible argument.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And so once you realize this, you say like, well, what can be known? It's a difficult challenge.

[A]

Objective truth. Right.

[B]

Objective Truth is a really difficult area to go to. And I think when it comes to objective truth, you know, with the word objective being without, you know, without a mind, it needs not a mind to be understood. There are things that are objectively true that have to be.

[A]

Gravity.

[B]

Exactly. But the question is, can we discern that? If we can't even know that our sense data is accurate, how can we know that our visualization of gravity is accurate? How can we know? There's an old idea called the Botzmann brain, which is the idea that if the world's infinite and space is infinite, the atoms will all be smashed together at random and every single thing will be created in the void. So then what will be created? Well, a human brain with memories and electrodes.

[A]

Whoa.

[B]

And you say that actually that's more likely than life on Earth.

[A]

Wow.

[B]

So if you're really evaluating things from a purely pragmatic angle, it's more likely that your brain in space experiencing false simulated memories than you are a real human on Earth.

[A]

Holy crap. So, simulation theory.

[B]

Well, exactly, yeah. And so you have to say, what is it that we call truth? What does this word truth mean? And for me, I find that it means that there are things we assume. We assume logic, we assume objective morality. We assume our sense data is somewhat accurate, at least most of the time. That's where it comes from.

[A]

That is trippy.

[B]

I mean, can we know it? Not really, but.

[A]

So no right and wrong? No good or bad?

[B]

There is good or bad.

[A]

You think so?

[B]

Yes.

[A]

Because it's subjective, though, right?

[B]

It's not that it is subjective, it's that our understanding is, at a level, subjective. I think that in order to find truth, I don't believe that any truth claim can be adequately proven. Any of them. I don't believe that I can prove that I'm sitting on a chair right now. However, I can say that when we talk about knowledge in the conventional sense, we leave the realm of epistemology. We sort of shift the word knowledge to mean we have a good reason to believe it's true. And we sort of. We assume logic, we assume sense data. We assume that past events generally predict future results with some exception, and that's what we build our world off of. In the same way, though, I say, well, how is it obscene? Or, I guess, how would it be not a valid reality. Just as much for me to assume objective morality. Murder being wrong feels as strong to me as me sitting on this chair. And the truth is, you can't find anyone who can differentiate those Claims as one being more accurate than the other.

[A]

Wow.

[B]

I find that most of our conceptions of truth is based off of what you call, like normative assumptions.

[A]

So most people assume this appeal to masses.

[B]

Yeah, exactly. Seems like a pretty good heuristic for figuring out what's true.

[A]

That was my go to growing up. Oh, this many people believe that. Yeah. So it's true.

[B]

It's generally a good heuristic. It's not perfect, but it seems to rule things out at least. If no one believes it, it's probably not too worth looking into. It's sort of the idea of religion here. If you're searching for a religion, you're probably not going to think, what if this blade of grass is God? It's not an idea worth evaluating. And so in that way I can say, okay, well, it seems as though a lot of people have a belief in objective morality. It seems that belief for me is really deep. I was an nihilist for a while. I didn't think there was any morality. I thought that I should just do what I wanted to do, be a hedonist. But there was something inside of me that told me that that wasn't true. And as I realized that that was just as real as any other assumption that I had made, I said, well, just as I follow logic to its conclusion, I should follow this assumption of objective morality to his logical conclusion. That's where I arrive at Jesus Christ.

[A]

Wow. So something inside of you. So like your subconscious was speaking to you or what? Exactly.

[B]

I think so, yeah. I think that there's more there. I think there's something metaphysical about morality. I think that most people can feel it when they get into it. You look at Native Americans, you look a lot of these tribal societies and you know, not to belittle them with the word tribal, but they had a connection with God. The Native Americans, whenever we arrived here with our. With our evangelists, many of them said that we were simply bringing them the continuation of their own religion because they believed in a universal God, somewhat like Yahweh, who created everything and superseded all other gods.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And we just gave him a name. And so you have to say that in my opinion, if objective morality is just as valid of a descriptive understanding of our human assumptions as logic or any other epistemological sense of understanding, then we have to say the same way that we follow logic to its conclusion. We combined all these assumptions to find our worldview. If everyone assumes objective morality, or many people do, most of the people who don't have had to reason their way out of it. Then we can say, okay, well, we should probably follow this to the end. I think in the end I think you can rule out Islam. If you're not Jewish, you can generally rule out Judaism. Well, at least you can say it's not productive to believe in. Even if it was true, it wouldn't really help me much to believe in it because I'm not set. And then from there I think that most of the other religious sects are either non prescriptive, so they don't give you an outcome. So maybe yes, there's some sects of Buddhism or Buddhism which don't even believe in heaven. So it's like, yeah, it could be

[A]

good, but reincarnation, right?

[B]

Yeah. It's like, should we follow it if it doesn't really seem to have an outcome? There's some sects of religions that don't even have a mandate. So I say, okay, we evaluate the ones that demand something of you and we say, which of these should we follow? And I think that it's very obvious from anyone introspective that Christianity is the only logically cohesive understanding of morality that we can derive.

[A]

Wow.

[B]

Aside from things like ethical motivism, which is just understanding that morality is just feelings, that's not satisfactory for me. It doesn't line up with my internal understanding.

[A]

That makes sense. Well, dude, this was great. I look forward to the debate. We'll link your socials below.

[B]

Absolutely. Thank you so much for having me.

[A]

Absolutely. Check them out, guys. Peace. Thanks for watching to the end, guys. Please comment below your thoughts on the episode if you agree. If you disagree, I'd love to hear. I read every single comment. Means a lot to me. Thank you so much.