The Truth About DEI & Why It’s Failing in America | Matt Dearden DSH #1214

Summary

Digital Social Hour: Episode Summary Episode Title: The Truth About DEI & Why It’s Failing in America | Matt Dearden DSH #1214
Release Date: March 2, 2025
Host: Sean Kelly
Guest: Matt Dearden

---

Introduction

In this episode of Digital Social Hour, host Sean Kelly engages in an in-depth conversation with Matt Dearden, a prominent figure known for his thought-provoking content on TikTok and other social media platforms. The discussion centers around Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), exploring its origins, current implementation, and the reasons why Matt believes DEI initiatives are failing in America. The conversation also delves into broader topics such as history education, the role of federal agencies, and the evolving landscape of political discourse.

---

1. Understanding DEI: Origins and Evolution

Matt Dearden begins by tracing the roots of DEI back to the civil rights movement. He highlights how DEI initially aimed to create pathways for marginalized communities, particularly those whose ancestors were enslaved, to gain representation and equity in various sectors.

Matt Dearden [00:00]: "The civil rights movement said, hey, look. Look at these people that have been marginalized in our country for. And their. Their ancestors have been enslaved in the country. So we should make some pathways to bring them to the table."

However, Matt expresses concern over how DEI has transformed over time, shifting focus from creating equitable opportunities to rigid quotas based solely on skin color.

Matt Dearden [00:27]: "These 10 spots are reserved for people just because of their skin color. And I don't think that's bad. I think that's very, very damaging."

---

2. DEI Implementation: Quotas vs. Equitable Pathways

Matt criticizes the current implementation of DEI, arguing that it often results in superficial diversity without addressing deeper issues of equity and inclusion. He contends that reserved spots based solely on race can lead to skepticism about the qualifications of individuals, undermining the very goals DEI seeks to achieve.

Matt Dearden [00:43]: "Hey, the only reason that person got their position was because of their skin color. And that's bad. Like, that's bad for everyone."

He contrasts this with the original intent of DEI, which was to create systems that allow marginalized groups to compete on a more level playing field, rather than enforcing strict racial quotas.

---

3. The Historical Context: Affirmative Action and Presentism

Delving into the history of affirmative action, Matt explains how DEI policies have their foundation in efforts to rectify historical injustices. He emphasizes the importance of understanding historical figures and their actions within the context of their time, avoiding the pitfalls of presentism—the anachronistic introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past.

Matt Dearden [09:12]: "I don't think it's taught well because it's taught a lot of times from the perspective of the 21st century. And I call that presentism."

Matt argues that while it is crucial to acknowledge the flaws and wrongdoings of historical figures, it is equally important to recognize their contributions and the complexities of their actions without reducing their legacy to a single aspect.

---

4. DEI in Modern America: Challenges and Criticisms

Matt discusses the challenges DEI faces in contemporary America, particularly the backlash against policies perceived as favoring certain racial groups over others. He points out that DEI initiatives, when misapplied, can foster division rather than unity.

Matt Dearden [34:15]: "These 10 spots are reserved for people just because of their skin color. And I don't think that's bad. I think that's very, very damaging."

Furthermore, Matt highlights cases where DEI policies have led to accusations of reverse discrimination, as seen in the Supreme Court case involving Asian students and affirmative action at Harvard. He underscores the complexity of implementing DEI in a manner that genuinely promotes equity without fostering resentment.

---

5. Broader Political and Social Implications

The conversation shifts to broader political themes, including the role of federal agencies and their impact on businesses and individuals. Matt criticizes the expansive power of unelected federal agencies, arguing that their actions can lead to significant consequences for businesses without adequate oversight or accountability.

Matt Dearden [47:26]: "The level of corruption just from my clients is absolutely insane. ... They received a subpoena to produce all of these documents ... They do not know what they're being investigated for yet."

He connects this critique to the broader discussion on DEI by suggesting that governmental overreach in implementing policies can undermine the original goals of creating a fair and equitable society.

---

6. The Role of Social Media and Public Discourse

Matt shares his perspective on the influence of social media platforms like TikTok in shaping public discourse around DEI and other political issues. He acknowledges the platform's limitations in fostering deep, meaningful conversations but sees it as a valuable tool for bringing complex topics to a broader audience.

Matt Dearden [02:28]: "I think there's a middle ground here where we could talk about some really interesting things but not make it too much. Almost like public facing, good history."

He also discusses the responsibilities of content creators in addressing controversial topics without perpetuating misinformation or division.

---

7. Notable Quotes

Throughout the episode, several key quotes stand out, encapsulating Matt's viewpoints:

Matt Dearden [09:12]: "I don't think it's taught well because it's taught a lot of times from the perspective of the 21st century. And I call that presentism."

Matt Dearden [34:15]: "These 10 spots are reserved for people just because of their skin color. And I don't think that's bad. I think that's very, very damaging."

Matt Dearden [47:26]: "The level of corruption just from my clients is absolutely insane... They do not know what they're being investigated for yet."

Matt Dearden [51:54]: "But like the level of power that the IRS has to ruin someone's life for a mistake... is insane."

---

8. Conclusions and Final Thoughts

In wrapping up the discussion, Matt emphasizes the need for a balanced approach to DEI—one that genuinely promotes diversity and inclusion without relying on rigid quotas that can backfire. He calls for policies that consider individual merits and foster genuine opportunities for marginalized groups, rather than imposing superficial diversity measures.

Matt also touches on the importance of understanding historical contexts and avoiding presentism to foster informed and empathetic discussions about DEI and other societal issues. He advocates for accountability and reform within federal agencies to prevent undue hardships on businesses and individuals, aligning these reforms with the original goals of creating a fair and equitable society.

---

Closing Remarks

Sean Kelly concludes the episode by thanking Matt Dearden for his insightful contributions to the conversation. Listeners are encouraged to follow Matt on TikTok and Instagram for more of his content and to stay tuned for upcoming episodes that continue to explore critical and often controversial topics.

---

Notable Mentions:

• Matt Dearden on TikTok: @MattDearden
• Matt Dearden on Instagram: @MattDeardenShow
• Upcoming Projects: Matt hints at releasing a podcast to delve deeper into long-form discussions.

---

This episode of Digital Social Hour offers a comprehensive look into the complexities of DEI in America, enriched by Matt Dearden's unique perspective and expertise. It serves as a vital resource for listeners seeking to understand the challenges and debates surrounding DEI initiatives today.

Transcript

[A]

The civil rights movement said, hey, look. Look at these people that have been marginalized in our country for. And their. Their ancestors have been enslaved in the country. So we should make some pathways to bring them to the table. Okay. But that's very different than what DEI has become in a lot of places, which is to say we need to reserve these 10 spots.

[B]

Yeah. That I'm not a fan of.

[A]

Regardless of what they think. Regardless of, like, these 10 spots are reserved for people just because of their skin color.

[B]

Right.

[A]

And I don't think that's bad. I think that's very, very damaging. And I think it leads to people saying, hey, the only reason that person got their position was because of their skin color. And that's bad. Like, that's bad for everyone.

[B]

All right, guys, Matt Dearden here today. Someone I found on TikTok, believe it or not. Thanks for coming on, man.

[A]

Yeah, I'm with all the young people on there.

[B]

Yeah. What made you want to get on that platform?

[A]

I think for me, it was. I'd been toying with it for a while, but then it got to the summer of this past year in 2024, and I noticed that there was just really bad history and con law content on there, so no one knew what they were talking about. And so I come from kind of the academic world originally. I teach history and some constitutional law, and I noticed that that level of discussion is probably too much for TikTok as far as, like, the academia side. But then what was being presented on TikTok was so surface level and often just completely off that I decided. I feel like there's a middle ground here where we could talk about some really interesting things but not make it too much. Almost like public facing, good history.

[B]

I love your debunking videos. Yeah, those are hilarious, the way you edit those.

[A]

Yeah, I feel bad on those, honestly, because I'm. I like to think of myself as a pretty empathetic guy.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So when I, you know, debunk a 21 year old, I feel like I'm being mean. But then I'm like, well, they posted this publicly, so clearly they wanted people to interact with it, and I'm just interacting with it.

[B]

Yeah. They put the themselves out there whenever you debunk destiny. I love those.

[A]

Yeah. So me, I really want to have a conversation with Destiny. Seriously. I think we'd actually agree on more than people would think, because really they think that Destiny is like super progressive, which he is. He labels himself that, but I think he's a really interesting thinker I won't comment on his private life because I know that's been the topic of some debate and discussion, but he's a really interesting guy, really interesting thinker, and I think a lot of his criticisms of the right are very fair. And so I align with a lot of that.

[B]

Yeah. Do you stay pretty much out of politics on TikTok?

[A]

Yeah, no, I go into politics, I think, but. But I like to think that my point of launch to go into politics is always based in more hard history or hard con law. Like, I don't like the accounts that all they ever do is just respond and do like political hacky sack back and forth. I just don't think that that's very interesting. I think it gets some views because obviously you're working the algorithm based on whatever's important that day, but I think that overall it's just a bad conversation.

[B]

That's how Piers Morgan built his brand.

[A]

You think so?

[B]

I mean, look at his. All his recent podcasts. It's just four people, two on one side, two on another. They just yell at each other.

[A]

Yeah. And. But a lot of those people that he has on, and I don't follow him every day, but a lot of people, I don't think they even know what they're talking about. So it's like they can touch upon like a centimeter deep of the political space and have some interesting sound bites, but they don't have any formal training. They don't have any ability to actually deconstruct an issue or provide even framework for the particular issue.

[B]

Yeah. You have that lawyer point of view, right?

[A]

I think so, yeah.

[B]

Yeah. Because you get down to the actual laws and you're not hypothetical with it.

[A]

Yeah. So my undergrad was in history. I focused on American history and then obviously went to law school, and then I do a lot of business law now. So I think it does give me kind of a unique platform that kind of crosses a few different sections of what people are interested in on TikTok right now. And so, yeah, I think I don't talk about what I don't know, though. So people, as you probably get all the time, people get messages saying, can you comment on this? And can you comment on this? And I try to stay within the lane of what I know.

[B]

That's respect.

[A]

And so sometimes I probably waver, you know, go a little bit outside of that and then I try to come back.

[B]

That's respect, though, because that's when you start looking silly, right?

[A]

Yeah, yeah, I think try to be.

[B]

An expert on everything.

[A]

And I've gotten things wrong before, don't get me wrong. But I try, Yeah, I try to like stay pretty straightforward.

[B]

So you got to make a video and be like, yo, I got that wrong, my bad.

[A]

Yeah, I mean it's more of like little corrections here and there. I've never made like a full on correction video.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

But I will comment on things that I've said in the past from time to time that I feel like I need a little bit of tweaking.

[B]

Well, that's respect. Most people would not admit that if we're being honest.

[A]

And it's funny because like a lot of the videos that I correct on TikTok, they, I become friends with those people.

[B]

Oh really?

[A]

Yeah. So they reach out via DM or whatever it is and we stay connected and we do. I think, I think we keep the conversation going pretty well.

[B]

You think those people would be pissed and like not even like block you or something. Struggling with joint pain, inflammation holding you back. It's time to level up your health with Lumati Red. This powerful turmeric formula is designed for superior absorption, reducing pain, fighting inflammation and supporting total body wellness with just a.

[A]

Few drops a day.

[B]

No pills, no hassle, just fast acting relief. Feel the difference. Order Lumati red [e-mail] and take control of your health today.

[A]

Yeah, so sometimes they do a response video to my response video. I say that's like the rarest. They don't usually do that. The one or two things that they do do is they typically either reach out to me directly, in which case it's always been a positive interaction, it's never been negative, or they just ignore it, which is totally fine too, you know, that's their prerogative.

[B]

Yeah, no one needs to respond, I guess. Yeah. Some people take it personally and then they block you or they ignore it or whatever.

[A]

Right, right.

[B]

But your videos are actually productive. You're not attacking their personal lives.

[A]

I try not to. I probably thrown some barbs from time to time. People have gotten a little bit frustrated, but I feel like they brought it upon themselves a little bit.

[B]

What was your, what was your first viral video?

[A]

What was it about, man? So I think it was a video this past summer, honestly related to the founding fathers and people saying there's a couple of them. I did where there was this whole thing where. Why are we listening to the founding Fathers in America? They were just a bunch of 21 year old kids who didn't know what they were doing and so it's such a poor understanding of who the Founding Fathers were that I felt like I had to debunk it. And I only had like a few thousand followers at the time, but a couple of those videos got to a couple million or whatever.

[B]

I just watched Hamilton and I have newfound respect for our Founding Fathers, I'm.

[A]

Not going to lie. Yeah, they were a really, really interesting group of people. And I think that as much credit as a lot of people in America give them, we actually don't even give them enough credit. Because if you think about it. So pretend you are a subject in the British empire in the 1770s or whatever. Yeah, whenever. 1760s, 1770s. The British Empire is the most powerful empire to ever exist in the world. We think that the Roman Empire is powerful. It had more land, but the British Empire was insanely powerful. Sorry, the British Empire had more land. And so you're sitting there and you're like, we don't like what they're doing. They are trying to control us without giving us representation in Parliament. And we want to break away. But like, how do we do it? How do we do it? There had never been a country that had broken away from the British empire in the 1770s, ever.

[B]

Wow.

[A]

And so you had these group of men in America, including people like Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, etcetera, Who were like, how do we make John Adams? How do we make this work? And what they settled upon was, we're just going to declare independence. And that's where we got, of course, our Declaration of independence in 1776. And of course it had to be backed up by us fighting a war. But the amount of gall it took from a few people who were, you know, mostly between the ages of 20 and 45 to do something like that and then hope it all worked out, while establishing a brand new government under principles that had not been used, had not. So like there were separation of powers out there, there was checks and balances, but they had never been congealed together for a country prior to when the United States did it for the Constitution. And so those things like the separation from Britain, which had never been done before, plus the creation of a government that was a limited government, combined with checks and balances, separation of powers, these types of things, those two were both firsts in the history of the world.

[B]

Wow.

[A]

History of the world. And so you can criticize a lot about them. And a lot of it's fair, you know, a lot of them were slave owners, which is obviously a horrible evil. A lot of these things Were awful. But certainly what you can't criticize them for is the monstrosity, in a good way, of what they accomplished. It was truly insane. And probably half the people at the time, if not more than half, thought it wouldn't work.

[B]

Yeah, no, it's unreal. When I saw Hamilton, I was like, I wish I taught that in history class. You know what I mean?

[A]

Yeah, yeah. History is not taught very well.

[B]

Yeah. As a history nerd, how did you feel about the history that was taught in public school?

[A]

Yeah. So I went to public school for high school and then went to a private school for. For undergrad and then a public school for law school. So I've been around a few times, and I don't think it's taught well because it's taught a lot of times from the perspective of the 21st century. And I call that presentism, which is this idea that we should view the past from the current lens, specifically the current moral lens. So our morality today, in 2025, we should superimpose upon people on the. In the past. And that's not to say we engage in, like, we don't need to engage in moral relativism, but what we do need to do is look at things as those people would have seen them.

[B]

Right.

[A]

And so today, you know, you talk about the founders, Right. Which is a good example. And the first. So if I do a video on the founders, one of the first comments that will be made every single time is, why are we listening to slave owners? Or some. Or some iteration of that. Right. And first of all, not nearly all the founders were slave owners, but there were a good few that were. And that's an example of presentism. Like, you do not have to accept everything about a person or think that everything about a person is perfect in order to think that they did things that were incredibly valuable and moved our country forward. I mean, if the standard is perfection, we can. None of us could ever meet it.

[B]

No one.

[A]

And so, like you and me, if we fast forwarded 50, 100, God forbid, 150 years from now, what that we believe now would be considered morally abhorrent. We wouldn't know. We wouldn't know.

[B]

It's a good point.

[A]

We would have no way of knowing. And so we have to, I think, engage the past with some level of empathy while recognizing there are bad things, but also putting people in the light that they would have been seen at the time, which is hard to do, admittedly.

[B]

Yeah, it'd be hard to teach history, like, kind of in that tone. Right.

[A]

It's hard. Like most of history, as I like to say, is lost to history. We don't, we don't know most of what happened. But what we do know, we have to reconstruct in a light that is fair to the people of that time period.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And, and we need to tell everyone's story. I'm fully behind that. We need, we need to do a better job in history at telling the story of some of these groups, including slaves, but many others as well that have been marginalized in the past for sure. But we also need to tell the founder's story fairly. And it was a crazy story.

[B]

It was.

[A]

It should be told as like, it should be a little awe inspiring.

[B]

Should be told. Also history, I feel like when it's taught in public school has a little bias to it.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

You know what I mean?

[A]

100%. Yeah. I mean now especially not, not every public school, but the bias is certainly there. And it's a biased, like weirdly against America, which is like, like America is one of the first countries ever where it's like it's seen as a positive thing to be against your country. Like, haven't you seen that?

[B]

Yeah, yeah.

[A]

And it's like, why? Like, what is the benefit of that?

[B]

Yeah. I remember learning about the world wars and they made me feel like shit in class.

[A]

Yeah, I know, I know. 100%. Yeah. And so I think we can be super. I mean, everyone said this, but I think we can be super proud of our country and what we've done while recognizing some of the things that were bad. But like, welcome to every country on earth. You talk about the United States human rights violations, of which there have been a lot. But you name a country and I could show you at least as bad, if not sometimes a million times worse, many of which are still going on today.

[B]

Yeah, there's still slavery in some countries.

[A]

There's still slavery. There's mass genocides going on. There's. I mean, there's almost anything that you can imagine going on right now. And a lot of times it's not in the news, obviously, but it's happening. And so we should fight that wherever it occurs. And many times we are like one of the United States biggest. I'd say one of the ways that it is acting in a way that gives credence to the founding is the way that it's advancing these amazing principles abroad. Things like democracy. And it's not always right. We shouldn't have been involved in certain things, most likely. But we are. We have been involved in many incredible peacekeeping missions abroad that have kept dictators at bay or have prevented human rights violations. And so, yeah, I don't hate. I don't. I don't get this America hatred. I truly don't.

[B]

I see that. It's like, why are we getting involved with so many other countries? Shouldn't we fix ourselves first? I see that argument all the time. Right. What do you think about that?

[A]

I mean, that's tough to unpack.

[B]

Yeah. I think it's case by case.

[A]

It's case by case. Yeah. So obviously, a lot of the heat has been coming from this Ukraine situation, and I'm not an international politics expert. Yeah. So I do get the. This idea of prioritization. Like, we do need to prioritize what we are spending our resources on. And theoretically, the prioritization should be on American citizens. I get that aspect of it. But I do not go as far as, like, people at the Daily Wire go, or like Matt Walsh who will say, hey, we should never be giving foreign aid to anybody, including Israel. Like, that's dumb. We're in an international world. We are in a very global economy. So things that go awry one place will definitely affect the United States one way or the other. And so a lot of these things, we have to be involved, we have to be present, we have to be engaging with other countries. I think conservatism has gone off the rails a little bit there.

[B]

You think so?

[A]

I do.

[B]

Wow. Yeah.

[A]

Because they become too isolationist.

[B]

Right.

[A]

I think that's a temptation for Trump in his second term.

[B]

Yeah. He's making a lot of moves, man.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Signed, what, like, 50 executive orders already?

[A]

Yeah, I think more.

[B]

Gee, so how do you even keep up with that? That's crazy.

[A]

I can't keep up with all of it. I don't even know if Trump can keep up with all of it.

[B]

But, I mean, that's why Elon's kind of there to help.

[A]

Yeah. Yeah, I think so. I have a lot of respect for Elon. I think he's done some amazing things, obviously, and with his businesses, but also has brought some things to light within the administration. But I do think a lot of what Elon is doing, he's kind of making stuff up as he goes.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

I mean, there's no way he can. I mean, he has a little. His little minions, but there's no way he can be the one personally going through all this stuff kind of as he acts, like, on Twitter or on X. You know, it's like, it's as if he's going into, like, the treasury vaults.

[B]

Or like he's going into Fort Knox.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. He won't be going in Fort Knox.

[B]

We'll see if anyone's allowed in there. Yeah, you know?

[A]

Yeah, exactly. Like. So I posted a video on this. Have you heard about how the gold got into Fort Knox?

[B]

I haven't, actually.

[A]

So it's a pretty crazy story. In the 1930s, FDR Roosevelt, in his first term said, hey, we need more gold as a country. And I'm paraphrasing here. Didn't just say, hey, we need more gold, but he made it illegal for United States citizens to own pretty much all of the gold in America. Made it illegal, just kind of like, by fiat. And so what ended up happening is the United States government bought essentially all the gold in America for, like, I think it was, what, 20, 20 cents an ounce or something like that.

[B]

Wow.

[A]

So it was either 20 cents or $20 an ounce. I forget. Whatever it was, it was for a relatively low amount. And it was the 1930s. So then they collected all of this gold, and there was starting to be some global unrest. And all of a sudden they had just tons of gold that they needed to store. So they decided to store it at a few different places. Among those, which was Fort Knox. So they took it by armored train to Fort Knox over a period of years and stored it underneath the fort. And then with that, they immediately declared that all the gold was now worth 35 cents an ounce, or $35 again. It's one of those two. And so the government unilaterally took all of America's gold and then declared that it was worth twice what it was when they bought it from the citizens. And then that's, like, the last we bas heard of it. So the gold under Fort Knox has never been fully audited.

[B]

Wow.

[A]

We do not know. At least officially, we do not know how much is down there. It was audited one time in the 1950s, but that was a partial audit. So we do not know how much gold is under Fort Knox. There's some other places where gold is kept as well. So that's why you hear these calls for, hey, can we figure out how much gold the United States government has? Yeah, because no one really, like, truly, no one really knows.

[B]

I've heard people say if all the gold got called, there wouldn't be enough. Have you seen that?

[A]

What do you mean?

[B]

Like, like, people own the gold ETF or whatever? I don't know.

[A]

Oh, yeah.

[B]

I Don't know how it works exactly, but apparently you're able to claim it.

[A]

Yeah, so. So we don't have as much gold as people think that we have, for sure. So regardless of how much is under Fort Knox, which is allegedly about 60% of our nation's gold that the government holds, we don't have. And that's why we went off the gold standard. One of the main reasons is there was. There was not enough gold to cover what it theoretically was worth. Right. So the money. So we were on the gold standard for quite a while. By the 1970s, people just kind of. I'm overstating this, but hear my point. People just kind of were like, oh, well, clearly the United States doesn't have the amount of gold that relates to the paper currency that it has. So by 1970, whatever one, you know, the gold standard was. Was gone. And so ever since then, we've been a fiat country where we have. And that means you have a central bank, in our case the Federal Reserve, that sits there and determines things like interest rate, how do we combat inflation, all of those kinds of things. And so the gold that we have is a nice hedge in case there's ever a global economic collapse. But it certainly is not really economically important. Right?

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

It wouldn't impact anything.

[B]

People want to go back, some people want to go back to the gold standard. That wouldn't make sense then.

[A]

It wouldn't make sense. Like you could theoretically do it, but it would destroy your economy and it would really destroy your ability to fight in case there was a depression. So that's what happened in the Great depression in the 1920s and 30s was we were still under a gold standard and people like you and me had gold and they hoarded it. And so it massively handicaps a country's ability to fight massive inflation, for example, and to fight in depression. It also doesn't give the government any flexibility to print money, which some people like. But a government needs to do that sometimes in times of war or in times of global economic depression. And there's very little flexibility with the gold standard, and it likely wouldn't work in the modern world. I'm not an expert in this area, but I know enough from history to know that that's not very smart.

[B]

Do you think history repeats itself?

[A]

Yeah. Oh, yeah, yeah. In broad swaths, usually. Not in specifics.

[B]

Right.

[A]

So for sure.

[B]

Yeah, for sure. Do you think during the pandemic too much money was printed? That's a deep one.

[A]

That's a million question deep one. That's a million dollar question, you know, no pun intended. I think, man, there's all these conspiracies right now related to the Federal Reserve, right? What it's doing, how it's doing it, how it sets certain rates for certain things, particularly interest rates. And I tend to think none of those matter. I think the Federal Reserve does about as well as it can do for a central bank of a country. So my initial answer is probably no. I don't think there's a way of saying for sure that we printed too much money as I guess time will tell, right? Time will tell. I think there's a lot of smart people that work there and world renowned economists that work there. And so I don't think it's my job to say three, four years post pandemic that we definitely got it wrong.

[B]

Yeah, a lot of people were concerned. I think the value of the dollar did drop for a bit.

[A]

Yeah. But the dollar, usually the same people that are saying that we printed way too much money during COVID are the same people saying that the dollar is not going to be the world reserve currency in five years or something like that, which they don't know what they're talking about. The dollar is by far the strongest currency in the world. It's how the world does business everywhere. I know you have brics and those things, but the dollar is in no danger whatsoever from not for not being the world reserve currency.

[B]

Do you see any other currency that could challenge it in the future? No, not even brics?

[A]

No, no. I think it's all much to do about nothing.

[B]

Yeah, well, we're probably biased too.

[A]

We're biased, but like the dollar is how the world does business still. And there's no, there's countries that want to challenge. So here's, here's a good demonstration of that. Okay? So when, when Russia invaded Ukraine, right. And again, this is not really my area, but when Russia invaded Ukraine, the world started putting sanctions on Russia, Okay. And what happened is Russia started running to Chinese banks and saying like, hey, can you help us out here? Because we know that you're not going to place sanctions on us. Right. But the whole point of all of that was if the United States is not involved in those sanctions against Russia, the sanctions will not work. The United States is so powerful and the dollar is so powerful on the world stage that they have to be involved in any actual sanctions against countries, whether it's Iraq back in the day, whether it's. Whoever it is, whether it's Russia that they won't work, otherwise they just won't work. And so I think that that shows more than anything when the rubber meets the road that the dollar is. It's far and away the most powerful currency. Far and away. Like there's not even a close second.

[B]

Yeah, I know you've done a lot of video on tariffs. This is a fun topic. Yeah, whenever I have on liberals, they seem to be opposed to them, conservatives seem to like them. What's been your take on tariffs?

[A]

Yeah, so I think that's a weird dichotomy, honestly. And it's because of Trump's support for tariffs that they've become a left right issue. But traditionally they weren't a left right issue at all.

[B]

Right.

[A]

So the discussion about tariffs on social media right now is so elementary, it's so mind numbingly dumb half the time that it drives me insane. So right now this is a discussion. If you're on the left, you're like, I gotcha. Tariffs are paid by the company that's in the United States that imports products, and then those are passed along to consumers. And the answer to that is like, well, obvious. That's elementary tariffs. That's tariffs 101. That's what they teach you in an economics class or global business class. That's obvious. Most of the time, the cost is passed along to the consumer. So the left is thinking they've played a gotcha game by explaining literally just how tariffs work. We understand that. But then the right, who've also never studied or heard about tariffs, many times they're like, oh, all of Trump's tariffs are great. They're awesome. They're going to replace the income tax, which is also awful. You would never want tariffs to generate revenue like they did 100 years ago. And we've tried extensive tariffs many times in our nation's history. Most recently was during the Great Depression when the tariffs exacerbated the Great Depression, it made it much worse.

[B]

Oh, wow.

[A]

So we don't want to do that again. But here's the thing. Tariffs are a super important part of a country's economic policy. They need to be there. Like, in an ideal world, there would be no tariffs. Every country in the world would export the things that they're really good at. Whether that's labor, whether that's steel, whatever it is, they would export and then they'd import the things that they can't produce or they aren't very good at. Right, okay. But countries in a global economy don't want to grow at a slow rate. They want to grow as fast as possible. So what they do is they start tariffs and they use those as a domestic protectionism measure for their own internal industries or manufacturers. And so when one country does that, particularly if they're a power player, other countries have to respond globally in order to stay in the game. So again, there's this ideal world where everyone's engaging in free trade, which is not reality. So countries have to tariff. And everyone knows, like, everyone knows this in politics. Let me tell you this.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So people don't talk about this. So Trump's first term, he instituted a good number of tariffs. Right. Most notably on China, but also on some other countries. He did that while other Western countries were also doing that. The European Union, for example, was also instituting tariffs on China during Trump's first term. During Biden's first term. So Trump was in office for four years during Biden's first term. He kept almost every single tariff in place and in many cases, increased tariffs on China.

[B]

Hmm.

[A]

So let me tell you this. The revenue that the Biden administration, during Biden's four years brought in from tariffs was double what Trump's first term brought in for tariffs.

[B]

Wow.

[A]

Like, no one tells. No one talks about that.

[B]

No, I never heard that.

[A]

And so you might as well say, well, the Biden administration supported tariffs more than Trump did. Now, what people got really off the rockers about was when Trump said he's going to do, like, universal across the board tariffs.

[B]

Right.

[A]

Which I don't agree with. I don't know almost any economist that would agree with that. But I don't think Trump agrees with it. That's the thing. Like, he does not. Like, he will never institute across the board tariffs. He's saying that to kind of like, he loves to stir the pot, scare people. He loves to create leverage. We saw that with Canada and Mexico recently.

[B]

Right.

[A]

He would never institute across the board tariffs, certainly not indefinitely. It would be a suicide mission. And he knows that Trump's smarter than people give him credit for. But he loves to say things that will bring people to the table.

[B]

Yeah, discuss. Do you believe Trump's actually conservative?

[A]

Yeah, I think it depends on what you mean by conservative.

[B]

Right.

[A]

Okay. So. And I don't know, I think that's an open. Like, when I say, when I say, Sean, what is a conservative? What do you say?

[B]

I think of, like, Charlie Kirk. I'd say people like that.

[A]

Okay. Has he been on this podcast?

[B]

But he has been. Oh, cool.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Yeah. So people like that. I'd say conservative.

[A]

Yeah. I think that. So Trump, I don't think, is a traditional conservative. And this highlights the difference between what a political party is compared to a political candidate compared to, like, a political ideology. And I can. I think conservatism is a political ideology, and I think Trump fits some of that. But he's using conservatism to advance more himself as a candidate and his own, like, ambitions within the Republican Party.

[B]

Right. I agree.

[A]

He's not an ideologue. He doesn't have firmly held conservative principles or beliefs. So there were two huge speeches that were given that I think launched both the progressive and the conservative movement in the past, let's just say 75 years. The first was FDR's State of the Union address in 1944. He, you know, he was getting to be very late in his life at that point because he would die soon thereafter. But he outlined what I would call and what he called the Economic Bill of Rights, or the new Bill of Rights. And it basically said, no one will be free in this country. We cannot have liberty unless people have economic security. What does that mean? That means everyone should be entitled as a right to have free housing. Everyone should be entitled to have free education. Everyone should be entitled to free health care, Social Security. There should be all these social safety nets to allow for human expansion and human freedom. So that was the whole point of that State of the union address. Right. 20 years later, Ronald Reagan, early in his political career, because he had not even become the governor of California yet, much less a presidential candidate, he spoke at Barry Goldwater's, the national convention where they were nominating Barry Goldwater to become president.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And he gave a speech there, I think it was, what, 1964, where he said, we have a time for choosing as a country. And he said, we cannot trade security for freedom. He says we're the last bastion of freedom on earth here in America. And we've instituted all of these social programs since fdr. A lot of these social programs started under FDR as one of his four terms. We've instituted all these, and we haven't even seen the scorecard for them yet. And so the idea that we are a nation that has to depend on all of these features of security in order to get our freedom. It doesn't make any sense. So you take those two prongs, you take FDR's idea for equality and his idea for we need to establish these social programs in order for people to be free. And you compare that with Reagan's idea in the 1960s, which he ultimately brought into his presidency of, no, we need to start with freedom, and then we will flourish economically. I view those as kind of the two pillars of both sides. So I think from the Reagan perspective, the 1964 perspective, Trump holds a lot of that. But what I don't think he holds is probably the underpinnings of, like, traditional values. I don't think he holds necessarily a lot of the underpinnings of what it means ideologically to have a limited government, like maybe Barry Goldwater, for example, would have believed in the 1960s. So he has aspects of it, but he's not a traditional conservative at all. And we've seen that in his first few weeks of office.

[B]

I agree. I mean, he came into it with so much money, too.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

I don't know if that affects it.

[A]

At all, but I think it, like, we've seen Trump approach a lot of things with a hammer in his first few weeks of office.

[B]

Right.

[A]

And you can appreciate the end goals of that. I do, actually. I think a lot of what he's trying to do is very good as an end game. I don't know that I agree with all the means that he's doing it because he's wielded the executive power super heavy handed in his first few weeks.

[B]

Yeah. I can't remember any president that's done it like this.

[A]

No.

[B]

Right off the bat.

[A]

No. No. It's a crazy use of executive power. And again, you can appreciate the ends without appreciating some of the means that he's using. I think that's hard.

[B]

Yeah. I've agreed with most of the things I've seen. The DEI stuff, I agreed with. I'd love to hear your take on that.

[A]

Yeah. So what do you mean specifically?

[B]

Just he pretty much eliminated it. Right. I agree. I agreed with that.

[A]

Yeah. Yeah. And there's been some states that have kind of followed suit. I think Florida did something, maybe Texas. Yeah. The DEI stuff is interesting. So the first major DEI federal program, if you want to call it that, was affirmative action. And that started in the 60s, 70s, and obviously has gone through today where it's like, hey, in public universities, we can give a plus factor to minorities. Right. And sometimes it's very specific. Minorities, Right.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And there was a lot of Supreme Court cases over affirmative action. And in the early 2000s in Michigan, there were two where the Supreme Court upheld one affirmative action program and. And push down another. And they said, look, you can have affirmative action for public universities, but it can only be like a plus factor. So it can only give you, like, a nudge, and you can't have a quota system. Does that make sense?

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So, like, if. If you have a. I'm trying to think of a good example. So if you have a black person applying to the University of Texas.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Which is a public university, the fact that they are black can give them a plus. Like, it can give them maybe a few extra points on their application to something, but it can't be like the be all and end all. They still need to be considered holistically for the thing. And that's what the Supreme Court has said is okay in affirmative action. So I think that Trump's response to that, not just affirmative action, but, like, DEI programs in general, is probably a good thing ideologically. But I think that Trump needs to be careful, and Vance and whoever else is pushing this needs to be careful that they don't say that all diversity is bad. Because when you say dei, I think there's almost two ways you can mean it. One way is like, oh, yeah, we think we should bring in people that are diverse and not just racially, but, like, who think different ways and who are from different backgrounds, even at times from different countries, to help push things forward. Because that's generally a really positive thing. Right. And that's what I think the original affirmative action was, by the way. Like, the civil rights movement said, hey, look. Look at these people that have been marginalized in our country for. And their. Their ancestors have been enslaved in the country. So we should make some pathways to bring them to the table. Okay. But that's very different than what DEI has become in a lot of places, which is to say we need to reserve these 10 spots that I'm not a fan of, regardless of what they think. Regardless of. Like, these 10 spots are reserved for people just because of their skin color.

[B]

Right.

[A]

And I don't think that's bad. I think that's very, very damaging. And I think it leads to people saying, hey, the only reason that person got their position was because of their skin color. Right. And that's bad. Yeah, like, that's bad for everyone. And so I think the push is probably good, but I think they need to be very careful not to go too far in the other direction and say, like, diversity is inherently bad.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Because it's obviously not for me.

[B]

It worked against me because I'm Asian. So when I was applying to colleges, you know how they did?

[A]

Well, there was the big Supreme Court case on that.

[B]

Oh, there was. I didn't know.

[A]

Yeah. So I think it's like students versus students. It's the safe group. I forget the acronym, but it was Asian students at Harvard or Asian students who didn't get into Harvard, I should say, who basically said Harvard's affirmative action program discriminated against Asians and whites.

[B]

I think it did.

[A]

And, well, there's actually really good evidence that's the case because what they do is they look at test scores and GPAs for different races as they apply to Harvard. And Asians had to have, like, such a higher test score to get into.

[B]

Harvard that they had to have a perfect score. They're not getting in.

[A]

Yeah. Which is like, there's something going on there. And so that's why I think it was a really interesting strategy in that case to bring. To have those specific plaintiffs, because it highlighted, like, it's just not. It's not just like a white black thing, which it never was, but, like, that's what it became. And it's like, oh, there's also people who. From. From other races that are being discriminated against because of these policies.

[B]

Yeah. Luckily I was halfway. So I said I was white when I applied to Rutgers, but I literally think I wouldn't have gotten in if I said Asian.

[A]

Did you go to Rutgers then?

[B]

For a year.

[A]

That's awesome. Did you like it there?

[B]

I didn't mind it super liberal, but yeah, it was fine.

[A]

Is that in New Jersey?

[B]

Yeah, Jersey. I think it's like the state school in Jersey or something.

[A]

Yeah. Where did you grow up in Jersey? Oh, in Jersey.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

You're in a very different.

[B]

I know I grew up super liberal, believe it or not.

[A]

Oh, really?

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

What changed for you? I'm sure you're told, Trump, Trump, 16.

[B]

Yeah, he was. He was the first one that opened my eyes.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

But prior to that. Yeah, always lean Democrat.

[A]

Yeah. Yeah, that's really. Is your family still that way, or.

[B]

No, my mom took some more time than me. I'll say that. She watches every episode, shout out to my mom. She probably switched in 2024.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

So pretty recently she voted. I think she voted Trump this recent one.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

What about you?

[A]

Yeah, no, that's always the million dollar question.

[B]

People want to know.

[A]

Yeah, no, so. So I. People like to. People accuse me of being like, far left at times and far right. Really. Now I have. I'd say 65, 70% of my followers are more conservative just because of kind of the videos that have blown up.

[B]

Same with mine. Yeah.

[A]

Yeah. But, yeah, so I did vote for Trump in 2024, very hesitantly, because I don't see myself as mega. Yeah, I think that Trump was a better option than Kamala Harris in this past election, particularly because Kamala Harris, like no one, no one voted for her. She was just like fausted upon the American people. Right. As president, I should say, yeah, but I think people, people call me a centrist and I call myself that just to kind of use common vernacular. But there's two different ways, two different things you can mean when you say centrist. Right. One thing is you just take the sender position on every issue. So like abortion, you might say, like, oh yeah, women should have the right to choose, but it should be like safe and rare. Like we shouldn't have that many abortions. Right. And so that might be the central position to take. That's not what I mean when I say centrist. I don't just take the center position on every issue. I actually have very extreme views on certain issues. What I mean when I say centrist is I just take every issue and every candidate and every election individually, and I come to a decision on each issue as they come. And so that means some of my issues would place me in a right camp, some in a far right camp, some of my issues would place me in a left camp. And so it's like a mixed bag. Now if you were to line up all of my views on every issue, I probably would lean conservative because I just have more on that side. But it's not because I started with that and said, let me grab as many and put them in this bag. It was because I, because I was like, okay, let's figure out what I actually believe. I like that. The starting point.

[B]

I think more people should view it that way. I'm not a fan of the two party system, to be honest.

[A]

No, absolutely not.

[B]

I think it's unproductive. I think it's such a low level IQ argument.

[A]

Yeah, 100%. And I think that I would say my biggest fear for conservatives in the next, let's just say 10 to 20 years, next couple decades is it's increasingly become a party that is like so anti government that they automatically like assume everything the government does is bad or wrong. And I think that that's never been what conservatism is. Yeah, certainly I think that they think that the government should stay within its defined limits. But it's never been the anti government argument. I mean, we're not anarchists, but I feel like, or like are narco capitalists, you know, which is like the next Level from libertarian. Like, we are essentially, I think, people that. That believe in the efficacy of government within certain limits.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And I think that that's really important. And so, like. Okay, so do you have a lot of squirrels here?

[B]

Squirrels? Not really. In Jersey we did, though.

[A]

Yeah. So we have so many in Ohio. Like. Like, you need squirrel hunters to keep. No, seriously, it's not bad.

[B]

Damn.

[A]

Yeah. Like, some parks, it's truly. They're just. They're just menaces.

[B]

Holy crap.

[A]

But I bring up squirrels to, like, demonstrate this. So have you heard of the social contract theory of government?

[B]

No.

[A]

Maybe in government class you did, way back in the day.

[B]

But I didn't take any government classes.

[A]

So Thomas Hobbes was this political theorist. Right. He became that at least, and he advocated this idea of social contract theory for government where essentially, in a state of nature, humans were In a hypothetical state of nature.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Humans were wandering around. There was no law. Life was brutal, it was short. So, like, if I stole something from you, nothing would stop me from doing that except you killing me or something or stopping. Like, it was. It was truly frontier justice.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Everything was, like, wild and crazy, like, whatever. And his idea was that humans gave up some of their freedoms in a state of nature to establish a government that would then give them other benefits, such as, like, safety. Okay. So we're giving up our total freedom for some benefit, which is safety. So the reason I bring up squirrels. So if you go to a park in Ohio, there are squirrels everywhere, and they're living, in effect, in a state of nature where they're hiding their nuts wherever they want, they're roaming around doing whatever they want throughout the day. No one's, like, governing them.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And that seems attractive, but there's no law or justice connected to the squirrels. Like, you could steal another squirrel's nuts, and the only consequence of that would be if that other squirrel was stronger than you and, like, tried to kill you because you steal their. You stole their nuts. Yeah. Right. Does that make sense?

[B]

Yeah, it does.

[A]

So the social contract theory would be like, if there was a squirrel lord that rose up to power and basically said, hey, we're all killing each other. It's wild and crazy out there. Let's establish a government where there's some rule and order for our common benefit. We're gonna live longer. We're gonna be able to protect our personal property. Hey, this is your tree. This is my tree. You know, that type of thing. Right. And that's exactly what this social contract theory of government is. And John Locke expanded upon that idea and he said that the only the thing that a government should do is protect people's life, liberty and property. And if a government does not do that, the people have the right to overthrow that government and create a new one. Jefferson then borrowed from that idea for our Declaration of Independence. So to bring it back to the conservative side of things, the whole point of government is super positive. It's this idea of law and order and structure within a society that benefits the people within the government. Otherwise they never would have given up their rights to do.

[B]

Right.

[A]

Squirrels never would have given up their rights to, to do whatever they wanted unless they thought it helped them. Okay. And in our nation's history, in 1776, we said that it is the duty of the people now to revolt against the British Empire because they are no longer protecting us like they thought like, like they should do under that theory of government. Right. And so when we, when I evaluate anything from a governmental perspective, it's like if. I know this sounds super simple, but it actually is very effective thought experiment. If I were alone in a state of nature, would I give up certain freedoms in order to get this from the government? And there's some things that are super obvious. Like I can't create highways on my own. It's nice to be able to have highways drive on infrastructure. Right. Or like I can't defend against other countries if they attacked me.

[B]

Yeah, Military.

[A]

It's nice to have some level of defense. So those are the super obvious ones. But other ones, like, so all conservatives are super against like a one payer health system, healthcare system. Like I don't know that's necessarily a bad thing. I don't think that's anti conservative to like support that per se. It's like, would you think that government providing health care, at least a very basic health care for all of its citizens in an easy, efficient way would be helpful to you if so, like that's not a bad thing. And so I think this whole argument of like left, right, whatever, like I think the conservatives run the risk of painting themselves into a really bland, ugly corner.

[B]

I could see that.

[A]

Does that make sense?

[B]

No, it does.

[A]

Like principally, I'm much more aligned with conservatives if you actually follow like the conservative principles and ideology, but like where they stand in 2025, I worry.

[B]

Yeah, I agree.

[A]

Does that make sense?

[B]

No, it does because the conspiracies are getting crazy these days.

[A]

They are, yeah. And I'm a conspiracy guy.

[B]

I am too.

[A]

Like there's been a lot that have Been proven correct.

[B]

That's true.

[A]

That's true.

[B]

And we'll see with the document releases coming up how many more are going to be proven correct.

[A]

Like, so I think you had. Did you have Owen Benjamin? Yes, recently. So he's.

[B]

He's.

[A]

He's crazy. He's got some wild ones, but in the best way. Like, so I think that a lot of what he does, I don't know, I think he touches upon, like, he says things for shock value sometimes.

[B]

I think so.

[A]

But also he does just a lot of thought experiments, which I think is very, very healthy. So Owen. Owen will say something like, I don't know. I don't even want to touch on some of the topics. I'm gonna get in trouble. But like. Like, he'll say something about space. Right. Because he's all like, the moon landing being fake, all the space stuff. Right. He'll say something about that model that is probably not true, like, based on all the data that we have. But it is a really valuable thought experiment. So it gets people to the table, it gets them thinking, it gets them talking, it gets them exploring. Plus, he's a comedian, so it's just funny.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And I think that's a really good place to be. I think there should. As weird as it sounds, I think there should be conspiracy theorists out there.

[B]

I mean, Candace Owens said it famously. If you're not a conspiracy theorist at this point, you're not intelligent.

[A]

What do you think of her?

[B]

I like her. She's coming on this year. I like her a lot, to be honest.

[A]

So she was on the Daily Wire for a while. Right. And she left. And, like, what do you like about her?

[B]

I like that she incites people to critical thinking. So for me, that's important because I did not do that a majority of my life. I just followed the system.

[A]

I don't think almost anyone does. Right.

[B]

With public education. Yeah. So I really like that she brings out that side of people.

[A]

Yeah, I think she does, too. So she gets a lot of crap out, obviously, from a lot of people, but I think she's an effective communicator. I really liked. She kind of de pantsed the whole Black Lives Matter movement, which I think was really valuable for the public in general. Again, not that there's all bad actors in blm. That's not what I'm saying. But she de pants kind of the cornerstones of the movie, which I think was good and overall a positive. Sometimes she goes a little crazy with, I think, some of her ideas and thoughts, but Again, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing unless you are not able to think critically for yourself at all.

[B]

Agreed. Now, there's another level. Alex Jones. What do you think about him?

[A]

Yeah, so I don't listen to Alex Jones, except just for the clips I see of him over social media sometimes. I think he's an entertainer. I think that he. He doesn't add a lot to the substantive dialogue, but I think that he's. He's funny and at times interesting. What really pushed me away from him as like an actual critical thinker was the Sandy Hook stuff.

[B]

Yeah, he lost a lot of people with that one.

[A]

I think he lost a lot of credibility because he pushed some pretty insane theories with Sandy Hook.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And unfortunately he was very influential. Still is, but. But was for sure at the time when he was pushing those and birthed many other conspiracy theories about that type of thing that I don't think are helpful, like crisis actors and all that type of stuff.

[B]

Yeah, I agree. So you made a video on federal agencies if they're corrupt or not, right? Yeah, I want to learn about that because when I asked Charlie Kirk what the biggest threat to America is, he actually said this, that the federal agencies have corruption. So I'm curious what you took away from that.

[A]

So I think first we need to understand what federal agencies are. So federal agencies are part of the executive branch of the government. So our government has three branches. The legislative, the executive, which is where the president is, and then the judicial branch. There's three parts. And the part that has grown the most in power, influence, and just pure numbers by far, since the foundation of our country is the executive. Over 2 million people are employed by the executive executives.

[B]

Damn, that's a lot.

[A]

And not only that, they are literally all unelected except for two, the president and vice president. So here's what does this sound common sense to you? That we have 2 million people making laws, which is essentially what they do. So the code of Federal Regulations are not statutes. Statutes. They are laws created by the executive branch by different agencies between the executive branches, the Environmental protection agency, the IRS, you know, all these different things. Those 2 million people are making laws that you and I have to live our lives by. And they've never been elected by anyone. Wow. So if you just take that on its face, like, obviously that's going to be corrupt. Yeah, obviously. Like, I'm a business attorney by trade, so I run my own law firm. I represent businesses all over the country. The level of corruption just from my clients is absolutely insane. I have a client based in Georgia. Obviously not share their name. They're being investigated by the oig, which is a part of the dhhs, the Department of Health and Human Services, for allegedly doing certain things. Okay. They're a medical. They run a bunch of medical clinics. They received a subpoena to produce all of these documents and different information back in May of last year. May of 2024. It is currently February of 2025. They do not know what they're being investigated for yet. Literally. And you think I'm pulling your leg? They do not know what they're being investigated for. It has bankrupted their business. Employees have left because they know they're under investigation.

[B]

Wow.

[A]

It's bankrupted them. It's done all this stuff. They paid $200,000 in legal fees. $200,000 in 10 months in legal fees. And if the OIG, which again is part of the DHHS, comes back and says, oh, you guys didn't do anything wrong, which could very well happen three months from now, there is nothing those clinics can do to claw back a dollar.

[B]

Wow.

[A]

So if that is not tyranny, I don't know what it is.

[B]

That's messed up.

[A]

You have unelected people in a federal agency which was not even there when the country was founded.

[B]

I never even heard of that one. Oh, I.

[A]

Exactly. And it's part of the Office of Inspector General that is doing it on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services. You have unelected people hounding businesses, in many cases, destroying businesses. Life's work of people. They work their entire lives for this. For maybe nothing they did wrong. Like, if that's not tyranny. Like, people are concerned about Trump's authoritarianism tendencies, which he probably is, to be honest with you. But, like, people are concerned about why not. Why are those same people not concerned about what these federal agencies are able to do? The irs, and I don't like, anti. Taxes. I think taxes, you know, you need taxes to keep a country going.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

But like the level of power that the IRS has to ruin someone's life for a mistake, for example, to ruin someone's life. Work as a business as a mistake is insane.

[B]

Yeah. It's not like we're.

[A]

They're not elected.

[B]

Trying to cheap out.

[A]

Yeah. 100%. Yeah. And meanwhile, there are these big. And don't let anyone ever tell you that the Democratic Party is, like, against big corporations. Just, like, they act like they're against them and like, for the common man. But most of Most of the, most of the big corporations out there, by and large, support Democrat candidates, support Democrat causes.

[B]

Google, Amazon.

[A]

Look at the donations. Yeah, the donations are public. You can see.

[B]

Used to be Facebook and now Mark Chainsaw, which.

[A]

We need to talk. That's. That's a whole new thing. That's a crazy. Let's just say roller coaster. But, but, but what I'm trying to say is, like, those big corporations have armies of attorneys and accountants that can take advantage of every tax loophole. And then, by the way, if they happen to do something wrong, they can go and advocate for themselves. They're in the pockets of many of these politicians. They can do what needs to be done X, Y and Z to paper things over correctly. The average citizen, the average small business owner doesn't have any of that ability, any of that power. So they can be destroyed by these federal agencies without very much due process at all. And I think it's one of the great. I think it's one of the things that we'll look back on 20 years from now and be like, why was everything so darn complicated? Why didn't we strip it back a little bit? Why did we create a economy and a system where everything had to be governed by these unelected bureaucrats? And so I'm hoping that that's what Doge does. I'm hoping that at the end of the day, Doge is able to strip that back a little bit as much as. Yeah, there's probably some self interest there. Yeah, there's some things probably going on there. I do think that overall, Doge's mission is very positive.

[B]

Yeah, I'm positive about it. So far. It looks good, right?

[A]

I think so, yeah. I think there's questions about, you know, maybe legally what they're able to do or not do within certain spheres, but I don't, I think the creation of it was completely legal. It was within Trump's power and authority. And I think that Elon is generally a good guy.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And I'm probably gonna get flack for saying that because he's, like, hated now by so many people. But, like, come on, like, he doesn't have to be doing this.

[B]

Yeah, he's already a billionaire.

[A]

Yeah, he's already a billionaire, which most people don't understand what that means. But, like, he, he, he has the ability to just focus on his businesses and his private life, and he doesn't. And even if there is some self interest there, which I'm sure there is, because people are attracted to power and prestige, yeah, naturally.

[B]

There's always going to be some level of it, right?

[A]

Yeah, I think overall, like. Yeah, there's going to be some growing pains, but it's probably a positive thing. I mean, what were you going to do? Just keep growing the bureaucracy and another 200,000 people a year?

[B]

They wanted 80,000 IRS agents. Right.

[A]

That's one. That's one department.

[B]

They wanted them armed, too. Did you see that?

[A]

Y.

[B]

They want to be armed. Showing up to your houses with a gun.

[A]

Yeah. And I don't know what the plan was for all that, but. Yeah, like, that's one department.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Think about, like, there's hundreds of federal departments, agencies, things like that. There's only, what, 15 cabinet level ones, but, like, there's hundreds out there, and there's no reason that it needs to be as inflated as it has been.

[B]

Yeah, yeah, that was.

[A]

Sorry. I get passionate about that.

[B]

No, that's important, man. Zuck changed sides. Did you see that coming?

[A]

Yeah, I think ever since he started doing like BJJ or whatever he started.

[B]

Doing, when you're around Dana White too.

[A]

Much, I think that's kind of like a. That's kind of like a. Like Republican light. And then once you start seeing the.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Seeing the different things going on. So, yeah, I guess you could kind of see it coming, but. So he was taking a ton of flack, though. So I think part of that change a little bit was self interested, which again, we're all self interested, so I don't blame him for that. But he was taking a ton of flack for what he allowed, particularly on Facebook during the last election. I mean, and during the pandemic or what he tried to.

[B]

What he censored, not allow.

[A]

I guess what he censored, which he probably should have, I mean, I think. So I'm again in the minority on this, and I don't know Zuck personally, which probably never will, but I think he's actually genuinely a pretty good guy. And I thought that way before he turned conservative. I think that he was thrust, because of his technological ability and because of his creation of Facebook, he was thrust into a position that no one would have been successful in. Imagine creating Facebook, and all of a sudden you are the center for everything. So it's not just the tech, it's not just the platform anymore. It's everything that the platform does, everything it's responsible for, and you are the lightning rod for all that. What person could stand up to that type of. So he was just making it up as he goes. Yeah, he Was a kid making it up as he goes. And so here comes Trump the first time. Here comes a international pandemic. And he has whole teams under him that are just making decisions left and right. And if someone from the government emailed you and said, take down this information, X, Y and Z, I don't know, probably a lot of us would have done it.

[B]

I probably would have.

[A]

I mean, as much as it probably. And not that Zach was necessarily getting those emails, like, obviously he had a team underneath, but like, a lot of that's public now. A lot of that information was. Was coming out. And so I think that he was under so much flack for how that situation developed and evolved over time. Right or wrong, he was under a lot of flack for that. He now has kind of gone the other way and been like, oh, I, you know, I didn't like it at the time. Yeah, it was all happening, but I didn't have. And you might believe him or you might not, but my point is, like, I think that that new path was gonna open up at some point for him.

[B]

Yeah, yeah. That censorship was one of its kind. He probably had no one to talk to about that sort of stuff. Like, that never happened before, but it kind of birthed the new X. Right now, X is the number one platform, I believe, in terms of traffic.

[A]

Yeah. And certainly in terms of news. Like, it's the number one news source in the world right now.

[B]

Yeah. I mean, it's, it's very convenient, to be honest. You can find real time news, you know, confirmations in real time. Yeah.

[A]

If something happens, like, I hear about something, I don't go to a news source. I don't know about you. Like, I don't go to tv.

[B]

No, I don't.

[A]

I just go on X and see, like, what's happening. You have people on the field.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Let me ask you this, though. So one of my concerns about that, it's been kind of the rise of citizen journalism.

[B]

Right.

[A]

Where people, you or me, you know, we could go out and report on anything. We have a cell phone, you know, we could even get to the other little news crew, report on it. Do you think that there's still a place or should there be a place for kind of traditional media where there can be more like investigative, formal reporting and journalism?

[B]

Yeah, good question. I think so. Because there's still that older audience that watches traditional media.

[A]

Yeah. But even for young people, like, let's pretend the old people died.

[B]

Okay. The baby boomers rip.

[A]

I mean, I don't want that. But, like, I think there's still, like, I think there's still some importance in that, so. Because citizen journalists get a ton wrong. Like, they get. They do a lot of good stuff, too, but they also, like, there's not any journalistic standards in what they report.

[B]

That's true.

[A]

So, like, they can go out there and say whatever they want. They promote, like, baseless conspiracy theories and just. They'll get a lot of traction.

[B]

Yeah. No one's gonna sue them for the most part.

[A]

Yeah. Like, they're not worried about, like, defamation, really. They're not worried about any of that stuff, which can be good, by the way. I support that. But then you have maybe some of the legacy media where I want to be careful that that role doesn't get completely obscured.

[B]

Yeah. I think there's a place for it. But they just got so exposed with Trump about reporting.

[A]

I know. And kind of walked into that. Their own death.

[B]

But if they can, like, take it back and how it used to be, I feel like it was pretty honest news right. When we were growing up. I don't know when the infiltration kind of started, but, yeah, I think there's a place for it. Yeah.

[A]

Yeah. And so you brought up Destiny earlier. He. I don't know, I think he was speaking on a podcast or something, but I just saw a clip, tick tock or something where he was saying how he really doesn't like the rise of who has become front and center for the conservative movement anymore because they don't have any ideology backing them. Like, you can't discuss policy with them because they're just like, everything Trump does is great. And he brought up this idea of how in the old days. And by old days, he meant, like, probably 20 years ago.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

You had these figureheads like Rush Limbaugh or like Michael Savage, who you love him or hate him, but they had a very, like, ideologically backed opinions until you could actually discuss, as a liberal policy with them because they had, like, depth to what they were saying. And again, you can disagree with the depth that they were talking from, but you can discuss the policy with them. And I actually 100 agree with destiny on that.

[B]

I can agree with that, to be honest.

[A]

I think that's a problem. And I think it's something that the left has. Let me put it this way, the left has a deeper bench ideologically than the right right now.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And that doesn't mean they're more effective communicators. It just means the bench is deeper and the ideological strains go a Little bit deeper. Because I think people have given up too much ground in the last eight, 10, 12 years on the right. And so there is a little bit of an imbalance.

[B]

I could see that. Yeah. Dean Withers is pretty impressive. Even though I don't agree with most of the stuff he says. It's like, wow, he knows his.

[A]

For his age. Yeah. How old is he?

[B]

He's like 21 or something.

[A]

Yeah, he's a young guy. I will say he's more impressive than Harry.

[B]

Oh, way more. That's not even close.

[A]

And who's that other guy? It's like the.

[B]

Well, Harry got exposed for getting paid indirectly by dnc.

[A]

Then there's that. It's Harry Dean.

[B]

Oh, Parker.

[A]

Parker. Yeah.

[B]

I'm not impressed with Parker.

[A]

Yeah, so Dean. Dean is like. Dean's willing to go on that. What's that show where they get surrounded.

[B]

Oh, whatever. Show.

[A]

No, no, no, whatever.

[B]

Oh, Jubilee.

[A]

Jubilee, yeah.

[B]

One on 25. Yeah. Yeah, I just saw that with Michael niles and the 25.

[A]

Yeah, yeah. Which was interesting. Yeah. And I know a lot of people have done that, but I think that it takes a lot of guts for someone like Dean to do that. Like, I don't think Harry could do that. No, he might try, but he wouldn't be able to hold.

[B]

He wouldn't have the substance. I think you could do it.

[A]

Well, thank you.

[B]

I definitely. I've not been asked, but I'll try to arrange it. I've been on Jubilee before.

[A]

Oh, you have?

[B]

They didn't air it, though, like, as.

[A]

A participant or as the guy in the middle.

[B]

It was the middle ground. Top 1% income earners versus homeless middle ground.

[A]

Oh, yeah, I've seen some of those.

[B]

Yeah. They didn't air it because the homeless person. A knife fell out of her pocket. And YouTube's pretty strict on web.

[A]

Oh, really?

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Wow, that's crazy. Yeah. I think it's an interesting. It's an interesting concept for a show and it actually is very effective because the person in the middle obviously is usually much more learned than the people around you because they just have a broader swath of things that they can discuss and deeper. But with the 25 people, they're gonna get a lot of different views and inputs that that person normally would not run into.

[B]

Agree.

[A]

So it allows kind of that. That really cool back and forth.

[B]

It's a great concept and it's relatable. Like you said, the 25 people are like ordinary people. So the people watching can relate to those 25 people.

[A]

Did you see the one with Alex O'Connor? I think it's 25 Christians.

[B]

Yeah. I like that guy's debates, actually. I think I saw that one.

[A]

I think he's one of, if not the best, just interviewers.

[B]

He's one of the best debaters I've ever seen, too.

[A]

Yeah. He's just real. He's just obviously a smart guy, but I think he has a really good way of respecting who he's talking to, but also being very clear about why his opinions are.

[B]

I've never seen him raise his voice.

[A]

No. No.

[B]

Which is impressive because Destiny's raising his voice every other sentence, you know?

[A]

But again, I. Yeah, so. But Alex O'Connor, like, that's one guy I'd love to talk to, because we would probably disagree on a lot. Well, yeah, a lot.

[B]

I've never seen him talk politics.

[A]

He's touched on it. Like, he'll have. He was on, like, Good Morning Britain or something.

[B]

Really?

[A]

One point. Touching on some political issues.

[B]

Oh, wow. Okay.

[A]

Like, short little things. But I would probably disagree with him on a lot of the religious stuff because I'm personally a Christian.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And I know he's not, but I love the way he approaches things, and I do agree with him on a lot of things, so I think he's an interesting guy.

[B]

Well, if you're watching this, Alex, you.

[A]

Need to bring him.

[B]

I've invited one day. Yeah. I guess I'm not big enough for him yet.

[A]

No, he's. No, you are. You're a great interview viewer. And I don't say that just as a glaze, but, like, you're. You honestly are really good at asking questions.

[B]

Thank you.

[A]

Because it's not just the questions you ask. It's how you connect with the guests.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Make them comfortable.

[B]

It's a dance. I've watched so many Rogan episodes, I think I subconsciously picked up a little bit on his talent.

[A]

Who's your favorite?

[B]

Rogan's hard to beat. There's a lot of good ones right now. Chris Williamson's really good. Tom. Billy is pretty good. There's so many good shows right now.

[A]

Patrick bet David. Yeah.

[B]

Patrick bet David.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

He's got a great show right now.

[A]

Yeah. Chris Williamson's great for podcasting.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

He has a phenomenal setup, but also just a great voice for it. Good.

[B]

Absolutely. Yeah, there's some good ones, but, dude, it's been awesome. Where can people find you and keep up with you, man?

[A]

I think Tick Tock is probably the biggest one. So I think I'm Matt Dearden, 49. I have a lot of fake accounts out there. I constantly try to get tick tock to take them down. But yeah, there was one that got like a hundred thousand.

[B]

Damn.

[A]

And they. I think they finally took that one down. Wow. But yeah, so TikTok. I'm also on Instagram. I think it's Matt Dearden show on Instagram.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

But I'm hoping to release a podcast soon.

[B]

Awesome.

[A]

I want to do more long form stuff.

[B]

You definitely should, man. You got the energy for it.

[A]

Oh, thanks, man.

[B]

Yeah. Well, we'll link your stuff below and we'll get some root beer tonight, man.

[A]

Absolutely. Yeah.

[B]

All right, guys, check them out. See you next time.

[A]

Geico's motorcycle expertise gives me the coverage I need. Like 24. 7 claims I'm on cloud 9 disclaimer clouds are wholly unable to support the of an adult human. What's happening? Furthermore, clouds are not numbered. Even if you procured a jetpack and searched, you'd find no cloud numbered nine. However, at that altitude, you'd likely befriend a flock of migrating snow geese. Geese who'd encourage you to leave your 24.7geico motorcycle claims insurance behind, as they would take you in and even share their dinner of crickets and clovers with you. GEICO assumes no liability for any indigestion that may occur from a clover cricket dinner. Geico expertise for your motorcycle.