Is Civil War Inevitable? Feat. Mr. Beat

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Is Civil War Inevitable? Feat. Mr. Beat"

Podcast: In Good Faith With Philip DeFranco
Host: Philip DeFranco
Guest: Mr. Beat (history YouTuber, author, and political institute fellow)
Date: September 18, 2025

---

Episode Overview

Philip DeFranco sits down with Matt (Mr. Beat) to tackle the provocative question: Is a second American civil war inevitable? Through the lens of history, they dissect political polarization, economic discontent, political violence, and the rise of radical ideas—while asking whether the current era is an anomaly or a return to the American norm. The conversation offers both sobering and oddly optimistic takes about the U.S.’s future, drawing from historical parallels (the 1850s, 1890s, 1960s, and 1970s), current events, and the power of individual agency.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Are We Returning to “Normal” American Chaos?

• Historical Contextualization:
  • Mr. Beat posits that the current times are among the most chaotic in US history, likening today to the 1850s and 1960s, with rising tensions that spill beyond online spheres to the "real world" ([01:13]–[01:50]).
  • Comparisons are best drawn within American history, as the U.S. has always valued "individualism, personal liberties, and civilization," which gives Mr. Beat some optimism amid the chaos ([02:15]–[03:26]).
• Key Quote:
  • “No matter what your party affiliation or political leanings are in the United States, we value individualism, we value personal liberties, civil liberties, civilization… [and] freedom.” — Mr. Beat [02:35]

Living In Echo Chambers & Two Realities

• Polarization Explained:

  • DeFranco and Mr. Beat discuss how Americans now live in divergent media ecosystems, creating "two different realities," where interacting outside the echo chamber rarely happens ([03:30]–[04:14]).
  • Mr. Beat argues people may actually be "more informed if you're not paying attention to the news, like, at all," emphasizing the value of personal, offline interactions to cut through the noise ([06:55]).
  • Economic factors like wealth inequality and declining social mobility are potent sources of the nation’s “anger” ([07:05]–[08:11]).

• Key Quote:

  • “We really do have two different realities… it's so easy just to only interact and see what you already agree with.” — Mr. Beat [03:35]

What Does History Tell Us About Reform After Upheaval?

• Parallels to Reformist Eras:

  • The 1890s led to the Progressive Era, where cross-populist coalitions drove sweeping reforms (antitrust, worker, and consumer protections) ([08:31]–[10:10]).
  • The 1960s were intensely tumultuous but birthed the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, and key constitutional amendments ([10:40]–[12:44]).
  • There’s hope that rural and urban Americans could unite again, as they did before, against common grievances ([09:51]–[10:01]).

• Key Quote:

  • “The difference in the 1850s was people consumed information… by talking to each other or reading newspapers… I think we were just still more in reality back then.” — Mr. Beat [05:44]

The Scope and Nature of Political Violence

• Comparing Eras of Violence:

  • The violence of the early 1970s (2,500+ bombings in 18 months) is revisited as DeFranco asks if current US violence matches those levels ([14:19]–[14:32]).
  • Mr. Beat predicts more political violence, seeing the Charlie Kirk assassination as a sign of further escalation ([14:32]–[15:21]).
  • Parasocial relationships with modern public figures (activists, commentators) may make today’s violence feel more personal and shocking ([15:21]–[17:08]).

• Key Quotes:

  • “I think that we're going to see more, unfortunately… I just don't think it's going to get better anytime soon.” — Mr. Beat [14:32]

The Pendulum Theory & American Resilience

• Pendulum Swings in US History:
  • Mr. Beat views America’s crises as “pendulum swings,” arguing current neoliberal economic trends (since the Carter/Reagan era) may soon reverse toward more regulation and worker protections ([21:24]–[22:58]).
  • The shifts provoked by Bush-Obama-Trump are minor compared to larger economic currents ([22:58]–[23:29]).
  • Turbulent short-term prospects—next two years are predicted to be “really chaotic,” but by 2035, the landscape could look vastly improved ([19:01]–[21:24]).
• Hope in Off-Ramps:
  • Substantial social change often comes after catastrophe—pain can force the populace to reconsider core beliefs, making room for new coalitions ([24:15]–[25:21]).
  • "Hate only gets you so far. It kind of runs out of fuel before love does." — Mr. Beat [27:49]

The Role and Need for Electoral Reform

• Broken Representation:
  • Mr. Beat’s “top priority” for repairing US politics is reforming the electoral system: ending gerrymandering and plurality (winner-take-all) voting, expanding the House, and reforming the Electoral College ([32:24]–[35:00]).
  • He expresses qualified support for ranked-choice voting but prefers “star voting” or similar options ([33:14]).
• Senate & Supreme Court:
  • Open to abolishing the Senate or at least expanding/altering its representation ([35:31]–[36:28]).
  • Supreme Court expansion is not constitutionally barred and would improve representativeness; also supports term limits for Congress and the Court ([37:12]–[39:08]).
• Key Quote:
  • “I think that's the root of all of the problems, because we have a disconnect. We have both the President and Congress… their ideas are very unpopular. And the popular ideas… are not even brought up." [34:34]

The Dangers and Promise of Social Media & News

• Polarization & Radicalization:
  • Social media is harming mental health and driving division, but Mr. Beat is reluctant to advocate for government overreach into speech ([45:49]–[47:25]).
  • Thinks regulation for specific types of harmful content could be reasonable but stresses parental roles and personal agency ([47:25]–[50:23]).
• Key Quotes:
  • “Most people agree on the fact that social media has destroyed our society in many ways. And yet… we're still just finger pointing.” — Mr. Beat [50:09]
  • “I actually think it's one of the most rebellious things to do right now [to log off].” — Mr. Beat [50:24]

John Brown’s Return and Folk Hero Radicalism

• Resurgence of John Brown as a Symbol:
  • The renewed popularity of abolitionist John Brown highlights growing acceptance of violence for change—a “concerning” sign ([40:25]–[41:17]).

The Economic Roots of Radicalization

• Economics Underpinning Radicalization:
  • Declining social mobility, wealth concentration, and unaffordable cost of living are creating anger, fueling populist movements across the spectrum ([06:48]–[09:51], [43:20]–[44:50]).
  • Perceptions of economic reality often lag or mismatch actual indicators, but Mr. Beat argues the economic pain is real and drives most political shifts ([44:31]–[45:49]).
• Key Quote:
  • “Absolutely… economic situations are the biggest factor in potential radicalization.” — Mr. Beat [43:32]

Technology, AI, and the Future of Education

• Rise of AI in Schools:
  • Both teachers and students now use AI, sometimes even for cheating and grading—Mr. Beat calls for a return to pen-and-paper basics until students “earn” the right to use AI as a tool ([57:00]–[58:55]).
  • The existential threat AI poses, especially regarding jobs, may push society to value authenticity, creativity, and legal protection of intellectual property ([60:40]–[63:22]).

Closing Thoughts & Optimism

• Despite grim projections for the near term, both DeFranco and Mr. Beat ultimately urge for a positive, historic “zoomed out” mindset—with an emphasis on personal agency, engagement, empathy, and readiness to "fight" for democratic values ([65:18]–[66:09]).
• Key Quote:
  • “If you're a doomer, I don't want to have anything to do with you. I think doomers, if you're not willing to fight, then get out of the way. We need fighters right now at this moment.” — Mr. Beat [66:09]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments (with Timestamps)

• “The 2010s were pretty tame… I think we can compare this time to maybe the 1960s… maybe the 1850s.” — Mr. Beat [01:13]
• “If you're not paying attention [to the news], you might be more informed.” — Mr. Beat [06:55]
• “I think that's happening right now… maybe the people in the city were right. I should start teaming up with them.” — Mr. Beat [09:51]
• “The last time we had assassinations of politicians… there were like over 2,500 bombings in the United States.” — Philip DeFranco [14:27]
• “The cult leader dies, the cult splinters inevitably.” — Mr. Beat on Trump/MAGA [29:22]
• “I think that's the root of all of the problems, because we have a disconnect.” — Mr. Beat on representation [34:34]
• “I'm optimistic… the direction we're going to go is there have to be laws restricting AI.” — Mr. Beat [62:31]
• “If you're a doomer, I don't want to have anything to do with you… We need fighters right now at this moment.” — Mr. Beat [66:09]

---

Major Timestamps

• 01:13—Mr. Beat on historical chaos and American political culture
• 06:48—The dangers of consuming too much news
• 08:31—Lessons from the 1890s populist revolt
• 10:40—1960s progress, violence, and swift change
• 14:27—Political violence in the 1970s vs. today
• 19:01—Predictions for the next 2, 7, and 10 years
• 21:24—Historical pendulum swings and economic trends
• 32:24—Root problems in US representation and electoral design
• 40:25—John Brown as folk hero: what does it mean?
• 43:32—Economics as the driver of radicalization
• 50:09—Social media and social cohesion
• 57:00—AI’s effect on education and assessment
• 65:18—Final message: stay positive, zoom out, and fight for improvement

---

Tone and Takeaways

• Tone: Grounded, candid, sometimes grim—but interspersed with moments of humor, empathy, and surprising optimism.
• Takeaways:
  • The U.S. is in a period of high instability, but these correspond to historic cycles that have also led to meaningful reform.
  • Political violence and division are likely to worsen before a potential rebound.
  • Real reform—especially electoral—will be vital, as will grassroots, cross-populist solidarity.
  • Personal agency, empathy, and careful media consumption are more important than ever.
  • Ultimately, optimism and activism, not doom, are needed to navigate the years ahead.

---

Action Items (Implicit):

• Be critical of your media consumption—touch grass.
• Push for electoral reform at all levels, and support policies that address root economic grievances.
• Find hope in the lessons of history—and be ready to actively shape the future.

---

(For accuracy and context: Timestamps refer to the conversation between Philip DeFranco (A) and Mr. Beat (B) as transcribed above.)

Transcript

[A]

Hello, hello, hello. Welcome back to the In Good Faith podcast, where I think every week I'm talking to the most important and influential people in the world. And this week I spoke to Mr. Beat. Right. And Mr. Beat, he's a former social studies teacher turned history YouTuber and now a fellow at the Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics at the University of Kansas. And he's also written books such as the Power of Our Supreme Court and Today. I mean, we talked about a lot. I was trying to pick this man's brain, talking about is there a way forward for America without a civil war? And what that way forward looks like. Also he talked about the resurrection of John Brown as a folk hero for some and what that says about American state of mind and the violence of the 70s, when there was over 2,500 bombings in an 18 month period stacks up to today's violence. And you know, there was a lot that was grim and there was also oddly, an optimistic thing there and say, hey, buckle up. If you enjoy the episode, give it five stars on Spotify and Apple or give it a, like here on YouTube and leave a comment with what you agreed with, disagreed with or who you'd like to see next as a guest. Matt, you know, it feels like America is at this, this tipping point. And I guess I wanted to ask you how much of the 2000s is, would you say like a new abnormal versus maybe a return to the norm of what maybe was like a lighter abnormal of the 90s and 2010s, if that makes sense.

[B]

Yeah, the 2010s were pretty tame in comparison to the 2020s. And as somebody who's always looking at history, I zoom out pretty far and I'm just like, okay, you know this, calm down. But it's pretty up there with chaotic times in American history, for sure. I think the, we can compare this time to maybe the 1960s a little bit, maybe the 1850s a little bit. But the tensions are high and it's spilling over to the real world. It used to be online. So that's the most concerning thing to me.

[A]

Yeah. And when you make, when you talk about those, those comparisons. Right, because obviously like people talk about they make comparisons to Germany, but then, I mean, is it, is it maybe more accurate to say that comparisons can be made for America and other places, but also America is somewhat of a unique thing and we need to more largely make comparisons to previous moments in US History or I guess, yeah. What are your thoughts there?

[B]

I think so. Yeah, I know it's A lot of people are talking right now about the, the F word. And of course I'm talking about fascism. What were you thinking about anyway? Yeah, or authoritarianism is probably the more appropriate word. I think the thing that we forget about the United States that kind of continues to give me optimism is no matter what your party affiliation or political leanings are in the United States, we value individualism, we value personal liberties, civil liberties, civilization specifically, even more so than civil rights. And that's why we're seeing, like, you know, that the other F word, freedom, is something that is universally loved in the United States. Like, we all love our freedom. What does that mean? Does it mean freedom to freedom from. It just depends on the issue. But regardless, I think that continues to give me hope because I think the first and Second Amendments in particular, if those were under threat and it was like pretty obvious because so far it's, it's kind of been hazy still. But if it was really obvious, I think a lot of people would unite against that or against those threats.

[A]

What do you think is, what do you think is hazy right now?

[B]

The media landscape? I mean, so many people still stuck in echo chambers. They. We really do have two different realities. And I could just be like, oh yeah, I'm in this. The reality. We're. We're in the reality. But. And I think I am, but regard. I mean, the fact is, like, a lot of us still are kind of not really in any reality other than our own. We're hearing what we want to hear. We're seeing what we want to see. And that's unique in all of history because it's just so easy just to only interact and see what you already agree with.

[A]

It's.

[B]

And until we bust out of that, which I think the solution has to be like, people just have to log off and touch grass, because otherwise, okay.

[A]

To a certain degree, I'd log off, touch grass. But something that's come up with, whether I'm talking to governors or specialists, something that I've kind of brought up several times was like, what you're saying News diet, which I think is connected to trying to break out of your echo chambers. There's been a number of different reactions to me saying that for the most part, outside of my, my morning briefs and my kind of going here and there, a lot of my news diet is almost all right wing media because I'm very interested to see what's being said outside of my personal circles, outside of maybe aspects of how people might perceive my show. And I think that's where I'm very interested on maybe any specific comparisons we can get. Um, because it does feel like, to your point, there, there are different realities that, that people are living in, but then also there's. There's kind of this, this mindset that feels to be more of like, okay, let's throw everything out of the window. Like, let's, you know, we talked about principles, we talked about beliefs, but now it's about power. Right. And while we have this power, let's do something about it and go into the words that you're saying that you get nervous about saying in this climate. Right now we're talking about crackdowns and authoritarianism and I don't know, is there anything uniquely in American history that closes ties to the moment we have now.

[B]

In terms of power? Again, 1960s, 1850s. I mean, the only other time in American history where we were this close to a Civil War was 1850s, and we did go into a civil war, so. Yeah, but the difference in the 1850s was people consumed information either by talking to each other or reading newspapers or books. And even then, a lot of people couldn't read. And so I think that we were just still more, I think in reality back then. I know that's really weird to say. Like, we were more aware of actually what was going on in the 1850s, despite the fact that news traveled so slowly back then. I just think that you're more informed these days if you're not paying attention. That's a pretty ridiculous statement I just said, but I think it's true. I mean, I think that's the root of a lot of the tension. Now, there's also other factors we could go into, like why. Where's that anger coming from to begin with? You know, why are people. Because the fire is inside. Regardless of the media they consume, people are angry right now. And so then if that's the case.

[A]

Yeah, expand on that. Expand on your. Did you say you're more informed if you're not paying. Say that again.

[B]

I think you're more informed if you're not paying attention to the news, like, at all.

[A]

Is it because of you're having those interactions with regular, everyday people? Is that what you're meaning or what do you mean?

[B]

Yeah, yeah, absolutely. I mean, when I go to the grocery store and I'm just interacting with people, I'm, you know, running errands, day to day stuff, it's not like people are like, oh, we're going to go to. We're going to have a civil War any moment now. You know, it's like people are just kind of living their lives, but at the same time, something else I see at the grocery store is what I was hinting at just a moment ago is prices keep going up, incomes are not keeping up with that. And this is not something new. This has been happening for decades. I think that the wealth inequality and the decline of social mobility has been the bigger trend that has created this anger to begin with. Like, I think we can compare our moment to also the 1890s. I'm just throwing decades at you here. 1850s, 1890s, 1960s. But yeah, 1890s is actually, if you look at what was happening then, there was like a dramatic rise of populism and a lot of people just like, you know, screw rich people and maybe we should just need to set fire to the entire political system. And I think that's happening right now.

[A]

Oh yeah. And I think, I think you see that represented in multiple things the kind of the horseshoe effect of people being puzzled of why someone would vote for Trump and vote for AOC at the same time, when a lot of it is just. Yeah, the idea of breaking the status quo, top versus bottom. How did so in the 1890s then? How does it, how does it play out?

[B]

It plays out with the Progressive era. So eventually both of the two major political parties, which at that time it was also the Democrats and Republicans, ended up agreeing more than they disagreed. They came together on many issues to particularly antitrust. So like breaking up giant multinational corporations, consumer protection for the first time, passing laws to like, protect consumers from the shady practices of corporations, and of course, worker protections, most importantly. So for the first time saying, hey, if somebody works 60, 70 hours a week, they should be getting overtime pay. Maybe kids shouldn't be working, maybe 6 year olds shouldn't be working, they should be in school instead. So these, these reforms. There was other stuff that didn't work out as well as we thought it would to like the temperance movement turning into prohibition. Like, okay, maybe we went too far with some of this stuff. But overall, I think there were many major reforms that came out of it because a lot of people came together, a lot of farmers united with factory workers, for example. So you had city rural solidarity happening. And I think at some point we're kind of overdue for that. I feel like right now, I think at some point that's going to happen again. We're going to have people in rural areas be like, hold on a second here. These con artists kept promising certain things and they kept blaming immigrants. And as it turns out, like, my life still sucks. So maybe the people in the city were right. I should start teaming up with them. I don't know. That's something else that keeps me hopeful, I guess.

[A]

No, just. We'll keep lowering the age. The age limit for jobs, and then we'll have children. A lot of the jobs.

[B]

Yeah, yeah, we've seen that happen. Yeah. Was it Florida? I think I forgot where.

[A]

It's been a minute. I either have a. My memory operates 48 to 72 hours at a time and then over vast distances. If you ask me what happened last year, I'd have to. I'd have to go through my notes. But speaking of going back years and years, you've mentioned the 1960s several, several times. Kind of the same question that I had for the 1890s. What did we see happening there and.

[B]

What did it lead to in terms of social progress and reforms? We. We saw a lot of stuff happen in a short amount of time. And so you also had a lot of kind of political violence, as we call it, although I think technically all violence could argue is political. But I digress. In the 60s, you had radicalism. You had groups that not only like, they wanted radical reforms, but you had reactionaries to that. And so you saw, sure, you had Martin Luther King Jr. And Malcolm X in the civil rights movement, but in response to that, you had the rise of George Wallace, who actually did pretty well when he ran for president in 1968. You had race riots, you had a lot of discontent with African Americans, but at the same time, you had great leaps forward. Sorry for that phrase, because that's also what was happening in China at the time. But, yeah, you had great progress with the Civil Rights act, the Voting Rights act, the additional public housing for those, like the Great Society programs of Lyndon Johnson. So a lot of stuff happening in a short amount of time. Ending the poll tax. It's weird, too, when you think about the fact that when we talk about reforms, a lot of times people think about laws, but also amendments to the Constitution. Most of the amendments to the Constitution since the beginning of our country, they happen in very short windows. Yeah, we had three that boom, boom, boom, 1860s, right after the Civil War, because there was a rare opportunity there. Same thing with Progressive era. Boom, boom, boom. You had a few. And then 1960s, boom, boom, boom. Since then, we've had one in 1992. And that was to say, oh, members of Congress can't raise pay on themselves while they're in office. Like, which is, how could you disagree with that? So we haven't had any real amendments since we lowered the voting age to 18 when Nixon was president in the early 70s. Isn't that crazy? Like, that's how long it's been. We've had a significant amendment to the Constitution.

[A]

Yeah. I'm going to throw a random aside here just because I saw it. What was it in the UK recently? What are your thoughts on lowering the voting age to 16?

[B]

I actually think it's a good idea. I think as a teacher, like for 12 years I taught middle schoolers and high schoolers interacting a lot with young folks, realizing, oh, many of them are actually way smarter than older people. Plus many of them have jobs, they're paying taxes, they're paying income taxes, they're paying sales taxes. Anyway. There's even some people that say we should go further, that we should just not even have a voting age, which I think is maybe a little too radical. But I think, yeah, like there's plenty of 16 and 17 year olds that at least deserve a chance to have their voice heard.

[A]

Yeah, I mean, we brought this on the show a while back and something I saw and like an argument that kept getting made that I was like, okay, I like that I get a little nervous about like work requirements for anything. But if you're talking about opening things up to like 16 and 17 year olds, to your point, that are working and are part of like the society that, you know, they're. You expect them to be a part of for the rest of their life. Yeah. Open it up. I think that the arguments I saw there, it kind of made me agree. Even though I think if you polled the entire country, I think it's an unpopular idea right now. I'm not sure, I'm kind of speculating. But on the note of political violence that you talked about, you know, obviously it's, it's top of mind right now, but do you think that we are at risk of or are we already at maybe the violence of the 70s in terms of political violence?

[B]

Yeah. Like the last time we had assassinations of politicians, you mean like. Yeah, George Wallace was one of them actually.

[A]

Yeah, I think what from 71 to 72, there were like over 2500 bombings in the United States.

[B]

Wow. I didn't realize there's that many. But yeah, I think that we're going to see more, unfortunately we're going to see more violence in the coming months and years. I just don't think it's going to get better. Anytime soon. I think actually after the Charlie Kirk assassination, which was obviously shocking, like, especially the way you use. Everyone saw it in 4K. It's like, wow, this is just insane. But I was also kind of shocked that people were surprised that people didn't like him. Like, that, to me, again, goes back to the echo chambers because it's like, how did you not know he's a controversial figure? Like, there's obviously a lot of people angry at these. Like, I think that. So, yeah, I think this is going to happen to someone else, unfortunately. I hate to say that, but, I mean, if you just look at history, you can kind of see, like, okay, this is not over.

[A]

Yeah, I. I think. I don't know. There's a lot of conversations happening there. People talking about lack of mourning versus rejoicing and, like, that whole debate playing out. I think. I don't know. Part of the reason, I think it was maybe so shocking for me, aside from just the. The whole thing is horrifying and the video, like, traumatizing. And I just think about all the people there, and I don't know, I think it. It seems that it hit a lot of people in a different way than like, when there was the. The. The attempt on Trump. Not only because that was an attempt that failed, but I. I think it definitely ties into maybe the. The even, like the even closer parasocial nature of the. The relationship that people have with. With activists and commentators and, you know, he's. The people that we watch. They're talking to me, right? I'm sitting down. I'm eating with. It's the relationship. I. I mean, I. I wasn't around in. In the 70s, so I don't know, the relationship that people had to these. These figures and, you know, were they more icons that people felt drawn to, but separate then or separate from versus how people feel so, like, close. And I mean, even for. For Kirk specifically, he was out there like people. He was. He was more accessible than even a lot of podcasters. So I wonder if that's also part of the reason it hits. In addition to people potentially feeling so tied to or so horrified by his messaging, like, if that's why we saw some of the things. I don't know. I'm like, we're. We're filming this now, a week after. I'm still digesting all of it. I don't know. Yeah, I just think a question for that.

[B]

The most fascinating thing that I've thought about last few days is the fact that, like, I have a. A friend who was a big fan of Kirk and, but I don't think he was aware of Kirk's more controversial opinions. Like for example, Kirk was, he repeatedly said that he was against the Civil Rights act, something we mentioned a few moments ago, which I think is actually a pretty radical opinion. I would say at least 80% of Americans think the Civil Rights act was good, but he did not. And so if I were to tell my friend that. Did you know that he was against the Civil Rights Act? My friend, he wouldn't know that. Like he, because like he, we, we all, not only do we see what we want to see, even like the same exact people we follow, we see different bits. You know, like there's other clips of Charlie Kirk saying wonderful things, you know, that I like. Oh yeah, I really agree with him. Like, and so when you have that disconnect, then yeah, like I had other friends that were like so surprised that people were celebrating his death. I'm like, well, do you realize that they're not watching the same things that you're watching of him? Like you're watching clips of him saying things that are less controversial. They're, they're watching clips of the, just where they feel like their identity and values are attacked.

[A]

Yeah, no, I, I, I, I, I hear you. I, I just, I don't know, I look at that whole situation and it's like, I feel like every time we, we end up having to talk about it, I have to be like, just to make it very clear. It's like denouncing, I denounce political violence. Like the whole situation is horrifying. I think also to your point, I think it is very likely that there is just more bad to come. It felt like very much like a moment of acceleration. And so I guess with that in mind, I mean, where do you see the United States in the next two, seven, ten years?

[B]

Oh good, I'm glad you said ten because the next two years are going to suck just as, just like again, I'm always zoomed out. I'm always like trying to avoid the day to day news cycle. And I'm just looking at broader trends because I think for one reason it helps my own sanity. But yeah, I do think the next couple years based on historical trends are really going to be chaotic and we don't have leadership that's trying to unite us. They're just trying to exploit the fact that there's division and, and use that to their advantage. And so there's not going to be any kind of healing even when you have, like, the Utah governor. I forgot his name, but he was like, yeah, yeah, yeah, Governor Cox. He gave some speeches. Some of it was kind of uniting. But then, like, a couple days after, he's like, talking about how well this was a transgender person or this. The shooter had a transgender partner. Like, why does that even matter? The reason why he's bringing it up is he's like, oh, this is like a signal that this is my team versus their team. And so there's not really leadership that's trying to unite us right now. And so, yes, things will get worse, which is hard to imagine because things are already pretty rough. But I think compounded with the fact that economically, things will. We're going to have stagflation, which just means low economic growth, high unemployment combined with really high inflation. We haven't had that since the 1970s, by the way. That's, like, pretty much the worst economic situation. And it's going to happen. And so people will become even more radicalized. Seven years down the road, I think we'll be in a much better place. Ten years down the road, I think it'll be night and day. I think we're going to look back on this time. We'll be like, oh, wow, we've come. I just think that a lot of things can actually happen that for the better in a short amount of time. And that's, again, I brought up the 60s as a time of, sure, it was chaotic, but there was also a lot of really important, impactful reforms made during that time. Same thing with the 1890s, early 1900s, even, you can say the 1930s, where we had the Great Depression. You had some chaos, but you had some good programs come out of the. With the New Deal that are still with us today.

[A]

So it sounds like you're of the thinking this is. This is more of a pendulum swing rather than more steps down a long road. I guess with that in mind, when it comes to US History specifically, is there a generalized period of a pendulum swing? Like, are there these. As far as, like, it goes one way before it comes back another.

[B]

I just think the pendulum has been one direction for a long time. I'm referring to the current neoliberal direction we've been in economically since Jimmy Carter was president. So since the late 1970s, when we had stagflation and so inflation was the biggest fear back then. And so they're like, okay, just free markets, everything. And of course, Ronald Reagan, with the Reagan revolution, kind of took it. Took it up a notch. There was deregulation there was a rollback of all these laws that held business back. I just think that that's gonna, the pendulum is finally gonna swing back to more consumer protection, more worker protection and more regulations of corporations. Probably higher taxes on wealthy folks as well. It's inevitable at this point. I don't think there's any cause also you look at some of the Republicans who talk about these things and even The Vice President, J.D. vance is open to some of these restrictions on markets, which is. That's a big shift from say 20 years ago. When you're looking at the Republican Party, that is.

[A]

Yeah, it's an interesting mindset. So you are kind of on this grander scale because I think probably a lot of people think of periods of time often separated by the president. Like you have Bush war on terror to Obama and then the cycling kind of back and forth. Right. The idea that you don't get Obama without Bush, you don't get Trump without Obama, but you see that as kind of just kind of on a smaller scale rather than the bigger shifts. Is that accurate?

[B]

Yeah, I think so. I mean, not always. But also I probably should make the distinction. We're talking about economic issues versus social issues. I think the 2000 and tens were actually we moved to the left quite a bit on social issues. You know, this is when you had the legalization of same sex marriage, the supreme court decision in 2014, I think 2013. And then you also had like just more awareness of things like transgenderism and just more people being open to these social issues, like changing their mind on. And now there's a reactionary movement when it comes to social issues. But people are forgetting that when it comes to economic issues, actually there's more common ground than people realize.

[A]

So where is, where is. Or is there an off ramp from where we are right now?

[B]

Catastrophe. I think that when people suffer, they're going to be willing to hear, finally hear other perspectives. And I think that the perspective, perspectives that have been ignored for a long time is a lot of the stuff that Bernie Sanders was saying. And of course the Democratic Party shut him out, which was one of their biggest mistakes. Now they're finally starting to understand like, oh, maybe we should have actually listened to Bernie. But yeah, like, it doesn't mean he has all the solutions, but I think a lot of what he talked about as far as economic populism will become attractive to people that lean to the right currently. And especially if they're suffering. You know, it's like a con artist only is able to Con. If people don't realize that they're being screwed and at some point it's inevitable they'll realize, oh, we are being screwed. And he promised solutions and those solutions haven't happened for many years now. So they will lose faith. It might take a while still, but I think it's inevitable.

[A]

Yeah, I'm torn on it. Right. Because something that I say constantly is, and it connects to your point that I don't think people can really drastically change without experiencing pain and often self inflicted pain. I don't. It's just whether it's a personal health choice or you know, knowing how your, your vote or what you were believing is going to affect you moving down the road. But I don't know, then it also, because it comes down to how effectively whether it's a con artist or whoever can do what politicians do best and that is figuring out who to blame. Right. Can the pain that you're inflicting on your own people be cast as somehow being done by the other right? Is there a certain point where he deports so many people and he accomplishes so many things and things are still not getting better or in fact maybe becoming worse, whether it be economically or health care wise, where you know, people go, well, actually it is. Okay, no, it is this guy, this, this guy and what he's doing, this is the reason for it rather than, well, actually it's because this other thing and you continue down this road, you think, but you think that there is an offer ramp. There is a point at least. I mean if it gets to a point where like 55, 60% of the people can kind of see the light.

[B]

Yeah, it's never going to be like a overwhelming majority. But I think you said 60%, I think is the key, like percentage because you're always going to have people that look for easy solutions and just scapegoat. We had an entire political party that came in the 1840s in reaction to some of the reform movements happening in the 1840s, which is also when we saw a huge spike in immigration. We saw a lot of people for the first time moving to the United States from Ireland and from Italy. Oh my gosh, can you imagine Italian and Irish immigrants? Anyway, and so there was this reactionary movement very similar to today where yeah, there was a whole political party, their whole platform was just nativism and xenophobia, like fear, immigrants and they were called the American Party, America First. Their opponents called them the Know Nothing party and they even liked that. They even co opted and called Themselves a know nothing party. But regardless, my point is they fizzled out pretty quickly because at some point, hate only gets you so far. It kind of runs out of fuel before love does. And I know that sounds really cheesy what I just said, but, I mean, I think the same thing is like, right now, like, there was a lot of fuel in the late 2010s for hate is not just the fact that there's this reaction to the social progress, but also compounded with the economic despair, people have a shorter fuse. They're just like, more willing to blame and just like simple explanation versus what's usually the case. It's very complex. There are complicated problems that need complicated solutions.

[A]

Yeah, but the, like, I know, I'm just going back to using kind of the word off ramp, but with that, I mean, it's not as simple as the absence of Trump. Right. It feels like Vance is really trying to grab on to, like, the mantle of maga. I'm sure as we get closer to the midterms, he's going to be all over the country, and he's been kind of really hitting the moment right now very, very hard. So, I mean, is. Is it too overblown, the focus on Trump specifically? Obviously, he's the President of the United States. He's the leader of the country, the leader of MAGA right now. But are. Do you think Vance or someone else, they fill in that gap that he's potentially going to leave?

[B]

I think they only fill in the gap if they're able to fill it in with a lot of other more specific policies because, like, it's a cult. Like, when the cult leader dies, the cult splinters inevitably. And so what's going to happen is, sure, most of them probably will go with J.D. vance, but not all of them. No, there's going to be a lot of them that will not. I think Vance has positioned himself really well because especially this year, like, he just blindly supports Trump on everything, even if. If it's ridiculous. But the thing is, we don't know what Vance really believes. I think that he's a. An enigma in many ways. I think he just says whatever he thinks that Trump wants, wants to hear and his supporters want to hear. If Trump were to die in office and Vance were to take over as president, I really don't know what would happen. I think, because, I mean, just a few years ago, Vance was comparing Trump to Hitler. So who knows what that guy really believes? Like, we do have little snippets of what he maybe believes. Like I was hinting at earlier that maybe he's actually okay with raising the minimum wage. And actually, I mean, we know he does legitimately, like, tariffs in protectionism, so that will continue. But also, like, I think he would be perfectly fine with more regulations on business or higher taxes on rich people. I know it sounds kind of crazy, but he's not your. He's not a George W. Bush Republican or John McCain.

[A]

Yeah. I don't know. I'm obviously, like, I'm so focused on the now, but, yeah, every now and then I try and look forward and think of, like, okay, well, what does the next thing look like? Because there are different versions of it. Right. There is just Trump isn't president, but he's still around and still has a general stranglehold on the party. And, like, is. Is controlling things in his absence. If he passed away during or after his presidency. Yeah. Do people rush? Because it does feel like there is a big difference in Trump 1.0 and Trump 2.0 in that. I mean, maybe I'm misremembering the timeline, but I feel like there were so many people out of the White House already. Like, it was just a constant in and out, whereas. And who knows if this will even age well in a week or two. But it's like Patel's not out right now. You know, Bondi is not out right now. It feels like he's. He cares more about loyalty over, like, you know, effect, especially if those people are willing to take the hits, since people are far more comfortable criticizing his lieutenants instead of him, even if they're just doing what the president wants. And so I don't know, but I guess we'll see. This is a long road to that point. But, you know, do you think that the answer. And also is it a realistic answer to help handle our political division is reforming our electoral system?

[B]

Oh, I'm so glad you asked that, man. Really? That's, like, what I'm most passionate about. Yeah. I think that's like, the root cause of all of our problems. And I think that when we do see reforms in the next decade, I think that has to be the top priority, obviously ending gerrymandering, which might take. Have to take an amendment to the Constitution ending plurality voting. When I say plurality voting, are you. Is that clear what that means? Plurality.

[A]

They don't have. They don't have to have the majority. Right. This is whoever got the most votes. Is that what you mean?

[B]

Yeah. And it's usually the system is designed to have winner takes all. So that means it's. You're often just voting for the lesser of two evils. This is how the Electoral College is set up, which. The Electoral College. Yeah, like that.

[A]

I mean, if you're talking about pluralities, I mean, what are your thoughts? What are your opinions on, like, ranked choice voting?

[B]

So that's another solution. I don't think it's the best alternative, but it's definitely better than plurality voting. There's other voting methods, like score voting or approval voting. Star voting, my personal favorite. So there's other ways that you can change, but that's actually something that can happen at the local and state level. It doesn't have to happen at the federal level. But in terms of federal level, there's other things you can do. You can, of course, at the very least, reform the Electoral College. You can expand the size of the House of Representatives. And so maybe you keep the Electoral College. And. But we've had 435 members of the House of Representatives since 1929, nearly 100 years. And so if you just were to simply expand the size of the House, then perhaps the Electoral College would be less controversial. So stuff like that. I think that's the root of all of the problems, because we have a disconnect. We have both the President and Congress. They have ideas. They do, but they're very unpopular. And the popular ideas, the stuff that we want government to do. So, for example, I would say 80, 85%, maybe even one poll I saw, 90% of Americans think that there should be universal background checks before you own a gun. That's something that's not even brought up at committees in Congress right now. And because there's no incentive for them to do that, like, why would they bother? They don't have to worry. So the fact that I know a lot of people bring up campaign finance like, oh, that politicians only respond to their donors, sure, that's an issue. We could overturn Citizens United, that decision. But I think the bigger root cause is our voting methods. I firmly believe that.

[A]

Well, yeah, it feels like the. Especially with hardcore gerrymandering districts based off of, like, okay, it's definitely going to be red, it's definitely going to be blue. It's really just going to come down to the primary that, like, it really does supercharge the ability for more extreme members of Congress to be put into place. But if you're talking about expanding the House, then I have to ask, are you one of the people that are of the mindset of we should eliminate.

[B]

The Senate I think we. I'm willing to compromise, actually. I would say, hey, if we can somehow have more democracy, then maybe we should repeal the 17th Amendment, which is the one that says there should be direct election of senators. So, yeah, maybe a senator should be appointed if we want to head to more democracy in other areas. I don't care at this point. Like, I just think we need some kind of reform with representation and voting, which are interconnected. When I bring them up, they're related. The Senate. Yeah. I mean, if I could have, like, my way, obviously the Senate, I mean, have a unicameral legislature, like the state of Nebraska does. Nebraska only has one house that makes laws in that state, so they don't. Yeah, getting rid of the Senate. I'm open to that, too. I'm also open to, like, maybe you just add a senator to each state. I don't know. The thing is, though, Wyoming, three senators. Does Wyoming really need three senators?

[A]

It is. Yeah. No. Whenever I. Whenever I look at. Yeah. When I'm like, okay, Rhode island and California have the same representation, it's wild. Especially once. Especially once you start going down the rabbit hole and people are like, well, you got to talk about state's rights. And then a lot of those same people are like, if the federal government's willing to crack down on states that have policies that they don't agree with, they're like, yeah, yeah, I love the. I love federalism. All of a sudden, it's like, what? Stay consistent. Okay. While we're talking about expanding or closing. Closing shop, what about the Supreme Court? Do you think that that should be expanded as well? Should there be term limits? And then I'll even expand to term limits in general. Regarding politicians, like elected politicians, in order.

[B]

To have term limits, you do need to amend the Constitution, unfortunately. So that would be very difficult. But, yeah, I think this is something that's a bipartisan, nonpartisan issue. Most Americans agree there should be term limits for members of Congress. We shouldn't have career politicians. There's people in Congress right now who have been in Congress our entire lives, you know, and that's insane to me. So, yeah, term limits for Congress, for the Supreme Court. I think it should be longer, personally. I think at least 20 years is reasonable because you don't want it to become a purely political position. I think judges, justices should not be kind of. They should be immune from politics. At the same time, I've kind of become more radical in my views about the size of the Supreme Court. A lot of people don't realize that the Supreme Court. There's nothing in the Constitution that says there has to be just nine of them. There's no set number that in fact the number has fluctuated throughout American history. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln packed it. He got more than the 12 in there. Obviously, Franklin Roosevelt got into some trouble in the 1930s. I say obviously, like, everybody knows that I'm just so. But Franklin Roosevelt tried to. He wanted to pack the court. His critics said that. Which all he said was he just like, hey, if somebody in the Supreme Court refuses to retire, then I can nominate somebody else after a certain length of time. And the more I think about it, like, it's kind of reasonable, dude. I mean like maybe the supreme court. We have 340 million people in this country and we still have the same number of Supreme Court justices. I think that we. It's time to expand the size of the court. And all that has to happen is Congress just has to pass a law. That's all. There doesn't need to be an amendment to the Constitution.

[A]

How dare you say that's all Congress has to do is do something that half are, at least half are going to see as a threat to their political future.

[B]

Yeah, see, and that's, that's like the. Again, the bigger problem is the partisanship, which, the polarization comes A big reason why is because of plurality voting. Because we're just like, well, I hate them all, but I hate that group a little bit less than that group. So I'm going to vote for the lesser of the two evils. And we just have to get rid of that mentality. Like it makes us more tribal.

[A]

Yeah. I sometimes wonder if it's like if the. If the trick is. And it's not because it's like, I think a lot of people think of what. How things are playing out in terms of generations of like, okay, well what if all of you were grandfathered in? Yeah. Especially with like things like age limits. But then I'm like, no, I'm still giving them. I feel like I'm giving them too much credit. Still gonna like, there's just. There's too much grandfather. Yeah, there's too much, I think though of a mindset of teams and self serving. I don't know. But I do want to go back to something. Right. So you are from Kansas, the home of John Brown. You know, he's regained relevance, which is perhaps a bad sign of where we are as a nation. Do you think that this is a bad sign for our future?

[B]

Yeah, I'm Glad you brought up John Brown. I live in Lawrence, Kansas, which is where John Brown spent a lot of his time in the 1850s. And he came to Kansas to kill. To kill people who were forced slavery. And I made a video about him. Man, this was like, 2018 seems like an eternity ago. But I even framed the video as, you know, some people think he's a hero, but some people also think he's a terrorist. He was a controversial figure. So it's a very. Now, if you were to go to the comment section of that video, it's mostly people praising him and calling him a hero. So that, to me, like, the fact that he is more popular than he's ever been before, that is definitely concerning because that means that more people are saying that violence is justified in order to make changes. Reforms.

[A]

Yeah, I mean, there's been a lot of conversation about, like, who has that mindset versus, like. Like, do they more identify as more liberal versus more conservative? And then also people then comparing that to the actual violent crimes that have taken place of. You know, is that left? Is that right? Do you. I don't know. Do you see that as, like. I mean, is there in your eyes, a difference that we've always seen or maybe in the moment now regarding what people say versus what they do?

[B]

Well, you. Yeah, I think that the difference now is just. I think that people are realizing that we want. They want accelerationism. More and more people want accelerationism. It was remarkable to me that in the last presidential election, you had a lot of people that lean to the left, but they're like, I'm not voting for Kamala Harris. You know, she's. I mean, sure, it'll be better than Trump, but we want. We want the chaos. They are embracing the chaos because in their view, they're so desperate. Like, especially if you're under the age of 30, you're never going to be able to buy a house. You're never going to be able to participate in the American dream. It's like many of them are borderline nihilists. Like, so, like, it makes sense to me why people would be drawn towards radicalism when there's just so little that is offered to them as society currently is. You know, I mean, again, it always comes back to economics. To me, I think I said this before, and it's controversial. It's kind of a hot take. Like, you know, there's that famous saying that the quickest way to learn about anything is learning history. That's why I like history. It's like, oh, yeah, you can learn about all kinds of things. Well, I also say the quickest way to learn history is to learn economics, because I think at the root cause of this is like, that's what you need to pay attention to in terms of what's going to happen. I think that we can explain a lot of it by just scarcity, the fact that people don't have enough.

[A]

And maybe it's not the best word for it, but, I mean, do you think economics and economic situations are the most. The biggest factor in potential radicalization?

[B]

Absolutely. Yeah. And actually I predicted. Okay, so there was this study that happened, I think it was back in the 80s or 90s, but it was a while ago. And what they did is they looked at economic data and compared it to presidential elections going back to World War II and whoever was the incumbent political party. If inflation went up and unemployment went up, when they were in office, they were gone. And it was like you could predict it 100% of the time. What was unique about 2024 is like, I used that same economic data to predict who would win in 2024, and I predicted Harris would win because the economic data was actually okay. Inflation's under control, unemployment's low, People seem to be doing okay. But what I missed was like, no, that's not the perception. People are not feeling that. They are feeling like things are dire and okay.

[A]

So when you. When you say they're perceiving it that way, I mean, is it just because, I mean, are we in a unique situation of, you know, the situation was bad and so the minor fluctuations or what used to look like an okay situation was in fact not. Or is it complete perception?

[B]

Well, probably both. I think that. I mean, perception is definitely a big part of it because a lot of us consuming media, we're seeing the extremes and we're just thinking, oh, my gosh, things are so horrible. But at the same time, yeah, I think very real economic indicators that are often ignored by economists, unfortunately, are things like social mobility, happiness index, there's too much emphasis on GDP and the stock market. I mean, come on. Most people are not connected to how the stock market does or GDP growth. They're connected to things like, okay, am I going to have a better opportunity for success than my parents did, or am I freaking happy or not? Which a lot of people are not happy right now, especially in the United States. So are you familiar with the happiness index, by the way? Yes, I figured you would be. Yeah. So stuff like that, actually, I think should be. We should pay closer Attention to that sort of thing.

[A]

Yeah, I mean, well, connected to that. Right. It's something that shapes our perception, affects our happiness. I mean, and even Governor Cox was, was talking about it, and maybe, maybe not in the same vein, but, I mean, do you think something needs to be done in some way about or with social media or maybe even cable news and the mainstream media in general?

[B]

I hesitate to say anything because I'm a very pro free speech guy, but I know there have been certain regulations in the past, like the Fairness Doctrine was something that used to exist to try to give both of the major political parties a voice when it came to the airwaves, but those are public airwaves. So this is a different thing when we're talking about private media, like, but when we say private media. Yeah, it's just a handful of giant corporations that. So I think that if we want. When we talk about consumer protection, they, they're absolutely. I mean, we already have lawsuits, there's defamation often is something that's a. Something that can protect people, but I don't think that goes far enough. I think we should have some, we should have more accountability. I mean, particularly when you have a platform that causes people to, you know, become depressed, have mental health issues. Yeah, like, that's a. Maybe there should be some kind of regulation on very specific types of content that's fed to us. I think that's a reasonable discussion to have without, like stepping on the First Amendment. I don't know.

[A]

You're calling, you're calling for more of a conversation around it, to handle it, rather than maybe social media companies that, you know, they're thinking money, money, money first. How do I appease regulations and maybe even public sentiment, though public sentiment usually is. It feels like secondary because they have people that are dedicated to making their, their apps and their sites as sticky as possible, where they're like, you can fucking hate us, but you're going to use it. You can, you can Netflix like, you can hate us, but you're going to watch Stranger things after fucking 18 million years for the last season. So, you know, what's, what's the big mover for them? Money and fear of government? I don't know, I, I just, I wonder how much we're actually looking at solving issues versus just maybe potentially trying to go after certain specific people in a bit of a smokescreen. I don't know this. I'm seeing that, you know, they're, they're having the CEOs of, what was it, four companies that they're Going to have like, testify before Congress for radicalization and Steam's on there. But like, X isn't just like, what are you talking about? I'm like, so video games is the bigger, scarier thing.

[B]

It's always video games. Yeah.

[A]

Oh my God. Like, here's the thing. There's like, there's a, there's a big conversation as a dad. There's a big conversation about the access you give your, your children to the Internet. Especially with so many like community games where you don't know who the fuck they're talking to if you're giving them unfettered access. Is a lot that. That's to be talked about there. A lot of that is genuinely based around being a parent and showing up and trying to, if you're not there, educating yourself about those systems and, and trying to figure out how to navigate it. I'm still figuring it out. But like, I'm also fine with not being my kid's best friend because I told them that they can't do a thing. Like, it's like, I'm looking out for your safety, my man. And here's why I try not to be a just because I say so parent, though I probably say that like a few times now and then we all do. I don't know, I just, it seems very weird. I'm like, so I don't. Yeah, I don't think X is going at least at this. Maybe, maybe they're going to do around two, but I don't think, like, Musker is going to be there. I don't, I don't think they're getting zuck up there again for, for Facebook and meta. So I don't know. I question a lot of what is the actual goal? Right. Is it more of, you know, let's have a conversation, figure out what's best for our people or what's best for, quote, unquote, our side. And I don't know, I don't know if you see. See that as well.

[B]

Yeah. I think most people agree on the fact that social media has destroyed our society in many ways. And yet. Yeah. What we do about it. You're right. Like, it's still just finger pointing at this point.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And maybe it needs to become, maybe it needs to be rooted with us. We still have agency. I like to think. I know we're trapped in an attention economy. You and I actually make a living based off that. Like, and. But at the same time telling our viewers, hey, it's okay to log off and to go out there. And I mean, I think actually it's one of the most rebellious things to do right now. And I think a lot of young people are not really on social media anymore because they realize it's not making them happy. And maybe they're on a Discord server and they're in group chats and stuff. It's not like they're not using their phones at all. I see this with my oldest daughter. She's in high school, and she's mainly just on Snapchat, group text, and occasionally Instagram. But even Instagram, it's only. She only follows her friends. I think that's pretty healthy. I think that's actually kind of. I mean, the promise of the Internet when we were younger was. And I say that like, I mean, it's not like we're. We're that old. Come on. But like, I. Because I watched you for years, so that's why I know, like, like, at least we're somewhat the same age. We remember the, the promise of the Internet in the early years. Oh, if you in your small town in the United States, you don't have anybody like you in your hometown, at least there's somebody online that's just like you, and you can find your people, you can find your communities online. That was like the beauty and the promise of the Internet. Whereas now it's like, okay, like, we. Sure, it's all right. But yeah, most of people just go online just to like, attack another tribe. Attack. Attack another community.

[A]

So, yeah, I don't know when you're, when you're talking about, like, what your kid uses, I'm like, you got one. You got. You always got to watch out for the finsta. But then that puts me into a different headspace of I wonder if people our age have a fake trust in themselves to know the sneaky ways that our kids are going to use technology. Because I remember growing up, like, I had a parent that thought that the computer was off because I turned the monitor off, right? It was like, that was the level of economic understanding. And so now it's like, you know, fake apps, fake accounts, things that are hidden, things that are. I don't know. And I don't. I don't know. But actually, also speaking of our age, you know, when, when you started making your videos, like, how long did it take before a student saw one? And like, what was, what was the react. Their reaction? What was your reaction? Maybe even what was, you know, your school administration's reaction?

[B]

I was kind of lame because I forced my Students to watch my videos in class.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

Because my first videos, you're like, you.

[A]

Told them to, like, and subscribe before.

[B]

They left one of those teachers. Well, but, you know, because I was making curriculum based stuff. It was stuff they had to learn anyway. But yeah, it was administrators. It was kind of hit or miss like the last high school I taught at. The principal there was really cool with it, really supportive. In fact, I remember the conversation we had when I walked in. I said, because during the pandemic, I was. Was like, crunching the numbers and I was like, I'm making more money just doing the videos versus I teaching. And I remember that conversation. He's just like, yeah, go for it. You know, he totally understood. Yeah.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Kind of sad how, you know, it also is an indictment on how little teachers are paid these days.

[A]

But, yeah, I mean, what, what, what. So what were the. Where was your mind at that moment of like, okay, I'm gonna do videos full time. Like, so it's during the pandemic, were you. Was it just because you were looking at the numbers or. I mean, that was a uniquely horrible time, I imagine, to be a teacher.

[B]

Oh, it sucked. Yeah. My last year, because I had like, half the kids were in the classroom wearing masks and. Or in their hoodies. You can't even interact with them. And the other half were online and you were trying to, like, teach to both. And so, yeah, it was just. And then parents were more vocal than ever. You know, they're very. They're for the first time, they care about what you're teaching your kid. Like, you're indoctrinating my kids. You know, I was in a more rural district and yeah, so it was. It was tough. But at the same time, like, I still have students now. I think I, you know, I just think my classroom's a little bit bigger. So I think of it like that. I do. I have. I have a Discord server. I have a twitch where it's like, it feels like there. There's a lot of interaction and a lot of them are curious, they want to learn. And I think at the root of it is like, my overall goal is to spread empathy around the world. I know that sounds cheesy, but the goal is human survival. The speed our species, human beings, we need to survive. And so I feel like the best way I can do that is to teach about the lessons of the past. And so I'm still doing that. It's nice to have more freedom now where I can choose the topics. Also on social media, I can be a little bit more outspoken. Say if the superintendent of Oklahoma is trying to like force kids to read Bibles in public schools, I can be more outspoken about that now that I'm not in the classroom.

[A]

Yeah. I mean, yeah. But also then on the other end, like some of these fucking crazy book bands, it's like, it's like, what are you doing? Like, some of the books, I'm like, okay, I can, I can maybe even see a semblance of the argument. And then others, I'm like, this just seems crazy, just wild.

[B]

I mean, it's more likely to check it out. So yeah, go ahead, have those books.

[A]

Yeah, yeah. I mean, that's the thing. Yeah. All of a sudden now there are banned book lists. I know that we ended up just like buying a ton to see because. Yeah. I mean, to the point of, I mean a lot of the kind of the, the so called free speech supporters and like anti cancel culture folks who were against a lot of stuff are now like rooting for it. And I, I don't know, but even that is kind of interesting because I'm seeing then other people switch up where, you know, they were kind of rooting for certain people's downfall. And then I don't know, I mean, to your point of maybe in two, seven, ten years. Well, not two years. In the next seven, ten years, maybe there is more of like looking in a mirror and going like, okay, I feel like I'm right here. But actually here I might have been wrong or misguided or maybe didn't communicate things properly. I know that's the thing that I try to try to do. And who knows like what people have as far as like a track record. I don't know. But okay, so with you not being a teacher, if you did have to put on like the actually in like a public school teacher hat on again, what are your thoughts about or. And maybe even stay in touch with other teachers, like, what do you think about AI in the classroom right now as far as kids?

[B]

I actually gave a presentation on this recently at a local high school where my friend is the principal. I used to teach social studies with him and he saw my video. I made a video about how a lot of teenagers have confided in my comment section or on my Discord server saying that, yeah, I use AI all the time to cheat. It's not. I mean, everybody does it. High schoolers, they're in college. And not only that, their teachers are using AI to grade. And so you have literally students that are Turning in AI created work. And the teachers are not even grading that because they're having AI grade it for them. And so I do think that this is a big concern with education. And what I said at that presentation is just briefly, we need to get rid of the devices. We need to go back to pencil and paper. Think of it like the calculator. I mean, we don't give a calculator to a first grader. We teach them on, they actually have to write out the problems first and then work their way up to earn the right to use a calculator eventually. Like you and I, we can handle AI, we can use it because right earned it. We've, we've learned everything we need to learn to then use it. Whereas, yeah, like, I just think that what are you going to do when, when they can be, when I can do everything for them? It already can. And there's no good AI, plagiarism, checkers, that, that's a scam. Those are all scams. And so at this point you just have to kind of say, hey, ban it all as far as devices. And I know this is like, if you were to hear me say this, like me from 10 years ago visiting the future now and hearing me say this, I'd be shocked. I'd be, because I was like, cool teacher. I was like, oh yeah, get out your phones, it's going to help you research. Yeah. And now I'm just like, no, get those out of here.

[A]

But there's also a little bit of a difference. Okay, Like, I'm not saying it's, it's, it's completely disconnected. But I feel like when I was in school, you had to educate yourself to a certain degree to even cheat properly. You had to be like, okay, I have to do this with a TI83 calculator and blah, like something else or I have to do. I don't know. There was almost a creativity or something to it that I feel like was almost educational in a real world aspect compared to AI. It's a very flawed argument, but I, I do agree with you that at least getting, learning the core of a lot of things and then getting to a place where you can use AI as a tool rather than think it's doing all of the lifting, that's going to be incredibly important. But also I am, you know, thoughtful about the future that a lot of these kids are going to be adults in. Like, I, we don't fully even know the, the level of AI that is going to be around. Like, I don't know, like, it's one of those places where I'm like, okay, well, it feels like it's time for trade school. It's like, it feels like that's, that's the smartest move right now. My job, like, it could be replaced right now if someone was really fantastic enough at prompts and people didn't care about the, the human connection and like, the level of trust. So I don't know. It's a, it's a, It's a crazy world, but. Okay, it's very interesting to hear you say that about AI. And I had heard teachers using it as well. I don't know. The whole situation sounds fucked.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, super intelligence is a separate conversation, but I mean, I just think that half the jobs are going to be gone within a few years as well. That's. But maybe it's not a bad thing. Maybe it just means we all have more free time to be creative and pursue what we're passionate about. But as far as you and I, like, there's enough stuff, there's enough information about us online right now where AI could just, like, imitate us. And so what does that mean for influencers, creators? I think what that means is we're going to have to be more authentic than ever. In fact, I see myself in 10 years literally just livestreaming all the time, like somebody following me around with a live stream backpack, and I'm just like, I have a whiteboard in the park and I'm just like, giving lessons to people who walk up, like, what do you want to know? Let's go. Let's learn American history out here in the park.

[A]

We are. Yeah, I feel like we're at that meme of, like, which, which road? It's either that live, live, live, live, personable, personable, personable, or I just try to own and control as much of the AI version of me. And I'm able to do 2700 things an hour because it's like, there's a little bit of me. But if there's, There's a system in place that seems like a nightmare world. But also I always think of, like, where do people often navigate? And I think it is to the. The least obstructive road, the easiest road, the road with the highest potential upside. And when you're talking about automation, I feel like that's. I don't know, that's. Whenever I talk to a lot of, like, CEOs or managers, they just constantly talk about removing the human element. Like, they, they see the Human element as the obstructor rather than the value adder. And that's a fucking scary. That's a scary place.

[B]

Yeah. That's the direction education was going for decades is data. Look at data. When you are ignoring the human aspect, which really we. That's like where education becomes an art, where you actually, it's. That's the human side, the creative side. And I think that I'm optimistic again, I have to be that the direction we're going to go is there have to be laws restricting AI, like in terms of like intellectual property. But also combined with the culture will shift towards valuing creativity again because, let's be honest, a lot of mainstream culture is so lowest common denominator crap, you know, that it's might as well be AI slop already, you know. Oh, there's another superhero movie coming out. Wow.

[A]

How dare you? How dare you. I like Superman.

[B]

I like the new Superman movie. I will say that. Yes. But I mean, like, with AI can create a movie which we're not very far from that. Then what does that mean about. That means. Yeah, like, you just have to get rid of all the special effects and just focus on the humans themselves.

[A]

Yeah. The shitty versions are just getting out of the way. But when you, when you talk about AI regulation, I'm like, I don't know if we're going to see that until. Until too late. Because it feels like. It feels like, politically speaking, we're in a place where the majority isn't like, is pulling back regulations specifically in hopes that we can keep up with competitors like China.

[B]

China.

[A]

Right. Rather than, Rather than going like is, let's not fall behind, but do it right. Let's go fast, break things and then try to wrangle it in.

[B]

But I don't know if I compare it to nuclear. The development of nuclear weapons. Really. Yeah. I think that super intelligence could end humanity. So I think this is something where all countries have to get together, sign treaties. Because it will have to be another mutually assured destruction situation. Because you. You could get. I mean, yeah, you could have AI just decide that we don't want human beings anymore. The Terminator was right. Okay, yeah.

[A]

Clippy's gonna drop the bomb.

[B]

That's the thing. There will be a disaster. Absolutely. Within 10 years, I think even there's gonna be some kind of disaster where bots try to kill us. They won't be successful. We will fight back. But I think it's going to take something like that to wake us up.

[A]

Well, hopefully that last part isn't just being held up by the optimist in you. Matt, the last thing I'll ask you, maybe it's on the note of optimism, maybe it's on the note of what people need to keep in mind. Is there a last thing you want to say or hit on? Whether it's the moment that we're in now or the next two years, I.

[B]

Think it's important to be positive and to zoom out. Helps you do that. Like when you're looking at day to day stuff, I think it really is bad for your mental health. And that obviously is somebody who makes history videos. It's easier for me just to. I'm reading about stuff that happened 200 years ago, so. Oh yeah. But it also helps me realize that what we take for granted today won't be taken for granted in the future. And then things are constantly changing. The pendulum's going back and forth. Nobody could have predicted the 2000 and 20s have been turning out like they are. So that just means that we can't predict how the2030s will be. And if you're a doomer, I don't want to have anything to do with you. I think doomers you're not. If you're not willing to fight, then get out of the way. We need fighters right now at this moment.

[A]

I hear you. And the main point is watch and listen to Mr. Beat and Philip DeFranco and then log off and interact with people.

[B]

I was gonna say listen to us first, then log off. Yes.

[A]

Appreciate you, Matt.

[B]

Thanks for having me.

[A]

And finally for you, dear watcher, dear listener, thank you for watching today's podcast. I really hope you enjoyed it as much as I enjoyed doing it. And if you did, hey, maybe give it 5 stars on Spotify and Apple and give it a like on YouTube. Thank you for watching I love yo faces and I'll see you right back here soon.