Ep 372 | Deep State Operatives Won the Super Bowl | Guest: Abigail Hall

Summary

Podcast Summary: Kibbe on Liberty

Episode 372 – "Deep State Operatives Won the Super Bowl"

Host: Matt Kibbe
Guest: Abigail Hall
Date: February 11, 2026

---

Main Theme

This episode satirically examines the intersection of U.S. state power, propaganda, and cultural spectacle, spotlighting the massive patriotic displays at the Super Bowl. Host Matt Kibbe and economist Abigail Hall (co-author of How to Run Wars) dissect how government and private actors collaborate to shape public narratives around war and foreign policy—often blending earnest analysis with tongue-in-cheek commentary in the style of “deep state” consultants.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

The Super Bowl as State Propaganda (00:00–05:30)

• Costly Patriotism:
  Hall shares her research on the cost of military flyovers at sports events, suggesting the Super Bowl’s elaborate spectacle likely cost upwards of $300,000.

  “In terms of flight time... the ranges... were in the range of about the upper $100,000 to maybe around $300,000 for the flyover.” (Abigail Hall, 01:50)

• Choreographing the Display:
  The guests marvel at the flawless timing and “remarkable” choreography of the event, jokingly suggesting it's “almost too good for government work.”

  “The timing of the flyover was so perfectly orchestrated. Really almost too good for government work.” (Matt Kibbe, 02:30)

• NFL as a Propaganda Partner:
  Discussion on how sports franchises, especially the NFL, have longstanding relationships with federal agencies for staging patriotic displays, blending public and private efforts to encourage support for government policies.

History and Mechanics of Paid Patriotism (03:33–07:05)

• Deep Roots:
  Hall recounts U.S. government collaborations with sports stretching back over a century (e.g., sports equipment sent to troops, local games fostering goodwill at military bases).

• Paid Patriotism Exposed:
  Senators McCain and Flake exposed “paid patriotism” in 2012, documenting millions spent by the Department of Defense on sports franchises to guarantee certain patriotic acts.

• Modern Media Spending:
  Kibbe notes that federal agencies spent $1.8 billion in 2023 on discretionary advertising—with the DoD leading at $1.14 billion.

Culture Warring and Narrative Control (07:05–14:51)

• Surface Distraction:
  Debates around culture (e.g., “Bad Bunny vs. Kid Rock” at the halftime show) can distract from more substantive policy discussions. However, Hall emphasizes these cultural elements are vital for framing public understanding of policy.

• Media & Entertainment Influence:
  Hall describes Department of Defense entanglement with TV and film, swapping access and support for editorial say—a long-standing channel for guiding public sentiment.

• Imperfection in Control:
  Echoing lessons from their book, Hall explains that even the best-run messaging campaigns inevitably let dissent or subversion slip through, e.g. artists using mass platforms to critique U.S. policy.

  “No matter how well you do, you can't get it right 100% of the time. And so you're going to have things that slip through the cracks.” (Abigail Hall, 10:43)

Information, Surveillance, and the Modern Deep State (12:58–16:09)

• The Challenge of Narrative Fragmentation:
  While power over information is more diffuse, Hall points out how much leverage remains through data collection—mentioning platforms like TikTok and Ring as new nodes in the surveillance apparatus.

• “Rational Ignorance” and Manipulation:
  Because the public often doesn’t engage deeply with policy details, strategically-timed or vague narratives are effective.

Private Sector Participation and Campaigns (16:07–19:39)

• Blurring Public and Private Lines:
  Kibbe and Hall discuss “hybrid” entities like super PACs that launder pro-government messaging and launder finances, complicating transparency and accountability.

• Short Attention Spans:
  Strategic use of reporting lags and fast-moving news cycles ensures controversial narratives fade before sources are revealed or examined.

Censorship, Safety, and Constitutional Constraints (19:39–26:38)

• TikTok and Censorship:
  They discuss how control over digital platforms (like the Trump administration’s TikTok maneuvers) is wielded for narrative management, especially on issues such as Israel/Gaza.

• Tradeoff: Safety vs. Liberty:
  In classic satirical mode, Hall voices the “company line” that temporary suppression of liberty is a necessary tradeoff for safety.

  “...if people want to be safer, then they're necessarily going to have to relinquish some of those freedoms. But again, keep in mind that this is only temporary.” (Abigail Hall, 21:43)

• Constitutional Obstacles:
  U.S. operations at home must contend with constitutional constraints—unlike abroad, where "the Constitution doesn't follow the flag." Hall jokes about finding creative legal workarounds.

Regime Change and Foreign Policy Narratives (27:43–36:04)

• Venezuela Case Study:
  They break down the U.S.-backed ousting of Nicolás Maduro—replacing him with his vice president Delsey Rodriguez, who's reframed as a “moderate” despite deep regime ties.

  “She's not a moderate. She's, you know, dyed in the wool... She's not a moderate. Said she was Maduro's... right hand woman. And so it's really just a shift of power.” (Abigail Hall, 31:37)

• Justifying Regime Change:
  Success is measured in terms of media and public acceptance, not actual change in the freedoms or conditions of local populations. Legacy media’s complicity persists, incentivized by access and "scoops."

Media Control and Transparency (36:04–42:48)

• Controlling Access vs. Legacy Approaches:
  Kibbe observes that the current administration’s direct control over media briefings is a cruder version of what past governments have done, but with less pretense.

• Rhetoric of Military Dominance:
  Hall and Kibbe analyze the chilling shift in official messaging—e.g., the Air Force’s “united, ready, and dominant” slogan.

  “Those first two words are kind of expected. That last word of dominant is new in some ways... It's an expensive proposition.” (Abigail Hall, 40:35)

• Debt and Perpetual War:
  Funding of endless war via debt (not direct taxes or bonds) distances the public from war's real costs and consequences.

  “If it's like, hey, I'm having to pay... $1,000 more in taxes, what are you doing with that? That's a lot of scrutiny for policy. If... you shift over to... debt financing... people aren't really paying attention...” (Abigail Hall, 43:24)

Economics and Cultural Communication (46:07–54:41)

• Costs Born by Consumers:
  Hall gives concrete examples (e.g., Florida property taxes) to illustrate how government spending and taxation eventually filter down into consumer prices and inflation—though the connections are often opaque.

• Making Austrian Economics Accessible:
  The episode closes discussing Hall and Coyne’s upcoming book introducing Austrian economics and Kibbe’s related project on making those ideas accessible through pop culture references.

• Satirical Method and Teaching:
  Hall describes delivering public presentations entirely in the “deep state” satirical persona—sometimes horrifying students before breaking character:

  “I see the absolutely horrified looks on their faces... then I get to the last ten minutes where I... drop the character... this moment of what just happened here, that's awesome.” (Abigail Hall, 49:50)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Media Narratives:
  “We always have to keep in mind the importance of the relationship between a lot of journalists and insiders in Washington... They need that lead, that piece of information that no one else has, and we have that information.” (Abigail Hall, 34:55)

• On Surveillance:
  “Ring Doorbell now is effectively connecting all of us to this absolutely beautiful surveillance apparatus.” (Abigail Hall, 13:23)

• On Public Rational Ignorance:
  “Getting really informed about any topic, that requires a lot of time and a lot of energy. And frankly, there's really little payoff for people to be informed.” (Abigail Hall, 18:27)

• On Narrative Control and War:
  “It takes a lot to get people to go along with particularly your foreign policy agenda. And so that requires a lot of resources and a lot of various kind of iterations to your public... to really get people to, even if they don't accept the policy, to at least be indifferent to it.” (Abigail Hall, 06:25)

• On Constitutional Workarounds:
  “…the Constitution's obviously a really big one, but you're also looking at these kind of state and local policies that are also getting in the way... Fortunately, we have a lot of experience here too of working around policies or constraints that are hindrances.” (Abigail Hall, 23:15)

---

Timestamps of Important Segments

• Super Bowl Flyover & NFL Propaganda: 00:00–05:30
• Paid Patriotism, Millions Spent: 03:33–07:05
• Cultural Narrative Distraction (Bad Bunny/Kid Rock): 07:05–09:09
• Entertainment & DoD Censorship: 09:09–10:25
• Slipping Through Cracks (Dissent): 10:25–12:58
• Surveillance & Modern Tools: 12:58–16:09
• Private Sector, PACs, and Rationale: 16:09–19:39
• Censorship, Safety vs. Freedom: 19:39–22:31
• Constitutional Constraints on Domestic Policy: 22:31–25:08
• Regime Change & Media Management (Venezuela): 27:43–36:04
• Media Control—Old Methods, New Face: 36:04–39:12
• Military Chest-Thumping Rhetoric: 39:12–42:48
• War Funding, Taxation vs. Debt, Public Awareness: 43:24–46:07
• Economic Education & Upcoming Austrian Economics Book: 51:15–54:41

---

Conclusion

Rich with dark comedy, ruthless economic insight, and a dissection of layered propaganda, Kibbe and Hall provide a thought-provoking, often hilarious take on the manufacturing of consent through spectacle, narrative, and control. Their satirical “deep state” act underscores the subtle and not-so-subtle forces that shape American support for war and unchecked government power—offering listeners historical context, current examples, and engaging skepticism.

---

Further Reading & Resources

• How to Run Wars: A Confidential Playbook for the National Security Elite by Abigail Hall & Chris Coyne
• Hall & Coyne’s “How to Run Wars” Substack
• Matt Kibbe’s Free The People (freethepeople.org)

---

Transcript

[A]

Welcome to Kibbe on Liberty. I'm talking with my friend Abby hall, co author of how to Run wars, who has written a spicy new memo to the football slash military industrial complex on the profoundly expensive and patriotic display we saw last Sunday. Check it out. Welcome to kibby on liberty. Abby, how's it going?

[B]

Thanks for having me.

[A]

You are a guinea pig. Because this is the first time we've produced a show precisely this way and we'll see how it goes. I'm sure it'll be catastrophic because of my technological limitations, but bear with me. And you are a imaginary consultant, I guess, to Homeland Security, maybe one of these other Alphabet agencies in defense or intelligence. And you and Chris Coyne have been advising them, tongue in cheek for quite some time on how to best do war propaganda in the context of culture. And you had a particularly spicy memo on your substack about the glorious victory during the Super Bowl. Do you have any idea how much it cost to fly that many jets over a stadium?

[B]

So I did a little bit of digging in terms of kind of what the ballpark range looks like, and it's honestly really difficult to pinpoint a precise number given you don't know, time for holding patterns, transport to and from and so on. But in terms of flight time, the ranges that I were seeing were in the range of about the upper 100,000 to maybe around $300,000 for the flyover.

[A]

But well worth it from a propaganda standpoint, of course.

[B]

I mean, it was impressive. Like, who doesn't love to see F18s and F35s along with B1s and a bunch of other things all flying over? It's very impressive.

[A]

I went back and rewatched it, and because I'm a boomer, I have no idea who the guy singing was, but the timing of the flyover was so perfectly orchestrated. Really almost too good for government work.

[B]

I mean, the choreography is spectacular. But to be fair, we've had a lot of practice with engaging in these types of patriotic displays with a variety of different sports franchises, but particularly the NFL. So the NFL has gone on record saying that they do a really good job of draping themselves in the flag. They're really aware that this is kind of a big selling point for them, and so they have a big incentive to get it right. And we do, too.

[A]

Yeah. So give us some of that history. And if you can put a price tag on it, it's not just professional football, but we can start there. And when did these patriotic propagandists start infiltrating football games.

[B]

So that is a really interesting question and also one that can be difficult for us to pinpoint. But the relationship between government and sports and kind of collapsing those two things each other for the purposes of generating support for US Foreign or domestic policy goes back pretty far. We know, for instance, say in World War I, you have government who's working with companies to ship gloves, baseballs, baseball bats, and so on over to troops who are stationed abroad. When you had military installations that were being developed in the U.S. as part of, say, World War I or World War II, you. You had these smaller bases that would hold sports contests for the purposes of endearing the recently integrated military population, who often were not exactly wanted in the location, to the broader population. Now, what we see in a contemporary sense in terms of the flyovers, flag displays, and we could kind of run down the way that the NFL and other major franchises integrate these displays if you want. That phenomenon, which was labeled as quote, unquote, paid patriotism, other people might call it propaganda, was flagged by the Late Senator John McCain and Senator Jeff Flake's office in Arizona. And a report came out in, I believe, 2012 that documented a partial scale of what that had looked like just from the War on terror up through 2012. And again, the data was really incomplete. But you're talking about what we know of millions of dollars going from the Department of Defense to these major sports franchises with the agreement that they're going to engage in so many patriotic displays of a particular type.

[A]

So I, I grok this. So it's, it's mostly true, but it looks like Federal agencies in 2023 spent 1.8 billion on discretionary advertising. And that's not just television advertising, but social media, which is, which is the most important, dominated by the Department of defense at 1.14 billion. That's a lot of cash to be a lot. Pump it into that.

[B]

It takes a lot to maintain your brand, you know. Yeah, got to spend it. Spend money to make money. Right.

[A]

I feel like that's peanuts compared to what we're supposedly about to do in Iran and the extraction, military extraction of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, apparently. Cuba, Greenland, we got, we got a lot to do here.

[B]

There's a big list to work ourselves through. And so it's going to take a lot to. And one of the things that my co author and I talk about, not only in the substack, which is ongoing, but certainly in our original playbook for the national security elite, how to run wars, it takes A lot to get people to go along with particularly your foreign policy agenda. And so that requires a lot of resources and a lot of various kind of iterations to your public in a variety of ways to really get people to, even if they don't accept the policy, to at least be indifferent to it.

[A]

Have you guys written at all about. You know, my sense is that these culture war arguments that we're constantly having, and I'm thinking specifically of those who sided with Bad Bunny for the halftime in the. In the super bowl versus those that wanted us to go over to Turning Point and, And listen to. To Kid Rock for some more of a America F. Yeah. Kind of a thing. Is that just distraction to keep us from paying attention to the conversation that we're actually having.

[B]

So I certainly think that there is a point to be made on that front that if we're arguing about, you know, Bad Bunny at the super bowl and the fact that he's saying pretty much the entire thing in Spanish, if we're arguing about that, then we're not paying attention to kind of the underlying dynamic. So the fact that the super bowl halftime show, for instance, was filled with all kinds of references to dynamics between the US And Puerto Rico, dynamics between the US and other Latin American countries were focused on the surface level as opposed to what's just underneath it. But I do think that there is something very important to be said about these cultural elements because as my co author, Chris and I discuss these elements, whether it's sports or it's film or a variety of different types of media, how people are presented information, how often it's presented to them, the way it's presented to them helps to frame their thinking about a variety of different issues, including government, foreign and domestic policy. And so I don't think that. And I certainly, outside of my own discipline of economics, a lot of work has been done looking at kind of information transmission. So in history, psychology, sociology. And I think that there's definitely something to that. So I don't think that it's necessarily a one or the other, but I think it's both.

[A]

I don't know if you happen to notice, but Billy Corgan, the. The lead singer for Smashing Pumpkins, did an interview recently where he alluded to the fact that the feds have been involved in. In propagandizing rock and roll music. I gotta get him on the show, but I. I don't know if you've been consulting with him as well.

[B]

I'd be delighted too. But the. Musically, this is one that I'm less familiar with. Do know more on, say, the television and the film front, which is something that we also see going back pretty much from the advent of film. You have really close entanglements between the Department of Defense and major film and television studios. Again with this idea of we're going to provide you support in various capacities in exchange for a say over your editorial process, which of course can and has. And we have very clear instances and examples of cases where things have been changed dramatically in scripts or in post production to better align the ultimate film or television product with the desired narrative of the Department of Defense.

[A]

How did you let Bad Bunny slip through the cracks? I feel like I don't speak Spanish, but. But I've tried to Google some of the things he was saying. I feel like he might have been critical of some of the federal government's policies. Is that possible?

[C]

How did you let that happen?

[B]

So, you know, and here's the thing, and we talk about this in the book, and actually the piece that I have coming out on the substack next week highlights this dynamic. Even the best attempts at controlling the narrative, the best attempts at messaging, no matter how well you do, you can't get it right 100% of the time. And so you're going to have things that slip through the cracks. Fortunately, there are various things that you can do kind of after the fact. So if we want to talk about celebrities, specifically in our original book, we dedicate some time talking about exactly that. What do you do with celebrities who are speaking out, sometimes very loudly in a pop, to their audiences, against your policies? So we talk about groups like, like the they were the Dixie Chicks when I was younger. Now they're just the chicks. But the chicks, if people remember before the US Invasion of Iraq or right at the beginning, they went on stage and said that they were ashamed to be from the same state as President Bush. And after that, it kind of took care of itself because they were labeled as unpatriotic. UN American radio stations stopped playing their music. Parents made their kids get rid of their Chicks CDs. If you want to go back even further from that, we can look at placing Lucille Ball under the careful eye of the House UN American Activities Committee because at one point she had registered as a Communist. She was married to Desi Arnaz, who of course is from Cuba. So we have a list of what to do with the celebrities specifically. But on a broader or on a broader point, we also talk about what to do when things go wrong. And so one of the key things will be things like trying to again, change the narrative, get that narrative back under control, maybe diminish some of the things that were being said. Deflection to what we were talking about earlier is also important. So saying, hey, let's focus on the fact that it was in Spanish and not what was being said in Spanish or another classic is deflecting blame or placing blame elsewhere. Because at the end of the day, it's very, very rarely the fault of the people in power. It's usually somebody else that really should be left holding the bag.

[A]

It has to be pretty frustrating to you deep state propagandist operatives, because you used to be able to just go buy the guy at the New York Times or destroy the reputation of Lucille Ball, you know, cut, cut the head off of the snake kind of a strategy. And now things are so decentralized, it's got to be hard to drive the narrative.

[B]

In some ways, yes. In some ways, no. So there are a lot more competing media outlets now. People get their media from different places. But the nice thing is, is that we have a really long history of being able to compel groups to give us information that we want. So it's highly unlikely that a lot of people read the new terms and conditions of the now own TikTok, for example, which allows the company to collect a lot of data. Now, whether they've said that they're not giving it to officials, but historically we've been able to work around that. So you can compel telephone companies, for instance, to provide data on their users. Same things for Internet companies. And it'll be the same thing for, for TikTok too. And I don't know if people happen to. To catch this one on the super bowl, but, you know, Ring Doorbell now is effectively connecting all of us to this absolutely beautiful surveillance apparatus where, yeah, they can use it to find your dog. They can also probably use that to figure out where people are too, that they might be interested in finding. So in some ways it's a bit more difficult. It makes the. It makes it a bit more challenging. But in a lot of ways, we've really developed a lot of tools over the last. Well, really in the last, like, 25 years that have actually made that job easier in some ways. So there are a couple margins, I think, that we could evaluate that on.

[A]

Thank you for joining me today on.

[C]

Kibbe on Liberty and for being part of our fiercely independent audience. Every week, my organization, Free the People, partners with BlazeTV to bring you this show. My guests Bring smart perspectives on everything from current events to timeless philosophical debates. If you like what you hear, go to freethepeople.org and support Kibbe on Liberty so we can continue to produce these honest conversations with interesting people. Now, let's get back to it.

[A]

Yeah, I love the way that ring made it about, about saving wayward dogs instead of the most granular surveillance of your neighborhood in the history of, of the world. Good. Good job, guys.

[B]

I mean, we've worked really hard, but one of the things that we've been really trying to highlight is, and there's always room for improvement. So if folks are reading on the sub stack, they're going to see a mix. There are things where we're like, hey, you all really dropped the ball on this one. But we also really want to make it a point to highlight when people have done well. And that, as you pointed out, would be a beautiful example of really just crafting and framing a message in a way where people not only are disarmed by it, but really accepting of it.

[A]

You mentioned in your latest memo that that ICE has had a bit of a rough go with the shooting of several civilian protesters. I noticed, and I thought it was a little bit too on the nose, but these ads that were running during the super bowl that were sort of over the top pro ICE, making all these guys into heroes. I don't know if that was you guys or not. It wasn't technically the government, but I tried to figure out who ran those ads. It's a group, some kind of a hybrid super PAC called American Sovereignty. Are you guys just laundering government money and getting it to these guys?

[B]

So it's important to note when we talk about, and you'll notice in our, in our memos, is that we're also, we're always addressing them, typically to the National Security Elite. And certainly when we talk about the National Security elite, you think about your folks in government, in, you know, dhs, in their subsidiary organizations in the dod. But National Security Elites encompasses a much broader group. So it's not just your public actors, but also your private actors who are responsible for developing and implementing US Foreign policy. And so that is a much broader umbrella. I'm not intimately familiar with that pack specifically, but certainly we appreciate them trying to help with supporting these policies.

[A]

It's, it's interesting that, that I, I, I, unfortunately I live in this world, but I'd never heard of this particular legal structure. And it looks to me like the only advantage of running ads under a pack instead of a nonprofit is that the lag time in reporting, I suspect by the time we discover which surveillance industries financed these ads will have changed the conversation to something else. So there's a probably a three month lag time in reporting, maybe six months. I don't know what it is for these guys, but well played because nobody really knows who's behind those ads.

[B]

Well, and that lag that you point out really is a wonderful thing. Thing. And so as economists, both Chris and I were really well versed in the literature on public choice economics or the economic economics of politics. And one of the things that we learned from that literature is that many voters are what we call rationally ignorant. And basically all that means is that getting really informed about any topic, that requires a lot of time and a lot of energy. And frankly, there's really little payoff for people to be informed. And so they lose interest really, really quickly in a lot of different things. Case in point, here would be Venezuela. You know, we ousted Nicolas Maduro a few weeks ago and I haven't really seen much on the news about it after that first couple of weeks. So most people aren't really paying attention to what's going on there. Same type of thing. You are having all of these protests in Iran that's kind of died down too. And so you're absolutely right. By the time that we get more concrete information or by the time that things come to light that maybe people wouldn't really respond well to, we've moved well beyond those kind of immediate concerns and we're onto something new.

[A]

I meant to mention this when you mentioned TikTok because it's kind of interesting what the real motives for the Trump administration basically taking over TikTok and making sure that a more friendly company owns it. It appears to be driven in large part about criticisms of American involvement in Israel and the conversation about what, what Israel should be doing in Gaza, what they're doing wrong in Gaza. And there appears to be a lot of censorship happening now that TikTok is in the right hands.

[B]

I mean, that's definitely a really important point to make is, you know, who has the information and how are they going to use it. And so one of the things that we talk about with some frequency is that, you know, a lot of the things that the US Government does might, to the untrained eye, look patently illiberal. So things like data surveillance, the things that we're seeing with ICE in terms of stopping and questioning people without any kind of rationale, those things. Look again, on the surface to Be really just absolutely at odds with a free society. But sometimes you have to do some illiberal things if you want to generate and maintain an illiberal order. There's a fundamental difference between the US government and the ccp. You know, we don't know what the CCP is going to do with all of the data that they collect collect, but we know kind of what happens when we within the US collect this very broad swath of data. And so again, at first blush it kind of appears to not look on the up and up, but it really is just a fundamentally different exercise.

[A]

So in other words, we can trust you guys to keep us safe and if we haven't done anything wrong, we have nothing to hide.

[B]

I mean, it's what we've done so far. I mean, I don't know if people have looked around, but really, you know, since 9 11, I think we've done a terrific job of keeping people safe. And part of that is that we have this idea that there is a trade off between safety and liberty. So if people want to be safer, then they're necessarily going to have to relinquish some of those freedoms. But again, keep in mind that this is only temporary. So once we've effectively achieved a world that is, you know, free of terrorism, one that is, you know, free and open, then we'll be able to kind of shift back away from that more security minded policy toward one that allows for more freedom. But we have to consider that trade off here.

[A]

I feel like probably the biggest challenge so far for you deep state operatives is how to actually pull off what we're calling mass deportation and all of the amendments to the Constitution that we will have to trample, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the fourth and fifth Amendment, certainly the tenth Amendments and probably a couple others. And traditionally we Americans have been pretty stubborn about those. But if, if you're gonna, if you're gonna extract so many people from, from these communities, there's gonna be a lot of broken eggs, there's gonna be a lot of collateral damage.

[B]

Yeah, and, and that really is something that we as consultants are working on right now. So in a lot of our previous work, Chris and I have been very focused. And when you look at foreign policy, you have the benefit of the fact that the Constitution doesn't follow the flag. So the same types of constraints that people face domestically with respect to policy are not the same constraints that we face when we move abroad. But you make a very, very good point that when we're talking about domestic policy There are those constitutional and other constraints. So like right now it's, you know, the Constitution's obviously a really big one, but you're also looking at these kind of state and local policies that are also getting in the way. So you have say the camera was the mayor of Philadelphia. I think it was the mayor might have been the governor of the state who, you know, came out and said if you break state laws, you referring to DHS and ice, we're going to arrest you. And your sovereign immunity is not going to exempt you from being prosecuted under the state statutes. And so that does present a real puzzle. Fortunately, however, again, we've got a lot of experience here too of working around policies or constraints that are hindrances. So in addition to, again, things like narrative control, utilizing really kind of vague statutes that are in laws which are going to require years to kind of work their way through the courts, there are sometimes other ways that you can frame or couc policies that allow you to do what you want to do. You just gotta kind of be looking for it. But that, that frankly is part of the reason that we have attorneys.

[A]

I assume that John Kerry, you may recall this. John Kerry was speaking at the World Economic Forum several years ago openly complaining about the First Amendment. It was a little on the nose because he was saying we can't really do the kind of censorship and Covid authoritarianism in the United States that Europe has pulled off because of this pesky First Amendment. Should he even be saying that out loud?

[B]

You know, that one would probably be a scenario where we would really, I would probably encourage, I would definitely have him tread very, very carefully because when you start talking about First Amendment, Second Amendment as well specifically, people tend to get really concerned. Again here it's, it's, it's a mark, it's marketing, it's how you construct and sell the, the narrative. So again, it's, it's not an encroachment on free speech, it's not an encroachment on assembly. It's about maintaining peace and security. It's about ensuring that the world that you live in is safe for you and safe for your children. And, and so this is necessary in order to maintain that safety and security. So again, a lot of times we can, we can work around these things that are going to be kind of emotional touch points for people. It's just, it requires really careful crafting.

[A]

Are you talking behind the scenes to Pam Bondi and Jeannie Pirro who have made some fairly ham fisted comments that seem utterly in violation of the Second Amendment.

[B]

You know, we're, we're working on that. It's, I'll be really honest, the last year in some change has been very, very busy, just because there's, there's a lot that we're having to, to guide people on. I mean, you have videos being posted from the White House containing racist imagery of the Obamas. You have, as you point out, you know, people coming out and saying these things, which, you know, again, at first blush really appear to contradict what we have outlined in our constitution. But it is something that we're actively working with folks on it just, they've got kind of a heavy lift. So to the extent that we can, we're trying to provide them general advice, but then of course, on the really big ones, you know, offer some more specific suggestions.

[A]

So busy. Let's talk about foreign policy and what you guys have done and maybe are doing right now to seed the ground for more regime change, wars, more just chaos internationally, because that's sort of your bread and butter.

[B]

It really is. And so of course, kind of the big things that are going on right now would be, is something going to happen with the US in Iran or not? So we could talk about that. But then, of course, the thing that we've just seen is regime change in Venezuela. And here again, we saw some just absolutely beautiful applications of things that we have offered as suggestions in the past. So again, narrative control. Maduro is a dangerous dictator. This is going to be better for the people of Venezuela. Again, using the term of like regime change as opposed to, you know, overthrow, those kinds of things. All fantastic. And highlighting again, the benefits, really pushing the, hey, this is really positive. The people of Venezuela and the Venezuelan expats are particularly happy. Those kinds of things were remarkably well done. And something that I was really, really pleased to see was that immediately following the overthrow of Maduro, there were a lot of comparisons between the overthrow of Maduro and the overthrow of NORIEGA In Panama 30 years before. And people were saying, well, look, this is, you know, appears to be working just like it did in Panama. Now, keep in mind, Venezuela and Panama not really that similar in many ways. If you want to talk about the similarities, they're both Latin American countries had a, a dictator who was overthrown by the US but that's really where the similarities end. But of course, we think about Panama as being one of those clear interventionist success stories. And so I was really, really pleased to see that that was something that was being brought up independently, not just by officials but also by people within the media.

[C]

If you made it this far into the show, it means I must be doing something right. Key Beyond Liberty is just one of the amazing products we create at Free the People. We tell emotionally compelling stories and produce educational videos for the Liberty Curious. Our award winning documentaries personalize all things liberty, independence, creativity, hard work, integrity and perseverance. After the show, check out our [e-mail] and if you like what you see, donate to support what we do. That's freethepeople.org now back to the show.

[A]

So we, we replaced Nicholas Maduro with his vice president. I forget her name.

[B]

Delsey Rodriguez.

[A]

Delsey Rodriguez. And by all accounts she's exactly what Maduro was a, a violent Marxist, anti US usa, controlling the military and the gangs and suppressing political dissent. But it's been quite a hat trick to say that we did something meaningful there while the president himself is sort of trash talking what I would argue is the actual opposition leader who's quite a free marketeer. Maria Machado. Machado, Maria. I can never remember the whole name. I suck. But, but you're an expert at propaganda so of course you would know that. But like we did all that and I can't tell that anything changed.

[B]

Well, I'll tell you, I'll tell you what changed in the context of Venezuela. So you're, you're on the money with respect to Delsey Rodriguez. So people have painted her as a moderate, which is a really nice way to frame. But she's, she's not, she's, you know, dyed in the wool, she's a full member of the party, she comes from a political family, she's not a moderate. Said she was Maduro's, you know, kind of right hand woman. And so it's really just a shift of power. Now what was beautiful about this is that now Rodriguez and the other kind of elites in Caracas who were a part of that Maduro regime are now faced with the following choice. They either get removed from power or they decide that they're going to play ball. The U.S. and you know, have to give it to Maduro whether you love him or you hate him. He definitely refused to play ball with the us. He was working however, with Russia and China. So Russia and China have long been drilling in the Orinoco river and Lake Maracaibo. Let's not forget Venezuela is sitting on the largest reserve of crude oil on the planet. And so they're using this oil to fund their patently illiberal regimes abroad. But by replacing Maduro with Rodriguez and the incentives that she faces, we now have an instance where we have a much friendlier regime in Caracas. So now there's actually a chance for Washington and Caracas to work together to communicate effectively and to have these beneficial exchanges, particularly as it relates to that crude oil.

[A]

Are you saying. I don't want to believe this, but are you saying that all the rhetoric about freeing the Venezuelan people and liberating them from socialism and restoring representative democracy in Venezuela, that that was just window dressing?

[B]

I mean, I wouldn't call it window dressing. I mean, the obvious thing would be to have had the backing with Machado following the removal of Maduro. But let's remember, people have to be prepared to accept democracy, to accept freedom. And you know, Machado, she's great, but she also might not really be ready to assume that position of authority. And so we're very careful when talking about foreign policy and regime change specifically, is that we need to make sure that we have the right people in the right place at the right time.

[A]

I did. I did read the piece that EU operatives placed in the New York Times that I think was the first to report that Maria Karina Machado was not ready to assume power. So that was well done. I guess you guys still control some of those legacy media relationships that will seed these stories that help drive the narrative.

[B]

So I can't get into all of the specifics. You know, things have changed since the, you know, the 70s where we were really embedded and we were. We were actually paying journalists. So we've kind of moved away from that. But we always have to keep in mind the importance of the relationship between a lot of journalists and insiders in Washington is, you know, journalists, if they're wanting to have the hot scoop, if they're wanting to get promoted, they're wanting to be recognized among their peers and among others, they really have to have that novel angle for a story. They need that lead, that, you know, piece of information that no one else has, and we have that information. And so to the extent that reporters want to keep coming back to us and get that, you know, next big lead, it is in their best interest to report in a way that is positive, and that is going to help kind of convey the message that we're interested in conveying. So even if it's not necessarily overt, as we would say, as economists, the incentives there are largely well aligned.

[A]

So what's your take on the. And I'm going to drop out of character eventually here because I'm afraid That people that tuned in, in the middle of this are like, what has happened to these people?

[B]

It's gone completely off the rails, off the rails.

[A]

Yeah, like even I'm convinced, I may, I may have turned deep state in the middle of this conversation. But the comparison, like there was all this brouhaha about the now renamed Department of War controlling the media narrative and deciding who could get into the Pentagon briefings. It strikes me as really just a ham fisted way of doing exactly what the Biden administration, the Obama administration, the Bush administration did beforehand, but sort of without pretending that it was real media.

[B]

Yeah, so, so also now formally breaking character. I think that that is an accurate assessment. Is that a lot of the things that we're seeing now, I think there are some, some differences. So certainly in, in previous administrations you had, you know, clear like preferences for certain members of the media, certain outlets. But it's a, I think really a difference of degree as opposed to a difference of kind. And within the context of foreign policy reporting, we see this kind of selection mechanism a lot. Like you have journalists, for instance, who are, they're embedded is the, the word that they use. They're embedded within say US military forces. And that embedding has a variety of problems in terms of they're going to be reporting on what they can see. Well, who's determining what they can see, who's putting them with the troops. It's the powers that be within the Pentagon. In a similar way, I think we're starting to see, or we do see something similar domestically. But again, it comes in the form of who has access to officials within the DoD, within the administration, who gets the information. And then as you pointed out, this kind of, hey, you fall in line or you can't come report here anymore is a really clear indicator, I think, of a couple of things, of one kind of how important the media is as a check on government, as imperfect as it may be. But I think it also demonstrates that there is some meaningful pushback because we did see that reporters were really kind of strong in their, not only their condemnation, but their just refusal to absolutely participate. So we've definitely seen this before, but I would concur that I think it's, it's much more kind of cards on the table with this administration in some ways.

[A]

Yeah, I was thinking about thinking about the rebranding to the Department of War in your memo about the great success at the super bowl for the propagandists. The phrase, I wrote it down, but I don't have it in front of me anymore. The phrase that the Air Force used very much reflected Trump administration chest beating, saber rattling. Do you remember the phrase?

[B]

Yeah, it's united, ready, and dominant.

[A]

Dominant.

[B]

Dominant.

[A]

That's a very Trumpian phrase. And I don't know, like, we're trying to sort of talk our way into something that may or may not actually exist, because as an economist, I know that empires inevitably die because they have too many military operations, too many aspirations. It turns out that nation building is quite expensive, and the nations being built aren't all that receptive to that actually happening. And it strikes me as you can't replace the economics and the finances of nation building with football stadium propaganda that says we're dominant.

[B]

And, I mean, you're certainly right about the cost. So people seem to forget exactly how much that we've spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not talking millions, not talking billions, talking trillions of dollars that are going to be paid over the course of generations. So my kids, my grandkids, are going to be paying for that debt. But the thing that we point out in our work on this, particularly the satirical work, is that the way that this dynamic is often framed is that, well, yeah, it's expensive, but the people who are going to benefit from it the most are those people in the future who are going to live in a freer, more prosperous type of society. But to the use of the language, or to the language in the super bowl, specifically, of the United ready and dominant, those first two words are kind of expected. That last word of dominant is. Is new in some ways, but not. Not in others. So, of course, kind of the idea of US military dominance is one that there's a phrase in Spanish which is basically, if you can see it, you don't need to say it. And here we have an instance where I think you're on to something, where, well, we're gonna say it. We are trying to, again, project this very strong kind of military power, which certainly, I mean, I don't think anybody's arguing that the US military is not fundamentally capable in a variety of ways, but I also think that people may not realize quite how extensive the US's military boot print is. And I'm not just talking about active interventions, whether we're talking about Venezuela, we're talking about having, you know, airstrikes going on in Yemen and elsewhere, but also just the overarching cost of keeping some 800 military bases operating and having US forces deployed all over the world. It's. It's an expensive proposition.

[A]

We just had another, I guess we're calling them minibuses. We've had these endless omnibus spending bills that Congressman Thomas Massie has been on my show many times talking about all of the awful things in there. But we just had another minibus that. That wrote billions and billions more to Egypt, Ukraine and Israel specifically. And I feel like there was other stuff in there as well. At some point, those trillions add up. At some point it becomes real money, I suppose.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, they definitely do. One of the things that Chris and I have talked about again in the book and elsewhere, is this shift in how we pay for foreign policy and how we specifically pay for war. So there are a couple things to unpack with that. One being that what would have been called a war historically is not called a war very often. So a lot of people don't know. The last time that the US formally declared war was in the 1940s. Everything after that has not technically been a war, even if we want to call it that, because Congress has to declare war. But we've not seen that. But the other thing that has happened too, is this shift again in how we pay for it. So if you go back to World War I and World War II, you're looking at taxation, so income taxes being introduced and expanded, and you're looking at fundraising, so with buying government bonds. But that really forces people to interact directly with foreign policy operations and to pay attention to them. Because if it's like, hey, I'm having to pay you, say, a thousand dollars more in taxes, what are you doing with that? That's a lot of scrutiny for policy. If, on the other hand, you shift over to something like debt financing, which is what we've seen, particularly since Vietnam, people aren't really paying attention to that because it's not impacting them directly. It's some very large kind of difficult to visualize or difficult to kind of put it in a personal perspective that people can understand number that is going to be paid off later in the future. And so that kind of financial distance also provides distance from Scrooge, and that that's something that I think a lot of people are unaware of. And again, that is a totally reasonable thing to not be aware of, but it definitely is a critical element to what we've seen in terms of the patent kind of explosion of foreign policy operations. And as you mentioned, these very, very expensive ones at Kibbe on Liberty.

[C]

Freedom is a lifestyle 24 7, something you live and breathe and wear every day. If that describes you, you need the very Best Liberty swag in the market today. Just like this shirt I happen to be wearing. Go to freethepeople.org kol and check out our exciting merch. You too can love Liberty and look cool.

[A]

Yeah. I wonder how many people are able to make the link between the price that they're paying for groceries and the, the huge inflationary surge since the pandemic and the lockdowns and the countless trillions that we've ratcheted up government spending as a percentage of ddp. I wonder if they can associate that with the spending. Some people do, but it's an intellectual. You have to play sort of 3D chess to get there.

[B]

I think it's difficult. And I know certainly, like, I'll give you a very contemporary local example. So I'm based out of Florida, and in Florida, there is a proposal that we eliminate state property taxes and, you know, barring and whether or not, you know how we feel about property taxes generally. Setting that aside, the question has come up with, well, what do you, what do you do with that? Like, if you're wanting to maintain the same level of revenue, it has to come from somewhere. And I was pointing out to a journalist, this was last week, I said, you know, if you don't have property taxes for homestead properties, you're probably going to see tax rates increase for rental properties. It's going to be passed on to renters, but you're also going to see an increase in taxes for businesses. So now you go to the grocery store, guess who is going to be passing on that tax to you? So on the one hand, you're like, hey, my property taxes are lower, but suddenly my grocery bills are a lot higher. And when I go out to various Florida businesses, those prices might be more expensive as well. And unless you're trained to really kind of think through that chain. And again, most people, most people aren't. And that's not an indictment. But it's really hard to make that kind of connection between a policy and an outcome when you have those kind of layers between them.

[A]

Yeah. Hey, let's tell people. And to be clear on the record, neither one of us are deep state operatives or cheerleaders for deep state propaganda. This is all based on the book that you and Chris wrote. Talk about the book and the substack and where people can find that work.

[B]

Yes. So the book is how to Run a Confidential Playbook for the National Security Elite, published by the Independent Institute. It's available on their website, independent.org it's also available on Amazon. And then for folks who are interested in our substack, they could search for my name, they could search for my co author's name. You know, how to Run wars substack. And it should take people right to it. We post content regularly, typically to the tune of about one to two pieces a week.

[A]

And what was I about to ask? So the. We had had a conversation with, with our friends at Independent about, about actually producing some sort of film that, that captures the, the dark comedy of, of the book that you guys have written. I still want to do that project, so.

[B]

Oh, we're game. Yeah.

[A]

Because it seems like the problem's not getting better, the problem's getting worse. So.

[B]

No, and I think probably one of the next things that we're, that we're going to be looking at is kind of taking this lens that we've developed for talking about foreign policy and maybe applying it more domestically.

[A]

Yeah. And here's a question I was going to ask. Have you ever been able to keep in character for an entire speech? And has your audience been horrified by that, if you've ever pulled it off?

[B]

So the answer to that is yes and yes. So I've had actually the chance to present the book kind of in character several times and I'm actually doing it again twice next week in a couple of places. And it's, it's interesting for me because I wasn't sure how it was going to go over. And it's fascinating because the people who know me recognize that I'm, you know, playing a part the whole time. But what's really interesting is the people who don't, because I stay in character the whole time. And especially for the students. Like, I see the absolutely horrified looks on their faces and see them passing notes to each other. And then I get to the last 10 minutes where I very unceremoniously drop the character. And then this moment of what just happened here, that's awesome. It's different, but it's a lot of fun.

[A]

Yeah, that's awesome. So the final thing I want to talk about. We got a little bit of time left. Let me know if you have a hard stop. But the thing I wanted to talk about, I see that you and Chris have a new book coming out about what is called the Principles of Austrian Introduction to Austrian Economics. Is that. Yeah. And I've been working on a project with, very much inspired by my friend Peter Bettke, professor at George Mason that we all know. And I'm working on a project called Austrian Economics and Popular Culture.

[B]

Oh, cool.

[A]

And I think there's something unique about the Austrian school that. And part of it is style. Like the Austrians write in plain language. They don't try to confuse you with complex quadratic equations like traditional mainstream economics now does. But also the stories that we tell make some intuitive sense. So I'd love to have you guys on when that book comes out and talk about, and delve into that, but I've already done a series of interviews with the professional wrestler Kane, AKA Ben Jacobs, who is incredibly fluent on the Austrian school, and particularly when it comes to monetary policy and the Fed. His gateway book was Murray Rothbard's what Has Government Done to Our Money. I just. We're about to release an interview with Ron Paul, which was so much fun to do, but his, he's. He's obviously pretty OG and pretty instrumental in spreading the ideas of the Austrian school. But he of course found, when he was in, I think, graduate school, he found a copy of Road to Serfdom.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And then he found Mises and was able to actually drive up from Blake Jackson to hear one of the possibly Mies's last public lectures. So this, this, this idea that we could bridge the gap from academia where you guys are.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And that's what you know, how to Run wars is this beautiful crossover piece that, that is, that is more culture and satire with, with some substantial economics in there. But I, I think we can do that with some of the core ideas of the Austrians generally. Any thoughts on that? I haven't seen the book or read the book.

[B]

Yeah. So the book that we offer is an introduction to Austrian. So the level is for folks who maybe have some knowledge of kind of your basic neoclassical economics. So what I mean by that for folks is if you've seen kind of your standard supply and demand curve, that's what we're talking about, and kind of comparing and contrasting the Austrian methodology to that neoclassical frameworks. But we and Polity, the publisher that we're working with, you know, targets a broader, more, you know, not, not necessarily academic audience, though we certainly think that this is something people could use in a classroom setting, but we want it to be accessible so that people can see like, this is the Austrian school, this is the methodology, this is what makes us different. So I'm sure, like I said, we'd love, we'd love to be on when the book comes out and would certainly love to chat about any other ideas that you would have because we're both very passionate about working within that school. And it's been a fun project to work on, and we're excited to finally see it in print.

[A]

I just hope your alter ego doesn't disappoint. Get wind of this project and try to squash it before it makes waves.

[B]

The compartmentalization, you know, just. It. It's. It's a trained. Trained response.

[A]

Yeah, it's complicated. Okay. Abby, thank you so much. This was a lot of fun. We'll see what happens when we clip some of this without any context.

[B]

Oh, I can't wait. It was a pleasure. Thanks so much for having me on again, Matt.

[A]

Yep. Talk to you and.

[B]

Yeah, let's chat soon.

[A]

Bye.

[B]

Bye.

[C]

Thanks for watching. If you liked the conversation, make sure to like the video, subscribe and also ring the bell for notifications. And if you want to know more about free the people, go to freethepeople.org.