What is an oligarch?

"Oligarch" - when we hear this word in the West, it's almost always associated with Russian business types who made loads of money during the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, as Ben, Matt and Noel discover in tonight's episode, oligarchs have always been around, in almost every single civilization... and the U.S. is no exception. In fact, despite being a democracy on paper, the U.S. itself is a lot more like an oligarchy than our rulers would have us believe.

They don't want you to read our book.: https://static.macmillan.com/static/fib/stuff-you-should-read/

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn the stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of iHeartRadio.

Speaker 2 (00:25):
Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt,
my name is Noela.

Speaker 3 (00:29):
They called me Ben.

Speaker 4 (00:30):
We're joined as always with our super producer Dylan the
Tennessee pal Fagan. Most importantly, you are you.

Speaker 3 (00:37):
You are here.

Speaker 4 (00:38):
That makes this the stuff they don't want you to know.
And Guys, I was thinking about this. We've talked a
little bit off air about it. What a time to
host a critical thinking conspiracy show.

Speaker 5 (00:52):
Man, We're not wrong.

Speaker 3 (00:56):
I mean, if we had known what we know now.

Speaker 5 (01:00):
Say something something we knew a little bit. I mean,
you know that ebbs and flows, but boy is it flowing.

Speaker 2 (01:06):
We always knew that at the end of times there
would be folks someway or in their basements or a
room in their apartment going the end is coming. The
end is coming, and we weren't doing that for way
too long.

Speaker 4 (01:20):
Well, the world is ending for someone somewhere every day, right.

Speaker 2 (01:26):
And for all of us very soon.

Speaker 5 (01:29):
I'm gonnasy to change it too, Buddy.

Speaker 2 (01:33):
Flags on the way here.

Speaker 3 (01:35):
It's so cool. Everybody look up Gulf of Tonkin.

Speaker 4 (01:39):
In tonight's episode, we are going to explore a genre
of conspiracy that we have often referenced, but we've never
fully explained. We often speak about the nature power and corruption,
but how do we explain the tendency of powerful people

(02:00):
to compromise institutions. That's tonight's question. You know, what exactly
is an oligarch? Do you guys remember our earlier conversation
with Jake Hanrahan, the creator of sad Oligarch?

Speaker 5 (02:12):
How could I forget? I also remember learning about it
in school, like in you know, Civics class, about what
an oligarch was, and I just remember it was like
it was not a good thing the way it was presented.

Speaker 2 (02:25):
Well, it was a great thing for the folks who
were smart enough and had enough capital at the fall
of the Soviet Union, it.

Speaker 5 (02:33):
Was great, for sure, I guess, I just mean the
way it was taught, it was like, this is an anomaly.
You do not want this, This is not something that.

Speaker 4 (02:41):
We have, sure, right right, yeah, but I don't want this.
As we'll see the definitions of we versus them and
your mileage is going to vary sociosifly at best, right,
and often the oligarch is in the West associated with

(03:04):
post USSR Russia, to be quite clear. But tonight we
have to ask more importantly, is the United States itself
an oligarchy?

Speaker 3 (03:17):
We'll be right back.

Speaker 4 (03:23):
Here are the facts, all right, how would we define oligarchy?
I think we can do it pretty easily.

Speaker 2 (03:29):
Right, tycoons who reaped enormous fortunes in the collapse of
the Soviet Union in nineteen ninety one. That's how Encyclopedia
Britannica puts it.

Speaker 4 (03:38):
Yeah, and that's a genre of oligarchy for sure.

Speaker 5 (03:42):
And I guess I would think of it as sort
of like non government forces that are able to influence
government through sheer wealth alone.

Speaker 3 (03:50):
Yeah, that's a great observation.

Speaker 5 (03:52):
My forces, I mean individuals, But now that can also
include corporations, It can include powerful people within corporations, and
it can include a lot of different within the you know,
main flavor.

Speaker 4 (04:02):
Yeah, I mean, at the basis, folks, an oligarchy is
a form of government in which all of the power,
or the majority of the power is vested in a small,
exclusive class for all our fellow etymology nerds. The word
goes back through the French from the Greek oligarchia, which

(04:26):
translates to government by the few. I think that makes sense, right,
Most most governments are in practice oligarchical.

Speaker 3 (04:38):
Sure.

Speaker 5 (04:39):
It's also an interesting thing to try and suss out
the difference between say a dictatorship or a more iron fisted,
you know, singular ruler situation and how oligarchs figure into that,
because oftentimes it's easier for oligarchs to flex that influence

(04:59):
if they're tid end with someone that can unilaterally affect
policy without you know, fear of pushback from lesser government
forces like Stalin's.

Speaker 4 (05:11):
Stalin's Soviet Union was very much an oligarchy.

Speaker 2 (05:14):
Yeah, it's always a little bit murky there. And I
don't know that there's ever been a true, you know,
single person dictator ruling a thing, because there are always
folks around those people who are in their ear who
are the uh maybe they don't wield the power, but
they're certainly getting their way or having an idea, and

(05:37):
then it kind of transmits through whichever person is in
charge there.

Speaker 3 (05:42):
Phenomenal.

Speaker 4 (05:43):
Yeah, Yeah, Like a recent example would be North Korea,
an early example would be the Ottoman Empire. But I
love what you're pointing out, Matt, because there is always
a king of the hill, and we don't mean Texas.

Speaker 3 (05:59):
That's right.

Speaker 2 (06:00):
Benjamin Nett Yahoo in the United States, all.

Speaker 3 (06:05):
Right, I'll say it on Netflix, not my favorite Ben.

Speaker 5 (06:11):
The people who are just starting to call him BB
all the time. I had never really clocked that, but boy,
am I hearing it a lot now. Maybe it's just
because he's more in the news, but I am hearing
people kind of diminutively referring to him as Bebe whispering
in Trump's ear. And I thought it was being cute,
But that's second nickname, I.

Speaker 4 (06:26):
Guess, anything but him having to face the legal consequences
of corruption, to be quite.

Speaker 2 (06:34):
Honest, right, we're at a point now where there are
folks in charge where the moment they are no longer
in charge, they're getting in big trouble. So you gotta
grasp the reins.

Speaker 3 (06:43):
Baby.

Speaker 2 (06:45):
But there's a great clip of Benjamin Nett Yahoo going
before the UN and before Congress here in the United
States and making the claim I think starting in gosh,
I think it was eighty five with the first piece
of the superclip and in nineteen eighty five saying Iran
is about to have a nuclear weapon. We're weeks away
from Ron having a nuclear weapon. And then it happens

(07:06):
every couple of years, and you can just see him
making the same statements until finally he got his way.

Speaker 4 (07:13):
Yeah, and we were talking a little bit off air
about that one. We know that any nation in Western
Europe and Israel and the United States, we know that
any nation calling itself a democracy is often a theoretical democracy,
a place ruled by the public. But some people and

(07:36):
families still have a leg up. I was thinking about
this when recently here in the United States, someone with
a last name like Bush, Kennedy, Clinton, or Roosevelt gets
a certain unwritten boost, an unwritten buff to their character,

(07:58):
more so than say a Fagan of Frederick, A Brown
or whatever name I'm using now.

Speaker 5 (08:05):
Well, yeah, it's also like those guys I think are
more associated to me with the idea of political dynasty,
which is another murky aspect of oligarchy, Like is that
the same thing, like does the Is their influence and
political power derived from their generational wealth or is it
just right time, right place? You know, their fathers were
in the same business that kind of situation.

Speaker 2 (08:26):
What I'm seeing, guys, is is kind of that right time,
right place kind of thing in ingenuity and having an
awareness of the economic layout and what's happening, because it
does seem like the people were talking about who become
oligarchs throughout time are the ones who have a bunch
of capital already, and then they're watching what's happening with

(08:49):
let's say, the economy of a country that they're in,
as well as what's happening from a government perspective in
that in that country. And then when those two things
one kind of starts to get out bound balanced by
the other, they make these really smart moves and they
end up way on top. And that doesn't mean they
can see the future, right, it means they understand maybe
the way the market will change, in the way often

(09:13):
things like inflation are going to operate. It's creepy stuff
because it can happen anywhere.

Speaker 5 (09:18):
Yeah, also a lot to be said about just like
you know, being first to market or like being in
on the ground floor of something early enough, especially when
family is concerned, and that kind of generational wealth and
the influence that goes along with it.

Speaker 4 (09:32):
Yeah, well, said guys. And it's always been so strange that, Look,
when you hear about oligarchs, now you're going to hear
them portrayed as Russians, right, due to the fall of
the uss Or. But it's so strange to realize that
for the majority of human history, most civilizations were essentially oligarchies.

(09:58):
You would have your tribe leaders, you have your despots,
your emperors, your monarchs, your god kings, your religious authorities,
of course, let's not forget about them. And people did
not get to vote. Mainly, they were lucky if they
were able to eat or drink clean water that didn't

(10:19):
give them a bunch of really nasty parasites.

Speaker 2 (10:22):
Hey, and we're heading right back there, are we.

Speaker 3 (10:25):
What a time?

Speaker 5 (10:26):
We also just say, speaking of what a time, Matt,
I'm really glad you got out of Cotter when you did.
Just putting that out there, that was a timing situation.

Speaker 2 (10:36):
I hesitate to repeat myself, but I know that I
spoke to several people there who basically said, yeah, it's coming,
but it's not going to happen now because there's this
big oil conference happening in Qatar, and there's also this
huge tech conference. So all those the people that we're
talking about today that play in those circles, they're not

(10:57):
going to be immediately targets on unless, let's say, especially
as somebody who's like European or American hanging out over there.
The US isn't gonna isn't gonna fire missiles like that,
and then because they know that Tehran would fire back.

Speaker 4 (11:13):
And as we're recording on Friday, March sixth, the airport
in Doha remains closed. I don't know if you guys, yeah,
checked in with any of our contacts on the ground there.
But there's this crazy rush right now for people who
can afford private jets to figure out whether they bunk

(11:37):
or down, or whether they get a ride to Dubai
or maybe take land routes to Oman and get a
plane out of the country. I mean, this is this
is a result of oligarchical reasoning. Most wars actually are

(12:00):
in the modern era. I mean, scholars spend so much
time figuring out this historic tendency. Like we could admit,
we are humble enough to admit that the human being
is one of the most intelligent animals on the planet.
So it's kind of odd and counterintuitive that the inherently

(12:24):
inefficient social dynamic of oligarchy would be so incredibly common.
You know, if you think about it, and if you're
a smart human, then you want to preserve your civilization,
You want members of your civilization to succeed, and you
want to expand the future opportunities of your overall civilization

(12:49):
or species. I mean, logically from that, and I know
this is a hot take, theoretical communism would be the
best choice, right, Theoretical communism well.

Speaker 5 (13:03):
And a lot of this oligarchy stuff seems, or at
least the way it's sort of filtering into this country
and our system, it seems to have resulted from things
like Citizens United, and you know, the increased ability for
very wealthy individuals and corporations to wield political power. But
there's this sense that it's good for these very wealthy

(13:25):
people to have power because money makes more money, and
it's this trickle down thing that I think has historically
proven to be not true, and that these folks look
out for their own and their own class, and that
there is no trickle down. It's just about consolidating all
that power and wealth in these top top top tiers
and leaving everybody else out in the cold because you

(13:47):
can't have you can't amass more if you don't take
it from somewhere.

Speaker 4 (13:50):
A snowball effect. Yeah, the idea, Now we know it's
a hot take, but the idea of theoretical communism has
never really resulted in the practice of the things that
people like Karl Marx wrote about. The concept would be
each member of a society provides as much as they

(14:13):
can according to their ability, and each member also receives
all kinds of support commensurate with their needs.

Speaker 3 (14:22):
This is not the case.

Speaker 4 (14:23):
I mean, think about it. Let's think about it this way. Guys,
say we have ten people in a society. We're in
a tribe. There's ten of us, and every month we
generate a collective one hundred dollars. All other things being equal,
every member of that tribe would receive every month ten dollars,

(14:47):
your little piece of the pie. But to your point,
there noel. If of those ten people, one or two
is a warlord, then that minority of the civilization one
to two of the ten will accumulate the lion's share
of a tribe's production. So it's like eighty bucks for

(15:08):
me what is left maybe doled out to the rest
of you, you peasants, deal down and pray.

Speaker 5 (15:15):
Well, do you think it's because this idea of communism
never working out in practice the way it should in theory.

Speaker 2 (15:21):
Is it just the.

Speaker 5 (15:21):
Inherent corruptibility of people or the types of people that
seek that those types of positions that it really just
requires like a well meaning individual to ascend to that
level of power, and it just doesn't typically happen.

Speaker 2 (15:35):
You also have to have policies in place or rules
right in place that make sense to those benevolent goals,
and they have to kind of fit along with that stuff.
Then everybody has to agree, and then nobody can get
greedy because you get greedy. But that's the thing, You're
playing a game where nobody get greedy.

Speaker 3 (15:52):
It's the corruptibility factor. I think.

Speaker 5 (15:54):
I think it's just really hard to get to that
level and not want to take a little more for you.

Speaker 3 (15:57):
You know, you.

Speaker 4 (15:58):
Also have to have timeline right. You have to be
able to see perceivable significant results as a member of
a tribe of society, a civilization right. You have to
be if someone says, hey, give me ten dollars, then

(16:19):
the person giving the ten dollars will naturally ask where
does the money go? How does it benefit me? Qui bono?

Speaker 3 (16:27):
Right, I don't know, it's crazy.

Speaker 4 (16:30):
Because it's so normalized. We read a lot, folks, and
most history books are written in the milieu of oligarchy.
Most history books are coming from a perspective that acknowledges
and inherently supports this a logical, bizarre beat me here, Dylan, Carie.

Speaker 3 (16:55):
And that's why, from fiction.

Speaker 4 (16:57):
To film, from policy to profit, we have normalized a
very sad and cartoonishly stupid state of affairs. Like to
your earlier point there, every communist country on planet Earth
so far has ultimately done exactly the opposite of what

(17:20):
communism is supposed to do. They have generated a de
facto in practice upper class of corrupt rulers. I still
you guys, remember when we talked about Dunbar's number.

Speaker 2 (17:35):
The number of people that are truly human to you?

Speaker 3 (17:37):
Right?

Speaker 4 (17:38):
Yeah, I know it's a controversial idea, but maybe maybe
human tribes reach a diminishing return of efficiency after they
get past Dunbar's number. Maybe after like what was it,
two hundred and fifty people, maybe you should close the group?

Speaker 2 (18:00):
Uh, can we talk a little bit just about specifically
how the Russian oligarchs came into power, because there's there's
two things that I think we need to be aware
of before we even have our conversation about how does
you know how could America get here? Just to set
us up from a historical perspective, because I didn't realize

(18:20):
there were two major factors. The first one was that
hyperinflation was occurring in the Soviet Union, like as it
was about to collapse, and then immediately after the collapse,
like the Russian ruble was just in crazy hyperinflation every
month it was losing like twenty five percent of its value.
But people who already had a bunch of money and
a bunch of capital had already transferred their rubles into

(18:43):
other you know, things like US dollars, let's say, or
something British perhaps, or just whatever. They're changing their money,
their currencies from rubles as they're watching it happen into
other currencies. Then they can buy things or make promises
to pay for things in rubles. Let's say, sign a contract.
There's a great example. Britannica gives of a contract that

(19:06):
one oligarch signed to pay the equivalent of around three
thousand dollars US for thirty five thousand cars. But he
knew that hyperinflation is in effect and as continuing to go.
So that amount of money that's he that he's contractually
obligated to pay is actually going to become by the
at the end of the term, three hundred and sixty

(19:27):
dollars per car, So from three thousand to three hundred
and sixty, and he ends up making one hundred and
sixty million dollars on that. So just the people that
have the money already understand the system and know how
to kind of wiggle around it to end up continuing
to make money. Then this is the second part that
I did not understand. You guys, when the Soviet Union

(19:48):
falls in nineteen ninety one, they privatize as or they
begin to privatize, and they're like heading towards full privatization
of all things like oil companies, nickel, deposit mining, con
everything you can imagine as like natural resources, right, and
even media things like that. Nineteen ninety four. Oh sorry,

(20:09):
go ahead, no, I'm sorry.

Speaker 5 (20:11):
I just you're describing something very close to home and familiar,
as I please continue.

Speaker 3 (20:15):
History has never been original.

Speaker 2 (20:18):
Yeah, here's where it gets a little weird, guys, and
we're gonna connect it back up towards the end. Here
in nineteen ninety four, Russia isn't making enough money enough
gross domestic product to pay off its debts and to
continue to function as a country, so it needs a
cash input. It goes to these folks who are already
very very rich, who are who are controlling a lot

(20:41):
of these companies, and ends up borrowing a whole bunch
of money from them around one point eight billion.

Speaker 3 (20:48):
Yeah, it could go.

Speaker 5 (20:49):
Wrong, right.

Speaker 4 (20:50):
Think about the somewhat obscure writing of famous amateur wrestler
Abraham Lincoln about debts during the Civil War and paying
the power behind the throne. Or think about the movement
of tangible assets like gold in the lead up to

(21:11):
the current stage of the Middle Eastern conflict.

Speaker 3 (21:15):
Right, Oh, do a lot.

Speaker 2 (21:17):
But the whole point of they borrow that money from
these individuals, right, who are already so wealthy, and the
way those individuals get paid back is through these these
weird rigged auctions for control of certain things again, things
like oil companies, gas companies, a.

Speaker 4 (21:33):
Small number of well connected members of business class, former government,
and we have to say it the intelligence community.

Speaker 5 (21:41):
Oh sure, give those bids to the best you know
candidate though, right, there's processes for these things.

Speaker 4 (21:48):
Yeah, I'm sure there was a good faith process.

Speaker 2 (21:52):
Oh yeah, sorry, I forgot.

Speaker 4 (21:55):
We're on video and everybody can see how cynical and
sarcas I.

Speaker 5 (22:00):
Think we three hundred and sixty degrees, you know, and
back around at the same time.

Speaker 2 (22:06):
The thing I've forgotten there, guys, that was ninety six
when the at one point eight trillion was brow The
crazy thing that happened in ninety four, which is when
the government issued vouchers, which is really interesting because as
things are going down, things aren't looking great. All of
these state controlled things are beginning to privatize. The country
offers vouchers and these things. It's kind of like money,

(22:29):
but not really money. You could take these and you
can trade them. You can sell them. You can just
exchange them for other things. You could trade them for
an employee's share of a company, like the shares that
they own of a company. You can take these vouchers instead,
and like I said, you can trade them, so people
who already had a bunch of money could individually buy

(22:51):
up let's say a controlling share of a nickel conglomerate
by just going to all of these employees and saying, well,
I'll pay you more for these shares than what they're
worth right now, and now I will have a controlling
share of that giant thing that is going to be
massively important for the existence of the country. It's like
playing the long game, I guess for people who already

(23:11):
have the money.

Speaker 4 (23:12):
The rubyl version of pennies on the dollar right, this
is what we call regulatory capture. Please check out our
earlier interview segment with friend of the show, legendary conflict
journalist Jake Hanrahan. He has a series called sad Oligarch
which examines in depth the stories the rise fall, sometimes

(23:39):
from a third story window, of specific Russian oligarchs. We're
not blowing rainbows here, folks. Jake is one of the
best in the game. Sad Oligarch is a phenomenal show.
And the privatization, the massive privatization of a post Soviet
economy in Russia is still one of the biggest provable conspiracies,

(24:04):
and it's definitely the reason that here in the West,
when you hear Oligarch, you think Russia but that's as
we're going to see. That's not quite the entirety of
the conspiracy.

Speaker 3 (24:17):
I mean, we all.

Speaker 4 (24:17):
Remember the United States from earlier, founded in the late
seventeen hundreds to escape the trappings of things like oligarchy
and things like monarchy. Our founding fathers far from perfect.
They had a weird thing with wigs and stockings, for instance.

(24:39):
Several in practice were themselves oligarchs. But they had a
noble idea, or they had a beautiful idea, which was
to eschew the old, historically unfair systems of government in
favor of a meritocracy. All people coffeat asterisk can be

(25:00):
considered equal, and all people likewise are guaranteed. This is
our favorite part, by the way, folks, the pursuit of happiness.

Speaker 2 (25:11):
Try all you want, baby, roll you can do it.

Speaker 4 (25:15):
Roll those dice. Some people have more dice. Some people
get to roll twice. But uh, the US is still
working on it.

Speaker 5 (25:25):
It's like a dog chasing a ball. You wouldn't know
what to do when you got it.

Speaker 2 (25:28):
Do you remember did we do a I think it's
just a video. I think we've ever talked about it
on audio. Guys about the city of London conspiracy, that
the United States is still controlled in some way by
Britain and specifically through like Washington, d C. And some
weird I forget the tethers there are, like what it
actually is? We should we should revisit that.

Speaker 5 (25:50):
It's a weird one. I don't know if I don't know,
if I if that one has too much sand well,
if I'm not mistaken, it's does the.

Speaker 4 (25:57):
UK still control the United States? Wait?

Speaker 2 (26:00):
Do we have an audio episode?

Speaker 5 (26:02):
I wonder?

Speaker 2 (26:04):
Okay, okay, I was so fascinated by that, just thinking, Okay,
we've learned, guys over all these years that we're not
really told the truth about things often when it comes
to what happened in history, no matter you know, well,
because we know there's so many lensing effects there and
depending where you are and what powers want you to
think and all that other stuff. I just I still

(26:25):
wonder about the founding of the United States.

Speaker 3 (26:27):
Oh yeah, you should.

Speaker 4 (26:29):
Also, the massive disadvantage of most canonical history is that
it's written by the winners, right, That's why we don't
know as much.

Speaker 3 (26:43):
As we should.

Speaker 4 (26:45):
It's it's so true as in millennia, past evenings past,
and as in the present evenings.

Speaker 3 (26:54):
You cannot escape.

Speaker 4 (26:56):
You cannot argue against the sheer fact that people descended
from other people in the political class are going to
have a much higher likelihood of achieving later success in politics,
just like the children of famous actors are statistically going

(27:16):
to have a higher chance of finding their own success
in entertainment, competence, talent.

Speaker 3 (27:23):
It's all nice.

Speaker 4 (27:24):
It's widespread or wide rife, as our pal Frank likes
to say. But those connections can be your edge. And
I mean, can we really blame people for taking advantage
of that?

Speaker 5 (27:37):
And then that's not to say that some of them
aren't good at it. You know, some children of actors aren't,
but they also have access to all of the best
schooling and not to mention all of those connections which
can be so key. But the way that flies in
the face of this notion of a meritocracy does kind
of call into question a lot of things.

Speaker 4 (27:54):
Right, Yeah, it's not the bill of goods we were sold,
nor the bill of right. The bigger question on everyone's
mind right now is this, with all we know about oligarchs,
and with all we know about the historical tendencies of
human civilization, is the United States becoming an oligarchy. Is

(28:18):
it already an oligarchy?

Speaker 3 (28:25):
Here's where it gets crazy on paper. No, everything's fine
on paper.

Speaker 4 (28:32):
The United States is a big deal democracy. It's to
our earlier point, it's a meritocratic government by and for
the people.

Speaker 3 (28:43):
I know, I know.

Speaker 4 (28:45):
The politicians again in theory, are public servants. They work
for millions of people who are supposed to be their bosses,
and they are acquiring this very important role based on
their personal ability rather than their lineage or their corporate connections.

(29:09):
But in practice, not so much the case. You know,
all the way down, it's just super packs the turtles
all the way down, man. I mean, we've we've said
it before on previous episodes. If you travel outside of

(29:29):
the United States, which can be a difficult thing, it
can be cartoonishly awkward to say, yes, we are a
democracy and then have a very nice friend of yours
from abroad say, well, how come so many of your
presidents are related to each other if they're really the

(29:52):
best people for the job.

Speaker 2 (29:54):
You know, Hey, it's in the genes, man like, it's
nature and nurture, but mostly nature. Did you guys, are
you guys following this what's his name, James Tallerico character
that got a lot of buzz in National tax News. Yeah,
a lot of buzz. The whole Colbert thing on YouTube happened.
We talked about it on Strange News. His big boast

(30:17):
tall Ico was that everything is grassroots in his campaign,
and then as soon as he got a bunch of attention,
there are all kinds of stories coming out of Texas Tribune,
coming out of other places where there's what they call
dark money aka super PACs aka where did it come from?
It's just flooding into this dude's campaign and he currently

(30:40):
I think he just won the primary there against somebody,
so now he's gonna be on the ticket. But you
just see how as soon as someone's on that precipice
or like or is chosen, they just just money y.

Speaker 5 (30:55):
Like when the little microbreweries get bought up by bush mills,
but they don't don't change the branding so that you
still think you're getting a little local brew, but it's
actually you're just putting your money in the pocket of
this giant corporation that doesn't want to be you know,
acknowledged as part of the part of the equation.

Speaker 4 (31:13):
Another example would be Barnes and Nobles. The I said
Barnes and Nobles. It's Barnes and Noble, the local brick
and mortar bookstore outfit. Right, it's a bookstore chain here
in the US. They saved themselves from corporate extinction by

(31:35):
quietly buying up other companies or other stores that appear
to be independent things.

Speaker 5 (31:43):
Channel we.

Speaker 3 (31:47):
Both have the same call.

Speaker 2 (31:50):
So no Cumulus Media guys, they just they had to
file Chapter eleven. But they're going to be fine.

Speaker 4 (31:55):
Spare me, Exfinity x E, Blackwater and so on. In practice, though,
we do know that the United States has a lot
of very smart people who have done a lot of
troubling studies and indicate that there's a growing there's a

(32:15):
skyrocketing amount of wealth, inequality, corruption, nepotism. These have indeed
eroded democratic principles. They have created a civilization that, despite
all its proclamations, sure seems to function like an oligarchy
rather than a democracy. Oh do we want to talk

(32:36):
about nerds? I got two nerds. I know you got.

Speaker 5 (32:39):
Candy the rope.

Speaker 3 (32:41):
Let's talk about both of those. Oh man, I love those,
I love.

Speaker 5 (32:44):
It like the rope crunchy sweet sour. Sorry, carry on,
I'm distract.

Speaker 2 (32:49):
You gotta love nerds ropes.

Speaker 3 (32:51):
Okay.

Speaker 4 (32:52):
So back in twenty fourteen, these two boffins, political scientists
named Martin Gillens and Benjamin I. Page started looking into
this question. They asked themselves theory and paperwork aside, is
the United States a democracy or is it an oligarchy?

(33:14):
How does the system function? And they did this based
off Martin Gillen's earlier book, Affluence and Influence. They analyzed
almost two thousand policy outcomes over twenty years. You know,
by policy outcomes, we mean what does the average Johnny

(33:39):
blue jeans want and what did the US government do?

Speaker 3 (33:43):
Right?

Speaker 4 (33:44):
So, if a bunch of people say, hey, I want
free lunch for all the kids in the United States,
what did Congress do? How did they and the executive
branch respond?

Speaker 5 (33:59):
Well, they say that there's no such thing as a
free lunch.

Speaker 4 (34:02):
Right, Yeah, which is it's a real initialism in economics,
you guys.

Speaker 2 (34:09):
Well that's the real thing in real life. You get, Yeah,
you don't get a free lunch. Somebody wants something.

Speaker 4 (34:13):
And then we also, yeah, we're idiomatically, we're a very
lunch centered culture. Are we not eatcause someone else's lunch,
someone else's lunch.

Speaker 3 (34:24):
That's exactly what I'm say.

Speaker 5 (34:25):
Bad move, Ben, I'm excited to the chart you dropped
in the infographic into the research doc here is is staggering.
But I would just jump back really quickly what I
was saying before. How it's so easy to explain away
a lot of this stuff by saying no, no, no, no,
it's not that they're doing what.

Speaker 3 (34:43):
The wealthy people want.

Speaker 5 (34:44):
It's that those are just the right things. What the
wealthy people want is what's right, and so of course
they're doing it.

Speaker 4 (34:52):
Hang on, let me break out, do this on camera.

Speaker 3 (34:55):
Let me break out, Mike. Can guys see this this.

Speaker 5 (34:58):
Isol having some tiny violin, beautiful tone?

Speaker 3 (35:04):
Okay, keep going.

Speaker 2 (35:07):
I'm just saying, hey, guys, can we actually get in
the budget Dylan to get Ben a td tigh violin.
It would be hilarious if Ben could just play that
every once in a while, Like I have.

Speaker 5 (35:18):
A regular sized violin.

Speaker 3 (35:19):
I'm going on Etsy right now, phenomenal.

Speaker 4 (35:22):
We'll get to accounting, and Noel does have a regular
sized violin.

Speaker 3 (35:27):
Oh yeah, that is true.

Speaker 5 (35:29):
I mean interrupt Ben. I'm just I can see I
can see where this is going, and I just I
love the rhetoric justifying it.

Speaker 4 (35:35):
It's just okay, So this, this study, especially this is
of interest. So twenty fourteen was more than ten years ago,
just to quick splash of cold water for everybody.

Speaker 3 (35:50):
The study is titled Testing.

Speaker 4 (35:52):
Theories of American Politics Elites, interest groups, and Average Citizens,
and it reached these disturbing conclusions. It doesn't matter what
your demographic is, what your political again tribal identifiication is,
you should be.

Speaker 3 (36:12):
Very bothered by what these guys found.

Speaker 4 (36:17):
They looked at what we call political influence through various
groups in the United States, and then they checked this
against the technical definitions of democracy, oligarchy, other forms of government.
And I think, what really stands out to all of

(36:39):
us here something I cribbed from the study who holds
the raids of democracy? This infographic? Can we summarize this
real quickly?

Speaker 5 (36:51):
Well, the title of the article kind of says at all,
because it's inn order of prominence, Testing Theories of American
Politics Elites number one, interest groups number two, and average
citizens a distant distant third. We're talking. I mean, you
look at this thing. It's that the bar is the
highest big old thick bar seventy eight percent controlled or

(37:12):
influence belongs to the wealthiest of Americans the top ten percent,
followed by business groups forty three percent, then interest groups
twenty four percent, and then ey lavender periwinkle sliver for citizens.

Speaker 4 (37:29):
And then this does add up to more than one
hundred percent because of the Venn diagrams largely between the
business groups and the wealthy top ten percent.

Speaker 3 (37:38):
Time e fourteen.

Speaker 5 (37:42):
By the way, all before stuff got real whacky.

Speaker 4 (37:46):
Yeah, I mean okay, So to have political influence in
this case means that the United States Congress responds to
you by passing the laws and policies you desire. Right,
So Max Powers, astronaut with a secret says that like

(38:07):
canther b should be legal in low earth orbit. If
he's an average voter, Max Powers maybe gets a nice
form letter. If he is an oligarch, he throws a
couple hundred mili over to the Senate and they say, yes,

(38:27):
forget everything. We got to make werewolves legal in low
earth orbit.

Speaker 5 (38:34):
But that's not a bribe, and they certainly there would
be no presumption of direct influence just because you donated
to a political group, right, I mean that would be
the argument. That would be the argument because this pay
to play thing that's illegal, that's a bribe.

Speaker 2 (38:53):
But well, so I know, I know, I know exactly.

Speaker 5 (39:02):
Figuratively, you know, I mean, you're.

Speaker 2 (39:05):
You're absolutely right. It's just it we see every day,
more and more every day that the rules don't apply, right.
It's what Ben was saying right there? What was it?
Some people? What is the phrase been? Everybody's equal but.

Speaker 4 (39:19):
Animal farm, Yes, yeah, yeah, than others, which is inherently
a logical fallacy of what equality means exactly.

Speaker 2 (39:28):
But we see that that's just the fact, like that's
just what how things are, and we become almost accustomed
to it because it's hammered home with us every time,
every time we read the news, we see laws past.

Speaker 5 (39:43):
It's almost like they taught us animal farm in school,
not to teach us to revolt against the status quo,
but just to understand.

Speaker 3 (39:52):
Exactly.

Speaker 4 (39:53):
And also, by the way, I don't I don't know
if we're all read up on this, but George Orwell
hated a lot of people that you would think agreed
with him. I mean, he's like, I don't care for
these namby Pambies, I want to communicate to the not
the fancy white collar types. I want to communicate to

(40:14):
the working class. I want them to read animal farm.
I don't care you know what the Ivory Tower is
going to say about it.

Speaker 2 (40:23):
But dorblic school kids. That kind of makes sense, right.

Speaker 3 (40:26):
Yeah, he wants the great school kids. Yeah.

Speaker 4 (40:28):
And look these guys. In this study again from twenty
fourteen a while ago, they conclude that quote economic elites
and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts
on US government policy, while mass based interest groups and

(40:50):
average citizens have little or no independent influence. And they're
not being like manifesto type, you know, they're not writing
their opinions. They are looking at statistics, traceable numbers, traceable records,
and documentation over the years, things that have no opinion

(41:13):
of their own.

Speaker 3 (41:15):
The good news.

Speaker 4 (41:16):
For some of us, Dylan Matt Noll. If you are
in the upper ten percent of US society in twenty
fourteen and now, your desires will have fifteen times the
impact on actual policy in comparison to the other ninety

(41:39):
percent of the three hundred and something million people who
live here.

Speaker 2 (41:44):
There's something I can't square you guys. We know that
maybe it's certain acumen. It's something that's taught to you
because you have enough wealth. This concept of tax of asia,
or being smart, being very careful with your taxes and

(42:06):
with business creation, all that stuff where you end up
not having to pay a lot of money from the money.

Speaker 5 (42:13):
Live Nation paid zero tax. Live Nation zero tax.

Speaker 3 (42:17):
Really you did get even a convenience fee. They love
those big story.

Speaker 5 (42:23):
Live Nation, the company that you know owns all these
venues and is just you know, historically been very uh
monopolistic in terms of the entertainment Live entertainment. They paid
zero tax, and they would argue, we have that that's
doing the good, that's doing it right.

Speaker 2 (42:37):
They have sponsored or show, they have whatever.

Speaker 5 (42:40):
Live Nation's fine. I'm just saying that's just an example
of what you're describing.

Speaker 3 (42:44):
Yeah. Yeah.

Speaker 4 (42:49):
Also, also everybody could see by Larry David come out
just a little bit because I did pay taxes.

Speaker 3 (42:57):
Eye contacted the camera and the NSA guy. I did
pay taxes.

Speaker 2 (43:02):
We pay taxes. Everybody listens to this show pays their taxes, right.

Speaker 3 (43:08):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, shout out to our intern Steve.

Speaker 2 (43:12):
Once you get to that level, you understand how to
manipulate the system, so you're not actually contributing to the
shared system that is the taxes thing where there are
shared services. But if you are just having to live
within this system and you are making ends meet, you
have to pay taxes, and you have to pay a
good amount a percentage of your taxes. Like what, I

(43:34):
don't understand. I don't understand how we ever let it
get to this point because if this thing was a
little different in citizens, let's say we're in the forty
three percent, even just the forty three percent versus the
top ten percent of humans, we would have something like
universal health care. But there's just there's no money in

(43:56):
supporting the good things that would help people.

Speaker 5 (43:59):
No, And that's what the same thing. It's seen as weakness.
It's seen as weakness in a way, you know, this
idea of philanthropy or like helping people less fortunate, just
just so really quickly. The way that Live Nation did
manage to pay zero in US federal income tax was
through the Big Beautiful Bill that allowed them to claim
one hundred percent bonus appreciation which offset their taxable income

(44:23):
in a year where they made twenty five point two
billion dollars in revenue and one point thirty billion in
what they're referring to as operating income. The Big Beautiful
Bill is a BBL for the United States, by which
I mean a big beautiful loss for you know, for
like the long term sustainability of the society, because we're

(44:45):
telling you folks, statistically speaking, right opinions aside statistically speaking,
Uncle Sam doesn't seem to care very much about what
ninety percent of Americans think. And then from this study,
we see our authors define four possible systems that might

(45:09):
exist in the United States, not in theory but in practice,
and they go, is this a democracy? Is this a
semi democratic system dominated by interest groups or dominated by lobbyists?

Speaker 4 (45:24):
Two separate options. And they look at the fourth one
is the United States and oligarchy, and that is what
they found. It most closely matches what's happening to you
now today, most closely matches the model of an oligarchy.
And ever since twenty fourteen, virtually all credible research has

(45:49):
indicated this pattern continues to escalate in the modern day.
We're at the Gilded Age, you guys, Gilded age levels
of financial desperation. And we all remember the Gilded Age, right,
It was guilted.

Speaker 5 (46:05):
To the twist ending you're talking about Yeah.

Speaker 2 (46:08):
Mar Alogo remembers they just had a party about that.

Speaker 3 (46:11):
Cool.

Speaker 4 (46:12):
Also, it was a series of dumb names in American history.
Gilded Age not Golden Age, right, because it's fakeal whatever,
and then Great Depression, right, another terrible name or a
terrible thing.

Speaker 2 (46:29):
Ben, you said something and then I think we probably
fixed it in the edit, so nobody ever heard it.
But you said something that I think you should coin.
You said democracy, like dumbocracy. I think that's chef's kiss
where we're at right now.

Speaker 3 (46:44):
Thank you so much, Thank you so much.

Speaker 4 (46:46):
Matt still learning English.

Speaker 5 (46:50):
Yeah, oh oh, just to say too that. I mean,
there is this American ideal that associates wealth with intelligence,
and that ain't how it is.

Speaker 2 (47:02):
That sound sorry, just.

Speaker 5 (47:06):
Isn't if anything where we're like we are raising up,
lifting up the dumbest richest people look at social media
influencer culture and like Jake Paul on his jet with
like cash everywhere. Yeah, I mean, yes, you know, okay,
having a little savvy and maybe luck is cool, but
that does not make you some sort of mastermind or
some sort of like big picture intelligent, you know, forward

(47:30):
thinking person.

Speaker 4 (47:31):
Let's take a break, you guys for a word from
our sponsors, and during this break, we hope you joined
us to go to Nucleus Genomics and per Nol's earlier
point figure out the character sheet for the IQ of
the baby you want to have.

Speaker 5 (47:52):
The following advertisement is for billionaires only.

Speaker 2 (47:54):
If you're not a billionaire, please fast forward, destroy your device,
unload your firearms, lay face down on the place form
of your choosing, and await the authorities.

Speaker 4 (48:03):
Hey there, fellow billionaires, if you were like us, you
know it could be a slog to work day in
and day out, eroding democracy, rigging society, and ensuring your
weird hyperfixations get prioritized over the rest of the world.
So how do we kick back and unwind? The answer
only Gark Only.

Speaker 6 (48:23):
Ghark is the hottest new mobile game from Illumination Global Unlimited,
a theoretically free but somehow exclusive app that lets you connect, conspire,
and challenge all your fellow despotic one percent of gamers.

Speaker 7 (48:37):
Folks, I gotta tell you it's stressful here at the
top of the pyramid, and you all know I tried
everything to relax hunting endangered animals on safari overthrowing resource
rich governments, rigging elections just wasn't scratching the itch.

Speaker 3 (48:52):
So thank god for only Gark.

Speaker 4 (48:54):
Only Gark is the world's first gave me app four
billionaires by trillionaires. Log in anytime of the evening, instantly
go to to tentacle with your favorite members of the
upper crust, acquiring special buffs, hilarious avatars, real world proxies
and more.

Speaker 2 (49:13):
And the best part, gentlemen, if you get enough policy points,
the bombs you drop are real. I've always wanted to
start a nuclear war.

Speaker 8 (49:25):
Hum Oh, to have feelings again, right because before only
Gark it was such a slug because of all the
red tape and all the voting and all those pesky meetings.

Speaker 7 (49:37):
And get this, get this, Just for signing up tonight
with the code igi VU four twenty, that's Igivu for twenty,
you will get exclusive access to new characters, abilities, and
lobby boys. Plus, with real time activity tracking and a
careful team of exclusive wealth management operators, your decisions count,

(49:58):
and every win do you make now makes it easier
to win in the future.

Speaker 3 (50:03):
So why delay side up today? Play the game of games.
One evening you may be the only.

Speaker 2 (50:10):
Gark again, that's Igidu Fall twenty, Igidu Fall twenty for
exclusive access to proxies, illegal abilities and lobby boys only.

Speaker 4 (50:21):
Gark is not liable for dropsy bopsy, biopsy biospies, wetwear, vaporware, guillotines,
third story windows, the quiet desperation of the masses low
Key references to the Highlander franchise Majestic twelve, the Epstein Files,
UFO's Flirty Bigfoot syndrome, or the gradual realization that the
rich will eat their own only. Gark is a subsidiary

(50:41):
of Illumination Global Unlimited. Turn on the Light.

Speaker 3 (50:47):
Now.

Speaker 4 (50:48):
This study, again from over ten years ago, doesn't particularly
focus on the origin story of oligarchy as a concept
right as a tactic, but the authors do point out
the snowball effective power, money and influence, which all of

(51:08):
us have mentioned earlier in this episode. And we've got
a quote from them, Can we can we share this quote?
Who's got who's got a smart accent?

Speaker 5 (51:18):
Anybody feeling from that ad that British guy, Let's have
him do it?

Speaker 3 (51:21):
Okay?

Speaker 9 (51:23):
Yeah, Pennyworth, Yes, that dude comes out Whenever I have
to make a large transaction I don't know why, and
I don't do it very often, but when I do,
Lord Penniworth is there.

Speaker 3 (51:37):
That's Magic City.

Speaker 2 (51:40):
That's where I do my highest value training. Okay, here,
here we go. I'll just do it like this. It
is well established that organized groups regularly lobby and fraternize
with public officials, move through revolving doors between public and
private employment, provide self serving information to officials, raft to legislation,

(52:01):
and spend a great deal of money on election campaigns.
James Tillery.

Speaker 5 (52:08):
Fragnize, you say, yeah.

Speaker 4 (52:12):
I mean, let's be clear, folks. Your vote does matter,
and you should vote as often as you can, and
for as long as you can.

Speaker 5 (52:22):
And as many times as you can for the same Canada.

Speaker 3 (52:24):
That's total. If you're dead, vote right now. Oh my gosh.

Speaker 4 (52:32):
Okay, but listen, folks, if you are the average Johnny
blue jeans friends and neighbors, your political desires will inevitably
take a backseat to the desires of wealthy individuals and
institutions because they vote with their dollar right, they vote

(52:52):
with their influence. They pour millions into campaign coffers and
shadowy private public contracts that the ordinary individual just simply
cannot access well.

Speaker 5 (53:04):
And sadly, Johnny, blue jeans. Blue jeans just weren't blue enough.

Speaker 2 (53:10):
I got to get those dark blue jeans. No, that's
another right, ones, what are they?

Speaker 5 (53:17):
I'm being funny. I'm meaning jeans with a G like that.

Speaker 3 (53:25):
This is why we hang out blue jeans. That's a
good joke, blue.

Speaker 5 (53:29):
Bloods, you know, like.

Speaker 3 (53:32):
The levels to this, folks.

Speaker 4 (53:34):
Uh, this is also a genuine improvable conspiracy. It is
more than a bit undemocratic. It speaks directly to what
another former president, Dwight Eisenhower, warned us about all those
years ago.

Speaker 3 (53:50):
We'll play a brief clip.

Speaker 10 (53:52):
In the councils of government. We must guard against the
acquisition of unwanted influence, whether it's so or unsowned by
the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise
of misplaced power exists and will persist.

Speaker 4 (54:10):
So we all remember Dwight, right, we all remember his
his earlier statement.

Speaker 2 (54:17):
Oh yeah, it's a warning about what happens when the
government has all these contracts to build all these munitions,
and the government is making a lot of money by
selling munitions to other places, right, and then what happens
when those folks are the ones who kind of need
to make some more profits, and they're directly tied to

(54:38):
the US administration. Whoever it is. Eisenhower isn't even talking
about himself and his administration in that moment, and he's
referencing it, right, but he's not. He's not saying be
warned now. He's saying, worry about it. Oh, I don't know.
In twenty twenty six.

Speaker 4 (54:56):
He's also he's also, by the way, folks, do check
out the full speech if you can find it. He
also is on the way out, So this is like
Dave Thomas on his last day at Wendy's walking out
of Wendy's and right as he opens the door, he says, hey, guys,

(55:18):
I think Frosty's are bad, and then he leaves.

Speaker 3 (55:22):
That's what happened.

Speaker 2 (55:24):
Oh yeah, He's like, you guys should really change the friars.
The oil in those friars has been in there for
like six years. Anyway, you should probably do that.

Speaker 3 (55:35):
And they say what, and he says, I'm off to Monaco.

Speaker 4 (55:39):
This could sound like old beans maybe to a lot
of us in the crowd tonight. If we are to
assume an optimistic perspective and consider a solution. Then we
have to note that multiple academics and indeed a lot
of politicians have one step, one immediate step to solve

(56:01):
the oligarchy campaign finance reform.

Speaker 2 (56:10):
Remember, people were really trying to push for campaign finance reform.
I remember hearing about that quite a lot. We wanted
to fix things.

Speaker 3 (56:19):
That all got blasted out of the water.

Speaker 5 (56:20):
I'm sorry I keep harping on Citizens United, but I
mean I think that's I mean, the worst, the worst
of it, and just open the floodgates, right, you're correct.

Speaker 4 (56:28):
Yeah, it's also it didn't pull well with the American public. Uh,
the increasingly monopolized mass media didn't go out of its
way to talk about this idea or to mess with
the money.

Speaker 3 (56:43):
As we said.

Speaker 2 (56:44):
We were saying the media conglomerates had like a stake in
not wanting the American people to want campaign finance reform.

Speaker 4 (56:51):
We're saying they could have done a better job getting
the message out.

Speaker 3 (56:55):
Oh sure, it's it's weird because campaign.

Speaker 4 (57:01):
Reform, the idea, like to your earlier point about superpacks, Matt,
campaign reform gets trotted out every few election cycles and
then it gets tucked away with these other pie in
the sky ideas like ranked choice voting or open primaries.
I think the public, we gotta admit we're partially to

(57:23):
blame for this. We are notoriously individualistic in the United States,
which I don't see is a bad thing because I'm
quite brainwashed. We don't really think about the big systemic
issues until they affect us on an immediate and personal level.
So like Johnny Blue Jeans is watching the TV or

(57:45):
his podcast and choice, and he says, don't lecture me
about abstract sanctions and tariffs and how that's gonna matter
in ten years. Tell me while my guests went up
fifty cents a gallon, And who I'm going to blame?
Key guys, I'm going on Facebook composted. Oh how dare
you Johnny blue Jeans with a g bak? You know,

(58:07):
I mean, it is a snoozefest. But the entire time
this dog and pony show is occurring, those same powerful
people and politics and business they're making money hand over
fist or tentacle.

Speaker 3 (58:22):
I don't know.

Speaker 4 (58:23):
I feel like other oligarchs in other countries are more
honest about their standing.

Speaker 2 (58:28):
I suppose, I mean, I just I just have never
I wasn't in you know, Russia in ninety six when
that stuff went down, Like, hey, guys, it's all of us,
look at us.

Speaker 8 (58:38):
Where the guys the oligarks.

Speaker 3 (58:42):
Hey, we're the ogs? Get it?

Speaker 2 (58:46):
Yeah, I don't know, if you know, let's say there
was some kind of big inauguration or something that happened
for Putin. Let's say many around that time, and let's
say to your two thousand or something, and then all
the oligarchs were just you know, sitting there in the
audience with Putin's spouse or something. You know, maybe are.

Speaker 11 (59:03):
You you're you're talking about the Zuck and doctor Evil
the techno or are.

Speaker 4 (59:14):
We talking about are we talking about the dprk uh
their habit of giving each other medals, which is honestly
kind of wholesome, or are we talking about literally every
government in most of history the boy at least, you know,

(59:35):
European countries are still going to be a mix of
democracies and monarchies. And the quiet part set out loud
is that despite moving toward democratic society or democratic practices,
there is still phenomenal intergenerational wealth inequality because of their

(59:55):
previous governments, the imperialism, the shadow of colonialism. The easiest
way to get rich is to be born rich, right,
and Middle Eastern monarchies, to their credit, are pretty upfront
about this. They say, Hey, we're the royal family. We
influence policy, we influence industry. Get on board or get

(01:00:18):
off the train.

Speaker 5 (01:00:19):
Got to at least respect the chance, the comparative transparency.

Speaker 2 (01:00:24):
I want to be the wrong word, please m M.
I want to make one point of just what we
were talking about there with Johnny Blue Jeans and being
more upset about gas prices because it makes sense, right,
because the gas prices are going to immediately affect Johnny
Blue Jeans.

Speaker 3 (01:00:41):
By the way, guys, just putting that out there. Thank you,
good one.

Speaker 2 (01:00:46):
Your your ancestors are proud of you, sir. I promise you, the.

Speaker 3 (01:00:50):
Future is proud of you.

Speaker 2 (01:00:53):
Yes, yes, the just this point we talked about, I
can't remember which episode we talked about, but the amount
of fires that are being set and within all of
our minds, if we're paying attention to the news right now,
no matter where you live in the world, the amount
of things that become the most important, the most dire

(01:01:15):
thing that just continually pop up. And oh there's another one.
Holy crap, there's another one. Oh my god, there's another one.
And each instance it feels as though that new one
is the most important thing, and all of our attention
will go to it momentarily until the point where we
are absolutely exhausted with trying to figure out what the
heck is going on and how we could even begin

(01:01:37):
to fix some of these problems. You just kind of
it's not collapse, but you you need to find a
place that feels safe.

Speaker 5 (01:01:45):
And is it is fatigue mental fatigue? Yes, yeah, guys.

Speaker 4 (01:01:50):
That's really interesting because it makes me think, I know
we're going long here, but this is worthwhile. It makes
me think again of the concept of Dunbar's numbers. What
if there is a hardwired Dunbar's number not just for
the number of people a brain can acknowledge as people,
but what if there's a Dunbar's number for the number

(01:02:12):
of distinct thoughts one can hold in one's mind.

Speaker 2 (01:02:17):
Well, yeah, absolutely, and especially the number of massive problems
that need to be fixed and in which order you
need to fix them.

Speaker 3 (01:02:23):
Right.

Speaker 2 (01:02:24):
We know this just through like puzzle games, any kind
of games that we've ever played.

Speaker 3 (01:02:29):
Everybody to check out, everybody check out only Garks.

Speaker 2 (01:02:33):
Well, yeah, I mean here that's great.

Speaker 3 (01:02:35):
Yeah, we heard great stuff about it.

Speaker 2 (01:02:37):
Well, the point is there's an order of operations where
wherein you have to fix things, right, You're if you're
imagining fixing a tractor or something that breaks down, you
have to fix things. You can't just fix one piece
and now the tractor is going to work again. If
the engine is broken, if the track is broken, if
there's all these other things, you got to fix things
in an order. And I'm imagining it's kind of the

(01:02:59):
same way here. The further we can push, we the
further whoever these people are that have an interest in
keeping campaign finance reform out, the further thing can push
the problems away from campaign finance reform, the safer they
are in their positions of power.

Speaker 3 (01:03:18):
Right, Yeah, fully agreed.

Speaker 4 (01:03:21):
Also, the concept of pragmatism and practicality arrives immediately. We're
not saying Johnny Blue Jeans with a G is by
any means a knucklehead for worrying about gas prices. We're
saying that, like most people alive, the guy is to

(01:03:42):
your point, Matt, thinking through immediate problems and immediate solutions. Recently,
rewatched pulp fiction by Quentin Tarantino. There's a cameo by
a guy named mister Wolfe who is a cleaner, played
by Harvey Kaitel, and that guy is helping them clean
up a murder, right, And.

Speaker 3 (01:04:05):
In his.

Speaker 4 (01:04:07):
Phenomenal cameo, he doesn't lecture the dudes about climate change
and the problems of fossile fuels. He figures out how
to clean the car and how to get brain matter
and blood out of.

Speaker 3 (01:04:22):
The back seat.

Speaker 4 (01:04:22):
So maybe that's what most people are doing right. I'm
not gonna worry about solving my problems fifty years from now.
Those are too big for me. I'm gonna worry about
solving my problems today. And the oligarchs love that. The
oligarchs will, to your point, steer that conversation, especially because

(01:04:42):
our American oligarchs are a little bit different off Mike.
I think it was you know who said it's kind
of oligarchy three point oh. You know, these guys are
technic arcs. Technically like Ella Musk or Peter Teel. They've
hacked the push and pool of legislation versus innovation, and

(01:05:05):
they are making sweetheart policies. They're removing regulations. They're eroding
democracy and each time they do it, they go a
little more powerful.

Speaker 5 (01:05:17):
They're acting as extra governmental entities. They just are pallunteer doge.
They are occupying the same space that typically a an
agency would occupy that if not staffed by elected officials,

(01:05:39):
at the very least staff by appointed officials who are
appointed by elected officials. There's some sense of representation. That's
just not what's happening here, and it's they're not even
trying to hide it.

Speaker 2 (01:05:53):
Very little can happen if you don't have the ability
to process transactions, or you don't have a place where
you can store all of your data rights. Very little
can happen without their company's specific help.

Speaker 3 (01:06:08):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:06:09):
Yeah, you know, if you want to own the house,
the first thing you do is by the door to
the house, right yeah, yeah, yeah, you keep the gate.

Speaker 3 (01:06:19):
And that's that's what's occurring.

Speaker 4 (01:06:21):
That's why people are losing their minds about the k
shaped economy of wealth inequality. OXFAM recently noted I want
to see January, maybe February this year, twenty twenty six,
that now we have gone beyond the Gilded Age. Wealth
inequality in the United States is now worse than it

(01:06:45):
was in the years leading up to the Great Depression.

Speaker 3 (01:06:49):
Again a terrible name.

Speaker 4 (01:06:51):
Just one hundred billionaire families put two point six billion
US dollars into federal elections in twenty twenty four. That
means one out of every six dollars spent by every candidate,
every party, every community, every super pack. Aside from all

(01:07:15):
the tribalism stuff, the billionaires are running the game.

Speaker 3 (01:07:20):
This is an oligarchy.

Speaker 2 (01:07:22):
It's really depressing, man.

Speaker 3 (01:07:24):
I mean.

Speaker 4 (01:07:25):
To that first time meme, right, we see again that
a lot of members of the upper class are arguing
that oligarchy is inherently better for everyone than something that
acknowledges the public, like democracy or communism.

Speaker 3 (01:07:45):
And then one of the.

Speaker 4 (01:07:46):
Ideas that we're dancing around here as we wrap up
is something we all recognize, social Darwinism. Do you guys
remember this concept?

Speaker 5 (01:07:55):
Yeah, I think I was sort of hitting at it
in a slightly different wording. At the top is the
site of It's an economic version of the survival of
the fittest, and this notion that that in some way
creates a system that is the best version of things.

Speaker 3 (01:08:11):
Nailed it, my friend.

Speaker 4 (01:08:13):
Yeah, The idea that we are due to lineage or
due to the financial success of our forebears, we are
somehow better than people, and our opinions should count for more.

Speaker 3 (01:08:26):
Our priorities should count for more.

Speaker 4 (01:08:29):
Everybody is equal, but some are more equal than others.

Speaker 3 (01:08:32):
Yeah, of course we have to be fair, guys.

Speaker 4 (01:08:37):
There are some advantages to that sort of despotism.

Speaker 3 (01:08:41):
You know.

Speaker 4 (01:08:41):
One of the big issues that we have in the
United States is that our elected officials serve for a
limited number of years. Centralized dictatorship, authoritarian economies and structures
do have the I hate to say this, but they
do have the ability to enact large scale plans that

(01:09:06):
can take decades to reach fruition because their guys aren't
always panicking about whether or not they'll get re elected.

Speaker 5 (01:09:16):
We talked about this too in terms of some of
our experiences in Qatar talking to business folks. How there's
a sense that doing business with those type of regimes
is beneficial because you can set your watch by it.
You don't have to worry about the next change that's coming,
so you can you can be a little more predictive
with what these deals are going to look like long term.

Speaker 3 (01:09:38):
You're absolutely right.

Speaker 4 (01:09:38):
Now, remember those conversations, and to be clear, everyone, thank
you for tuning in, but this is not what the
United States signed up for. You know, this was not
the original pitch of the founding fathers. The idea is
that you should be able to succeed based on your
individual merit. You should have a say in the government

(01:10:01):
because you employ the government, you pay them through taxes.
But this is demonstrably not the case. It's I don't know,
it's worrisome because if things continue on the current conspiratorial
path and you're watching this now, your children are going
to have even less of a say than you do

(01:10:23):
in the future.

Speaker 2 (01:10:23):
It feels like it's we're right on the edge of
it happening here. Collapse, I mean, just like with the
Soviet Union, and in that collapse, a handful of people
that have enough, you know, capital, step in and buy
the shares of the things, if a stock market still
exists after the collapse and all of that good stuff.

(01:10:47):
I was reading what is It's a It was a
weird website and I don't know much about it, so
you have to fact check this website. But I was
getting some worry some information off of It's called Ellisberg
ideas somebody named David Roche Again. No, I can't back
up what this person says or whether it's correct or not,

(01:11:07):
but it resonated with me because I was reading about
AI investment and the fragility, the current fragility of the
US economy just based on the way AI investment is happening.
I'm just gonna read a quick thing on this because
it feels like something big is about to happen, and
it's there are folks out there, countries China know that

(01:11:29):
this is coming and it's going to happen, and it's
being purposefully done. I think that's a little conspiratorial, but
that's the way I'm feeling right now. I'm going to
read from this. AI investment accounted for forty percent of
all fixed asset investment in the US last year. That's
things like construction, you actually have something at the end
of the investment. Yet it contributed only zero point five

(01:11:51):
percent of GDP growth. So investment forty percent, actual GDP
growth zero point five percent, and that's going to fall
even more so. So that was twenty twenty five coming up.
It's twenty twenty six falling to zero point two percent. Basically,

(01:12:14):
that has to do with AI can't do anything right
now to make enough money, and even a percent, a
tiny percentage of the money that's being put into it,
it can't do it. It can't do it right now.

Speaker 4 (01:12:26):
And now where yeah shout out to everybody's water bill
by the way.

Speaker 2 (01:12:30):
Oh yeah, but that's where a massive chunk of US
investment is going and it's not making any money. And
you add into that this whole our discussion about munitions
and the long game that Iran has to get the
US and Israel to spend as much of their existing

(01:12:52):
ammunition and then Iran having a lot more ammunition and
a war of attrition. It's just it's becoming a very
Nobody can see the future. But if I get I
have this feeling in my chest. I don't know if
you guys share that, that just something is about to happen,

(01:13:12):
especially with DHS being not funded currently, with all those
FBI people who watch foreign agents within the United States
warnings about cyber.

Speaker 3 (01:13:21):
Attacks c I twelve.

Speaker 2 (01:13:22):
Yeah, well, the potential for a major attack not the
same as but maybe similar to the September eleventh attacks,
and who knows where it would come from or how
it would happen, or even who would sponsor the people
that carry it out.

Speaker 4 (01:13:41):
And still you tell me over and over again, my friend,
you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction. I've
got to stop listening to that song because I completely
agree with what you're saying.

Speaker 3 (01:13:56):
This is an meganith.

Speaker 4 (01:14:01):
It's in a way, in a way, are we headed
toward a mega death. That's where we leave it for now, because, yes, folks,
the United States is a work in progress. It is
an experiment, and it's an experiment worth conducting. It is
a democracy, yet it is also functionally an oligarchy. We

(01:14:24):
are profoundly sad to say. History has proven time and
time and time again that this type of social structure,
this type of conspiracy, often has bloody consequences in the
long term. Right, the exit plan sometimes ends up being guillotines, revolutions,

(01:14:45):
third story windows. But the system can be changed, the
conspiracy can be halted. We can build a better place,
one closer to what those crazy founding fathers brainstormed from
the jump, you know, and that, more than anything, is
the stuff the oligarchs don't want you to know. Thank

(01:15:07):
you so much for tuning in. Be safe, out there.
We can't wait to hear your thoughts, especially if you
are a billionaire.

Speaker 3 (01:15:16):
Is that the one that gets us in trouble? What
do you think?

Speaker 4 (01:15:21):
You know?

Speaker 5 (01:15:22):
We accept all commerce. Sure, billionaires hit us up. You
can do that by reaching out to us on your
social media platform of choice, where we are either conspiracy
stuff or conspiracy stuff show.

Speaker 2 (01:15:33):
Before I tell you our number. Guys. I keep thinking
about this thing, and I used to think was completely
laughably naive, almost wo wo that you would hear on
the internet. I think we all saw it at some
point around twenty twelve. I think this concept of an
evolution of consciousness, like we need a we need a
consciousness shift, or the terminology that's used.

Speaker 5 (01:15:55):
For great enlightenment, perhaps this baby.

Speaker 2 (01:16:00):
I used to kind of laugh. I'd be like, yeah, okay, whatever,
you know, we we exist in this world. This is
how it works, is how it functions. It feels more
and more that we got the only way out of
this thing is to fully reject sounds, insane money and
thing does inconveniences and profits and stocks and all those

(01:16:22):
things and just get rid of them.

Speaker 4 (01:16:24):
It's interesting, Yeah, we still have. Years ago, I had
put out a challenge that we couldn't afford, but we
got away with it so far. Please votes, do your
best to tell us how the concept of money and
economy differs in any way from the concept of religion.

(01:16:48):
We'd love to hear your thoughts.

Speaker 2 (01:16:50):
This is your God. Just watch they live again the
ones use call us one eight three three std wy.
Just give yourself a cool nickname and let us know
if we can use your name and message on the air.
If you want to send us an email, we've got those.

Speaker 4 (01:17:07):
We are the Entities, available twenty four hours and evening,
seven nights a week. Be well aware, yet unafraid. Sometimes
the void rights back. Send us a random fact. We
will send you one in return. Wait pro quo we
bono who benefits all of us? Find us out here

(01:17:30):
in the dark conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com.

Speaker 2 (01:17:52):
Stuff they Don't want you to Know is a production
of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.