August 27, 2025 • 13 mins
This recap episode unpacks a wide-ranging discussion between Joe Rogan and Dave Smith. The conversation critiques the reliability of mainstream media and the concept of expertise, particularly in politics and international relations. Smith argues that being a comedian does not disqualify him from discussing complex issues, as many so-called experts are also ill-informed or biased. The dialogue extensively explores historical political manipulations, such as the alleged fear-mongering after 9/11 to justify wars, and the Reagan administration's supposed involvement in drug trafficking. A significant portion of the text focuses on current geopolitical conflicts, including the war in Ukraine and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, highlighting perceived government dishonesty and public manipulation. The speakers also touch upon the changing media landscape, noting a generational shift away from traditional news sources towards podcasts and online content, leading to a new public awareness and a potential for positive change despite prevailing challenges.
---
We all love The Joe Rogan Experience and much prefer the real thing, but sometimes it's not possible to listen to an entire episode or you just want to recap an episode you've previously listened to. The Joe Rogan Recap uses Google's NotebookLM to create a conversational podcast that recaps episodes of JRE into a more manageable listen.
On that note, for those that would like it, here's the public access link to the Google Notebook to look at the mind map, timeline and briefing doc - https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/f60356fd-91a3-4a66-9fb3-7b9b7a95a5c9 - Please note, you must have a Google account to access.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Welcome to the Joe Rogan recap. Today, we're diving deep into a
recent conversation from the JoeRogan Experience featuring
comedian Dave Smith. And this isn't just about stand
up. It's a really fascinating
exploration into, well, who getsto be an expert, the huge
influence of fear in society andhow global dynamics actually
work, or maybe how they're, you know, strategically shaped.
(00:23):
Exactly. Our mission today is to really
unpack the critical insights and, honestly, some surprising
connections from this pretty extensive conversation.
We want to offer you a kind of shortcut to understanding some,
let's face it, profoundly complex topics.
Cut through the noise. Look at the arguments they
presented. We'll help you connect the dots
between things that might seem totally separate so you can walk
away, you know, well informed but also with plenty to chew on.
(00:46):
Yeah, definitely lots to think about.
Our source material is that transcript from the Joe Rogan
Experience, hashtag 2370 with Dave Smith.
And it really is a gold mind of discussion.
It goes everywhere from like geopolitics and economic policy
right down to the nature of information itself and how we
all consume it. OK, so let's unpack this first
big idea, this whole concept of expertise.
(01:07):
Dave Smith, the comedian, Right.He brings up this really
interesting point about the usual knock against him.
You're just a comedian. You're not an expert.
But his argument, as presented in the source, is that this
dismissal kind of misses the entire point.
He claims it's often not that hard to critique, say, warhawks
because, quote, these people aren't really experts either.
What's so compelling there is how it just challenges our
(01:29):
standard ideas about who holds authority and, well, why.
It's fascinating. Yeah, because the conversation
really digs into who truly possesses expertise, especially
in these really complex, tangledfields.
It brings up people like Sam Harris, you know, brilliant
neuroscientist, or Daniel Cormier, amazing MMA expert.
They excel in their specific areas, absolutely.
But the discussion suggests theymight still lack deep expertise
(01:53):
in broader stuff like say, geopolitical world politics or
international relations. The example used was Cormier
maybe not knowing a super specific jiu jitsu move.
The Dead Orchard, which you knowis apparently very technical,
needs specialized knowledge. And that's used to illustrate
how even specialists can have blind spots in related fields.
So it makes you ask, how reliable are experts when we
talk about these huge multifaceted topics?
(02:15):
That's such a key distinction. The conversation also zeroes in
on the tactic of calling someonejust a comedian.
How that can be a really convenient way to just dismiss
their arguments, especially if you already disagree.
Smith pointed out. You know this happened when he
talked about Israel, but not so much when he discussed COVID or
other things where maybe people agreed with him more.
He even mentioned people saying look at Deeve breaking it down
(02:38):
when they like his take. So it highlights that maybe the
issue isn't always just expertise, but whether someone's
view fits a preferred narrative.So thinking about the listener,
what does this tell you about how you should approach
information you come across? Well, it really pushes you
towards critical thinking, doesn't it?
We should always be asking, is the attack on the person or is
(02:58):
it actually on the argument. The discussion strongly suggests
that when someone's job title oridentity gets attacked instead
of the actual substance of theirclaims, it's often just an
appeal to authority. Or, you know, an ad hominem
thing, not real engagement with the facts.
It's not about throwing credentials out entirely, of
course not. But it is about checking if
those credentials are truly relevant to the specific point
(03:19):
being argued and if the counter argument actually addresses the
claims. It's about questioning
assumptions really and considering different views, not
just blindly accepting or dismissing based on who's
talking. OK, now here's where it gets
really interesting. The conversation takes this
provocative turn into how. Fear is used.
Like as a powerful tool, maybe be an engineer to get policies
(03:41):
implemented. We hear this.
Pretty striking claim mentioned about a health official back in
2020 supposedly saying Anthony Fauci's goal is to make
Americans more fearful. That's a wild thing to suggest,
right? Creating a narrative that
basically preys on anxiety, and the discussion hints that this
kind of sustained fear could even mess with.
Your physical health. Your immune system.
And if we connect that to the bigger picture, the discussion
(04:03):
draws these really potent parallels to other historical
moments, especially the post 911era.
Dick Cheney, VP at the time, openly used what many called
fear mongering that famous line.It's not a matter of if, but
when there will be another 911. That whole climate, plus things
like the color-coded threat levels, the constant narrative
of they hate us for our freedom.It was argued that's just kind
(04:25):
of turned off people's brains. And that led to widespread
acceptance of huge policy shifts.
You know, basically a blank check for military action.
The Patriot Act passing so quickly, expanding surveillance,
the NDAA, broadening military powers.
It seems to illustrate this recurring pattern.
Use fear. Push agendas that might
otherwise face real opposition. And then it goes even darker,
suggesting intelligence agenciesmight actually play a role in
(04:48):
shaping these narratives. They talked about books like
Best Evidence on the JFK Assassination apparently blew in
Speaker's mind, and even theories about Intel agencies
having connections to rock'n'roll or gangster rap.
The idea floated, and it's a heavy one.
Is it? Maybe these entities subtly
encourage certain things, maybe even crime, with the goal to
fill your private prisons up. Keep people scared, make them
(05:10):
easier to fall in line. Yeah, that really delves into
covert operations territory and the potential erosion of trust
in our institutions. The conversation brought up
those really controversial allegations about the Reagan
administration, the idea they were maybe involved in
trafficking Copain to fund the Contras, while at the same time
launching the war on drugs domestically.
(05:31):
It creates this just jarring contradiction.
Like the speakers put it, they're creating the conditions
for the crack epidemic. Then they catch one guy throwing
him in jail for decades. Talk about hypocrisy, potential
manipulation. And then there's that mention of
Chuck Schumer's quote about the CIA having seven ways till
Sunday to get back at you. That's presented as suggesting
this sort of significant unchecked power within the quote
(05:54):
UN quote deep state. It really makes you wonder, if
that kind of power exists and operates without enough
accountability, How does that fundamentally impact, you know,
the health of a democracy? Right.
So shifting gears a bit, the conversation moves from that,
from power and narrative to how it plays out economically.
And it highlights this really pivotal moment in history.
Nixon taking the US off the goldstandard in 71.
(06:16):
This huge move, as they discussed it, came after
countries like France basically started calling our bluff on the
Bretton Woods agreement, you know, demanding actual gold for
their dollars, putting pressure on US reserves.
And the implication, according to the discussion, was removing
that standard meant no more evenpretend limits on government
spending. It kicked off what Ron Paul
called the era of big government.
(06:37):
And that connects directly to understanding the true cost, the
often hidden cost of endless conflict and this unchecked
spending. The conversation detailed
something like nearly $10 trillion spent on wars just in
the last 25 years, a mind boggling number.
And crucially, it wasn't financed through taxes.
Mostly, it was borrowing and essentially printing money,
(06:57):
injecting trillions into the economy without matching
productive output. That's not just an abstract
number. It's presented as a direct,
direct driver of inflation. It acts like a hidden tax,
eroding your savings, your wages.
The speakers argued this is a primary reason why things like
housing and healthcare and energy and childcare are totally
unaffordable. It hits working and middle class
families hardest. Well, you know, the rich might
(07:18):
benefit from asset inflation. This system is described as just
destroying the economic stability for everyone else.
It's a stark link between foreign policy money decisions
and your actual household budget.
So what's the take away there for the global stage and for us
as individuals? The discussion makes this claim.
You can't be a world empire without having a central bank
that can print money for you, UNquote.
(07:41):
It connects that economic reality, Fiat currency, directly
to a nation's power projection. It allows for massive military
spending without immediate tax hikes.
And then the conversation ties this directly to the discontent
we see among young people. Many, as observed in this
discussion, are demanding socialism.
But maybe it's not just ideology, right?
Maybe it's a pragmatic response because they see no path for
(08:03):
them to get into the ownership class.
They're drowning in debt, crushed by unaffordability,
worried about AI taking jobs. It's framed not just as
economics, but as a fundamental challenge to, like, societal
stability. The American Dream feels out of
reach. OK, moving to the geopolitical
flashpoints now, the conversation offered a, let's
say, different perspective on the Ukraine conflict's origins
(08:23):
and how it's unfolded. It really pushed back against a
simple good versus bad story, suggesting deeper, older
motivations, specifically NATO expansion eastward being a long
standing Russian Red line. They cited figures like former
CIA Director William Burns apparently saying this years
ago. And there's mention of an
alleged peace deal in 2022, supposedly close but then killed
(08:46):
by Boris Johnson's intervention.It also highlighted these poison
pills and current negotiation talks, like demanding Article 5
security guarantees for whatever's left of Ukraine.
Which, you know, Article 5 is the NATO mutual defense clause.
The argument was that could justincentivize more conflict by
potentially dragging NATO indirectly.
And underlying factors like Ukrainian corruption and
valuable rare earth minerals were also brought up as
(09:08):
complicating the narrative. And then, of course, the
incredibly complex and emotionally charged situation
with Israel and Palestine. The conversation really
highlighted A dramatic shift happening in public opinion
there, especially among younger people.
They're described as being totally outside of that
ecosystem of traditional media. They're getting info from, you
know, TikTok, podcasts elsewhereonline, often unfiltered.
(09:31):
Specific points raised included the International Court of
Justice ruling that Israel's actions in Gaza were plausibly A
genocide, and even former Israeli prime ministers calling
their own government's actions war crimes.
That's pretty significant. Yeah, and the discussion didn't
shy away from some really controversial points using
quotes and context, like the alleged Amalek quote attributed
(09:51):
to Netanyahu. In the context of the
conversation that was presented as referencing an ancient
command to basically obliterate an enemy, raising serious
questions about intent. And similarly that we can
control the height of the flame quote was discussed, suggesting
maybe a strategy of sometimes propping up Hamas to prevent a
unified Palestinian state. The narrative question things
like starvation, blockades. And it really emphasized this
(10:13):
generational divide and media consumption, the sort of cable
news 70 versus podcast 34 split,older folks getting one story,
younger ones another. The cumulative effect as they
put it as this kind of Pandora'sbox moment where long held
assumptions about the US Israel relationship or just being re
examined by a new generation. So this new media landscape,
younger people getting news differently, it means those old
(10:35):
propaganda machines are maybe losing their grip.
What's really fascinating is that potential shift in power.
If information isn't centrally controlled anymore, it gets way
harder for governments or whoever to just dictate the
narrative. Like one speaker said, they're
flying with no net. It's a just a real vulnerability
for those who used to rely on controlling perception.
OK, so despite all these really heavy topics, I mean
(10:57):
manipulating fear, global conflicts, economic disaster,
the conversation actually ends on a surprisingly optimistic
note. The core idea presented is that
tyranny is always relying on propaganda, right?
But now, with the media landscape all fractured and
younger generations seeking out diverse info, maybe they're
flying with no net. It's suggests the old control
(11:17):
tools are weakening. There's this palpable sense that
people are maybe waking up in a way that's never happened
before. And that awareness, that
potential, opens up possibilities for actual
positive change. The discussion pointed to some
tangible things like the potential reclassification of
marijuana from schedule one downto schedule 3.
Which just to clarify, schedule I means like heroin, no medical
(11:39):
use, high abuse. Schedule 3 is like Tylenol with
codeine. Accepted medical use, lower
risk. That shift alone could have a
huge economic impact. It could empower legitimate
businesses, help research undercut the cartels
significantly. And furthermore, the
conversation touched on Donald Trump's approach to diplomacy,
suggesting it was maybe unique. Actively pursuing peace talks,
trying to bring conflicting sides together like with Armenia
(12:02):
and Azerbaijan. Presented as a different
approach. Moving away from just managing
conflict. So what does this all mean for
you? Listening to this?
The take away isn't just about seeing the problems or how power
works. It's about seeing real potential
for solutions. When awareness spreads, The
conversation suggests that thesehuge economic pressures will
eventually force some kind of reckoning and, crucially, the
(12:25):
ability for just regular people to connect, share information,
question narratives independently.
They could fundamentally change the power structures we've been
talking about. It implies the future isn't set
in stone, that. Informed engagement?
Really. Can make a difference.
Yeah, exactly. So this deep dive into that
Rogan episode leaves us with a pretty compelling final thought
to Mull over. If propaganda's main job is to
(12:48):
make you think you're powerless,and if that whole propaganda
machine seems to be failing now,struggling to control
information and perception, thenwhat changes?
What things that seemed impossible before might actually
be within our collective reach now?
It's a powerful question. Definitely something to think
about.
Welcome to the Joe Rogan recap. Today, we're diving deep into a
recent conversation from the JoeRogan Experience featuring
comedian Dave Smith. And this isn't just about stand
up. It's a really fascinating
exploration into, well, who getsto be an expert, the huge
influence of fear in society andhow global dynamics actually
work, or maybe how they're, you know, strategically shaped.
(00:23):
Exactly. Our mission today is to really
unpack the critical insights and, honestly, some surprising
connections from this pretty extensive conversation.
We want to offer you a kind of shortcut to understanding some,
let's face it, profoundly complex topics.
Cut through the noise. Look at the arguments they
presented. We'll help you connect the dots
between things that might seem totally separate so you can walk
away, you know, well informed but also with plenty to chew on.
(00:46):
Yeah, definitely lots to think about.
Our source material is that transcript from the Joe Rogan
Experience, hashtag 2370 with Dave Smith.
And it really is a gold mind of discussion.
It goes everywhere from like geopolitics and economic policy
right down to the nature of information itself and how we
all consume it. OK, so let's unpack this first
big idea, this whole concept of expertise.
(01:07):
Dave Smith, the comedian, Right.He brings up this really
interesting point about the usual knock against him.
You're just a comedian. You're not an expert.
But his argument, as presented in the source, is that this
dismissal kind of misses the entire point.
He claims it's often not that hard to critique, say, warhawks
because, quote, these people aren't really experts either.
What's so compelling there is how it just challenges our
(01:29):
standard ideas about who holds authority and, well, why.
It's fascinating. Yeah, because the conversation
really digs into who truly possesses expertise, especially
in these really complex, tangledfields.
It brings up people like Sam Harris, you know, brilliant
neuroscientist, or Daniel Cormier, amazing MMA expert.
They excel in their specific areas, absolutely.
But the discussion suggests theymight still lack deep expertise
(01:53):
in broader stuff like say, geopolitical world politics or
international relations. The example used was Cormier
maybe not knowing a super specific jiu jitsu move.
The Dead Orchard, which you knowis apparently very technical,
needs specialized knowledge. And that's used to illustrate
how even specialists can have blind spots in related fields.
So it makes you ask, how reliable are experts when we
talk about these huge multifaceted topics?
(02:15):
That's such a key distinction. The conversation also zeroes in
on the tactic of calling someonejust a comedian.
How that can be a really convenient way to just dismiss
their arguments, especially if you already disagree.
Smith pointed out. You know this happened when he
talked about Israel, but not so much when he discussed COVID or
other things where maybe people agreed with him more.
He even mentioned people saying look at Deeve breaking it down
(02:38):
when they like his take. So it highlights that maybe the
issue isn't always just expertise, but whether someone's
view fits a preferred narrative.So thinking about the listener,
what does this tell you about how you should approach
information you come across? Well, it really pushes you
towards critical thinking, doesn't it?
We should always be asking, is the attack on the person or is
(02:58):
it actually on the argument. The discussion strongly suggests
that when someone's job title oridentity gets attacked instead
of the actual substance of theirclaims, it's often just an
appeal to authority. Or, you know, an ad hominem
thing, not real engagement with the facts.
It's not about throwing credentials out entirely, of
course not. But it is about checking if
those credentials are truly relevant to the specific point
(03:19):
being argued and if the counter argument actually addresses the
claims. It's about questioning
assumptions really and considering different views, not
just blindly accepting or dismissing based on who's
talking. OK, now here's where it gets
really interesting. The conversation takes this
provocative turn into how. Fear is used.
Like as a powerful tool, maybe be an engineer to get policies
(03:41):
implemented. We hear this.
Pretty striking claim mentioned about a health official back in
2020 supposedly saying Anthony Fauci's goal is to make
Americans more fearful. That's a wild thing to suggest,
right? Creating a narrative that
basically preys on anxiety, and the discussion hints that this
kind of sustained fear could even mess with.
Your physical health. Your immune system.
And if we connect that to the bigger picture, the discussion
(04:03):
draws these really potent parallels to other historical
moments, especially the post 911era.
Dick Cheney, VP at the time, openly used what many called
fear mongering that famous line.It's not a matter of if, but
when there will be another 911. That whole climate, plus things
like the color-coded threat levels, the constant narrative
of they hate us for our freedom.It was argued that's just kind
(04:25):
of turned off people's brains. And that led to widespread
acceptance of huge policy shifts.
You know, basically a blank check for military action.
The Patriot Act passing so quickly, expanding surveillance,
the NDAA, broadening military powers.
It seems to illustrate this recurring pattern.
Use fear. Push agendas that might
otherwise face real opposition. And then it goes even darker,
suggesting intelligence agenciesmight actually play a role in
(04:48):
shaping these narratives. They talked about books like
Best Evidence on the JFK Assassination apparently blew in
Speaker's mind, and even theories about Intel agencies
having connections to rock'n'roll or gangster rap.
The idea floated, and it's a heavy one.
Is it? Maybe these entities subtly
encourage certain things, maybe even crime, with the goal to
fill your private prisons up. Keep people scared, make them
(05:10):
easier to fall in line. Yeah, that really delves into
covert operations territory and the potential erosion of trust
in our institutions. The conversation brought up
those really controversial allegations about the Reagan
administration, the idea they were maybe involved in
trafficking Copain to fund the Contras, while at the same time
launching the war on drugs domestically.
(05:31):
It creates this just jarring contradiction.
Like the speakers put it, they're creating the conditions
for the crack epidemic. Then they catch one guy throwing
him in jail for decades. Talk about hypocrisy, potential
manipulation. And then there's that mention of
Chuck Schumer's quote about the CIA having seven ways till
Sunday to get back at you. That's presented as suggesting
this sort of significant unchecked power within the quote
(05:54):
UN quote deep state. It really makes you wonder, if
that kind of power exists and operates without enough
accountability, How does that fundamentally impact, you know,
the health of a democracy? Right.
So shifting gears a bit, the conversation moves from that,
from power and narrative to how it plays out economically.
And it highlights this really pivotal moment in history.
Nixon taking the US off the goldstandard in 71.
(06:16):
This huge move, as they discussed it, came after
countries like France basically started calling our bluff on the
Bretton Woods agreement, you know, demanding actual gold for
their dollars, putting pressure on US reserves.
And the implication, according to the discussion, was removing
that standard meant no more evenpretend limits on government
spending. It kicked off what Ron Paul
called the era of big government.
(06:37):
And that connects directly to understanding the true cost, the
often hidden cost of endless conflict and this unchecked
spending. The conversation detailed
something like nearly $10 trillion spent on wars just in
the last 25 years, a mind boggling number.
And crucially, it wasn't financed through taxes.
Mostly, it was borrowing and essentially printing money,
(06:57):
injecting trillions into the economy without matching
productive output. That's not just an abstract
number. It's presented as a direct,
direct driver of inflation. It acts like a hidden tax,
eroding your savings, your wages.
The speakers argued this is a primary reason why things like
housing and healthcare and energy and childcare are totally
unaffordable. It hits working and middle class
families hardest. Well, you know, the rich might
(07:18):
benefit from asset inflation. This system is described as just
destroying the economic stability for everyone else.
It's a stark link between foreign policy money decisions
and your actual household budget.
So what's the take away there for the global stage and for us
as individuals? The discussion makes this claim.
You can't be a world empire without having a central bank
that can print money for you, UNquote.
(07:41):
It connects that economic reality, Fiat currency, directly
to a nation's power projection. It allows for massive military
spending without immediate tax hikes.
And then the conversation ties this directly to the discontent
we see among young people. Many, as observed in this
discussion, are demanding socialism.
But maybe it's not just ideology, right?
Maybe it's a pragmatic response because they see no path for
(08:03):
them to get into the ownership class.
They're drowning in debt, crushed by unaffordability,
worried about AI taking jobs. It's framed not just as
economics, but as a fundamental challenge to, like, societal
stability. The American Dream feels out of
reach. OK, moving to the geopolitical
flashpoints now, the conversation offered a, let's
say, different perspective on the Ukraine conflict's origins
(08:23):
and how it's unfolded. It really pushed back against a
simple good versus bad story, suggesting deeper, older
motivations, specifically NATO expansion eastward being a long
standing Russian Red line. They cited figures like former
CIA Director William Burns apparently saying this years
ago. And there's mention of an
alleged peace deal in 2022, supposedly close but then killed
(08:46):
by Boris Johnson's intervention.It also highlighted these poison
pills and current negotiation talks, like demanding Article 5
security guarantees for whatever's left of Ukraine.
Which, you know, Article 5 is the NATO mutual defense clause.
The argument was that could justincentivize more conflict by
potentially dragging NATO indirectly.
And underlying factors like Ukrainian corruption and
valuable rare earth minerals were also brought up as
(09:08):
complicating the narrative. And then, of course, the
incredibly complex and emotionally charged situation
with Israel and Palestine. The conversation really
highlighted A dramatic shift happening in public opinion
there, especially among younger people.
They're described as being totally outside of that
ecosystem of traditional media. They're getting info from, you
know, TikTok, podcasts elsewhereonline, often unfiltered.
(09:31):
Specific points raised included the International Court of
Justice ruling that Israel's actions in Gaza were plausibly A
genocide, and even former Israeli prime ministers calling
their own government's actions war crimes.
That's pretty significant. Yeah, and the discussion didn't
shy away from some really controversial points using
quotes and context, like the alleged Amalek quote attributed
(09:51):
to Netanyahu. In the context of the
conversation that was presented as referencing an ancient
command to basically obliterate an enemy, raising serious
questions about intent. And similarly that we can
control the height of the flame quote was discussed, suggesting
maybe a strategy of sometimes propping up Hamas to prevent a
unified Palestinian state. The narrative question things
like starvation, blockades. And it really emphasized this
(10:13):
generational divide and media consumption, the sort of cable
news 70 versus podcast 34 split,older folks getting one story,
younger ones another. The cumulative effect as they
put it as this kind of Pandora'sbox moment where long held
assumptions about the US Israel relationship or just being re
examined by a new generation. So this new media landscape,
younger people getting news differently, it means those old
(10:35):
propaganda machines are maybe losing their grip.
What's really fascinating is that potential shift in power.
If information isn't centrally controlled anymore, it gets way
harder for governments or whoever to just dictate the
narrative. Like one speaker said, they're
flying with no net. It's a just a real vulnerability
for those who used to rely on controlling perception.
OK, so despite all these really heavy topics, I mean
(10:57):
manipulating fear, global conflicts, economic disaster,
the conversation actually ends on a surprisingly optimistic
note. The core idea presented is that
tyranny is always relying on propaganda, right?
But now, with the media landscape all fractured and
younger generations seeking out diverse info, maybe they're
flying with no net. It's suggests the old control
(11:17):
tools are weakening. There's this palpable sense that
people are maybe waking up in a way that's never happened
before. And that awareness, that
potential, opens up possibilities for actual
positive change. The discussion pointed to some
tangible things like the potential reclassification of
marijuana from schedule one downto schedule 3.
Which just to clarify, schedule I means like heroin, no medical
(11:39):
use, high abuse. Schedule 3 is like Tylenol with
codeine. Accepted medical use, lower
risk. That shift alone could have a
huge economic impact. It could empower legitimate
businesses, help research undercut the cartels
significantly. And furthermore, the
conversation touched on Donald Trump's approach to diplomacy,
suggesting it was maybe unique. Actively pursuing peace talks,
trying to bring conflicting sides together like with Armenia
(12:02):
and Azerbaijan. Presented as a different
approach. Moving away from just managing
conflict. So what does this all mean for
you? Listening to this?
The take away isn't just about seeing the problems or how power
works. It's about seeing real potential
for solutions. When awareness spreads, The
conversation suggests that thesehuge economic pressures will
eventually force some kind of reckoning and, crucially, the
(12:25):
ability for just regular people to connect, share information,
question narratives independently.
They could fundamentally change the power structures we've been
talking about. It implies the future isn't set
in stone, that. Informed engagement?
Really. Can make a difference.
Yeah, exactly. So this deep dive into that
Rogan episode leaves us with a pretty compelling final thought
to Mull over. If propaganda's main job is to
(12:48):
make you think you're powerless,and if that whole propaganda
machine seems to be failing now,struggling to control
information and perception, thenwhat changes?
What things that seemed impossible before might actually
be within our collective reach now?
It's a powerful question. Definitely something to think
about.
Popular Podcasts
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com