May 21, 2024 • 49 mins
Ever considered how a year-round school calendar might shake up the traditional learning experience? Our latest episode tackles this question head-on, as we share personal stories and compare the potential academic and social benefits for students, teachers, and parents. From reducing learning loss to integrating summer fun through themed activities like robotics and sports camps, we cover the spectrum of possibilities that could keep the spirit of summer alive while enhancing education.
But why stop at education? The debate heats up as we pivot to societal systems, dissecting capitalism versus socialism, and introducing my future book concept, "The F Word." We explore the shared disdain for feudalism—an analogy for power concentration—and discuss how to achieve a balance of freedom and constraints within our economic reality. Expect a few laughs and unexpected detours as we navigate corporate hierarchies, retail mannequins, and the pursuit of a more equitable society.
Capping off our spirited discourse, we challenge the notion that Western philosophy is a gateway to fascism. Instead, we advocate for an anti-feudal society that champions free speech, collaboration, and equality before the law. We break down the open versus closed society debate and urge our listeners to transcend the outdated socialism versus capitalism dichotomy. Join us in pushing for foundational values that promote a fair and open community, all while coining new terms and invoking a touch of humor along the way.
Help these new solutions spread by ...
- Subscribing wherever you listen to podcasts
- Leaving a 5-star review
- Sharing your favorite solution with your friends and network (this makes a BIG difference)
Comments? Feedback? Questions? Solutions? Message us! We will do a mailbag episode.
Email: solutionsfromthemultiverse@gmail.com
Adam: @ajbraus - braus@hey.com
Scot: @scotmaupin
adambraus.com (Link to Adam's projects and books)
The Perfect Show (Scot's solo podcast)
The Numey (inflation-free currency)
Thanks to Jonah Burns for the SFM music.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
how is it going, adam ?
It is going, it is going prettywell.
You're looking very trim, veryfit thank you, I'm trying.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
I'm trying to, yeah, be a trim, fit person.
I'm going to more jujitsuclasses, which is good, good and
so that over in my neighborhooduh-huh that'll.
But that also puts medangerously close to the
Mitchell's ice cream store,which is delicious ice cream,
kind of a balancing of the forceis sort of a dark side of the
(00:31):
force.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
Light side of the force, zoroastrian sort of.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Sometimes I'm going to get it mixed up and I'm going
to walk into the ice creamstore and start like wrestling
all the tubs of ice cream.
I'll be like what is happening.
I'm like my my wires arecrossed.
I don't know what's going on.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
I wear what?
Why do none of these?
Why do none of these ice creamtubs have official geese on?
Why?
Why aren't they wearing theproper?
Speaker 2 (00:54):
attire.
You think that's the problem.
Then I roll into jujitsu classand start licking everyone and
they really, they, really, theyreally don't like that one.
How are you?
I'm doing, okay, what I'm doinggreat actually.
(01:15):
You're doing great actually.
Well, I'm working on a bunch ofstuff that feels like it needs
to be justified.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
Well, we just started summer break.
I have basically 12 weeks off.
Speaker 2 (01:23):
Oh right, You're a teaching person.
Speaker 1 (01:24):
I'm a teacher.
So it is now vacation time I'mbasically just I get paid this
whole time okay, okay, I doalmost nothing.
All right, I have colleagueswho are working a little bit.
They are teaching like one ortwo classes.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
I just I'm only teaching one class, so I still
am working, but I'm just workingvery little so you're trying to
create a jealous pod where I'mjust jealous of you all, and
that's the energy I put into themicrophone.
Speaker 1 (01:49):
Yeah, being a teacher is really cool.
I actually don't even believein summer break Mini solution.
We should get rid of summerbreak, year-round school.
It's stupid.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
Yeah, year-round school.
I'm on board with that, ofcourse.
Speaker 1 (02:05):
I've been on that page.
I would say, maybe even keepthe same amount of time off, but
spread it all out so that it'syou know well, here's the secret
, like I found out when I went.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
I went to Japan, obviously.
Well, when I was in high schoolI went to Japan and then again
after college, but they haveyear round school there and I
was in the education system bothas a student and as a teacher.
Uh, it's great.
I am a big fan of it.
There's less learning loss.
Uh, less time spent re-teachingwhat was taught to catch up and
(02:34):
, like you were saying, if youyou stack up all the breaks in
between, there's actually moretime off.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
I think there was more yeah, oh my god.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Well, that's a lot because, yeah, it was just more
time off, but it was spread out,you know, two weeks here.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
One thing there, here's.
Here's a holiday, there's aholiday Month off.
You know, give them three weeksoff at Christmas.
And two weeks off here andthree weeks off there.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
Yeah, Maybe a month off in the summer.
Speaker 1 (02:51):
Give them June off or July off or whatever.
That's fine.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
Summers off are great if you are a parent who's also
a teacher.
But if kid has the summer offnow, you're like oh, whoa, whoa
right.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
What is what do people that's a whole another
for child care during the summer?
Speaker 2 (03:07):
it's weird I don't even know.
I mean I think people are justlatchkey kids, right, they're
just like left at home so I'm inthis right now because I have a
10 year old and so a lot of itis looking for after school
camps, uh, activity like daycamp, not after school like day
camps, or activity things thatbasically take the place of
school during the day for ashort whereas the government
could just provide school, andthen you wouldn't have to do any
(03:29):
of that yeah, but people wouldbe like, no, it's so horrible
now we have to go to schoolyear-round.
I'm like you're doing thatanyway, you're subsidizing it
yourself, right, but they couldeven.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
They could even make months of school like just
summer camp, right, they couldjust be like oh we're, we're in
our june term, where we justplay and have fun all day yeah,
that's fine, but just make itpart of school, like just make
it something that july isrobotics july and we're all
doing yeah, right, or you canchoose.
It's an elective thing and youcan either go do football camp
(03:59):
for the month or you can dorobotics camp for the month.
But it's school, it's publicschool and the government
provides it, and then now allall the kids get it for free and
you don't have to scramble, theparents don't have to like
scramble and assess where areyou gonna do, what are you gonna
do?
It's just all baked in as it is.
I can't believe we don't dothis.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
No I don't either, but as it is, it seems like
summer is created so that we canlike um, so that you know it's.
It's there as kind of like away to give back to teachers or
some in some random thing,because it's like everyone's
like oh, we know, teacher's jobis so hard and stuff, so at
least you get this break insteadof, like, fixing conditions and
(04:37):
or raising pay and or doing thethings that would make a hard
job, them a summer yeah, they'rejust like well, now you get a
summer, you just get a job, youget time off, which isn't
helpful, bad and also like it's.
I mean inside and out.
It's just not good.
I don't, yeah, like it from any.
And people get mad at teachersand they go.
You don't even work part of thetime.
They use that to justify thingsand then, yeah, it's just.
(05:00):
I don't see a lot of benefit inthe summer model anymore me
neither there you go, solutiondone.
Welcome to solutions, okay,mini solution done, we solved it
.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
We should definitely get rid of summer vacation.
Even if there is summer school,it should just be conducted as
school and students should allbe expected to go to it and they
can choose whatever activitythey want to do.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
We just lost all of our k through 12 listeners, by
the way no, I think they'd likeit because they can still do all
the things they do in summer,because it doesn't have to be
like studious academic but ifyou brought it up, the
positioning of it is you loseyour summer and you have to go
to school year-round.
You can't sell that.
It's a hard.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
That's a hard sell to kids, I mean well, kids don't
be get to be in charge.
That's true.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
That's why yeah, unfortunately no, I think that's
pretty fortunate.
Also, I think you'reunderestimating, right?
I?
Speaker 1 (05:51):
think a lot of kids like again, I think this is like
a privilege thing, right, likekids without privilege will
probably be like this is great,like low-key, this is awesome.
But then kids with withprivilege would be like no, when
I'm in summer it's just fun allday long because I'm rich.
You know like I'm, I haveenough money and support by my
net.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
You know my family to to kind of have a great summer
maybe, but I mean also thosericher kids usually get better
school experiences uh and theless fortunate kids often are in
schools where it's a strugglethe whole time to him.
Speaker 1 (06:23):
So right, right right yeah, I, I don't want to go
back to school, it's not a goodright right right place right
okay, I have a more serioussolution then okay, we'll do a
little more like a structuralsolution okay, so this is the
solution.
This is a solution that I thinkI someday may write a book
about this, and I'll tell youthe title of the book.
The title of the book would bethe F word ah the.
(06:46):
F word yeah, and it's not.
Speaker 2 (06:49):
It's not like the beautiful what you think the
beautiful F words up in Norwaythe giant F you go on a cruise
and look at the F words.
The F words are so beautiful.
No different F word.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
Different F word actually really so your mind
jumped directly to Norway.
So not exactly what I wouldthink people would jump to.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
No, oh, so here's this.
Speaker 1 (07:12):
I think of myself as pretty typical, so this is a
little bit of a theories fromthe multiverse, sort of ideas,
sort of solutions from themultiverse.
But the solution is like fixinga sort of problem in the realm
of ideas.
Okay, maybe because I'm gettinga PhD, my brain is all like
filled with ideas.
I've always struggled with theconflict, the kind of apparent
(07:33):
dichotomy or conflict betweencapitalism and socialism.
Right, that's the kind of twobuckets.
Everything can kind of bepainted with those broad brushes
.
Give everyone the stuff versustransaction Make everybody work
for the stuff, versus kind oftax and sort of even out
(07:53):
everything for everybody, right,okay.
So I've always thought thatthis was like a stupid
distinction, but I never reallycould put my finger on how to
clearly solve this problem ofthis dichotomy.
But I think I figured it outand so I'll propose it as a
solution today.
Okay, and it has to do with theF word, which the F word is
(08:15):
feudalism, that's okay, that'sthe F word.
Speaker 2 (08:18):
That would have probably been third.
My third guess, I will admityeah.
I had a couple others in frontof me.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
Okay, but yes, I'll tell you why it's called that.
But basically the solution is,instead of being pro-capitalism
or pro-socialism, oranti-capitalism or
anti-socialism, instead, I thinkwe can all come together,
mostly 99% of us at least maybenot the 1%, but 99% of us can
(08:47):
come together and agree that weare all anti-feudalism.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
Oh, okay.
I was running in my brain, justlooking at the hallmarks of
feudalism and I was wondering ifthis is where you were going.
Yeah, we don't want feudalism,we're anti-feudalism.
Yeah, that's the constant fearof random people on horseback
coming in with swords to get you, that's right, I don't want
that Game of Thrones, you know.
Speaker 1 (09:13):
Yes, we all want to not let Game of Thrones happen.
Right, we don't want Draconisor whatever the flames of the
dragons to come down on ourheads One day.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
just a lady with dragon shows up and then it's
for no reason.
Speaker 1 (09:26):
Bye-bye to the old ways.
We didn't do anything.
Yeah, we exactly.
The sept, the sept will bedestroyed, right.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
What do we do now?
Oh, whatever the lady with thedragon says okay, yeah, that
makes sense, right I've beenwatching this show, by the way,
the house of dragon.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
It's real good really good it's.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
Are you watching the first season or the first, the
second?
Season is coming out, june 16thso I just finished the first
season.
Yeah, I saw the first seasonback when it came out.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
It's pretty intense it's good it got slow start, but
then, man in the middle, itreally takes off and then it
just carries through all the waythrough to the end I feel like
that's how game of thrones was,too like it.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
They have to do a lot of set setting like table
setting.
You know they got to introduce,you, to introduce all the
people, who they are, theirrelationships with each other,
and then they can start likeknocking over dominoes I mean in
game of thrones, I felt likeyou were, though, intrigued with
every new character.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
With this one, you were like you kind of were
thrown into the middle, like thefirst scene is like a you know
a hall full of, like the maincharacters, and you're like, oh,
my god, at least in the game ofthrones, it's like here's sansa
, you know, like it just followsher for a little bit, and then
it's like here and you kind ofget sort of brought and then
they're in a room together andyou're like, oh, I kind of know
(10:41):
who these people are.
So, yeah, it definitely got alittle bit like throw you in the
deep end.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
But well, the first one.
They're like hey, here's abrother and sister.
You know how brothers andsisters act, not so fast no bet
you didn't know how thesebrothers and sisters act and
then in this one they're like.
How do you feel about likeuncles and nieces, right?
Speaker 1 (11:00):
becomes an uncle niece.
Incest gross, um, but dramatic,I mean, but gross, yeah, but
also realistic to things thatwould have happened.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
That's true potentially completely fake
fantasy times, but mimickingcastle times right castle time.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
So here's the thing we don't want to return to
castle times as much as this iswhat 99 of us can agree to right
yes, 99 of us can agree.
We don't want to turn to castletimes creepily.
I think one percent do want toreturn to castle time.
These are futile feudalists.
I mean we should call them.
(11:39):
Yeah, bro, I need to.
Yeah, yeah exactly that's whattech people say does your
product have a moat?
Speaker 2 (11:42):
Yeah, exactly that's what tech people say Does your?
Speaker 1 (11:44):
product, have a moat.
That's what they say.
They literally want to go backto feudalism.
It's terrible, but this is thething.
There's so much claims in themedia and everywhere and people
even just think oh, there's somany differences among people,
oh, we're all divided among eachother, the right wing, the left
wing, the blah, blah, blah, theblah, blah, blah, and it's like
(12:11):
really we're not.
We're all the former peasantsof feudalism.
We don't want to return tofeudalism, but there seems to be
this sort of historicalgravitational pull towards
feudalism, right, Tell me more.
Like if you dumped 100 people oror say, a thousand people on a
desert island, just naked, youjust dumped them on an island or
just whatever they were wearingsounds hot, just whatever they
were wearing, just dump them onan island we're going away from
(12:34):
the, you know.
Imagine like some guy would havelike a pocket knife in his
pocket and then he wouldinstantly become like way, way
more resourced than everyoneelse because he could like cut
down things and like make stuffand cut up fire and do right.
Or one guy had a lighter andinstantly he's infinitely more
(12:54):
resourced than everybody else,or he's sorry, he's, he's very
moderate, minorly resourced, buttwo weeks later he's like way
more resourced because he's hadfire for two weeks.
He's had, you know, the abilityto trade his fire for other
things for two weeks, and nowthat gave him other advantages
and more and more so.
So the guy with like you knowwho's fit and who has like a
(13:14):
lighter is like after two weeksis like thousands of times more
resourced than the person who'slike has a bad hip, who's like
70 years old and like doesn'thave any fire or knife or
anything.
They're completely strung outafter two weeks.
They're probably dead after twoweeks, right?
So so like well, inequalityjust seems to happen extremely
(13:36):
naturally so we're kind ofpulled towards feudalism I mean,
in that scenario, how much ofnatural human does like?
Speaker 2 (13:44):
how much are we discounting that like the
compassion of people who arelike not going to let a
70-year-old guy just die?
Speaker 1 (13:51):
Yeah, they may care for him.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Or the jealousy if they're like oh, one guy has a
knife, cool, I'm going toorganize three guys over here
and we're going to go take thatone knife for that one guy To
hit him in the head.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
If the fit guy with the knife, how?
What happens when he runs upagainst the giant dude with a
sure, the club sure there's allkinds of things, but that's that
is realism, right?
Well, yeah, that's true, thebiggest person with the biggest
sword takes what they want.
You hope that, that's theperson that you want, leading
right, the queen of dragons.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
Yeah, conan the barbarian, but I.
But I think my point is justwhat's called the Matthew effect
, which actually comes from theBible.
It's come from the Bible, butit's a psychological.
Speaker 2 (14:29):
I bet I know which book sociological term, which
one?
Speaker 1 (14:31):
Leviticus it comes.
It's a sociological phenomenonor whatever economic theory, but
it's called the Matthew effectbecause in Matthew Jesus says to
those who have little will betaken away, to those who have
much will be given more.
And so there's this principlethat if you have a teeny, teeny,
(14:53):
teeny, weensy advantage, overtime that will exponentially
become stronger.
So teeny, teeny, teeny, tinyadvantages actually become
massively huge advantages in thefuture.
And if you have teeny, teeny,teeny, tiny advantages actually
become massively huge advantagesin the future.
And if you have teeny, teenydisadvantages, they become like
deep, horrible disadvantagesover time.
(15:15):
So say, you have like a speechimpediment, but then throughout
your whole life, or when aspeech impediment doesn't matter
too much but say, yeah, youcan't speak very well, over time
you'll be put in the slowerclasses and people will kind of
maybe they'll shy away from youin social settings and you can't
build the relationships youneed.
And then you can't in the jobinterview, you're stuttering and
people don't want to hire.
You can't do all this work andthen you're way.
You make money way less.
Maybe you know other thingshappen.
So it has all these negativeeffects, that kind of cascade.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
Sure, I've seen, if you've ever seen those graphs,
that sometimes they put a graphout of like linear versus
exponential growth and they'relike here's what it looks like
if you just get 1% better everyday, you know, and it's like a.
It's a little thing that goesup a little at the beginning,
but then it just shoots up nearthe end and you're like, oh
right, yeah, that's.
And then you know, likewise thebeginning.
(16:03):
You're not going to notice thatbig a deal, but over time the
compounds.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
It's huge and so, yeah, so what's interesting?
So here's an interesting fact.
Here's an interesting fact theextremists of both left-wing and
right-wing claim that we areheaded towards neo-feudalism.
So this is what's called thehorseshoe effect, but in a way
it's a kind of positivehorseshoe effect.
(16:27):
So usually the horseshoe effectis considered negative.
The extreme right wing and theextreme left wing are both
totalitarians.
Right In this case it's actuallykind of a positive horseshoe
effect.
The extreme left wing is likehey, we're headed towards like a
corporate technologicalsurveillance, neo feudalism, and
the extreme right wing is likewe're headed towards also a
(16:51):
surveillance, corporalgovernment, kind of corporal
government big brother typetotalitarianism and they both
are like that's bad.
So in a way this is almost likea positive horseshoe, where both
the extremes are actuallypointed in the right direction,
away from feudalism, like wehave two sets of people, we have
(17:13):
two sets of police watching forcertain aspects of it, but
they're watching for oppositeaspects.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
But with both of those things guarded we have
like a better.
Speaker 1 (17:22):
Well, it's just.
It just points out that it'll,is it?
No, I just mean, isn't it weirdthat the extremes agree on that
?
Feudalism is bad and in a way,I think we should all agree with
that.
Feudalism is bad.
We shouldn't move back to aworld where 1% of people own
everything.
(17:42):
The government is really justprivate property owned by the
wealthy.
The law just works to preserveproperty owned by the wealthy.
The law just works to preservethis, this, the class of the
wait.
I'm sorry, wealthy, you'retrying to describe a situation
that we are not currently I knowexactly right, we're moving
very rapidly, that sounds verymuch like I know, I know but if
we could, so if we could setaside, I think, these, what are
(18:03):
called manichean, these sort offalse do?
Speaker 2 (18:06):
I know, yeah, yeah, yeah, between the state called
capitalism and socialism.
Oh, I thought you meant thefake people that wear the
clothes in the stores, themanichaeans yeah, yeah, yeah,
what?
Oh you sorry, you meanmannequins those ones who are
like look at my cotton pantsthose ones who are like look at
(18:30):
my cotton pants.
Speaker 1 (18:31):
Wait, you go to stores where the mannequins talk
to you and their heads are liketubes, like they're just like
tubes.
They're always like weirdlooking well we have to go
shopping.
Speaker 2 (18:36):
Where are you?
Speaker 1 (18:37):
going?
Have you noticed thatmannequins are like waif, like
thin.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
They're so thin they're basically stick figures.
I'm not checking out mannequins, no, actually I have noticed
the opposite.
I've noticed that they havemore like.
I've been seeing mannequinsthat seem like they have
realistic body types that I'mlike okay, some.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
Have you seen some badonkadonk mannequins?
I mean, I don't, I don't knowbadonkadonk, but I've definitely
seen people who are like thick.
Speaker 2 (19:01):
It gives you a better idea of like what's this what's
this shirt gonna look like on areal of like?
Oh well, the shirt looks greaton an amazing looking figure.
Of course, everything looksgreat on hot people.
Speaker 1 (19:10):
That's how that works .
I'm just pulling up the companyMuffin Top Mannequins here.
Yeah, they do have some prettyrealistic looking oh man.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
Look, that's an idea.
If that doesn't exist you'retelling me there aren't stores
that would be interested inmuffin top mannequins.
It is helpful.
Speaker 1 (19:26):
It is helpful well, now they're going to do all the
stuff where they just scan yourbody and then you just ai just
shows what the clothes look likeI put like a little.
You put a pair of sunglasses onin the store and you can see in
the mirror, like yourselfwearing whatever, or just look
at the mirror, and then themirror has a camera, and then oh
, perfect, and then what I cando is I can turn the dial on the
glasses and be like now I'mdefinitely going to lose 50
(19:47):
pounds, like next month.
So let's see what that wouldlook like and then you go.
Speaker 2 (19:53):
You're like oh, look at that.
Who is this little McSteamy boyin the in the mirror now?
Hello sir.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
Oh, McSteamy boy.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
That's my Grayson.
Speaker 1 (20:08):
That's my old Grayson out ofomy popping back in from
my brain.
Speaker 2 (20:11):
I like it, so wait, all right, so you drug me way
off feudalism, manichean,manichean, the Manichean.
Speaker 1 (20:14):
So Manichean dualities, false dualities, and
they're used to pit peopleagainst each other who don't
realize that they're actuallykind of being deceived, that
actually they share much more incommon with their opponents
than they think, and that'swhat's happening right now in
our society.
So the wealthy and the mediaare not intentionally, I think
they do it kind of accidentally,because it sort of sells
(20:35):
newspapers right, it kind ofdrives clicks and attention to
create sort of outrage and wedgeissues.
You're constantly looking forwedge issues like abortion or
like whatever, to drive peopleapart.
But really like the biggest,like what's the opposite of a
wedge issue, a hug issue, a hugissue, oh, the hug issue.
What we need is like big hugissues and I think the ultimate
(20:58):
hug issue is like feudalism isbad.
We should not return tofeudalism, and that's I thought
I just find that.
So capitalism and that's, Ijust find that.
So I find that it just warmsthe cockles of my heart, preston
.
Speaker 2 (21:13):
Pyshko, Just not going to feudalism.
Speaker 1 (21:14):
Jay Gouldenberg.
Well, just to realize that,like we don't need to fight
about capitalism and social.
Actually, this is theinteresting thing there are
elements of capitalism that leadto feudal relations,
hierarchical, you know,dominance and submission type
relationship.
If you work at a corporationand your boss can just tell you
any day to do like any task andyou have no say in that, that's
(21:39):
feudal, that's a feudal, that'senfaufment, enfaufment, right.
Where it means a thief to gaina thief, right, you're sort of
you're like a little serf andyou have your little patch of
dirt, that in Foffment rightwhen it means a thief to gain a
thief right.
You're sort of you're like alittle serf and you have your
little patch of dirt that youcan kind of do things in, but
you can be told to do differentthings at any moment.
Speaker 2 (21:55):
Yes, it's thief and serf Many words.
I use on a regular 2024 basis.
Exactly right.
Well, maybe we need to startdoing that.
Speaker 1 (22:02):
Talk about my fiefdom yes.
Yeah, start doing.
Talk about my fiefdom, yes,yeah, and like and like, so
futile.
So capitalism has these fief,like you know, futile
relationships built into it, butit also has very liberal you
know anti-feudal relationships,right, like you know, I can buy
whatever I want at the store,you know, and I can earn money
and you know I can use ithowever I want, basically right,
(22:24):
and so, in many ways, no one'ssupposed to be above the law, so
yeah and there's free speechand there's things like that,
which you can have in socialismtoo.
But just economically speaking,there's like thing I can start a
business, free entry into themarketplace, I can charge
whatever price I want for thegood that I want to sell, or
whatever.
So there's this kind of there'san anti-feudalism built into it
(22:46):
too, and the same thing withsocialism.
There's kind of a feudalisticside of socialism.
You know the if you have somecentral planning, the politique
bureau tells you you can orcan't do X, y and Z with your
property or whatever you know.
But there's also things thatare anti-feudalism, like if you
provide an efficient form ofsocial welfare that you know
protects the most vulnerablepeople from, from problems and
(23:09):
and that liberates them and letsthem, you know, live, have
housing, of health care, haveeducation.
Education is extremely, uh,liberating to the mind and to
the.
You know your political societyyeah, that didn't seem like a
big feudalism tenant waseducation yeah so like both of
them have like a dark side and alight side, like a feudal side
(23:31):
and a non-feudal side.
So what we want to do isactually kind of horseshoe the
debate around and leave all thefeudal stuff on one side and all
the anti-feudal stuff on theother and embrace both.
So embrace both the anti-feudalsides of capitalism and
socialism together and rejectall the feudal sides of
(23:53):
capitalism and socialism.
And if you try to engage withpeople in this way, they don't
get it.
They don't get it because theykeep every.
If you bring up one issue oranother, it's either kind of a
more socialist idea or a morecapitalist idea, and they brand
you as being that and it's likeno man.
I'm pulling from both sides.
(24:15):
Acdc here.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
Well, what will happen is both sides will grab
onto the piece of the other sidethat you're including, that
they hate and they'll hate youand they'll point, yeah, you'll
be taking arrows from both sides.
Speaker 1 (24:29):
Justin Donald Right, and this is why we need to
establish this hug issue whichis to say I just want to tell
the world now, so that peoplestop bothering me, calling me a
socialist or a capitalist, whichboth I'll be in a room and
people will think I'm a totalraging capitalist jerk because I
(24:49):
embrace, you know, free marketsand private property and you
know choice about things.
You show up in your suit andyour monocle and your top hat.
Yeah, and wealth.
There's nothing wrong withwealth as long as it doesn't
disrupt society too badly.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
Carry around your bags with money signs on them.
It's crazy.
Speaker 1 (25:03):
That's what I always do Monocle, you know but then in
other rooms or in even the sameroom, if I say something else
like yeah, we should absolutelyhave universal health care or
health insurance and we shouldabsolutely provide like
affordable housing to everyone.
Even if it means the governmentjust centrally planning and
building huge like tracks ofhousing, we should totally do
that and people just they justthink I'm some kind of raging
(25:27):
dyed-in-the-cloth red communist,psycho-socialist, and I'm like
you.
people are so caught up in thisManichean duality between
capitalism and socialism.
You're missing the biggerpicture, which is the hug issue.
Speaker 2 (25:42):
Yeah, the way to keep it together.
Speaker 1 (25:44):
We need to prevent feudalism from reemerging in
history, which it is like on ajust hell bent on doing that.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
You know who feels like the new, like hoper, like
the people crossing theirfingers hoping for feudalism to
come back.
It's not the sword people, now.
I feel like sword people arelike a niche.
Just you know people who watchthe Highlander are like a niche.
Just you know people who watchthe highland or tv show or
whatever you know like.
But I think the new guys arelike those super militia dudes,
the militia people who, like,are like I need to carry my
(26:17):
machine gun into subway becauseI have the law that I can.
And you're like, yeah, you can,but I mean, what are you, what
are you doing?
You know, like those guys.
I feel like those guys are thepeople who are more likely to be
like yeah, feudalism soundsgood, we have like how many
bullets?
Okay, good, let's go, let's go.
Like they're itching for somesort of a, uh, a weird, a weird
tussle.
Speaker 1 (26:38):
I feel they are, well they're.
I mean they, they're using theboil the frog method, right that
?
They're just you know chiselingaway little by little every day
.
Speaker 2 (26:52):
No.
Speaker 1 (26:52):
What?
The feudalists?
Yeah, the kind of the 1% andstuff they would never be like.
Okay, everybody, you know,overnight boom Line up, we're
taking everything Right, youknow.
But they're like oh, we, youknow, BlackRock went around and
bought 500,000 private singlefamily homes over the last six
(27:13):
years.
Do you think, Like, what areyou guys doing?
That's crazy.
Speaker 2 (27:20):
Do you think that it's like an intentional thing
that's being that's happeningwhere people are like this is
what we're trying to do thingthat's happening where people
are like this is what we'retrying to do?
Or do you think it's like thiscreep toward feudalism that
you're seeing is more of anatural out?
Speaker 1 (27:33):
I think it just happens like a gravitational
pull in history Because, justlike the dumping, a thousand
people on an island and there'ssome people have advantages and
they just naturally use thoseadvantages and in a way, it's
not even their fault.
They should use theiradvantages.
The problem is when, at asystemic level, you can look at
it and say this is causingunnecessary suffering, this is
(27:56):
going to lead to a bad.
It's what in softwareengineering.
We call it an anti-pattern, andthat's where you follow what
seems to be the right thing todo, but you know that at the end
of the day it's actually goingto cause negative outcomes.
And so in software engineering,you identify anti-patterns
early on and then you avoid them.
And that's what we need to do insociety.
We need to identifyanti-patterns early on.
(28:18):
Say, this leads to really badoutcomes, so we're just going to
you know what's the German wordis?
We're going to have an Abbrucht.
But in English the word is likewe're going to interrupt.
We're going to interrupt thatanti-pattern early on and
prevent it, even though it seemsto be like a good thing.
It's an anti-pattern, yeah,okay.
Speaker 2 (28:41):
I'm for it.
Speaker 1 (28:41):
So like people will always criticize me because I
have, because I'm living in thisanti-feudal, anti-feudal, I
have a pure, undilutedanti-feudal ideology and people
think that I'm somehowstraddling.
Speaker 2 (28:56):
You walk in saying that those are your first words.
You go hello.
Speaker 1 (28:59):
I'm.
Speaker 2 (29:00):
Adam.
I have a pure, unadulteratedanti-feudal philosophy.
Speaker 1 (29:04):
And so people think I'm like Everyone listen, listen
what.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
No, adulterated anti-feudal philosophy.
So people, everyone, listen,listen what?
No, they think I'm a jerk.
Now let's see what happened.
How did this guy?
What's going?
Speaker 1 (29:11):
on.
But people think I'm what?
People think I'm a jerk becausethey think I'm one or the other
, and then, and if somebodyfigures it out, they think I'm
straddling, they think I'msomehow like I have one, I have
one leg like way over on oneside and I have one foot way
over on the other side and it'slike you can't do that and I'm
like no man.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
That's a perfect position to get kicked in the
nuts.
Speaker 1 (29:31):
I know I'm going to get Rochambeau, but what I'm
trying to say is actually I'm,my feet are right next to each
other, I'm on the side of theline.
That is like you can divide itone way or the other way.
Right, and you can eitherdivide it socialism, capitalism,
or you can divide it feudalism,non-feudalism, anti-feudalism.
The problem is there's no greatword for anti-feudalism, except
(29:52):
maybe like, like liberal, butliberals been loaded up with all
these different meanings.
Speaker 2 (29:57):
it's already so you can't use it opted.
Speaker 1 (29:59):
Yeah, so I just say anti-feudal, because that's like
you can't fuck that up.
I mean you can't.
How do you, how do you somehowpollute what I mean?
It's so obvious anti-feudal.
You're trying to fight, youknow, uh, hierarchies and stuff,
destruction of people's freedom, you know, destruct.
Basically, you're trying toprevent serfdom for the lowest
(30:20):
rung of the ladder.
The thing that people don'tunderstand, though, is in
faughment.
I think in faughment deserves aa broader description and
discussion.
What's in, what's in thought,what do you think in fafment?
Speaker 2 (30:33):
what do I think in fafment, or what do I definitely
know in faf?
Speaker 1 (30:37):
what do you?
Speaker 2 (30:37):
definitely know it is .
I mean, it sounds honestly.
It sounds like this that youknow how, if you like, squish a
marshmallow down and it popsback up, but if you do it too
much it just stays squished down.
That feels like the marshmallowhas entered its state of
involvement Influence.
Speaker 1 (30:55):
Totally smushed down?
Yeah, totally, it doesn't.
Speaker 2 (30:58):
We've wrecked the marshmallow elasticity.
How close did I get?
That's close.
Speaker 1 (31:03):
Yes, I feel like involvement has to do with like
a hair move.
Speaker 2 (31:09):
Oh, I could sign on that.
Speaker 1 (31:12):
And the head stylist comes over and is like I will
now demonstrate enfauffment, andthey like poof, and then
everyone's like whoa.
And it's like whoa.
Oh yes, the 1967 enfauffmenttechnique of hair Enfoffment is
an awesome word, I think,because maybe I'm just weird,
(31:33):
but it's a great word.
But it comes from the word fief, a fief like a fiefdom.
Speaker 2 (31:37):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (31:38):
So a king who awards a fief to a lord is called
enfoffment.
So the king enfoffed the lord.
Speaker 2 (31:46):
So the awarding of the thing to the person is the
enfauffment.
Speaker 1 (31:51):
Yes, so you could say like he was enfauffed in 1496,
meaning the king or some lordgreater, greater lord than him
gave him.
It happens all the time andlike I noticed it a lot in
samurai books and movies they'relike.
And then he was awarded, uh, a,you know a 200 rio.
Yes, uh, you know land that'scalled in fafment.
(32:12):
So he was in faft.
And then it happened in europeall the time too, during
european feudalism people wouldgive in.
Speaker 2 (32:18):
You know, roman or greek soldiers would come back
and then be so that that wasn'texactly in fafment because it
wasn't feudalism but it wasfeudal.
It was kind of feudal it waskind of feudal.
Speaker 1 (32:31):
I mean, yeah, so that was in some way that was sort
of I would call that likecolonialism or like conquer
Roman, conquering Right A littledifferent, but the same it is a
feudal.
You're right.
See, that's the thing we needto start seeing things as feudal
, not feudal rather thancapitalist or socialist.
And you're exactly right theRomans coming back from war and
(32:52):
giving the land to the citizensand the citizens taking that
land and giving it away tovarious people.
Speaker 2 (32:57):
Not feudal Is feudal.
Speaker 1 (32:59):
Is feudal Right because it's conquer and then
power and no choice, and it'shierarchical choice and it's
hierarchical and domination andsubmission rather than trade and
equal kind of collaboration,cooperation.
Speaker 2 (33:11):
I have a name for anti-feudalism.
Speaker 1 (33:15):
Let's hear it LaDoof, ladoof, ladoof, ladoof yeah.
Speaker 2 (33:22):
How do you feel about ?
Speaker 1 (33:23):
LaDoof Dude.
Speaker 2 (33:26):
I think it's.
It's just feudal backwards.
It's the word feudal backwards,ladoof.
Speaker 1 (33:32):
L-A-D-U-E-F.
Ladoof let's bring it on,because we can have Shia LaDoof
be the Perfect Sh.
Speaker 2 (33:39):
Let's bring it on because we can have shia la duf
be the perfect shia, shia la dufcan be the the spokesperson oh,
now that does sound like asaturday night live character
where it's like, he's just likea doofy version of even more
doofy version of shia la bo.
Like shia la bo because I waslike hi, the guy shia la duf
comes over hi hi, I, hi Hi, I'mShiloh Doof.
(33:59):
That could sustain moderatelaughter for two and a half
minutes.
Speaker 1 (34:03):
That's a perfect SNL.
That's all SNL needs.
There you go.
There's so much funnier stuffon TikTok and Instagram now, oh
my God and YouTube I just dielaughing.
And then I watch SNL and I'mlike, ugh, kind of broad,
they're kind of broad, they'redoing it live.
Adam, they have to do it live.
Speaker 2 (34:22):
so are the tiktok people.
Yes, it is well.
They can practice 42 takes ofit until they get the right one.
Speaker 1 (34:25):
But yeah, that's true , snl can practice, but yeah,
then they do it.
Speaker 2 (34:28):
Live the people are undefeated, right?
I mean, just if you're goingagainst the mass of the audience
.
Speaker 1 (34:34):
There are so many funny people in the world that
can nail a perfect, a perfectjoke right out of nowhere.
Speaker 2 (34:40):
It's hard to beat the mass.
Speaker 1 (34:42):
Preston Pyshko.
Yeah, so wait in Foffment.
I have to go back to inFoffment, or no?
Go ahead there you go Questionor something.
Trey Lockerbie no, in Foffment.
Preston Pyshko yeah, so inFoffment.
So I think one thing thatpeople don't realize is they
think they're in a anti-feudalenvironment but they actually
are just in FOFT, and that, Ithink, confuses people a lot and
(35:03):
they think well, I'm a liberal,I believe in freedom, because
here's my shape of my life.
But actually the shape of theirlife is just a kind of
neo-feudal enforcement.
So, for example, you know youwork for a major corporation and
(35:26):
you're like a VP of something.
Speaker 2 (35:29):
Whoa nice.
Yeah, I just got a promotion.
This is great Big promotion.
All right, let's talk about mycompensation package.
Speaker 1 (35:36):
So you're like the VP of something and there's like
dozens of other VPs.
You're like in the managementhierarchy Right and like you
have virtually no accountability.
You're never going to be likefired.
But you're also like not reallyproducing anything.
You just like make plans andsort of manage a few other
people and that's like most ofcorporations.
(35:58):
Sign me up, that sounds allright.
Speaker 2 (35:59):
Most of corporations sign me up.
That sounds all right.
Most of corporations.
Speaker 1 (36:02):
Most of corporations are just these sort of people
who are just like yeah, I thinkthat's true.
Most of corporations are people,uh-huh, yeah, oh, oh, I see
yeah, and so they think I'moperating inside of a free
market sort of free society,yeah, but the reality is they're
just in foffed.
They just have this little,this little plot of like
(36:23):
corporate, neo-feudal sort ofmoney that comes to them every
month, just like a japanese, oryou know japanese rios.
They'd get a hundred rios wouldcome every year to them, which
is like a rios as much rice asan acre of land can produce I
mean everybody.
Speaker 2 (36:38):
You know how much rice that is.
Speaker 1 (36:39):
But yeah, so 200 Rio was pretty good.
A 200 Rio in Faufman was, likeyou know.
That was, like you know, like500,000 bucks a year.
Speaker 2 (36:47):
That was great, Unless you don't like rice.
And then you're stuck with allthis.
Speaker 1 (36:50):
Well you could sell the rice for whatever you want.
The point was rice was liketheir sort of you know commodity
for everything.
Speaker 2 (36:55):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (36:56):
Okay, oh.
Speaker 2 (36:59):
I thought just the richer people had to eat more
rice.
Speaker 1 (37:01):
No, they just used Rio as a sort of Rio was like a
big denomination of money,almost you could say like how
many Rio is this?
Speaker 2 (37:07):
And then Next thing you're going to tell me they
used something like cigarettesas money inside of prisons.
That's crazy.
They did.
Speaker 1 (37:14):
I think they probably still do.
They use cigarettes and whiskeyand bottles of whiskey as money
in East Berlin during thecommunist times, because they
didn't have enough money, sothey used other things.
But anyways so what I'm sayingis people think, well, I own a
home and I have a stock, I havemy stock stuff and I have my
(37:36):
little corporate job that I havealmost no accountability for
and I produce almost nothingLike altogether.
Sure, the economy is productive, but most of that production is
being done by like frontlineworkers.
You know who are like on thefactory floor, on the farm
driving the tractor, likepicking the berries.
You know Like those are thepeople actually like producing
(37:58):
most of the actual work thatactually gets done.
But the whole likesuperstructure of a lot of
people in america are like thesesort of you know middle class
kind of corporate workers thatlike, what are they really doing
?
they really just have like aninvolvement and and some people
have a teeny involvement, likethey just get their 401k and
(38:19):
they can't own their home butthey have a 401k.
They have like a teenyinvolvement but then if you have
like a big involvement, youhave like your home and your
401k and you have stock in yourcompany and you know you're sort
of rich.
That's like a biggerinvolvement.
I think people should be like.
I think that's the reason why Ithink a lot of people look
(38:40):
around and like we have a freesociety.
And I'm like and it's like no,not really.
Like a free society would notjust be, there aren't any
bullshit jobs.
There's nothing wrong reallywith bullshit jobs like that.
But the point is just we'vebuilt a society that is like
careening towards greater andgreater feudalism.
That is like careening towardsgreater and greater feudalism.
(39:02):
You know, concentration of landownership, concentration of
wealth, concentration of stockownership, concentration of
everything is going into fewerand fewer people's hands.
And everybody know, everybodyknows that this is not something
new to say, but I think what'snew is to fight back against the
discourse whenever people wantto devolve the discourse into
socialism or or capitalism yeahinstead we can fight them and
(39:24):
say look, those are just liketwo, two, two shades of.
Like you know, this is just twoshades of colors, but actually
what we really care about, theactual thing that matters is are
we moving towards greaterfeudalism or greater
anti-feudalism?
Right, it's kind of what thispodcast's ideas actually are all
about, I think.
Okay, pretty much every singleidea has to do with either
(39:47):
improving health or reducingfeudalism like going against
feudal moving against the graintoward uh, toward a hopefully
better future.
Yeah, more free, yeah, more freeless hierarchical.
Not that all hierarchies arebad.
I think hierarchies areeffective, you know, in certain
ways.
But you have to enter into themvery knowingly and just be
aware that that's a way forfeudalistic tendencies to start
(40:10):
to really adhere and start toreally grow in like highly
hierarchical stuff.
You have to be like is this forthe good or is this just kind
of like enforcing the power ofthe most powerful people?
Speaker 2 (40:26):
See, this is weird because I was going to suggest
we start moving to a systemevery episode where we draw from
a hat and see which one is thepodcast lord and which one is
the podcast surf, and then wefollow that role for the, you
know, for the recording of theshow we'll.
We have a chance to go the nexttime but, let's do it we need a
totalitarian sort of grip onthe, on the conversation, I feel
(40:49):
right, yeah, you know.
Speaker 1 (40:50):
You know what this is called.
Until we have way too muchequality in this podcast.
Um, you know what else this iscalled?
I think this is kind of whatcar Popper called the open
society.
So he tried to say there's opensocieties and closed societies.
Okay, because he was trying toalso transcend this idea of
socialism and capitalism.
Speaker 2 (41:12):
The blues traveler.
He played that song, right,which one?
The harmonica song?
Give you the run around, Idon't know.
Never mind, I'm doing a bad,I'm doing a bad bit on the idea
that it's john popper instead ofcarl.
Speaker 1 (41:28):
Oh, john, I see, I didn't even know, john do you
know blues traveler?
I know the song, you know youknow, run around, but I don't
know that's a deep guy, no worseno, carl popper, the uh the,
the lutheran, the lutheranizedjew from austria who john popper
could be a lutheranized jew.
Speaker 2 (41:46):
I don't know.
I don't know his background.
It's definitely not the sameguy plays, I mean harmonica.
Speaker 1 (41:51):
What are you gonna do ?
I don't think carl popperplayed harmonica you don't know
this, you're just true.
I don't like guessing but hejust he strikes me as a
non-harmonica player.
What years was this guy active?
He, uh well, he fled the nazisin the 30s and fled to new
zealand, okay, and so then helived there for some long trips
(42:11):
from germany to new zealand.
Speaker 2 (42:13):
That's a long trip.
You gotta probably need aharmonica.
Speaker 1 (42:15):
But he wrote he wrote a book called the open society
and its enemies okay not a goodbook I read it multiple times
it's not good?
Speaker 2 (42:22):
why are you reading bad books multiple times?
Speaker 1 (42:25):
my phd is based on one footnote in the book, one
footnote in the big big book soI've, like in the bad book that
you've read, I didn't readmultiple times, but I've looked
at it so much I've they'velooked at it so much, I've read
it once through, and then I'velooked at it so much.
I've looked at it so much, I'veread it once through, and then
I've looked at it so many times.
So I feel like I read it morethan one time, but anyways, he
wrote this book, the OpenSociety of its Enemies.
(42:46):
It's not a book worth readingbecause I think his fundamental
theory is wrong or his thesis iswrong, which is that all of
Western civilization, all ofWestern philosophy, leads up to
fascism.
I, western philosophy leads upto fascism.
I don't think that's true.
And like he says, like Plato isa fascist and I'm like I don't
think Plato was a fascist.
I don't know what you'retalking about, but he does
(43:09):
create this idea of the opensociety versus a closed society,
which does exactly this.
It's kind of what I'm saying interms of feudal societies like
a closed society and anti-feudalsociety is like an open society
.
Feudal society is like a closedsociety and anti-feudal society
is like an open society.
So we could use thatterminology.
We could say like we need tocontinue to make society as open
as possible, meaning asanti-feudal as possible.
(43:39):
Free speech collaboration,cooperation, competition.
You know equal people beforethe law.
You know interacting with eachother with respect and civility.
But I don't know, it seems likethat word open.
It's almost like too new age ortoo dissociated from history to
talk about it that way.
I like anti-feudal betterbecause it says what it is.
Everyone knows feudalism islike the Lord on top, the serf
down below shit rolls downhill.
(44:00):
You know, totally unequal.
All the wealth flows up to thelords, all the crap flows down
to the.
You know it's almost like thelord of the money, python.
Uh.
Sketch where it's like well, Ididn't vote, I'm your king.
Well, I didn't vote for you.
You don't vote for a king.
Well then, how did you know I'mking?
Then you know.
Fantastic, that sketch is likethe perfect illustration of like
(44:22):
feudal versus anti-feudalmentality would you?
Speaker 2 (44:27):
would you go with the name antifu?
Antifu, because we've got, andwell, that sounds like antifa.
Speaker 1 (44:32):
Well, yeah, but what does that mean?
Well, that's a very negativebranding these anti-fascism.
Speaker 2 (44:38):
I know, so it should be anti anti-fu fu feudalism
anti-fu, anti-feud sounds likeyou're, yeah, anti-feud anti-fu
sounds like you're going throughchina with some sort of like.
Speaker 1 (44:52):
You're just against martial arts, that yeah, can can
trounce kung fu, guys right, orwhen it?
When it contacts kung fu, itexplodes like antimatter and
matter.
Speaker 2 (45:02):
Exactly.
Yes, that's how martial artswork, yeah.
If you can get the reversemartial art move.
You both explode.
Speaker 1 (45:08):
I guess the solution for this podcast is just Don't
be futile, everybody.
You don't Well, just that youdon't have to.
When you're facing thisManichaean distinction and
somebody's trying to force thedebate to be capitalism versus
feudalism, you can pull backfrom that and say these are not
(45:30):
the droids you're looking for.
I refuse to engage in thatdivision between ideas.
That division is ananti-pattern, it's a distinctive
division, but it's an unhelpfuldivision to achieve the actual
beneficent societal goals thatwe want to achieve.
(45:53):
If we want to achieve thosegoals, the dividing line that we
need to always draw is is thisidea, policy, ideology,
historical event, present day,current event?
Is it?
Either pro-feudalistic or is itanti-feudalistic?
And if it's anti-feudalisticit's good, and if it's
(46:14):
pro-feudalistic?
Speaker 2 (46:15):
it's bad.
Speaker 1 (46:17):
Or you have to be very careful with it, like if
you're going to kind of with it,like if you're going to kind of
, you know you're going to belike yeah, we're going to make
this more hierarchical make sureyou are going to end up on the
winning side just make sure it'sgoing to have beneficial
outcomes and not be ananti-pattern that leads to this
kind of slippery slope okay youknow, into inequality and not
just inequality.
I don't really care aboutinequality.
I care more about the loss ofdemocracy, the loss of freedom,
(46:40):
the law.
You know which too muchinequality will do.
You know.
So inequality in the extreme isbad for sure.
But you know a little bit.
Somebody can be rich, somebodycould be poor.
Some people just want to likelay around and just be fine and
eat pizza.
Other people want to like busttheir asses all the time and
like achieve a whole lot ofthings.
There's no, there's no realdifference there to me.
Some people can be from wealthyfamilies, some people can be
(47:02):
from poor families.
It's fine.
The danger is just if wealthyfamilies start buying all the
politicians and changing thevote, you know, changing the way
everything works so thatthere's not a kind of a fair
play.
So that's the solution fortoday.
Let's do it.
Speaker 2 (47:17):
Anti-feudalism everybody.
Anti-feudal everybody.
Speaker 1 (47:20):
Forget about for today.
Let's do it.
Let's take feudalism,anti-feudal, everybody.
Forget about socialism andcapitalism.
Who cares?
It doesn't matter.
Forget about them, just forgetthey're gone.
Speaker 2 (47:25):
Yeah, I don't even it's like do you want?
Speaker 1 (47:26):
to wear red overalls or blue overalls doesn't matter,
the point is overalls don't.
Speaker 2 (47:31):
I don't want to wear overalls.
Wait, I'll be naked, don't?
Speaker 1 (47:33):
be naked or whatever, whichever one you think is
anti-feudalism.
Speaker 2 (47:39):
Right on.
Well, thank you guys, I like it.
Speaker 1 (47:43):
And I'm probably going to put this one out with
very minimal editing because Iwas a late boy this week, so
we're going to get one out Verynice, all right, well, thank you
guys for tuning in.
Thanks everybody, send us inyour messages if you like this
episode, as long as they're notfeudal your messages, if you
like this episode, as long asthey're not feudal.
Speaker 2 (47:58):
We don't want any feudal messages.
Speaker 1 (47:59):
Yeah, we're not, unless you're pro-feudal and you
want to argue that then that'sinteresting.
But I'm kind of thinking veryfew people are pro-feudal.
It's a hug issue.
You're saying there's few ofthose dolls.
Okay, now I've run out of jokes, clearly.
Speaker 2 (48:14):
I've run out of jokes .
We should end those dolls allright, guys, all right.
Thank you everyone have a goodclimatey all right bye, thank
you.
how is it going, adam ?
It is going, it is going prettywell.
You're looking very trim, veryfit thank you, I'm trying.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
I'm trying to, yeah, be a trim, fit person.
I'm going to more jujitsuclasses, which is good, good and
so that over in my neighborhooduh-huh that'll.
But that also puts medangerously close to the
Mitchell's ice cream store,which is delicious ice cream,
kind of a balancing of the forceis sort of a dark side of the
(00:31):
force.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
Light side of the force, zoroastrian sort of.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Sometimes I'm going to get it mixed up and I'm going
to walk into the ice creamstore and start like wrestling
all the tubs of ice cream.
I'll be like what is happening.
I'm like my my wires arecrossed.
I don't know what's going on.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
I wear what?
Why do none of these?
Why do none of these ice creamtubs have official geese on?
Why?
Why aren't they wearing theproper?
Speaker 2 (00:54):
attire.
You think that's the problem.
Then I roll into jujitsu classand start licking everyone and
they really, they, really, theyreally don't like that one.
How are you?
I'm doing, okay, what I'm doinggreat actually.
(01:15):
You're doing great actually.
Well, I'm working on a bunch ofstuff that feels like it needs
to be justified.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
Well, we just started summer break.
I have basically 12 weeks off.
Speaker 2 (01:23):
Oh right, You're a teaching person.
Speaker 1 (01:24):
I'm a teacher.
So it is now vacation time I'mbasically just I get paid this
whole time okay, okay, I doalmost nothing.
All right, I have colleagueswho are working a little bit.
They are teaching like one ortwo classes.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
I just I'm only teaching one class, so I still
am working, but I'm just workingvery little so you're trying to
create a jealous pod where I'mjust jealous of you all, and
that's the energy I put into themicrophone.
Speaker 1 (01:49):
Yeah, being a teacher is really cool.
I actually don't even believein summer break Mini solution.
We should get rid of summerbreak, year-round school.
It's stupid.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
Yeah, year-round school.
I'm on board with that, ofcourse.
Speaker 1 (02:05):
I've been on that page.
I would say, maybe even keepthe same amount of time off, but
spread it all out so that it'syou know well, here's the secret
, like I found out when I went.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
I went to Japan, obviously.
Well, when I was in high schoolI went to Japan and then again
after college, but they haveyear round school there and I
was in the education system bothas a student and as a teacher.
Uh, it's great.
I am a big fan of it.
There's less learning loss.
Uh, less time spent re-teachingwhat was taught to catch up and
(02:34):
, like you were saying, if youyou stack up all the breaks in
between, there's actually moretime off.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
I think there was more yeah, oh my god.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Well, that's a lot because, yeah, it was just more
time off, but it was spread out,you know, two weeks here.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
One thing there, here's.
Here's a holiday, there's aholiday Month off.
You know, give them three weeksoff at Christmas.
And two weeks off here andthree weeks off there.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
Yeah, Maybe a month off in the summer.
Speaker 1 (02:51):
Give them June off or July off or whatever.
That's fine.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
Summers off are great if you are a parent who's also
a teacher.
But if kid has the summer offnow, you're like oh, whoa, whoa
right.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
What is what do people that's a whole another
for child care during the summer?
Speaker 2 (03:07):
it's weird I don't even know.
I mean I think people are justlatchkey kids, right, they're
just like left at home so I'm inthis right now because I have a
10 year old and so a lot of itis looking for after school
camps, uh, activity like daycamp, not after school like day
camps, or activity things thatbasically take the place of
school during the day for ashort whereas the government
could just provide school, andthen you wouldn't have to do any
(03:29):
of that yeah, but people wouldbe like, no, it's so horrible
now we have to go to schoolyear-round.
I'm like you're doing thatanyway, you're subsidizing it
yourself, right, but they couldeven.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
They could even make months of school like just
summer camp, right, they couldjust be like oh we're, we're in
our june term, where we justplay and have fun all day yeah,
that's fine, but just make itpart of school, like just make
it something that july isrobotics july and we're all
doing yeah, right, or you canchoose.
It's an elective thing and youcan either go do football camp
(03:59):
for the month or you can dorobotics camp for the month.
But it's school, it's publicschool and the government
provides it, and then now allall the kids get it for free and
you don't have to scramble, theparents don't have to like
scramble and assess where areyou gonna do, what are you gonna
do?
It's just all baked in as it is.
I can't believe we don't dothis.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
No I don't either, but as it is, it seems like
summer is created so that we canlike um, so that you know it's.
It's there as kind of like away to give back to teachers or
some in some random thing,because it's like everyone's
like oh, we know, teacher's jobis so hard and stuff, so at
least you get this break insteadof, like, fixing conditions and
(04:37):
or raising pay and or doing thethings that would make a hard
job, them a summer yeah, they'rejust like well, now you get a
summer, you just get a job, youget time off, which isn't
helpful, bad and also like it's.
I mean inside and out.
It's just not good.
I don't, yeah, like it from any.
And people get mad at teachersand they go.
You don't even work part of thetime.
They use that to justify thingsand then, yeah, it's just.
(05:00):
I don't see a lot of benefit inthe summer model anymore me
neither there you go, solutiondone.
Welcome to solutions, okay,mini solution done, we solved it
.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
We should definitely get rid of summer vacation.
Even if there is summer school,it should just be conducted as
school and students should allbe expected to go to it and they
can choose whatever activitythey want to do.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
We just lost all of our k through 12 listeners, by
the way no, I think they'd likeit because they can still do all
the things they do in summer,because it doesn't have to be
like studious academic but ifyou brought it up, the
positioning of it is you loseyour summer and you have to go
to school year-round.
You can't sell that.
It's a hard.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
That's a hard sell to kids, I mean well, kids don't
be get to be in charge.
That's true.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
That's why yeah, unfortunately no, I think that's
pretty fortunate.
Also, I think you'reunderestimating, right?
I?
Speaker 1 (05:51):
think a lot of kids like again, I think this is like
a privilege thing, right, likekids without privilege will
probably be like this is great,like low-key, this is awesome.
But then kids with withprivilege would be like no, when
I'm in summer it's just fun allday long because I'm rich.
You know like I'm, I haveenough money and support by my
net.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
You know my family to to kind of have a great summer
maybe, but I mean also thosericher kids usually get better
school experiences uh and theless fortunate kids often are in
schools where it's a strugglethe whole time to him.
Speaker 1 (06:23):
So right, right right yeah, I, I don't want to go
back to school, it's not a goodright right right place right
okay, I have a more serioussolution then okay, we'll do a
little more like a structuralsolution okay, so this is the
solution.
This is a solution that I thinkI someday may write a book
about this, and I'll tell youthe title of the book.
The title of the book would bethe F word ah the.
(06:46):
F word yeah, and it's not.
Speaker 2 (06:49):
It's not like the beautiful what you think the
beautiful F words up in Norwaythe giant F you go on a cruise
and look at the F words.
The F words are so beautiful.
No different F word.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
Different F word actually really so your mind
jumped directly to Norway.
So not exactly what I wouldthink people would jump to.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
No, oh, so here's this.
Speaker 1 (07:12):
I think of myself as pretty typical, so this is a
little bit of a theories fromthe multiverse, sort of ideas,
sort of solutions from themultiverse.
But the solution is like fixinga sort of problem in the realm
of ideas.
Okay, maybe because I'm gettinga PhD, my brain is all like
filled with ideas.
I've always struggled with theconflict, the kind of apparent
(07:33):
dichotomy or conflict betweencapitalism and socialism.
Right, that's the kind of twobuckets.
Everything can kind of bepainted with those broad brushes
.
Give everyone the stuff versustransaction Make everybody work
for the stuff, versus kind oftax and sort of even out
(07:53):
everything for everybody, right,okay.
So I've always thought thatthis was like a stupid
distinction, but I never reallycould put my finger on how to
clearly solve this problem ofthis dichotomy.
But I think I figured it outand so I'll propose it as a
solution today.
Okay, and it has to do with theF word, which the F word is
(08:15):
feudalism, that's okay, that'sthe F word.
Speaker 2 (08:18):
That would have probably been third.
My third guess, I will admityeah.
I had a couple others in frontof me.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
Okay, but yes, I'll tell you why it's called that.
But basically the solution is,instead of being pro-capitalism
or pro-socialism, oranti-capitalism or
anti-socialism, instead, I thinkwe can all come together,
mostly 99% of us at least maybenot the 1%, but 99% of us can
(08:47):
come together and agree that weare all anti-feudalism.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
Oh, okay.
I was running in my brain, justlooking at the hallmarks of
feudalism and I was wondering ifthis is where you were going.
Yeah, we don't want feudalism,we're anti-feudalism.
Yeah, that's the constant fearof random people on horseback
coming in with swords to get you, that's right, I don't want
that Game of Thrones, you know.
Speaker 1 (09:13):
Yes, we all want to not let Game of Thrones happen.
Right, we don't want Draconisor whatever the flames of the
dragons to come down on ourheads One day.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
just a lady with dragon shows up and then it's
for no reason.
Speaker 1 (09:26):
Bye-bye to the old ways.
We didn't do anything.
Yeah, we exactly.
The sept, the sept will bedestroyed, right.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
What do we do now?
Oh, whatever the lady with thedragon says okay, yeah, that
makes sense, right I've beenwatching this show, by the way,
the house of dragon.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
It's real good really good it's.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
Are you watching the first season or the first, the
second?
Season is coming out, june 16thso I just finished the first
season.
Yeah, I saw the first seasonback when it came out.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
It's pretty intense it's good it got slow start, but
then, man in the middle, itreally takes off and then it
just carries through all the waythrough to the end I feel like
that's how game of thrones was,too like it.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
They have to do a lot of set setting like table
setting.
You know they got to introduce,you, to introduce all the
people, who they are, theirrelationships with each other,
and then they can start likeknocking over dominoes I mean in
game of thrones, I felt likeyou were, though, intrigued with
every new character.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
With this one, you were like you kind of were
thrown into the middle, like thefirst scene is like a you know
a hall full of, like the maincharacters, and you're like, oh,
my god, at least in the game ofthrones, it's like here's sansa
, you know, like it just followsher for a little bit, and then
it's like here and you kind ofget sort of brought and then
they're in a room together andyou're like, oh, I kind of know
(10:41):
who these people are.
So, yeah, it definitely got alittle bit like throw you in the
deep end.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
But well, the first one.
They're like hey, here's abrother and sister.
You know how brothers andsisters act, not so fast no bet
you didn't know how thesebrothers and sisters act and
then in this one they're like.
How do you feel about likeuncles and nieces, right?
Speaker 1 (11:00):
becomes an uncle niece.
Incest gross, um, but dramatic,I mean, but gross, yeah, but
also realistic to things thatwould have happened.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
That's true potentially completely fake
fantasy times, but mimickingcastle times right castle time.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
So here's the thing we don't want to return to
castle times as much as this iswhat 99 of us can agree to right
yes, 99 of us can agree.
We don't want to turn to castletimes creepily.
I think one percent do want toreturn to castle time.
These are futile feudalists.
I mean we should call them.
(11:39):
Yeah, bro, I need to.
Yeah, yeah exactly that's whattech people say does your
product have a moat?
Speaker 2 (11:42):
Yeah, exactly that's what tech people say Does your?
Speaker 1 (11:44):
product, have a moat.
That's what they say.
They literally want to go backto feudalism.
It's terrible, but this is thething.
There's so much claims in themedia and everywhere and people
even just think oh, there's somany differences among people,
oh, we're all divided among eachother, the right wing, the left
wing, the blah, blah, blah, theblah, blah, blah, and it's like
(12:11):
really we're not.
We're all the former peasantsof feudalism.
We don't want to return tofeudalism, but there seems to be
this sort of historicalgravitational pull towards
feudalism, right, Tell me more.
Like if you dumped 100 people oror say, a thousand people on a
desert island, just naked, youjust dumped them on an island or
just whatever they were wearingsounds hot, just whatever they
were wearing, just dump them onan island we're going away from
(12:34):
the, you know.
Imagine like some guy would havelike a pocket knife in his
pocket and then he wouldinstantly become like way, way
more resourced than everyoneelse because he could like cut
down things and like make stuffand cut up fire and do right.
Or one guy had a lighter andinstantly he's infinitely more
(12:54):
resourced than everybody else,or he's sorry, he's, he's very
moderate, minorly resourced, buttwo weeks later he's like way
more resourced because he's hadfire for two weeks.
He's had, you know, the abilityto trade his fire for other
things for two weeks, and nowthat gave him other advantages
and more and more so.
So the guy with like you knowwho's fit and who has like a
(13:14):
lighter is like after two weeksis like thousands of times more
resourced than the person who'slike has a bad hip, who's like
70 years old and like doesn'thave any fire or knife or
anything.
They're completely strung outafter two weeks.
They're probably dead after twoweeks, right?
So so like well, inequalityjust seems to happen extremely
(13:36):
naturally so we're kind ofpulled towards feudalism I mean,
in that scenario, how much ofnatural human does like?
Speaker 2 (13:44):
how much are we discounting that like the
compassion of people who arelike not going to let a
70-year-old guy just die?
Speaker 1 (13:51):
Yeah, they may care for him.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Or the jealousy if they're like oh, one guy has a
knife, cool, I'm going toorganize three guys over here
and we're going to go take thatone knife for that one guy To
hit him in the head.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
If the fit guy with the knife, how?
What happens when he runs upagainst the giant dude with a
sure, the club sure there's allkinds of things, but that's that
is realism, right?
Well, yeah, that's true, thebiggest person with the biggest
sword takes what they want.
You hope that, that's theperson that you want, leading
right, the queen of dragons.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
Yeah, conan the barbarian, but I.
But I think my point is justwhat's called the Matthew effect
, which actually comes from theBible.
It's come from the Bible, butit's a psychological.
Speaker 2 (14:29):
I bet I know which book sociological term, which
one?
Speaker 1 (14:31):
Leviticus it comes.
It's a sociological phenomenonor whatever economic theory, but
it's called the Matthew effectbecause in Matthew Jesus says to
those who have little will betaken away, to those who have
much will be given more.
And so there's this principlethat if you have a teeny, teeny,
(14:53):
teeny, weensy advantage, overtime that will exponentially
become stronger.
So teeny, teeny, teeny, tinyadvantages actually become
massively huge advantages in thefuture.
And if you have teeny, teeny,teeny, tiny advantages actually
become massively huge advantagesin the future.
And if you have teeny, teenydisadvantages, they become like
deep, horrible disadvantagesover time.
(15:15):
So say, you have like a speechimpediment, but then throughout
your whole life, or when aspeech impediment doesn't matter
too much but say, yeah, youcan't speak very well, over time
you'll be put in the slowerclasses and people will kind of
maybe they'll shy away from youin social settings and you can't
build the relationships youneed.
And then you can't in the jobinterview, you're stuttering and
people don't want to hire.
You can't do all this work andthen you're way.
You make money way less.
Maybe you know other thingshappen.
So it has all these negativeeffects, that kind of cascade.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
Sure, I've seen, if you've ever seen those graphs,
that sometimes they put a graphout of like linear versus
exponential growth and they'relike here's what it looks like
if you just get 1% better everyday, you know, and it's like a.
It's a little thing that goesup a little at the beginning,
but then it just shoots up nearthe end and you're like, oh
right, yeah, that's.
And then you know, likewise thebeginning.
(16:03):
You're not going to notice thatbig a deal, but over time the
compounds.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
It's huge and so, yeah, so what's interesting?
So here's an interesting fact.
Here's an interesting fact theextremists of both left-wing and
right-wing claim that we areheaded towards neo-feudalism.
So this is what's called thehorseshoe effect, but in a way
it's a kind of positivehorseshoe effect.
(16:27):
So usually the horseshoe effectis considered negative.
The extreme right wing and theextreme left wing are both
totalitarians.
Right In this case it's actuallykind of a positive horseshoe
effect.
The extreme left wing is likehey, we're headed towards like a
corporate technologicalsurveillance, neo feudalism, and
the extreme right wing is likewe're headed towards also a
(16:51):
surveillance, corporalgovernment, kind of corporal
government big brother typetotalitarianism and they both
are like that's bad.
So in a way this is almost likea positive horseshoe, where both
the extremes are actuallypointed in the right direction,
away from feudalism, like wehave two sets of people, we have
(17:13):
two sets of police watching forcertain aspects of it, but
they're watching for oppositeaspects.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
But with both of those things guarded we have
like a better.
Speaker 1 (17:22):
Well, it's just.
It just points out that it'll,is it?
No, I just mean, isn't it weirdthat the extremes agree on that
?
Feudalism is bad and in a way,I think we should all agree with
that.
Feudalism is bad.
We shouldn't move back to aworld where 1% of people own
everything.
(17:42):
The government is really justprivate property owned by the
wealthy.
The law just works to preserveproperty owned by the wealthy.
The law just works to preservethis, this, the class of the
wait.
I'm sorry, wealthy, you'retrying to describe a situation
that we are not currently I knowexactly right, we're moving
very rapidly, that sounds verymuch like I know, I know but if
we could, so if we could setaside, I think, these, what are
(18:03):
called manichean, these sort offalse do?
Speaker 2 (18:06):
I know, yeah, yeah, yeah, between the state called
capitalism and socialism.
Oh, I thought you meant thefake people that wear the
clothes in the stores, themanichaeans yeah, yeah, yeah,
what?
Oh you sorry, you meanmannequins those ones who are
like look at my cotton pantsthose ones who are like look at
(18:30):
my cotton pants.
Speaker 1 (18:31):
Wait, you go to stores where the mannequins talk
to you and their heads are liketubes, like they're just like
tubes.
They're always like weirdlooking well we have to go
shopping.
Speaker 2 (18:36):
Where are you?
Speaker 1 (18:37):
going?
Have you noticed thatmannequins are like waif, like
thin.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
They're so thin they're basically stick figures.
I'm not checking out mannequins, no, actually I have noticed
the opposite.
I've noticed that they havemore like.
I've been seeing mannequinsthat seem like they have
realistic body types that I'mlike okay, some.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
Have you seen some badonkadonk mannequins?
I mean, I don't, I don't knowbadonkadonk, but I've definitely
seen people who are like thick.
Speaker 2 (19:01):
It gives you a better idea of like what's this what's
this shirt gonna look like on areal of like?
Oh well, the shirt looks greaton an amazing looking figure.
Of course, everything looksgreat on hot people.
Speaker 1 (19:10):
That's how that works .
I'm just pulling up the companyMuffin Top Mannequins here.
Yeah, they do have some prettyrealistic looking oh man.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
Look, that's an idea.
If that doesn't exist you'retelling me there aren't stores
that would be interested inmuffin top mannequins.
It is helpful.
Speaker 1 (19:26):
It is helpful well, now they're going to do all the
stuff where they just scan yourbody and then you just ai just
shows what the clothes look likeI put like a little.
You put a pair of sunglasses onin the store and you can see in
the mirror, like yourselfwearing whatever, or just look
at the mirror, and then themirror has a camera, and then oh
, perfect, and then what I cando is I can turn the dial on the
glasses and be like now I'mdefinitely going to lose 50
(19:47):
pounds, like next month.
So let's see what that wouldlook like and then you go.
Speaker 2 (19:53):
You're like oh, look at that.
Who is this little McSteamy boyin the in the mirror now?
Hello sir.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
Oh, McSteamy boy.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
That's my Grayson.
Speaker 1 (20:08):
That's my old Grayson out ofomy popping back in from
my brain.
Speaker 2 (20:11):
I like it, so wait, all right, so you drug me way
off feudalism, manichean,manichean, the Manichean.
Speaker 1 (20:14):
So Manichean dualities, false dualities, and
they're used to pit peopleagainst each other who don't
realize that they're actuallykind of being deceived, that
actually they share much more incommon with their opponents
than they think, and that'swhat's happening right now in
our society.
So the wealthy and the mediaare not intentionally, I think
they do it kind of accidentally,because it sort of sells
(20:35):
newspapers right, it kind ofdrives clicks and attention to
create sort of outrage and wedgeissues.
You're constantly looking forwedge issues like abortion or
like whatever, to drive peopleapart.
But really like the biggest,like what's the opposite of a
wedge issue, a hug issue, a hugissue, oh, the hug issue.
What we need is like big hugissues and I think the ultimate
(20:58):
hug issue is like feudalism isbad.
We should not return tofeudalism, and that's I thought
I just find that.
So capitalism and that's, Ijust find that.
So I find that it just warmsthe cockles of my heart, preston
.
Speaker 2 (21:13):
Pyshko, Just not going to feudalism.
Speaker 1 (21:14):
Jay Gouldenberg.
Well, just to realize that,like we don't need to fight
about capitalism and social.
Actually, this is theinteresting thing there are
elements of capitalism that leadto feudal relations,
hierarchical, you know,dominance and submission type
relationship.
If you work at a corporationand your boss can just tell you
any day to do like any task andyou have no say in that, that's
(21:39):
feudal, that's a feudal, that'senfaufment, enfaufment, right.
Where it means a thief to gaina thief, right, you're sort of
you're like a little serf andyou have your little patch of
dirt, that in Foffment rightwhen it means a thief to gain a
thief right.
You're sort of you're like alittle serf and you have your
little patch of dirt that youcan kind of do things in, but
you can be told to do differentthings at any moment.
Speaker 2 (21:55):
Yes, it's thief and serf Many words.
I use on a regular 2024 basis.
Exactly right.
Well, maybe we need to startdoing that.
Speaker 1 (22:02):
Talk about my fiefdom yes.
Yeah, start doing.
Talk about my fiefdom, yes,yeah, and like and like, so
futile.
So capitalism has these fief,like you know, futile
relationships built into it, butit also has very liberal you
know anti-feudal relationships,right, like you know, I can buy
whatever I want at the store,you know, and I can earn money
and you know I can use ithowever I want, basically right,
(22:24):
and so, in many ways, no one'ssupposed to be above the law, so
yeah and there's free speechand there's things like that,
which you can have in socialismtoo.
But just economically speaking,there's like thing I can start a
business, free entry into themarketplace, I can charge
whatever price I want for thegood that I want to sell, or
whatever.
So there's this kind of there'san anti-feudalism built into it
(22:46):
too, and the same thing withsocialism.
There's kind of a feudalisticside of socialism.
You know the if you have somecentral planning, the politique
bureau tells you you can orcan't do X, y and Z with your
property or whatever you know.
But there's also things thatare anti-feudalism, like if you
provide an efficient form ofsocial welfare that you know
protects the most vulnerablepeople from, from problems and
(23:09):
and that liberates them and letsthem, you know, live, have
housing, of health care, haveeducation.
Education is extremely, uh,liberating to the mind and to
the.
You know your political societyyeah, that didn't seem like a
big feudalism tenant waseducation yeah so like both of
them have like a dark side and alight side, like a feudal side
(23:31):
and a non-feudal side.
So what we want to do isactually kind of horseshoe the
debate around and leave all thefeudal stuff on one side and all
the anti-feudal stuff on theother and embrace both.
So embrace both the anti-feudalsides of capitalism and
socialism together and rejectall the feudal sides of
(23:53):
capitalism and socialism.
And if you try to engage withpeople in this way, they don't
get it.
They don't get it because theykeep every.
If you bring up one issue oranother, it's either kind of a
more socialist idea or a morecapitalist idea, and they brand
you as being that and it's likeno man.
I'm pulling from both sides.
(24:15):
Acdc here.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
Well, what will happen is both sides will grab
onto the piece of the other sidethat you're including, that
they hate and they'll hate youand they'll point, yeah, you'll
be taking arrows from both sides.
Speaker 1 (24:29):
Justin Donald Right, and this is why we need to
establish this hug issue whichis to say I just want to tell
the world now, so that peoplestop bothering me, calling me a
socialist or a capitalist, whichboth I'll be in a room and
people will think I'm a totalraging capitalist jerk because I
(24:49):
embrace, you know, free marketsand private property and you
know choice about things.
You show up in your suit andyour monocle and your top hat.
Yeah, and wealth.
There's nothing wrong withwealth as long as it doesn't
disrupt society too badly.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
Carry around your bags with money signs on them.
It's crazy.
Speaker 1 (25:03):
That's what I always do Monocle, you know but then in
other rooms or in even the sameroom, if I say something else
like yeah, we should absolutelyhave universal health care or
health insurance and we shouldabsolutely provide like
affordable housing to everyone.
Even if it means the governmentjust centrally planning and
building huge like tracks ofhousing, we should totally do
that and people just they justthink I'm some kind of raging
(25:27):
dyed-in-the-cloth red communist,psycho-socialist, and I'm like
you.
people are so caught up in thisManichean duality between
capitalism and socialism.
You're missing the biggerpicture, which is the hug issue.
Speaker 2 (25:42):
Yeah, the way to keep it together.
Speaker 1 (25:44):
We need to prevent feudalism from reemerging in
history, which it is like on ajust hell bent on doing that.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
You know who feels like the new, like hoper, like
the people crossing theirfingers hoping for feudalism to
come back.
It's not the sword people, now.
I feel like sword people arelike a niche.
Just you know people who watchthe Highlander are like a niche.
Just you know people who watchthe highland or tv show or
whatever you know like.
But I think the new guys arelike those super militia dudes,
the militia people who, like,are like I need to carry my
(26:17):
machine gun into subway becauseI have the law that I can.
And you're like, yeah, you can,but I mean, what are you, what
are you doing?
You know, like those guys.
I feel like those guys are thepeople who are more likely to be
like yeah, feudalism soundsgood, we have like how many
bullets?
Okay, good, let's go, let's go.
Like they're itching for somesort of a, uh, a weird, a weird
tussle.
Speaker 1 (26:38):
I feel they are, well they're.
I mean they, they're using theboil the frog method, right that
?
They're just you know chiselingaway little by little every day
.
Speaker 2 (26:52):
No.
Speaker 1 (26:52):
What?
The feudalists?
Yeah, the kind of the 1% andstuff they would never be like.
Okay, everybody, you know,overnight boom Line up, we're
taking everything Right, youknow.
But they're like oh, we, youknow, BlackRock went around and
bought 500,000 private singlefamily homes over the last six
(27:13):
years.
Do you think, Like, what areyou guys doing?
That's crazy.
Speaker 2 (27:20):
Do you think that it's like an intentional thing
that's being that's happeningwhere people are like this is
what we're trying to do thingthat's happening where people
are like this is what we'retrying to do?
Or do you think it's like thiscreep toward feudalism that
you're seeing is more of anatural out?
Speaker 1 (27:33):
I think it just happens like a gravitational
pull in history Because, justlike the dumping, a thousand
people on an island and there'ssome people have advantages and
they just naturally use thoseadvantages and in a way, it's
not even their fault.
They should use theiradvantages.
The problem is when, at asystemic level, you can look at
it and say this is causingunnecessary suffering, this is
(27:56):
going to lead to a bad.
It's what in softwareengineering.
We call it an anti-pattern, andthat's where you follow what
seems to be the right thing todo, but you know that at the end
of the day it's actually goingto cause negative outcomes.
And so in software engineering,you identify anti-patterns
early on and then you avoid them.
And that's what we need to do insociety.
We need to identifyanti-patterns early on.
(28:18):
Say, this leads to really badoutcomes, so we're just going to
you know what's the German wordis?
We're going to have an Abbrucht.
But in English the word is likewe're going to interrupt.
We're going to interrupt thatanti-pattern early on and
prevent it, even though it seemsto be like a good thing.
It's an anti-pattern, yeah,okay.
Speaker 2 (28:41):
I'm for it.
Speaker 1 (28:41):
So like people will always criticize me because I
have, because I'm living in thisanti-feudal, anti-feudal, I
have a pure, undilutedanti-feudal ideology and people
think that I'm somehowstraddling.
Speaker 2 (28:56):
You walk in saying that those are your first words.
You go hello.
Speaker 1 (28:59):
I'm.
Speaker 2 (29:00):
Adam.
I have a pure, unadulteratedanti-feudal philosophy.
Speaker 1 (29:04):
And so people think I'm like Everyone listen, listen
what.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
No, adulterated anti-feudal philosophy.
So people, everyone, listen,listen what?
No, they think I'm a jerk.
Now let's see what happened.
How did this guy?
What's going?
Speaker 1 (29:11):
on.
But people think I'm what?
People think I'm a jerk becausethey think I'm one or the other
, and then, and if somebodyfigures it out, they think I'm
straddling, they think I'msomehow like I have one, I have
one leg like way over on oneside and I have one foot way
over on the other side and it'slike you can't do that and I'm
like no man.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
That's a perfect position to get kicked in the
nuts.
Speaker 1 (29:31):
I know I'm going to get Rochambeau, but what I'm
trying to say is actually I'm,my feet are right next to each
other, I'm on the side of theline.
That is like you can divide itone way or the other way.
Right, and you can eitherdivide it socialism, capitalism,
or you can divide it feudalism,non-feudalism, anti-feudalism.
The problem is there's no greatword for anti-feudalism, except
(29:52):
maybe like, like liberal, butliberals been loaded up with all
these different meanings.
Speaker 2 (29:57):
it's already so you can't use it opted.
Speaker 1 (29:59):
Yeah, so I just say anti-feudal, because that's like
you can't fuck that up.
I mean you can't.
How do you, how do you somehowpollute what I mean?
It's so obvious anti-feudal.
You're trying to fight, youknow, uh, hierarchies and stuff,
destruction of people's freedom, you know, destruct.
Basically, you're trying toprevent serfdom for the lowest
(30:20):
rung of the ladder.
The thing that people don'tunderstand, though, is in
faughment.
I think in faughment deserves aa broader description and
discussion.
What's in, what's in thought,what do you think in fafment?
Speaker 2 (30:33):
what do I think in fafment, or what do I definitely
know in faf?
Speaker 1 (30:37):
what do you?
Speaker 2 (30:37):
definitely know it is .
I mean, it sounds honestly.
It sounds like this that youknow how, if you like, squish a
marshmallow down and it popsback up, but if you do it too
much it just stays squished down.
That feels like the marshmallowhas entered its state of
involvement Influence.
Speaker 1 (30:55):
Totally smushed down?
Yeah, totally, it doesn't.
Speaker 2 (30:58):
We've wrecked the marshmallow elasticity.
How close did I get?
That's close.
Speaker 1 (31:03):
Yes, I feel like involvement has to do with like
a hair move.
Speaker 2 (31:09):
Oh, I could sign on that.
Speaker 1 (31:12):
And the head stylist comes over and is like I will
now demonstrate enfauffment, andthey like poof, and then
everyone's like whoa.
And it's like whoa.
Oh yes, the 1967 enfauffmenttechnique of hair Enfoffment is
an awesome word, I think,because maybe I'm just weird,
(31:33):
but it's a great word.
But it comes from the word fief, a fief like a fiefdom.
Speaker 2 (31:37):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (31:38):
So a king who awards a fief to a lord is called
enfoffment.
So the king enfoffed the lord.
Speaker 2 (31:46):
So the awarding of the thing to the person is the
enfauffment.
Speaker 1 (31:51):
Yes, so you could say like he was enfauffed in 1496,
meaning the king or some lordgreater, greater lord than him
gave him.
It happens all the time andlike I noticed it a lot in
samurai books and movies they'relike.
And then he was awarded, uh, a,you know a 200 rio.
Yes, uh, you know land that'scalled in fafment.
(32:12):
So he was in faft.
And then it happened in europeall the time too, during
european feudalism people wouldgive in.
Speaker 2 (32:18):
You know, roman or greek soldiers would come back
and then be so that that wasn'texactly in fafment because it
wasn't feudalism but it wasfeudal.
It was kind of feudal it waskind of feudal.
Speaker 1 (32:31):
I mean, yeah, so that was in some way that was sort
of I would call that likecolonialism or like conquer
Roman, conquering Right A littledifferent, but the same it is a
feudal.
You're right.
See, that's the thing we needto start seeing things as feudal
, not feudal rather thancapitalist or socialist.
And you're exactly right theRomans coming back from war and
(32:52):
giving the land to the citizensand the citizens taking that
land and giving it away tovarious people.
Speaker 2 (32:57):
Not feudal Is feudal.
Speaker 1 (32:59):
Is feudal Right because it's conquer and then
power and no choice, and it'shierarchical choice and it's
hierarchical and domination andsubmission rather than trade and
equal kind of collaboration,cooperation.
Speaker 2 (33:11):
I have a name for anti-feudalism.
Speaker 1 (33:15):
Let's hear it LaDoof, ladoof, ladoof, ladoof yeah.
Speaker 2 (33:22):
How do you feel about ?
Speaker 1 (33:23):
LaDoof Dude.
Speaker 2 (33:26):
I think it's.
It's just feudal backwards.
It's the word feudal backwards,ladoof.
Speaker 1 (33:32):
L-A-D-U-E-F.
Ladoof let's bring it on,because we can have Shia LaDoof
be the Perfect Sh.
Speaker 2 (33:39):
Let's bring it on because we can have shia la duf
be the perfect shia, shia la dufcan be the the spokesperson oh,
now that does sound like asaturday night live character
where it's like, he's just likea doofy version of even more
doofy version of shia la bo.
Like shia la bo because I waslike hi, the guy shia la duf
comes over hi hi, I, hi Hi, I'mShiloh Doof.
(33:59):
That could sustain moderatelaughter for two and a half
minutes.
Speaker 1 (34:03):
That's a perfect SNL.
That's all SNL needs.
There you go.
There's so much funnier stuffon TikTok and Instagram now, oh
my God and YouTube I just dielaughing.
And then I watch SNL and I'mlike, ugh, kind of broad,
they're kind of broad, they'redoing it live.
Adam, they have to do it live.
Speaker 2 (34:22):
so are the tiktok people.
Yes, it is well.
They can practice 42 takes ofit until they get the right one.
Speaker 1 (34:25):
But yeah, that's true , snl can practice, but yeah,
then they do it.
Speaker 2 (34:28):
Live the people are undefeated, right?
I mean, just if you're goingagainst the mass of the audience
.
Speaker 1 (34:34):
There are so many funny people in the world that
can nail a perfect, a perfectjoke right out of nowhere.
Speaker 2 (34:40):
It's hard to beat the mass.
Speaker 1 (34:42):
Preston Pyshko.
Yeah, so wait in Foffment.
I have to go back to inFoffment, or no?
Go ahead there you go Questionor something.
Trey Lockerbie no, in Foffment.
Preston Pyshko yeah, so inFoffment.
So I think one thing thatpeople don't realize is they
think they're in a anti-feudalenvironment but they actually
are just in FOFT, and that, Ithink, confuses people a lot and
(35:03):
they think well, I'm a liberal,I believe in freedom, because
here's my shape of my life.
But actually the shape of theirlife is just a kind of
neo-feudal enforcement.
So, for example, you know youwork for a major corporation and
(35:26):
you're like a VP of something.
Speaker 2 (35:29):
Whoa nice.
Yeah, I just got a promotion.
This is great Big promotion.
All right, let's talk about mycompensation package.
Speaker 1 (35:36):
So you're like the VP of something and there's like
dozens of other VPs.
You're like in the managementhierarchy Right and like you
have virtually no accountability.
You're never going to be likefired.
But you're also like not reallyproducing anything.
You just like make plans andsort of manage a few other
people and that's like most ofcorporations.
(35:58):
Sign me up, that sounds allright.
Speaker 2 (35:59):
Most of corporations sign me up.
That sounds all right.
Most of corporations.
Speaker 1 (36:02):
Most of corporations are just these sort of people
who are just like yeah, I thinkthat's true.
Most of corporations are people,uh-huh, yeah, oh, oh, I see
yeah, and so they think I'moperating inside of a free
market sort of free society,yeah, but the reality is they're
just in foffed.
They just have this little,this little plot of like
(36:23):
corporate, neo-feudal sort ofmoney that comes to them every
month, just like a japanese, oryou know japanese rios.
They'd get a hundred rios wouldcome every year to them, which
is like a rios as much rice asan acre of land can produce I
mean everybody.
Speaker 2 (36:38):
You know how much rice that is.
Speaker 1 (36:39):
But yeah, so 200 Rio was pretty good.
A 200 Rio in Faufman was, likeyou know.
That was, like you know, like500,000 bucks a year.
Speaker 2 (36:47):
That was great, Unless you don't like rice.
And then you're stuck with allthis.
Speaker 1 (36:50):
Well you could sell the rice for whatever you want.
The point was rice was liketheir sort of you know commodity
for everything.
Speaker 2 (36:55):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (36:56):
Okay, oh.
Speaker 2 (36:59):
I thought just the richer people had to eat more
rice.
Speaker 1 (37:01):
No, they just used Rio as a sort of Rio was like a
big denomination of money,almost you could say like how
many Rio is this?
Speaker 2 (37:07):
And then Next thing you're going to tell me they
used something like cigarettesas money inside of prisons.
That's crazy.
They did.
Speaker 1 (37:14):
I think they probably still do.
They use cigarettes and whiskeyand bottles of whiskey as money
in East Berlin during thecommunist times, because they
didn't have enough money, sothey used other things.
But anyways so what I'm sayingis people think, well, I own a
home and I have a stock, I havemy stock stuff and I have my
(37:36):
little corporate job that I havealmost no accountability for
and I produce almost nothingLike altogether.
Sure, the economy is productive, but most of that production is
being done by like frontlineworkers.
You know who are like on thefactory floor, on the farm
driving the tractor, likepicking the berries.
You know Like those are thepeople actually like producing
(37:58):
most of the actual work thatactually gets done.
But the whole likesuperstructure of a lot of
people in america are like thesesort of you know middle class
kind of corporate workers thatlike, what are they really doing
?
they really just have like aninvolvement and and some people
have a teeny involvement, likethey just get their 401k and
(38:19):
they can't own their home butthey have a 401k.
They have like a teenyinvolvement but then if you have
like a big involvement, youhave like your home and your
401k and you have stock in yourcompany and you know you're sort
of rich.
That's like a biggerinvolvement.
I think people should be like.
I think that's the reason why Ithink a lot of people look
(38:40):
around and like we have a freesociety.
And I'm like and it's like no,not really.
Like a free society would notjust be, there aren't any
bullshit jobs.
There's nothing wrong reallywith bullshit jobs like that.
But the point is just we'vebuilt a society that is like
careening towards greater andgreater feudalism.
That is like careening towardsgreater and greater feudalism.
(39:02):
You know, concentration of landownership, concentration of
wealth, concentration of stockownership, concentration of
everything is going into fewerand fewer people's hands.
And everybody know, everybodyknows that this is not something
new to say, but I think what'snew is to fight back against the
discourse whenever people wantto devolve the discourse into
socialism or or capitalism yeahinstead we can fight them and
(39:24):
say look, those are just liketwo, two, two shades of.
Like you know, this is just twoshades of colors, but actually
what we really care about, theactual thing that matters is are
we moving towards greaterfeudalism or greater
anti-feudalism?
Right, it's kind of what thispodcast's ideas actually are all
about, I think.
Okay, pretty much every singleidea has to do with either
(39:47):
improving health or reducingfeudalism like going against
feudal moving against the graintoward uh, toward a hopefully
better future.
Yeah, more free, yeah, more freeless hierarchical.
Not that all hierarchies arebad.
I think hierarchies areeffective, you know, in certain
ways.
But you have to enter into themvery knowingly and just be
aware that that's a way forfeudalistic tendencies to start
(40:10):
to really adhere and start toreally grow in like highly
hierarchical stuff.
You have to be like is this forthe good or is this just kind
of like enforcing the power ofthe most powerful people?
Speaker 2 (40:26):
See, this is weird because I was going to suggest
we start moving to a systemevery episode where we draw from
a hat and see which one is thepodcast lord and which one is
the podcast surf, and then wefollow that role for the, you
know, for the recording of theshow we'll.
We have a chance to go the nexttime but, let's do it we need a
totalitarian sort of grip onthe, on the conversation, I feel
(40:49):
right, yeah, you know.
Speaker 1 (40:50):
You know what this is called.
Until we have way too muchequality in this podcast.
Um, you know what else this iscalled?
I think this is kind of whatcar Popper called the open
society.
So he tried to say there's opensocieties and closed societies.
Okay, because he was trying toalso transcend this idea of
socialism and capitalism.
Speaker 2 (41:12):
The blues traveler.
He played that song, right,which one?
The harmonica song?
Give you the run around, Idon't know.
Never mind, I'm doing a bad,I'm doing a bad bit on the idea
that it's john popper instead ofcarl.
Speaker 1 (41:28):
Oh, john, I see, I didn't even know, john do you
know blues traveler?
I know the song, you know youknow, run around, but I don't
know that's a deep guy, no worseno, carl popper, the uh the,
the lutheran, the lutheranizedjew from austria who john popper
could be a lutheranized jew.
Speaker 2 (41:46):
I don't know.
I don't know his background.
It's definitely not the sameguy plays, I mean harmonica.
Speaker 1 (41:51):
What are you gonna do ?
I don't think carl popperplayed harmonica you don't know
this, you're just true.
I don't like guessing but hejust he strikes me as a
non-harmonica player.
What years was this guy active?
He, uh well, he fled the nazisin the 30s and fled to new
zealand, okay, and so then helived there for some long trips
(42:11):
from germany to new zealand.
Speaker 2 (42:13):
That's a long trip.
You gotta probably need aharmonica.
Speaker 1 (42:15):
But he wrote he wrote a book called the open society
and its enemies okay not a goodbook I read it multiple times
it's not good?
Speaker 2 (42:22):
why are you reading bad books multiple times?
Speaker 1 (42:25):
my phd is based on one footnote in the book, one
footnote in the big big book soI've, like in the bad book that
you've read, I didn't readmultiple times, but I've looked
at it so much I've they'velooked at it so much, I've read
it once through, and then I'velooked at it so much.
I've looked at it so much, I'veread it once through, and then
I've looked at it so many times.
So I feel like I read it morethan one time, but anyways, he
wrote this book, the OpenSociety of its Enemies.
(42:46):
It's not a book worth readingbecause I think his fundamental
theory is wrong or his thesis iswrong, which is that all of
Western civilization, all ofWestern philosophy, leads up to
fascism.
I, western philosophy leads upto fascism.
I don't think that's true.
And like he says, like Plato isa fascist and I'm like I don't
think Plato was a fascist.
I don't know what you'retalking about, but he does
(43:09):
create this idea of the opensociety versus a closed society,
which does exactly this.
It's kind of what I'm saying interms of feudal societies like
a closed society and anti-feudalsociety is like an open society
.
Feudal society is like a closedsociety and anti-feudal society
is like an open society.
So we could use thatterminology.
We could say like we need tocontinue to make society as open
as possible, meaning asanti-feudal as possible.
(43:39):
Free speech collaboration,cooperation, competition.
You know equal people beforethe law.
You know interacting with eachother with respect and civility.
But I don't know, it seems likethat word open.
It's almost like too new age ortoo dissociated from history to
talk about it that way.
I like anti-feudal betterbecause it says what it is.
Everyone knows feudalism islike the Lord on top, the serf
down below shit rolls downhill.
(44:00):
You know, totally unequal.
All the wealth flows up to thelords, all the crap flows down
to the.
You know it's almost like thelord of the money, python.
Uh.
Sketch where it's like well, Ididn't vote, I'm your king.
Well, I didn't vote for you.
You don't vote for a king.
Well then, how did you know I'mking?
Then you know.
Fantastic, that sketch is likethe perfect illustration of like
(44:22):
feudal versus anti-feudalmentality would you?
Speaker 2 (44:27):
would you go with the name antifu?
Antifu, because we've got, andwell, that sounds like antifa.
Speaker 1 (44:32):
Well, yeah, but what does that mean?
Well, that's a very negativebranding these anti-fascism.
Speaker 2 (44:38):
I know, so it should be anti anti-fu fu feudalism
anti-fu, anti-feud sounds likeyou're, yeah, anti-feud anti-fu
sounds like you're going throughchina with some sort of like.
Speaker 1 (44:52):
You're just against martial arts, that yeah, can can
trounce kung fu, guys right, orwhen it?
When it contacts kung fu, itexplodes like antimatter and
matter.
Speaker 2 (45:02):
Exactly.
Yes, that's how martial artswork, yeah.
If you can get the reversemartial art move.
You both explode.
Speaker 1 (45:08):
I guess the solution for this podcast is just Don't
be futile, everybody.
You don't Well, just that youdon't have to.
When you're facing thisManichaean distinction and
somebody's trying to force thedebate to be capitalism versus
feudalism, you can pull backfrom that and say these are not
(45:30):
the droids you're looking for.
I refuse to engage in thatdivision between ideas.
That division is ananti-pattern, it's a distinctive
division, but it's an unhelpfuldivision to achieve the actual
beneficent societal goals thatwe want to achieve.
(45:53):
If we want to achieve thosegoals, the dividing line that we
need to always draw is is thisidea, policy, ideology,
historical event, present day,current event?
Is it?
Either pro-feudalistic or is itanti-feudalistic?
And if it's anti-feudalisticit's good, and if it's
(46:14):
pro-feudalistic?
Speaker 2 (46:15):
it's bad.
Speaker 1 (46:17):
Or you have to be very careful with it, like if
you're going to kind of with it,like if you're going to kind of
, you know you're going to belike yeah, we're going to make
this more hierarchical make sureyou are going to end up on the
winning side just make sure it'sgoing to have beneficial
outcomes and not be ananti-pattern that leads to this
kind of slippery slope okay youknow, into inequality and not
just inequality.
I don't really care aboutinequality.
I care more about the loss ofdemocracy, the loss of freedom,
(46:40):
the law.
You know which too muchinequality will do.
You know.
So inequality in the extreme isbad for sure.
But you know a little bit.
Somebody can be rich, somebodycould be poor.
Some people just want to likelay around and just be fine and
eat pizza.
Other people want to like busttheir asses all the time and
like achieve a whole lot ofthings.
There's no, there's no realdifference there to me.
Some people can be from wealthyfamilies, some people can be
(47:02):
from poor families.
It's fine.
The danger is just if wealthyfamilies start buying all the
politicians and changing thevote, you know, changing the way
everything works so thatthere's not a kind of a fair
play.
So that's the solution fortoday.
Let's do it.
Speaker 2 (47:17):
Anti-feudalism everybody.
Anti-feudal everybody.
Speaker 1 (47:20):
Forget about for today.
Let's do it.
Let's take feudalism,anti-feudal, everybody.
Forget about socialism andcapitalism.
Who cares?
It doesn't matter.
Forget about them, just forgetthey're gone.
Speaker 2 (47:25):
Yeah, I don't even it's like do you want?
Speaker 1 (47:26):
to wear red overalls or blue overalls doesn't matter,
the point is overalls don't.
Speaker 2 (47:31):
I don't want to wear overalls.
Wait, I'll be naked, don't?
Speaker 1 (47:33):
be naked or whatever, whichever one you think is
anti-feudalism.
Speaker 2 (47:39):
Right on.
Well, thank you guys, I like it.
Speaker 1 (47:43):
And I'm probably going to put this one out with
very minimal editing because Iwas a late boy this week, so
we're going to get one out Verynice, all right, well, thank you
guys for tuning in.
Thanks everybody, send us inyour messages if you like this
episode, as long as they're notfeudal your messages, if you
like this episode, as long asthey're not feudal.
Speaker 2 (47:58):
We don't want any feudal messages.
Speaker 1 (47:59):
Yeah, we're not, unless you're pro-feudal and you
want to argue that then that'sinteresting.
But I'm kind of thinking veryfew people are pro-feudal.
It's a hug issue.
You're saying there's few ofthose dolls.
Okay, now I've run out of jokes, clearly.
Speaker 2 (48:14):
I've run out of jokes .
We should end those dolls allright, guys, all right.
Thank you everyone have a goodclimatey all right bye, thank
you.
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
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