September 11, 2024 • 62 mins
Could the principles of a century-old peace plan hold the key to understanding today's political landscape? In this fascinating episode, we draw unexpected parallels between Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points and the modern conservative agenda of Project 2025. Join Matt and John as they dissect the historical framework of Wilson's ideals, crafted in the wake of World War I, and compare it to the initiatives promoted by the Heritage Foundation today. We unravel the academic aspirations and idealistic nuances of Wilson's vision, while casting a critical eye on the contemporary echoes and deviations found in Project 2025.
We take you through an in-depth analysis of Wilson's 14 Points, emphasizing key themes such as self-determination, open diplomacy, and free trade. You'll gain insights into the creation of new nations from the ashes of collapsing empires and the complex path to implementing peaceful ideals amidst post-war turmoil. Reflecting on the partial integration of Wilson's points into the Treaty of Versailles and the contentious reparations imposed on Germany, this episode sheds light on how historical aspirations for peace were met with mixed reactions and outcomes.
To lighten things up, we shift gears with a humorous critique of AI-generated advice for podcasting, inspired by Wilson's 14 Points. From drafting our own ideal list to presenting AI-generated tips in rhymes, we conclude with seven whimsical ideas for a better world, from universal love to abolishing time zones. Finally, we discuss the critical role of public relations in promoting both historical and contemporary political plans, questioning whether Project 2025 can achieve its goals through better presentation. Tune in for an episode that's both thought-provoking and entertaining!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
all right, welcome to another episode of the nailing
history podcast.
Hey guys welcome back.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Are you nervous?
You're here with your hosts,matt and john.
You nervous coming live?
No, I feel great.
I didn't.
I was, I was.
I was blown away.
That was the first time we everuh played the intro and I could
hear it.
Oh, really, yeah.
Um, for our fans who know thatwhen we're not in studio I don't
(00:48):
know if our fans know this, butwhen Matt plays the audio clips
, like our intro or drums likethat, I can't always hear it, so
I only hear it when you guysare hearing it, kind of thing.
But for whatever reason, mattmessed with the settings and now
I can hear all the soundeffects too, so that's really
cool.
So I was flabbergasted to hear.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
It's pretty cool I didn't know that I didn't do
anything yeah, it's alwayssomething new.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
Every week there's a little new technical either
glitch or uh discovery but Ithink this is a good one.
So, but, matt, have you been?
How's your uh past week or twobeen?
Speaker 1 (01:28):
I'm good.
How are you?
Speaker 2 (01:30):
I'm quite good.
How was your week it was?
It was good.
Uh, it was just kind ofprepping for for today's
discussion, a little bit tryingto get ready for it.
Trying, I was scratching myhead as to why you trying to
figure out why you wanted totalk about this, of all things.
I was really curious to knowhow it came up in the
(01:50):
conversation.
Were you talking to anyoneabout this?
I was interested to know alittle more.
Speaker 1 (01:59):
So today we're going to talk about, we're trying to
think of some things that thinkof some things that we wanted to
go over.
We always try to link certainthings to current events that
are going on in our world, sowe're always trying to link the
(02:20):
two together.
The two together and, um, youknow, I was thinking I was
listening to, I was on the, Iwas listening to regular radio
on my way into work a coupledays ago and, um, there was some
political ad and they weretalking about, um, this project
2025 that everyone's been allhave their panties in a bunch
(02:43):
over.
And then I also had listened to.
I was watching a YouTube videoabout how each president died,
which was pretty boring.
It was animated, though, andmost of them were heart disease,
a couple strokes here and there, a couple assassinations that
we covered, but the one thingthat they brought up about
(03:06):
President Woodrow Wilson wasthat his it wasn't really
related to his death, but thathis presidency was most known
for his 14 points, which were 14things that he wanted to have
done as part of the treaty afterworld war one, and I was
(03:30):
thinking like a list of 14things.
Then it got me thinking aboutthis project 2025 and it's kind
of like that.
I don't think they're very,very related, but it is like a
list of something and I don'tknow like kind of like how they
want things to go.
And so I was like, oh, that's,that's something.
Know like kind of like how theywant things to go, and so I was
like, oh, that's, that'ssomething that we could kind of
loosely tie in, yeah.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
I well, it's certainly uh.
I mean, my understanding of the14 points, to be honest, didn't
really go much beyond what wewould have learned in history
class in high school.
I haven't really ever read toomuch about World War I and the
particulars of the 14 points.
I certainly know that WoodrowWilson was one of the more
(04:12):
idealistic presidents we've everhad.
He was also an academic beforehe came into office.
It definitely seemed to shinethrough when he came up with
these 14 points, kind of got himand his cronies together
Hundreds of academics, it doesseem kind of academic, you know.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
Then it had me thinking about like I don't know
.
Do you know who's behind thisProject 2025?
Is it like a section of theRepublicans in government, or is
it even really a thing?
I don't really know anythingabout it.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
It's been put out from what I've seen by the
heritage foundation, which is aconservative think tank, um, in
the kind of right-leaning spaceof think tanks you've got, you
know um, more I guess,traditional conservatives, uh,
you've got more libertarian kindof conservatives.
(05:09):
Heritage foundation, I thinkthey currently they fall more
within the like neo conservativeelement where it's like they
want, uh, national government,uh, they want more of a
religious kind of christianelement to the government.
Um, at least that's how they'relabeled by some of their
opponents I'll tell you what.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
Whoever runs their pr is horrible, because just the
name project 2025 makes you notwant to agree to it.
Sounds like something that likeif you had this movie that had
some about like some dystopianfuture, and it'd be like, yeah,
things were going okay, and then, uh, project 2025.
(05:50):
And then, just like this wholehorror story of you know mayhem,
like it just has thatconnotation, that like it's bad
at like back to the future too,when biff is like which I've
never really seen the wholething.
I've seen bits and pieces ofBack to the Future 2 but, like
you know where Biff is like thepresident, or is he the
(06:12):
president or I forget.
He's like or he's like Trump,actually, right, like in a movie
like that it would be the samething.
Like Marty McFly lands with theDe delorean into wherever town
he was in and then he's likewhat the heck happened here?
Like everything's all liketrashed or whatever, and we got
(06:32):
this king and everyone's likeworking as like and they
enslaved whatever.
And then marty mcfly's likewhat the heck happened here?
And they're like, oh, project,project 2025 happened.
That's what happened.
And then it's something likethat.
It just has that feel to itwhich maybe that's a good thing
(06:54):
that it's named that way,because I guess they're being
more upfront about it instead ofbeing like oh, this is a
lollipops and rainbows plan, youwould think.
If you wanted people to getbehind something like this,
maybe you would call it goalsfor a better future 2026.
(07:16):
Give it two years.
No, just having that name.
It's just so impersonal and sorobotic and just so dystopian.
Really.
It really sounds like it.
I could see that beingreferenced as a turning point.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
Its full name is 2025 Presidential Transition Project
.
Speaker 1 (07:40):
That's worse.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
I think Also not.
Yeah, I don't think that'sgoing to get more people on
board with it, especiallyconservatives.
I guess that's why I don'treally get it.
It's I don't know.
It seems like it's been labeleda lot by, I guess, primarily
people on the left as like a wayfor, seen as like for donald
trump to basically become a king, effectively kind of to rule
(08:03):
out to get rid of all thebureaucracy to like get rid of
all the fifth column,bureaucracy, jobs, the
department of education, allthat stuff.
To basically just like cuteverything and, um, console, I
guess, consolidate more withinthe president.
Um, that's how it's beenlabeled.
I mean, I don't.
I haven't read much about itoutside of what I've heard in
(08:25):
the mainstream media, but yeah,it seems.
One of the things I'm readinghere says it proposes
reclassifying tens of thousandsof federal civil service workers
as political appointees inorder to replace them with
people loyal to the president.
Now, before the Pendleton Act,before Chester, now, before the
pendleton act, before chester,arthur passed the pendleton
(08:47):
civil service reform act.
Um, that was a big thing at theend of the 19th century, was,
you know, patronage and we?
Speaker 1 (08:53):
learned all about it.
Learned all about it.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
Listen back to the assassination episode so I mean,
I guess there's a bit of areturn to that, which I don't
necessarily know if that wouldbe a good idea, but I don't know
how many there's a history toit and they're probably like
from.
One of the biggest arguments I'dheard about that civil service
reform is that it did create thebureaucratic state and like it
was just a simple yeah, therewas a more simple time when if
(09:18):
you get me votes, you get a job,if you get me votes, you get a
job, and like it was just alittle more black and white and
it kind of watered down um, youknow the kind of lobbying
element of things.
It was just like if you wantedto get elected, you had to kind
of find people to help you goget those votes.
I don't know if that's whatproject 2025 is trying to go for
, um I doubt it.
Speaker 1 (09:39):
Listen, yeah, they have.
The thing is I don't know howmany things are on the list.
It's just just like a list ofthings, right?
Anything that the government isin charge with that would have
anything more than three items.
I wouldn't trust them withanything.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
And for me personally , if they're not returning power
to the states, I'm already verycritical of it.
If power is not being returnedto the states, if they're just
trying to cut bureaucracy butpower is going to stay in the
federal, federal government, I'malready a skeptic of it.
And the right seems kind ofsilly and I think they are kind
of.
Maybe I don't know if they weretrying to pin this on trump,
(10:14):
because actually, like maybe theheritage foundation is not for
him and they know the left wouldjust eat it up and they would
be able to paint, and so I knowtrump's been trying to
disassociate himself with itbecause it looks so ridiculous
and there is just like all thesethings that Well, again, he's
probably like that name sucks.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
He knows the power of PR, obviously that's his whole
thing, so I could see him notgetting behind it just because
of the name.
Speaker 2 (10:38):
It also only has a $22 million budget.
It doesn't even have a $million dollar budget.
Speaker 1 (10:43):
I think it's a perfect gift that they gave
their political opposition to belike yeah, you don't want to
follow this who?
Yeah, they always do that.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
I feel like that's why the right so stupid, that's
why they're so dumb, that's whythey keep losing elections.
I also would think, you know,just kind of rewinding, like
you're saying, it seems likethese things we maybe certain,
you maybe a number of years goby and then somebody seems to
come out with these lofty goals,these big ideal perspective,
(11:13):
which I think Pride 25 certainlyis.
I think the tie-in is the ideaof every so often someone comes
out of the woodwork, whetherit's on the right or the left
Oftentimes it's the left becausethat's kind of the more the
progressive element, like theyjust want to have these big,
lofty ideas and ideals that theytry to want to meet.
But certainly Woodrow Wilsondefinitely was coming from that
(11:36):
camp.
He was president of PrincetonUniversity.
He, you know, came from anacademic background and I think
even when he was in office hedefinitely kept that element
around him.
And so when he came out withthese 14 points which were a
statement of principles forpeace, used to bring about some
peace negotiations in order toend World War I, he definitely
(12:00):
kept a lot of those academictypes around and he basically
brought them in and they'vegenerated like 2000 reports to
say, okay, what are the?
What's the issue, what's theunderlying problems with this
war happening across theAtlantic.
Why are these sides fighting?
And from you know, just on thetop level I mean it, you can
just tell people said, okay,well, look, people are fighting.
(12:21):
Said okay, well, look, peopleare fighting, so there has to be
a problem.
But they didn't really take anyconsiderations that they're
going back into a continentthat's been dealing with
centuries of conflict in one wayor another.
The found, our own foundingfather, said just stay out of
that neck of the woods, we don'tneed it.
That's why we got the monroedoctrine.
We said, hey, you guys keepyour old world problems over
there, we'll keep over here inthe new world.
(12:42):
You just keep to your, keep toyourselves over there.
And um, you know that I don'tthink that was gonna kind of be
quite good enough for for theimperialist presidency, which,
which was born in, uh, the early20th century, you know, we kind
of had a big new navy, we had abig new white fleet, great
fleet, and uh, yeah, no,roosevelt wanted to flex his
(13:04):
muscles.
Speaker 1 (13:05):
You know walk, you know carrying that big village
people do a song about being inthe navy yes, well, what was
that?
Song.
What was that song in the navy?
In the navy, kind of the sameas ymca.
They were sound like a littlebit of a one trick pony huh, I
think I don't know if the chordprogression was very different.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
I don't know if Kind of the same as YMCA.
They sound like a little bit ofa one-trick pony huh.
I don't know if the chordprogression was very different.
I don't know if melodies arevery similar.
But yeah, just 14 points, it'sjust a real.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
It's kind of funny because like well, let's get
into them before we startdiscussing them.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
Well, I'm just trying to give kind of a higher level.
So basically we got, I thinkeveryone's on the same page,
everyone.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
The us started thinking that they knew better
than the rest of the world afteronly have been.
Speaker 2 (13:54):
We were very late entrance into world war one.
You know we're not going to gointo that, the conflict itself
so much, uh.
But yeah, the us was did notget into world war one until the
last year of the conflict, Ibelieve.
And, uh, you know, apparentlywoodrow wilson claimed
neutrality for most of that time.
(14:14):
It remains to be seen.
It's possible that he actuallymaybe wanted us in the war, kind
of like fdr World War II.
So yeah, we're here with 14points.
(14:37):
The principles were outlined ina January 8, 1918 speech and we
gave a speech to congress and,uh, a lot of his colleagues, so
a lot of the other leaders ineurope, were quite skeptical of
his war, about what the aimswere.
I mean, yeah, american idealismcoming into europe, this
(14:59):
european pragmatism, or just thefrench wanted their cut, the
italians wanted theirs, theyliterally the French wanted
their cut, the Italians wantedtheirs.
The Italians only got into thewar because they said, okay,
which side should we join?
Whatever side gives us thebetter deal on who wins the war,
that's who we'll join.
Speaker 1 (15:14):
So the Allies gave them a better deal.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
The British, that was real classy.
So everyone was just like dude,what are you talking about?
You're Wilson, you're wilsonianidealism making a cut it here.
But he pursued, he kept ongoing and, um yeah, he came out
with these 14 points.
So the war was over, correct?
Speaker 1 (15:36):
it was not over but they were, they were winding
down and they were really closeto treaty talk, so he wanted to
get his input of what should be,uh, what should be uh.
The maker breaks of the treaty,correct of the treaty of
versailles yeah, it wasn't therejust yet.
Speaker 2 (15:54):
it was seen that the war was going to be coming to an
end and, uh, he just wanted tohave his time and because I
guess we were now, at that point, combatants in the war, he felt
he had a place to.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
He probably was like oh, we basically won it, we won
the war.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
Yeah, through our entry we helped the allies cross
the finish line.
So let's, this was called thewar to end all wars.
So let me come up with my 14points.
Me and my academic cronies comeup with 14 points to hopefully
make that become a reality and,uh, some of the main driving
aspects.
So we have all 14 points, butsome of the main kind of themes
(16:32):
of them.
The big thing whenever you knowif someone asks you know pub
trivia, you know what's the,what's the overarching kind of
theme of the 14 points, youranswer is probably going to be
this the idea ofself-determination, where you
give minority ethnic groupsbasically a say in their local
(16:53):
government or you even give acarve out to them to create
their own country.
So I mean, that's why we havetoday.
You've got well, you hadCzechoslovakia after the fact,
but you have all these countriesscattered throughout Europe
because at the time of World WarI you really only had the
German Empire, theAustro-Hungarian Empire, the
(17:14):
Ottoman Empire, and so, yeah, hekind of had this
self-determination principlewhere, basically, if you're, if
they, basically, if you're alarge enough ethnic group, you
should nationality, you shouldbe able to have your own country
effectively, and so you knowthat's great, all well and good
saying that from across theAtlantic, but you know, if
(17:34):
you're actually living in Europeand you know having to kind of
be the one living with somebodydrawing and dividing lines, you
know you're going to be, youmight be a little more, uh, you
might have a little morepushback on that.
So yeah, but he came inprinceton educated guy, thought
he knew it all.
And these are his 14 points.
(17:56):
So the very first point was nosecret treaties, in that
diplomacy should be open andtransparent.
So a little historical contextthere were secret alliances
going on before the war betweenAustria, hungary and Germany and
(18:16):
Wilson wanted to preventsecrecy and diplomacy.
He just felt that by keeping itunder under wraps.
You know you have differentpowers, negotiating different
terms and you know talking about, maybe you know partitioning,
like poland, for instance, waspartitioned three ways at the
end of the 18th century, much tothe chagrin of our, of our
(18:38):
founding father to do skachusko.
Poland was partitioned byrussia, austria, hungary and
germany and prussia at the time,sorry.
And so he just thought you know, keeping you got to have all
discussions in the open air,can't, uh, can't have it under
the rug, and you know disagreewhy is that?
Speaker 1 (18:57):
I just think you should be able to do whatever
you want as a sovereign poweryeah, yeah, I mean, I would
agree yeah but this was anorganization to prevent the,
with the stated aim of nothaving another war impossible.
Make like an impossible feat.
Speaker 2 (19:13):
All right, whatever it is impossible, but he didn't
stop him or the progressives andfrom trying all right, so point
number I don't want to sticktoo long on these points.
So freedom of the seas, so thatmeant all countries could have
free navigation of the oceans.
Uh, naval blockades were a bigthing going on before the war,
(19:36):
and even during the war theGerman U-boats sank in American
Lusitania, which actually kindof got us into the war.
So you know, no submarineattacks and that stuff.
And so then the next one isfree trade.
So removal of economic barriersto allow equal trade conditions
(19:58):
.
I agree to that.
There was a lot ofprotectionism and trade barriers
going on before the war.
I agree to that.
There was a lot ofprotectionism and trade barriers
going on before the war.
And even in modern times, as weknow, with all the tariff talk,
it's kind of always a constantin a way.
We've had lulls where we've hadquote unquote more free trade
in the world, but then peoplewill oftentimes like to pack up
and go home and tariffs are kindof a way of doing that
(20:22):
protectionism.
Yeah, who's a big?
Speaker 1 (20:24):
fan of free trade.
Who's that Coldplay?
Why is that?
I just feel like they alwayshave make trade fair or fair
trade on their piano orsomething.
Speaker 2 (20:41):
You think they're like libertarian free traders?
Or you mean like paying peoplefor their chocolate beans and
their coffee beans, like payingenough money to the guy picking
chocolate.
Is that what that means?
I think that's more what thatmeans.
It's like on the chocolate barwhen it says like free chocolate
, we made by free trade and notlike slave labor.
Speaker 1 (20:58):
Oh, is that what that means?
Speaker 2 (21:00):
I think that's what they probably mean.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
But that doesn't make any sense.
But I slave labor.
Oh, is that what that means?
I think that's what theyprobably mean, but that doesn't
make any sense.
Speaker 2 (21:09):
Christopher martin, chris, I don't think he goes by
christopher.
Apparently the us wasn't happyabout it, though they didn't
like this one cold play in thefair trade thing.
Well, just free trade ingeneral.
I mean, we like to think thatthe us is kind of a free trade
comment, but really not.
The british were, I guess, morefree traders in the us were at
the early 20th century.
Yeah, and so yeah, but then.
(21:30):
So the next one is armsreduction.
Uh, you had to reduce militaryweapons to the lowest point
needed for safety, and that'sjust before the war.
There was a massive armsbuildup across Europe, and so a
lot of smaller countries weren'treally happy with that because
they thought, well, it couldjust happen again.
If they have to get rid oftheir weapons, then how can they
(21:54):
defend themselves?
Fair colonial claims was thenext one.
So just colonial claims withrespect for local populations.
Speaker 1 (22:00):
Don't want to have another Christopher Columbus
situation.
Speaker 2 (22:05):
No, christopher Columbus uh, don't want to have
another christopher columbussituation.
No, christopher columbus.
This is also kind of 20 yearsafter, maybe 15 years after,
wrapping up the scramble forafrica, which was a big carve
out.
Basically, all the major powersof europe just literally cut up
africa and amongst themselves,without any real recognition of
the people's living there.
So that would have been on thetable there.
(22:27):
Russia number six is russia'ssovereignty, to respect russia's
independence and help itdevelop freely.
So, like I said, this is kindof right on the heels of the
bolsheviks coming to power andrussia was in a state of turmoil
.
Turmoil.
The civil russian civil war wason a state of turmoil.
The Russian Civil War was onthe verge of breaking out, or
had just broken out, between theRed Army and the White Army and
(22:50):
the Russian Bolsheviks.
They were pretty upset, though,that the Allies got involved in
the Russian Civil War,describing it as meddling.
So Wilson said okay, we'll kindof back off and let you guys do
what you got to do, kind of tomake find, find your way to
making your own one worldgovernment with communism.
And number seven was restorebelgium, so that belgium should
(23:12):
be evacuated and restored toindependence.
So they were.
They were.
They were conquered by germanyin 1914, or occupied, I should
say, um, they were eventuallyfreed.
Number eight was free france.
So this was a big one.
So the french, after thefollowing the franco-prussian
war in 1871, uh, which thefrench, the french, got
railroaded in, so they lost theterritory of alsace-lorraine and
(23:36):
so, as part of the 14 points,germany would have to secede
that back to fr, as well as anyother lost territory before the
war.
Number nine was redraw Italianborders.
So the purpose being theborders of Italy should align
(23:58):
with the nationality of thepeople.
So this is kind of theself-determination, again a
self-determination clause, whereyou know, if there's people
italian, those of italiandescent or ancestry, living in
dalmatia, which is modern daycroatia, on the adriatic sea,
like they should be part ofitaly proper, uh, and, like I
said earlier, they, they, they,italy explicitly joined the side
(24:20):
of the allies, shopping aroundfor the best deal that they
could get, based on what the warwould happen.
Yeah, so they would get theirborders redrawn and eventually
they would just become furiousbecause they did not get all the
territory they were expectingand they considered it a
(24:41):
mutilated victory.
So, although Italy was on thewinning side.
They did not get what theysigned up for, and yeah All
right.
Speaker 1 (24:52):
So a bunch of border redrawing, it seems like, and
countries being taken back yeah,is mostly what it is.
Speaker 2 (24:59):
A lot of border redrawing, not hitting the
Germans with reparations, asmuch as that, as much as they
would end up having to pay back.
But um, getting just back toitaly, real quick, it was things
like this in italy, and alsothen what would happen in
germany after the war that a lotof people say led to the rise
of fascism.
So in the case of italy,mussolini and the fascist, in
(25:23):
the case of germany, the nazisand um, and then you know,
hitler, um.
So number 10 autonomy foraustria-hungary.
So allow the people ofaustria-hungary
self-determination.
So yeah, the austria-hungarianempire before the war was just
full of all these differentethnicities which we now know by
(25:43):
, like their country names.
So you've got the czechrepublic, slovakia, slovenia,
serbia, hungary, you know all ofthese countries which are now
today in today's world.
But at the time you had allthese different ethnic
nationalities in this one empireand wilson said, yeah, they
should all be able to have theirown, say and uh, and then
(26:07):
countries, uh.
Number 11 was freedom for thebalkan states.
So that's what gave us, wouldeventually give us yugoslavia,
um, bundling all those, thesouth slavs together, including
ser Montenegro, what's now today?
Croatia and Bosnia.
Number 12, self-rule for Turkeyand others.
(26:29):
So basically, again, like theAustro-Hungarian Empire, the
Ottoman Empire that includedmany different ethnic groups and
peoples and the say was thatTurkey should be limited to just
its region proper.
So on Anatolia, which is where,when we think of Turkey in
(26:50):
today's terms, it's Istanbul andeverything kind of west of that
or east of that, sorry.
But then the rest of theOttoman Empire, including Syria
and Iraq, and I guess I thinkEgypt was part of it too, that
they should be free as well andhave their own
self-determination.
(27:11):
But a lot of Arabs and otherOttoman subjects were furious
because instead of self-rulethey were placed under European
mandate, which by primarilyBritain and France, after the
war 13, was an independentPoland.
And again, as I mentionedearlier, poland was partitioned
in the late 18th century.
(27:32):
It was basically carved up byRussia, austria, hungary and
Prussia at the time, and theywanted to basically bring back
Poland as an independent country.
And yeah, boykaczewska wouldhave been happy with that one.
He might have been skeptical athow they'd go about getting it
because he knew history himself,but he would have been pretty
stoked at that.
And last but not least, thiswas the big one, big kahuna,
(28:00):
creation of a league of nationswhose stated purpose would be to
promote peace and resolvedisputes around the world.
Speaker 1 (28:11):
There is.
That is the solution of allthat's the solution of solutions
, dog solution.
It's like hey, we can't evenget our country to agree on
something, how about we get thewhole world to try to agree on
something?
Speaker 2 (28:25):
that's the way to go, because we all know best well,
and someone from myself withmore of, I guess, a state's
rights perspective, I would lookat it as kind of just a
continuation.
We've already kind ofsuppressed all the us states
into one nationalist mask, oneamalgamated mass.
Why don't we keep doing thatwith the rest of the world?
Let's just keep the party going.
That's kind of how I would lookat it.
(28:46):
And yeah, he wanted hisorganization to resolve disputes
peacefully to prevent futurewars, and it was conceit would
have been seen as a majorinnovation in international
relations, but the US was havingnone of it.
Relations, uh, but the us washaving none of it.
(29:07):
Uh, the senate rejected it, uh,on the grounds led by
republican senator henry cabotlodge, uh, who didn't like the
idea of the us giving up itssovereignty and having to be
told to do anything, asupranational organization
telling the country yeah, I meanthat's even the us thinking
that.
Speaker 1 (29:19):
So imagine like a smaller country being like wait
what we're gonna get bulliedaround the whole thinking that.
Speaker 2 (29:23):
So imagine like a smaller country being like wait
what, we're going to get bulliedaround the whole world.
Well, a smaller country no, asmaller country might have an
outsized say in something likethat.
If they make a claim, if asmall country wants to have a
bigger claim, they can thenmaybe petition to a power above
the power they're competing withand have them rule on it, and
then they can have their way.
It could work either way.
Speaker 1 (29:46):
I would think.
I think his nation sounds likeit would be like Native American
.
It sounds like a NativeAmerican name, doesn't it it?
Speaker 2 (29:54):
does Probably more appropriate for that.
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (30:00):
Probably would have worked out for them if they did
that.
Yeah, you think so the leagueof nate.
Like if all the if all thenative americans got together,
they might have been able tosave a little bit more of their
land maybe find a way to gettogether, maybe well the league
(30:23):
was created.
Speaker 2 (30:24):
It was weak and failed to prevent world war ii,
as I mentioned.
There you go.
So, yeah, these were all of hispoints.
So the big stories, these wereall of his points.
This is what big story is.
These were all of his points.
This is what he took over.
The war kept going on for alittle while longer, but then it
wasn't until the Paris PeaceConference came about, where
they actually hashed out theTreaty of Versailles and what to
do.
Speaker 1 (30:43):
And which of these 14 points got incorporated into
the Treaty of Versailles?
Speaker 2 (30:48):
Well, the League of Nations was created,
incorporated into the treaty ofversailles.
Well, the league of nations wascreated.
Poland was made independent.
Uh, freedom for the balkanstates.
That kind of left a sour tastein some mouth.
They kind of carved outyugoslavia, which was kind of
ticked off.
Serbia, as I mentioned earlier.
Italy didn't get what they wereexpecting.
(31:08):
Uh, germany was really put totask and they had to pay all
these war debts, which was notpart of Wilson's plan.
He didn't want to kind ofburden any one country in a
financial situation to have topay the amount I think he would
have been accepting of somereparation, but the amount that
France and Britain primarily,were basically making Germany
(31:31):
pay.
Speaker 1 (31:32):
It was just extraordinary.
Well, in France and Britain'sdefense, they're the places that
got banged up.
Well, that's the argument,that's why everyone thought.
It's easy to say that from theUS perspective.
Speaker 2 (31:43):
Yeah, and that's what a lot of these leaders said.
So Clemenceau of.
Speaker 1 (31:47):
France.
It's almost like a League ofNations wouldn't work because
they wouldn't agree on that,because of that kind of
situation but it's almost likean academic came into the
presidency and thought he knewbest.
Yeah, academics do have a lotof practical skills.
So, yeah, that's cool, allright.
So germany got yeah, germanygot hosed and I think most
(32:07):
people understand that, likethat was a big part of you know
rise and, like you said, therise of fascism.
Speaker 2 (32:13):
Yeah, I think Russia had to deal with their own civil
war.
Russia went into a very bloodycivil war following the end of
World War I, which wouldeventually bring the Bolsheviks
to power and supplant communismin Russia.
The colonial stuff yeah, thatnot really.
They kind of ignored that oneentirely.
(32:34):
They said, yeah, now we're notgoing to worry about it.
Britain, britain kept most oftheir empire, although it was
kind of flailing like they'dkept most of it in france as
well.
But I think even germany, theywere even gonna like I think he
was cool with even lettinggermany keep some of their
overseas colonial possessions.
But at the paris peaceconference, they, they.
So the paris peace conferencetook place between 1919 and 1920
(32:58):
, where the victorious alliesset the peace terms for the
defeated central powers.
So I said this in his speechwas given in 18, 18, so the war
was still going on.
Peace conference didn't startuntil 1919.
But by that point that was justthem saying like what are we
gonna do?
Like how are we gonna, you know, put these guys through the
(33:21):
ringer?
So for the most part, wilsonianidealism did not win out and uh
, yeah, it kind of already setthe road to the next war.
Speaker 1 (33:34):
You'd think about it, yeah.
Speaker 2 (33:37):
There you go.
A bunch of other thingshappened, but Hitler at this
point was just an Austriancorporal in the army, just some
punk.
Speaker 1 (33:50):
No, mustache, probably mustache probably.
Speaker 2 (33:51):
Mustache is probably very small along with his wee
wee I think mussolini was.
He might have still been asocialist at this point, like a,
uh, a designated socialist.
And then, obviously, you know,p they were able to use.
You know a lot of this, what,how they were treated after the
(34:14):
fact of the war.
They were able to kind of use alot of that and, uh, you know,
recharge their base and kind ofbring in all these uh I get it
lesson learned I suppose yeah,but did we?
because we then created theunited nations after world war
ii.
I don't really know howdifferent that is than the
League of Nations.
I didn't really put the time into learn.
Speaker 1 (34:37):
But yeah, so kind of an L for the US, a little bit an
L for Woodrow Wilson, eventhough.
Speaker 2 (34:44):
History still seems to love him.
He's still ranked as a toppresident in most modern
rankings.
Speaker 1 (34:50):
Who asked them to do this?
Anybody like did the?
Did europe ask them?
Like it would be funny if, likewoodrow wilson like brought it
to them and they were like, uh,nope, thanks, uh, nobody asked
you.
Like this is like they thought.
Like woodrow wilson thoughtlike, oh man, we came in, we
(35:12):
saved the day.
Europe's gonna love us.
They're gonna listen toeverything we have to say.
They're gonna like welcome withopen arms.
And it'd just be funny if, likewoodrow wilson like showed up
with all this stuff and europewas like um, thanks, I guess you
know this is kind of our thing.
You know we're, you're all theway across the ocean.
You know this is more.
You know, let us handle it.
(35:33):
I mean, who were these?
Were they like employees of thegovernment or did he just bring
them in, bring his boys in?
Speaker 2 (35:38):
150 political and social scientists, known as the
inquiry.
The inquiry was organized bywoodrow, by wilson's advisor,
colonel edward m House, to studypolicy and analyze facts that
might come up during peacenegotiations.
Who was like the guy runningthe back of house?
He was like basically runningback of house in the Wilson
(36:00):
administration Sidney Mezzi's, aphilosopher and academic who
was president of the College ofthe City of New York at the time
he was appointed to head theinquiry.
Walter Lippmann he was aprominent journalist and
political commentator whocontributed to the analysis of
international issues.
He was instrumental indeveloping the concept of
(36:21):
self-determination, which becamea key point in the 14 points.
Isaiah Bowman, a geographer whowas responsible for providing
detailed maps and geographicanalysis, crucial for redrawing
national borders in post-warEurope.
David Hunt Miller, a legalexpert who contributed to
drafting the legal framework forthe peace negotiations.
And James Shotwell, a historianand professor who focused on
(36:45):
labor issues in the League ofNations concept.
Nice, contributing ideas aboutinternational cooperation.
Well, it says, edward m housereached out to the allied powers
to see if they would accept the14 points and would they say no
, yes, okay, maybe like we'llhear it, like we're fighting a
(37:08):
war over here, like we've lost alot of young men.
Y'all only just got here withyour expeditionary force.
Y'all can come up with whateveryou want.
Speaker 1 (37:17):
We're going to fight this war, they're like, hey, man
, I got a bunch of teachers andwe're all going to put it
together.
We all think we have a prettygood idea on how you guys should
run things over there, because,you know, we don't think you
know what you're doing.
So we figure, you know, we'll,we'll, I'll, we'll take the time
and we'll give you, we'll giveyou our thoughts and we'll show
you how to do things.
Speaker 2 (37:36):
And they're like, uh, okay like, and they're probably
kind of like, coming from thecountry that still has
segregation and you know youdon't even let people drink from
the same water fountains.
Yeah, I'm sure they'd be likewhy would we listen to you?
Speaker 1 (37:49):
yeah, like, do you think that's what you think?
We look like a bunch of nerdsshowing up, like that.
Speaker 2 (37:54):
You think about it in that way it could be some of
where the arrogance for somepeople have of america, people
thinking americans are ignorant.
I mean just some of the nopeople like americans overseas
for the most part in my whatI've found.
But I think when they thinkAmericans look a little ignorant
, I think it's not even justyour regular person, it's yeah
(38:15):
when you have academics kind ofruling trying to say they know
best.
We obviously know that happenshere.
People don't like having tohear from the experts on
everything or how to do things.
Speaker 1 (38:29):
Unless they're in politics and everybody wants to
hear them.
Speaker 2 (38:32):
That's what it seems like anymore well, now they just
talk for the lobbies and forthe interest.
Yeah, it's kind of silly.
I mean, in hindsight it seemssilly, but it's like enough
people bought into it.
I don't know if it was justlike the american population was
like well, you guys, we votedfor you.
You guys can do it.
Sure, you're smart, it's one ofthose.
(38:54):
Well, you're smart, you'llfigure it out.
I can figure it out.
Speaker 1 (38:58):
I can see US getting behind.
Hey, yeah, we want our idea,for Obviously, everybody wants
your idea to be accepted, but Ijust think Europe's perspective
would be funny to think about,like, uh, yeah, okay, yeah, put
it over there, we'll get to itkind of thing.
Speaker 2 (39:18):
You know, yeah, well, maybe they just wanted to keep
and like they wanted to justkeep the americans interested in
the war, because maybe theyneeded they needed them.
Speaker 1 (39:27):
Yeah, that's true.
Yeah, all right, we have 14points like if they said like,
if they said yeah, if they saidno, they'd be worried.
The US would be like, all right, well, if you don't want to
listen to us, then deuces.
Speaker 2 (39:38):
Yeah, sure, Great 14.
Yeah, great number.
Speaker 1 (39:40):
I love that number.
That number suits you so well,oh, 14, wow, oh, so now was this
developed by like diplomats oranybody with any military
background or anything?
Oh no, it was just academicswho spent all their time
studying in liberal artscolleges like Yale and Harvard.
That's even better.
Speaker 2 (39:58):
Yeah, definitely.
And the City College of NewYork, suny, it's almost like you
.
I mean, I got to be honest withyou.
It's like when, deep state ornot, it's not that unfathomable
that it exists, that people justwith big degrees call shots
(40:20):
just have their prescriptionsand that project.
I'm tying it back into project2025.
I'm sure the heritagefoundation has some phds on
payroll.
Who came up with some of these.
Speaker 1 (40:29):
Oh, why wouldn't that be an issue?
Have you ever With no real lifeexperience?
Yeah, well, so I thought itwould be a good idea, since
we're talking about the 14points, that maybe we should put
together our own list of 14points.
I got started on this and Ikind of said you know what 14 is
(40:54):
a lot, let's do seven pointseach and we'll merge our list
together, um, to create you knowwhat we would think our you
know ideal.
I don't know, obviously there'sno war to settle, necessarily,
but maybe, maybe, uh, you knowjust just more of how we would
want things to be going ingeneral.
Speaker 2 (41:20):
Well, I set up my seven points for creating a
great history podcast.
Kind of rules to follow.
Speaker 1 (41:29):
And ChatGPT wrote these, so you put no input into
it and that's what you decidedto do.
Okay, interesting, I bet youknow what.
Uh, I don't want to answer, butI bet if you were to do that,
number one would be don't usechat gpt.
That would be my number If wewere putting a 14 list together
(41:53):
of how to make a good historypodcast.
Number one would be don't usechat GPT.
So, all right, we'll go ahead,but read your seven points.
Speaker 2 (42:02):
So fancy ego, my seven points for creating your
history podcast.
I'm not saying I live up to allof them, but I think you'd get
a kick.
Speaker 1 (42:09):
Well, chat, GPT is points not your points.
Speaker 2 (42:20):
Let's just be clear.
Speaker 1 (42:21):
I signed off on them okay, like the president, okay,
okay, thought of my own.
But I wonder if woodrow wilson?
Well, he didn't sign off.
Speaker 2 (42:26):
He didn't make them.
Speaker 1 (42:26):
I mean he had a yeah he like used his like figurative
chat GPT with his like all ofhis academic, his academic
people That'd be funny.
If their initials were GPT,that'd be funny.
Glenn, peter and Tom.
Speaker 2 (42:47):
So, number one do your research right, bring the
facts to light.
If the story is a bore, they'llwalk out the door oh, these are
rhyming.
Speaker 1 (42:59):
Is that number two?
Yeah, all right.
Well, you gotta number them,okay.
So number one was what do yourresearch right?
Speaker 2 (43:06):
bring the facts to light.
Okay, number two if the story'sa bore, they'll walk out the
door.
We've had a couple of those.
Number three make the soundclear so all can hear we're
trying Dealing with that one.
Number four show the twist theycan't resist.
Focus on surprising momentsthat grab attention.
Speaker 1 (43:28):
Princess Di, we nailed that one okay, number
five keep it tight.
Speaker 2 (43:32):
Don't go all night.
Stay focused and concise.
Long rambles can lose yourlisteners.
Oh, that's one I gotta follow100.
Number six tell it with flair,like they were there these are
these suck dude number seven ifyou don't, you don't put on a
(43:53):
show.
That's number, that should benumber one.
Speaker 1 (43:55):
Well, no, I don't like that one.
I like if you don't know.
If you don't know, let it go.
Speaker 2 (44:01):
That's what I would say okay, those are my seven
points that's interesting.
Speaker 1 (44:13):
And what did you input to get those Just out?
Speaker 2 (44:18):
of curiosity, I will let you know and our fans know.
My friend and I are about to doa history of Woodrow Wilson's
14 points.
As part of that discussion, weeach want to come up history of
Woodrow Wilson's 14 points.
As part of that discussion, weeach want to come up with our
own quote.
Seven points, I'd like sevenpoints about how to do a good
history podcast, told in rhymes,ie If the glove don't fit, you
(44:41):
must quit.
Or if you can't do the time,don't do the crime.
Speaker 1 (44:44):
Okay, Well, they did pretty good at that.
They did pretty good at that.
They did pretty good at that.
I wonder if woodrow wilsonwould have made his points rhyme
, people would have been more onboard.
Do you want to hear my seven?
Speaker 2 (45:00):
yes, my list of seven , so how?
Long did it take you to come upwith these?
Speaker 1 (45:08):
I was picking away at .
I went for a run yesterday.
I was thinking about somegrocery shopping.
Last night I was thinking aboutsome I got.
I got a couple.
It took me a little bit.
Do you want to hear them?
Mine are just kind of seventhings that I think should exist
in the world.
Speaker 2 (45:25):
Okay, not putting out academics in a room, putting a
hundred academics in a room andexpecting to end all wars.
Speaker 1 (45:32):
Well, it's more.
This is.
This is the the uh Joe Publixidea of what the what should be
going down in these, in thesetalks.
Got it Number one's prettyshort and sweet.
Um, it's a quote from a film,semi-pro, which we've talked
about on this uh show before.
(45:53):
Um, ele stands for everybodylove everybody.
Simple, simple, simply put.
Why not?
Right woodrow would agree.
Why not?
Does everybody love everybody,every?
I love everybody, loveeverybody for everybody.
Speaker 2 (46:12):
Although it seems a little water, it seems like an
academic take.
But water dad's just for theevery man person seems a little
academic everybody loveeverybody yeah, like, how's that
happen?
Like that's just unfortunatelynot how the real world works
yeah, but it would be nice if itdid, it would be.
So there's a little idea.
So there's idealism in the, inyour seven points.
This is not like realismpractical.
(46:33):
This is seven points of living,some of them yeah okay, so it's
number one.
Speaker 1 (46:38):
Number two um, no more of this.
Oh, didn't have blank on mythis year bingo card.
I hate that, you know.
I mean, you know how people arelike oh, I didn't have trump
getting assassinated on my 2024bidding go card.
I hate that.
Who says that?
(46:58):
You don't hear that?
That's like a thing referencingbingo cards.
Yeah, like they like ifsomething weird happens, you
know that, like no one thoughtwould have had, like no one
thought would be would havehappened.
They're like oh, didn't havethat on my bingo card, you know,
like a bingo card of likecrossing things off, things that
could happen to cross off on alist.
I never heard that in my life.
I'm trying to think of a goodexample of it.
(47:19):
Let me think about one.
Speaker 2 (47:20):
I mean I understand the metaphor, but I just never
heard.
Speaker 1 (47:23):
Oh dude, it's time you're living under a rock, if
you haven't heard that do weneed to make a bingo card for
2025?
No, I'm saying I don't wantpeople to do this anymore.
Speaker 2 (47:37):
Oh, it seems like good podcast content, though do
you think should we go throughthat nailing history just like
together, like we have our ownbingo?
One bingo card for the showThings I didn't have on my 2025
bingo card, project 2025.
Speaker 1 (47:54):
What if that's what 2025 actually is?
Speaker 2 (47:57):
What if that's what everyone at the Paris Peace
Conference said to WoodrowWilson when he showed up with 14
points?
I didn't have that on my bingocard.
Free Poland I didn't have thaton my bingo card.
Speaker 1 (48:09):
I think there should be no more time zones in the
entire world and we should alllive on military time.
I think there should just beone time in the whole world.
I think it would cause lessconfusion and then you wouldn't
have to do Even within America.
Even if you just did it in theUnited States States would be
(48:30):
nice enough, but if you did itaround the world would even be
better.
Speaker 2 (48:39):
So it's let's say it's in today.
In today's time terms, it's twoo'clock in the afternoon in
Philadelphia.
Speaker 1 (48:47):
Okay, I say we call that 1400 for one, and then what
would it be in China?
Speaker 2 (48:54):
1400.
But it's the middle of thenight.
What does that solve?
Speaker 1 (49:08):
Less confusion.
Everyone on the same page.
Speaker 2 (49:10):
What if you're shipping goods, getting
everybody together?
What if you're shipping things?
It would arrive at the sametime.
Speaker 1 (49:19):
I mean, I just how much easier would it be it's a
great example If you wereshipping something to China.
I don't know what theirtimeline is, what their time is.
Speaker 2 (49:30):
There's like one big time zone in China.
Speaker 1 (49:33):
Okay, well, whatever Say, china is net currently just
six hours behind us.
I think they're probably say,say, six hours behind us, just
for simple things.
It's just for simplicity.
So now, if you're working for ashipping company or anything
like that, you're like, okay, ittakes 20 hours for it to get to
(49:55):
China, oh wait, but then soit'll get there at this time.
But it's like, oh wait, but wehave to adjust it for the time
change.
This way you don't have to doit.
It's like if it leaves at 0200and it's 20 hours to get there,
it's going to get to China at2200 and you don't have to
subtract that six hours.
So then there's no confusion.
(50:16):
Another example is like flyingplanes, like on flights.
If you're in a connectingflight somewhere and you read
your ticket and it says, oh, youland here at this time, and
then your plane leaves at thistime, you're always like well,
which time is that?
Like if you're flying toCalifornia if you're flying to
(50:36):
California and your flightleaves from Philly at this time,
lands in Texas at this time andthen your connection flight
takes off, how much time do Ihave between flights?
I want to know that, and itwould just be easier if
everything was the same time,and I think maybe that would
(50:57):
just make people a little bitmore happier.
And then go back to number one.
Speaker 2 (51:01):
Everybody would love everybody what if you have to
set your alarm, then you like,you got you.
You have a mix-up becauseyou're used to like okay, I have
to wake up every morning at0600 in, let's say, in England,
because that's Greenwich MeanTime.
You fly to the US and then youhave to set your alarm.
You forget to set your alarm to0.
(51:23):
No, to zero, no, it's zero,because you're used to waking up
.
So you're waking up at midnightbig deal, but what if you don't
?
Speaker 1 (51:35):
change your clock.
What if you just don't change?
I guess that would be new.
No, it would be midnight.
Well, your phones will change.
No, they won't.
Speaker 2 (51:43):
No they won't.
That's the whole point you'retrying to get rid of.
Speaker 1 (51:47):
Well, what if you're what if your phones, like,
realize where you're at andadjust your?
Speaker 2 (51:55):
alarms to that.
I think AI I mean, I think thetechnology certainly there for
that I do, I will just wanteveryone to be on the same page.
You want to.
You want to yell Lee.
You want to yell Lee?
I get it.
I don't know.
I think I'll just throw peopleoff.
I'd be willing to try it though.
Speaker 1 (52:16):
I think it's a good idea.
All right, that's number three.
Number four New Year's.
It's not a holiday anymore.
Get rid of it.
Stupid holiday.
There's no point in celebratingit as a holiday.
I still get rid of it.
I hate New Year's Eve.
(52:36):
It only brings on bad things.
It stopped people from hangingout in Times Square, which is
absurd.
All those people hanging out inTimes Square, and what is it
really celebrating?
You're turning around thecalendar.
I mean, do you celebrate everytime that the sun goes up and
down?
New day, new year, new dayShould we have.
Goes up and down.
(52:57):
New day, new year, new day?
Should we have?
A new day, holiday, new week?
Where does it end?
New month, why new year?
Why does new year matter?
Now, if you're going to talklike maybe new decade, I'd be
about that every once every 10years.
New decade.
Maybe every five yearsCelebrate Chinese New Year, but
(53:18):
one year.
Speaker 2 (53:21):
The new year of the rat or year of the dragon or
like those things mean something.
It's like you're going to havea good luck this year.
Good luck this year becauseit's the year of the dragon and
you were born in this year andthat was also a year of the
dragon right.
Speaker 1 (53:34):
Well, that's nonsense .
Well, no E no, ele, everybodylove everybody, that's okay, you
can still do that, but justit's not a holiday, that's all
I'm saying so you want them outto work on new year's eve, new
year's day.
Speaker 2 (53:51):
You want what you want people working on new
year's day I just don't think itshould be a holiday.
Speaker 1 (53:56):
It's stupid, it's a stupid holiday.
Speaker 2 (53:58):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (54:05):
Number five bring back public executions.
Really, yeah, I think thatthat's a good way to avoid crime
and I understand the point thatwe got away from public
(54:25):
executions, being that we'remore of a civilized people now
and blah, blah, blah.
But I think at some point thereason that they were done was
for Human nature.
Is human nature right?
And you know, even though wethink we're more of a civilized
people, there are certain thingsthat, like people that need to
(54:48):
be, you know, made an example ofto deter other idiots from
doing stupid stuff.
Speaker 2 (54:55):
Do you think we need.
It seems like we need to find away to bring shame back.
Yes, more puritan.
You want a puritanical, areturn to some form of
puritanism where shame isactually like a prescription to
solve a problem, like peopleneed to feel shame still yeah, I
guess yeah, well, that's thebig thing.
(55:17):
People have.
No, you don't.
You have, you have no shame,like how could he go around
doing that thing or dressingthat way or acting that way?
You have, you know, shame.
I mean that's what the the old,the old timers used to say to
people.
Speaker 1 (55:31):
I guess the problem is going to be if you do this to
somebody who's actuallyinnocent.
Speaker 2 (55:35):
I mean, I don't know We'll just start with showing
their wee wee and things go bad.
Speaker 1 (55:43):
I don't learn turn it up a notch kind of like
Mussolini.
Hey it worked.
Has there been anotherMussolini?
You tell me, like a schoolshooter Be a perfect example.
Yeah, you got to make anexample out of these people, so
people don't copycat.
Speaker 2 (56:12):
Just something else every time.
What do you mean?
Just different ways?
Maybe you can't do the samething.
It's like you know what I'll behanged, I'll do that.
I'll still commit this crime.
Hanging I don't care.
I mean, that's fine, everyone'sgot to go.
But if you don't know howthey're going to kill you, you
can't tell the execution style.
Every time it's always amystery, like one day, and
(56:39):
depending on the crime is likeobviously one day it's ripping
out your toenails um so I mean,that's my thought.
Speaker 1 (56:45):
I think there's a benefit to that.
And uh, number six, um, let's,uh, let's, figure out how to
work this government within abudget.
As a matter of fact, let's cutthe budget of that government.
(57:08):
I don't think the heritagethere you go.
There's all this talk about oneof these hot items in these
presidential campaigns are likewe're going to raise taxes, but
we're only going to raise taxesfor the rich or whatever.
It's all this like we're goingto have the corporations pay
more tax.
All this more tax stuff.
Why doesn't somebody say we'regoing to spend less?
Speaker 2 (57:29):
Because neither party is interested in that.
Speaker 1 (57:32):
It's just funny to me , but nobody says anything.
It's like, yeah, we should justraise taxes to these people
instead of just not spending asmuch money.
Speaker 2 (57:42):
It makes no sense.
Speaker 1 (57:43):
It's literally like paying a credit card with
another credit card.
Speaker 2 (57:48):
Yeah, that's.
Speaker 1 (57:50):
And that's the dumb thing that you can do.
So that's great.
Speaker 2 (57:55):
Well, what is it?
When you owe a debt of tenthousand dollars, it's your
problem, but when it's like abillion, it's the government's
or they can just write it off.
Yeah, it's just like they're soindebted on it.
It's like no one's everexpecting to get paid back.
35 trillion dollars like theseyeah, the money's.
That's why you gotta shout outthomas jefferson ran a deficit
(58:17):
and andrew Andrew Jackson paidoff the debt.
There you go.
Last time that's ever happened,I think that would be nice.
Speaker 1 (58:26):
I don't even care about the debt, I get how the
world economy works.
No, I don't get it, butapparently that's how the world
economy works and we'll never bedebt-free.
But to cover them, blowingmoney like nothing, covering the
government blowing, blowingmoney for whatever, and then
just saying like well, we'lljust get it from the rich people
(58:47):
.
And that's just like a totalwool over your eyes, that like
don't worry about how much moneywe're spending, we're going to,
we're not going to take it fromyou, even though ultimately
they do.
And then number seven would befour-day work week.
Speaker 2 (59:07):
You of all people.
Yeah, I'm shocked Really whyKind of You're working stiff.
Speaker 1 (59:16):
Hey, that would just give me another day to work on
the podcast.
That's all I'm looking at.
Speaker 2 (59:22):
So four day work week on a military clock?
Yep, well, get your lunch break.
You're just out there watchinga public execution.
Some guy committed some heinouscrime with a four day work week
week hot button issue right nowhot button.
Speaker 1 (59:43):
Well, I think the the the conversation of the
four-day work week is will theyget?
Will you get just as much donein four four days?
So might as well just do it infour days, because you know
people are not working.
You know monday, mondays andfridays are not working.
Mondays and Fridays are not asproductive of a day as Tuesday
through Thursday.
But then if you cut back to afour-day workweek, is your
(01:00:03):
Mondays and Thursdays not goingto be as productive?
All right.
So my seven points areeverybody, love everybody.
No more.
Didn't have that on my bingocard for this year.
Comments no more time zones.
We're all on military time.
No more New Year's holiday.
Bring back public executions.
(01:00:25):
Cut government spending or cutthe budget and a four-day work
week.
And honestly, if you followthose seven things, that's
pretty sweet.
I don't know if anyone woulddisagree with me on that.
So do you think that would help?
Speaker 2 (01:00:42):
No, not at all, not even remotely.
We're good at this.
There's no way this thing's notgoing to get demonetized,
because all the money we'rebringing in.
Thank you again to our sponsorsAll right.
Speaker 1 (01:00:56):
Well, I thought it was interesting thinking about
the 14 points and how no onelistened and how that's not more
of a joke on our country.
Speaker 2 (01:01:05):
No one will probably listen to Project 2025, for
better or worse.
It's just something to pass thetime.
Speaker 1 (01:01:12):
It's just minutiae.
Is that what you would call it?
Yep, it's just nonsense.
Speaker 2 (01:01:17):
Until we bring shame back, it's all a moot point.
Yeah, big, lofty ideals boilsdown to 10.
Speaker 1 (01:01:27):
You know simplistic points that don't make it a
human nature oftentimes it'sjust the pr behind the newest
one isn't, as isn't as good asWilson's 14 points.
It just sounds good, so kind ofgot to that.
Speaker 2 (01:01:40):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (01:01:40):
I don't want to be a broken record, but I just think
Proctor 2025 could use somemakeup.
I guess you could say Use anice makeover to try to get it
by.
All right, anything else to add, john?
Speaker 2 (01:02:00):
No, that's, that's it .
It's been a great show and Ireally enjoyed it and I look
forward to the next one.
Yeah, all right, stay furious.
Speaker 1 (01:02:28):
And we say bye-bye.
all right, welcome to another episode of the nailing
history podcast.
Hey guys welcome back.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
Are you nervous?
You're here with your hosts,matt and john.
You nervous coming live?
No, I feel great.
I didn't.
I was, I was.
I was blown away.
That was the first time we everuh played the intro and I could
hear it.
Oh, really, yeah.
Um, for our fans who know thatwhen we're not in studio I don't
(00:48):
know if our fans know this, butwhen Matt plays the audio clips
, like our intro or drums likethat, I can't always hear it, so
I only hear it when you guysare hearing it, kind of thing.
But for whatever reason, mattmessed with the settings and now
I can hear all the soundeffects too, so that's really
cool.
So I was flabbergasted to hear.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
It's pretty cool I didn't know that I didn't do
anything yeah, it's alwayssomething new.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
Every week there's a little new technical either
glitch or uh discovery but Ithink this is a good one.
So, but, matt, have you been?
How's your uh past week or twobeen?
Speaker 1 (01:28):
I'm good.
How are you?
Speaker 2 (01:30):
I'm quite good.
How was your week it was?
It was good.
Uh, it was just kind ofprepping for for today's
discussion, a little bit tryingto get ready for it.
Trying, I was scratching myhead as to why you trying to
figure out why you wanted totalk about this, of all things.
I was really curious to knowhow it came up in the
(01:50):
conversation.
Were you talking to anyoneabout this?
I was interested to know alittle more.
Speaker 1 (01:59):
So today we're going to talk about, we're trying to
think of some things that thinkof some things that we wanted to
go over.
We always try to link certainthings to current events that
are going on in our world, sowe're always trying to link the
(02:20):
two together.
The two together and, um, youknow, I was thinking I was
listening to, I was on the, Iwas listening to regular radio
on my way into work a coupledays ago and, um, there was some
political ad and they weretalking about, um, this project
2025 that everyone's been allhave their panties in a bunch
(02:43):
over.
And then I also had listened to.
I was watching a YouTube videoabout how each president died,
which was pretty boring.
It was animated, though, andmost of them were heart disease,
a couple strokes here and there, a couple assassinations that
we covered, but the one thingthat they brought up about
(03:06):
President Woodrow Wilson wasthat his it wasn't really
related to his death, but thathis presidency was most known
for his 14 points, which were 14things that he wanted to have
done as part of the treaty afterworld war one, and I was
(03:30):
thinking like a list of 14things.
Then it got me thinking aboutthis project 2025 and it's kind
of like that.
I don't think they're very,very related, but it is like a
list of something and I don'tknow like kind of like how they
want things to go.
And so I was like, oh, that's,that's something.
Know like kind of like how theywant things to go, and so I was
like, oh, that's, that'ssomething that we could kind of
loosely tie in, yeah.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
I well, it's certainly uh.
I mean, my understanding of the14 points, to be honest, didn't
really go much beyond what wewould have learned in history
class in high school.
I haven't really ever read toomuch about World War I and the
particulars of the 14 points.
I certainly know that WoodrowWilson was one of the more
(04:12):
idealistic presidents we've everhad.
He was also an academic beforehe came into office.
It definitely seemed to shinethrough when he came up with
these 14 points, kind of got himand his cronies together
Hundreds of academics, it doesseem kind of academic, you know.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
Then it had me thinking about like I don't know
.
Do you know who's behind thisProject 2025?
Is it like a section of theRepublicans in government, or is
it even really a thing?
I don't really know anythingabout it.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
It's been put out from what I've seen by the
heritage foundation, which is aconservative think tank, um, in
the kind of right-leaning spaceof think tanks you've got, you
know um, more I guess,traditional conservatives, uh,
you've got more libertarian kindof conservatives.
(05:09):
Heritage foundation, I thinkthey currently they fall more
within the like neo conservativeelement where it's like they
want, uh, national government,uh, they want more of a
religious kind of christianelement to the government.
Um, at least that's how they'relabeled by some of their
opponents I'll tell you what.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
Whoever runs their pr is horrible, because just the
name project 2025 makes you notwant to agree to it.
Sounds like something that likeif you had this movie that had
some about like some dystopianfuture, and it'd be like, yeah,
things were going okay, and then, uh, project 2025.
(05:50):
And then, just like this wholehorror story of you know mayhem,
like it just has thatconnotation, that like it's bad
at like back to the future too,when biff is like which I've
never really seen the wholething.
I've seen bits and pieces ofBack to the Future 2 but, like
you know where Biff is like thepresident, or is he the
(06:12):
president or I forget.
He's like or he's like Trump,actually, right, like in a movie
like that it would be the samething.
Like Marty McFly lands with theDe delorean into wherever town
he was in and then he's likewhat the heck happened here?
Like everything's all liketrashed or whatever, and we got
(06:32):
this king and everyone's likeworking as like and they
enslaved whatever.
And then marty mcfly's likewhat the heck happened here?
And they're like, oh, project,project 2025 happened.
That's what happened.
And then it's something likethat.
It just has that feel to itwhich maybe that's a good thing
(06:54):
that it's named that way,because I guess they're being
more upfront about it instead ofbeing like oh, this is a
lollipops and rainbows plan, youwould think.
If you wanted people to getbehind something like this,
maybe you would call it goalsfor a better future 2026.
(07:16):
Give it two years.
No, just having that name.
It's just so impersonal and sorobotic and just so dystopian.
Really.
It really sounds like it.
I could see that beingreferenced as a turning point.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
Its full name is 2025 Presidential Transition Project
.
Speaker 1 (07:40):
That's worse.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
I think Also not.
Yeah, I don't think that'sgoing to get more people on
board with it, especiallyconservatives.
I guess that's why I don'treally get it.
It's I don't know.
It seems like it's been labeleda lot by, I guess, primarily
people on the left as like a wayfor, seen as like for donald
trump to basically become a king, effectively kind of to rule
(08:03):
out to get rid of all thebureaucracy to like get rid of
all the fifth column,bureaucracy, jobs, the
department of education, allthat stuff.
To basically just like cuteverything and, um, console, I
guess, consolidate more withinthe president.
Um, that's how it's beenlabeled.
I mean, I don't.
I haven't read much about itoutside of what I've heard in
(08:25):
the mainstream media, but yeah,it seems.
One of the things I'm readinghere says it proposes
reclassifying tens of thousandsof federal civil service workers
as political appointees inorder to replace them with
people loyal to the president.
Now, before the Pendleton Act,before Chester, now, before the
pendleton act, before chester,arthur passed the pendleton
(08:47):
civil service reform act.
Um, that was a big thing at theend of the 19th century, was,
you know, patronage and we?
Speaker 1 (08:53):
learned all about it.
Learned all about it.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
Listen back to the assassination episode so I mean,
I guess there's a bit of areturn to that, which I don't
necessarily know if that wouldbe a good idea, but I don't know
how many there's a history toit and they're probably like
from.
One of the biggest arguments I'dheard about that civil service
reform is that it did create thebureaucratic state and like it
was just a simple yeah, therewas a more simple time when if
(09:18):
you get me votes, you get a job,if you get me votes, you get a
job, and like it was just alittle more black and white and
it kind of watered down um, youknow the kind of lobbying
element of things.
It was just like if you wantedto get elected, you had to kind
of find people to help you goget those votes.
I don't know if that's whatproject 2025 is trying to go for
, um I doubt it.
Speaker 1 (09:39):
Listen, yeah, they have.
The thing is I don't know howmany things are on the list.
It's just just like a list ofthings, right?
Anything that the government isin charge with that would have
anything more than three items.
I wouldn't trust them withanything.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
And for me personally , if they're not returning power
to the states, I'm already verycritical of it.
If power is not being returnedto the states, if they're just
trying to cut bureaucracy butpower is going to stay in the
federal, federal government, I'malready a skeptic of it.
And the right seems kind ofsilly and I think they are kind
of.
Maybe I don't know if they weretrying to pin this on trump,
(10:14):
because actually, like maybe theheritage foundation is not for
him and they know the left wouldjust eat it up and they would
be able to paint, and so I knowtrump's been trying to
disassociate himself with itbecause it looks so ridiculous
and there is just like all thesethings that Well, again, he's
probably like that name sucks.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
He knows the power of PR, obviously that's his whole
thing, so I could see him notgetting behind it just because
of the name.
Speaker 2 (10:38):
It also only has a $22 million budget.
It doesn't even have a $million dollar budget.
Speaker 1 (10:43):
I think it's a perfect gift that they gave
their political opposition to belike yeah, you don't want to
follow this who?
Yeah, they always do that.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
I feel like that's why the right so stupid, that's
why they're so dumb, that's whythey keep losing elections.
I also would think, you know,just kind of rewinding, like
you're saying, it seems likethese things we maybe certain,
you maybe a number of years goby and then somebody seems to
come out with these lofty goals,these big ideal perspective,
(11:13):
which I think Pride 25 certainlyis.
I think the tie-in is the ideaof every so often someone comes
out of the woodwork, whetherit's on the right or the left
Oftentimes it's the left becausethat's kind of the more the
progressive element, like theyjust want to have these big,
lofty ideas and ideals that theytry to want to meet.
But certainly Woodrow Wilsondefinitely was coming from that
(11:36):
camp.
He was president of PrincetonUniversity.
He, you know, came from anacademic background and I think
even when he was in office hedefinitely kept that element
around him.
And so when he came out withthese 14 points which were a
statement of principles forpeace, used to bring about some
peace negotiations in order toend World War I, he definitely
(12:00):
kept a lot of those academictypes around and he basically
brought them in and they'vegenerated like 2000 reports to
say, okay, what are the?
What's the issue, what's theunderlying problems with this
war happening across theAtlantic.
Why are these sides fighting?
And from you know, just on thetop level I mean it, you can
just tell people said, okay,well, look, people are fighting.
(12:21):
Said okay, well, look, peopleare fighting, so there has to be
a problem.
But they didn't really take anyconsiderations that they're
going back into a continentthat's been dealing with
centuries of conflict in one wayor another.
The found, our own foundingfather, said just stay out of
that neck of the woods, we don'tneed it.
That's why we got the monroedoctrine.
We said, hey, you guys keepyour old world problems over
there, we'll keep over here inthe new world.
(12:42):
You just keep to your, keep toyourselves over there.
And um, you know that I don'tthink that was gonna kind of be
quite good enough for for theimperialist presidency, which,
which was born in, uh, the early20th century, you know, we kind
of had a big new navy, we had abig new white fleet, great
fleet, and uh, yeah, no,roosevelt wanted to flex his
(13:04):
muscles.
Speaker 1 (13:05):
You know walk, you know carrying that big village
people do a song about being inthe navy yes, well, what was
that?
Song.
What was that song in the navy?
In the navy, kind of the sameas ymca.
They were sound like a littlebit of a one trick pony huh, I
think I don't know if the chordprogression was very different.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
I don't know if Kind of the same as YMCA.
They sound like a little bit ofa one-trick pony huh.
I don't know if the chordprogression was very different.
I don't know if melodies arevery similar.
But yeah, just 14 points, it'sjust a real.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
It's kind of funny because like well, let's get
into them before we startdiscussing them.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
Well, I'm just trying to give kind of a higher level.
So basically we got, I thinkeveryone's on the same page,
everyone.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
The us started thinking that they knew better
than the rest of the world afteronly have been.
Speaker 2 (13:54):
We were very late entrance into world war one.
You know we're not going to gointo that, the conflict itself
so much, uh.
But yeah, the us was did notget into world war one until the
last year of the conflict, Ibelieve.
And, uh, you know, apparentlywoodrow wilson claimed
neutrality for most of that time.
(14:14):
It remains to be seen.
It's possible that he actuallymaybe wanted us in the war, kind
of like fdr World War II.
So yeah, we're here with 14points.
(14:37):
The principles were outlined ina January 8, 1918 speech and we
gave a speech to congress and,uh, a lot of his colleagues, so
a lot of the other leaders ineurope, were quite skeptical of
his war, about what the aimswere.
I mean, yeah, american idealismcoming into europe, this
(14:59):
european pragmatism, or just thefrench wanted their cut, the
italians wanted theirs, theyliterally the French wanted
their cut, the Italians wantedtheirs.
The Italians only got into thewar because they said, okay,
which side should we join?
Whatever side gives us thebetter deal on who wins the war,
that's who we'll join.
Speaker 1 (15:14):
So the Allies gave them a better deal.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
The British, that was real classy.
So everyone was just like dude,what are you talking about?
You're Wilson, you're wilsonianidealism making a cut it here.
But he pursued, he kept ongoing and, um yeah, he came out
with these 14 points.
So the war was over, correct?
Speaker 1 (15:36):
it was not over but they were, they were winding
down and they were really closeto treaty talk, so he wanted to
get his input of what should be,uh, what should be uh.
The maker breaks of the treaty,correct of the treaty of
versailles yeah, it wasn't therejust yet.
Speaker 2 (15:54):
it was seen that the war was going to be coming to an
end and, uh, he just wanted tohave his time and because I
guess we were now, at that point, combatants in the war, he felt
he had a place to.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
He probably was like oh, we basically won it, we won
the war.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
Yeah, through our entry we helped the allies cross
the finish line.
So let's, this was called thewar to end all wars.
So let me come up with my 14points.
Me and my academic cronies comeup with 14 points to hopefully
make that become a reality and,uh, some of the main driving
aspects.
So we have all 14 points, butsome of the main kind of themes
(16:32):
of them.
The big thing whenever you knowif someone asks you know pub
trivia, you know what's the,what's the overarching kind of
theme of the 14 points, youranswer is probably going to be
this the idea ofself-determination, where you
give minority ethnic groupsbasically a say in their local
(16:53):
government or you even give acarve out to them to create
their own country.
So I mean, that's why we havetoday.
You've got well, you hadCzechoslovakia after the fact,
but you have all these countriesscattered throughout Europe
because at the time of World WarI you really only had the
German Empire, theAustro-Hungarian Empire, the
(17:14):
Ottoman Empire, and so, yeah, hekind of had this
self-determination principlewhere, basically, if you're, if
they, basically, if you're alarge enough ethnic group, you
should nationality, you shouldbe able to have your own country
effectively, and so you knowthat's great, all well and good
saying that from across theAtlantic, but you know, if
(17:34):
you're actually living in Europeand you know having to kind of
be the one living with somebodydrawing and dividing lines, you
know you're going to be, youmight be a little more, uh, you
might have a little morepushback on that.
So yeah, but he came inprinceton educated guy, thought
he knew it all.
And these are his 14 points.
(17:56):
So the very first point was nosecret treaties, in that
diplomacy should be open andtransparent.
So a little historical contextthere were secret alliances
going on before the war betweenAustria, hungary and Germany and
(18:16):
Wilson wanted to preventsecrecy and diplomacy.
He just felt that by keeping itunder under wraps.
You know you have differentpowers, negotiating different
terms and you know talking about, maybe you know partitioning,
like poland, for instance, waspartitioned three ways at the
end of the 18th century, much tothe chagrin of our, of our
(18:38):
founding father to do skachusko.
Poland was partitioned byrussia, austria, hungary and
germany and prussia at the time,sorry.
And so he just thought you know, keeping you got to have all
discussions in the open air,can't, uh, can't have it under
the rug, and you know disagreewhy is that?
Speaker 1 (18:57):
I just think you should be able to do whatever
you want as a sovereign poweryeah, yeah, I mean, I would
agree yeah but this was anorganization to prevent the,
with the stated aim of nothaving another war impossible.
Make like an impossible feat.
Speaker 2 (19:13):
All right, whatever it is impossible, but he didn't
stop him or the progressives andfrom trying all right, so point
number I don't want to sticktoo long on these points.
So freedom of the seas, so thatmeant all countries could have
free navigation of the oceans.
Uh, naval blockades were a bigthing going on before the war,
(19:36):
and even during the war theGerman U-boats sank in American
Lusitania, which actually kindof got us into the war.
So you know, no submarineattacks and that stuff.
And so then the next one isfree trade.
So removal of economic barriersto allow equal trade conditions
(19:58):
.
I agree to that.
There was a lot ofprotectionism and trade barriers
going on before the war.
I agree to that.
There was a lot ofprotectionism and trade barriers
going on before the war.
And even in modern times, as weknow, with all the tariff talk,
it's kind of always a constantin a way.
We've had lulls where we've hadquote unquote more free trade
in the world, but then peoplewill oftentimes like to pack up
and go home and tariffs are kindof a way of doing that
(20:22):
protectionism.
Yeah, who's a big?
Speaker 1 (20:24):
fan of free trade.
Who's that Coldplay?
Why is that?
I just feel like they alwayshave make trade fair or fair
trade on their piano orsomething.
Speaker 2 (20:41):
You think they're like libertarian free traders?
Or you mean like paying peoplefor their chocolate beans and
their coffee beans, like payingenough money to the guy picking
chocolate.
Is that what that means?
I think that's more what thatmeans.
It's like on the chocolate barwhen it says like free chocolate
, we made by free trade and notlike slave labor.
Speaker 1 (20:58):
Oh, is that what that means?
Speaker 2 (21:00):
I think that's what they probably mean.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
But that doesn't make any sense.
But I slave labor.
Oh, is that what that means?
I think that's what theyprobably mean, but that doesn't
make any sense.
Speaker 2 (21:09):
Christopher martin, chris, I don't think he goes by
christopher.
Apparently the us wasn't happyabout it, though they didn't
like this one cold play in thefair trade thing.
Well, just free trade ingeneral.
I mean, we like to think thatthe us is kind of a free trade
comment, but really not.
The british were, I guess, morefree traders in the us were at
the early 20th century.
Yeah, and so yeah, but then.
(21:30):
So the next one is armsreduction.
Uh, you had to reduce militaryweapons to the lowest point
needed for safety, and that'sjust before the war.
There was a massive armsbuildup across Europe, and so a
lot of smaller countries weren'treally happy with that because
they thought, well, it couldjust happen again.
If they have to get rid oftheir weapons, then how can they
(21:54):
defend themselves?
Fair colonial claims was thenext one.
So just colonial claims withrespect for local populations.
Speaker 1 (22:00):
Don't want to have another Christopher Columbus
situation.
Speaker 2 (22:05):
No, christopher Columbus uh, don't want to have
another christopher columbussituation.
No, christopher columbus.
This is also kind of 20 yearsafter, maybe 15 years after,
wrapping up the scramble forafrica, which was a big carve
out.
Basically, all the major powersof europe just literally cut up
africa and amongst themselves,without any real recognition of
the people's living there.
So that would have been on thetable there.
(22:27):
Russia number six is russia'ssovereignty, to respect russia's
independence and help itdevelop freely.
So, like I said, this is kindof right on the heels of the
bolsheviks coming to power andrussia was in a state of turmoil
.
Turmoil.
The civil russian civil war wason a state of turmoil.
The Russian Civil War was onthe verge of breaking out, or
had just broken out, between theRed Army and the White Army and
(22:50):
the Russian Bolsheviks.
They were pretty upset, though,that the Allies got involved in
the Russian Civil War,describing it as meddling.
So Wilson said okay, we'll kindof back off and let you guys do
what you got to do, kind of tomake find, find your way to
making your own one worldgovernment with communism.
And number seven was restorebelgium, so that belgium should
(23:12):
be evacuated and restored toindependence.
So they were.
They were.
They were conquered by germanyin 1914, or occupied, I should
say, um, they were eventuallyfreed.
Number eight was free france.
So this was a big one.
So the french, after thefollowing the franco-prussian
war in 1871, uh, which thefrench, the french, got
railroaded in, so they lost theterritory of alsace-lorraine and
(23:36):
so, as part of the 14 points,germany would have to secede
that back to fr, as well as anyother lost territory before the
war.
Number nine was redraw Italianborders.
So the purpose being theborders of Italy should align
(23:58):
with the nationality of thepeople.
So this is kind of theself-determination, again a
self-determination clause, whereyou know, if there's people
italian, those of italiandescent or ancestry, living in
dalmatia, which is modern daycroatia, on the adriatic sea,
like they should be part ofitaly proper, uh, and, like I
said earlier, they, they, they,italy explicitly joined the side
(24:20):
of the allies, shopping aroundfor the best deal that they
could get, based on what the warwould happen.
Yeah, so they would get theirborders redrawn and eventually
they would just become furiousbecause they did not get all the
territory they were expectingand they considered it a
(24:41):
mutilated victory.
So, although Italy was on thewinning side.
They did not get what theysigned up for, and yeah All
right.
Speaker 1 (24:52):
So a bunch of border redrawing, it seems like, and
countries being taken back yeah,is mostly what it is.
Speaker 2 (24:59):
A lot of border redrawing, not hitting the
Germans with reparations, asmuch as that, as much as they
would end up having to pay back.
But um, getting just back toitaly, real quick, it was things
like this in italy, and alsothen what would happen in
germany after the war that a lotof people say led to the rise
of fascism.
So in the case of italy,mussolini and the fascist, in
(25:23):
the case of germany, the nazisand um, and then you know,
hitler, um.
So number 10 autonomy foraustria-hungary.
So allow the people ofaustria-hungary
self-determination.
So yeah, the austria-hungarianempire before the war was just
full of all these differentethnicities which we now know by
(25:43):
, like their country names.
So you've got the czechrepublic, slovakia, slovenia,
serbia, hungary, you know all ofthese countries which are now
today in today's world.
But at the time you had allthese different ethnic
nationalities in this one empireand wilson said, yeah, they
should all be able to have theirown, say and uh, and then
(26:07):
countries, uh.
Number 11 was freedom for thebalkan states.
So that's what gave us, wouldeventually give us yugoslavia,
um, bundling all those, thesouth slavs together, including
ser Montenegro, what's now today?
Croatia and Bosnia.
Number 12, self-rule for Turkeyand others.
(26:29):
So basically, again, like theAustro-Hungarian Empire, the
Ottoman Empire that includedmany different ethnic groups and
peoples and the say was thatTurkey should be limited to just
its region proper.
So on Anatolia, which is where,when we think of Turkey in
(26:50):
today's terms, it's Istanbul andeverything kind of west of that
or east of that, sorry.
But then the rest of theOttoman Empire, including Syria
and Iraq, and I guess I thinkEgypt was part of it too, that
they should be free as well andhave their own
self-determination.
(27:11):
But a lot of Arabs and otherOttoman subjects were furious
because instead of self-rulethey were placed under European
mandate, which by primarilyBritain and France, after the
war 13, was an independentPoland.
And again, as I mentionedearlier, poland was partitioned
in the late 18th century.
(27:32):
It was basically carved up byRussia, austria, hungary and
Prussia at the time, and theywanted to basically bring back
Poland as an independent country.
And yeah, boykaczewska wouldhave been happy with that one.
He might have been skeptical athow they'd go about getting it
because he knew history himself,but he would have been pretty
stoked at that.
And last but not least, thiswas the big one, big kahuna,
(28:00):
creation of a league of nationswhose stated purpose would be to
promote peace and resolvedisputes around the world.
Speaker 1 (28:11):
There is.
That is the solution of allthat's the solution of solutions
, dog solution.
It's like hey, we can't evenget our country to agree on
something, how about we get thewhole world to try to agree on
something?
Speaker 2 (28:25):
that's the way to go, because we all know best well,
and someone from myself withmore of, I guess, a state's
rights perspective, I would lookat it as kind of just a
continuation.
We've already kind ofsuppressed all the us states
into one nationalist mask, oneamalgamated mass.
Why don't we keep doing thatwith the rest of the world?
Let's just keep the party going.
That's kind of how I would lookat it.
(28:46):
And yeah, he wanted hisorganization to resolve disputes
peacefully to prevent futurewars, and it was conceit would
have been seen as a majorinnovation in international
relations, but the US was havingnone of it.
Relations, uh, but the us washaving none of it.
(29:07):
Uh, the senate rejected it, uh,on the grounds led by
republican senator henry cabotlodge, uh, who didn't like the
idea of the us giving up itssovereignty and having to be
told to do anything, asupranational organization
telling the country yeah, I meanthat's even the us thinking
that.
Speaker 1 (29:19):
So imagine like a smaller country being like wait
what we're gonna get bulliedaround the whole thinking that.
Speaker 2 (29:23):
So imagine like a smaller country being like wait
what, we're going to get bulliedaround the whole world.
Well, a smaller country no, asmaller country might have an
outsized say in something likethat.
If they make a claim, if asmall country wants to have a
bigger claim, they can thenmaybe petition to a power above
the power they're competing withand have them rule on it, and
then they can have their way.
It could work either way.
Speaker 1 (29:46):
I would think.
I think his nation sounds likeit would be like Native American
.
It sounds like a NativeAmerican name, doesn't it it?
Speaker 2 (29:54):
does Probably more appropriate for that.
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (30:00):
Probably would have worked out for them if they did
that.
Yeah, you think so the leagueof nate.
Like if all the if all thenative americans got together,
they might have been able tosave a little bit more of their
land maybe find a way to gettogether, maybe well the league
(30:23):
was created.
Speaker 2 (30:24):
It was weak and failed to prevent world war ii,
as I mentioned.
There you go.
So, yeah, these were all of hispoints.
So the big stories, these wereall of his points.
This is what big story is.
These were all of his points.
This is what he took over.
The war kept going on for alittle while longer, but then it
wasn't until the Paris PeaceConference came about, where
they actually hashed out theTreaty of Versailles and what to
do.
Speaker 1 (30:43):
And which of these 14 points got incorporated into
the Treaty of Versailles?
Speaker 2 (30:48):
Well, the League of Nations was created,
incorporated into the treaty ofversailles.
Well, the league of nations wascreated.
Poland was made independent.
Uh, freedom for the balkanstates.
That kind of left a sour tastein some mouth.
They kind of carved outyugoslavia, which was kind of
ticked off.
Serbia, as I mentioned earlier.
Italy didn't get what they wereexpecting.
(31:08):
Uh, germany was really put totask and they had to pay all
these war debts, which was notpart of Wilson's plan.
He didn't want to kind ofburden any one country in a
financial situation to have topay the amount I think he would
have been accepting of somereparation, but the amount that
France and Britain primarily,were basically making Germany
(31:31):
pay.
Speaker 1 (31:32):
It was just extraordinary.
Well, in France and Britain'sdefense, they're the places that
got banged up.
Well, that's the argument,that's why everyone thought.
It's easy to say that from theUS perspective.
Speaker 2 (31:43):
Yeah, and that's what a lot of these leaders said.
So Clemenceau of.
Speaker 1 (31:47):
France.
It's almost like a League ofNations wouldn't work because
they wouldn't agree on that,because of that kind of
situation but it's almost likean academic came into the
presidency and thought he knewbest.
Yeah, academics do have a lotof practical skills.
So, yeah, that's cool, allright.
So germany got yeah, germanygot hosed and I think most
(32:07):
people understand that, likethat was a big part of you know
rise and, like you said, therise of fascism.
Speaker 2 (32:13):
Yeah, I think Russia had to deal with their own civil
war.
Russia went into a very bloodycivil war following the end of
World War I, which wouldeventually bring the Bolsheviks
to power and supplant communismin Russia.
The colonial stuff yeah, thatnot really.
They kind of ignored that oneentirely.
(32:34):
They said, yeah, now we're notgoing to worry about it.
Britain, britain kept most oftheir empire, although it was
kind of flailing like they'dkept most of it in france as
well.
But I think even germany, theywere even gonna like I think he
was cool with even lettinggermany keep some of their
overseas colonial possessions.
But at the paris peaceconference, they, they.
So the paris peace conferencetook place between 1919 and 1920
(32:58):
, where the victorious alliesset the peace terms for the
defeated central powers.
So I said this in his speechwas given in 18, 18, so the war
was still going on.
Peace conference didn't startuntil 1919.
But by that point that was justthem saying like what are we
gonna do?
Like how are we gonna, you know, put these guys through the
(33:21):
ringer?
So for the most part, wilsonianidealism did not win out and uh
, yeah, it kind of already setthe road to the next war.
Speaker 1 (33:34):
You'd think about it, yeah.
Speaker 2 (33:37):
There you go.
A bunch of other thingshappened, but Hitler at this
point was just an Austriancorporal in the army, just some
punk.
Speaker 1 (33:50):
No, mustache, probably mustache probably.
Speaker 2 (33:51):
Mustache is probably very small along with his wee
wee I think mussolini was.
He might have still been asocialist at this point, like a,
uh, a designated socialist.
And then, obviously, you know,p they were able to use.
You know a lot of this, what,how they were treated after the
(34:14):
fact of the war.
They were able to kind of use alot of that and, uh, you know,
recharge their base and kind ofbring in all these uh I get it
lesson learned I suppose yeah,but did we?
because we then created theunited nations after world war
ii.
I don't really know howdifferent that is than the
League of Nations.
I didn't really put the time into learn.
Speaker 1 (34:37):
But yeah, so kind of an L for the US, a little bit an
L for Woodrow Wilson, eventhough.
Speaker 2 (34:44):
History still seems to love him.
He's still ranked as a toppresident in most modern
rankings.
Speaker 1 (34:50):
Who asked them to do this?
Anybody like did the?
Did europe ask them?
Like it would be funny if, likewoodrow wilson like brought it
to them and they were like, uh,nope, thanks, uh, nobody asked
you.
Like this is like they thought.
Like woodrow wilson thoughtlike, oh man, we came in, we
(35:12):
saved the day.
Europe's gonna love us.
They're gonna listen toeverything we have to say.
They're gonna like welcome withopen arms.
And it'd just be funny if, likewoodrow wilson like showed up
with all this stuff and europewas like um, thanks, I guess you
know this is kind of our thing.
You know we're, you're all theway across the ocean.
You know this is more.
You know, let us handle it.
(35:33):
I mean, who were these?
Were they like employees of thegovernment or did he just bring
them in, bring his boys in?
Speaker 2 (35:38):
150 political and social scientists, known as the
inquiry.
The inquiry was organized bywoodrow, by wilson's advisor,
colonel edward m House, to studypolicy and analyze facts that
might come up during peacenegotiations.
Who was like the guy runningthe back of house?
He was like basically runningback of house in the Wilson
(36:00):
administration Sidney Mezzi's, aphilosopher and academic who
was president of the College ofthe City of New York at the time
he was appointed to head theinquiry.
Walter Lippmann he was aprominent journalist and
political commentator whocontributed to the analysis of
international issues.
He was instrumental indeveloping the concept of
(36:21):
self-determination, which becamea key point in the 14 points.
Isaiah Bowman, a geographer whowas responsible for providing
detailed maps and geographicanalysis, crucial for redrawing
national borders in post-warEurope.
David Hunt Miller, a legalexpert who contributed to
drafting the legal framework forthe peace negotiations.
And James Shotwell, a historianand professor who focused on
(36:45):
labor issues in the League ofNations concept.
Nice, contributing ideas aboutinternational cooperation.
Well, it says, edward m housereached out to the allied powers
to see if they would accept the14 points and would they say no
, yes, okay, maybe like we'llhear it, like we're fighting a
(37:08):
war over here, like we've lost alot of young men.
Y'all only just got here withyour expeditionary force.
Y'all can come up with whateveryou want.
Speaker 1 (37:17):
We're going to fight this war, they're like, hey, man
, I got a bunch of teachers andwe're all going to put it
together.
We all think we have a prettygood idea on how you guys should
run things over there, because,you know, we don't think you
know what you're doing.
So we figure, you know, we'll,we'll, I'll, we'll take the time
and we'll give you, we'll giveyou our thoughts and we'll show
you how to do things.
Speaker 2 (37:36):
And they're like, uh, okay like, and they're probably
kind of like, coming from thecountry that still has
segregation and you know youdon't even let people drink from
the same water fountains.
Yeah, I'm sure they'd be likewhy would we listen to you?
Speaker 1 (37:49):
yeah, like, do you think that's what you think?
We look like a bunch of nerdsshowing up, like that.
Speaker 2 (37:54):
You think about it in that way it could be some of
where the arrogance for somepeople have of america, people
thinking americans are ignorant.
I mean just some of the nopeople like americans overseas
for the most part in my whatI've found.
But I think when they thinkAmericans look a little ignorant
, I think it's not even justyour regular person, it's yeah
(38:15):
when you have academics kind ofruling trying to say they know
best.
We obviously know that happenshere.
People don't like having tohear from the experts on
everything or how to do things.
Speaker 1 (38:29):
Unless they're in politics and everybody wants to
hear them.
Speaker 2 (38:32):
That's what it seems like anymore well, now they just
talk for the lobbies and forthe interest.
Yeah, it's kind of silly.
I mean, in hindsight it seemssilly, but it's like enough
people bought into it.
I don't know if it was justlike the american population was
like well, you guys, we votedfor you.
You guys can do it.
Sure, you're smart, it's one ofthose.
(38:54):
Well, you're smart, you'llfigure it out.
I can figure it out.
Speaker 1 (38:58):
I can see US getting behind.
Hey, yeah, we want our idea,for Obviously, everybody wants
your idea to be accepted, but Ijust think Europe's perspective
would be funny to think about,like, uh, yeah, okay, yeah, put
it over there, we'll get to itkind of thing.
Speaker 2 (39:18):
You know, yeah, well, maybe they just wanted to keep
and like they wanted to justkeep the americans interested in
the war, because maybe theyneeded they needed them.
Speaker 1 (39:27):
Yeah, that's true.
Yeah, all right, we have 14points like if they said like,
if they said yeah, if they saidno, they'd be worried.
The US would be like, all right, well, if you don't want to
listen to us, then deuces.
Speaker 2 (39:38):
Yeah, sure, Great 14.
Yeah, great number.
Speaker 1 (39:40):
I love that number.
That number suits you so well,oh, 14, wow, oh, so now was this
developed by like diplomats oranybody with any military
background or anything?
Oh no, it was just academicswho spent all their time
studying in liberal artscolleges like Yale and Harvard.
That's even better.
Speaker 2 (39:58):
Yeah, definitely.
And the City College of NewYork, suny, it's almost like you
.
I mean, I got to be honest withyou.
It's like when, deep state ornot, it's not that unfathomable
that it exists, that people justwith big degrees call shots
(40:20):
just have their prescriptionsand that project.
I'm tying it back into project2025.
I'm sure the heritagefoundation has some phds on
payroll.
Who came up with some of these.
Speaker 1 (40:29):
Oh, why wouldn't that be an issue?
Have you ever With no real lifeexperience?
Yeah, well, so I thought itwould be a good idea, since
we're talking about the 14points, that maybe we should put
together our own list of 14points.
I got started on this and Ikind of said you know what 14 is
(40:54):
a lot, let's do seven pointseach and we'll merge our list
together, um, to create you knowwhat we would think our you
know ideal.
I don't know, obviously there'sno war to settle, necessarily,
but maybe, maybe, uh, you knowjust just more of how we would
want things to be going ingeneral.
Speaker 2 (41:20):
Well, I set up my seven points for creating a
great history podcast.
Kind of rules to follow.
Speaker 1 (41:29):
And ChatGPT wrote these, so you put no input into
it and that's what you decidedto do.
Okay, interesting, I bet youknow what.
Uh, I don't want to answer, butI bet if you were to do that,
number one would be don't usechat gpt.
That would be my number If wewere putting a 14 list together
(41:53):
of how to make a good historypodcast.
Number one would be don't usechat GPT.
So, all right, we'll go ahead,but read your seven points.
Speaker 2 (42:02):
So fancy ego, my seven points for creating your
history podcast.
I'm not saying I live up to allof them, but I think you'd get
a kick.
Speaker 1 (42:09):
Well, chat, GPT is points not your points.
Speaker 2 (42:20):
Let's just be clear.
Speaker 1 (42:21):
I signed off on them okay, like the president, okay,
okay, thought of my own.
But I wonder if woodrow wilson?
Well, he didn't sign off.
Speaker 2 (42:26):
He didn't make them.
Speaker 1 (42:26):
I mean he had a yeah he like used his like figurative
chat GPT with his like all ofhis academic, his academic
people That'd be funny.
If their initials were GPT,that'd be funny.
Glenn, peter and Tom.
Speaker 2 (42:47):
So, number one do your research right, bring the
facts to light.
If the story is a bore, they'llwalk out the door oh, these are
rhyming.
Speaker 1 (42:59):
Is that number two?
Yeah, all right.
Well, you gotta number them,okay.
So number one was what do yourresearch right?
Speaker 2 (43:06):
bring the facts to light.
Okay, number two if the story'sa bore, they'll walk out the
door.
We've had a couple of those.
Number three make the soundclear so all can hear we're
trying Dealing with that one.
Number four show the twist theycan't resist.
Focus on surprising momentsthat grab attention.
Speaker 1 (43:28):
Princess Di, we nailed that one okay, number
five keep it tight.
Speaker 2 (43:32):
Don't go all night.
Stay focused and concise.
Long rambles can lose yourlisteners.
Oh, that's one I gotta follow100.
Number six tell it with flair,like they were there these are
these suck dude number seven ifyou don't, you don't put on a
(43:53):
show.
That's number, that should benumber one.
Speaker 1 (43:55):
Well, no, I don't like that one.
I like if you don't know.
If you don't know, let it go.
Speaker 2 (44:01):
That's what I would say okay, those are my seven
points that's interesting.
Speaker 1 (44:13):
And what did you input to get those Just out?
Speaker 2 (44:18):
of curiosity, I will let you know and our fans know.
My friend and I are about to doa history of Woodrow Wilson's
14 points.
As part of that discussion, weeach want to come up history of
Woodrow Wilson's 14 points.
As part of that discussion, weeach want to come up with our
own quote.
Seven points, I'd like sevenpoints about how to do a good
history podcast, told in rhymes,ie If the glove don't fit, you
(44:41):
must quit.
Or if you can't do the time,don't do the crime.
Speaker 1 (44:44):
Okay, Well, they did pretty good at that.
They did pretty good at that.
They did pretty good at that.
I wonder if woodrow wilsonwould have made his points rhyme
, people would have been more onboard.
Do you want to hear my seven?
Speaker 2 (45:00):
yes, my list of seven , so how?
Long did it take you to come upwith these?
Speaker 1 (45:08):
I was picking away at .
I went for a run yesterday.
I was thinking about somegrocery shopping.
Last night I was thinking aboutsome I got.
I got a couple.
It took me a little bit.
Do you want to hear them?
Mine are just kind of seventhings that I think should exist
in the world.
Speaker 2 (45:25):
Okay, not putting out academics in a room, putting a
hundred academics in a room andexpecting to end all wars.
Speaker 1 (45:32):
Well, it's more.
This is.
This is the the uh Joe Publixidea of what the what should be
going down in these, in thesetalks.
Got it Number one's prettyshort and sweet.
Um, it's a quote from a film,semi-pro, which we've talked
about on this uh show before.
(45:53):
Um, ele stands for everybodylove everybody.
Simple, simple, simply put.
Why not?
Right woodrow would agree.
Why not?
Does everybody love everybody,every?
I love everybody, loveeverybody for everybody.
Speaker 2 (46:12):
Although it seems a little water, it seems like an
academic take.
But water dad's just for theevery man person seems a little
academic everybody loveeverybody yeah, like, how's that
happen?
Like that's just unfortunatelynot how the real world works
yeah, but it would be nice if itdid, it would be.
So there's a little idea.
So there's idealism in the, inyour seven points.
This is not like realismpractical.
(46:33):
This is seven points of living,some of them yeah okay, so it's
number one.
Speaker 1 (46:38):
Number two um, no more of this.
Oh, didn't have blank on mythis year bingo card.
I hate that, you know.
I mean, you know how people arelike oh, I didn't have trump
getting assassinated on my 2024bidding go card.
I hate that.
Who says that?
(46:58):
You don't hear that?
That's like a thing referencingbingo cards.
Yeah, like they like ifsomething weird happens, you
know that, like no one thoughtwould have had, like no one
thought would be would havehappened.
They're like oh, didn't havethat on my bingo card, you know,
like a bingo card of likecrossing things off, things that
could happen to cross off on alist.
I never heard that in my life.
I'm trying to think of a goodexample of it.
(47:19):
Let me think about one.
Speaker 2 (47:20):
I mean I understand the metaphor, but I just never
heard.
Speaker 1 (47:23):
Oh dude, it's time you're living under a rock, if
you haven't heard that do weneed to make a bingo card for
2025?
No, I'm saying I don't wantpeople to do this anymore.
Speaker 2 (47:37):
Oh, it seems like good podcast content, though do
you think should we go throughthat nailing history just like
together, like we have our ownbingo?
One bingo card for the showThings I didn't have on my 2025
bingo card, project 2025.
Speaker 1 (47:54):
What if that's what 2025 actually is?
Speaker 2 (47:57):
What if that's what everyone at the Paris Peace
Conference said to WoodrowWilson when he showed up with 14
points?
I didn't have that on my bingocard.
Free Poland I didn't have thaton my bingo card.
Speaker 1 (48:09):
I think there should be no more time zones in the
entire world and we should alllive on military time.
I think there should just beone time in the whole world.
I think it would cause lessconfusion and then you wouldn't
have to do Even within America.
Even if you just did it in theUnited States States would be
(48:30):
nice enough, but if you did itaround the world would even be
better.
Speaker 2 (48:39):
So it's let's say it's in today.
In today's time terms, it's twoo'clock in the afternoon in
Philadelphia.
Speaker 1 (48:47):
Okay, I say we call that 1400 for one, and then what
would it be in China?
Speaker 2 (48:54):
1400.
But it's the middle of thenight.
What does that solve?
Speaker 1 (49:08):
Less confusion.
Everyone on the same page.
Speaker 2 (49:10):
What if you're shipping goods, getting
everybody together?
What if you're shipping things?
It would arrive at the sametime.
Speaker 1 (49:19):
I mean, I just how much easier would it be it's a
great example If you wereshipping something to China.
I don't know what theirtimeline is, what their time is.
Speaker 2 (49:30):
There's like one big time zone in China.
Speaker 1 (49:33):
Okay, well, whatever Say, china is net currently just
six hours behind us.
I think they're probably say,say, six hours behind us, just
for simple things.
It's just for simplicity.
So now, if you're working for ashipping company or anything
like that, you're like, okay, ittakes 20 hours for it to get to
(49:55):
China, oh wait, but then soit'll get there at this time.
But it's like, oh wait, but wehave to adjust it for the time
change.
This way you don't have to doit.
It's like if it leaves at 0200and it's 20 hours to get there,
it's going to get to China at2200 and you don't have to
subtract that six hours.
So then there's no confusion.
(50:16):
Another example is like flyingplanes, like on flights.
If you're in a connectingflight somewhere and you read
your ticket and it says, oh, youland here at this time, and
then your plane leaves at thistime, you're always like well,
which time is that?
Like if you're flying toCalifornia if you're flying to
(50:36):
California and your flightleaves from Philly at this time,
lands in Texas at this time andthen your connection flight
takes off, how much time do Ihave between flights?
I want to know that, and itwould just be easier if
everything was the same time,and I think maybe that would
(50:57):
just make people a little bitmore happier.
And then go back to number one.
Speaker 2 (51:01):
Everybody would love everybody what if you have to
set your alarm, then you like,you got you.
You have a mix-up becauseyou're used to like okay, I have
to wake up every morning at0600 in, let's say, in England,
because that's Greenwich MeanTime.
You fly to the US and then youhave to set your alarm.
You forget to set your alarm to0.
(51:23):
No, to zero, no, it's zero,because you're used to waking up
.
So you're waking up at midnightbig deal, but what if you don't
?
Speaker 1 (51:35):
change your clock.
What if you just don't change?
I guess that would be new.
No, it would be midnight.
Well, your phones will change.
No, they won't.
Speaker 2 (51:43):
No they won't.
That's the whole point you'retrying to get rid of.
Speaker 1 (51:47):
Well, what if you're what if your phones, like,
realize where you're at andadjust your?
Speaker 2 (51:55):
alarms to that.
I think AI I mean, I think thetechnology certainly there for
that I do, I will just wanteveryone to be on the same page.
You want to.
You want to yell Lee.
You want to yell Lee?
I get it.
I don't know.
I think I'll just throw peopleoff.
I'd be willing to try it though.
Speaker 1 (52:16):
I think it's a good idea.
All right, that's number three.
Number four New Year's.
It's not a holiday anymore.
Get rid of it.
Stupid holiday.
There's no point in celebratingit as a holiday.
I still get rid of it.
I hate New Year's Eve.
(52:36):
It only brings on bad things.
It stopped people from hangingout in Times Square, which is
absurd.
All those people hanging out inTimes Square, and what is it
really celebrating?
You're turning around thecalendar.
I mean, do you celebrate everytime that the sun goes up and
down?
New day, new year, new dayShould we have.
Goes up and down.
(52:57):
New day, new year, new day?
Should we have?
A new day, holiday, new week?
Where does it end?
New month, why new year?
Why does new year matter?
Now, if you're going to talklike maybe new decade, I'd be
about that every once every 10years.
New decade.
Maybe every five yearsCelebrate Chinese New Year, but
(53:18):
one year.
Speaker 2 (53:21):
The new year of the rat or year of the dragon or
like those things mean something.
It's like you're going to havea good luck this year.
Good luck this year becauseit's the year of the dragon and
you were born in this year andthat was also a year of the
dragon right.
Speaker 1 (53:34):
Well, that's nonsense .
Well, no E no, ele, everybodylove everybody, that's okay, you
can still do that, but justit's not a holiday, that's all
I'm saying so you want them outto work on new year's eve, new
year's day.
Speaker 2 (53:51):
You want what you want people working on new
year's day I just don't think itshould be a holiday.
Speaker 1 (53:56):
It's stupid, it's a stupid holiday.
Speaker 2 (53:58):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (54:05):
Number five bring back public executions.
Really, yeah, I think thatthat's a good way to avoid crime
and I understand the point thatwe got away from public
(54:25):
executions, being that we'remore of a civilized people now
and blah, blah, blah.
But I think at some point thereason that they were done was
for Human nature.
Is human nature right?
And you know, even though wethink we're more of a civilized
people, there are certain thingsthat, like people that need to
(54:48):
be, you know, made an example ofto deter other idiots from
doing stupid stuff.
Speaker 2 (54:55):
Do you think we need.
It seems like we need to find away to bring shame back.
Yes, more puritan.
You want a puritanical, areturn to some form of
puritanism where shame isactually like a prescription to
solve a problem, like peopleneed to feel shame still yeah, I
guess yeah, well, that's thebig thing.
(55:17):
People have.
No, you don't.
You have, you have no shame,like how could he go around
doing that thing or dressingthat way or acting that way?
You have, you know, shame.
I mean that's what the the old,the old timers used to say to
people.
Speaker 1 (55:31):
I guess the problem is going to be if you do this to
somebody who's actuallyinnocent.
Speaker 2 (55:35):
I mean, I don't know We'll just start with showing
their wee wee and things go bad.
Speaker 1 (55:43):
I don't learn turn it up a notch kind of like
Mussolini.
Hey it worked.
Has there been anotherMussolini?
You tell me, like a schoolshooter Be a perfect example.
Yeah, you got to make anexample out of these people, so
people don't copycat.
Speaker 2 (56:12):
Just something else every time.
What do you mean?
Just different ways?
Maybe you can't do the samething.
It's like you know what I'll behanged, I'll do that.
I'll still commit this crime.
Hanging I don't care.
I mean, that's fine, everyone'sgot to go.
But if you don't know howthey're going to kill you, you
can't tell the execution style.
Every time it's always amystery, like one day, and
(56:39):
depending on the crime is likeobviously one day it's ripping
out your toenails um so I mean,that's my thought.
Speaker 1 (56:45):
I think there's a benefit to that.
And uh, number six, um, let's,uh, let's, figure out how to
work this government within abudget.
As a matter of fact, let's cutthe budget of that government.
(57:08):
I don't think the heritagethere you go.
There's all this talk about oneof these hot items in these
presidential campaigns are likewe're going to raise taxes, but
we're only going to raise taxesfor the rich or whatever.
It's all this like we're goingto have the corporations pay
more tax.
All this more tax stuff.
Why doesn't somebody say we'regoing to spend less?
Speaker 2 (57:29):
Because neither party is interested in that.
Speaker 1 (57:32):
It's just funny to me , but nobody says anything.
It's like, yeah, we should justraise taxes to these people
instead of just not spending asmuch money.
Speaker 2 (57:42):
It makes no sense.
Speaker 1 (57:43):
It's literally like paying a credit card with
another credit card.
Speaker 2 (57:48):
Yeah, that's.
Speaker 1 (57:50):
And that's the dumb thing that you can do.
So that's great.
Speaker 2 (57:55):
Well, what is it?
When you owe a debt of tenthousand dollars, it's your
problem, but when it's like abillion, it's the government's
or they can just write it off.
Yeah, it's just like they're soindebted on it.
It's like no one's everexpecting to get paid back.
35 trillion dollars like theseyeah, the money's.
That's why you gotta shout outthomas jefferson ran a deficit
(58:17):
and andrew Andrew Jackson paidoff the debt.
There you go.
Last time that's ever happened,I think that would be nice.
Speaker 1 (58:26):
I don't even care about the debt, I get how the
world economy works.
No, I don't get it, butapparently that's how the world
economy works and we'll never bedebt-free.
But to cover them, blowingmoney like nothing, covering the
government blowing, blowingmoney for whatever, and then
just saying like well, we'lljust get it from the rich people
(58:47):
.
And that's just like a totalwool over your eyes, that like
don't worry about how much moneywe're spending, we're going to,
we're not going to take it fromyou, even though ultimately
they do.
And then number seven would befour-day work week.
Speaker 2 (59:07):
You of all people.
Yeah, I'm shocked Really whyKind of You're working stiff.
Speaker 1 (59:16):
Hey, that would just give me another day to work on
the podcast.
That's all I'm looking at.
Speaker 2 (59:22):
So four day work week on a military clock?
Yep, well, get your lunch break.
You're just out there watchinga public execution.
Some guy committed some heinouscrime with a four day work week
week hot button issue right nowhot button.
Speaker 1 (59:43):
Well, I think the the the conversation of the
four-day work week is will theyget?
Will you get just as much donein four four days?
So might as well just do it infour days, because you know
people are not working.
You know monday, mondays andfridays are not working.
Mondays and Fridays are not asproductive of a day as Tuesday
through Thursday.
But then if you cut back to afour-day workweek, is your
(01:00:03):
Mondays and Thursdays not goingto be as productive?
All right.
So my seven points areeverybody, love everybody.
No more.
Didn't have that on my bingocard for this year.
Comments no more time zones.
We're all on military time.
No more New Year's holiday.
Bring back public executions.
(01:00:25):
Cut government spending or cutthe budget and a four-day work
week.
And honestly, if you followthose seven things, that's
pretty sweet.
I don't know if anyone woulddisagree with me on that.
So do you think that would help?
Speaker 2 (01:00:42):
No, not at all, not even remotely.
We're good at this.
There's no way this thing's notgoing to get demonetized,
because all the money we'rebringing in.
Thank you again to our sponsorsAll right.
Speaker 1 (01:00:56):
Well, I thought it was interesting thinking about
the 14 points and how no onelistened and how that's not more
of a joke on our country.
Speaker 2 (01:01:05):
No one will probably listen to Project 2025, for
better or worse.
It's just something to pass thetime.
Speaker 1 (01:01:12):
It's just minutiae.
Is that what you would call it?
Yep, it's just nonsense.
Speaker 2 (01:01:17):
Until we bring shame back, it's all a moot point.
Yeah, big, lofty ideals boilsdown to 10.
Speaker 1 (01:01:27):
You know simplistic points that don't make it a
human nature oftentimes it'sjust the pr behind the newest
one isn't, as isn't as good asWilson's 14 points.
It just sounds good, so kind ofgot to that.
Speaker 2 (01:01:40):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (01:01:40):
I don't want to be a broken record, but I just think
Proctor 2025 could use somemakeup.
I guess you could say Use anice makeover to try to get it
by.
All right, anything else to add, john?
Speaker 2 (01:02:00):
No, that's, that's it .
It's been a great show and Ireally enjoyed it and I look
forward to the next one.
Yeah, all right, stay furious.
Speaker 1 (01:02:28):
And we say bye-bye.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.