(Not So) Deep Sh*t on Business, Politics, and the Media

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
I'm Chris, I'm Steve and we're talking after a brief

(00:31):
hiatus to talk about some moredeep shit, hey.

Speaker 2 (00:34):
Steve Chris, how you doing.

Speaker 1 (00:35):
Good, it has been a while.

Speaker 2 (00:38):
It has.

Speaker 1 (00:39):
Yeah, we have been remiss in recording episodes.
Life gets in the way sometimes.

Speaker 2 (00:44):
It does, it does, and , uh, I'm happy to be back here
speaking with you, though yes,yes, long overdue.

Speaker 1 (00:51):
Lots of things to talk about.
So much has happened.
When is the last time we, weput out an episode?
It was, uh, january, was itjanuary?
I think it was january, wow,and now it's april.
We're well into the thing, wellinto 2020, 2024.
So I would say that we're goingto get better at this, and we
are, but I'm not going to makeany specific promises, because

(01:13):
any specific promises we make inregards to, you know, releasing
content, I'm not 100% sure wecan come through on it.
So, let's, we do intend ongetting more content out there
more regularly.
We're going to get better atthis and we appreciate those of
you who have stuck with us.

Speaker 2 (01:30):
Thank you.
Will there ever be a regularschedule?
I don't know, I don't know.
Will it be more consistent?
I promise that I'm going to try.

Speaker 1 (01:41):
Yes, same here, same here.
So what have you been up tothese days?
How's 2024 treating you thusfar?

Speaker 2 (01:48):
Not bad, not bad, looking forward to actually some
actual nice weather.
I have been kind of housebound,I feel like in the last four
months it's either been cold orrain or both.

Speaker 1 (02:00):
Yeah, it's for those who don't live in an area that
sees seasons Because some peoplelive in like perpetually warm
places Right, which I envy tosome degree, or perpetually cold
places, which I do not envy atall At all I have to say we have
it pretty good up here in theNew England area.
We actually get seasons of asort Spring is really nice here.

(02:24):
Fall is really nice here.
Spring is really nice here.
Fall is really nice here.
Summer is really nice here.
I am not a big fan of the NewEngland winters Never happened
Me either.
I'm just not.
But I don't think I'd ever moveaway.
I don't think I'd ever want tolive somewhere like Florida or
California where it never gotcold.

Speaker 2 (02:42):
I don't know.
Well, I like the change of theseasons, right.
I don't particularly like thecold, but I don't really mind
the cold because I know it'sgoing to change, right, so it's
temporary.
Sometimes I don't like it whenit just seems like it's never
going to end.

Speaker 1 (03:01):
Yeah, it's the early parts of the cold, like when
we're talking, you know know,getting a little chillier around
, halloween, dig it.
Uh, obviously, like december,christmas, get to new years, I'm
still good, uh, even a littlebit past.
I think when it really startsto hit me is like end of january
.
As we get into february, it'sjust that relentless, like you

(03:23):
still have several months ofcold, but there's no holidays,
there's no reason to celebratethe cold, it's just there.
Uh, you know, and some peoplelove it and I, you know, I get
it, but and I don't think Icould live without the option,
but I don't.
After a certain point I'm like,okay, I've gotten my taste,
like good enough, can we justwarm up now and we'll come back
at this next, next december,right, right?

(03:44):
Absolutely but what are yougoing to do?
We're almost there.

Speaker 2 (03:47):
How about you, chris?
What's going on with you?
I know you've had differentthings happening with you and
you have your um, uh, thepresentations that are are
actually ramping up for you.

Speaker 1 (03:58):
Yes, speaking engagements to a senior centers
where I talk about a variety ofthings, mostly UFOs, but I also
talk about AI and YouTube andteach technology to some degree,
which is great.
That's ramping up.
I had to have two surgeries onmy shoulder.
I tore my rotator cuff and theyfixed it the first time and it
didn't quite take, and so I hadto go back for a second run.

(04:20):
But happy to say that it isfixed now and it is well on its
way to being good.

Speaker 2 (04:25):
So is that your throwing arm or not, that you
had to have done?

Speaker 1 (04:30):
Yeah, my left hand, it was my left arm.
It was a pain.

Speaker 2 (04:33):
So that dream of being a pitcher for the Red Sox
is gone that?

Speaker 1 (04:36):
dream is gone.

Speaker 2 (04:37):
Okay.

Speaker 1 (04:40):
Yeah, I would like to say that some people have asked
me oh, did you play a sport?

Speaker 2 (04:45):
No, I would like to say that.

Speaker 1 (04:45):
I was some people have asked me oh, did you play a
sport?
No, I tore it and moving stuffin a storage unit and lifting
things in an improper way.
Yeah, you compromised it andyeah, and overstretched it, and
boy, I learned that lesson.
So that was a tough lesson.

Speaker 2 (04:59):
Hopefully that never happens again.
That's a difficult surgery torecover from.
I mean, everyone generallyrecovers.
It's just that the the what youhave to go through.

Speaker 1 (05:21):
I couldn't drive for a little while.
I understand now Like I get itwhen people lose their ability
to drive, whether through age orwhatever, that loss of
independence.
Wow, I felt it, you know, whenI'd be sitting at home and just
be like I'd love to go out andgrab a little something to eat.
But I can't.
Even though my car is sittingright there, I can't drive

(05:41):
because my left arm is, you know, it's unsafe.
Now, of course I could get awaywith it, but at a certain point
, like if anything happened, thearm had no strength, so like
even taking a left turn would bedifficult because you don't
have anything there.
So now that I'm back and I canactually, you know, drive easily
and and and I'm good, uh, yeah,it's, it's something, but it

(06:03):
was pain.
What are you gonna do?

Speaker 2 (06:04):
that's life it is I'm glad you're feeling better.

Speaker 1 (06:07):
Thank you.
There are worse things peoplehave to go through.
I've come to the point whereit's like I'm not gonna complain
about my pitiless littleproblems because they're not
that bad.
You know, did it?
Did it suck?
Sure it did, uh.
But there's a lot of people outthere with a lot worse problems
than that, so I'm not gonnabitch too much very, true, very
true as the world descends intochaos around us.

(06:28):
Uh, you know, I'm not gonnacomplain about my little.
As they say, first worldproblems, right you?
hit it all the time, but youknow you matter and you matter
to everyone listening you knowand you know I I often say to
people you know, first worldproblems, true, but they are
still problems.
They're not.
They're not not problems.
They're not.
Maybe they're not as importantin the big scheme of things, but

(06:51):
that doesn't mean they're notissues, you know although I
don't know if I'd considerneeding rotator cuff surgery a
first world.
No, no, but I mean just that'slike you know your phone dying.

Speaker 2 (07:01):
I mean right, yeah, although nowadays it feels like
if you don't have your phone,you're in trouble.
You can't keep up.

Speaker 1 (07:07):
No, it's amazing how these little devices have become
so integral to our veryexistence when not too long ago,
they weren't a thing.
They were a luxury, you know.

Speaker 2 (07:21):
They weren't a thing at all, they weren't a thing.

Speaker 1 (07:22):
And then, when they became a thing, you're right,
they were a luxury at first andthey weren't necessary.
They were nice to have, butthey weren't necessary.
But now we've come to the pointwhere they're necessary, like
it's, you know.
I mean, I know sometimes therewas a time when you'd run into
people who didn't have the newerphones.
They're still operating withflip phones and still texting

(07:45):
with numbers and things likethat, and even that's difficult.
But if somebody doesn't engagein that stuff at all, it's hard
to interact with them.

Speaker 2 (07:56):
It's strange, it's weird.

Speaker 1 (07:58):
It is.

Speaker 2 (07:59):
Although I have to tell you that's one thing in the
last maybe three, four months,I eliminated social.
I still have social mediaaccounts, but I eliminated them
from my phone.
It's unbelievable how less I'mon my phone.

Speaker 1 (08:18):
Yeah, yeah, it's just stupidity.
Most of it is I've.
Long ago I stopped going toFacebook for the most part.
It just doesn't hold myattention.
I still do Twitter, Twitter,I'm not going to call it X.

Speaker 2 (08:35):
That was stupid.
Why will you not call?

Speaker 1 (08:37):
it X Because it was stupid to change the name.

Speaker 2 (08:39):
I don't know why he changed it.

Speaker 1 (08:41):
It was a typical listen.
I'm elon musk hater by anymeans, but I do find him to be
an unstable, capriciousbillionaire who just does shit.

Speaker 2 (08:51):
Well, it sounds like you don't like him.
No, you give him thoseadjectives but he deserves it.

Speaker 1 (08:57):
There's some things he does off the cuff that I'm
like good, good, decent, youknow, not, not, you know, but
you got to think things out.
So it was called twitter.
The things were called tweets.
So he comes up with the ideaI'm just going to change the
name to x, because some stupidthat was his company name or
something, something where hehad some fondness to x and I
think he wanted to get away fromtwitter, like it the name.

(09:20):
But then what do you call?
What do you call individualmessages on x?
Like you don't call them X's,people still call them tweets,
and so it's like when Princechanged his name.
It's just a dick move thatmakes everything more
complicated.

Speaker 2 (09:39):
But he changed his name to a symbol, to a symbol.

Speaker 1 (09:42):
So you had to say the artist formerly known as Prince
, and it just made things longerand more difficult.
And so now it's like thisstumble.
Well, what happened, you know,posted on X, which was
previously known as Twitter.
Somebody posted a tweet.
Wait, they're still calledtweets.

Speaker 2 (10:00):
Yeah, they're not called Twitter.
I actually thought by now hewould have.
Somebody would have said youknow, maybe we need to actually
re rebrand this, you know,because it's like it's been a
while that they keep sayingformally known, as there's a
point where the new name shouldhave taken right right, you
can't be formally known aswhatever anymore and didn't even

(10:21):
like follow through, like okay,it called X, but it still has
that little bird.
Does it, it's still like.

Speaker 1 (10:29):
Not much about the site has changed, except the
stupid name, which doesn't makesense anymore.
Again, are those individualmessages?
Are they Xs?
Are they what?

Speaker 2 (10:42):
are they?
Well?
What does the platform callthem?
Do they even call them anythingexcept messages?

Speaker 1 (10:48):
I think common parlance is still to refer to
them as tweets.
It is because they still.
It was just an easilyunderstandable thing.
I get it.
It's under new ownership andthe new owner wants to mark
their you know.
You know elon wants to mark itas a new day.
Fine, there's.
There's ways he did that goodways and ways that you know

(11:09):
aren't so good.

Speaker 2 (11:09):
And like just suddenly one day going, I'm
changing the name of this thinghow do you feel about the
narrative with him that hepurchased twitter not to make
money?
Have you heard this narrative?
Not to make money?
Not to make money, but to stopcontrolled speech?

(11:30):
He says that when he firstbought Twitter, he came out.
I keep saying he, elon Musk,people, that probably other
people with him as well theyreleased these things, basically
saying that the United Statesfederal government was trying to
influence how Twitter allowedinformation to come out.

(11:51):
Right, which is true, yeah, butdid you ever hear the narrative
?

Speaker 1 (11:54):
I did.

Speaker 2 (11:55):
He's basically saying I wasn't trying to make money
with this, I'm just trying tobasically save free speech.

Speaker 1 (12:03):
Yes, and I can believe it to a certain point,
because maybe it doesn't need tomake excessive profits, but I
think it still needs to beprofitable and not a loss, and I
think that's what he's having adifficult time doing now is
trying to get people tosubscribe to it.
There's some new thing I heardabout.
It is if you sign up to getpeople to subscribe to it.

(12:24):
There's some new thing I Iheard about it was is if you
sign up to twitter, now, yeah,you can't post or anything until
you you have to actually paysomething to like.
If you're on, you're good, butif you're new, they're going to
start doing this thing.
Where?
you really yeah, because it'sgot to generate revenue like if
it.
He's not going to continue tooperate it at a loss.

(12:44):
Maybe making money was not hisprime goal, but he still can't
be taking a bath on it and Ithink that's an issue because
people get certain sides, don'tlike Elon and people.
I get it, I get it, and youknow people I get it, I get it,
but I like it as a platform.

(13:06):
I think I don't know.
I think it's a decent platformas opposed to threads.
Is that the new one?

Speaker 2 (13:16):
With Instagram.

Speaker 1 (13:17):
Yeah, the Instagram kind of.
I don't really know anythingabout it.
It was meant to be kind of likea Twitter alternative.
It was a similar thing, okay,but I think the problem with it
is is like Facebook it feeds youthe people that you're
connected with, which aren'tnecessarily what you're going to
get on Twitter, you know whatI'm saying You're going to be
exposed.

Speaker 2 (13:36):
I thought on Twitter you can look at what you're
following you can, but you alsoget exposed to a lot more like
Facebook.

Speaker 1 (13:43):
Isn't Facebook mostly people you follow and people
who are friends?
I guess that's the-.

Speaker 2 (13:48):
Yeah, I don't know.
I mean, sometimes they show youother things, I think.
But generally I always thoughtthese social media platforms
made money mainly on the datathey're collecting about your
habits online.
But maybe I'm crazy, I thoughtthat and then they sell it.
That's how I thought they mademoney.

Speaker 1 (14:08):
They do, but I think primarily they make money
through advertising.

Speaker 2 (14:11):
Is that the primary way?
That's the primary way.

Speaker 1 (14:13):
Which is the problem I mean, that's really the
problem with social media isthat this new thing came along,
we didn't get our arms around itand we threw it into production
without really thinking itthrough.
So if this thing relies on youbeing on it, the more you're on

(14:34):
it, the more advertisers willpay.
Then you can see, the incentiveis to do anything possible to
make you stay on it like it's.
We built a thing that isincentivized to do exactly what
it's doing, and that thing isnot great.
You know the fact that peopleare getting fed.

Speaker 2 (14:53):
And the reason too, um, of why someone stays on
they've have figured outgenerally is because they're
responding negatively to thingsPeople I was.
I saw a study that people spenda great deal more time engaging
negatively than positively.
So then you just keep seeingthings that you don't

(15:16):
necessarily that fire you up,basically.

Speaker 1 (15:19):
Yeah, I can believe that.
I can believe that because astrong emotion evokes action.
Something that doesn't give youan emotional response doesn't
usually push you to make anykind of action.
You just whatever and you moveon Right.
Something really.
I have tried to not engage.
I look at tweets.

(15:39):
I'll occasionally, you know,post something.
Very rarely, mostly I'll justretweet Again.
It's like retweeting on X,whatever, but I try not to get
in the mud If I see somethingthat enrages me.
I've even started writingsomething and then stopped and
just deleted it and been likethere's no upside to engaging

(16:04):
100%.

Speaker 2 (16:04):
The same way as you.
There's no upside.

Speaker 1 (16:05):
I'm engaging a hundred percent there's no same
way as you.
There's no upside.
I'm not gonna convince anyone,I'm not gonna make a difference.
It'll just be little snarkytweets back and forth and
whatever.
And it's like if we all justdidn't give the bullshit oxygen,
maybe some of it would go away.

(16:26):
And that's why I, kind of youknow, I posted on UFO Twitter,
which again is still called UFOTwitter.
There's also a hashtag, ufox,but that doesn't get as much
play.
But UFO Twitter gets a lot ofplay Again.
What is the platform called?
Again?
But, like I posted something,tweeted something or X'd
something the other day where Ijust was like, don't engage,

(16:46):
like that's a choice to engagein the bullshit.
Right, you know it's a choice.
It's one you don't have to make.
You could just go by thatincendiary tweet and ignore it.
Tell you something that pissesme off about twitter slash x or

(17:08):
whatever.
Is elon in his infinite wisdom,changed the way that blocking
and muting someone?
The way it used to work is ifyou blocked someone, you never
had to see their shit again, andif you muted them, it was in as
severe as blocking, but againyou didn't really need to see
their their stuff again.
It would come up and say thisis an account you you muted or
whatever, like you wouldn't seewhat the people say, especially

(17:29):
when somebody who really theirown how would you?
even see the account.
I don't understand.
Well, I'm saying, like it comesup.
So a tweet comes up and it'ssomebody who like, is constantly
like, just being an ass likethey're just they're.
They're not trying to doanything positive, they're just
trying to be an ass.
And so I would previously blockthese people or mute them in
the very least, like I don'twant to see your shit, like I'm
I'm here to look at ufoinformation, I don't want to get

(17:50):
involved in all the littlethings.
But now, even though I'll see atweet and I'll be like, why am
I seeing this shit?
And I'll click on it and it'llsay unmute or un unblock, and
I'm like, if they're muted andblocked, why am I seeing their
shit?
And it's because, again, elonis like well, we want you to

(18:11):
engage with the other side, andI'm like I get it and I'm all
for that, but not with peoplewho are really they're not
looking to engage.
They're not looking to engage,they're looking to start shit.
Oh yeah, and that's their goal.
Oh, to start shit, oh yeah, andthat's their goal.
Oh yeah, don't give it oxygen.
But it's hard because, you know, I see stuff and I'll just be

(18:31):
like I can't let that stand.

Speaker 2 (18:32):
And then usually I think better of it and I might
be in the middle of typingsomething and I'll just be like
not worth it, delete, move ondoesn't doesn't add anything to
my oh no, and I know it's notthe topic of what we talk about
generally, um, so I'm justsaying, as an example, um, on

(18:52):
instagram.
So I'll go on instagram maybeonce every couple days just to
see what's going on, and Ifollow some accounts that I find
informational.
You know, um, and I I do followdifferent news outlets just to
see, because you know you getthe same story different ways,
right?
Obviously it is interesting tosee, yeah, and what's going on

(19:14):
in, excuse me, the Middle Eastright now, with Israel and
Palestine and Iran or Iran,whatever you're supposed to call
it, right?
So once in a while I look, justI do not comment or anything
because that's a minefield.
It's just a lot of them are botstoo, I think.
I don't know, but the amount ofjust visceral hate between

(19:42):
points of view is just insanity.
And I'm saying to myself do youreally think you're solving the
problem?
What are you doing?
But it's just people needing.
I just don't understand thathuman element of needing to act
like that to each other.

Speaker 1 (19:58):
Yeah, it's one of those things like.
That's a complicated issue.
There's a lot involved in that.
I'm not gonna to presume to tobe some.
You know, white dude, and youknow half a world away that's
going to tell you how to solveit.
I don't know how to solve it Ido know what color you are.
You're not solving it well, Ijust mean, like you know,
somebody who's not even involvedin it?
I'm not, but no, I see this, thesuffering, and it's like can't

(20:22):
we just like find a way to stopthat?
I get it.
There's a lot of years ofhatred, there's a lot, there's a
lot going on there.
You can't just boil it down toa single thing and say you know,
if not for this everythingwould be fine.
Right, there's a lot there and Idon't know that we ever can fix
it 100 but, man, while we'rearguing, at the fringes, there's

(20:43):
a lot of people, innocents, whohave no, you know, they're not
in this fight, but they're inthat region and, man, they're
suffering and oh yeah we justlike try to do something about
that.
But as soon as you do that,you're stepping on a landmine.
Oh my god, people are gonna.
It's.
It's infuriating, because whilewe're bickering at the edges,

(21:06):
there's a lot of innocent peoplewho are living, I mean, either
getting killed or horriblymaimed or starving or suffering
on an unimaginable level.
Can't we just find a way tolike stop that.
Find a way to like stop that.

Speaker 2 (21:22):
Well, the reason why we can't, I think, chris, is
that and I think it has to do alot with a lot of things that
happen in the world generally isthose people.
I would consider the commonpeople right.
The common people are alwaysjust leveraged by the leaders to
what they want.
I mean, both sides areleveraging everything to get
what they want.

(21:42):
Generally, whenever there's aconflict, you know well,
unfortunately.

Speaker 1 (21:48):
You know I did want to talk about this, but I think
do you heard about the guy whoset himself on fire the other
day?

Speaker 2 (21:57):
that was, yeah, like you sent me.
I didn't know there was amanifesto that he wrote.
You sent it to me.
I started reading it.
I got to tell you some of itactually was kind of interesting
.
It was To read Some of it.
I said, well, I don't know whatthis guy's writing about, but
taken as a whole I said, whetheror not any of it is true, it's

(22:20):
certainly an interesting glimpseinto this guy's state of mind
and his motivations.

Speaker 1 (22:28):
Yeah, what I thought was interesting is I happen to
be watching.
Did I have the TV on?
No, but I was looking atTwitter.

Speaker 2 (22:36):
Just clearly who was this?
When you say this guy, who arewe talking about?

Speaker 1 (22:41):
So what happened was Trump's on trial.

Speaker 2 (22:44):
Yeah for something, oh, um for um.
Is this the payoff paying off?
Uh, the porn star that he'sallegedly had something with in
um?
And anyway, I, honestly, I justdon't myself, I'm not.
I don't follow that, followthis so completely.

Speaker 1 (23:06):
You know.
Obviously those on the leftwill tell you that you know
every move he makes is acriminal, he should go to jail
for the rest of his life, andanyone on the right will tell
you that all of this iscompletely unnecessary, that
it's all politically motivated.
My guess is the truth probablylies somewhere in the middle.
Like, did he do?

Speaker 2 (23:25):
some bad stuff?

Speaker 1 (23:26):
Yeah, he probably did .
Is there a little bit ofpolitical motivation?
Yeah, there probably is.
Whatever, you know what, thefact that we normalize this
insane circus we find ourselvesin is just another example of
why I think this guy, what thisguy did, his name is Max
Azzarillo, is that it?

Speaker 2 (23:47):
That's how I'd say it Azzarillo.

Speaker 1 (23:48):
Azzarillo.
So when this first happenedthey said, okay, a guy, somebody
set themselves on fire outsideof the trial.
So immediately the thought wasfirst thought was you know, wow,
this.
That's weird because, like youwouldn't think that somebody
would feel strongly about thistrial on either side to to make
an extreme act like that.

Speaker 2 (24:09):
Have you seen any video of it?
Yeah, there's the video I saw.
There's a woman.
I just wanted to say this,chris.
There's a woman sitting.
I'm only laughing because ofwhat I'm going to say.
She's sitting on the benchwithin, I'd say, 30-40 feet of
this guy right, and she'swatching him and I said to
myself that's the most New YorkCity thing in the world.

(24:30):
It was almost like she'sdisconnected.
Other people are rushing inlike first responders and she's
just sitting there.
It looks like she might be on alunch break or something, but
anyway, I wonder if it was.

Speaker 1 (24:41):
You know, and what?

Speaker 2 (24:43):
are you gonna do?

Speaker 1 (24:44):
anyway, part of it could just be shock.
I mean, you're seeing somethingin front of you that you just
maybe, like your mind, justcan't even wrap around it.
So cnn apparently had was doingthe live shot, and as soon as
this happened oh, I didn't thecamera got away from it, so it
didn't show it and just focusedon the anchor, the field, and I
can't remember her name, but shedid a nice job.

(25:04):
She was like watching it andkind of narrating what was going
on, oh, so they didn't act likeit wasn't happening.
They weren't showing it though,okay, whereas I saw the footage
from Fox News, and initiallythey started showing it and then
I think they quickly thoughtbetter of it.
And Fox News, and initiallythey started showing it and then

(25:25):
I think they quickly thoughtbetter of it.
Now they just went to adifferent feed.
So for all I know, they stillfilmed it.
But so when I first heard that—he's alive too.

Speaker 2 (25:28):
I heard he died.
Oh oh, oh.
Yeah, he did die.
He didn't die immediately.
He did not die immediately,okay.

Speaker 1 (25:33):
He was in critical condition, but he has passed.
Oh, okay he has passed.
Okay.
So when I first heard that, sothat was the first thought, and
then the second thought was well, maybe this has something to do
with the israel, palestine,because there was that other guy
who lit himself on fire, whichyou notice that quickly went
away.
Like here is what do you mean,what should, what do you think
should have happened?
I don't know, but we stoppedtalking about it, like there is

(25:54):
this serviceman, like it was theair force or you know, just say
no, I don't, I don't know whatyou're talking about.
That's the thing.
There was a somebody in themilitary who was so against what
was going on there and thekilling of what he saw, and
what's his connection?
with any of it, and he lithimself on fire in front of I
think he was in like he lithimself in fire in front of to
protest like it was a whole ishe was?

Speaker 2 (26:16):
was he actively in the military?

Speaker 1 (26:18):
Yes, he was.
And he basically said I Icannot be complicit in, in what
I see as a genocide, I cannot dothis anymore.
And he lit himself on fire andthen it quietly went away.
So what's interesting aboutthis is the Trump trial.
This is a big deal, like thefact that they had banks of

(26:38):
reporters who were there.
It was jury selection, likethey were picking a jury, but
they're covering it every momentof it.
And so here's this guy who hasthis other message and he picks
that place to set himself onfire.
Think about that Now he islinked to this Trump trial thing
.
Think about that Now he islinked to this Trump trial thing

(27:15):
.
So in this Trump trial, whichis going to city street in New
York, you know, lights himselfon fire, you would have seen a
couple of headlines.
It would have quietly went away.
But because this took place,where tons of cameras, like
every network, got footage of it, he threw his, his flyers or
whatever.
And then I guess he like toldthe lady nearby, some
photographer who got like thelast picture of him, like get

(27:35):
away.
He was concerned for thewellbeing of the people around,
that they didn't get hurt, andhis little thing, the fire was
big.

Speaker 2 (27:41):
There was a lot of flame.

Speaker 1 (27:42):
He had this little thing on Substack where he
basically said I mean, what'sSubstack?
Substack is like a blog kind ofthing, oh, okay.
It's like people have Substackaccounts and they'll write
articles and things like thatand then you subscribe to them
it's like medium yeah, verysimilar, very, all that is very
similar thing.
And he basically put on asubject uh, my name is max

(28:03):
alizarolo and I am aninvestigative researcher who has
set himself on fire outside thetrump trial in manhattan.
This extreme act of protest isto draw attention to an urgent
and important discovery.
Now, what does it?

Speaker 2 (28:16):
mean, like I don't know what he means by
investigative researcher.

Speaker 1 (28:19):
But you know what?
What, what detractors would sayhe's just a conspiracy theorist
anybody who looks intoconspiracies, considers
themselves a researcher.
Is he?
He's researching stuff?
I mean, I don't know.
His thesis is this and this iswhat it says we are victims of a
totalitarian con and our owngovernment, along with many of

(28:44):
their allies, is about to hit uswith an apocalyptic fascist
world coup.
And then he goes on to talkabout Bitcoin and how it's a big
scam and it's a Ponzi scheme.
I don't know enough about thisstuff.
I know there's a lot of peoplewho just will reject it scheme.
I don't know enough about thisstuff.
I know there's a lot of peoplewho just will reject it
immediately.
I don't know, I can't say ifany of this stuff is true.

(29:04):
I don't know enough to say it'snot true.
I don't know enough to say itis true.
But what I thought was reallyinteresting is some of the
things he said, like you alludedto.
They're not that far off themark.
I mean, this is a quote from it.
As it turns out, we have asecret kleptocracy.
Both parties are run byfinancial criminals whose only

(29:31):
goal are to divide, deceive andbleed us dry.
They divide the public againstitself and blame the other party
, while everything gets worseand worse and more expensive,
and a handful of people take allthe money.
Okay, it's like I can kind ofsee that, Like it's not that far
out of the realm.
Well, what just happened theother day?
One thing just happened is wejust got past tax day.

(29:52):
You know, a lot of people justwrote big checks to the IRS.
What also happened in the lastcouple of days.
Well, these two warring parties,the R's and the D's, the ones
that can never get alongwhenever we need something.
You know, people who aredemocratic would say, hey, I
want universal health care.
Sorry, we just can't do that,man.

(30:13):
The other side, the Republicans, they're blocking that.
We just can't do it, it'snothing we can do.
Sorry, it's just nothing we cando.
And then, if you're on theother side, you might say, hey.
The Republican side you mightsay, hey, I want to enforce the
border.
Sorry, we can't just do it, man, those Democrats, they just
won't do that.
Nothing right.
But what did we just see happen?

(30:35):
To get through those?
Money for Ukraine, like60-something billion.
Money for Israel to keep doingwhat they're doing 20-something
billion.
So somehow they managed to getpast their divide and do
together.

Speaker 2 (30:56):
So what he said is true, Well, and then we all
accept that that is for nationalsecurity, which I'm not going
to dispute that um, on its faceit is, but somehow that will
keep us safer than some of theseother things that american
people need yeah, and my weagree, we just go.
Oh, yeah, yeah, okay I can seewhy you just spent $100 billion

(31:19):
on that and you can't housewhatever homeless veterans.

Speaker 1 (31:24):
Right, right.
And that's the thing is peoplehave pointed out whenever the
money is for us, we're toldthere's not.
How are you going to pay for it?

Speaker 2 (31:33):
There's not enough money.

Speaker 1 (31:34):
Money doesn't grow on trees, all that crap.
But when it's something for themachine because think about
that they're funding a war theywere bragging about.
You know where all that moneyis going to go?
It's not going to go to Ukraine.
It's not going to go to theMiddle East.
It's going to go to defensecontractors in the Virginia area
who are going to send weaponsand stuff to that.
That's what they don't say.

(31:55):
Well, they do.
They actually said it, I think.

Speaker 2 (31:57):
I know, but they don't, they don't.
It's not something, that's justthe way they speak, like we got
to get money for thecontractors.

Speaker 1 (32:02):
They'll tell you it's for democracy.
They'll tell you it's for thegood of all.

Speaker 2 (32:08):
Meanwhile, do you know what's?

Speaker 1 (32:11):
going on in Ecuador?
I have an idea.
So, ecuador my wife's family isfrom Ecuador.
Her mother is from Ecuador andstill has family there.
It's lawlessness, like thegovernment has fled the country.
The drug oh, I didn't know that.
Yes, there is no government.
There is no police.
We just had dinner with herparents last night and her

(32:33):
mother was saying that shetalked to her family.
That's still there.
They get, I think, electricity.
I thought she said like onceevery couple of days.

Speaker 2 (32:44):
Really, why is this?

Speaker 1 (32:45):
not more in the news.
Yeah, the Ecuadorian.
They basically went into theembassy the Mexican embassy
who's they, whoever the forcesare in Ecuador actually entered
the embassy the Mexican embassywho's they, whoever the forces
are in Ecuador, like actuallylike entered the embassy and to
get back the former vicepresident or something like that

(33:08):
, who had been hiding out andhad gotten asylum in the embassy
of Mexico, and so they stormedthe embassy and took the guy
back.
Mexico's trying to have themthrown out of like.
There's serious stuff that'sgoing on just south of us.
Ecuador is a lot closer to usand a lot more meaningful of
what's going on down there than,arguably, what's going on half

(33:32):
a world away.
Not saying that that's notimportant, but I'm saying, if
you want to really like weighour interests, isn't what's
going on, like right in ourbackyard?

Speaker 2 (33:42):
especially they.
I was reading something, chris,when they um totally different
subject, but it has to do withecuador.
Ecuador, I guess theirregulations on uh people coming
from other countries as more laxthan other places.
So they say a lot of peoplefrom around the world fly into

(34:03):
Ecuador and from Ecuador theymake their journey to the United
States.
So it's people from not justpeople, most of the people
aren't from Ecuador that areleaving Ecuador.

Speaker 1 (34:14):
Maybe now they are.
They're just coming in andusing that.
Yeah, it's weird yeah.

Speaker 2 (34:17):
Right, I didn't realize that.
I I mean so it's, it's.
Is it kind of like what's goingon in haiti?

Speaker 1 (34:24):
yeah, I mean it's similar.
I mean, not too long ago therewas this whole thing where these
, this drug gang, had basicallytaken over the tv station, like
this footage of like see, that'sone of those things that
there's a lot goes on in thisworld every day, like there's a
mind-boggling amount of stuffgoes on.
It is impossible, impossiblefor regular people to keep up

(34:50):
with it.
You know regular people havelives to live.
You know they have to.
They have to have to go feedthe machine, they have to go.
You know have to go toil in themines and make sure they you
know, earn their living.
God forbid anyone slack, youknow, gotta.
They have to go toil in themines and make sure they, you
know, earn their living.
God forbid anyone slack, youknow gotta.
Gotta be working.
So I don't have time to lookinto it.
So, really, you depend on themedia to curate the world.
Look at what's going on, tellme what's important, tell me

(35:13):
what I need to know, and andthat we've abdicated abdicated
our responsibility to the media.
You tell us what's important.
I don't have time to look upall this stuff.
You tell me what's going on.
So if they don't coversomething and it could be
innocent, a lot goes on.
There aren't enough resourcesto cover everything, so some

(35:34):
things have to go by the wayside.
But it's telling what theycover and what they don't.
You know, I mean the fact thatyou'll see endless on cable news
, endless talk about these, thistrump trial and this and that
and the other thing.
Oh, we're gonna go to live towhere they're picking the jury,
live to where they're doingopening let's interview someone
that was on the prospective jury.

Speaker 2 (35:55):
Like it's unbelievable right and just the
number of hours that they spendon it.
Do you why?

Speaker 1 (35:59):
can't I, I don't like it, no, I, I, I generally I
used to watch cable news, I usedto watch fox news.
I I didn't buy it all but I waslike, all right, at least they
give kind of give both sides.
And then that started changing,like it, it was true at a point

(36:20):
, and then you could just see itlike changing like all of a
sudden they had like the fewtoken people from the other side
who just seemed to be on thereto be ridiculed, and just the
general vibe was a certain wayand and um, and then you see the
same thing on on cnn and ms andlike it's all trash again.
What is the motivation?
As I say to people, their mainjob isn't to keep you informed,

(36:43):
it's to fire you up.
It's to fire you up and keepyou watching.
That's their job.
It's not.
Hey, we got to inform thepublic of what's going on.

Speaker 2 (36:52):
And let them come to their own conclusions.

Speaker 1 (36:54):
Right, and let's face it, if you just got the facts
of what's going on, that can getpretty boring.
How do you jazz it up?
You know, if you just hadboring facts like this went on
today and then this went ontoday and this went on today,
people would watch for a coupleof minutes.
I'm not that interested.

Speaker 2 (37:08):
I always say this, and I want to go back to this
Mark.
I'm sorry, not Mark, but Max Max, but I always say this about
almost every issue that we I'llsay the United States but if I
lived in another country I'd saythe same thing Almost every
issue that there is.
Because we have a jury system,right, and the jury is eight, 10

(37:33):
, 12 people and they come to aconsensus on and they do it
across the country every day,right.
So if you had an issue as hotbutton issue as, let's say,
abortion, I don't want to talkabout abortion here but you
can't get more hot button thanthat right.

Speaker 1 (37:52):
People have very strong feelings on either side.

Speaker 2 (37:54):
If you put people together, they'd come to an
agreement.
They would eventually it mighttake a year.
They'd come to an agreementthat everyone could live with
and we'd move on to somethingelse.

Speaker 1 (38:05):
A reasonable agreement could be reached.

Speaker 2 (38:07):
Yes, we would move on and they'd say listen, well,
we're not going to talk to thepeople that won't compromise
their position.
Sorry, You're never going to besatisfied and we can't have it
your way because we have thevast majority of people want to
compromise.
So you could say the same thingabout guns.

Speaker 1 (38:26):
Almost same thing.
Anything, you could find acompromise.

Speaker 2 (38:30):
Every issue that is yelled about in the news, you
have 5%.
I'm just saying an example 5%crazy on one side, or 5% dig
their heels in, let's say, 5% onthe other side.
Most of the people are in themiddle, somewhere on the
spectrum of being in the middle,and they can compromise it.
But the way they do it is theyjust keep hiding the ball from

(38:52):
us.
They want the controversy tocontinue controversy to continue
.

Speaker 1 (39:00):
Well, that's the thing is is it's been said by by
multiple people that, um, youknow, some people in politics
will admit it that an issue ismore important to us, open and
raw, than it is solved like.
If we solve the issue, then itgoes away, but we want the issue
to fundraise.
So if you're, you know, ifyou're on the on the left,
you're going to say you know, wegot to win this time because
otherwise the other side's gonna, you know, take away the right

(39:21):
to.
You know, if you're on the onthe left, you're going to say
you know, we got to win thistime because otherwise the other
side's going to, you know, takeaway the right to have, you
know, abortions.
Or if you're on the right, yougot to say hey, you know we got,
we got to got to make sure wewin this time because they're
going to take your guns.
And while we could come to areasonable consensus, reasonable
people can come up with asolution, but they don't want
that because then the issue goesaway.

Speaker 2 (39:39):
And then so the incentive and then people start
looking at well, how come thisisn't being solved?

Speaker 1 (39:46):
That's what happens, Because the incentive is not to
solve it.
And I don't think we realize, Idon't think we've come to grips
that if we look at what theincentive is, you can see what
the result will be.
What is being incentivized here?
Well, that's what you're goingto get, and we do that, like all
our things are set up a certainway to incentivize it.
And then we wonder why we getwhat we get.
I'll give you another, you know, example of different thing.

(40:09):
Is this thing going on withboeing?
Right, we're shocked, shockedto find out that Boeing
allegedly has been puttingprofit above safety.

Speaker 2 (40:21):
No.

Speaker 1 (40:22):
Oh God, right, cannot imagine it.
And like people like shockedand like, oh my God, I can't
believe that they would, youknow, take parts that were
defective and force them onplanes, like like, let's not
even talk about thewhistleblower who, like suddenly
decided to kill himself on,like the second day he said if,
if you find me that I committedsuicide, I didn't Right.

Speaker 2 (40:42):
He said that to his friends or family.

Speaker 1 (40:44):
You know what I'm also going to say?
His last day he had Taco Bell.
Nobody, nobody who is decidingto kill themselves, is going to
say you know what I'm going todo for my last meal?
I'm going to get, you know,some soft tacos or some hot.

Speaker 2 (41:02):
you know like, no, you're not I would like to think
that maybe there's somebodyChris.

Speaker 1 (41:05):
You go like I'm going to go to a nice restaurant and
charge up.
I don't care, I'm not payingthis credit card bill, I'm going
to die Whatever.
It is Like he had no, but allright.
So anyone who looks at that anddoesn't say I won't call that
proof positive.

Speaker 2 (41:19):
But you're onto something.

Speaker 1 (41:20):
It's like come on.
It's like, wow, awfullyconvenient.
But you know what?
It didn't solve their problem,because now two more
whistleblowers just testified infront of-.

Speaker 2 (41:29):
Well, let's say allegedly solved their problem.
I'm not gonna-.

Speaker 1 (41:32):
Well, it didn't solve their problem completely,
because if he was the onlywhistleblower, if the intent of
that was to get all the otherwhistleblowers to look back down
, it didn't work.
Because?
And?
But what I'm saying is is thatyou can see the incentive.
What is boeing trying to do?
Trying to make maximum moneyfor shareholders, can we?

(41:52):
Is it that we can't believethat somebody would put money,
their own selfish interests,above the well-being of others?
What are you kidding me?
We see that every day.
It's this cognitive dissonancethat people see how the world is
but then, on the other hand,say, well, the world couldn't be
like that but it is.
We see it right in front of us.

(42:12):
It's there.
And it goes back to what Ialways say is, when there's an
uncomfortable truth, people justchoose not to see it, because
then you have to deal well,that's, you know, outside and
inside, that's how people are,people are, and I get it, it
makes sense.
But like what are we kidding me?

(42:33):
Like, of course I can believeit.
I won't fly a boeing plane.
We're flying out to california,uh, for you know, for a work
trip, from for rosie yep, and uh, I said what's what plane?
She looked it up it's airbus.
I'm like good, because I'm notgoing on a boeing.
I'm not, you're not, I'm not, Ihave tickets to california and
I was looking at.

Speaker 2 (42:52):
I'm not just.
You know why.
It's not the um, it's not thesuper max or whatever it's
called.
I don't trust any.
Is that the one that's havingthe Supermax or whatever it's
called?

Speaker 1 (42:59):
I don't trust any.
Is that the one that's?

Speaker 2 (43:00):
having the big problems.

Speaker 1 (43:01):
I don't know.
I don't trust any Boeing planes.
Yeah, they pointed out a fewspecific ones, but if they're
doing it on that, why would youbelieve that they're doing it on
others to some degree?
I just say that because my gutis telling me not to fly Boeing.
Yep.
And if I go against that andI'm on a Boeing plane and all of
a sudden we're going downRosie's, like well, wouldn't you

(43:23):
want to spend your last minutes?
You know telling, telling you,you know telling me I go, yeah,
but I'd also be kicking myselfand go.
Why didn't I listen to myself?
I didn't want to fly Boeing andI went against my better
judgment and the whole time I'djust be like I'm basting myself
as we plummet to the earth going.
I knew this man.
I always love those.

Speaker 2 (43:42):
I always love those stories where you know there's
some of them made up.
Some of them are true where youknow the plane is going down,
and then people start tellingothers their secrets, and then
the plane levels out by the wayyou know.
I fooled around on you withyour sister.

Speaker 1 (44:01):
Then, all of a sudden , the turbulence stops and you
go yeah boy.
I was hallucinating there for asecond.

Speaker 2 (44:08):
I don't know what I said.
Was it the logical oxygen?
Something affected me.

Speaker 1 (44:11):
You can believe it that that would happen, and it
seems like it's happening, Idon't know.
I'm very surprised that theyhaven't grounded all Boeing
flights, like I honestly think.
I honestly think that they needto ground every bone plane,
pending a thorough inspection ofeach plane.

Speaker 2 (44:29):
Well, it's not going to happen because you'd you'd
halt the economy, Right.

Speaker 1 (44:35):
You know how about this?
Rosie had this suggestion whereshe said she said the
executives of Boeing should justhave to fly Boeing planes from
now on.
I was like that's a great idea,like randomly, like no, no, no,
no, you don't get to fly yourprivate plane Randomly.
We're going to pick a Boeingplane out there and that's what
you're going to fly around.
Are you good with that?
And I bet you most of thoseexecutives would be like, well,

(44:58):
I can't do that Really, really.
Well, that would be interesting.
You know they'll say we flyBoeing planes.
Yeah, you fly a Boeing planethat you know has been checked
out.
Would you just take one out ofthe you know random?
Hey, we'll, we'll route onefrom from Chicago and have it
come here and have it pick youup.
I bet you a lot of them wouldbe like, ah, I with that, but
yeah, it.

Speaker 2 (45:17):
Oh, I always go by the old adage and it to me it's
always correct and it's too badjust because of the, the way we
have our society right.
Every single problem.
Follow the money, follow who'sbenefiting financially and
you'll most likely figure outthe issue and, and going back to

(45:40):
this, you know max, uhazzarello.

Speaker 1 (45:44):
The reason why I think this is important is
because we see what's happening,like what he's saying in this
manifesto.
Yes, it's rambling.
Yes, there's some parts of itthat are just kind of like oh,
it's a little out there, but thecore of it is it's a rigged
game.
As George Connolly used to say,it's a big club and you're not

(46:06):
in.
It is essentially what he'ssaying.
And right around now.
We see that playing out.
We see that the two sides thatcan never agree on anything for
us somehow got their shittogether to pass more money for
war.
That helps out.
You know their friends.
We see people in governmentbeing able to bet on stocks that

(46:31):
they oversee.
So they have advanced knowledge.
You know insider trading isillegal unless you're a member
of congress.
When it seems to be okay, right,you know it's what this guy is
saying.
It's going to be interesting towatch how the media handles him
, because already I see it,there's a lot of people who just

(46:52):
write it off completely and sayhe's a crazy conspiracy theory.
You know, and?
And yeah, okay, you can saythat theory.
You know, and and yeah, okay,you can say that.
What I found fascinating andthis is the part that I okay.
So he goes into this big jag, Ilove this about Harvard being a
criminal organization andbasically saying that that

(47:15):
billionaires it's just abillionaire machine, harvard to
just create billionaires.
And then he talks about how thesimpsons have, um, you know
most a lot of their writers arefrom harvard.
So then he talks about specificsimpsons episodes and like this
is so like bizarre.
But listen to what he says here.
Um, and I don't mean to laugh,because it is a tragedy that

(47:41):
this guy felt like he had to dothat, but uh, where does he?

Speaker 2 (47:44):
say I don't understand when he says the
simpsons exist to brainwash us Imean I get it on some level,
like I can understand kind ofwhat he's trying to get at.

Speaker 1 (47:54):
But so I find it fascinating.
So this is speaking from him.
This is his sub stack.
One of the key findings of thisresearch is that Harvard
University is one of the largestorganized crime fronts in
history, which is how they churnout billionaires.
It's a major hub of thissprawling criminal network.
As it turns out, dozens of thewriters of the Simpsons went to

(48:15):
Harvard.
So I asked myself the questionif the Simpsons served the
interest of organized crime, howwould it do so?
Well, it offers a dysfunctionalfamily suffering from moral
decay, a community incapable ofsolving its problems, a worker
drone who slaves away for anevil billionaire and cathartic

(48:36):
laughs for our poor collectivecircumstances.
There are some notable specificsas it relates to this research
too.
In Marge versus the monorail,the town's folks are too oafish
and divided to invest in thetown's needs, fix Main Street
and fall for the charms of adazzling showman with a bogus

(48:57):
monorail Ponzi scheme.
When we know that the show isclosely linked to an
organization that investsbillions of dollars in Ponzi
factories, this becomes quitedamning.
Okay, I don't know if I agreewith that, but okay.
Then he says in Lisa theIconoclast.
Lisa discovers that town founderJebediah Springfield was a

(49:17):
secret criminal, con artist andthat the townsfolk's lives are a
lie.
Realizing that this is animportant discovery, she
desperately tries to get thetownsfolk to listen to her.
But they meet her with hishostility, apathy, disbelief and
partisanship and she fails toget through to them.
Fails to get through to them.
Ultimately she realizes thetown is so far gone that perhaps

(49:40):
it's better for them to be liedto by con artists and she keeps
the secret to herself.
And he says and here I've beenlike Lisa Simpson, desperately
trying to get friends, familyand the public to believe the
proof of a totalitarian con.
I'm trying to show them andthey've turned away with
hostility, apathy, disbelief andpartisanship.
And you know what I identifywith.

(50:01):
That's kind of the reaction Iget sometimes when I talk to
people about UFOs, likeliterally, hostility from some
people.
Hostility, Like I can't believeyou believe in that stuff.
It's all crap Like anger andapathy.
Why do you think people are?

Speaker 2 (50:17):
angry at that.

Speaker 1 (50:18):
Because when something challenges their
worldview, people lash out.
It's all ontological shock orsomething akin to that.
When somebody's worldview isdisrupted in big ways and little
ways, we all do it.
We ignore it because it's moreconvenient to ignore something
that makes us uncomfortable thanto deal with it.

(50:39):
It's a human reaction.
Every one of us does it invarious ways every day, think
about it.

Speaker 2 (50:45):
Although I will tell you, the older I've gotten,
Chris, I've noticed that I havethe greatest progress with any
problem I have work, personallife, whatever it might be.
When I'm feeling uncomfortableabout something, I go towards it
.
Now, Right, I go right at it.
It's making me uncomfortablebecause I say that's my weakness

(51:06):
, yep.
Right, I look at it as myweakness.
That's why I'm uncomfortable.

Speaker 1 (51:11):
Identify the weakness and try to do something Right,
and it is easier said than done.

Speaker 2 (51:15):
It is.

Speaker 1 (51:15):
It's one of those I'm and done it is.
It's one of those I'm activelytrying.
That's all you can do.
Like in anything, you can tryto be a little bit better today
than you were yesterday.
That's really.
I'm not a friggin so, but Ilove.
Back to this is he says.
And so we realize the criminaltruth of the simpsons.
Our elites are telling us thatour eroding collective
circumstances are our own faultand we can't do anything about

(51:37):
it, while they steal theamerican dream from us, it is,
for a lack of a more eloquentword brainwashing all right,
okay.

Speaker 2 (51:43):
And then he says, I mean I get his line of thinking
and then this part again.

Speaker 1 (51:49):
I'm not saying that everything this guy says is
gospel truth.
I mean, I don't.
But I'm also not going to saythat everything he says is full
of shit, because there are somethings in here.
So he says consider Americasince 1988.
Yes, institutions likehealthcare and universities have
become parasitic in theirskyrocketing prices.
True True News media tells usto be angry and tribalized.

(52:13):
True Daytime television warnsus of moral decay.
I don't know.
Local news tells us to fear ourneighbors well it can.
The simpsons tells us we're toooafish and divided to save
american.
The american dream.
Seinfeld tells us to celebratethe assholes and be irritated by

(52:33):
all the normal people around us.
Reality tv tells us that reallife is filled with hedonism and
strife.
Social media, owned by cryptocriminals like Mark Zuckerberg
and Elon Musk, is flooded withnonsense, conspiracy theories
and memes reminding us that weare hopeless, helpless, anxious,
depressed, ironic, scared,apathetic, escapist, lonely,

(52:58):
misguided and and jaded, tellingus we can't do anything but
have a laugh at our owncircumstances.
Well, you know what?

Speaker 2 (53:06):
took out owned by criminal, yeah, criminals.

Speaker 1 (53:09):
Then what he wrote um and at some level is kind of
profound and that's the thing,is the flourishes on some of
this stuff, the lines he goesdown Again, I'm not going to
stand here and say, or sit hereand say that it's I know for a
fact, it's all bullshit, becauseI don't.
I don't know that it's trueeither and I'm just going to

(53:31):
take an agnostic like maybe,maybe not.
Some of what he says is totallyon the nose and the fact that
he chose that event to do it andnow, theoretically, as this
thing goes on, that event is nowlinked to the trial.
I don't know, just keep in mindyou know, obviously somebody

(53:54):
that has significant mentalissues can still string coherent
thoughts together, and I'm notsaying that everything he says
is right, but the thing is thecore of his message and the fact
that he felt so strongly ohyeah, that he lit himself on
fire, I think was just to say,hey, man, look at this stuff,

(54:18):
don't, don't just brush it off,because that's what a lot of
people are going to do.
They're going to look and theyglance at a couple things and
you know some of the things hesays sounds wacky.
I know it does and they'regoing to just disagree on
everything he says and yeah he.
He probably had, you know,mental issue, like there's a lot
going on there.
I'm not saying that this guy islike a prophet or anything like

(54:39):
that.
What I'm saying is is that someof what he says is undeniably
true.
Maybe you can quibble about the, the causes of it, or you know
the, the machinations of, ofwhat's, but he's not wrong.
He's not wrong with a lot ofthe stuff he says.
Maybe people will look at andgo you know, why can't we fix

(55:00):
some of this stuff?
Like why, why, why is it wehave, why is it we have no
health care in this country?
And yet we're sending money topay for a war for a country
which, by the way, gives all itscitizens free healthcare.

Speaker 2 (55:13):
You know like-.
Here's one thing I don'tunderstand, Chris, and you spoke
about how people get angry.
When you talk about these typesof things with some people,
they actually get angry at youNot you particularly, but the
person saying it, right?
Hey, why can we send 60 billionto Ukraine, but we can't figure
out this problem?

Speaker 1 (55:34):
here, Right?

Speaker 2 (55:38):
Well, it shouldn't be anger.
Why are you angry about it?
Yeah, excuse me, I'm justtalking about something here,
right, and it's something thatwould help everybody.

Speaker 1 (55:49):
Why are you mad at me .
The biggest trick thatpoliticians have managed to do
is managed to get people withvery little means to defend
billionaires.
You know like it's funny to mewhen I see on both sides, you
know, I see people in rural WestVirginia saying how Trump's

(56:11):
going to be great for everybodyand a lot of people.
They don't have much and theybelieve in it.
They believe in it Even thelast time.
It didn't really happen.
Both of these two guys runningfor president both had a shot.
We had four years of each ofthem right.
Neither one lit up things.

(56:31):
I will say that selectively,individually, there were certain
things that happened in bothadministrations that were good
and there were things thathappened that were bad.
Whatever I mean, you knowpeople are going to do the
tribal thing, you know and dotheir thing.
Whatever I mean, you knowpeople are going to the tribal
thing, you know and do theirthing.

Speaker 2 (56:46):
But if you can't agree that both Democrat and
Republican have good ideas attimes, then I don't I.

Speaker 1 (56:54):
You lose credibility with me and that's what happens
with this tribal war is is thatyou get into a, you get into a
mode where you're forced If youstick to the tribal mentality,
mentality you're forced todefend reprehensible behavior
done by your side because youcan't show weakness to the other
side and you're forced to, youknow, decry things that probably

(57:18):
, on some level, you kind ofagree with.
But because it's beingsuggested or proposed by the
quote-unquote, the bad guys, yousee it as your goal to shut it
down and we just don't think youknow, not not, they can't agree
on certain things, but I saw onthe news they agreed last night
right before midnight.

Speaker 2 (57:39):
Did you see this?
They do they, the Senate, whatdo you know?
They agreed on keeping a UnitedStates surveillance program
going, yeah, without warrants,without, yeah, so we're all
continuing to be watched.
Yep, right, this is like an idea.
Nobody talks about All yourcommunications, text, phone

(58:01):
calls, things you do on socialmedia.
All of it is monitored, all ofit.
Right, right, right.
But you know well, I guessthat's just not important, right
, right, because.
But my guess, how do they allagree, how do all the
politicians come to an agreementon that but you can't agree on?

Speaker 1 (58:20):
you know, paying for homeless people like and and
that's something we really weneed to wrestle just we need to
think about it like why is itthat politicians of all stripes
end up being this way and theywould say, well, because it's
the right way.
That's why you convince youknow, you convince someone on
the d's and someone on the r'sthat this thing is right to do.
Well, that means it's right todo and is it because it seems

(58:42):
like the only time you guysagree are on the wrong things.
You know like when, when you?
Because all the good things,all the right things you fight
about and they never get done.
Oh, we tried, we really tried,guys, we would have passed that.
But oh, that other side, theyjust stopped us.
They stopped us dead in theirtracks, can't do anything sorry,
right, that's the system.

Speaker 2 (59:00):
You know how we're gonna.
You know we're gonna win this.
Gonna vote for me again, right?

Speaker 1 (59:03):
next time I'll do it promise I'll do it.
Promise you it'll work, it'llhappen Right, and we keep buying
it, you know, and so I don'tknow.

Speaker 2 (59:15):
I'm not here saying that this, max.
Well, I was reading alongAzzarello and you know a lot of
it.
I guess this manifesto right.
I'm not sure where that wordcame from, but it's a manifesto.

Speaker 1 (59:30):
Remember from the Unabomber back in the day.

Speaker 2 (59:31):
No, I know but is that where it came from?
Is that?
I mean, that was the first timeI heard it used Me too, you
know as your written thing, Imean manifesto.

Speaker 1 (59:41):
Isn't that like your core beliefs or whatever?
Isn't that what the title?
Isn't that what the definitionof it is?
I don't know, is it?

Speaker 2 (59:45):
I think so.

Speaker 1 (59:46):
I mean at least that context.
I mean it could be.

Speaker 2 (59:48):
I don't know if it meant it's something positive or
negative, I didn't know.
You know you never hearmastermind generally in a good
context.
No Right, it's always somebodybad Right.
Yeah, you know, but it mightnot.
They did something bad, right?

(01:00:08):
Yeah, that's true, that's true.
You never really hear about themastermind of something great
that happened.

Speaker 1 (01:00:14):
Occasionally, but yeah, it's more.
The context is more usuallynegative, yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:00:18):
Anyway, he writes liberals this was in that
manifesto thing liberals mockthe hypocrisy of I'm sorry of
conservatives thing.
Liberals mock hypocrisy, thehypocrisy of I'm sorry of
conservatives, conservativesmock the hypocrisy of liberals
and our collective circumstanceerode.
That's a hundred percent true,right, but I don't know, because
it's a hundred percent true,that the rest of it's true you
know, but does it matter?

Speaker 1 (01:00:40):
like no, no, no, but I mean he's right, but I mean
anyone could write thatindividual points and and I see
a lot of this is like well, hedidn't tell us anything, we
didn't know.
You know he could have savedhimself.
You know the pain of what hedid.
We all know that.

Speaker 2 (01:00:54):
Who's this?
Guy that he's talking about atthe beginning of his thing, this
billionaire guy, oh, peterThiel.
Yeah, oh, he's a big investorguy.

Speaker 1 (01:01:04):
I actually think he was actually married for a short
time to Jennifer Aniston.
Oh really, yeah, he's a big.
What do you call it?
Finance and stuff like that.
Venture capitalist, I believe,is the term they use now.
Ah, okay, pirates.
Pirates and criminals have beenrebranded venture capitalists

(01:01:25):
and they're heroes now.
But yes, and I mean obviouslyhe's ascribing malicious intent
to Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, and I'm sure Bill Gates is
mentioned somewhere in here.
But you know what I don't know,like maybe it's all.

(01:01:50):
I just I'm interested howeasily it is for people to
reject something and notconsider it, and that's what I'm
always going on is like you canconsider an idea and you're not
locked to it.
Like you can say I'mconsidering this proposal.
It doesn't mean you're marriedto it.
It doesn't mean you're marriedto it.
It doesn't mean you're full,but somehow or another it's

(01:02:10):
become.
Considering something is akinto endorsing it.

Speaker 2 (01:02:14):
Well, I think, chris, what I seem to find on
resistance, if I talk about anidea right is, let's say, this
idea, this manifesto that thisguy put together, right, if you
follow along with it.
There's a lot of reflection youhave to do, there's a lot of

(01:02:35):
thinking, and if you were tofully consider maybe not what he
seems to think, are themotivations?
Okay, because those, you know,I'm not going to sit here and
say the motivations for all.
This is what he says it is.
But the after effects ofwhatever he claims.

(01:02:58):
You can't sit here and say it'snot happening, right?
So I don't necessarily agreewith the why.
I agree with the circumstances,right.
So what we just said, it's true, I agree with the circumstances
, right.
So what we just said, it's true.
You know how we're divided,right, and how we seem to

(01:03:18):
entertain ourselves in such away that, you know, you could
look at it and say we'rebasically kind of sedating
ourselves to some of theseissues.

Speaker 1 (01:03:23):
Excuse me Very much so.

Speaker 2 (01:03:25):
But I think that if you're, if you're somebody that
is uncomfortable withintrospection, you're not going
to like that, so you'll justmove on.
That's, that's a lot of it.

Speaker 1 (01:03:41):
Yep, because your worldview, if even a little of
this is true, I think mostpeople who, who, who took the
time to read what he wrote,would say at least pieces of it.
We should put a link on thepodcast.
And I will be saying this toanyone who I talk about this

(01:04:05):
with is don't take the media'sword on what this guy was about.
He put his writings out there.
I'm not saying again.
I'm going to have a lot ofpeople who reflexively go he's a
nut job.
He did this thing.
He's crazy.
He's ranting conspiracytheories.

(01:04:26):
He did this thing.
You know he's crazy.
He's ranting conspiracytheories.
Yeah, but we're living in aworld where some conspiracy
theories are turning out to bekind of true and that's a lot of
people are having difficultywith it, because once one
conspiracy theory is shown to betrue, and how much gravitas do
you have when you're saying well, conspiracy theories are

(01:04:48):
nothing?
We're told.
Don't believe in conspiracytheories.
Conspiracy theories are alwayswrong.

Speaker 2 (01:04:52):
And conspiracy theory is again negative.
Right People that like them.
It's not.

Speaker 1 (01:05:00):
Go ahead.
I'm sorry.
Well, I was just saying are wesaying that conspiracies don't
exist Because they do?

Speaker 2 (01:05:06):
Well, I mean all a conspiracy is, is two or more
people that are getting togetherto try to formulate a plot.
So of course they exist, ofcourse they exist.
These are all time peopleconspiring, but we as a
collective, not me, I mean.

Speaker 1 (01:05:20):
I kind of like them right, I mean, that's the point
of what we do, me and you.
We love this stuff.

Speaker 2 (01:05:25):
I like it, but and I know that when I read about them
, are they all true.

Speaker 1 (01:05:32):
No.

Speaker 2 (01:05:35):
Are some of them interesting enough to make me
want to read more?
Yes, right, but when they sayon the news conspiracy theory,
it's always to marginalize it.

Speaker 1 (01:05:46):
That's the only reason they call it that well,
do you know that that term,conspiracy theorist, was made up
for the ufo thing like that's?
There's there is again.
This is there are documentsfrom the cia that have been
released by a freedom ofinformation act, which pretty
much show that that was theirplan.

Speaker 2 (01:06:05):
Oh, I knew that I didn't know.
That's how they came up withthe term.

Speaker 1 (01:06:07):
It's just how do you discredit someone?
How do you discredit here?
You know we hear all thesethings about misinformation and
malinformation right, and peoplewill repeat that all the time
They'll be oh, there's lots ofmisinformation and
malinformation on.

Speaker 2 (01:06:20):
All right misinformation.

Speaker 1 (01:06:21):
We know what misinformation is.
It's supposedly informationthat's wrong.
But do you know whatmalinformation is?
I would assume bad information,no malinformation.
The definition ofmalinformation is facts that are
technically true butinconvenient for the social
order.
What like malinformation is not, but it sounds negative.

Speaker 2 (01:06:42):
It sounds negative because mal I think means bad,
it's, it's it's true, it's stuffthat is not necessarily made up
.

Speaker 1 (01:06:50):
It's just inconvenient because malware is
bad, it's just inconvenient youdon't want people to.
You know, in keeping a societytogether, it has to be managed.
Like, do you really think youcan dump?
How many people are in theunited states?
300, 300 million?
Is that the number right?
All right.
Do you really think you candump 300 million people together
and just let shit go?
No, you gotta, you gotta guidestuff a little bit.

(01:07:13):
You gotta set some parameters.
Or you're looking at anarchy andso everybody, everybody agree
with that.
People go yeah, of course yougotta set some parameters, you
gotta set some laws, you gottaset some things, okay, and you
think that's as far as they'reto go?
Like, do you really think, likewe know the science out there
exists the sociological scienceon how you would sway a
population?
Like, we know our intelligenceagencies sometimes do this in

(01:07:35):
other countries.
Do we really think the samething's not being done on us
here because we do?
We think no, that could neverhappen here.
We'd spot it, would?
You right?
You know your news is all ownedby major corporations.
Like, as I often say, do youthink abc will ever air a
negative story about disney of?

Speaker 2 (01:07:57):
course they won't.
They're owned by disney.

Speaker 1 (01:07:59):
Do you think nbc will ever air a negative story about
Xfinity, comcast?
No, and when you start to lookat it, these companies don't
just own that, they owneverything.
Pharmaceutical companiesEverybody sees the ads, right,

(01:08:20):
we make jokes about the ads allthe time.
The pharmaceutical commercials,right.
Think about that.
Why do pharmaceutical companiesrun ads?
Is it really for individualswho are going to watch a
commercial and go?
I got that.
I'm going to go ask my doctorfor a Vlexis, maybe, if that
happens a little bit, but that'snot the motivation.

(01:08:41):
Well, what is the motivation?
Well, if you ever watch daytimecable, it's pretty much
exclusively ads forpharmaceutical companies.
And that's expensive, that'snot valuable advertising time,
it's daytime, who cares?
But it's big money for the.
You know like, a news channelis not going to piss off Pfizer

(01:09:02):
because Pfizer, you know,represents a certain percentage
of their advertising revenue,because Pfizer represents a
certain percentage of theiradvertising revenue.
So do you really think a newsorganization is gonna attack the
hand that feeds it?
That's a conspiracy theory.
And it does sound like aconspiracy theory, but if you
quickly look it up you go well,that's kind of true, it's life,
it's like that, and that's theway the world works, at least in

(01:09:23):
our world.

Speaker 2 (01:09:24):
And I agree with you because what basically you have
is the news that is a corporateshow.
That's what you have becauseyou have corporately controlled
media.

Speaker 1 (01:09:35):
Right and it doesn't have to be over.

Speaker 2 (01:09:36):
People say oh, are they?
It means they're, they're inthe room with them.
I'm not saying that.
But it's pretty obvious that ifyou're right that they're just
not going to have aninvestigative story to tell you,
hey, there's some stuff thathappened with Pfizer, we need to
tell you about it, and we didthis big piece and here we go.

(01:09:58):
It's never going to happen.
It's just never going to happen.

Speaker 1 (01:10:00):
And you don't need to control everything.
All you need to do is you needto set the guardrails.
This is the realm of whatreasonable people talk about,
and this is the realm of whatunreasonable people and most
people chris will say to that,to the pharmaceutical thing,
because I I'd love to have anepisode we talk about

(01:10:21):
pharmaceuticals, because I justthink the whole thing is a.

Speaker 2 (01:10:24):
I think there's a lot of good, but there's a lot not
just like it nothing.

Speaker 1 (01:10:27):
Nothing in this world is all good or all bad.
There's mix.

Speaker 2 (01:10:31):
There is mix, but there's levels of the mix, of
course, of course.
And I think that a lot ofpeople, if you say this to them
hey, what do you think of this?
That pharmaceutical companiesbasically control the
information you're receivingabout pharmaceutical companies,
right?
Well, I don't really want tothink about that.
Hold on, let me take myprescription, like that's what

(01:10:51):
it is.

Speaker 1 (01:10:52):
It's that same thing that goes back to that idea.
When something challenges yourworldview, when dealing with it,
when acknowledging it opens upa host of other problems, the
easiest course of action is tojust ignore it, don't
acknowledge it, move on.

(01:11:14):
And it's very easy, becausenews cycles being what they are,
this thing that's in the newstoday, it's going to be flooded
out by 10 other things tomorrowand unless they bring it up
again, we'll soon forget aboutit.

Speaker 2 (01:11:29):
Right.
So it kind of goes with thisMax, what's his last name?
Azzarello Yep, His manifesto,which is kind of linear, kind of
disjointed yeah it's a littleall over the place.
For sure.
But one of the undercurrents ofwhat he's writing made me think

(01:11:50):
about the inflation that we'redealing with, especially since
the pandemic.
Yeah Right, how much justregular items cost at the
grocery store, how much it coststo buy a can of Coke, all that
kind of stuff.
And you know, we all see it inour different aspects of how we

(01:12:14):
live our lives and we allcomplain about it, but we don't
do anything about it right,because there's nothing you can
do, there's not one action youcould take to fix it.
Well, I mean, then there was astory I think it was sometime
late last year about, well, youknow, different politicians
wanted to explore how these bigCEOs, these big companies you

(01:12:34):
know they're talking to theirCEOs how can you keep telling us
that it's inflation that'scausing these problems?
Yet you're all making recordprofits, right?
So that story was out there.
Guess what we all didcollectively nothing.
We just keep paying the bills,right?
So we're all getting blanked.

Speaker 1 (01:12:55):
Yeah, right, and we all it's a hundred percent true,
we all know it all gettingblank we all know it, we all see
it yet we all just say let mebend over a little further for
you that's it, becausepractically what could you do
like that's the thing is,practically what action could
you or I take individually thatwould matter well, we probably

(01:13:18):
take our eye more on that ball.

Speaker 2 (01:13:20):
If somebody solved some of these issues that keep
us occupied, yeah, I, that's allI mean.
If somebody just took abortionissue away, let's say, and took
some of these stupid I'm notcalling that stupid, but
abortion is not a stupid issue.
But the fact how we've beenbickering it for generations is
stupid.
Right, then we can't come to aconsensus A reasonable, a

(01:13:44):
reasonable.

Speaker 1 (01:13:46):
What do you call it Consensus?
Consensus, a reasonable.
Uh.
What do you call it consensus?
Consensus, a reasonableagreement.
Yeah, say hey, let's.
Let's figure out what the coreof our issue is.
What?
What is the core?
Can we agree on this?
Because that's the way you doit.
You have to like what.
Do we both agree on this?
Okay, let's move one layer out.
Do we both agree on this?
Yes, okay, then we move onelayer out.
Do we both agree?
No, we don't disagree.
We don't agree on this.
So let's focus on that aspectof it.

(01:14:07):
How can we come to?
But that's not what people do.
People frequently will argue.
I watch it all the time.
People will be arguing, somepeople will be arguing facts and
other people will be arguingthose facts with conclusions and
not differentiating facts whichpresumably are immutable,
things that are provable, andconclusions which use facts to

(01:14:29):
build a case.
You know kind of like what youdo.
You know you use the facts ofthe case that this is what,
these are the facts, these arethe undisputed facts.
And if we take these facts andwe say that it leads to this,
now does that mean that everyset of facts always lead?
No, because you can take factsand you can present them in a
certain way to lead to a certainconclusion, but those facts

(01:14:49):
don't actually mean that youhave to really to really get at
it to any issue.
It takes time, it takes effort,it takes energy.
It takes, you know the, whetherit be the abortion issue or
guns issue, we're not going tosolve it on a three minute cable
news segment, like you're notgoing to solve it on a three
minute cable news segment.
Like you're not going to solveit.
It's going to take hours andhours and hours of you know

(01:15:14):
figuring out what the deal is,to come to something.
But that's not how we handlethings.
We just, you know a little.
You know cable news talks aboutit for three minutes.
We move on the next thing.
You know they fight over it andyou know, but they don't want
to solve it because what arethey going to fundraise off of
next time?
You know if the, if the rightdidn't have, you know, scare
people with the guns and theleft didn't have scaring people
with, you know, taking away yourrights, you know you're taking

(01:15:37):
away your.

Speaker 2 (01:15:37):
You know whatever it is, you know I noticed the gun
thing, chris because, um,somehow it's a constitutional
right excuse me, right If youthink the Second Amendment gives
you that right, which I thinkit does, but it's a

(01:15:59):
constitutional right thatsomehow the states get to
consider.
It's just more fracturing ofpeople that will never come to a
conclusion, because never in amillion years would they tell
you that your freedom of speechor freedom on unlawful search
and seizure is a state issue.
Never, right.
But somehow they do that, andthey've done that with abortion.
Now they say, hey, guess what?

(01:16:19):
We're going to even make thisworse.

Speaker 1 (01:16:20):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:16:21):
You're never going to come to a conclusion.

Speaker 1 (01:16:22):
Right, yeah, you're almost like, intentionally like
making making it worse.
Like, hey, do you want to?
You know, we almost got this,we almost got the conversation
to a point where we want, oh,and all of a sudden the state
passes this insane law.
That was like from 1860, youknow.
But the gun thing too, like I'mnot anti-gun, uh, I'm not a gun
guy.
Um, just because I don't trustmyself, I don't think I'm always

(01:16:44):
that confident.
I don't want to have somethingthat if I, whatever, um, but I'm
perfectly fine with people whowho do, and whatever it is what
it is, and I see the use of guns.
I mean, obviously, if stufffalls apart, you know, those of
us without guns are going towish we had them.
But on the other hand too, like, all right, I get it, it's in
the constitution.
We they didn't have like thedegree of firepower that we have

(01:17:07):
.
And you know I'm not the firstperson to say this, obviously
but like, hey, you want to havemuskets, knock yourself out, man
, you can have as many musketsas you want.
You want to have an automaticweapon.
That's not really what theywere talking about.
They did say guns and anautomatic weapon is a gun, but
obviously they could not haveforeseen that.
But obviously they could nothave foreseen that.

(01:17:31):
Like it's that adherence to asystem at a time when we were in
a different placetechnologically.
We have to.
We have to circle back andre-evaluate some of these things
with modern sensibilities.
Like let's not keep operatinglike the world is the is in the
18th century.
It's not.
It's moved on.
The world has changed, whichmeans our systems need to adapt.

(01:17:54):
You know, are is anyone outthere doing things exactly in
their life like they did it whenthey were 12 years old?
Of course not.
Your life has evolved, thingshave changed, time has changed,
your needs are different.
Like it's a different world nowthan it was when you and I.
You know, let's go back to whenwe were in high school.
It was a different world there,right, like you and I, when we

(01:18:15):
were kids, we left our house.
Nobody knew where we were, no,but like there was no easy way
to commute.
When you left your home, youwere uncontactable.

Speaker 2 (01:18:28):
Like nobody could contact you you were just out,
neither.
Right now there's nowhere whereyou're, where you're not
immediately able to be contactedwell, that's why I like hiking,
because when I get up theregenerally nobody can touch with
me but that changes the wholecomplexion of everything.

Speaker 1 (01:18:41):
Like, look how much are like we talked about in the
beginning, like our cell phones.
Like you know, some number ofyears ago we didn't have them.
Now you can't imagine lifewithout them.
The world has changed, the needhas changed.
We need to reassess some ofthis stuff and just go, hey,
this is the way it is.
Does that still make sense?
Like, and come to a goodconclusion AI is going to take

(01:19:04):
all our jobs.
Okay, if that can't be stopped,maybe we need to find a way to
like work that in like be okaywith it.
You know it's no, we'll justwhistle past the graveyard,
we'll pretend it's not happening.
Some people will deny it ishappening.
Other people will say, well,it's happening.
Well, what can you do?
Other people will say happening, but they'll, obviously,
they'll be responsible.
They'll do something, and Idon't company will ever just get

(01:19:27):
rid of employees for the sakeof saving money.

Speaker 2 (01:19:29):
No, they won't be.
They won't be motivated byprofit.

Speaker 1 (01:19:32):
God, you couldn't imagine, now Could you no.

Speaker 2 (01:19:34):
Like obviously everybody's going to act with
the pure I mean I think a lot ofpeople with the AI thing
they'll say, well, I mean, what,what?
What are we all going to do ifthat happens?
I don't think, generallyspeaking, the people that can
make the most profit care.
They don't care.

Speaker 1 (01:19:53):
Although, and in a strange way, it's self-defeating
, like if nobody has money,nobody can buy stuff.
You're right, don't you want?
Everyone like that's it wasHenry Ford who, like wanted to
keep the price of his cars sothat his employees could buy his
cars.
That's how it works.
He's like I want people whowork for Ford to be.

(01:20:16):
I'm not saying he was a greatguy.

Speaker 2 (01:20:19):
And he also is the one that's credited at least
with the 40-hour work week, andthe motivation of that was that
you had time to go spend yourmoney.
Yeah, that was the motivationof the 40 hour work week, to
that you have enough time torest and spend money, right,
because if you're working 10, 12hours a day, you're not doing

(01:20:40):
anything but working andsleeping, right.

Speaker 1 (01:20:42):
Right, hey, I'm just in all these things.
We just need to reassess someof it.

Speaker 2 (01:20:47):
The motivation's always money, it is always money
.

Speaker 1 (01:20:50):
And because we've made the system like that, we
have created a system where thenumber one thing is money.

Speaker 2 (01:20:55):
And growth and growth .

Speaker 1 (01:20:57):
Exponential growth and like unlimited growth, which
is ridiculous.
Nothing, nothing does that.
Nothing grows perpetually.
How many of many of you knowchains that have been like
staples of our lives, gone now,like christmas tree shop?
You know, am I mourning theloss of christmas tree shop?
I don't know.
I went there sometimes, we gotcute stuff or whatever.

(01:21:18):
I'm not you know, but it's gone.
Now life moves on.
Caldor doesn't exist anymore,bradley's doesn't exist.
I mean there's a lot of storesthat don't go, but the thing
about a lot of- We've got theNew England whole thing here
with you.
But a lot of these stores Almy'sGo out and run out of business
right, and that happens throughtime.
But what about these ones likethe Christmas tree shop?

(01:21:38):
It just got too big.
The core concept is good A thatsells knickknacks and crap and
all this it wasn't sustainable.
And it wasn't sustainable formaximum profit, unlimited and
just keep going.
It's a controversial thing, butI'll say one of the things
that's ruined everything is thepurely investor class, like the
people who are on the sidelinesnot contributing anything but

(01:22:01):
skimming off the profits, andthat's really all that's
happened in the last bunch ofyears.
Our only innovation has beenmaking our financial system more
convoluted and finding like,because the basic premise of a
business doing a thing andhaving customers and charging
for you know widgets.
It still goes on it still goeson and that whole thing hasn't
changed.
But what has changed is nowthat whole process.
It still is, at its core, acompany or doing something,

(01:22:24):
selling something, sellingservice, or whatever people buy
it, whatever, however, you wantto do that.
But now that money doesn't justgo to the owners of the company
, now it flows through like acorporate structure.
Now it has to feed stockshareholders who want to have
increasing profits, and so yougot to just keep.
This quarter has to be betterthan last quarter.

(01:22:44):
Next quarter has to be a littlebit more.
It comes a certain point where,like you've done all you can do
, like the company's not goingto get any bigger.
So now, what do you do?
Well, to keep the profits going, what are you gonna have to
start skimping, you know.
Maybe you pay the people alittle bit less.
Maybe you, you know, skimp onthe material.
You know costs are too high.
How do you know, hey, boeingyou, we can't spend all this

(01:23:06):
money on quality control, it'sjust wasted money.
Come on, yeah, like what do youmean?
This part's defective.
Well, it doesn't really fit.
We'll force it in there, bangit in there, it'll fit.
It's like why are we eversurprised that that's what we
get?
That is literally the point ofit.
That's the point of the systemis to make maximum profit all

(01:23:29):
the time.
And you have this whole classof people who they don't
contribute.
They're not in many cases,they're not buying or availing
themselves to the service.
That's for the little peopleLike.
They use other stuff.
They're not selling it, they'renot creating something, they're
just there skimming off the top.
Oh, that made some money.
Why don't I get my cut?
There's money my cut and thatkeeps happening and like don't
we realize?
And without investors youwouldn't have this, that or the

(01:23:50):
other thing.
There is something to that.

Speaker 2 (01:23:52):
You do need people with capital.

Speaker 1 (01:23:55):
Do you know that the idea of corporations originally
were temporary things?
Yes, a corporation formed toachieve a stated goal and when
that stated goal was reached,the corporation would dissolve.
Right.
So they'd create a corporationto build a bridge.
Hey, this corporation nowexists and its job is to build

(01:24:17):
this bridge.
And when this bridge iscompleted and people are driving
over it, the corporationdissolves and it goes away.
And at some point, corporationsbecame permanent fixtures.
And that's where itcorporations became permanent
fixtures and that's where it allstarts to go wrong, kind of
like taxes.
Taxes are supposed to be atemporary wartime measure.
That goes.
A lot of people now are justgetting pissed and saying if we

(01:24:38):
keep sending American troopsover to die in faraway land for
something paid for another war.
A lot of people are like I'mnot going to pay my taxes
anymore and again that won'tlast very long.
Because you don't pay yourtaxes, that come out of you with
guns.
Not right away not right away,but if you push it far enough,
eventually guns come out,eventually it comes down to
force.
And it's just I don't know thatthere's a solution, because I

(01:25:02):
think the impetus to keep itgoing I I always say right when
it comes to.

Speaker 2 (01:25:05):
If you want to know how finances rule everything,
right, go rob a bank.
Right, have one.
Watch one guy rob a bank, thenwatch another guy beat the crap
out of his girlfriend and seethe police force that comes
after each one of them.
I'd say, yeah, Right, You'regood, yeah, they're going to get

(01:25:26):
you if you robbed the bank.
It's just you know and I'm justso you know.
I think one's much worse thanthe other, and the one is the
violence.
Right, and I know you can haveviolence robbing a bank, but and
I know you can have violencerobbing a bank, but let's just
say nobody got hurt.

Speaker 1 (01:25:40):
Right.
All they did was take moneyRight, which is not.

Speaker 2 (01:25:41):
I'm not saying that, but I'm just saying our values
as a society and we're all okaywith it.

Speaker 1 (01:25:50):
We're all okay with it we all, by by not protesting
it, we are giving it our assent.
We're saying no it's fine,right?
So anyway, yeah, everybodycomplains about how things are,
and then and then, when anopportunity may quickly.
You know, any politician whosereal goal is to fix this stuff

(01:26:11):
never gets anywhere, obviously Iyou know.

Speaker 2 (01:26:12):
What do you think about this guy's whole thing
about crypto?
I I don't know a ton about.
I know I did buy some bitcoin.
I have to tell you I sold it.
Yeah, um, I couldn't take itanymore.
You know, I don't know a tonabout.

Speaker 1 (01:26:23):
I know I did buy some Bitcoin.
I have to tell you I sold it.
Yeah, I couldn't take itanymore.
You know, I don't know.
I mean, I like the idea ofcryptocurrency.
I like the idea of a currencythat actually has its own rules,
Like Bitcoin is like, but Idon't know.
Like, to me, it's what is aBitcoin now?
Like super expensive, right?
Yeah, it's up to maybe just over60 000 so to me at that point,
like it becomes well, what thehell do we have this for?

(01:26:45):
Like, what good is it like ifyou're, if you're operating in
in multiples of 60 000?
Sure, that's good, but like, Idon't know.
Initially I thought the thepromise of bitcoin, the promise
of cryptocurrency in general,was that decentralized,
decentralized money that had itsown value and the value was

(01:27:05):
based on the amount out there,as it should be, as opposed to
money now, which is just likeillusion, illusionary.
You know, it's money is just,it has value, because we agree
it has value.
You know, if things started tocrumble, you know very quickly,
paper money would be meaninglessif, if you know, if things came
down, the person who has actualgoods would be in the high seat

(01:27:28):
and somebody who has all themoney in the world would be
useless because they'd be like,what am I gonna do with that
money?

Speaker 2 (01:27:31):
like the system has crashed now I'd love to talk to
an economist one day, because Ican't wrap my head around how,
let's say, today there's $10 inthe US economy, right, and that
$10, just like you'd say,bitcoin or anything else that
holds X amount of value.
And then we split up that valueright, that's kind of what

(01:27:53):
money is.
How do you keep adding to itand then try to tell everybody
the value of what you have isthe same?
It doesn't make it.
It just that concept.
Maybe my brain isn't big enoughto figure out, but that concept
seems to be a scam.

Speaker 1 (01:28:09):
It probably is at its core.
I mean, it's probably all.
How do you?

Speaker 2 (01:28:12):
keep adding, like when they keep saying oh, we
printed more money.
Well, how does that not devalueeverything else?
Right, and they'll give youcomplications.
To me, that's good, to me,that's the reason why things
cost more.
But uh, and people say, well,that can't be the reason.
I said, well, well, what is thereason?
If you keep adding money into asystem that already had X
amount that and you split up thevalue right, how do you?

(01:28:34):
How do you not decrease thevalue, Like, if it's that way?

Speaker 1 (01:28:45):
why can't we all just be millionaires, just make more
money?
Yeah and I.
But I think sometimes that'sused as an excuse to say why
something can't be done, likewhen somebody says, hey, we
should raise the minimum wage.
You know people like, oh, whydon't we raise it to a thousand
dollars an hour?
It's like dude, like there's along way from like trying to
raise it so somebody can likelive to raising it to a thousand
dollars an hour.

Speaker 2 (01:28:58):
No, no, I think.
I think raising the rate ofsomeone's pay, the effect of
that is you're decreasing theprofit of someone else, right,
right.
So the value just shifts, right, so that kind of plays into the
same thing.
So you're just shifting thevalue, which I think should
happen.

Speaker 1 (01:29:14):
Well, if the costs go up, then the if you want people
to maintain their level ofliving, then as costs go up,
then their pay has to go up, orelse they're not going to be
able to afford the same stuff.
It seems pretty simple andstraightforward.

Speaker 2 (01:29:25):
Right.
I guess what I'm saying islet's say, you had a corporation
right McDonald's and theinvestors of McDonald's, the
people that buy the stocks, thepeople that are on the board
right, they 2023, they made Xamount, right?
So then they say, okay, we'regoing to pay workers more money.
Well then there's two thingsthat can happen those people

(01:29:49):
that were making profits makeless, or they make the same and
they charge the customer more,or they just tell you the buns
are smaller, or whatever it is.
If they don't change what youget or what you pay for, the
result is they get less?

Speaker 1 (01:30:08):
It has to come from somewhere.

Speaker 2 (01:30:10):
So the value just shifts around.
But when you keep adding moneyin, I don't know how that works.
But I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:30:16):
It's meant to be complicated.

Speaker 2 (01:30:17):
And.

Speaker 1 (01:30:18):
I'm not an economics person.
I know that somebody who iswould listen to this and go how
stupid are these guys?
Like they don't understandbasic economics.
And I'm like dude, it's all amade-up system.
Like, can we just agree?
We made all this shit up.
I hate it when people talkabout the economy as if they're
talking about gravity.
Well, what can you do?
That's the economy, it's like.

(01:30:46):
But we made it up.
This is, this is one of therules of, of just um, living.
Right, it's like it's immutable.
What can you do?
And it's like but didn't wemake this up?
Like we can change it?
You know we could all gettogether and go it's a different
world now than it was.
You know, I sometimes refer tomyself as a libertarian, but I'm
not aligned with thelibertarian party in any way
because to me, they're all justa bunch of people who, like,
want to live, like the world isstill in the 18th century, like
you know, read john lock.

(01:31:08):
I get it, dude.
John lock was really good inhis day.
It is not that it is not thattime much has changed.
Maybe his fundamentalprinciples have some merit, but,
man, you just can't take atemplate that was around when we
were in, like you know horseand buggy and wooden ships, you
know and and just apply it to atech into a civilization that

(01:31:29):
has like cell phones and emailand you know 24-hour cable
networks and just like we're ina different place now than we
were back then.

Speaker 2 (01:31:38):
It's time to reassess just a little just on the edges
just go.

Speaker 1 (01:31:42):
You know this worked.
How can we tweak it and make itright?
But of course, the people who's?
Who would be in charge of that,are the people who are like,
well, I want to keep it exactlythe way.
It is right, I'm doing great,it's working for me.
You know, I'm doing awesome.
My 401k is flying.
Meanwhile you got people whocan't you know, can't afford
simple medication.
Well, that's the system.
What are you gonna do?
They should work harder, theyshould earn their living.
Come on, man, yeah, it's, um,it's interesting.

(01:32:07):
I really, you know to to kindof wrap this up and we'll, we'll
, uh, we'll wrap up this episodeat least, is that I feel
there's a moment here with this,with this, not specifically
with this guy, but the fact thatI hope that some of what he
brings up, at least a little bit, is at least looked at and go.

(01:32:31):
Well, how is it that we're in aplace where they can force
through something so easily whenit's something terrible, for
you know, more war.
You know, whenever you do, thatthey can agree a hundred
percent Anything for us.
Nah, I can't do it, man, whatare you going to do?
It's just the economy.
It's just.
That's the way economics work.
It's immutable.

(01:32:51):
It's like gravity.

Speaker 2 (01:32:53):
Come on so um, why does it?
Why in that manifesto do youthink he?
Um, I know we're wrapping it up, but why do you think?
Why is he calling it a klepto?
Klepto, is he saying, justbecause they keep taking things.

Speaker 1 (01:33:07):
I gotcha.
It's basically just you knowstealing.
The greatest trick, they say,is that you know the left and
the right get the.
You know the left gets theirpeople to hate the right and the
right gets their people to hate.
The hate the right and theright gets the.
They're people that hate that,but they, they're all together.
They all, they all have belongto the same country clubs.
They all, you know, pal aroundafter not as much anymore.

(01:33:27):
Used to see that more in the80s remember that used to see
that with like reagan and and uh, what's that?
tipper?
I don't know what's his name,not tipper core um tip o'neill?
Tip o'neill and and he was thespeaker of the house a Democrat
and then, you had Reagan andthat they were friendly.
You know after, and I'm thinkingto myself, you know, and
everybody talks about the, thebygone days of when that that

(01:33:48):
was the case, and you'rethinking do you really want that
, though?
Like, do you, if you want thetwo sides to be adversary, don't
you really want them to beadversary?
Like you don't want them to beon the same side, cause then
won't it just become themconspiring against you?

Speaker 2 (01:34:02):
Well, there's always going to be somebody.
I mean, I think that, um, Idon't know.
Well, I can only relate, maybe,to my, my job, right.
There's plenty of other peoplethat would be adverse to me and
I don't really have.
I, I don't really have, I don't, I mean most, most, I mean just
about everybody.
I don't have any adversefeelings about them, I just have

(01:34:23):
.
We just look at the issuedifferently, Right.
So I don't know if that's areal problem if it's being done
sincerely, Right.

Speaker 1 (01:34:30):
But if if you, as an attorney, if you conspired with
the other attorney, oh Jesus, to, to, to create a situation that
was advantageous for the two ofyou, for the attorneys we lose
our licenses.
Right, that is a crime.
Yeah, that is a.

Speaker 2 (01:34:47):
that is you know that is Well.
I don't know if it's a crime,but we lose our license.

Speaker 1 (01:34:49):
Yeah, a crime.
As far as a, what's the wordI'm looking for?
Yeah, it's a taking away yourlaw license.

Speaker 2 (01:34:54):
That's it right.
You can't do that.

Speaker 1 (01:34:57):
But if politicians conspire with each other to do
something that's good for thepoliticians and not good for the
people, isn't that kind of thesame thing.

Speaker 2 (01:35:05):
It's the same thing, it's the same thing right.

Speaker 1 (01:35:07):
I mean, to me it's the same thing.
This side and this side gottogether and made an agreement
and did a thing, and it's goodfor them, because the rest of
it's a charade.
And it's like, well, were youreally against each other?
Like you know, like if you wentout in the courtroom and you
argued against this attorney andsecretly behind the things,
you're like, well, we'll cut adeal and it wasn't for the good

(01:35:28):
of the client, because obviously, deals are made all the time
for the good of the client, forthe good of the clients.
But if it was good for you guysand not for the client, hey,
let's stretch this out so we canbill him more hours.
Oh yeah yeah, yeah, you know,like that's oh yeah, that's
baloney, but, like congress,people will, will conspire with
the other side, you know, withthe other party too, and it's
like we're just okay with it,right, we're just okay with it.
All this stuff is too big.

(01:35:50):
We got so heavy on this episodeback too.
It's kind of funny, but this iskind of what goes through our
minds.
Yeah, but this is timely.
But we're being linear here,chris, we are, we're doing a
good job of staying on target,but, um, I don't know, I I just
think we're, we're, we're, we'rein a weird time in this world
where stuff is just I don't, Idon't know how it's gonna end up

(01:36:11):
.
Good, like you know what I'msaying, like every day it's
something else and it's anotherpowder keg, whether the middle
east or you know the, with chinaor russia, you know ukraine.
Like it's another thing that'sjust waiting to blow up and
everybody has an idea how it canbe fixed.
If you just got rid of thisside, if you just got rid of
that side, all this would befixed and it's like what is
Right?
Like, come on.

Speaker 2 (01:36:33):
People are people and you could just get let's just
say you got rid of everyonethat's against one issue right,
and all we have is these peoplethat are fought.
And you see, it.
You see it sometimes right,they'll find some, they'll find
a subdivision there, you're notfor this issue as much as I am,
and because of that, we're notthe same anymore.

(01:36:54):
That's really.
You see it, even in differentpolitical parties.
You're not, you don't.
You don't really like this asmuch as I do Like it's like.
Come on.

Speaker 1 (01:37:03):
Yeah, yeah, you'll see.
You know Republicans talk aboutthose who aren't true
Republicans, what they call themrhinos, or you know,
libertarians will be like thisperson's, or Democrat.
You know liberal people will belike they're not really like
that.

Speaker 2 (01:37:14):
You're a little too moderate for me.

Speaker 1 (01:37:16):
Right, it's, we love to divide ourselves up and so
maybe that's the thing is, maybehumans.
I think I heard somebody sayand I don't what was it, it
might've been on Rogan but Iheard somebody say once that
maybe humans just aren't meantto live in huge communities.
Maybe we're best when we'relike, you know, little villages
of 20, 30 people, because youcan get 20, 30 people and kind

(01:37:37):
of get in the calm.
There's a number there, there'sa number that you can kind of
get a cohesion.

Speaker 2 (01:37:42):
Then, once you get over it, you start having
division Right because it justgets too big and that number is
used, I think, in differentorganizations for things because
they won't have certain groupsof people larger than that, like
in the military, and stuffbecause they know that once it
gets too much you're now lookingfor problems with people.

Speaker 1 (01:38:03):
And, like I said before, society requires
guidance.
It just does.
Society does not stay togetherwithout some rails to put it on,
and I think we all think thatthe rails are minimal and I
think they're a lot more than wethink Like, come on, because
that's the only explanation whyshit never changes.

(01:38:24):
Why does stuff never get better?
It's got to be an incentive forsomebody for things not to get
better, right, because everybodywould say, well, isn't it in
our best interest to fix this orfix that?
Of course it is, well, whydoesn't it happen?

Speaker 2 (01:38:36):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:38:37):
And then we just go away and maybe that's why I
don't know what's on.
Netflix, right, maybe that'swhy we're kept so busy, I mean,
and that there's something tothat.
You know, how do you get apopulation to stop sticking
their nose in government?
Ah, you, let them come outevery four years and vote for
something.
It's meaningless.

Speaker 2 (01:39:03):
And then they go back and they, you know, oh what,
you vote for us, I promise it'llwork, really, do you?
Because you had a chance, right?
Yeah, yeah, I mean somebody'san interesting thing.
I mean, if you dated somebodyand they kept saying those
things to you, yes, most, mostlyeveryone, unless you're in some
difficult situation.
Most people like come on, right, okay, you said this is the
fourth time, right, you got it'snot happening.

Speaker 1 (01:39:19):
I, I, I've heard it said that you, you know, in this
next coming the election comingup, you know whether you get
Trump or you get Biden.
Either one is like a lame duckpresident right out of the gate.
Right, because both of themonly have one term in them.
Right, which is interesting,because I don't think we've ever
been here before Like where youhave two no, who are both on
their second term.
It's never happened.
So, no matter who wins, it'sonly a one-term president.

(01:39:42):
Right and no, it's neverhappened.

Speaker 2 (01:39:46):
It's weird, not that I, I don't think it's ever
happened.

Speaker 1 (01:39:50):
I don't want to get into this now because we go down
a whole road.
But there's much to be saidabout this whole third.
You know RFK, like what.
This is going to be aninteresting election year.
I really think this is.
We're going to see somethingunprecedented.

Speaker 2 (01:40:00):
Not since.

Speaker 1 (01:40:01):
Perot, have I seen somebody who has the potential
to upset the duopoly?

Speaker 2 (01:40:07):
They're not really covering him as much, of course
not, but I think it's, it'scatching fire but Ross Perot got
more coverage than Kennedy'sgetting.
That I remember, was that 92?
.

Speaker 1 (01:40:16):
Yeah, it was a different world.

Speaker 2 (01:40:17):
Oh, yeah, yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:40:23):
He yeah, it was a different world.
Oh yeah, he also paid for someof that.
Remember, perot used to put oninfomercials.
He had like a 30-minute timeslot where he just came on TV
and talked Folks.
Now it's simple.
I love that he had the charts.
I would love to see a world.
What would have happened if hehad gotten what he would have
gotten?
I would love to see what wouldhave happened.
I'm now more of a fan of like Ijust want to see what will

(01:40:46):
happen.
I kind of like chaos, because Iwant, like the system's not
working.
I want to see it upset.
So what?
Whatever, whatever possibility,and I think, either the two
main guys.
It's just going to be more ofthe same.
It's going to be differentflavors of the same crap.
So maybe it's time forsomething different.
I don't know.
Uh, who knows, but anyway, Ithink that's where we're going
to wrap it up.
We had a good discussion.
Um, we'll be back soon withmore talk.
We have lots more to talk about, right?
ufo stuff ai, there's a lot to alot of deep shit to go over.

(01:41:08):
There is right, and we'll beback to talk about it.
So so, uh, until the next time.
I'm chris and I'm steve, andthis has been some deep shit,
deep shit.
We'll be right back you.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Crime Junkie

Ridiculous History

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}(Not So) Deep Sh*t on Business, Politics, and the Media

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Crime Junkie

Ridiculous History

All Episodes

(Not So) Deep Sh*t on Business, Politics, and the Media

On Purpose with Jay Shetty