Navigating Tribalism, Politics, World War 3, and Globalism with Dr. Michael C. Anderson

Today, we sit down with Dr. Michael C. Anderson, a prominent engineer, pilot, historian, published author, and political analyst. Join us as we dive deep into some of the most pressing issues of our time, including the rise of tribalism in American politics, World War 3, the contentious debates surrounding abortion, the upcoming 2024 election, and the ongoing conflicts between Israel and Palestine, along with other big and controversial discussions. Sit back, relax, smash the like button, hit subscribe, click the bell, and let's get started.

Dr. Michael C. Anderson's Books & Website:
https://www.mikeandersonsbooks.com

Book a Free Consultation:
https://www.b2bgrowthtodayllc.com/bookconsultation

Buy Brendan' Ecker's Book "Beyond the Beat":
https://a.co/d/aP2tTJU

Buy Brendan Ecker's Book "How I Made My Dorm My Office":
https://a.co/d/06akGQD

Dr. Michael Anderson shares his unique insights on how today's mainstream political issues are interconnected and what they mean for the future of America and the rest of the world. Whether you’re interested in history, politics, or the complex dynamics of global conflicts, this episode is packed with thought-provoking discussion and expert analysis.

Timestamps:
[00:00]: Intro
[02:00]: Opening Remarks
[02:50]: Meet Dr. Michael C. Anderson
[04:26]: Why the Left and Right Don't Get Along
[11:12]: Tribalism
[18:14]: Censorship
[22:00]: Social Media, Elon Musk, and Free Speech
[26:30]: Trump or Kamala? 2024 Presidential Election Debate
[35:58]: Idealogical Subversion | Politics Defined
[39:28]: Lockdowns, Covid, 9/11, and Unification
[44:35]: Braver Angels
[46:27]: Abortion
[50:28]: Controversy
[54:12]: Brendan Ecker on Policing and Politics
[59:30]: Selfish Agendas and Lust for Power
[01:03:37]: Israel vs Palestine and The UK Invasion
[01:07:20]: What is Globalism?
[01:15:41]: The Solution to World War
[01:19:28]: The Trump Assassination Attempt
[01:31:47]: Seek the Truth and Speak the Truth
[01:38:18]: What Will Happen to the U.S. Dollar?
[01:40:00]: Closing Remarks

🔴 Don’t forget to subscribe for more in-depth conversations with leading experts on today’s most important topics!

Affiliate Disclaimer:
This video and description may contain affiliate links, which means if you click on one of the product links, I may receive a small commission at no additional cost to you. This helps support the channel and allows us to continue to make content like this. Thank you for your support!

Fair Use Disclaimer:
This video may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research in accordance with the Fair Use provision of the Copyright Act, Section 107. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such cop

Chapters

• 0:00 Politics, History, and Controversy
• 4:28 Genetic Differences and Political Tribalism
• 11:50 Identity Politics and Big Tech Influence
• 24:35 Social Media and Election Concerns
• 30:43 The Rise of Populism and Tribalism
• 44:36 Building Consensus Across Political Lines
• 58:24 Law Enforcement, UK Politics, Globalism
• 1:08:32 Globalism, Power Elites, and World Peace
• 1:17:22 Assassination Attempt and Political Blunders
• 1:26:22 Seeking Truth in a Complex World
• 1:41:14 Next-Level Humanity Through Conversations

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

The extremes of these views. We're talking about the edges of the political spectrum, so it's a political spectrum with everybody else in between.

Speaker 2: 0:07

And the things they were teaching us was just so radical. Right, it was like, oh, law enforcement just shouldn't be there, we should just defund the police. And it was just like has anybody else seen this too? Anybody else has heard that?

Speaker 1: 0:18

Because if you have control of the society and the propaganda, the media, then you can broadcast everything that supports what you've built and there can't be any resistance to it.

Speaker 2: 0:33

That's why the media controls the minds of the masses.

Speaker 1: 0:36

Malcolm X. What did you write about in your book on tribalism? How does this get solved? What did you say? And I said basically three things.

Speaker 2: 0:45

I said, gentlemen, welcome to the brendan acker influence, where I teach you how to succeed, accomplish your dreams and develop multiple income streams. Today's guest is dr michael anderson, who is a phd with over two decades experience in politics and historical analysis. Dr michael anderson has also published four books, with his fifth book on the way america's Counterfeit Democracy Rule of the Power Elite. Today, dr Michael Anderson and myself discuss a lot of controversial issues, ranging from tribalism to abortion, to the wars happening with Israel versus Palestine, to the wars happening with America versus Russia and China, and everything essentially that YouTube and all of the other platforms will probably try to censor this video for. So, without further ado, ladies and gentlemen, this video is to help you establish your own opinions on things and to give you an analysis so you can develop your own opinions about what's happening in the world. If you do get any value out of this episode, please be sure to like and share this video. Also, be sure to buy my books Beyond the Beat and how I Made my Door, my Office, if you're interested in learning how to become a police officer, how I did it and how I became an entrepreneur after that and made lots of money in e-commerce essentially, starting businesses the smart way and using education and knowledge to get you what you want in life. Be sure to subscribe to this channel and without further ado. I have nothing else. Let's get started. Thank you for joining the show.

Speaker 2: 2:01

While I typically interview experts in business, entrepreneurship and marketing, my goal is to provide diverse perspectives that can change the world a little bit. Right, because we're living in some crazy times today. So, as a police officer and an advocate for freedom of speech, I find politics both important and entertaining, despite the controversy, although neutrality is often expected. As a cop and a business owner, I believe in the value of curiosity and transparency. So my podcast aims to connect smart people to seeking to understand the broader issues of the world beyond just business and entrepreneurship. So, before we jump in the state of politics today and everything and all the craziness, tell us a little bit about yourself, your journey and what got you into politics and what started you on this crazy wild adventure of just left right and arguing the political system a little bit.

Speaker 1: 2:50

Well, I'm a engineer by training. I've always been interested in science and math and had an aptitude in that direction, so I got an engineering degree and then later got a PhD in computer science. So I'm sort of on the technical side. I'm a left brain driven guy, but I've always been a lover of history. I've read about history ever since I was a kid American history, world history, etc. And I decided to write about it. I wanted to do more with my right brain than my left brain. I mean, the right brain is a creative side.

Speaker 1: 3:29

So in 2008, I started a blog about ancient history. Actually, I was very curious about ancient history because the conventional wisdom is that any society that's over like a thousand years old has to be barbaric and lacking in knowledge and unaccomplished, which is obviously not true. So I started that blog up. It's still going, it's very popular. But then I get into political systems. You know, if you write about ancient history, you write about Rome and Greece and their political systems, which are really foundational for the modern world. Both the republic and democracy are concepts that have endured to today, so it's important to talk about them and how they have impacted the modern society.

Speaker 1: 4:28

So then in 2012,. I read a book called the Righteous Mind. It was written by a professor at NYU named Jonathan Haidt, and basically his book is about something I had been curious about myself, and that is why do the left and right not get along? You know, as I'm sure you think about this as well, as most Americans do, and you see the divide between the two sides and you say, well, how can that be? Why can't they get along? Why can't they agree on the path forward for the country? So I read his book and what Jonathan Haidt did he was the first one. He's a social psychologist and he was the first one to write about the genetic differences between the right and left. And they are genetic. Their brains are actually different. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of behavior, and genetic behavior that makes them different. So you can't really turn a conservative into a liberal. You can't really turn a liberal into a conservative, and I'm talking about people that have the deep-seated characteristics of either liberal or conservative. Obviously, as you know, our country has a lot of independents in the middle, and independents are people who don't have a strong ideology. They're willing to look at different points of view from both sides and make their own decision about what they believe in. So after reading Haidt's book, I got the motivation to write a book myself and I started writing about the genetic differences and I published my first book in 2017, which is called the Progressive Gene, and it basically documents the history of progressive side behavior how liberals think all that stuff, side behavior, how liberals think all that stuff. And I was going to write an opposite book, the Conservative Gene, because I wanted to cover the other side and how progressives think. But the tribalism problem in the United States got so horrendous I decided to write a book about tribalism, so I published my second book in 2019 and then went back to the conservative gene and published that in 2021. So I've averaged about a book every other year. My fourth book is called the Twilight of the American Experiment.

Speaker 1: 6:59

Without moral balance, our republic will fall. Without moral balance, our republic will fall, and basically what that's about is the dominance of the left over the communication systems in the United States today. The left dominates academia, they dominate the traditional media and they dominate social media, and the problem with that is the public doesn't hear a balanced point of view. They only hear one side which threatens to unduly influence people and also give them an idea about reality. That isn't true, you know. Reality is obviously that there are people on the left and people on the right who have different opinions. Neither one is wrong, they're just different.

Speaker 1: 7:49

I often talk about the fact that the and we can get into the specific differences if you want, but generally speaking, people on the left are motivated for change and they're very much invested in equality. So that's what you hear from the left a lot. Our country is not equal. There are disadvantaged groups who are taken advantage of. We have to fix that. So part of the left's point of view, or some on the left, are that socialism is the answer to that, because in their view, socialism makes equality. That's what it's supposed to be like. So the left likes change. People on the right are more status quo oriented and they like traditions, so they act as a break against the excesses of the left, basically. But both groups are important because if there were nobody on the right, the left would do crazy things and kill us all, and if there's nobody on the left, the right would not do anything. Yeah, that's very true.

Speaker 2: 8:50

I had just watched an interview with Jordan Peterson where Dr Jordan Peterson where he was talking a lot about that and how you know you need both sides in order for you to balance, and that's kind of the genius of the American experiment in many ways.

Speaker 1: 9:04

Yep.

Speaker 1: 9:05

Now let me just say a word about the genetic part of this, because these behavioral differences were actually developed I don't know several hundred thousand years ago, because when man first moved out of Africa and started to spread throughout the world, he encountered different climates and different ecosystems which threatened his survival, because there were environments that were food rich and environments that were food poor, and so man needed to adapt behaviors to survive in those different ecosystems.

Speaker 1: 9:40

And part of those behaviors are conservatism and liberalism. Liberalism like change, like I talked about, and in the ancient environment they were driven to find food sources when they were in short supply, whereas the conservatives are more adapted to because they're more conscientious managing food supplies in abundance, because they're more conscientious managing food supplies in abundance. So you had both sides covered then in those days, and that improved man's ability to survive through finding food or managing food that he already had possession of. So that comes down all the way from that time. And, of course, when we talk about the extremes of these views, we're talking about the edges of the political spectrum. When you go at the left edge, the people are more extremely liberal, progressive, and on the right edge they're more extremely conservative, and so it's a political spectrum with everybody else in between, some weak conservatives, some weak liberals and independents in between.

Speaker 2: 10:49

So how do we solve that problem of tribalism, especially today? Right, we have the invasion of the Islamic invasion in the United Kingdom happening. You have I don't know if you saw that on Twitter recently we had seen what looks, what appeared to be a bunch of Somalians on the border right on the American border, on the US border, and it appears to be that they're just waiting to come in right. So how do you explain the tribalism? How do you explain all the chaos happening? How do you explain the left versus the right today and how crazy it's gotten versus how it used to be 20 years ago, when it seemed like maybe everybody was just asleep or maybe things just weren't as polarized? How would you explain what's kind of happened today?

Speaker 1: 11:30

Well, first of all, it's a complex explanation because there are several things, several forces in operation. You know, during the 60s the identity politics movement grew out of the counterculture movement. There was a lot of. A lot of this is linked to socialist theory, because socialists believe that capitalism is evil and so it needs to be destroyed. So since they couldn't, there was, you know, they were upset and disappointed. There's never been a socialist revolution, it's never been successful. So they figured that the way to make it successful is attack capitalism, because if you could attack capitalism and prove that it's evil and tear it down, you'll get interested in building a socialist state. So we started with identity politics. There was a takeover of the universities with progressive professors. You may have seen data on this. It's like nine to one. Now there's 90% of professors in large universities are on the left.

Speaker 2: 12:45

Oh yeah, if I could just interject real quick because I want to just state how accurate that is being a four year criminal justice graduate. Criminal justice and a lot of my, a lot of the kids that were in my class were so far left, radical left, and would just believe anything the professors would tell them. And what was so wild to me is that I was here, I'm in this criminal justice class, I'm training to become a police officer, get into law enforcement, and today, fortunately, that's what I'm doing right, but also unfortunately, because there's crazy times. But it's definitely so true that the universities today and colleges are definitely super far left to a very scary extent to where it's in. The things they were teaching us was just so radical, right. It was like, oh, law enforcement just shouldn't be there, we should just defund the police. And it was just like is anybody else seeing this too? Anybody else just hear that? And everybody else is just agreeing with it. So, yeah, I just wanted to interject and just um, kind of validate your point there for for sure.

Speaker 1: 13:43

Now, one thing that came along with the takeover of the universities was the invention of new subjects to offer degrees in and learn, and that's unprecedented.

Speaker 1: 13:59

I'm talking about women's studies, gender studies, those kinds of subject areas. What makes them unique is that, throughout human history, what has been deemed academically appropriate, responsible, has been directly related to the increase in knowledge of the human race. So, like back in the days of the Greeks, there were only two subjects natural philosophy and natural history. That was it. And of course, as you can imagine, as new subjects develop physics develops, chemistry develops, biology develops those become spinoff subject areas for academic learning. Gender studies does not derive from any previous quest for human knowledge. It's basically a subject area created with an agenda. It starts with the idea that anybody that has a gender issue is disadvantaged and exploited by our society, and that's the way it is and that's what they teach about. So, unfortunately, it starts out with a mission that is not an objective mission, so there's not going to be any other side to it. Its activities are dedicated toward extending the mission. So that's again a secondary result of the progressive takeover of the universities. The other thing that happened is without any conservatives in academia. The well, when conservatives are academia, new information or new ideas came about as a result of dialogue. So if somebody wrote a paper about something, then there would be an opposition paper and they basically the role of academia is to discuss issues until there is a consensus and then you bring it forward and people write books about it and it's made public and discussed in society and newspapers and all that stuff and so that's gone because there is no debate before things become public. So the left comes up with an idea and of course, when you look at, for example, radical feminism, the ideas get more and more radical because they're an echo chamber. There is no consensus building, there is no other point of view. So these ideas are thought about and originally written about, but then go right into the public, because that's part of the activism of the left is to bring issues forward into the public as quick as possible.

Speaker 1: 16:49

So we have this academic takeover. They take over the mainstream media because the journalism schools are way progressive and so they turn out students who are progressive journalists, who write favoring progressive ideals, and the more progressive things that are pushed in our society, the more the right response to them, because they feel attacked. Then they feel that their side is not being represented. So tribalism gets built by many, many activities accelerating on the left and the right responding to those activities negatively. Again, the right is doing its historical duty of trying to be a break on the left, but it's very hard to be a break on the left when the left dominates all the media. Social media was started up by Silicon Valley elites who are very progressive, so it didn't need to be turned into a progressive institution. It always has been and of course its reach is enormous compared to the traditional media. You know there's three billion people that look at Facebook all around the world, so the reach is stronger and more influential than any other kind of media.

Speaker 2: 18:12

Oh yeah, dr. Dr Robert Epstein is. His company essentially focuses on tracking Google and their data, essentially, and how they're able to fluctuate votes and elections and how they're able to fluctuate votes in elections, and he was just speaking on how Google, just this year, is going to be able to swing about over 20 million votes just to the Democrats. So that's wild. And it goes to what you're saying about Silicon Valley and more of the internet space being more radical and leftist. And I've noticed that over the years. Where a lot of my content that's political will be completely shadow banned, it'll get copyright strikes right. Lot of my content that's political will be completely shadow banned, it'll get copyright strikes right. But anything else that's just business, anything else that's just normal content, totally fine. And so you really do see this thing of censorship happening in the united states today and on that, to everything you were saying with um democrats and what's going on with google and the big tech, and so go a little bit more in depth on that and why you think that's kind of happening.

Speaker 1: 19:08

What with big tech?

Speaker 2: 19:09

With big tech? Yeah, and where do you think we're going with that? How do you think that's going to affect the election coming up?

Speaker 1: 19:15

Well, first of all, I think big tech might be the biggest problem in the world today. I mean social media, because it serves an important function and at the same time, it is very damaging to human society. I mean it's damaging from the standpoint that. Well, my best example, I always tell, is if 25 or 30 years ago you had a radical idea or you were crazy and you just wanted to speak about something crazy, you had to go to a park and stand on a soapbox and give a speech and whoever walked by might hear it, but that's it. You didn't make it on the traditional media because they have editors and journalists and stuff like that that filter all that out. Now, with social media, there's no filter. Anybody can be crazy and speak their mind on social media and if they happen to be popular, they're blessed by the social media platform because they're generating ad revenue. So bad things are supported whereas good things may not be. So that's, that's a huge problem.

Speaker 1: 20:27

Um, there I don't see a solution. I mean, when you probably know about when the social media companies started, they were authorized to operate under section 530 of the 1994 Communications Act, which basically said as long as you serve as a platform that displays information created by others, you can't be liable. So in theory that would have worked, but right away it degraded. And of course that would have worked, but right away it degraded. And of course platforms like Facebook had to put enormous systems in place to censor out bad information. Unfortunately, their politics leaks into that and they censor out conservative views too. But the point is it's a bad problem because how do you solve it? You don't want to prevent people from gaining information and in a lot of ways social media is important to get the truth out of secret. In other ways it's damaging. So it's not clear to me how there's a solution. And the other thing is the damage it does to teenagers. This whole thing about you know TikTok and shaming teenage girls, showing them examples of lifestyle that are not appropriate. I mean influence, influence and the fact that you know. When you look at the FaceTime of teenagers I'll include boys in that on social media it's like many hours a day. I don't know what it is five, seven hours a day.

Speaker 1: 22:17

I went to dinner last summer at a restaurant I live in Columbus, ohio, and we parked our car down the street and walked to the restaurant and it's called German Village. It's a real old neighborhood with a lot of fine restaurants, and I turned a corner to come to the restaurant where we're going to eat and there are two long benches in front for overflow. People that are waiting for reservations or to meet somebody whatever. There's like 25 people sitting on it. Everyone is looking at their phone all 25 people and I thought this is not right. It's too much interaction with an artificial existence that isn't real and is biased. So how good can that be?

Speaker 2: 23:05

Yeah, my previous guest that I had on. We were talking a little bit about that, how Elon Musk had mentioned that your phone, these little devices right here, are an extension of you. It makes you a cyborg, right, and now they're starting to take us over so much and all of our attention. Like you said, the screen time on your phones and the content that you're consuming. It's. It's interesting, because facebook alone was designed to depress you right, to get you addicted into the algorithm and keep scrolling, and now you have all of these other social media platforms doing the same. How do you feel about elon musk with twitter? Do you think what he's doing with twitter is good? Allow like, for example? I mean, our interview will probably be the least censored on Twitter. However, it's weird to me, at the same time, that Elon is able to control whoever is able to have the bigger platform on Twitter also.

Speaker 1: 24:00

So what do you think about Elon and everything he's doing right now in terms of free speech and his stance on it? I admire him in normal, enormously as a, um, creative, technical individual. I mean, just take the fact that his rockets land. He can land a rocket on a ship or on a launch pad or something, and nasa spent 25 years and couldn't do that and you, you know, $50 billion. So I mean, his technical accomplishments are enormous. I'm glad he bought Twitter because that made Twitter more fair, I agree, so that's good.

Speaker 1: 24:35

I mean, I'm very active on Twitter. I'm reading things and reacting to them every day, so I pay attention to what's there. It's very hard during a political campaign to tolerate it. I have words that I block, like right now Trump is blocked and Harris is blocked on my Twitter. So I don't see any feeds that have either one of those because it's just too much.

Speaker 1: 25:00

And the sad part is I'm sure you've noticed this 80% I'm guessing 80% or 90% of the people that post there have no knowledge to back up whatever they're claiming. They're just rants, like I heard somewhere. I read you know, I'm a germocrat and I read something and it's like it made sense to me, so I'm going to rant about it, but that doesn't accomplish anything. I'm going to rant about it, but that doesn't accomplish anything. What you need is rants that say well, the real truth is this, and that's why I'm making this statement, because something else is a lie.

Speaker 1: 25:34

So I mean, what I find myself doing is, when I have the energy to do it, I'm just correcting other people. You know that are just ranting. No, there's really more to it than that, and unfortunately, there's a lot of voters who don't engage in the process. They vote according to how they're told to vote, or they vote according to how their tribe tells them to vote. That's not good for our country, because voting should be based on acquiring knowledge about two candidates and picking the one who is most related to your personal view of the world, and that's the only way that quality can be introduced in the process.

Speaker 2: 26:22

Go ahead. Oh yeah, I was just going to say I think that's very true, I think it's 100 percent. When it comes to voting especially and where we're going this year. It's going to be interesting to see what happens with what they try to do with the election, if they try to steal it, and what do you think is going to happen there. You think they're going to try to steal it. You think they'll succeed if they do try.

Speaker 1: 26:41

I think they'll try to steal it, because they always have. I mean, they stole Kennedy's election in 1960. So that's not anything new. I mean, the last critical Electoral College votes he did were Illinois, which is basically Chicago, and his dad, joe Kennedy, was friends with the political powers in Chicago and they got him enough votes to swing Illinois to Kennedy and he got elected. But I think the 20 election was stolen.

Speaker 1: 27:15

I really am amazed that all the lawsuits failed. I don't exactly know why they failed where the cover-up was just as good failed. I don't exactly know why they failed where the cover-up was just as good. But I was sitting watching the Michigan vote counting and all the Republican observers were ushered out of the room and the door was locked and there was a room where people were counting votes that they brought four-by-eight sheets of plywood in. They covered the windows. So why would you do that if it's legit, right, and so I just don't. It feels wrong, and I think there were, I mean in Pennsylvania probably, and in Michigan for sure, probably, and in Michigan for sure. Illinois I mean Republicans will never win Illinois, but there's a great risk it'll happen this time because the election is going to be determined by Wisconsin, pennsylvania and Michigan. If Trump won one or two of those, he would win. If those three get tipped, he loses. If those three get tipped, he loses.

Speaker 2: 28:23

It's interesting as well because they're just finding out now that in Georgia all of these illegal immigrants voted, felonies voted, dead people voted. And here I live, in Michigan too. It says we're a blue state. If you were to drive through Michigan, all you see is Trump signs. So you know there's definitely no doubt about it that they are trying to steal it. That stole it in 2020 and I remember covering the 2020 election and really I would.

Speaker 2: 28:47

I had written an entire book about trump's entire presidency, just kind of following him. I never published it because I just it was. It was so hard to get actual like publishers to back me up on that, on that book. But I just remember the very night of the trump election it was like I don't remember, somewhere around 1 am and just all of these votes just fluctuate to Biden all of a sudden and I was just like OK, that's like how can you not see it? You know they just make it so obvious and I think they understand when I say they, I mean more of the globalists and you know the deep state people running things.

Speaker 2: 29:17

I think they understand that as long as they say something, people will just go with it eventually. Right, yeah, and so something people will just go with it eventually, right, yeah, and so that's kind of my fear for the for this election is that, even if donald trump were to win over in like just overwhelming majority, my fear is that the media is going to say, well, no, that's not what happened. Here's what you guys are going to accept. Democrats won and we're going to flood the borders, you guys, you guys are going to be okay with it, and that's what's happening, okay, and then republicans Republicans will be like okay, cool, we'll go back to work, and so that's kind of my biggest fear. What do you see happening with that?

Speaker 1: 29:49

Well, the only way for the Republicans to win is if they get enough. They beat the steal. Basically, if you get a 3% lead or 2% lead, you're probably going to win. To win, it's a half percent. You're going to lose because you can't. You can only steal so many votes, um, but I don't.

Speaker 1: 30:14

I mean, I want to be fair in this discussion too, and I want to take a minute describe myself as I'm a moderate. Not, I'm a conservative by dna, but I'm a moderate politically because I believe in some ideas coming from both sides. So so I object to ideology, because ideology is a trap and an echo chamber and once you're in it you can't get out because you have to accept what's in it. So don't get in it. I personally don't like Trump's behavior. Trump is a product of the MAGA people who got their name from him being a large minority of the American population that had no representation. They used to be represented by Democrats, but they were thrown aside for the sake of Silicon Valley billionaires. Basically, the Democratic Party has moved from maybe 25% of the billionaire class to now it's about 50-50. So the mega people are no one to represent them. And when a situation like that happens in any society, a populist can rise, because those people will glue themselves to someone who says they will support them, which he did. So they he brought the mega people to a surprise election. He was taken for granted by Hillary. She did a poor job, didn't think she had to work very hard to win and she lost. So but I don't I mean.

Speaker 1: 31:50

My problems with him are, you know, he gets. First of all, he's rude and he gets. He spends a lot of time attacking other people when he should attack the issues instead. And there's never been a larger difference in the two parties than this election. Because, basically, biden shocked the world by flipping to a progressive platform as a moderate, everybody figured well, it's OK if Joe wins, because then you know he'll be like he was for 40 years, but he wasn't.

Speaker 1: 32:28

He brought the progressives into policymaking, and so both Harris and Waltz are extreme. I mean, she's basically you could almost call her a communist, because it's government does everything. Or socialist certainly's government does everything. Or socialists certainly government does everything. And that needs to be called out so people can understand what they're really up to. And trump isn't doing it. I don't know why he isn't doing it. Um, this election is an exact copy of the 1988 election when George HW Bush ran against Mike Dukakis and in July Dukakis was ahead by 17 points and George Bush flipped that and won. I think he won by five or six points, based on good marketing, and the good marketing was to point out the deficiency of your opponent instead of engaging in argumentative, time-wasting efforts.

Speaker 2: 33:32

Yeah, I really agree with that too. I definitely like to describe myself as more of a moderate conservative, most likely, but I agree with a lot of the things you said on Trump, right? I mean, recently, joe Rogan had come out saying that he's, he supports RFK Jr, which, yeah, why not? He's a great candidate, I think I like. I like his stance against vaccines. I'm. If anybody's pro vaccine, that's, that's OK. Me personally not. I don't, I never got the vaccine, I don't really support everything that's happened with it, but so everything that's happening with those things, I definitely.

Speaker 2: 34:06

It's very wild to me how the world seems to be so tribalized, as your book is about and a lot of your contents about. How do we get back to making sure that whoever we're voting for like Joe Rogan said his reason for voting for RFK Jr, right, he attacks ideas, not people, kind of like what you're saying, right. What should trump do differently? And I think I think we already know the answer you got to slow down on the, the posts on truth social and stop being. I definitely agree with it. What do you think he's got to do that?

Speaker 1: 34:36

it's his campaign. He's got to pull both sides. He's got to pull the curtain back on the socialist tendencies of the left. I mean Waltz is very proud of.

Speaker 1: 34:52

There's a video you may have seen where he holds up a law he just signed that allows illegal immigrants in Minnesota to vote. That's a killer to me. I mean I'm never going to vote for anybody that does that, because that violates all the American traditions. I mean, people who are citizens have the right to vote, people who are not citizens don't, and that's just a play for more votes, basically. So that's trying to stack the deck for the left and so, anyway. So he has to attack their politics and show the difference between their politics and, you know, conservative political views. Now there's all kinds of people on the left that post on Twitter and they say how could anybody vote for Donald Trump? Well, and my answer is always it's not about the personalities of this election. It's about do you want conservatives to get more control and rebalance the political system, or are you going to let socialists take over? So it really has nothing to do with either candidate. Neither one matters. It's the ideology that we have to fight in order to balance our system again.

Speaker 2: 35:59

And I love that you talk about ideology, because there are gosh I forgot his name too the Russian KGB agent, but it was a super, super viral Yep, you know what I'm talking about Ideological subversion he spoke about. Talk a little bit more about ideological subversion and what that means. I'll put a little clip in with him in this and post edit, but describe for our audience a little bit what ideological subversion is and exactly what he was talking about in that video.

Speaker 1: 36:28

There's actually a whole page in my fourth book with laying that out, because I mean that's a great example of how propaganda can be used in a society. He was a KGB agent. He was stationed in India for most of his career but he learned the and he was in the publicity arm of the KGB, so he had a charge of publications and press announcements and all that kind of stuff. So he talks about and I'm not sure I remember all four of the stages off the top of my head, but basically what he talks about is the way you attack a society and tear it down. And you start with confusion, basically, and then you redirect people to a new reality based on the imbalance you've created through confusion.

Speaker 1: 37:28

So like and I mean you see some of it today you attack traditions. You say you know, the Constitution is invalid because it was put together by slave owners is invalid because it was put together by slave owners. So they created a bigoted white society that we're living in and it needs to be changed to something that's more fair. So you have to tear down what exists in order to build up what you want to create, and things like the COVID epidemic was used basically to because I mean it disrupted our whole society. I mean people lost their jobs or they worked at home. They were stuck in their house with their family all day. It was total disruption and that's a perfect example of that kind of strategy to accomplish the deconstruction of a society?

Speaker 2: 38:29

Yeah, 100%. Well, a lot of what we saw during COVID was, I remember, seeing restaurant owners, and that was that was hard for me to watch, especially being an entrepreneur, business owner and you know, knowing how hard it is and how stressful that process is, and it's just, it is scary to know that no business is truly your own business, right? No real estate is truly your own real estate. And so it just goes back to how important it is to know your history and to have guests on your show that aren't just maybe in your own respective niche, right Like again, I mentioned at the beginning of this episode that a lot of the guests I typically have are business, entrepreneurship, marketing. But why is it important to have on a political anus analyst, a historian? Because you, you should have a different angle.

Speaker 2: 39:13

And unfortunately, they say don't stay, don't get political right, stay neutral. They say, but you know, politics has kind of come into our lives and whether we like it or not, and so I think it's important to know about these things. And so you know, for somebody who's on the fence, they know nothing about politics. What is that answer for? What is the answer to get us moving forward and into that next level of consciousness, to where we're not killing each other in these wars that, for example, julian Assange was trying to expose for all those years. Right, what's that advice that you have?

Speaker 1: 39:46

Well, I mean we have to expose the stupidity of the tribalist society to start with, because why are 85 percent of Americans subjecting themselves to an argument between two extreme ideological portions of our society? I mean, there's basically seven million progressives in the United States, or 7%, it's like 12, 15 million and there's maybe 15 million right ideologues. So 30 million people are dictating the behavior and the lifestyle of 300 million other people. It doesn't make any sense. So, logically, we have to expose the absurdity of it and try to get rid of tribalism to get back to where we need to be. Almost every interview I do, the host says what did you write about in your book on tribalism? How does this get solved? What did you say? And I said basically three things. I said the easiest way to solve tribalism is, unfortunately, a way we don't want to experience, and that is something like 9-11. Because when 9-11 happened, we were united the day after as a country, no question about it. And that would happen again if there were a uniting factor. I thought COVID would be a uniting factor, but it wasn't. I've since read books and articles about it which kind of explain it, which is that when there's a natural catastrophe, people come together. There's a tornado, people in the town pitch in, you know, help clean up for their neighbors and blah blah. When there's something like a pandemic people get, they turn inward instead of turning outward, because they're worried about staying alive and they're worried about their family staying alive. So it isn't really a unifying thing. But it also became very politicized because Trump went far enough to put the vaccine through, but then, after Biden entered office immediately and you saw this the country got divided into red state and blue state treatment of the pandemic, whereas blue states were much more controlling and used more aggressive lockdowns. They believed in the save the people before you save the economy, whereas Republicans and conservatives were more open, partly because they're more freedom loving people. Republicans don't like people, governments telling them what to do. So they resisted the draconian lockdowns that the left used and they opened up more. Sweden never locked down and you know they had some spikes in their cases, but I think they were a good example of how, yeah we, what we could have done. So there's the big event that brings us back in back together.

Speaker 1: 43:04

Two other options that entered my mind. One is that and this is kind of like pointing out the stupidity of it we all get tired of it. I mean, do you ever hear the word zeitgeist? I have, okay, and if you look at history, the zeitgeist is a real thing. It's kind of diffused to describe, but it usually runs for 20 or 30 years where the behavior of a society just flows into another behavior. And I mean you can even look at, you can break it down into smaller chunks than that. You could say the 60s were the anti-war period and the 70s were the inflation period and the 80s were the recovery from inflation and the like me, you know getting rich period and the 90s were a reaction. So there's like ebbs and flows in a society because it's like an organism. So there could be a time where we all get tired of it because we realize the stupidity of it and move on. It moves on or zeitgeist moves us on to something else. The third option is consensus, based on belief that we can find consensus together. So we break the model by learning to communicate with the other side in a rational way and moving forward together.

Speaker 1: 44:36

I belong to a organization called Braver Angels. Have you heard of it? I have not heard of it. Okay, braverangelsorg. It's a organization of community chapters in most cities in the United States that is dedicated to breaking tribalism and it's not the only organization that's trying to do that, but I think it's the biggest one. And so what happens is the Columbus chapter which I belong to.

Speaker 1: 45:03

There are meetings every month and they're basically half reds and half blues at each meeting, and they're basically half reds and half blues at each meeting, and you have a general discussion and you break up into groups where you're paired with people of the opposite political persuasion and you talk about the issues, and this accomplishes two things First, you realize that the people on the other side are nice people. They're not awful people that are crazy, which is what you'd read on social media. And secondly, you find out that the consensus isn't that hard. For example, I had been at eight or nine of these and one of them was particularly harsh because the person on the left I represent the Reds, even though I'm more of a moderate, but I had a very aggressive I don't want to say arrogant, but opinionated lefty I was talking to and he I mean it was very hard to begin a discussion with him, even because he looked down on people of the opposite point of view, but we ended up getting some very difficult issues to consensus.

Speaker 1: 46:17

We talked about abortion, got a consensus on that. We talked about the Israeli-Hamas war. We got consensus on that which you might not think is possible. Not think is possible, but I mean, if you take abortion, for example, 67% of Republicans feel that abortion is okay. In some instances it's only the ideologues, and particularly the evangelicals, that think it should never be allowed. So most people are reasonable and you could probably develop a national consensus at something like I don't know, 12 to 18 weeks Almost everybody would agree on. If you could get the ideologues out, then you could get consensus. So it's a matter of building consensus issue by issue over time. That can make a difference.

Speaker 2: 47:09

Yeah, and I love that you say that too, because that was one of the better parts about college that I remember as well.

Speaker 2: 47:15

As much as it can be very difficult and it can be strenuating to interview somebody who's completely the opposite political affiliation, you're going to learn a lot. You're going to learn a lot about those people, that demographic, those psychographics and, more importantly, just people, just what they want, and so it is important to listen to those different perspectives, and that was probably one of the most important things I got out of college was actually being forced to listen to the other opinions. And so I think, because of those conversations, those difficult conversations where you know you're arguing with somebody who might think differently than you, you guys do come to a consensus, even if it's at some level, right. So, like Republicans, every Republican, most Republicans, like you said, could agree that, ok, yeah, well, woman's raped, then obviously she shouldn't be forced to have a child, right, and so that's one of those things, that's it's.

Speaker 2: 48:04

Everybody can agree on it, yeah, and so, in terms of those kind of trickier issues, I think that is important. And so, moving on to some of the more controversial stuff, what do you think is the stance with abortion, and then Hamas and all of the things happening. Let's touch a bit on some of those topics.

Speaker 1: 48:22

Okay, where do you want to start? So?

Speaker 2: 48:25

I guess we'll start with. I guess we can start with abortion. Let's start with a hard one, right? So, since that's the, everybody's going to be wanting that conversation. So what are your kind of stances on it and what do you think should be different? What do you think should be the same? Where are you feeling?

Speaker 1: 48:41

Well, I think I have a moderate stance. I think that, for example, the case of rape, incest or danger to the mother's health, automatic, the case of rape, incest or danger to the mother's health, automatic abortion. I mean it should be a lie. It makes sense, it makes logical sense to do that. I believe that if abortion occurs early enough in the pregnancy you're not killing a living organism. So I mean that kind of means something to me, because I don't think a fetus should be killed. But that should allow room for people that favor abortion to, I don't know, express themselves. It seems to me.

Speaker 1: 49:25

But again, like the other things we've been discussing, if you're a feminist, for example, you know radical feminism is no woman should be denied anything that she could possibly wish for, right. So if a woman decides that she wants to have an abortion at the birth of her time, of the birth of her child, she should have that right to do it. So it's kind of like the NRA. You know the NRA doesn't want to allow any chinks in the armor of its protection of weapons. So if they gave in and allowed, for example, registration of guns at gun shows, that's giving in, just like the feminists can't give in, because if you put one chink in the armor of a woman, you say there's one thing you can't do. Then it becomes the. You know the patriarchy telling a woman how to behave, and that's not right, that's extreme. Most people aren't extreme. Most people could come to an agreement somewhere in the middle about important issues.

Speaker 2: 50:24

Yeah, and I think that's really a good point, because just being a police officer, you know when you, when you're dealing with people and you'll often deal with sometimes a political discussion might just come up while you're on a call, when you're you know. It's funny how everybody just seems to when it comes to those situations, everybody seems to just be fine with it. Nobody argues, everybody comes together, they just move past it. But depending on a certain situation, right like. So if it's twitter, once you're on twitter, now everybody has all this courage to say these horrible things and these negative comments to everybody and just tear each other apart. And then, like I said before, in the real world you pass somebody in the grocery store. They're wearing a biden shirt or a trump shirt or a kamala shirt or rfk junior. You kind of just keep passing them by. So what is that trigger? What creates the trigger? Is it the environment? Is it the person? What is that that just creates all this energy, whether it be negative or just this kind of hostility?

Speaker 1: 51:24

I don't know. I think it's non-engagement, I mean, lack of intelligence is part of it. Non-engagement, I mean lack of intelligence is part of it. Non-engagement being of a tribal nature, where you'd rather. I mean, if you're lazy, being in a tribe is easy because you just speak the words of the tribe. You don't have to think. Most people who are interested in the truth will look at both sides and so they won't react to somebody wearing a Trump shirt or a Biden shirt or whatever. It's people who are emotionally wrapped up in their politics somehow, which is the wrong place to be, in my view, that that is the reason they react the way they do. I want to ask you because you're in law enforcement I want to bring this up because it's very relevant to our conversation the defunding the police issue because to me, I've read a lot about politics and written a lot about it and one of the fundamental or foundational concepts of any society is the rule of law.

Speaker 1: 52:40

You can't have a society without the rule of law. It has to start there, because if you don't have laws, you have anarchy and it means nobody's protected. So the concept of defunding the police falls under the irrational, extreme argument I stated about radical feminists and there are more black people incarcerated than white people. They're not more black people shot by policemen than white people. There are more white people shot, but because that doesn't fit the ideology, the focus is on the minority group and how they're disadvantaged. And if black people are disadvantaged by our legal system, then you get rid of the legal system. But that's the wrong solution. You can't defund the police. You have to have police. I don't know how you feel about what I'm about to say, but I think the problem in police forces is more that there are some bad cops. There aren't a high percentage of bad cops, but there are some, and I think the system needs to do a better job of weeding them out, because it seems like in a lot of cases they perpetrate their misbehavior until it runs over?

Speaker 2: 54:13

Yes, absolutely, and so my way to respond to that I totally agree with you and I think law enforcement for the most part. In my experience with the cops, I've met 90% of them great people. 10% of them shouldn't be there, and so what I've learned about dealing with people and being in this career is that it is about safety first. You're protecting people. You take that oath and that's why I took the oath was to. I see everybody as the color gray right, for example, so there's no race when I'm on a call. I think about that very diligently, and so I think the way that you combat that is instead of defunding the police, like if I was working for the Democrats, for example, I would have completely used different semantics and a different strategy behind defund the police. They should have worded it differently, because I understand where they were trying to get with that, but you know, if anything, they should have stuck with their original narrative that police need more training, because I can get behind that. I think a lot of the training we have in law enforcement is far too just base level and a lot of even my platoon leader, who was a Marine combat service in Syria like four years just a, just a maniac, but like a, like, smart, you know, just very well rounded human being. And he would always say to our instructors this is very baseline stuff. You know, why are we only learning this? We should be learning this too. We should be learning this kind of first aid and this. We should be learning this kind of communication skill. And so to respond to that and how you should, how we should, adjust to law enforcement and all of all of the bad cops you might see on Twitter or maybe not bad cops, but cops who just didn't have the right training I think that's a big part of it is, you know, more of these conversations are important. I think law enforcement officers being more educated you know in history, well-read, well-experienced in business especially because you're in business, you tend to learn about people. You have more conversations with people that helps.

Speaker 2: 56:04

There's just so many layers to this question too, because with law enforcement it's tricky because you know you're under the control of the US government and you know the government, uncle Sam, writes your paycheck Right, and so they have all this control over you and that's kind of the tricky part for me and that's why I'm so against the staying neutral Right, and a lot of my content you'll see coming out is about like why you shouldn't stay neutral in that, because as a police officer, your government again has control over you, so they have control over the way you're going to be able to do your job, your training and things like that. And so you end up asking yourself in a time like this what happens when they ask us to go take people's guns right? A second amendment we're talking a very, very sensitive issue. Now you're going into somebody else's home trying to take their gun. Those are very radical concepts that you know. You can't approach a civilized society like that and expect to get a positive response, you know. So it's really the government as a whole. You know, and that's what you're seeing when you see law enforcement, you're seeing really a representation of a larger faction of the government and you know what they are. It's kind of like the fbi right, like you can trust a very small portion of the fbi, in my opinion at least, and I would say there's a good portion of the fbi that are maybe not such good officers. So you're going to find a lot of that and I think to answer your question, that's how we, that's how we get past it is we have to really, like you said, get through the tribalism, get through to the truth and ask what is the truth and ask the questions and focus on, you know, just study law enforcement and keep having these conversations and putting this kind of engagement out there.

Speaker 2: 57:43

I think that's the best way to get past the issues and then remember, last and most importantly, as a police officer, if you're out there, remember the oath you took. Everybody's created equally. We're all created equally. You defend the law, you know the law and again, that goes back to education. You should know the law, you should know your constitution, your history, all of those things combined and if you have those things you can be a pretty decent police officer, right included with bravery and all those things. So it's a tricky question. It's layered and it's like an onion right, especially with anything government. It's all onions, it's all layers and we've got to get to the very root cause of it. But that would be my answer.

Speaker 1: 58:24

Okay, I was at the Republican Convention. I worked there you worked there as a volunteer and I had an occasion to talk to a sergeant with the Tulsa Police Department, because there were police departments from many cities that came to help Milwaukee with the number of security people they had to have. But he said something interesting to me because we were talking about well, we talked about January 6th a bit, but we talked about the riots that happened after the George Floyd incident and he said we learned that well in our force. He said we learned that the SWAT team aren't the kind of personalities that you want to have doing crowd control, so we don't have them do that anymore. And I mean his point was that you have to, and it's what you said. It's training and personalities that come into how the police department is going to be deployed, in what situation, and that can affect the outcome if you don't do it right and a lot of it comes down to leadership too, and you know agendas.

Speaker 2: 59:36

Again, us as human beings, we, we are very. You know, if you read dr I don't know, I'm sure you've read it dr robert green's uh 48, laws of power, right or seduction, the art of war by sun tzu, and you, you, you read these kinds of literature and you realize quickly that human beings were very, we're very, attracted and prone to power. And so you know, even with law enforcement, any job, really, I mean, there's a reason we all have a manager, there's a reason anything. So, you know, because of that lust for power, you'll see leadership in law enforcement or the government or any job, they'll push forward certain rules, certain sanctions that will favor them, certain agendas, whatever it might be, and so that's a big part of it. It's tricky, I think as a police officer, you just really need to be vocal. I think a big problem with law enforcement today is too many cops just do everything they're told by their superiors without thinking. You know, you have to think, you have to have your own brain, because otherwise you're, you're basically just this robot, and that's the. That's where it becomes.

Speaker 2: 1:00:43

A problem in law enforcement is because there was just recently that officer um, there was a female that went viral on twitter too. Female threw a pot of boiling water at the officer. He had no reason to take the shot. He could have easily de-escalated it um, just several other reasons. But he was an example of one of those officers who were just like like your SWAT, uh, characteristic that you just described super, I'm gonna run into somebody's house. What's's going on? I'm going to go after you. Where are you? And they're just are held to higher standards. You're expected to know the law, you're expected to understand your constitution the very thing that you gave an oath for and so I try to always balance that, even when I'm making traffic stops. You know, before I even make a traffic stop on somebody who I might think is drunk driving right, that's part of the process is okay, can I pull this person over? Do like do these elements meet this crime? Okay, and then the next step. And then you keep going.

Speaker 2: 1:01:54

But if you don't have that training, that good training, like, I was blessed to have really good training and I hope it, I hope I always remember, I hope I never get complacent, but because of that good training, it's allowed me to make really pretty good decisions in my line of work as a police officer, in my opinion. You know I've made mistakes. I'm not perfect, but I think for the most part I go into most of my calls and I handle them pretty well. I've, you know, for the most people I deal with and I deal with some crazy, crazy calls I seem to do pretty well managing people and I think it's because I listen and I take time to focus and think, you know, and so if there was any advice I could give law enforcement as a collective today think for yourself.

Speaker 2: 1:02:34

Don't listen to your superiors all the time when they say don't speak on this topic, don't speak on this. You speak on it. You're a police officer, you're a member of the government. A politician can give their opinion. You should be able to give yours. So give yours.

Speaker 2: 1:02:45

You know that's just a small part of being able to have a little bit of bravery to speak for yourself and to think for yourself. So anyways, I digress but I think to answer that question, being a police officer, you got to think for yourself, got to have good training, you got to educate yourself, you got to love what you're doing and know the law and respect the fact that people are. You're being paid by the American taxpayer, so you know your duty is to them until you're not on that contract anymore. And I think if you go into law enforcement with that attitude, that mindset, then you'll just be much better off than some of the officers who they come straight out of the academy, they're gun hot and that's the. You know they're involved in a shooting or killed even you know. So yeah, that would be my opinion.

Speaker 1: 1:03:26

All right. So where? Where would you like to go from here? I'm ready to take the step beyond tribalism if you want me to.

Speaker 2: 1:03:34

Yeah, absolutely I think we covered that pretty good, um. So what do you think's going to happen in the uk? I mean, I gotta bring it up because there's just there's so much happening there and as soon as I open twitter, we're going to see some more videos on it. So what do you think's happening in the UK, and do you see that coming to the United States soon?

Speaker 1: 1:03:52

I haven't figured it out yet. What I see are the government has become very weak. I mean, they had this series of conservative prime ministers that basically didn't like they were placeholders and didn't do anything and then the public got upset and threw them all out of office. I can't tell. I mean, there's a socialist, you know liberal, so liberal party, I think Starmer's liberal party, isn't he? I think so. So he's a prime minister. I can't tell what he's done. But there are all these resistance activities by Muslim, I mean either immigrants or citizens that appear to be out of control and the police doesn't seem to be willing to stop them, to cut this off. Then there's the thing about free speech there. Have you read about that? Like people are getting arrested because they posted something on Facebook that questioned the government or something. They don't have the First Amendment there. I don't know if you realize that, because I think we assume everybody has what we have. They don't.

Speaker 1: 1:05:16

I don't know what's driving that, because if you have rioting in the streets and you're arresting people because they have a Twitter post or a Facebook post, I don't know how that's even sane, I don't know what. They appear to be rudderless and lost as a country. To be honest, I don't think that could happen here. I mean I'm concerned seeing that, whether minority groups of immigrants could start actions on their own, but I mean we're so much bigger and I think there's an outlet for people that would prevent that, but not sure they have to see. I mean there's that whole Europe is a mess because of the whole neoliberalism, globalist stuff where they're trying to enforce rules to stop the climate emergency, which I don't believe in. I mean telling farmers they can't grow their crops, they have to kill their herds, things like that, these draconian measures. You know let's go to digital currency so we can not pay people if they misbehave like China does. I mean it's crazy. That would never fly here because of the culture and history of the American people.

Speaker 2: 1:06:38

Yeah, and I definitely agree, because when you're looking at, you know, when you look at the UK, we have to remember they also, as much as they don't have a First Amendment, they also don't have a Second Amendment. They're also not allowed to be armed. I think I just saw a video yesterday and there was an individual he was in one of the officers faces and he was just like I have more armory than you do. You just have a knife. And I'm just like, wow, you know that's that doesn't even make sense and again, doesn't. It has nothing to do with the second amendment, I think it just, you know, law enforcement in general should be able to protect their people from more dangerous people. You know, I mean, that's pretty clear. And if that doesn't tell you that that's more likely than not a globalist run country, then you know that's an issue of ignorance. So let's talk more about globalism. What is globalism and what kind of people are we seeing gravitate towards those ideas? I think that's an important thing to break into right now.

Speaker 1: 1:07:32

Okay, well, globalism got its start in the 70s and 80s when large corporations globalized themselves because they thought if I sell my product worldwide, I can make more revenue, more profit, and all that I can grow my company faster by entering new markets. Okay, so it's very simple to think about. Okay, large companies go global, they're making more money. But then it got kind of into some kind of political thing because the and I'm sure you're familiar with these organizations the World Economic Forum was formed in 1971, basically as a way for international corporations to work together I don't know to benefit each other. Basically it's grown way beyond that. To benefit each other. Basically it's grown way beyond that, and I haven't.

Speaker 1: 1:08:32

My sixth book is going to be about globalism, but I'm still doing the research now, so I'm not really ready to make a lot of comments about it. But there's this whole notion that the WEF is fostering a totalitarian trend across the world because of. I mean, you hear Bill Gates talk we're going to get rid of animals, we're going to get rid of, you know, fossil fuels and stuff. He's really way out there. It's hard to know where the truth is. I don't think there's a totalitarian intent yet. Think there's a totalitarian intent. Yet, uh, it's more a case where, if it goes far enough, uh, nefarious characters could enter the game and really cause some problems.

Speaker 1: 1:09:25

Um, do you know who? Um, paul schwab is he? He was the okay. I got three of his balls. Yes, I know who grau schwab is. He was the okay. I got three of his books. Paul Schwab yes, I know who Paul Schwab is.

Speaker 1: 1:09:32

I bought three of his books. I'm reading them now. One's called Stakeholder Capitalism, one is the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the other is the Great Reset. I don't really see anything in there that is nefarious. I mean, he is supporting the idea that the COVID pandemic caused a great reset and should get societies to understand the importance of stakeholder capitalism, which means that corporations should do more than just line the pockets of their shareholders. And I agree with that, because corporations are the biggest exploiter of capitalism. I'm talking about large corporations, because they're the ones enriching their shareholders, their owners and their management and creating a huge divide in our society, an equity divide, the haves versus the have-nots, and it's getting worse. I mean you see these statistics like the CEO makes 3,500 times what the average employee makes, and that doesn't make any sense. So let me just include my fifth book in this.

Speaker 1: 1:10:58

My fifth book comes out in September, middle of September, and I'd like to invite you to participate in the launch of that book if you are interested. Basically, the title is America's Counterfeit Democracy. I'd love to. Basically, the title is America's Counterfeit Democracy and it's about the fact that, first of all, we're not a democracy. We never have been. We're a republic, but to the extent that people understand us as a democracy, it doesn't really work because it's billionaires and their corporate partners that control the government, not us. So we don't have as much say as we think we do.

Speaker 1: 1:11:32

And we talked about you know, at length about tribalism. To me, one reason why tribalism has to be solved is because the American public can't take on the corporations. If it's tribal, if it's divided in half, what can it accomplish? I mean, the billionaires love us being divided in half because they don't have to worry about any pressure on them. We're spending all our time arguing ideology with each other, so all that time is wasted. But the billionaires have two goals in life Increase their wealth and keep society stable, because if society is stable, their wealth isn't threatened. So they do what they can. They own the seven large media companies. There are large corporations owned by wealthy people, or wealthy people are on their boards or whatever, or their CEOs are elites.

Speaker 1: 1:12:24

Part of the term I use and I didn't invent it in the book is called power elite, because there are elite people who aren't interested in power, they just want to ride around on their yachts.

Speaker 1: 1:12:37

But there are people who are interested in power and you brought up power earlier so they invest their time in influencing the government through organizations they control or positions they obtain in government. If you look at the Secretary of State, secretary of the Treasury, those are all elites. Those are people who went to prep school, graduated from Ivy League University, have been a consultant working in the corporate world, may have been a lobbyist, whatever, and now they're in a position where they influence the direction of the government. So it's a problem. It's a problem because a democracy is supposed to be a balance between the power that people have and the power that government has, between the power that people have and the power the government has, and corporations and the elites have tipped it so they now have most of the control and we have less and less over time. So that's what we've got to attack and the problem we have to solve.

Speaker 2: 1:13:47

And I think a good way to solve that problem is if more people were to become business owners and not just become. Not just become business owners, but, to you know, become. Like I said earlier, it's more about that education. Right, we have to educate ourselves on what the stuff is, the history of it and how we got here. You know, and that's why I love that you're writing the books, you are, because that's, those are the things that are going to live 20 years from now is going to be the books, the right, and so I don't think people understand how important that is.

Speaker 2: 1:14:10

And so, moving in terms of you know what we think is going to happen, in terms of you know world peace, how we're going to get there, what's the when do you see that happening? If we're, I mean, world peace is never going to be completely possible, right, but at a place of you know where we're, not at world war, it seems pretty clear that we're in World War Three. Right, we have Israel versus Iran, we have Ukraine versus Russia, russia versus America, america versus China, and all these different wars happening. When do you see everything kind of dying down and coming back to equilibrium?

Speaker 1: 1:14:46

Well, I'll answer that after I tell you a cute and funny story Somebody posted on Twitter yesterday and they said some girl said how should I approach a blind date to determine whether the guy I should be interested in the guy or not? And the answer was ask him what his favorite period in history is. Because if he knows something about history, and even to the point of having a favorite period, it means that he is interested in learning, has learned something and is trying to apply it. If he says I don't know anything about history, get another date. And I just thought that was funny because how simple that is really. And you brought up about the importance of knowledge and learning and making you a better citizen and all that. So I just thought that was appropriate, oh yeah.

Speaker 2: 1:15:44

I agree with what you're saying.

Speaker 1: 1:15:49

I grew up during the Cold War, so there was always the concern about Russia was going to blow us up, and so I don't know that it's any worse now. I mean people who are young, gen Zers, you're probably a millennial right.

Speaker 2: 1:16:07

I think I'm supposed to be Generation X or whatever, something like that.

Speaker 1: 1:16:11

That's 80 to 96. Were you born in that space?

Speaker 2: 1:16:14

98. So I'm just.

Speaker 1: 1:16:16

Okay, you're Y.

Speaker 2: 1:16:18

Oh, I'm generation Y.

Speaker 1: 1:16:20

Gen X is the millennials, and there's Y and Z. Y is 96 to 2012. And then Z is 2012 to date. But then X is alpha, I guess because they've got to start over. But people in your generation, I'm sure, are unnerved by everything that's happening now because it looks awful, and I don't want to downplay it at all. Israel and the Palestinians have been fighting for 2,000 years, so that's not new. There have always been hot spots around the world North South Korea, ireland and the UK, I mean. That went on for decades and decades and decades before it got resolved. China and Taiwan they're trying to take over Taiwan. They're trying to influence over Southeast. They're trying to influence over the Southeast Asia.

Speaker 1: 1:17:22

There's always something, and I don't know it's human nature, right? Human beings are other than chimpanzees. Human beings are the only species on Earth that kill their own kind. No other species will do that and it's an idiosyncrasy. I mean chimps and humans share a common ancestor, like back five million years ago. They had a common ancestor, but the trait about killing stayed. Whatever developed in that common ancestor we both inherited. And I mean human beings have this thing. They have this jealous thing, envy thing that makes them be violent to other people. It's crazy, and so there's always going to be people like that that are violent or aggressive, and I don't know, when they get power they're going to try and exercise it and take over other people. So I don't it. The tendency will never go away because it's inbred in human beings.

Speaker 1: 1:18:28

I think I read an article yesterday that's apt in relation to your question. Somebody said in Europe if I can find it, I'll send it to you. It said, basically, we got the problems we have now because there's no leadership from the United States, because they're used to the United States leading in terms of diplomacy and defense and protecting the world, and it's a void. Now there is nothing. So that leaves everybody else in the world and it's a void. Now there is nothing. So that leaves everybody else in the world confused and it allows bad actors to start acting. So maybe that's the answer.

Speaker 2: 1:19:06

I like that answer and what do you think happened with the? Because I wanted to touch on this only because it was a big. It's been a big topic, especially with AI today. I think it was important to talk about it a little bit. What do you think about the Trump assassination attempt? And then also recently, the Kamala airport video, where allegedly there was people there that weren't there. What do you think about that? And what do you think about the Trump assassination attempt? And whether or not you know you think that might have been staged, an inside job, or, if it was, if you know you think it was a real deal, or same thing with Kamala Harris. I personally, I seem, it seems to me that it really happened. Trump was almost assassinated. It seemed to me like it was an inside job from what I saw. But what do you think?

Speaker 1: 1:20:07

Well, this is interesting because I mean you get into this whole reality versus non-reality, fakery, and then you have political bias too. I mean the Harris campaign came out and said all that those AI claims by Trump are false. The people are really there. It wasn't Trump that thought it up, it's his followers. Some of his followers did. I mean I looked at the picture of the tarmac and questioned it, because all those people are holding up their cameras. Did you notice that? And there's no airplane in their cameras. Yeah, they're like show other scenes or blank or something.

Speaker 2: 1:20:38

So I mean it's like and in the plane there's no reflection of an audience too. There was no reflection of an audience, which is strange.

Speaker 1: 1:20:47

I'm not accusing them of this, but one of the differences between the left and right is politeness. The left will do is politeness. The left will do anything to win absolutely anything. The right has some sort of like decorum rule that they won't. And I talked about the 88 election when George Bush used marketing basically to upset the election and make himself the winner. And they used I don't know if you've ever seen anything from that and I didn't mention anything, but there was like one famous ad he ran featuring a black man named Willie Horton who was pardoned by Dukakis and then he murdered people. So that was an example of well, that's when Dukakis was governor of Massachusetts. That was an example of poor law enforcement philosophy and policy. Basically, and that's the thing everybody remembers from that election that got him defeated. Many Republicans said after that election we'll never do that again. It was wrong, because they believe that you shouldn't have to do anything to win, whereas the Democrats are not like that. They don't have that restriction, so it'll be it. This is why it would be interesting to see I mean, if any smart conservative consultant is going to be telling Trump or if it's a funding organization that can run ads they're going to do the same thing. If they don't do the same thing, they're stupid, but that's what they could do.

Speaker 1: 1:22:30

The assassination was a real attempt. I'm appalled by the dialogue about it. Somebody wrote on Twitter obviously it was faked and I said my answer. I wrote back and I said so, the blood was ketchup right, because it didn't appear. It wasn't magical blood, it was blood. It didn't appear. It wasn't magical blood, it was blood. And then there are people arguing on the left like it wasn't a bullet, it was a glass fragment, it was a piece of his teleprompter. And my answer is always the same I don't care. I don't care if the bullet missed. Somebody tried to assassinate him. That's the issue, not what the injury was and then complaining about him having a bandage on his ear like spending so much wasted energy on that.

Speaker 2: 1:23:20

It means nothing really yeah, yeah, I definitely agree. One of my tweets that ended up going viral. We got like 267 000 uh, 267 000 views. It got like thousands of retweets and it was just yeah, huh you tweeted it yeah, and it was.

Speaker 2: 1:23:37

Uh, it was a. It was well. No, I didn't tweet like this was fake video, it was. I tweeted a um, the like, let's look at this situation. And it was like right when everything was happening, because it was I.

Speaker 2: 1:23:49

I was right on shift, it was 6 11 pm, july 13th. I go on youtube, I go on the live stream, I'm watching it trump's talking and next thing I know I hear the gunshots and I see trump go to the ground and it was insane. So then I just started. I'm on twitter like for my whole shift and in the office just like looking at this, following it, and so I basically I put together a few videos. I'm just like, uh, this clearly is an assassination attempt, this clearly seems like a stand down.

Speaker 2: 1:24:16

Weird to me how law enforcement is just like they're trying to find the guy but they can't find him, and there's like nobody that was in the building. But now there was a secret service sniper who was in the same building as the shooter, who apparently was already given a rifle by Larry Fink from Black Rock and all these crazy things, and so I had posted essentially just a little tweet with, you know, the videos that were going viral and it just got a crazy response. So that's why I guess I just wanted to ask you about it and what you thought. I definitely agree. I think it was an inside job. I think it was definitely an assassination attempt.

Speaker 1: 1:24:52

Oh, by the deep state as opposed to Okay. One of my early podcast hosts which I think I did in January, february I've done 20, 28 this year, I think so far was a Secret Service agent who guarded the Clintons so he's my go-to guy, the Clintons, so he's my go-to guy. And when this happened I said what's happening here? What do you think? Whatever he believes in his mind that it was a series of blunders that allowed it to happen. Obviously and you can count the blunders it's pretty amazing to think of how many mistakes had to be made. You know, I'm a pilot and I don't fly anymore, but I used to, and they always talk about. For an airplane to crash, you have to have a sequence of vents that line themselves up like you're flying into icing or you know whatever it might be. This is the list is very long here. I mean, the guy was spotted. Nobody did anything about it. You know there was no. The tree hit him from the snipers. They didn't cover have anybody on the top of that building, they were on the inside. You know, it's just amazing to me that it unfolded the way it did. Now I have a hard time believing a kid, a 20 year old kid like that did it alone. That's the part. I'm not saying that he was hired by the FBI or anything. I'm just saying that it's like because I read, and of course they're not making it any easier because they're hiding the investigation, fbi and the Secret Service. There should be, like you know yourself, there's a shooting in a particular locale the next noon. If it's 8 in the morning, at noon they're going to have a press conference at 3 because they want to communicate to the public what is known. This looks very shady. Much has been hidden from the light of day and it's unfortunate. But I read somewhere that he had some encrypted European contact information or bank accounts, which makes me carries me beyond the fact that he was alone and I think there's somebody that trained him or hired him or whatever. That's as far as I've taken it. I don't blame the deep state for it. I mean I wouldn't. Knowing how the Democratic Party feels about him, I could imagine some fanatics on the left wanting to kill him. It's very possible that people hate him with a passion, so it wouldn't be surprising if somebody wanted to kill him and paid that kid or whatever it might be.

Speaker 1: 1:28:05

I've read a lot of history. As you know, I've read a lot of American history. Americans are known for being conspiracy theorists. It's generally 5% to 10% of the population. Even in colonial days that were conspiracy theorists, like when Jefferson defeated Adams. There were people that said that you know, jefferson made a secret deal with the French to throw the vote. I mean, it goes all the way back.

Speaker 1: 1:28:34

It's a natural human tendency to, when something doesn't, humans think that they're intuitive enough that they can look at a situation and kind of figure out what happened, and when something is so confusing it doesn't make sense, then it kind of looks like a conspiracy. I am not in the conspiracy theorist camp. I think we went to the moon. Some people don't. I don't understand how they could think that, because how do you get 10,000 people to cover something up like that? All of NASA and the rocket people, whatever.

Speaker 1: 1:29:11

I do have to say, one of the things that's mattered in my lifetime in terms of conspiracy more than anything is the Kennedy assassination, because I lived through it. I was in class when he got shot and it seems like the Warren Commission lied. They did a new thing. Congress did something in 86 that validated the Warrant Commission. They said oh, it's right. But now there's stuff coming out and they're still keeping the key documents hidden. They were supposed to be released by Trump, but they didn't let him release them. I don't know what's in there, but I think it was a conspiracy.

Speaker 1: 1:29:57

I refuse to believe Oswald was alone. Truth has come out now. I don't know if you know this. He met with the CIA in Mexico. Yep, I do know that. They had a tame conversation. I heard it and I wouldn't put it past the CIA to have killed Kennedy. Really, if the deep state felt he was an obstacle. I mean, they had the whole Bay of Pigs thing that was badly messed up. That was a CIA operation. They regularly kill people all around the world. So the Kennedy thing is now making me really wonder about how much does the government lie? And this Trump thing is perpetuating that through hiding the information. I mean it's like we're going to see in six months some redacted report come out that's going to have a great explanation, which is what they've thought of between now and then. Absolutely Everybody gets covered, nobody gets fired, whatever. So it's unfortunate.

Speaker 2: 1:31:11

Yeah, I definitely agree. I think that was a great answer too. I think that's about as good as it can get, because we don't really know exactly. We'll never really know, right. Like there's so much a lot, there's so much of the truth We'll just never truly, truly know. And I guess that's that's the whole fight here, right? That's the whole battle is what is the truth? How do you find the truth? You know, how do we define what truth is? And I guess that's this question you and I are still always trying to find with all these podcast interviews.

Speaker 1: 1:31:39

But I'm glad you brought that up because I want to comment about it. You led me to that before and I never said anything. When I was a kid and the generation behind me probably we grew up thinking we understood the truth from the media because for a couple of reasons. First of all, there wasn't much media, there was no 24-hour media, so you didn't have to make up stuff and there was no social media. So if you watch Walter Cronkite do the CBS News, you trusted what he said and that was back. He was an honest person and it was backed up by the fact that the news organizations had a lot of professionally trained journalists and journalism hadn't been corrupted yet. So you felt like every story that was told was verified and backed up, and then you generally heard the same story on the other network. So you had a sense of what the truth was. Unfortunately, your generation has no sense of what the truth is.

Speaker 1: 1:32:44

My kids are both millennials. I have two, a daughter and a son. They don't know what the truth is and I hear a lot from people when I talk or whatever, and they say how do I know the truth? And my answer is universal You've got to figure it out now. You have to be willing to do the work to figure it out. And my recommendation on how to do that is you've got to find a point of view on the left and right and figure and validate them one versus the other. You've got to decide, well, that this one's too far on the left, so I'll find somebody else on the left that's not too far, and you've got to figure out. And then you divide the difference, because I mean, fox lies as much as MSNBC lies, because they're lying for the right versus lying for the left, so you can't trust them either, because they're lying for the right versus lying for the left, so you can't trust them either.

Speaker 1: 1:33:35

I used to watch Fox faithfully until about 2005,. And then I quit because it came too political, so it's useless. Like you said. Another thing you said before that was very, very good. I was going to say what doesn't kill me makes me stronger. But also, I don't advance unless I have adversity. But if I live in an echo chamber, I never find the truth. So you have to find the truth for yourself. You have to discover that, and I consider myself lucky because I'm an academic trying to write books from both sides, and so I have to do the research to establish what the truth is. I have to do all that work because that's what I'm trying to accomplish. So I have to read 50 to 75 books and 200 articles to write a book and to figure out where the truth is. And so I'm used to doing it and I recognize the fact that you have to do it. But if you don't, if you don't recognize that fact, if you're lazy and you just want to take your tribe's point of view, you're stuck in an echo chamber.

Speaker 2: 1:34:51

Yes, and that's that's great advice. You got to be independent. You have to think for yourself, and that's how you. You got to be independent. You have to think for yourself and that's how you're really going to be free. Right, like our founding fathers. When they say free, that's what they meant. Right, being able to have your own opinions, your own thoughts and not being, you know, even under persecution, you're still strong in your convictions. And because you've done the research, because you're well-read on the left and the right in the middle, you know on everything, you should be ecclesiastical. You should really focus on this world and study where we're going, where we've been, because you know the truth is. So the truth. What was the saying? The truth makes it halfway around the world before it puts its pants on something like that I've never heard of that one.

Speaker 2: 1:35:31

That's good, yeah, something like that. I never heard of that one that's good, yeah, and so I think it was mark twain. Twitter or youtube, they can. It probably won't be youtube, youtube, probably. We'll see if youtube lets this episode get out. But I think we talked about we talked about too much truth here, but anyways, um yeah, what were you, were we gonna say, uh?

Speaker 1: 1:35:51

I was gonna say something about truth, but it got me distracted now and I forgot. Let's continue on.

Speaker 2: 1:35:59

Oh, I was just going to say. You just got to be able to think for yourself, like you were saying, and not be trapped.

Speaker 1: 1:36:04

I know I was going to tell you I subscribe to a socialist magazine, jacobin, and so I want to read socialists' point of view because I want to know why they think their model, their ideology, is better than some other model. If I don't read that, I don't know that. And the same with talking to people on the other side. Reading is part of the answer, but it's not the whole answer Because really, when you're reading to get a balanced point of view, the human element is missing. So I appreciate what we do at Braver Angels, because you get the nuances of the individual and you understand why they think what they think.

Speaker 1: 1:36:51

Now I make a joke about Braver Angels because the people that should be in it aren't in it and the people that are in it shouldn't be in it, because the people who are in it are interested in consensus. That's why they joined. So it's already. If you're in the organization, you're already associating with people who want to hear the other side for their own benefit and reach a consensus. We need the people who are totally opinionated, who are stuck in the echo chamber but could transition out if they heard the truth. Absolutely.

Speaker 2: 1:37:30

That's the challenge, yep, I try to stay in the middle and, like you said, I try to read everything I can and take action on those things, and you know that's the best way you're going to learn for yourself. And so, in terms of where you think things are going with the USD, the US currency, for example, jim Rickards used to work for the CIA and the Federal Reserve. He said that gold could end up going to like $10,000, $15,000. We're not making any predictions or speculations, but that's just something he had said. And then, jim Rickards, he had also mentioned how subgroups of the government, like the media, wall Street, the billionaire class, all of these different factions, are really the ones are the deep state essentially controlling everything. So what do you say to that and is he accurate?

Speaker 1: 1:38:24

Well, I told you the title of my fifth book. So I believe that the billionaires control everything. The billionaires, I mean. I don't know. When you talk about digital currency, for example, it makes me very worried because if we, I think of China, because I think if there's a digital currency, then no one has control over their wealth and it's visible to a nefarious party. And a nefarious party could say well, and the thing in China is, if you misbehave, you get your subsidy cut. That's a very dangerous thing. You have 1984, then have you read 1984?

Speaker 2: 1:39:07

I have George Orwell Amazing book.

Speaker 1: 1:39:09

Yeah, and Brave New World is equally good. But that's what you have. If someone gets control, well, it's the Nazis all over again, because if you have control of the society and the propaganda, the media, then you can broadcast everything that supports what you've built and there can't be any resistance to it.

Speaker 2: 1:39:38

The media controls the minds of the masses.

Speaker 1: 1:39:42

Right. That's why the seven great media companies here, under the control of the billionaires and the corporations, they feed us two things. They feed us influencing content to try and make us believe in whatever they think we should believe in. And secondly, they try to tell us everything's okay, the government's okay, americans are happy, everything's hunky-dory, we don't need any changes here because everything's good, we're taking care of you. Except, the time is running out on the people believing that the government's taking care of us, because they don't. We're basically operating a unit party of politicians who are paid off by lobbyists and don't only enrich themselves. Basically, they're not enriching us.

Speaker 2: 1:40:32

Yes, I think that's very true, and so I guess we'll wrap it up there. Any projects that you want to plug your books? Where can people?

Speaker 1: 1:40:41

find you Well. Mike Anderson's bookscom is my website. Everything's there, so you have my last name, anderson's with an S and books with an Scom, so my books are there, information about my books are there. I've got podcasts on there. I've got a blog there, my Substack link on Substack Also, and Twitter and Facebook, so multiple ways to find me Happy to talk to anybody about the things that are important to me.

Speaker 2: 1:41:13

Awesome. Yeah, thank you for coming on the show. I really enjoyed this conversation. I'm going to have more of these conversations. Obviously, I'm more interested. I really like politics. I think these conversations are the answer. I truly, truly do. I truly believe that, with AI and robotics, I think that the human connection, these conversations, especially with people who might think differently than you, are the best way to get to that next level of the human species right to transcend. So, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for tuning into this show. Stay prudent, stay powerful and stay wealthy. Again, thank you for coming on the show, dr Anderson thank you, thank you.