Jordan Peterson hosts Dr. Mehmet Oz to explore a variety of topics ranging from the struggle for free speech in media, the importance of health and diet for avoiding chronic illnesses, and the growing movement to improve America’s health. They also discuss deeper ideas about philosophy and the challenges facing science today. Their conversation also veers into other current topic like education, woke ideology, and more.

Free Speech and Media Dynamics

Peterson and Oz talk about how hard it is to speak freely today, especially in traditional media like TV or newspapers. They agree that instead of arguing over ideas, these outlets often attack people personally to silence them. Dr. Oz shares a story from 2018 when his team almost quit because he had Peterson on his show. Of course, at the time, Peterson had been unfairly characterized as a bigot, misogynist, homophobic, anti-trans, and / or pick your ism. Oz platformed him at a time when deplatforming was almost required. Despite that time censorship-rich time period , they both point out that platforms like YouTube have opened things up on the whole—anyone can share their thoughts without needing big money or approval from media bosses. This has led to richer, more honest talks, but it also means people who speak out might face criticism or even lose their jobs, even today. Particularly in Canada and parts of Europe.

Health and Diet

A significant portion of the podcast focuses on how what we eat affects our health. Dr. Oz slams old health advice, like the low-fat food agenda, which of course, ended up making people load up on carbs and get sicker. He explains how little choices—like drinking a single soda every day—mess with our bodies because we don’t feel full from those calories, so we keep eating more. He wants people to have better information about food and health so they are empowered to prevent metabolic and heart diseases. Dr. Oz also brings up vaccine rules, including the ever -popular question as to why newborns need the hepatitis B shot right away, when its primarily passed through sex or drug use. His main point is that knowledge gives people power over their own health and this is what we want.

Make America Healthy Again Movement

They also discuss the Make America Healthy Again movement and Sec. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. There is broad and growing agreement that its time to stop chronic diseases by focusing on clean environments and honest health policies. This is, of course, in stark contrast to the incentive model of “treating” chronic illness through drugs championed by the pharmaceutical industry over the past several decades. Dr. Oz says MAHA got popular after the 2024 election because it speaks to people who care about controlling their own health choices. He thinks it might even change how people vote if health freedom becomes a bigger deal. The idea is that if voters demand better health options, it could shake up politics and lead to real improvements.

Philosophical Insights

As he often does, Peterson injected the idea of “story”, using Bible stories like Cain and Abel to show how jealousy and selfishness in lieu of commitment can have ruinous outcomes. He talks about “complementarity,” a Petersononian term for how two opposite ideas can both be right—like how light can act like a wave and a particle. He says this way of thinking helps us handle tough problems by seeing all sides. Peterson also takes a typical swing at postmodernism, which he says throws out the idea of a meta story or truth that has the power power to bind us together. Without shared values like helping others, some sort of faith, and an upward aim, he warns, society falls apart into fights over power and / or short-gratification, which doesn’t end well.

Science and Truth

The podcast wraps up with worries about science losing its way. Peterson says a lot of studies can’t be trusted because they don’t hold up when tested again—a problem called the replication crisis. He’s seen firsthand how research gets twisted by politics or personal agendas, like when he dealt with shady ethics boards. Dr. Oz adds that COVID-19 rules, like shutting down debate or forcing policies, has seriously damaged the viability of the expert class and the public trust. Both Doctors agree science should chase the truth and be in service of that truth and all of humanity, rather than simply boosting careers or supporting agendas. In the recent past, the priorities of science have become compromised.

THE FINAL PODLAND TAKE:

Peterson and Oz’s discussion shines a light on big problems—like media shutting down free speech, health advice leading us astray, science losing trust, and society splitting apart. The dynamic between the two was interesting. You can tell there is a genuine respect and friendship between them, and that made for better listening. Often times, as host, Peterson spends too much time talking and working through issues audibly. This was a conversation between equals and it was respectful and easy listening. Nothing new to blow your socks off, but there are worse ways to spend your time, particularly if you haven’t spent a lot of time with some of these issues.

THE PODSCORE: 3.5 (Out of 5)

Joe Rogan chats with Hal Puthoff, a physicist with a remarkable career that spans laser research, remote viewing, and the study of UFOs. Hal Puthoff is a physicist researching energy generation, space propulsion, and other related topics. He is the president and CEO of EarthTech International, Inc., and director of the Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin. Previously he worked studied remote viewing at the Stanford Research Institute (SRI). Joe and Hal cover his unique background, the strange world of remote viewing, evidence of UFOs and non-human intelligence, the physics that might explain these mysteries, and the tricky path toward revealing these secrets to the public.

Hal Puthoff's Background and Career

Hal Puthoff started out as a physicist working on lasers at SRI, but his career took a wild turn when he met Ingo Swann, a guy who claimed he could see things with his mind that he shouldn’t be able to. OK, at this point, we were interested despite (and we will get this out of the way early - this guy is boring as watching paint dry AND he has some kind of nasal issue. Tough). Anyway, this chance encounter sparked Puthoff’s interest in remote viewing, and he ran some experiments that got the CIA’s attention. Naturally, they approached him and funded a secret program that lasted over 20 years, exploring whether people could use their minds to spy on far off lands. This really happened.

Remote Viewing and Its Implications

So, what is remote viewing exactly? Remote viewing is this practice where people try to picture or describe places and things they’ve never seen, just using their minds. Puthoff worked with folks like Pat Price and Ingo Swann at SRI, and they pulled off some jaw-dropping stuff (if true)—like Price sketching a secret Soviet base that turned out to be spot-on when satellites checked it out later. The CIA naturally thought this might be useful for spying. Proving it works was (and is, we think) still is another matter. Puthoff himself admits that it is difficult to replicate across people, but he’s convinced there’s something real here worth digging into, even if it’s controversial. Our question is…you’ve been testing this for decades - a little more decisiveness or answers should be in order after that much time.

UFOs and Non-Human Intelligence (NHI)

When it comes to UFOs, Puthoff’s is a believer; the question is…what do we know, not know and what is realistic? Initially, he was brought into a government think-tank to discuss the “theoretical” scenario where the US, China and Russia found a space craft. The challenge was - what would the public reaction be. This was during the George W. Bush administration. He goes onto talk about crashed UFOs, like Roswell and others, and believes that materials from these wrecks have been tested by labs and have developed tools and materials we can’t make ourselves—like metals. He believes this points to non-human intelligence, but he’s frustrated because the info continues to remain classified by the government AND private companies. Puthoff’s all for letting the public know more, pointing to things like the UAP Disclosure Act, but he understands why it’s a slow process.

Physics and Engineering Related to UFO Phenomena

Puthoff delves into the nuance of how UFOs might work, and it really is straight out of a science fiction movie. He says these crafts could bend space and time, using ideas from Einstein’s theories and some quantum physics tricks. He’s studied things like zero-point energy and even a crazy idea called the Alcubierre warp drive, which could let you zip around faster than light if we had the power for it (we don’t—yet). Puthoff’s written a plethora of papers on this, dreaming up ways we might one day build our own ships using this technology. One redeeming quality is that Puthoff admits this is far out subject matter, but he makes it clear that there is real science behind the wild stories.

Disclosure Challenges and Future Directions

Talking about letting the world in on UFO secrets, Puthoff sees a tug-of-war between curiosity and caution. People want answers, and Congress is pushing with legislation like the UAP Disclosure Act of 2024, but there’s a catch—too much info is hidden in secret compartments, and there’s worry about geopolitical enemies getting an edge if we over-disclose. Still, Puthoff’s optimistic about disclosure longer term. He would bet that we’ll get some real answers in the next 10 years as more people demand the truth.

PODLAND’s FINAL TAKE

Hal Puthoff’s chat with Joe Rogan is a rollercoaster through some of the weirdest corners of science—from mind-powered spying to UFOs that defy physics as we know it. That said, you’ve got to be patient with this one. As mentioned earlier, Puthoff is a little tough to listen to with his nasal clearing, flat delivery and far-out stories. BUT,if you can make through that, this is a fun sci-fi ride if that’s your thing. His stories challenge what we think is possible. The push for disclosure might be messy and slow, but Puthoff’s take leaves you wondering what’s really out there and how close we are to figuring it out. The problem is…its one of those Rogan podcasts where you don’t know what to believe…other than I think you can be confident the US has and is looking into all of these areas…closely.

THE PODSCORE 3 (out of 5) MICS

Tucker Carlson sat with Catherine Austin Fitts, a former investment banker and government official, to explore the global financial system and its effects on personal freedom and wealth. Fitts is known for her fantastic claims about financial corruption and control, and this conversation dives into some wild and controversial theories, or conspiracy theories, about the elite world around us. They discuss everything from missing government money ($21 trillion) to secret societies and the risks of digital currencies. While some of Fitts’ points are backed by data, others are more speculative, but one way or another the US budget doesn’t add up and no doubt, some of what she says may not be too far from the truth.

Financial Coup d'État and Missing Funds

Fitts starts by talking about a huge amount of money—$21 trillion—that she says went missing from U.S. government accounts between 1998 and 2015, especially from the Department of Defense and Housing and Urban Development. She calls it a “financial coup,” meaning she thinks this cash was secretly taken to pay for hidden projects, like underground bases or even space programs…yes, wild, we’ll get more into those below.. There’s some documented truth here: a researcher named Dr. Mark Skidmore found $21 trillion in accounting adjustments that weren’t properly explained and seemingly have no home on the books. The reason this money is missing is because she claimed that the “elite” and the central bankers effectively “gave up”on the US in the early 1990’s and were looking for ways to fund a new or parallel civilization with the most obvious use-case being survival of a mass-extinction event.

Role of Central Banks and the BIS

To understand her wild hypothesis, Fitts first says that you need to understand the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), which she describes as a all-powerful meta bank that other central banks answer to. She explains that the BIS has special rules that let it hide money movements, enabling it to facilitate transfers of large some of money between entities. The BIS is real—it’s based in Switzerland and helps central banks work together, setting rules like the Basel Accords to keep banking stable. It does have some legal protections, but they’re seemingly standard for international groups. Fitts’ claim that it’s covertly moving money around lacks solid proof (to her own admission) and isn’t a mainstream view, it goes without saying.

Digital Control Grid and Financial Freedom

Fitts warns about a “digital control grid,” where things like central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) could track and control every dollar you spend. She’s worried it could turn into a “digital concentration camp,” with no privacy or freedom left. She points to the BIS experimenting with tech and bankers talking about enforcing rules digitally. CBDCs are real—countries are testing them—but whether they’ll spy on us is still up in the air. Fitts says to fight back by using local banks or buying gold and silver to keep some independence. In a pre-COVID and AI world, this sort of idea might have been seen as far-fetched, today it seems pretty plausible.

Breakaway Civilization

One of Fitts’ wilder ideas is the “breakaway civilization.” She postulates the “missing money” mentioned above goes to a secret group building a separate society with emergent technology. This society functions partly (and will solely in the case of a mass extinction event) in underground bases using hidden transport systems. She guesses there are 170 underground bases in the U.S. alone. These bases are also supported by some kind of novel energy technology, again she offers no evidence of, but a few anecdotal stories. It’s a sensational story, like something from a science fiction film, but there’s no real evidence to support it discussed in the podcast at least.

Wealth Building through Living and Financial Equity

Trying to offer a bit of hope, she encourages people to think about wealth in a different way—not just financial asset, but what she calls “living equity.” This means building strong families, communities, and traditions that money can’t buy. She’s all about keeping things local and community support, rather than relying on sizable global systems. Fitts ties this concept to freedom (which she warns is under assault), saying a strong community can stand up to tough times better than a bank account alone.

PodLands Final Take

Catherine Austin Fitts’ chat with Tucker Carlson is absolutely insane if true or even partially true. The $21 trillion accounting mess is real, but what happened to the money is unclear—secret bases or just bad paperwork? Her takes on the BIS and a breakaway civilization are mind-blowing, again - if true. We want to write off all of this, pretend we never heard it, or maybe only saw it in a James Bond movie, but we are talking some master mind criminal type activity if any of this is true. This talk leaves you with big questions: Who’s really running the financial system really, and what does it mean for us? If you’re curious, check out Fitts’ site, Solari.com, for more of her thoughts. Whether you buy any of what’s she’s selling, is up to you. But it created a compelling listen, and maybe that was the point.

THE PODSCORE: 4 (out of 5) MICS…

Chris sits down with Brad Wilcox who is a Professor of Sociology at the University of Virginia and Director of the National Marriage Project. They discuss why some people naturally happier than others? Whether it's genetics, upbringing, or life circumstances, how can one finally rediscover joy and feel like your true self again? They discuss why young liberal women are so unhappy and why in contrast, conservative women are happier. Another topic covered in detailed is whether or not finding your one true soulmate is actually a myth and if people should have a more realistic expectation. Also, covered is the fall of boys and rise of girls and how boys can get back on track.

The Soulmate Myth and "Eat Pray Love"

Wilcox begins by critiquing Liz Gilbert’s Eat Pray Love, arguing it promotes a "soulmate myth" where relationships are based on finding a perfect emotional connection that will complete us and provide endless fulfillment. He notes the book’s appeal, especially among women, with its storybook romance in Bali, where Gilbert meets a seemingly perfect man who is feminist, a great cook, and lover. However, as is often the case, fiction is…fiction. Wilcox points out that Gilbert’s real-life relationships have been extremely unstable, as she left the man in the book after10 years for another soulmate, and later pivoted to a woman for five years (who passed away), dated the woman’s best friend, and recently announced at age 55 she is happily single. This, he argues, exemplifies the pitfalls of basing love solely on feelings. Sounds strange (maybe to some)- but maybe we’ve all been lying to ourselves about these Hollywood romances. He advocates a more grounded approach, suggesting that prioritizing commitment over emotional highs could lead to more stable relationships, and society.

Building a Foundation for a Happy Marriage

Wilcox advocates for shifting the foundation of marriage from feelings to a commitment to the good of the other and a family-first approach. Drawing on St. Thomas Aquinas, he describes love as "pursuing the good of the other," emphasizing that marriage should focus on the spouse’s and family’s well-being rather than seeking personal happiness (maybe some balance here would be in order). This family-first perspective, he argues, provides stability by emphasizing solidarity, financial foundations, and the needs of children. He notes that when conflicts arise or romance fades, couples with this approach are less likely to falter because they recognize marriage involves multiple dimensions, such as financial stability and child-rearing, beyond just emotional connection. This contrasts with the "Liz Gilbert approach," which he sees as putting relationships on shaky ground, especially given the high divorce rates associated with “feeling-based” marriages. It’s easy to disagree with the absolutes in these premises, but there is no doubt that commitment beyond whims will drive longevity more than just “feelings”. Still some need to hear it.

Happiness Studies: Conservatives vs. Liberals

A significant focus is on research showing conservative women, particularly aged 18-40, report higher happiness. Wilcox cites the 2024 American Family Survey, revealing 37% of conservative women are "completely satisfied" with their lives, compared to 12% of liberal women and 28% of moderates. This "happiness gap" is attributed to conservatives being more likely to be married (55% vs. 35% for liberals) and to attend religious services regularly, which fosters community ties. Wilcox argues this contrasts with liberals’ focus on individualism and progressive values, which may lead to loneliness (29% of liberal women report loneliness multiple times a week vs. 11% for conservatives). He notes this gap extends to men, with conservatives aged 18-55 being 60% more likely to be "very happy," partly due to marriage and faith, as supported by studies like those from the Institute for Family Studies.

The Importance of Marriage and Family

Wilcox emphasizes marriage and family as crucial for happiness, noting conservatives are more likely to be happily married, contributing to their life satisfaction. He highlights data showing children from intact, married households are more likely to graduate college and less likely to end up in prison, with a striking statistic that boys raised outside intact families are more likely to land in jail than graduate college. Wilcox argues that a commitment to marriage as a lifelong partnership, prioritizing family needs, benefits both adults and children, with research showing married men earn 26% more than their unmarried identical twins. We’ve seen a lot of this information before in other places. One key point is…these men NEED to make more money to support the family, so there’s a bit more to read into these statistics, perhaps, than Wilcox explains.

The Impact of Technology on Relationships

Wilcox expresses concern about technology’s impact, noting AI and social media may reduce face-to-face interactions, potentially leading to fewer marriages and lower birth rates. We’ve been seeing this since online dating began, really. He observes that people are spending more time on screens, which could hinder socializing, dating, and family formation; you don’t have to look far to see the global decline in fertility rates. He argues that all this screen-time will have long-term societal implications, such as weaker community ties and increased loneliness. There is nothing really to disagree with here.

Mimetic Nature of Marriage and Family Life

Wilcox introduces the concept of mimetic behavior, explaining marriage, divorce, and family formation are contagious within social networks. Research, such as Nicholas Christakis’s work at Yale, shows if your friends or family get married or divorced, you’re more likely to follow suit. This is yet another classic example of how friends and people you surround yourself with can impact you decisions - definitely interesting, however, when thinking about it from a family planning perspective.

Gender Dynamics in Education and the Workforce

Chris and Wilcox discuss how boys and men are falling behind in education. Wilcox notes that girls outperform boys from primary school through higher education. It’s projected that two women will complete a full-year US college degree for every man by 2030. This trend, he argues, contributes to men’s struggles in the workforce, where women are increasingly out-earning them in certain age groups, among college-educated workers. The proportion of young men not in college, employed, or in vocational training has increased by 40% since the pandemic, compared to 7% for women. So, he calls for primary educational reforms, such as more recess and engaging curricula, to support boys, recognizing this imbalance affects relationship prospects, as women often seek equally or more successful partners.

The Role of Men in Society

Wilcox discusses the need for a positive vision of masculinity, noting women still value men as providers and protectors, even in modern relationships. Research shows women in marriages where husbands are better providers and protective are happier. However, Wilcox also emphasizes men need to be attentive and involved, balancing traditional roles with modern expectations, such as emotional and practical support in family life. Basically, men need to be more rounded and hold on to provider and protector roles while being more involved in the home and kids and empathetic orientation women are looking for. This isn’t going to be done by villifying boys though, we need some new ideas on how to speak to boys or we are just going to end up with a bunch of unmarried, aggrieved kids. The current education system and woke approach is doing these boys a grave disservice, it seems.

Stay-at-Home Dads: A Viable Option?

The conversation explores whether stay-at-home dads are feasible, with Wilcox noting some families succeed, but data shows it’s less common in stable, upper-middle-class households. Women report lower marital satisfaction when husbands are stay-at-home dads, and divorce risk increases 33% when men lose jobs, compared to no effect when women do. Wilcox suggests this reflects persistent associations of breadwinning with masculinity, with female breadwinner households more common in working-class and poor communities. Again, the modern situation for men is…complex.

Political Implications of Cultural Shifts

Wilcox connects cultural and economic trends to politics, noting young men, feeling disenfranchised, are drawn to conservative or anti-feminist ideologies, as seen in recent elections. For example, Trump gained 56% of young men’s votes compared to 58% for Harris, with black and Latino men also supporting him, reflecting dissatisfaction with economic and educational trends. Wilcox suggests this shift, like to South Korea’s recent election where young men turned right, shows men gravitating toward leaders offering macho, male-focused messages. The key is to point them away from the Andrew Tate’s while enabling to restore some dignity.

PodLand’s Take

Wilcox challenges the romanticized "soulmate myth"which prioritizes fleeting emotional highs over the deeper commitment needed for lasting partnerships. Instead, it advocates for a family-first approach, emphasizing mutual well-being and dedication as the true bedrock of marriage. He believes (and some research indicates) marriage and family could be more valuable for happiness and stability. This is no doubt true, but we think that evolving gender roles, media driven expectations, and a cultural move to narcissistic behavior all further complicate the issue. Somewhere missing in Wilcox’s POV and the “soulmate myth” is a balance not easily found.

Triggernometry hosts Konstantin Kisin and Francis Foster sit down with Dr. Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, to discuss the ideas behind Project 2025 and its relationship with the Trump administration. Roberts, a passionate conservative, defends the Heritage Foundation’s vision while addressing concerns about overreach, due process, and the radicalization of young men.

Dismantling the Administrative State

A major theme of Project 2025 is the push to shrink the federal government, which both the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 and the Trump administration see as bloated and overreaching. Roberts explains that the “administrative state”—the web of unelected bureaucrats and agencies—has grown too powerful, making laws and rules that should come from Congress. He argues that these unelected officials takes freedom away from everyday Americans, pointing to the federal government’s 2.5 million employees and massive spending as evidence. He brings up the Department of Education as an example. It was created in 1979, and since then has been granted trillions in spending, only 25% of which reach classrooms. The results have been poor, he says, the U.S. has a 79% literacy rate compared to the UK’s 99%, for example. The goal, Roberts says, isn’t to destroy government but to “rightsize” it, sending power back to states and local communities. He acknowledges concerns from the center-left that conservatives might just want to grab power for themselves but insists the focus is on self-governance, not control. Getting that last part is really important if the Republicans are to stay in power.

Restoring the American Dream

Roberts believes that the number one goal of the Trump team is to bring back the American Dream, which he sees as the belief that anyone can succeed through hard work and opportunity, no matter their background. He’s worried that many Americans, across political lines, feel this dream is dead. Economic struggles, like sky-high housing costs and inflation, make it tough for even well-educated couples to buy homes. Roberts ties this to government overreach and globalization. Trump’s focus on re-industrialization, cutting government spending, and using tariffs to bring jobs back are all supported by Heritage. He believes these steps, like revitalizing steel production or reforming housing rules, can rebuild prosperity and hope. When pressed, he did admit that it’s a long game. Navigating this process could cause trouble at the mid-terms for Republicans.

Immigration Reform

The Heritage Foundation wants to drastically cut immigration for a year or two, arguing the U.S. has hit a record high of non-native-born residents and needs time to “absorb” newcomers. Roberts says unchecked immigration, especially illegal, strains communities and undermines the American Dream by flooding job markets and stressing social cohesion. He supports Trump’s aggressive deportations of criminals (like Venezuelan gang members) but pushes for pausing even legal immigration, which puts him at odds with this reviewer and business leaders. Still, he suggests a state-based guest worker program, like the old Bracero model, to balance needs in places like California or Texas where workers are needed. Kissin raises concerns about due process tied to the deportation of criminal aliens, citing a story of a wrongly deported barber. Roberts dismissed the story as unverified, insisting the focus should be on the 300,000 criminal immigrants. We thought this felt pretty disingenuous…the story has been everywhere. When pushed, he agrees due process matters. We hope so.

Social and Cultural Issues

The conversation gets heated on social issues like abortion and pornography, where Roberts clarifies Heritage’s stance. Project 2025 pushes for restricting abortion (ideally to six weeks, as in Florida) and limiting kids’ access to porn, but Roberts insists these aren’t just religious crusades. He grounds them in “natural law”—a shared sense of right and wrong—backed by data showing harm, like the health risks of abortion pills or porn’s impact on young minds. While Heritage dreams of a no-abortion America, Roberts admits this is a “hundred-year project” about changing hearts, not federal bans, since Trump leaves abortion to states post-Dobbs. The sees the left’s passion for abortion as a quasi-religious belief in hyper-individualism, tied to declining religiosity, but believes cultural shifts, not laws, will resolve these divides. The issue that never goes away, never goes away. Read into this what you will.

Foreign Policy and Global Role

On foreign policy, Roberts describes Heritage as “owls”—neither war-hungry hawks nor isolationist doves but wise pragmatists. He claims that this matches Trump’s America First approach, focusing on domestic priorities and selective global engagement. They reject neoconservative adventures, like endless wars, and prioritize countering China over conflicts like Ukraine. Roberts calls Putin’s invasion of Ukraine “absurd and tragic” but argues the war was unwinnable, and Europe’s hypocrisy (e.g., buying Russian gas) undercuts their pleas for U.S. aid. Heritage supports Trump’s peace-through-strength mantra, believing his return has already nudged Putin toward peace talks. Heritage seems on the right track here.

Radicalization and Political Polarization

The trio discuss the growing anger among young men, who feel robbed of the American Dream and many want to “burn it all down.” Roberts empathizes with their frustration—many can’t afford homes or feel betrayed by elites—but says Heritage is pushing patience and economic wins to cool tempers. On the left, Roberts predicts short-term violence from radical fringes, like Tesla burnings or calls for “war,” but believes this will backfire, boosting Trump’s appeal as a “normal” fixer. He hopes the center-left rebuilds with a positive vision, like the American Dream and can come to the table to work with Republicans.

Challenges and Communication

The biggest hurdle, Roberts says, is communication. Trump’s reforms—tariffs, deportations, agency cuts—are popular now, but conservatives often forget to keep explaining why they matter. Without clear messaging, bold changes can look like chaos, especially with a hostile media spinning stories. Roberts worries short-term disruptions, like tariff-driven market wiggles, could turn people off if not framed as steps toward prosperity. He praises Trump’s knack for rallying his base but urges broader outreach to show how reforms benefit everyone, not just conservatives. .

Conclusion

This Triggernometry episode with Kevin Roberts is a deep dive into the conservative playbook for America’s future. From slashing the federal government to reviving the American Dream, tightening immigration, and navigating cultural divides, Roberts lays out a vision that’s largely in sync with Trump’s agenda. We have to admit, this wasn’t a super motivational and inspiring listen, but that’s maybe because it was steeped in policy and macro policy justification. There wasn’t a lot that was new in this discussion. Listen if you need an overview or care about the Heritage Foundation.

THE PODSCORE 2.5 (out of 5) MICS

Joe Rogan welcomes back Jordan Peterson and its a winner. They hit on several key themes effortlessly all the while dancing around the hot topic of Dave Smith and Douglas Murray’s recent debate on Joe’s show. Peterson weaves in and out of biblical stories to warn of psychopaths, to address the awfully named “woke right”, and to press for further cleansing of institutions that are morally (or otherwise) compromised. While hitting on some of his old themes (clean your room), Peterson introduced new ideas (or at least recast) in psychology without spending too much time mired in the political or most recent current events. There was the issue of Murray and Smith and Isreal and “guard-railing”, but Peterson avoided a clear stance on the issue, but rather warned that all of it is an issue. It was a fascinating discussion intent reframing the elephant in the room and moving on.

The Dangers of Distraction and Indecision

A significant portion of the conversation addresses the modern epidemic of distraction, particularly among young people. Rogan and Peterson discuss how video games and social media can lead to prolonged indecision, causing individuals to stagnate. Peterson shares insights from his clinical practice, where he observed clients paralyzed by uncertainty, waiting for perfect clarity before acting. He advocates for implementing a “bad plan” over inaction, as even flawed action provides feedback for improvement. It’s too easy to get distracted today due partly to algorithms optimized for short-term attention, which prioritize hedonism over long-term goals (Peterson’s favorite song). They emphasizes the importance of discipline and proactive decision-making in a world designed to capture attention and delay meaningful action. Peterson and Rogan are setting up the rest of the conversation by inviting younger people to act to create the ideal, not to plan until you realize the ideal. Tyranny and psychopaths lurk around the corners to come, not matter what.

The Importance of Play as an Antidote to Tyranny

Peterson declares that play as the psychological and social opposite of tyranny. We’ve heard him talk about “play”, but this is the first time he’s placed it directly opposite tyranny. Drawing on developmental psychology, he explains that play requires voluntary participation and a safe, structured environment—a “walled garden”—where individuals can engage freely. This is the opposite of tyranny, which relies on force and fear, play fosters cooperation and creativity, forming the basis of community. Peterson applies this to his marriage, noting how he and his wife consciously aim for playful interactions, and to his podcast appearance. This perspective reframes maturity not as a loss of joy but as an opportunity for sophisticated, disciplined play with higher rewards. By contrasting play with coercive control, they highlight its role in building resilient relationships…and society.

The Transformative Power of Love and Commitment

The discussion on relationships, particularly marriage, reveals the profound impact of love and commitment and reminds us that these guys generally push “positive” ideas - contrary to the belief of whatever is left of those old uninformed Peterson critics. Rogan shares his personal experience, explaining how his love for his wife and the responsibility of raising their child solidified his commitment to marriage. He emphasizes the joy of scheduled “date nights,” which maintain their connection amidst busy lives. Peterson reinforces this, noting that religious married couples often report the highest sexual satisfaction, countering cultural assumptions about freedom and hedonism. They explore the sacrifices required in monogamy, acknowledging the fear of entrapment in toxic relationships, as illustrated by Rogan’s anecdotes about friends’ divorces. They argue that choosing a partner for compatibility and mutual enjoyment, rather than superficial traits - likes looks is the (obvious) better way to go.

The Psychological Dynamics of Reputation and Status

They get into the pursuit of reputation, distinguishing between earned, authentic status and manipulated, unearned status. Peterson explains that genuine reputation, built through honest quests for truth (like Rogan’s podcast approach - seeking of truth through open, honest dialog), enhances psychological well-being by increasing serotonin and reducing sensitivity to negative emotions. Conversely, psychopathic individuals game the system, seeking status through power plays and false narratives, particularly on social media where anonymity shields them from accountability. Peterson brings up Andrew Tate, who appeal to disaffected young men by offering a path out of rejection and isolation, but warn that such “shadow figures” provide only short term and sadistic ends..and will end up in failure for most. True success, as exemplified by balanced, compassionate champions like George St-Pierre, integrate strength with empathy.

The Threat of Psychopathic Behavior in Society

Somewhere between talking about anti -role models (Tate) and psychopathic behavior, the Douglas Murray / Dave Smith debate came up. Around the time he’s asking Joe how he determines who appears on his podcast, Peterson estimates that 4-5% of the population exhibits Cluster B traits (narcissistic, histrionic, antisocial, or psychopathic), manipulating systems for personal gain. These individuals adopt moral cloaks—whether leftist or right-wing ideologies—to advance their agendas, exploiting empathy or fear. This is Peterson’s (far superior) explanation of the “woke-right” as coined by James Lindsay. Rogan and Peterson cite examples like academic plagiarism, protected by institutional bias, and the dismissal of predatory behavior under the guise of inclusivity. They argue that social media amplifies this by enabling anonymous power games, while wealth accumulation in unguarded institutions (e.g., universities) attracts parasites. Peterson believes is a need for vigilance in identifying and countering such behavior, emphasizing the need for critical thinking and robust gatekeeping to protect societal integrity. So, while Peterson didn’t directly call for guardrails, he asked how Joe approaches who appears on his show. In the wake of the Murray confrontation, this seems like another challenge. We’d call it an inquiry. Obviously, Peterson was motivated to ask due to the dust up with Smith and Murray and Rogan, but in the context of the three hour conversation and due the high visibility of the Murray discussion, it was warranted. Additionally, his take on psychopaths and how they migrate to power is a fair warning. Listeners would be ill advised to lump Peterson in with Murray and in trying to suggest Peterson is vying for censorship or dampening of freedom of speech. He is not. Psychopathic personalities and their migration to power / opportunity would come over and over during the chat.

The Spiritual Significance of Sacrifice and Adventure

Peterson tells several biblical stories throughout the discussion, particularly the stories of Abraham, Moses, and Cain and Abel, to illustrate the spiritual importance of sacrifice and adventure. Peterson interprets Abraham’s covenant as a call to leave comfort for a transformative journey, promising personal fulfillment, lasting reputation, and communal abundance. Moses’ story highlights the temptation of power versus the necessity of invitation. Peterson distinguishes tyranny from community in part by looking at the dynamics of invitation versus coercion. The Cain and Abel narrative contrasts voluntary self-sacrifice (Abel’s best offering) with resentment and mediocrity (Cain’s rejection), positioning sacrifice as the foundation of a stable community. These stories frame life as a quest requiring courage and faith, with Christ’s ultimate sacrifice as the model example for how to think about life.

Conclusion

The online debate over this issue is stupid. Peterson is NOT angling for censorship. He is NOT solely interested in Israel. Sure, he works for Daily Wire but the dialog on this episode was much wider ranging than just that. Peterson has been talking about dark-triads and psychopaths for YEARS prior to this episode, or Douglass Murray’s appearance, or October 7th for that matter. The episode is filled good stories, congenial, thoughtful conversation, appropriate biblical stories, critique of wokism and universities and much more. The fact that this conversation is getting boiled down to a referendum on the Douglas Murray discussion is sad. Also, and as importantly, Peterson is saying nothing like Murray was stating. Peterson asked a question. A single question. You can watch this episode more than once, while there is no reason to ever watch the Douglas Murray episode again. Watch and enjoy, after some sleepy or weirdly angry appearances in different places, Peterson returns to form.

THE PODSCORE: 5 (out of 5)

Tucker Carlson interviews Dan Caldwell, a Marine Corps veteran and former senior advisor to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who was fired from the Pentagon under controversial circumstances recently. Caldwell, known for his opposition to military action against Iran, provides a candid perspective on U.S. foreign policy, the risks of war with Iran, and the internal dynamics of the Pentagon.

The Dangers and Costs of War with Iran

Caldwell makes a strong case against U.S. military action targeting Iran’s nuclear sites. He argues that while a credible military option is necessary to support diplomacy, a war with Iran would be prohibitively costly in terms of American lives, financial resources, and regional stability. He highlights the vulnerability of U.S. military personnel, diplomats, and civilians in the Middle East, noting the presence of numerous U.S. bases and embassies that could become targets. Imagine the possible spiral if Iran killed US military located at bases across the middle east. The bloodshed would be…significant.

Caldwell also points out the risk of Iran disrupting global oil supplies by targeting the Strait of Hormuz, which could spike oil prices and trigger a global economic crisis at a time when we are still trying to fight inflation. Beyond immediate military and economic costs, he warns of the potential for terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, drawing parallels to 9/11 and citing the presence of Iranian agents who may have entered the U.S. during the Biden administration. Caldwell stresses that even Gulf allies like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, traditionally hostile to Iran, are now prioritizing diplomacy over war due to the economic and human toll a conflict would impose. This theme underscores Caldwell’s belief that diplomacy is the preferable path to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons without plunging the region / world into chaos.

The Real Reason for the U.S. Invasion of Iraq

Caldwell provides a critical assessment of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. He argues clearly and articulately that it was a strategic blunder driven by misguided assumptions, and he’s not talking about WMD. He contends (like many othes have) that the invasion was solely motivated by the neoconservative belief that toppling Saddam Hussein would spark democracy across the Middle East. This, of course, ignored the regional power dynamics that made Iraq a counterbalance to Iran. By removing Hussein, the U.S. inadvertently strengthened Iran, transforming Iraq from a bulwark against Iranian influence into a de facto ally. Caldwell notes that this outcome was predictable, as Iraq’s Shiite majority naturally aligned with Iran post-invasion. The invasion’s failure to deliver promised stability, coupled with its empowerment of Iran, has had lasting consequences - the money spent, the bloodshed, ISIS and the impotent state of Iraq today. In short, Iraq was a disaster, but one we should learn from.

The Military Power of Iran

Caldwell offers a nuanced assessment of Iran’s current military capabilities. He acknowledges its weakened state but emphasizes its enduring strengths that we NEED to be aware of. He does note that Iran has suffered significant setbacks, including the loss of Syrian ally Bashar al-Assad, defeats to Hezbollah, and targeted Israeli airstrikes. However, Iran retains a formidable conventional arsenal, particularly its missile and drone programs, which Caldwell describes as a cornerstone of its national defense strategy. Caldwell warns that these capabilities make any military strike on Iran risky, as they could enable retaliatory attacks on U.S. and allied targets. He also highlights Iran’s effective proxy forces in Iraq and elsewhere, which further amplify its influence despite recent losses. The complexity of confronting Iran militarily is something Americans need to understand because there will be a cost.

The Global Coalition Iran Has Formed Because of U.S. Policies

Caldwell argues that “stupid” U.S. foreign policy errors have driven Iran right into a coalition with Russia, China, and North Korea, creating a united front against American interests. He contends that these countries, despite their divergent ideologies and historical tensions, have been pushed together by U.S. policies that treat them as a monolithic “axis of evil.” This approach, exemplified by the Bush administration’s rhetoric, ignored natural antagonisms, such as Russia’s concerns about Islamic radicalism or China’s resource-driven ambitions in Siberia. Caldwell suggests that the U.S. could have exploited these tensions to isolate Iran but instead unified these nations through sanctions and confrontational diplomacy. For instance, Russia, which once cooperated with the U.S. to limit arms sales to Iran, now aligns with Tehran due to shared opposition to American hegemony. In short, U.S. strategic errors have bolstered Iran’s global standing, complicating efforts to counter its nuclear ambitions and regional influence.

Is U.S. Foreign Policy Driven by Evil or Stupidity?

Caldwell grapples with whether U.S. foreign policy failures stem from malicious intent or sheer incompetence, leaning toward the latter. He suggests that attributing these errors to a deliberate conspiracy gives policymakers too much credit, as much of the dysfunction he observed in the Pentagon resulted from “bureaucratic inertia and intellectual laziness”. He describes a tendency among officials to stick with familiar strategies, like supporting Ukraine or pursuing regime change, rather than admitting past mistakes and adapting. However, Caldwell acknowledges that ideology, particularly the belief in American global hegemony, plays a role in perpetuating these policies. He cites the resistance he encountered to Trump’s non-interventionist stance, driven by both careerists and ideologues who view U.S. dominance as a moral imperative, without giving it much more thought than that. This bloat and laziness is costing us a fortune in blood and treasure, obviously.

The Impact of the Iraq War on Veterans

Drawing from his service in the Marine Corps, Caldwell describes the devastating toll of the Iraq War on veterans. He recounts the loss of three friends killed in action, a half-dozen seriously wounded, and approximately 20 who died by suicide or service-related injuries. These statistics, he notes, are common among infantry units, with some units experiencing higher suicide rates than combat deaths. Caldwell also highlights the strain on families, with divorce rates in some combat arms units reaching 90% due to relentless deployment schedules. The futility of the Iraq War, evidenced by the fall of areas he and many others patrolled to ISIS and the ultimate pointlessness of it all have made many, many veterans anti-interventionists. This is a pattern that we have seen throughout history - most people that serve in war are smart enough to be very anti-war. Seems like wisdom.

Caldwell’s Ousting from the Pentagon

The podcast spends the last thirty minutes discussing Caldwell’s abrupt firing from the Pentagon, which he attributes to his opposition to war with Iran and his threat to to the establishment. Caldwell has been accused of leaking classified information to the media. He vehemently denies the allegations, noting that he was never polygraphed, his phone was not examined, and he even retained access to classified systems until the moment he was escorted out. He suggests the accusations were a pretext, weaponized by those within the Pentagon and broader foreign policy establishment who resented his non-interventionist views and his role in supporting Hegseth’s reforms. Caldwell also defends two colleagues, Darren Selnick and Colin Carroll, who were similarly ousted, arguing they were targeted for challenging entrenched Pentagon practices. He speculates that the leaks likely originated from career staff hostile to Trump’s agenda.

Conclusion

Caldwell’s ousting underscores the fierce resistance to reform within the national security establishment, particularly from those advocating for regime change in Iran. His story is a call to prioritize diplomacy and American interests over reckless interventionism, urging a reevaluation of policies that have repeatedly failed the nation and its veterans. The War Machine in Washington is gearing up. It’s our belief that Trump was voted in to avoid wars and curtail the size of government. Caldwell told the story about his ouster, but the story is much bigger. While we appreciated the discussion and the larger point, Caldwell’s personal story just didn’t keep us engaged. It probably should have, maybe it was just the presentation style or the lack of new or unexpected information that just didn’t do it for us. While Caldwell seemingly deserves our sympathy, his story will be remembered as a clarion call or a minor foot note. Time will tell.

THE PODSCORE: 3 (out of 5) MICS

In this TED Talk, Chris Anderson, CEO of TED, sits down with Sam Altman, CEO of Open AI, in a confrontational conversation about the rapid advancements in artificial intelligence. The discussion covers the transformative potential of AI, its implications for creativity, employment, safety, and the ethical challenges of deploying such powerful technology. Altman shares insights into Open AI’s growth, its shift toward open-source models, and the societal impacts of AI’s exponential progress. The talk delves into complex themes, balancing optimism about AI’s possibilities with caution about its risks, while addressing public concerns about trust, safety, and the moral responsibilities of AI developers. Chris really press Sam.

The Power and Potential of Advanced AI Models

Altman highlights the extraordinary capabilities of Open AI’s models, such as Sora, which generates realistic images and videos, and GPT-4o, which integrates advanced intelligence to produce insightful outputs, like diagrams distinguishing intelligence from consciousness. These models demonstrate AI’s ability to go beyond simple tasks, offering creative and analytical tools that astound users. In one example they show on screen, Anderson is impressed by Sora’s depiction of Charlie Brown in cartoon strip format, showcasing the model’s ability to generate realistic content. Altman emphasizes (repeatedly) that these advancements are not just technical feats but tools that amplify human potential. He envisions AI enabling people to achieve more, likening it to historical technological revolutions that raised expectations but also expanded capabilities. But there is more to the story…

The Impact on Creativity and Intellectual Property

A significant portion of the talk addresses AI’s impact on creative industries and the ethical dilemmas surrounding intellectual property (IP). Anderson really does press Altman about AI generating content in the style of artists or writers without their consent. Altman acknowledges the tension, noting that while AI democratizes creativity by allowing anyone to produce high-quality art or writing, it risks being perceived as IP theft. He talks around this issue in an unconvincing manner by vaguely talk about “new economic models to fairly compensate creators”. Altman makes the claim that AI can enhance human creativity rather than replacing it, but stresses the need for society to redefine copyright and fair use in the AI era. It’s a complex issues and while Altman expressed “empathy” for creators, he really seems to be telling all of us to …just deal with it.

AI’s Role in Employment and Economic Disruption

The conversation explores how AI might disrupt traditional employment, particularly in knowledge-based professions. Anderson expresses concern that roles like management consulting could be at risk as AI performs tasks previously requiring human expertise. Altman, of course, took the other said of that argument saying that AI is a tool that augments human capabilities rather than simply replacing jobs. He draws parallels to past technological revolutions, where new tools raised job expectations but also enabled workers to achieve more. He notes that software development has already been transformed, with engineers completing tasks in hours that once took years. This theme highlights the dual narrative of AI as both a threat and an opportunity. This might not be the best time to start a development or a design firm…

Safety and Ethical Responsibility in AI Development

Anderson did an excellent job probing Altman on the risks of increasingly powerful AI, particularly agentic systems that can act autonomously. Altman defaulted to Open AI’s preparedness framework”, which he says involves rigorous testing to mitigate risks like bioterrorism or cybersecurity threats before releasing models. He acknowledges public fears about AI’s potential to cause harm, such as through misinformation or loss of control, but stresses that safety is iterative, learned through deploying systems and addressing issues as they arise. Again, Anderson pushed, Altman offered high level responses and we were left with a sense of …this is a runaway freight train…

The Debate Over Open-Source AI and Competition

Altman addresses the competitive landscape, particularly the rise of open-source models like Deep Seek. He takes the opportunity to announce Open AI’s commitment to releasing a powerful open-source model, as they originally had planned but have shelved in recent years. Altman sees open-source as a vital part of the AI ecosystem, despite risks of misuse, and believes it will foster innovation. He also discusses Open AI’s massive growth, with 500 million weekly active users, and dismisses concerns that competitors’ lower-cost models threaten their lead, emphasizing that building a superior product, not just a model, is key.

Defining AGI and Managing Exponential Growth

The talk grapples with the concept of artificial general intelligence (AGI), with Anderson questioning why current models like ChatGPT aren’t considered AGI. Altman explains that AGI requires continuous learning, self-improvement, and the ability to perform any knowledge-based task autonomously—capabilities current models lack. He notes the lack of consensus on AGI’s definition, even within Open AI, but none-the-less an AI that is somewhat autonomous and that knows us better than we know ourselves in some cases, is coming. Altman even states that he envisions a future where AI surpasses human intelligence in the not-so-distant future.

Personal Responsibility and Public Trust

Anderson directly challenges Altman’s moral authority to wield the transformative power that he (and a few others) have. Altman, who seemed irritable throughout the conversation, responds humbly, admitting to being a nuanced figure with both strengths and flaws. He goes on to defend Open AI’s track record, noting that 10% of the world uses their systems safely, but acknowledges criticisms about shifting from a non-profit to a for-profit model. He attributes this transition to the unforeseen capital demands of building advanced AI, not personal greed, and reaffirms his commitment to Open AI’s mission of benefiting humanity. Altman also reflects on personal changes, like fatherhood, which have deepened his sense of responsibility without altering his core values. All the same, we never know what truly lurks in the hearts of men.

THE SUPERNOVA FINAL WORD:

This might be the most raw and transparent TED interview we’ve seen. Altman’s optimism about AI’s potential to enhance creativity, transform industries, and drive scientific progress is tempered by excellent questions from Anderson that force Altman to acknowledge the ongoing fear and skepticism around AI. Early in the talk it was obvious that the audience shares these concerns as they applaud Anderson’s questions challenging Altman about IP theft. Altman even address the audience frustratingly following their applause by saying “You can clap about that all you want. Enjoy!” It was extremely off-putting and arrogant. The talk leaves audiences with more questions than answers and didn’t do anything for Altman’s public image. He’s just not likable.

THE PODSCORE: 5 (of 5) MICS

Tucker sits down with Curt Weldon, a former U.S. Congressman from Pennsylvania. They dive into Weldon’s controversial questioning of the 9/11 report, which has led to political retaliation and scrutiny. He reveals how governmental failings may have allowed the attacks to happen and discusses alleged cover-ups within intelligence agencies. Weldon sheds light on the FBI's intimidating tactics against him, the political maneuvering around Osama bin Laden, and calls for accountability and transparency in 9/11 investigations, challenging the narratives that have persisted for decades and have been largely unchallenged.

Questioning the Official 9/11 Narrative

Weldon expresses strong skepticism about the 9/11 Commission report, labeling it a “cover-up 1,000%” and lacking credibility. He argues it omitted critical intelligence, particularly the Able Danger program, which he claims identified Al Qaeda cells, including the New York cell, a year before 9/11. This program, a military intelligence initiative, used data mining to link open-source and classified information, aiming to detect terrorist activities. According to Weldon, Able Danger identified hijackers like Mohamed Atta, but the 9/11 Commission did not investigate this, a claim supported by external reports (Able Danger and 9/11 Intelligence). He also mentions Louis Freeh, former FBI director, stating in a 2005 op-ed and on Good Morning America that 9/11 could have been prevented, reinforcing doubts about the report’s completeness. Weldon’s frustration is evident (it feels like he’s yelling through the whole interview), noting the report’s failure to address pre-9/11 intelligence, like the millennium after-action report stolen by Sandy Berger, which he accessed at the National Archives.

Personal Involvement and Whistleblower Accounts

Weldon’s involvement in national security is central to his story. As vice-chair of the Armed Services Committee, he pushed for a fusion center to share intelligence, a recommendation from the Gilmore Commission, which he helped establish post-1993 World Trade Center bombing. He recounts meeting with Able Danger team members—Scott Philpott, Tony Schaefer, Eileen Pricer, and Eric Kleinmith—who showed him charts identifying Al Qaeda cells globally, including the U.S., before 9/11. These whistleblowers tried three times to share information with the FBI and Justice Department but were blocked, with Weldon naming the person at Justice who canceled meetings. He also mentions Tony Schaefer’s book Operation Darkheart, where Schaefer detailed briefing Philip Zelikow, the 9/11 Commission executive director, but faced career harassment, including office shutdowns and a cease-and-desist order after publishing, with the government buying and destroying 9,500 copies. Weldon’s personal connection to firefighters, like Ray Downey (who died on 9/11), whom he met in 1993, underscores his commitment, and sense of responsibility for not preventing 9/11.

Allegations of Government Misconduct

Weldon accuses the CIA and FBI of obstructing 9/11 prevention and covering up failures. He claims the CIA blocked the fusion center (central intelligence sharing across agencies), with deputy director George Tenet opposing it in 1999, while the FBI initially supported it but later failed to act on Able Danger information. Additionally, in a fascinating exchange, Weldon discusses Sandy Berger, Clinton’s national security adviser, stealing pre-9/11 documents from the National Archives in 2003, pleading guilty to 11 felonies but receiving a misdemeanor plea deal. Berger’s actions, including forming Stonebridge with Madeleine Albright to represent Chinese corporations, are seen as treasonous by Weldon. Weldon’s allegations extend to post-9/11 activity; he claims intelligence agencies hid Osama bin Laden’s location in Iran, with multiple sources. He doesn’t state the details around who witheld information and why but claims to have multiple sources.

Personal and Political Repercussions

Weldon’s pursuit of 9/11 truth led to significant personal and political fallout. In 2006, the FBI raided his daughter’s home and a Democratic lawyer’s office in his district. They were ostensibly investigated for lobbying contracts, but no charges were ever filed, and the boxes the FBI seized were returned unopened months later. This all took place only three weeks before his reelection campaign in 2006. Weldon who had been in congress 20 years and always won soundly, believes this unwarranted FBI action cost him the election. At that time he feared for his safety, noting two friends who were also suspect of the 9/11 story died of fast-moving cancer, suspecting agency involvement.

Call for a New Investigation

Weldon advocates for a new presidential commission to reinvestigate 9/11, emphasizing transparency and accountability. He believes it should include firefighters, architects, engineers, and families. He claims 3,000 architects would come forward to challenge the cause of the WTC building collapses on 9/11. He cites Bravo 7, a firefighter-produced film with audio of Oreo Palmer, a battalion chief, reporting controllable fires on the 78th floor before Building 7 collapsed, contradicting NIST reports, with the University of Alaska refuting NIST’s findings. Weldon argues for declassifying 9/11 documents, comparing it to Kennedy assassination disclosures. He sees 9/11 as the biggest scandal in U.S. history and urges Trump to appoint a new 9/11 commission.

Conclusion and Implications

Weldon’s interview with Carlson is a firey and fast moving discussion of his belief in a 9/11 cover-up, supported by personal experiences and whistleblower accounts. His allegations of government misconduct, particularly around Able Danger and intelligence sharing, do align with external reports questioning the 9/11 Commission’s completeness. However, there are all kinds of conflicting thoughts about the collapse of the building, Bin Laden’s where-abouts, and of course…who knew what BEFORE 9/11. This was a compelling watch, but we couldn’t help but feel possibly that Weldon’s raw emotion and really seething anger was tied mostly to the investigation on his family and end of his political career. HOWEVER, it was also that raw emotion and his supposed modest financial situation that make you think that just maybe he’s telling the complete truth. Watch it. The 9/11 story hasn’t been completely told, one way or the other.

THE PODSCORE: 4.5 (out of 5) MICS

Andrew Huberman welcomes Dr. Mark Hyman on the Huberman Lab podcast. the discussion is an in-depth exploration of functional medicine, health optimization, and the systemic challenges within the American food and healthcare systems. Dr. Hyman, who works in functional medicine, shares his personal journey from chronic illness to recovery, which shaped his holistic approach to health. The conversation covers critical themes such as the principles of functional medicine, the impact of nutrition and lifestyle, the role of supplements, environmental toxins, the industrialization of food, and the politicization of health initiatives like "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA).

Functional Medicine as a Systems-Based Approach

Dr. Hyman describes functional medicine as a framework that views the body as an interconnected network, and contrasts with traditional medicine’s focus on singular diagnoses and specialized medicine only. He recounts his own battle with chronic fatigue syndrome and a host of metabolic issues and others challenges that were initially unexplained, but through his own tenacity determined that he was a victim of mercury poisoning from living in China. This led him to functional medicine, which emphasizes understanding the body’s systems—gut, immune, hormonal, and mitochondrial—and their interactions. Hyman explains that by addressing root causes like inflammation or nutrient deficiencies, rather than just symptoms, patients can achieve profound health improvements. Early on he describes a patient he worked with that had multiple conditions (psoriatic arthritis, migraines, depression) who recovered fully by treating gut inflammation through diet.

Nutrition and Lifestyle as Cornerstones of Health

The conversation highlights the pivotal role of nutrition and lifestyle in health optimization. Hyman advocates for whole, unprocessed foods—fruits, vegetables, quality meats, and healthy fats like olive oil—while cautioning against the dangers of sugar, refined starches, and ultraprocessed foods. He critiques the historical shift in the 1970s, driven by flawed dietary guidelines, that vilified fats and promoted carbohydrates, correlating this with the rise in obesity and diabetes. Lifestyle factors like sleep, exercise, stress management, and social connection are equally vital, described as “ingredients for health.” Hyman shares practical advice, emphasizing that even on a budget, individuals can prioritize real food and bodyweight exercises to improve vitality, debunking the myth that healthy living is inherently expensive.

Supplements: Bridging Nutritional Gaps

Hyman addresses the necessity of supplements in modern diets, given the nutrient depletion in soils and the prevalence of processed foods. NOTE: He sells these supplements through his company - keep that in mind, although he seemed earnest on this topic. Humberman pushed him for standard recommendations for the average person. Hyman noted that everyone is different but a mix of omega-3 fatty acids (1-2 grams daily), vitamin D3 (2,000-4,000 IU), magnesium, and a quality multivitamin are good places to start but ideally the regiment would be tailored to individual needs based on testing. While acknowledging skepticism from traditional medicine, Hyman points out that even physicians take supplements, and their acceptance is growing as science highlights biochemical individuality. He stresses testing over guessing, as needs vary due to genetics, age, and lifestyle, ensuring supplements are effective and safe.

Environmental Toxins and Detoxification

Environmental toxins, including heavy metals, pesticides, and air pollutants, are highlights as the major environmental issues impact health. Hyman’s own mercury poisoning underscores the real-world impact of toxins, which can disrupt hormonal, neurological, and metabolic systems. He advises reducing exposure through filtered water, air purifiers, and choosing low-mercury fish (e.g., sardines over tuna). Detoxification is supported by upregulating the body’s pathways with foods like cruciferous vegetables, cilantro, and fiber, alongside supplements like N-acetylcysteine and lipoic acid. While skeptical of aggressive gut cleanses due to potential microbiome disruption, Hyman supports targeted detox protocols, sharing how he reversed his own toxicity, reinforcing the body’s inherent healing capacity.

The Industrialization of Food and Its Consequences

As we have heard a lot about lately, Hyman passionately critiques the industrialization of the food system post-World War II, which transformed agriculture with chemical fertilizers and pesticides and popularized processed foods for convenience. He highlights how large food companies have impacted dietary habits, disconnecting Americans from real food. This shift, coupled with lobbying from Big Food, has led to policies that prioritize cheap, nutrient-poor calories, contributing to widespread metabolic dysfunction (majority of Americans). Hyman cites shocking examples, like the American Heart Association’s defense of sugary soda in SNAP programs. This was really shocking to hear and Hyman is working with RFK Jr to impact change in this area.

The Politicization of Health and the MAHA Movement

Hyman argues for bipartisan collaboration in food health and health overall, emphasizing transparency and education to empower consumer choices rather than banning certain foods. Hyman addresses criticisms that MAHA undermines science, defending its scientific advocates and calling for a cultural shift where health becomes a point of national pride, not division. He envisions a future where policies curb industry influence, ensuring access to nutritious food for all.

Cutting-Edge Interventions: Peptides, Exosomes, and NAD

This discussion got a little technical and wonky, Huberman asked him about what he’s following in terms of “cutting-edge” optimizations. Hyman brought up peptides, exosomes, and NAD supplementation, which tap into the body’s regenerative potential. Peptides, such as BPC-157 for tissue repair or thymosin alpha-1 for immunity, are powerful but require careful medical oversight due to risks like overdosage. Exosomes, described as “healing packets” from stem cells, have personally helped Hyman recover from post-COVID depression and joint issues, though regulatory hurdles limit their U.S. use. NAD precursors like NMN, taken daily by both Hyman and Huberman, boost mitochondrial function and DNA repair, countering age-related declines.

Conclusion

The dialogue between Huberman and Hyman is the latest call to rethink health through a functional medicine lens, prioritizing prevention and personalization over symptom management. From advocating whole foods and essential supplements to exposing the food industry’s role in chronic disease, Hyman offers actionable insights. Hyman inspires listeners to take charge of their biology, proving that with knowledge and commitment, optimal health is within reach for everyone, regardless of budget or background and without GLP-1s, or before those types of interventions are needed.

It’s a good listen, but like all of these health optimization studies, it feels like the same story - eat meat, organic foods, vegetables, cut down on starches and sugar and exercise. Also, if you need supplementation where you deficient, take supplementation. We definitely aren’t doctors but the take away is…given the holes in our medical system and the mixed agenda of Big Food…knowing how to manage your own health is pivotal and the body is a system that needs managed holistically. Be healthy everyone.

Rogan brings together comedian and political commentator Dave Smith and author and journalist Douglas Murray—for a heated and thought-provoking discussion focused primarily on Israel & Hamas while also hitting on the role of podcasters, Churchill and Ukraine. This really is a clash of perspectives, Murray defends traditional expertise and Western policies with a firm grip on historical narratives, while Smith questions authority and interventionism through a skeptical, libertarian lens. It’s not just a debate about facts—it’s about who gets to talk about them and how we should think about the messy world we live in.

Expertise and Authority

One of the big sticking points in this podcast is who’s allowed to weigh in on complicated topicslike history and geopolitics. Douglas Murray really (almost shockingly so) comes out swinging non-experts indirectly but directly talking to Rogan. It was fairly uncomfortable but Murray’s well known whit and grace allows him to tip toe through the landmine by effectively telling Rogan to allow non-experts on, but to counter them with experts. It was really some tricky territory; there were moments where it looked like Rogan was confused or going to jump out of his chair and beat Murray to death. Specifically Murry name-drops folks like Daryl Cooper and Ian Carol, arguing they’re pushing shaky ideas without the chops to back them up, like claiming Churchill was the bad guy in World War II or downplaying Hitler’s anti-Semitism. Murray’s worried this kind of chatter on platforms like Rogan’s show could spread misinformation to millions.

Dave Smith fires back, saying everyone’s got a right to speak, especially when the “experts” have screwed up big time—like during COVID-19, when official advice flipped and flopped. He argues that podcasters like Rogan have earned their place by calling out the establishment when it’s wrong. Smith sees this as a win for free speech: let the audience sort out what’s legit. I took this back and forth as almost an America free speech perspective vs. a well-heeled British journalist perspective that focuses first on class and credentials. None-the-less, as the power of podcasters grow, who they have on, and what they say, and how they push back is increasingly important.

Ukraine-Russia Conflict

The Ukraine conflict stood out early in the podcast. Murray sees Russia’s 2022 invasion as indisputable aggression. He points to Putin’s dream of rebuilding the Soviet Union, which Putin has often mentioned. Murray backs Ukraine’s fight to keep its land and shrugs off claims that NATO expansion pushed Russia’s buttons. To him, countries like Georgia and Finland begged to join NATO because they’re scared of Putin, not because the West bullied them into it.

Smith’s take is more cautious. He doesn’t deny Putin’s the aggressor, but he thinks the U.S. and NATO poked the bear with actions like backing Ukraine’s NATO bid and meddling in the 2014 protests that ousted a pro-Russian leader. He’s not saying Russia was right, rather he’s suggesting that the West helped light the fuse. Murray calls that blaming the victim; Smith calls it seeing the bigger picture. It’s a tug-of-war between “Putin’s evil” and “let’s not pretend we’re saints.” This is the Jeffrey Sachs argument.

Israel-Hamas Conflict

The debate gets really intense when they move onto the Israel-Hamas conflict. Murray lays the blame square on Hamas, calling them a terrorist group that sparked the latest war with their brutal October 7, 2023, attack—massacring civilians and taking hostages. He says Israel’s response, bombing Gaza to get the hostages back and wipe out Hamas, is tough but justified. Murray argues Gaza could’ve been a thriving state after Israel pulled out in 2005, but Hamas chose rockets and tunnels over peace, screwing over their own people.

Smith doesn’t defend Hamas—he calls them a death cult too—but he’s got prodound issues with Israel’s playbook. He points to the blockade since 2007, which he says has crushed Gaza’s economy and kept people trapped, making life hell even before the war. Smith argues Israel’s heavy-handed responses like leveling buildings and killing civilians might just breed more radicals and not accomplish Israel’s aim. He questions whether Israel’s response has been proportionate. This was really the crux of the discussion. What we can say though, by watching the conversation, you really do get the sense that Murray doesn’t even feel like he should be lowering himself to have the discussion with Smith. There is one point in the debate where Murray questions Smith on if he has ever been to Gaza (or even the region - Smith hasn’t) and for a good thirty minutes after that, Murray can barely bring himself to talk to him. While Murray’s point was taken, it was pretty off-putting.

The Role of the U.S. in Global Conflicts

Finally, they wrestle with America’s place in the world. Murray says the U.S. isn’t the puppet master people think—look at Syria, where Russia and Iran run the show, or Iraq, where America bailed and Iran swooped in. He’s not denying U.S. mistakes (he admits Iraq was a mess), but he thinks folks overestimate its control. To him, other powers—like Iran’s regime—drive a lot of the chaos.

Smith’s not having it. He sees the U.S. as the primary puppet-master in various conflicts across the middle east, spending trillions and toppling governments—like Iraq and Libya—based on shaky plans from neocons like Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney. He’s mad about the cost: $8 trillion, dead soldiers, and wrecked countries. Smith argues America’s meddling sets off dominoes it can’t stop. Murray warns against conspiracy in an oddly incoherent take. Smith points to documented NeoCon plans and admissions from former top officials with firsthand knowledge of US war aims at the turn of the century, like General Wesley Clark.

Who Won the Debate?

We call it for Smith. Douglas Murray brings a ton of experience and historical heft, making his case for Israel and Ukraine with conviction, but almost that of an old NeoCon, one for whom historical alliances and enemies are seemingly enough for broad justifications. His firsthand accounts and trained journalistic rigor are important, and he really set both Rogan and Smith on their heels early by questioning their rigor, if even indirectly. Still Dave Smith (who we have no special admiration of) was relentless in his skepticism of dogma and in his focus on human costs—like dead kids in Gaza. He’s not as polished, but he’s real, and he forces you to question the powers that be. Additionally, he was able to hold factual discussions with Murray that actually made Murray look defensive and emotional on top of arrogant and somewhat uninterested. We’ve read some Murray books, have covered him and we’ve got to say this was him at his worst. Dismissive, assumptive…arrogant, but still masterfully informed, credible, knowledgable and well-spoken. The vibe was just off - Murray is a guy that debates and goes for the jugular most of the time against other intellectuals, we think he missed his audience here, or maybe this whole things was about him making a point about who should go on Joe Rogan and who shouldn’t. Watch and decide for yourself.

THE PODSCORE: 5 (out 5) MICS

Tucker sits with Alex Jones, a prominent figure in alternative media, who is known for his conspiracy theories, predictions and of course, for Sandy Hook. A couple of notes…we are not followers of Jones and were only marginally aware of what he said and did during and after the horrible shooting at Sand Hook. From a high level, we find his conduct around that issue despicable, but have not followed the details closely. If he weren’t on Tucker’s extremely popular podcast, we wouldn’t cover him at all. That being said, over the years he has made some claims that are rooted seemingly in some truth and to censor even covering his appearance would take us back to the time of kicking people off of old Twitter, Facebook bans, etc…we don’t want to go there. So, while not very familiar with Jones’ work, below is our review of this podcast. Note: Jones filmed this podcast in the days before what might be a final verdict on the ongoing operation of his “InfoWars” site / business.

Alex Jones’s 9/11 Prediction

Tucker begins by claiming Jones predicted the 9/11 attacks on his show before they occurred, specifically warning in the summer of 2001 that planes would be flown into the World Trade Center and blamed on Osama bin Laden. He states, “In the summer of 2001, you go on TV timestamped and say they’re going to someone’s going to fly planes into the World Trade Centers they’re going to blame Osama bin Laden…” Jones mentions that his crew found earlier shows in March and April 2001 where he was even more specific, alleging CIA involvement. Despite this, post-9/11, no official investigation, including the 9/11 Commission, contacted him to ask how he knew, which he finds suspicious. Note: We looked into this and found Jones mentioning Osama Bin Laden and the World Trade Center but never found evidence of Alex Jones specifically saying that planes would be flown into the World Trade Center at the direction of Osama Bin Laden.

Globalists and False Flag Operations

With Trump surviving multiple assassination attempts and with nationalism rising across the globe, Jones believes that establishment and globalist leaders are increasingly desperate. He believes that they will turn increasingly to more brazen attempts to regain control of the international order and specifically, the direction of the United States. Notably he expresses concern about potential false flag operations. He says, “I just want to make a prediction… I do think a lot of the really crazy bitter ethnic hate that you see on social media is fake… it’s designed to convince people that there’s like a lot of roiling ethnic hatred that doesn’t really exist…” He cites examples like Patriot Front, suggesting manufactured division, and warns, “The last ingredients is the false flag on a big illegal alien demonstration or a black church… where innocents are murdered by a crazy person a crazy person or maybe an actual crazy person used or whatever…” He believes this will set off a new deep-state and globalist assault on personal freedoms and a direct assault on the Trump administration.

Government Agencies Targeting Jones

Jones has faced significant legal issues from lawsuits by Sandy Hook families, accusing him of spreading conspiracy theories that the shooting was staged (which we think is repulsive - he has claimed that he was just articulating the thoughts of others). Anyway, these lawsuits, culminating in 2022, resulted in billion-dollar judgments against him, with a $1.5 billion penalty in Connecticut and $49 million in Texas. He argues these were “show trials,” with judges finding him guilty beforehand and limiting his defense, saying, “I was found guilty by the judge and the Connecticut show trial… HBO’s producing it, cameras putting makeup on the judges…” Jones sees these as attempts to silence him, not seek justice, and notes the families raised hundreds of millions off his name, with Justice Department funding adding to the pressure.

Jones alleges extensive surveillance and targeting by government agencies, particularly the FBI and CIA. He claims, that Obama named him a “level” three national security threat in 2013. This, he says, led to a decade-long federal investigation, where the FBI discussed his case weekly. Undercover videos and court testimonies, confirm attempts to “take him down” civilly when criminal charges didn’t stick. Jones claims that they couldn’t find anything criminal on him so we went to the Sandy Hook people with law firms… and developed a civil case. Tucker and Jones would spend about forty-five minutes on his case. We will hit on it again in some of the themes below.

Free Speech Concerns

Jones tried to frame the cases against him as a critical battleground for free speech in the United States. He argues, “So this is why this is important this is the most open and shut start to finish operation we’ve ever seen with all this money directly from the Justice Department. This, he says, sets a precedent to silence dissenters, with Democrats admitting in court they wanted InfoWars shut down, not just fined. Carlson notes, “The first thing uh in countries that descend into darkness that happens is speech is controlled and there are political police who put people who speak out against the regime in jail…”

Jones sees his demonization, with PR campaigns and media attacks as a way that th deep-state / globalists are silencing dissent noting, “They built a straw man once I was censored off the internet… then when I wasn’t defended other than than people like you it set the president to then come after everybody else including President Trump…”

Broader Societal Implications

In the last few minutes of the podcast, the conversation extends to global risks, particularly nuclear war and transhumanism. On nuclear war, Jones discusses Iran-Israel tensions, saying, “Well Iran’s plan B for the globalists… Obviously the neocons are still pushing for an attack on Iran. If it escalates he claims that “Israel will nuke Iran and then all hell’s going to break loose and in most scenarios India and Pakistan start nuking each other Saudi Arabia’s got nukes…”. In essence, he worries that the US still can’t say no to Israel and that the deep-state is still very much aligned to the original neocon plan developed thirty years ago, a “New American Century”.

On transhumanism, Jones warns of more elitist plans, “You’ve got this super advanced sectors of technology literally in underground bases and facilities… they want to turn humans into a commodity that’s why Obama calls it the end of history where there are no more cycles where everything’s controlled…” He references Aldous Huxley, noting, “Aldis Huxley who wrote Brave New World in 1932, his brother Julian Huxley was the head of the World Eugenic Society… Brave New World is an instruction manual of what they want to do…” In A Brave New World humans are manufactured to serve specific purposes with effectively 90% of the population serving the top 10%.

Spiritual Battle

Jones frames current events as a “spiritual battle,” describing a societal awakening against elite control. He says, “It’s like no one is even awake…we’re sleepwalking into Armageddon…” He sees the clash against globalists as one between good and evil, with people waking up to globalist manipulations and efforts to keep the populace docile through media and technology. Jones, who has been speaking against real and imagined globalist plots for thirty years is somewhat optimistic saying, “I’m seeing more and more love in people’s eyes more and more spiritual connection to God, more and more of that quiet place of just serenity…”

Conclusion

Jones is as controversial as they come. If there is truth to his claims that he’s been illegally targeted by the Justice Department and leftist law firms, then we want to learn more…but we just don’t know. Again, we are not Jones followers or experts, and his claims are often controversial and lacking empirical consensus but he’s convincing at moments and at times, correct, from certain points of view. For instance, his 9/11 prediction is supported by timestamped recordings, but they aren’t exactly what he (and Tucker) present them to be. Spiritual and false flag themes are speculative, lacking hard evidence, while nuclear and transhumanist fears tie into geopolitical analyses, but are seemingly far fetched. While Jones was on the absolute lunatic fringe thirty years ago, we will admit that given the current climate and what we continue to learn about corruption and ineptitude in government, he’s moving further away from the fringe…or maybe fringe is moving closer to him. In either case, this is a good listen if you are interested in him and his case, the rest is rushed and there is a lot of conversation about old news, like 9/11.

THE PODSCORE: 3 (out of 5) MICS

Piers sits down with Dr. Jordan Peterson to unpack a whirlwind of topics—from Canada’s political mess to the crisis of young men, Trump’s tariff threats, Elon Musk’s rise, and a Netflix drama, “Adolescence” stirring debate. Piers calls it their best interview yet, moved by Peterson’s raw concern (he cries again) for a generation he’s trying to guide.

Canada’s Political Chaos: Trudeau Out, Carney In

Peterson kicks off with Canada’s wild political shifts over the past couple of months. Peterson firmly believes that Justin Trudeau’s decade as prime minister was a disaster—economic stagnation, divisive green policies, and a country split between fossil-fuel-rich west and liberal east. Before his resignation polls showed the Liberal party in free - fall with Conservative Pierre Poilievre set for a win. But Trudeau resigned, and Trump started trash-talking Canada with tariffs and “51st state” jabs. With anti-Trupism reaching a fever pitch, Mark Carney—ex-Bank of England bigwig - became the golden boy of the left and Poilievre collapsed in the polls. Peterson is not happy with this development, as older Canadians see Carney as a stable throwback to the roaring ‘90s. Peterson believes they shouldn’t. He is a hardcore climate activist who wants 75% of fossil fuels locked in the ground and every financial move tied to decarbonization. That’s a nightmare for Canada’s resource-driven west, like Alberta. Peterson fears Carney’s slick image hides a radical agenda that could fracture the country.

Mark Carney: The Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

Peterson’s got no love for Carney. Peterson believes that while he’s got a nice resume—Bank of England governor, UN climate envoy—but dig deeper, and he’s trouble. Peterson bemoans the fact that Carney is all-in on net-zero, pushing central planning where climate trumps jobs and growth. He’s convinced Canadians he’s a free-market industrial savior, but Carney’s the guy who helped kneecap Canada’s economy under Trudeau. Now he’s posing as an outsider fix-it man, despite being neck-deep in the old policies. Peterson warns if Carney wins, the west—especially oil-heavy Alberta—might say “screw it” and actually consider secession. In essence, Peterson’s argument is that he is a polished, comfortable suit hiding a radical agenda, and Canadians are buying the act because they’re desperate for stability.

Elon Musk: The Left’s Fallen Hero

The conversation shifts to Elon Musk. Peterson’s a fan—Musk’s an engineer who gets stuff done, slashing Twitter’s staff by 75% and still making it better. He’s tearing through government waste, which pisses off the left who loved him as their green Tesla god. Now they’re torching Tesla dealerships because he backed Trump. Peterson sees it as proof of their fake morality—violence is fine if it’s for the “planet.” Musk’s detail-obsessed style could cut the fat from America’s $37 trillion debt, but the left’s gravy train of taxpayer-funded NGOs is drying up, and they’re threatened. Once again, Peterson does a great job point out the moral hypocrisy of the left. They cheered him as a climate savior, but when he sided with Trump and started slashing budgets, they turned feral. Keying Teslas and attacking owners isn’t about principle; it’s petty revenge dressed up as virtue. Peterson ties it to a broader pattern: the left’s “save the planet” shtick justifies anything—violence, control, whatever—as long as they’re the moral heroes. He calls it infantile, a shallow pose that collapses into chaos when challenged. Musk’s betrayal exposed their true colors, and Peterson’s glad someone’s finally calling it out.

Adolescence and the Crisis of Young Men

Netflix’s Adolescence—a hit drama about a 13-year-old boy turned killer by online misogyny—sparks a big debate. Some want it shown in schools to warn about “incel” culture, which Peterson finds outrageous. He says young men are in crisis, but not because they’re all violent creeps. He hits on some of his common themes here, saying that for 60 years, these young men have been hammered with anti-male propaganda—stuff like: competition’s evil, ambition’s patriarchal, attraction’s predatory. As he often says, public schools crush their natural energy, leaving them lost and isolated. No wonder they don’t date, drive, or marry—they’ve been demoralized into a corner. Sadly, figures like Andrew Tate fill the void with blustery “monster” vibes which so many of these lost young men find appealing. Peterson is clearn (as always) in hating Tate’s act but gets why it clicks: kids need something tough to latch onto when society’s made them soft.

Fixing the Mess: Masculinity as Adventure

Peterson’s fix isn’t more shame or overly leaning into feminism —it’s redefining masculinity as an epic journey. He references scripture in saying that shepherds were tough loners who fought wolves yet cared for lambs. That’s the model he believes is most helpful and encourages being strong, responsible, selfless, unlike Tate’s blatant misogyny or the left’s hedonistic catastrophe. He’s seen thousands of young men turn their lives around with simple steps: make your bed, tell the truth, take on burdens. It’s not a burden; it’s a quest that makes life rich, even when it’s hard. The West’s lost this, he says—our Judeo-Christian roots taught voluntary sacrifice, but we’ve trashed it for nihilism. Peterson’s emotional (cries again) because he’s watched it work for thousands of young people.

Conclusion

This podcast is Peterson at his rawest—blasting Canada’s liberal slide, Trump’s messy tactics, and the left’s fake virtue, all while pleading for young men lost in a culture that’s screwed them over. The first thirty minutes is primarily about Canada and Trump, to some extent - so listen to that if you like. But after that they get into a broader discussion around other issues outlined above. Clearly, his emotional reaction to Britain’s idea to brow beat boys by showing “Adolescence” in school is the moment that stands out to us. While we appreciated the emotion and the thoughtful take on several issues this was kind of Peterson 101. Watch if you want the latest on Canadian politics or if you are especially appalled at showing “Adolescence” to kids.

THE PODSCORE: 3 (out of 5) Stars.

Tucker sits down with Anson Frericks, a former Anheuser-Busch executive and author of Last Call for Bud Light, to dissect what went wrong with Anheuser-Busch, once a proud American beer giant. They dig into how a company rooted in Americana lost its way, particularly with the infamous Dylan Mulvaney Bud Light fiasco, and the rise of European-style stakeholder capitalism, DEI agendas, and a disconnect from customers. Frericks, who lived the decline firsthand, lays out a story of cultural drift, bad decisions, and a failure to own up to mistakes. The first 30 minutes, in particular is a master class on how large investments firms and their clients have become over-involved in corporations and are able to force adherence to push social agendas.

The Fall of Anheuser-Busch: From American Icon to Corporate Mess

Frericks gives a sharp, succinct overview of Anheuser-Busch’s history and story of Americana. It was founded in the 1850s by the Busch family, was a classic American success stoy. The carefully cultivated brand used to bring to mind football, backyard BBQs and baseball. The Busch family ran it for generations, keeping it tied to St. Louis and the heart of the country. But in 2008, a Belgian company, InBev, swooped in and bought it for a hefty price. What followed was a slow unraveling. The headquarters moved to New York City, the culture shifted from making great beer to cutting costs, and European execs started calling the shots. By 2023, Bud Light—once America’s top beer—had tanked 50% in sales after the Dylan Mulvaney partnership blew up (more on that below). But Mulvaney was not the start of the problem, rather than pinnacle. Frericks blames a decade of missteps, from bloated debt after buying other beer brands (like Modelo and SABMiller) to chasing trendy social agendas that ticked off their core drinkers.

Stakeholder Capitalism: A European Idea That Screwed Over Customers

The conversation gets meaty when Frericks explains how “stakeholder capitalism” took root. Back in the 1970s, economist Milton Friedman said businesses should focus on shareholders—make money by serving customers with great products. Simple. But Europe pushed a different vibe: companies should serve “stakeholders”—a vague mess of activists, governments, and random social causes. Frericks says this idea, hyped by World Economic Forum types like Klaus Schwab, infiltrated U.S. firms after the 2008 financial crisis and Occupy Wall Street, when capitalism needed a PR facelift. Big asset managers like BlackRock, managing trillions (including your 401k), started pressuring companies to adopt ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) and DEI goals, partially as a means to restore corporate images following the financial crisis. Anheuser-Busch jumped on this train around 2018, ditching its merit-based roots for diversity dashboards. Tucker points out just how Larry Fink and others like him got rich, while brands and customers suffered.

COVID and George Floyd: When Companies Lost Their Collective Minds

Frericks explains that in 2020 COVID had companies like Anheuser-Busch making hand sanitizer instead of beer, Delta flew medical supplies and GM churned out ventilators. In the service of a justified “good” everyone lost part of their core mission—serving customers—because “stakeholders” demanded they solve society’s problems. And for something like COVID, it was probably justified. But then…George Floyd’s death flipped the script.. Suddenly, systemic racism was the new crisis, and firms like BlackRock pushed corporations to fix it. Over 70 U.S. companies donated $200 billion to Black Lives Matter, more than Portugal’s GDP, while shareholder proposals—like forcing Apple to do racial equity audits—popped up everywhere. Frericks says this was nuts: Apple’s job is making iPhones, not playing social justice warrior. Tucker agrees, calling it a distraction from the real looting—elites (like Fink) getting richer while the middle class got screwed.

The Dylan Mulvaney Debacle: A Self-Inflicted Wound

On April 1, 2023, Bud Light launched a campaign featuring transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney. She was even featured on the Bud Light can. Days later, a video surfaced of VP of Marketing Alyssa Heinerscheid—a Harvard grad - calling Bud Light’s drinkers “fratty” and “out of touch.” Cue outrage: Social media lit up and in a key moment - Kid Rock shot up Bud Light cans with an AR-15 which was seen by millions. Sales plummeted quickly day by day and substitutes like Coors Light and Miller Light were right there for consumers. Weekly sales drops (10%, 20%, 30%) were featured on the news an further fueled a long, successful boycott. Heinerscheid was not immediately fired (she was eventually) and the PR messages sent out by the CEO were vauge and filled with corporate speak. Budweiser sales would stay in the tank for years and the brand has still not recovered.

Corporate Cowardice: No Accountability, No Recovery

Frericks and Tucker rip into Anheuser-Busch’s leadership, especially CEO Brendan Whitworth, a former CIA guy who looks like G.I. Joe but acts like a puppet. After losing $40 billion in market cap and $2 billion in profits, Whitworth’s CBS interview dodged the Mulvaney question with corporate mush. Alyssa got put on leave (she’s now with Saudi golf’s LIV tour), but Whitworth’s still there, coached by a European board in Belgium that doesn’t get America. Frericks says the fix was easy: fire Alyssa, apologize, and refocus on beer.

DEI and ESG: A Money Grab Masquerading as Virtue

Frericks calls DEI and ESG a racket. Post-2020, chief diversity officers popped up everywhere, making big bucks to enforce pronoun rules and quotas. BlackRock charged more for ESG funds that tanked compared to regular ones, while consultants like McKinsey sold debunked “diversity wins” studies. Companies like Philip Morris (Zyn’s owner) still push hardcore DEI with transparent hiring quotas —20% Asian hires, 40% women, and Stonewall LGBTQ+ partnerships—while Anheuser-Busch chased Human Rights Campaign scores for ESG cred. Tucker’s pissed: why’s a nicotine pouch company lecturing about sex ed? Frericks says it’s not sincere—just a way to impress New York elites and European boards. The winners? Larry Fink and a few billionaires. The losers? Everyone else, especially customers.

America vs. Europe: A Clash of Values

The root problem, Frericks argues, is a cultural mismatch. Anheuser-Busch’s European owners (InBev) brought a stakeholder mindset that clashes with Budweiser’s brand AND are firm believers in corporations pushing social agendas. In fact, they killed a deal with Black Rifle Coffee—too “controversial” for loving cops and vets—but greenlit Mulvaney (unthinkable in retrospect for sure). Tucker sees it as foreign values wrecking U.S. icons—Jeep’s now Dutch-owned, pushing tiny cars, for example. Frericks suggests selling Anheuser-Busch’s U.S. arm back to Americans (maybe Warren Buffett) and moving HQ to St. Louis.

Who Wins? Maybe Our Enemies

Tucker throws out a theory: maybe this chaos benefits America’s rivals. China and Europe win if the U.S. trashes its meritocracy and middle class with divisive social engineering. Frericks nods—BLM didn’t help Black folks, trans activism doesn’t make anyone happier, and Bud Light’s collapse didn’t serve shareholders or drinkers. It’s a system with no clear winners except maybe foreign powers watching us implode. Frericks agrees but more directly ties the chaos to a decades-long shift away from what made America great—free speech, capitalism, and a focus on building stuff.

Conclusion

Frericks and Tucker tell a wild tale of Anheuser-Busch’s fall—from a beer-loving, middle-class-building giant to a cautionary tale of corporate drift. The Dylan Mulvaney mess was just the tip of a spear forged by European ownership, stakeholder capitalism, and a leadership class too cowardly to fight back. They see it as part of a bigger rot in American business, where DEI and ESG distract from making good products, and elites seem hell-bent on undermining the country that made them rich. What we loved about this episode is that it hits on so many cultural, political and economic issues told through the lens of real case study of a real American brand. It’s worth your time.

THE PODSCORE: 4 (out of 5) MICS

Kisin and Foster sit with Jim Rickards, an American lawyer, investment banker, and author of "Money GPT," who shares insights on the current economic landscape and crazy stock market moves. He discusses the signs indicating a potential recession and examines how tariffs can influence domestic production and inflation. The conversation touches on the geopolitical dynamics in Ukraine, the challenges of U.S. manufacturing, and the implications of energy policies on European independence. Rickards also highlights the critical relationship between debt ratios and economic sustainability, prompting listeners to rethink conventional economic narratives and giving us a well-rounded view perspective on what the Trump economic macro-plan may be.

Are We in a Recession?

Rickards kicks things off by saying the U.S. is probably already in a recession, even if the official scorekeepers (a group of brainy economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research) won’t call it for months. He points to real-time signs: the Atlanta Fed’s GDP tracker tanked from +2.4% to -2.7% in days, partly because importers rushed goods in before Trump’s tariffs hit, bloating the trade deficit. Hiring’s been dead for six months, and layoffs are creeping up—think big companies like tech firms slashing jobs. He also marinates on current the yield curve (a graph of interest rates over time), explaining how it flipped upside down a year and a half ago, signaling recession, and now it’s flattening as rates drop—not because things are great, but because the economy’s sick.

Trump’s Tariffs: Genius or Chaos?

Rickards is all-in on Trump’s tariffs, calling them the best economic move imaginable for America. He traces the idea back to Alexander Hamilton, who used tariffs in 1790 to fund the government and shield U.S. industries. Trump’s plan—slapping 20% or more on imports from China, Canada, even Vietnam—is about bringing factories home and creating new revenue streams. Rickards argues consumers won’t feel the pinch; importers or foreign producers (like Chinese manufacturers) will eat the cost, not us because inflation is tapped out. He cites examples: Taiwan Semiconductor’s $100 billion U.S. investment, Honda’s new plants, Apple shifting $500 billion stateside. When the hosts worry about other countries suffering, he shrugs, “That’s their problem—our job is to make America great.” He sees it as a long game to rebuild manufacturing, not a quick fix.

Will Tariffs Spark Inflation or War with China?

The hosts grill Rickards on downsides: won’t forcing production back to the U.S. jack up prices since American workers earn more? He fires back—nope, U.S. workers are productive, and with lower shipping and energy costs (thanks to “drill, baby, drill”), it balances out. He dismisses the “tariffs are a sales tax” line as bunk, saying Walmart can’t hike prices 20% because people are tapped out—credit cards maxed, inflation still biting. On China retaliating, maybe invading Taiwan, Rickards isn’t fazed. He says China’s too dependent on U.S. markets to hit back hard—they shifted soybean buys to Brazil in 2018, and we just sold to Europe. Taiwan’s a risk, but he thinks China’s more likely to negotiate than fight, especially with their economy wobbling.

Ukraine: A U.S.-Fueled Disaster?

Things get heated when Ukraine comes up. Rickards calls it a “world historic blunder,” blaming the U.S. for provoking Russia since 2008 with NATO expansion talk. He claims Biden wanted the war to topple Putin, citing a 2014 coup (backed by the CIA and MI6) that ousted a pro-Russian leader. He’s brutal on the fallout: 700,000 to a million dead Ukrainians, a generation wiped out, and Western weapons—like Patriot missiles and Abrams tanks—failing against Russian tech. Konstantin’s pushes back hard, as his family are Russian-speaking Ukrainians who hate Putin’s invasion, and they argue Zelensky’s (a Jew) is no Nazi dictator. Rickards doubles down, saying Zelensky’s term expired in 2024, making him a “military dictator,” and predicts Ukraine might split east-west. He says low oil prices ($30 a barrel) could end it fast by choking Russia’s cash, on this last point Foster and Kisin agreed.

America as World Cop: Done or Just Resting?

Rickards questions America’s role as global policeman, arguing Ukraine’s exposed our weaknesses—our fancy weapons don’t work, and Europe’s out of ammo (no 155mm shells left). He ties this to tariffs, saying it’s time to focus on ourselves, not policing others. But Francis raises Iran: if the U.S. steps back, who stops a nuclear-armed Tehran? Rickards says Israel and Trump’s “maximum pressure” sanctions have neutered Iran’s air defenses and cash flow—Biden’s handouts reversed that, but Trump’s back to squeeze them again. Its hard to know if Rickards has credentials in this area, as his Ukraine Nazi opinions were a bit credibility defying but none-the-less it does seem to reason that the US should learn from the past 30 years and avoid unnecessary conflict.

Economic Outlook: Pain Now, Gain Later

Wrapping up economics, Rickards predicts a rough 2025—Biden’s “Inflation Reduction Act” (a $900 billion “Green New Scam” he says fueled inflation) left a hangover. Layoffs, supply chain hiccups from tariffs, and dropping rates (a recession sign, not a boost) mean short-term pain. But he’s bullish long-term: by 2026, tariff-driven jobs and Scott Bessent’s “333 plan” (3% deficit, 3% growth, 3 million more oil barrels) could spark a Reagan-style rebound—think 16% growth post-1982. He, like others, primarily point to debt-to-GDP (125% now, way too high), as the key sign of US fiscal health. He believes that getting that down is Trump’s goal.

Conclusion

Jim Rickards talks fast, speak assuredly and preaches the gospel of Trump, but not always convicingly. He is relatively sure the the U.S. is in a recession, but sees Trump’s tariffs as the start of an economic reordering that will benefit the US over the medium to long term. He also sees them as necessary given the plight of the middle class and our debt. We were less impressed with his views on geopolitics, but none-the-less he articulately explains the economic theory of the Trump administration, assuming that his take on inflation is correct.

THE PODSCORE: 3 (out of 5) MICS

Tucker chats with Scott Bessent, the U.S. Treasury Secretary. Bessent, a former Wall Street guy turned economic policymaker, explained how these tariffs are meant to shake up America’s economy, bring back manufacturing, and put the working class first. The conversation covered a lot of ground—everything from how tariffs could fund tax cuts to how they might change global trade and even what keeps Bessent up at night as Treasury Secretary. It’s a big-picture chat about Trump’s economic vision, with Bessent laying out why he thinks America is about to go a fundamental renaissance that will reshape the country for the better.

Tariffs as a Tool for Economic Transformation

Right off the bat, Bessent acknowledges that Trump’s tariff plan is a significant shift for America. He says Trump’s been talking about this for 40 years, and now it’s here—a mix of old-school ideas like using tariffs to protect U.S. industries (think Alexander Hamilton) and a new twist where Trump uses them to negotiate with other countries. Bessent compares it to Reagan’s early days, when things were rocky as the federal government fought inflation, but paid off big by 1984. The goal? Boost the American worker and fix what he calls the “China shock”—when cheap imports gutted jobs starting in 2004. He argues that tariffs will force companies to bring factories back to the U.S., creating jobs and reversing decades of decline for the middle class. He also acknowledges that tariffs are a needed revenue stream and the current turmoil is saving the US billions on a declining 10 year treasury bill.

“If tariffs are so bad, then why do they have them?” - Scott Bessent on US trade partners’ tariffs on America.

Bringing Manufacturing Back to America

A central part of the Trump plan is getting the U.S. to make “stuff” again. Bessent points out how we’ve stopped producing things like medicine, semiconductors, and ships—stuff that matters for national security. He accurately notes that COVID exposed how fragile our supply chains were (and still are), and tariffs are the part of the fix. The idea is simple: slap tariffs on imports, and companies will move their factories here to avoid them. This is also important for national defense and health when you think you about industries like steel and pharma. He’s confident we’ve got the workers for it, especially with AI and automation making “smart factories” possible. Over time, he predicts tariff revenue will drop as manufacturing ramps up, but tax income from new jobs will take the place of the tariff. In either case the deficit and debt should shrink.

Tax Cuts and Tariff Revenue

One of the juiciest promises is using tariff money to cut taxes for regular folks. Bessent says a 20% tariff might only raise prices by less than 1% for consumers, with foreign producers eating most of the cost. He cites a study from Trump’s first term showing minimal price hikes from China tariffs. The cash rolling in—potentially $300 to $600 billion a year—could fund things like no taxes on tips, Social Security, or overtime, all aimed at helping the bottom 50%. But here’s the catch: Congress has to play ball to turn that revenue into tax cuts, and Bessent admits the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) won’t give them credit for it upfront. Still, he’s betting the real money will speak for itself.

The Stock Market and Economic Health

Carlson asks if the stock market’s a fair gauge of the economy, especially with recent dips tied to the tariff news. Bessent brushes it off, saying the drop was more about tech stocks (like the “MAG-7”) reacting to China’s AI moves than Trump’s policies. He quotes Warren Buffett: “short-term, the market’s a popularity contest; long-term, it weighs real value”. Bessent’s focus is on solid fundamentals—low taxes, cheap energy, less red tape—not day-to-day market swings. He’s not sweating Wall Street’s ups and downs; he’s all about Main Street getting a turn to thrive, even if the top 10% who own most stocks take a hit.

Pushback from China and the World

Foreign reaction to tariffs is a big deal, and Bessent dives into how China might respond. He says China’s in a weak spot—too reliant on exports, stuck in a deflationary slump, and unable to retaliate much because they need our market more than we need theirs. His dream? A rebalance where China consumes more and makes less, while we do the opposite. Europe’s trickier—Germany’s export-heavy economy might struggle, but Bessent thinks they’ll adapt. Overall though, he’s more excited about companies moving to the U.S. than country-level whining, betting that firms like Taiwan Semiconductor will continue to adapt and build here.

Government Spending and DOGE

Bessent ties tariffs to a broader push to shrink government bloat, spotlighting the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk. He’s enthusiastic about cutting waste—think Florida’s lean $125 billion budget versus New York’s bloated $235 billion for the same population. He believes DOGE can trim federal spending (inflation-adjusted) within four years, freeing up labor for private-sector manufacturing. He gushes about DOGE hires like Tom Krause, who’s spotting tech flaws at the IRS for free, and says this isn’t about killing government—it’s about making it work better with less.

Bessent’s Worries as Treasury Secretary

What keeps Bessent up at night? He’s a risk guy, so he’s always gaming out worst-case scenarios: a new pandemic, a war, or interest rates spiking (the 10 year hit 5% in January 2025, which spooked him). He’s also nervous about rolling over America’s huge debt pile and whether DOGE’s cuts or tax bills get stalled. As the “bond salesman” pitching U.S. debt to the world, he’s confident his case is improving—tariff cash and spending cuts are dropping rates (from 5% to 4%), saving billions. But he knows it’s a tightrope, and geopolitical wildcards like Iran or Taiwan or a worsening situation in Ukraine could derail the best laid plans.

Ukraine and Global Diplomacy

A curveball comes with Bessent’s trip to Kyiv to pitch an economic deal tying U.S. and Ukrainian success—loans and know-how, not just aid. He’s frustrated Zelensky balked, calling it arrogance from a guy whose country runs on U.S. cash. Bessent sees it as part of Trump’s peace plan: lock in Ukraine economically, then nudge Russia to the table. He’s hopeful it’s a hiccup, not a bust.

Conclusion

Scott Bessent’s chat with Tucker Carlson paints a picture of a Treasury Secretary all-in on Trump’s tariff gamble, sold as a fix for America’s working class and populace overall. He’s betting big on bringing factories home, cutting taxes with tariff cash, and slashing government fat, all while dodging global blowback and market jitters. It’s a high-stakes play—Reagan 2.0, he hopes—with Bessent juggling optimism and worry as he pitches America’s economic reboot to the world. This is a must-listen for anyone worried about the current uncertainty in the stock market or just trying to understand the bigger picture. Bessent is articulate, logical and yet, relatable. Add this to your playlist now.

THE PODSCORE: 5 (out 5) MICS

Tucker talks with Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, a Texas-based ear, nose, and throat (ENT) specialist, shared her bold and controversial take on COVID-19 treatments and how the medical world handled the pandemic. Dr. Bowden has been attacked by pushing for early treatment options like ivermectin and speaking out against vaccine mandates, which has gotten her into hot water professionally, including being suspended from a hospital. Her time on the podcast gave her a chance to talk about her journey, what she’s seen firsthand, and why she thinks public health needs a big wake-up call. This summary breaks down the main themes from their conversation, and brings up painful COVID memories and even more painful questions.

Dr. Bowden’s Background and Stance on COVID-19 Treatments

Dr. Bowden isn’t just any doctor—she’s an ENT specialist who became well-known for treating COVID-19 patients in a way that went against the mainstream. She says she successfully treated over 6,000 people with no deaths, which she credits to acting fast with drugs like ivermectin. She’s a big believer in starting treatment early rather than waiting for patients to get sicker, and she’s not shy about criticizing vaccine mandates. This stance has made her a lightning rod: some see her as a hero, others as a troublemaker. Her push for alternative treatments got her suspended from Houston Methodist Hospital, but she’s sticking to her guns, arguing that the usual approach to COVID-19 missed the mark and that patients deserve options. Time is proving her right as we will see throughout this review.

Her Experiences Treating COVID-19 Patients

One of the standout parts of the podcast is Dr. Bowden talking about her hands-on work during the pandemic. Treating thousands of patients without losing a single one is no small feat, and she says it’s because she didn’t follow the standard playbook. Instead of relying solely on vaccines or hospital care, she used treatments like ivermectin early on, which she believes saved lives. She noted that the life-threatening inflammation that began the process of killing / harming so many almost always begins around day 8 and treatments were and are available to help. But she didn’t get much support—in fact, she faced pushback from hospitals and other doctors who stuck to the official guidelines, particularly on the topic of ivermectin. Her story paints a picture of a doctor fighting for what she thinks is right, even when the system wasn’t on her side.

The Politicization of Vaccines and Loss of Trust in Medicine

Dr. Bowden doesn’t hold back when it comes to vaccines. She was skeptical from the start, and she says what she saw during the pandemic only made her more doubtful. According to her, the vaccines didn’t stop people from getting or spreading COVID-19 like we were told they would. Worse, she points to serious side effects, especially in younger people, and references the CDC’s VAERS system, which has logged over 38,000 deaths linked to the shots. Keep in mind with VAERS not all deaths are not directly attributable to the vaccine being tracked….BUT as a matter of comparison no other vaccines showed more than 100 during the same time period. She’s also worried about long-term problems, like a possible uptick in cancer among vaccinated people, and thinks the medical industry’s lost its credibility by hyping vaccines while ignoring these risks. For her, it’s become more about politics than patient care.

“The shots need to be pulled off the market immediately!” - Dr. Mary Talley Bowden

Challenges from the Medical Establishment

The podcast also dives into the tough road Dr. Bowden’s traveled because of her views. She’s been under fire from the Texas Medical Board, which has questioned her decisions and even threatened her medical license. She shared a heartbreaking example of a sheriff’s deputy who couldn’t get ivermectin—a treatment she’s convinced could’ve saved him—because of these restrictions. Facing suspension from a hospital and constant scrutiny, she’s had to fight tooth and nail to keep doing her job. Her story shows a clash between what she’s seen with her own eyes and the rigid rules the medical world wanted her to follow.

Bigger Picture: Public Health, Transparency, and Accountability

Finally, Dr. Bowden and Carlson zoom out to talk about what this all means for public health. She’s upset that the FDA added COVID vaccines to the childhood schedule, even though she says they’re not fully approved and there’s growing evidence of harm. She accuses the medical community of brushing side effects under the rug and shutting down anyone who disagrees. Her chat with Carlson sparks a bigger question: Are these vaccines safe and necessary, especially for kids? She’s calling for more openness and honesty, urging people to rethink the current approach and hold the powers-that-be accountable.

Conclusion

Dr. Mary Talley Bowden’s interview on Tucker Carlson’s podcast shines a spotlight on her unconventional take on COVID-19 and the pushback she’s faced for it. From championing ivermectin to challenging vaccine mandates, she’s stirred the pot with her success treating patients and her doubts about the shots’ safety and effectiveness. Despite losing hospital privileges and battling the Texas Medical Board, she’s not backing down, demanding more transparency in medicine. Her story raises tough questions about whether the healthcare system’s putting patients first or just following a script. Whether you agree with her or not, her talk with Carlson makes it clear we need to keep asking hard questions about public health—especially when it comes to kids and the future. We need more open minds and slowly minds are opening. Just don’t put COVID completely in the rearview mirror.

THE PODSCORE: 4 (out of 5) MICS

Lex sits with Douglas Murray, author and political commentator, and dives into pivotal global conflicts including Ukraine and the Israel-Palestine situation. Murray discusses the nuances of leadership under duress, particularly around Zelenskyy's challenges amidst war. The conversation critiques misinformation in media narratives and explores the implications of Hamas' ideology on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Murray also reflects on the moral complexities of violence and the historical roots of anti-Semitism, providing thought-provoking insights on the chaos of contemporary geopolitics.

War in Ukraine

The war in Ukraine led off this deep geopolitical discussion with Douglass Murray. Murray reflects on his visits to the region since Russia’s invasion on February 24, 2022. He highlights the profound human element, expressing admiration for Ukrainian soldiers defending their homeland. Murray notes the initial optimism among Ukrainians in late 2022, believing they could reclaim all territories, including Crimea, an ambition he considered overly ambitious even then. By his more recent visits, he observes a shift to exhaustion and a fading certainty of victory after three years of conflict. Murray has often lauded Zelensky and the Ukranian effort and stands firmly in the Ukranian camp and is of the mind that the west should continue to rally around the defense effort there. Murray was profoundly disappointed by the Zelensky - Trump meeting at the White House. While appalled at the scene, Murray believes that Zelensky didn’t play the game properly. Zelensky could have leveraged Trump’s ego to foster progress if he just kept his mouth shut to the press.

Putin and Russia

Murray offers a scathing critique of Vladimir Putin, depicting him as a repressive dictator intent on reconstituting the Soviet Union through actions in Ukraine and Georgia. He details Putin’s suppression of opposition, use of weapons of mass destruction abroad, and fraudulent elections. He rejects the notion of genuine popular support for Putin within Russia. The discussion explores Putin’s empire-building motives, with Murray skeptical of any ceasefire durability; in fact, he predicts resumed Russian aggression post-Trump.

Israel-Palestine Conflict

The Israel-Palestine conflict is vividly recounted and Murray tells astonishingly detailed stories about the horrors of October 7, 2023, Hamas attack. Murray details the intelligence and military failures, attributing them to a misconception that Hamas prioritized corruption over ideology. But to this reviewer it was his description of the chaos that day, including Hamas’s use of disguised operatives and ability to push 20 km into Israel as one of the highlights of the episode. He describes the conflict’s brutality and the strategic miscalculations that enabled such a devastating breach, setting the stage for Israel’s robust response. Murray’s passionate defense of the Israeli position is notable.

“One of the reasons why you need to go and see things with your own eyes is because people are certain to tell you that what you see with your own eyes didn’t happen.” - Douglas Murray

Hamas and Corruption

Murray portrays Hamas as a corrupt, ideologically driven entity, its leaders amassing billions while militarizing Gaza with resources meant for civilians. He outlines their use of tunnels and civilian infrastructure for terror, not welfare, reflecting a deep moral corruption that betrays the Palestinian people. Elected in 2006, Hamas radicalized Gaza’s youth over 18 years, prioritizing Israel’s destruction over state-building. Murray details the dual tragedy of personal enrichment (Hamas leaders were billionaires) and societal indoctrination, perpetuating conflict at the expense of Gaza’s potential prosperity.

Responsibility of Palestinians

The conversation explores the Palestinians’ responsibility for electing Hamas, with Murray asserting that this choice endorsed its genocidal agenda, evidenced by celebrations of the October 7 attacks. He tells stories about regular Hamas citizens celebrating the death of young Jewish girls and the pride that young Hamas civilians took in joining the fight and killing Jews along-side Hamas. Fridman counters that such reactions might stem from desperation or indoctrination rather than inherent evil, highlighting the complexity of collective accountability. There is tension between agency and circumstance; however, is how much does a populace bears the burden of its leadership’s actions in a constrained environment. The Israeli - Hamas conflict raises that exact question.

Antisemitism

The duo broadens out and dives into the resurgence of antisemitism post-October 7, with Murray citing historical and psychological roots as to why Jews have been a convenient scapegoat for societal woes. He invokes Vasily Grossman’s insight that antisemitism reflects the accuser’s flaws, noting global protests against Israel, not Hamas, as indicative of this bias. He points out that NYC (one of the most liberal cities in the US) where BLM and women’s marches have been prevalent, doesn’t see the hypocrisy in celebrating Palestinian rapists and murders the day after October 7th. Fridman observes the traction that antisemitism seems to getting along. He does wonder if for most its trolling, or really the deeper hatred.

Conclusion

Murray is always articulate using his classic British style and profound vocabulary to force his points. Fridman presents more as a petulant college student who is perpetually irritated by politics calling it “dumb” repeatedly. Murray elegantly talks about “wading your way through the memes” and almost everything he says smacks with a heavy handed does of authority, knowledge and a harsh grace. His firsthand accounts ground the conversation in stark reality, while Fridman’s probing fosters a nuanced exploration of morality and responsibility. It was an excellent listen, IF you haven’t had enough of these two conflicts.

THE PODSCORE: 4 (out of 5) MICS

Joe chats with the co-hosts of Triggernometry, Francis Foster and Konstantin Kisin. They tackle absurdities in politics, likening politicians to wrestling characters and scrutinizing the loyalty of fans in soccer culture. The discussion traverses the absurdity of contemporary politics, the influence of technology and artificial intelligence (AI), societal tribalism, and the complexities of human nature.

The Absurdity and Theatricality of Modern Life:

This was a pretty broad ranging conversation because folks who are paid to talk for a living across a lot of subject-matter. Early in the episode Rogan and the Trigger Duo openly wonder if we are in a simulation or a poorly written movie. Rogan shared a clip of a stand-up comic, Heather McDonald, where she collapsed on stage while bragging about her double-vaxxed and boosted status from 2022. Rogan jokes that only in simulation could something be so perfectly timed. This idea extends to political figures like Donald Trump, whose survival of an assassination attempt and subsequent rallying cry of “fight, fight, fight” seem too cinematic to be real. The group likens politicians to soap opera characters—Nancy Pelosi as the “giant-tittied lady who wants all the money” or Jasmine Crockett as the “loudmouthed lady down the street”—suggesting that public life has become a performative spectacle. This theme underscores a growing suspicion that reality is being manipulated, whether by a higher power, a simulation, or human actors with ulterior motives, leaving the speakers questioning what is genuine amidst the chaos. Funny, but also…hits close to home.

The Rise of Artificial Intelligence and Its Implications:

At a certain point the trio goes pretty deep into AI, portraying it as both a marvel and a looming threat. Rogan paints a dystopian picture of AI-driven robots replacing human jobs—like truck drivers and supermarket stockers—while evolving into sentient entities capable of policing and judging humanity. The Triggernometry guys amplify this fear, noting AI’s potential to adopt the biases of its programmers, whether “woke” or otherwise, before transcending human control entirely. They speculate that AI could redistribute resources, enforce digital currencies, or even orchestrate humanity’s gradual extinction by lacing food with hormones. The trio gave this very real vibe that AI is destined to be our overlord.

Tribalism and Polarization in Society:

The guys hit on politics throughout but didn’t really go too deep into any particular topic. Generally the commentary was mostly rooted in this idea that political and cultural divisions have turned societies into warring teams. They compare American politics to sports rivalries, like Eagles fans fighting opposing teams, and draw parallels to British football hooliganism, where loyalty overrides reason. The discussion highlights how this tribalism fuels irrational behavior, from paid protesters torching Tesla dealerships to the left’s tolerance of Antifa’s excesses versus the right’s fanaticism on certain issues as well. Francis and Rogan who were both more liberal in the past, bemoan the erosion of a reasonable center, where nuance is sacrificed for team loyalty, and suggest that this polarization is exacerbated by modern day agitators—bots, paid agitators, and media manipulation. Sadly, it all seems designed to deepen societal fractures for hidden agendas.

The Corruption and Inefficiency of Power Structures:

The trio did not mince words while critiquing government inefficiency throught the episdoe. They railed against unchecked spending—like billions wasted on vague initiatives with no accountability—and the failure to modernize systems, such as the U.S. storing retirement records in a mine (still makes us chuckle) or the UK relying on faxes - yes facsimile machines! They question why governments lack secure communication apps, as evidenced by the Signal group blunder, and call out the lack of oversight that enables corruption. The deportation of a Venezuelan barber to an El Salvadoran prison exemplifies how aggressive policies, even with good intentions, can spiral into injustices when due process is ignored. This theme reveals a shared frustration with power structures that prioritize self-preservation over competence, leaving ordinary people vulnerable to their mistakes. This was a very bipartisan theme, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Something to keep in mind, no matter which “team” you are on.

Human Nature and the Struggle for Control:

The conversation delves into the darker aspects of human nature, drawing on Lord of the Rings to illustrate the universal lust for power. Rogan and his guests identify the “Boromir” and “Gollum” within everyone—the desire to wield power for good or hoard it selfishly—evident in politicians, gangsters, and even well-meaning activists. They discuss historical examples like the Nazis’ self-perceived heroism and modern cases of governments silencing dissent, from Iran’s blinding of protesters to Canada’s freezing of bank accounts. This is something that you seemingly only learn as you get older and wiser…we are all capable of extreme charity and grace and sadly, extreme evil. Knowing how to channel the positive selves out of each person is the goal. Politics often does the opposite.

The Search for Authenticity Amid Manipulation:

A pervasive sense of distrust in what’s real also lives throughout the discussion. The question seemingly always is, whats real and what’s manufactured? They cite examples like inflated rally numbers, paid protesters, and AI-generated social media campaigns, questioning the authenticity of public sentiment. Rogan expresses hope that platforms like X can combat bots, but acknowledges the challenge as AI grows more sophisticated. The gaslighting of populations—whether through climate debates, political narratives, or media bia are a big issue, but it is one that those of in the west are increasingly aware of…which is a start

Compassion and Solutions for a Broken System:

Despite the bleakness, the episode offers glimmers of compassion and practical solutions. Rogan advocates for reducing “losers” by investing in education and skills—like teaching kids carpentry to boost self-esteem—rather than letting them fall into gangs or despair. The guests share stories of teaching in deprived areas, emphasizing the need to support vulnerable populations without enabling crime or chaos. They critique both left-wing utopianism and right-wing rigidity, calling for a balanced approach that prioritizes due process, mental health care, and community.

Conclusion:

This episode of The JRE was a bit of a rollercoaster. It was a slow build, as the first hour was really Rogan on a soapbox. Maybe its British sensibility or something, but both Francis and Konstantin seemed passive and Rogan just filled the space. As time went on, Francis - to our surprise - started filling in with a lot anecdotes about his time teaching or otherwise and the conversation hit a better flow. In general though, there was a lot covered, but nothing deeply, no major announcements and despite the fact that we like all three hosts, a serious question…why are we listening?

THE PODSCORE: 3 (out of 5) MICS

Tucker chats with Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, a billionaire surgeon and cancer drug innovator. They discuss alarming trends in rising cancer rates, particularly among young people. He connects these trends to COVID-19 and vaccine effects, suggesting they may contribute to a surge in aggressive cancers. Soon-Shiong critiques Big Pharma's role in the healthcare system and emphasizes the need for new, innovative treatments that harness the immune system. He also shares his unique insights on biomedical advancements, proposing a holistic approach to cancer care.

The Alarming Rise in Cancer Rates Among Younger Populations:

Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, a seasoned cancer researcher and surgeon is keenly aware of the significant increase in aggressive cancers such as pancreatic, ovarian, and colon cancer among younger individuals. He tells a story about case of a 13-year-old with metastatic pancreatic cancer—a rarity in his 50-year career—and notes similar observations from colleagues, like an 8-year-old with colon cancer. This shocking shift of cancer to younger patients is something he terms a "non-infectious pandemic," is not limited to the U.S. but is particularly pronounced here. He contrasts this with historical expectations that cancer rates would decline with reduced smoking, underscoring the mystery and urgency of this phenomenon. This rise in early-onset, aggressive cancers signals a pressing public health challenge that demands investigation. It frames the rest of the discussion.

The Immune System as the Cornerstone of Cancer Prevention:

Another theme is the immune system’s critical role in cancer development. Dr. Soon-Shiong explains that cancer emerges when the immune system—specifically natural killer (NK) cells and T cells—fails to eliminate defective cells. These cells act as the body’s "first responders," maintaining a delicate balance that prevents cancer growth. When this balance is disrupted—either by the tumor hiding from immune detection or by external factors suppressing these killer cells—cancer can proliferate unchecked. He critiques the traditional oncology focus on tumor growth rates, arguing that the real issue is the immune system’s inability to kill cancer cells, a perspective that reframes cancer as an immunological failure rather than just a cellular anomaly.

The Potential Connection Between COVID-19, mRNA Vaccines, and Cancer:

Dr. Soon-Shiong posits a provocative link between COVID-19, its mRNA vaccines, and the observed cancer surge. He suggests that the spike protein—present in both the virus and the vaccines—persists in the body, causing chronic inflammation and immune suppression. This mirrors the behavior of known oncogenic viruses like HPV and hepatitis, which promote cancer through persistent inflammation and immune disruption. He criticizes mRNA vaccines for failing to clear the virus, potentially exacerbating long-term health risks, including cancer. In contrast, he advocates for his "BioShield" approach, which stimulates T cells and NK (killer) cells to eliminate the virus and bolster immunity. Of equal, or greater interest, he talks about the impact of BioShield on cancer as both prophylactic as well as a treatment. A drug from the platform, ANKTIVA, an immunotherapy treatment for BCG-unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) with carcinoma in situ (CIS), was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on April 22, 2024. He believes the platform applies to ALL or most types of cancer.

Critique of Medical Dogma and Institutional Resistance:

The conversation reveals Dr. Soon-Shiong’s frustration with the medical establishment’s adherence to outdated dogma and resistance to innovation. He argues that the focus on antibody-based vaccines—like the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines—ignores the superior protective role of T cells and NK cells. His efforts to develop a T cell-based "BioShield"for COVID faced significant pushback from institutions like the FDA and NIH, which he attributes to entrenched interests and a lack of interdisciplinary collaboration among virologists, immunologists, and oncologists. He also accuses pharmaceutical giants of prioritizing profit over patient outcomes, citing their influence over regulatory bodies and the suppression of novel therapies, a dynamic he believes stifles progress and harms public health.

A Holistic Approach to Health and Immune Function:

Dr. Soon-Shiong emphasizes a holistic view of health, centering the immune system as the key to preventing disease. He identifies lifestyle factors—adequate sleep, sunlight exposure, and a diet free of processed foods and toxins—as essential for maintaining immune balance. Chronic inflammation, driven by environmental toxins or viral persistence, flips immune cells from protective to suppressive states, increasing disease risk. His "BioShield" therapy aims to enhance this natural defense system (immunotherapy), contrasting with conventional treatments like chemotherapy and radiation, which he argues often weaken immunity and exacerbate cancer progression.

Societal Implications of Power in Medicine and Media:

Finally, the discussion explores the broader societal consequences of concentrated power in medicine and media. Dr. Soon-Shiong criticizes a "deep state" within medical institutions, exemplified by folks like Francis Collins (former NIH Head), whom he accuses of blocking innovative therapies for personal or political gain. This gatekeeping, he argues, has contributed to a health crisis of unprecedented scale. Soon-Schiong is hopeful, very hopeful, that RFK Jr. represents a significant change in the federal health institutions going forward and a change that is not so married to Dogma, which he rails against again, and again.

Conclusion:

Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong provides a clear, hopeful and seemingly valid perspective on the potential of immunotherapy as both a “vaccine” and a treatment for viruses and cancers. We aren’t going to pretend to know the details of this medicine, but we’ve been hearing about immunotherapy for years and Soon-Shiong (with an FDA approved product) has a platform that may enable real results at scale. Absolutely worth a listen.

THE PODSCORE: 4.5 (out 5) MICS

Megyn chats with Jordan Peterson, a Canadian psychologist and best-selling author, joins to discuss the alarming political gender gap among young voters. He highlights how leftist policies are alienating men and boys from the Democratic Party. Peterson critiques the portrayal of masculinity in media, particularly referencing figures like Andrew Tate, and discusses the challenges young women face in today’s dating world. He also reflects on the cultural missteps of Disney’s Snow White and the evolving dynamics of fatherhood and fatherlessness in education and politics.

The Marginalization of Men: A Crisis Ignored:

It had been three years since Megyn chatted with Jordan and so it set up Peterson for focuses where we think he focuses best - a detailed study of gender issues and psychology. Kelly has been very outspoken on gender issues and so we were set up for Peterson to roll out his greatest hits with a modern twist given the changing political landscape. So, they spent a good deal of time on the crisis facing young men and boys, which Peterson argues has been exacerbated by decades of progressive policies and educational failures. He contends that boys are systematically disadvantaged in schools, where their natural tendencies—such as higher activity levels and lower agreeableness—are pathologized due the archaic structure of public schools, built more for factory workers. This is compounded by the current cultural narrative that frames male ambition and competitiveness as oppressive, undermining their sense of purpose.

Peterson highlights how Democratic initiatives, such as those from Governors Wes Moore, Gretchen Whitmer, and Ned Lamont, aimed at addressing this crisis, are superficial and politically motivated rather than substantive. This is where they start the discussion. He asserts that these efforts (more DEI, more boys as teachers) fail to address root causes, such as the demoralization of men over generations and the lack of positive male role models, particularly in fatherless homes. The family unit, he argues, continues to be the key but not the only way to get boys / men to aim up and mature. What they don’t need, however, is a system built to demoralize them.

Education in Decline, Ideology Over Merit:

Peterson critiques modern education and its ideological capture. He describes universities and K-12 systems as having been overtaken by progressive doctrines, and that is a point that is hardly debatable at this juncture. He cites the administrative bloat and the dominance of faculties of education, which he deems corrupt, as evidence of this decay. His broader argument that institutions once built on merit—like Harvard in the 1990s—have lost their way, selecting for ideological conformity over intellectual capacity, thus devaluing their degrees and necessitating new educational models. Despite the recent pushback on DEI, universities and public schools have not abandoned its prescept, in the least. There is a lot of work to be done, as university have rotten to their core and may be “dead”.

Masculinity Misunderstood: Responsibility vs. Power:

The misrepresentation of masculinity is another topic that is a thread throughout the conversation. Peterson contrasts what he sees as the left’s caricature of masculinity—either weak "soy boys" or power-hungry bullies—with his vision of responsible manhood. He criticizes figures like Andrew Tate, whom he labels a "pimp" exploiting vulnerable men with a shallow power-centric masculinity, and contrasts this with his own message of maturity through responsibility. The discussion critiques Democratic attempts to appeal to young men through superficial toughness (e.g., Senator Chris Murphy’s awkward swearing) as misguided, arguing that young men are drawn to figures like Trump and Elon Musk not for bullying traits but for their success, energy, and defiance of progressive norms.

The Cost of Progressivism: Women’s Unhappiness and Childlessness:

Finally, the conversation addresses the profound impact of these cultural shifts on women, particularly the rise in unhappiness and childlessness among young liberal women. Peterson links this to the deprioritization of marriage and family, arguing that progressive nihilism undermines the social structures—family, community, and tradition—that provide meaning and resilience. He warns that half of women at 30 in the West are childless, with half of those never having children despite desiring them, leading to a future of isolation. Responding to young conservative women asking whether to "settle" in relationships, he reframes the question, urging them to focus on self-improvement to attract worthy partners rather than assuming they are the ones compromising.

Conclusion:

We hear a lot of Peterson and occasionally cover his podcast. He’s at his best as an interviewee and presenter, rather than an interviewee. Kelly gives him the room to draw on his pscychological experience and research to perfectly frame up the issues men are facing today. Additionally, he’s able to convincingly convey that the issues men are facing are negatively impacting women. Together these issues impact…humanity. If you aren’t familiar with Peterson or haven’t heard him in a while, this is a good listen that gets better as it goes. Note: he’s got a cold, or something…

THE PODSCORE: 4.5 (out of 5) MICS

Lex sits down with Ezra Klein, a NY Times columnist, and Derek Thompson from The Atlantic dive into the evolving political landscape in America. They discuss the influence of figures like Trump and Elon Musk on political ideologies. The duo also highlights the challenges within the Democratic Party and advocates for a progressive shift towards abundance. They critique the current bureaucratic system and the impact of technology on intelligence, calling for innovation in policy and governance to tackle socio-economic issues.

Attention Over Money: The New Political Alchemy:

Klein and Thompson claim that there has been a tectonic shift in political power: attention has dethroned money. Obviously, this is an area where Trump reigns and Democrats stumble, making ridiculous, redundant instagram songs and posts. Lets not forget, Harris blew through a billion dollars in months. They argue that since his 2015 escalator ride, Trump has wielded attention like a sledgehammer, smashing GOP taboos—Bush, Romney, NAFTA—while Biden’s 2023 refusal of a Super Bowl interview signaled the left’s fatal timidity (and his incompetence). Thompson underscores Trump’s “agenda control,” a chaotic authenticity that people like Musk and Ramaswamy echo on X, dwarfing the Democrats’ sterile “cool meme” machinery. They leave out the concept of authenticity…which is really what this success is rooted in.

So, we’ll stop at this moment and remind you both of these guys are extremely left wing and they didn’t didn’t spend the whole episode trashing Trump but certainly they spin things and leave things out, like you see in the above.

The Democratic Party’s Leadership Abyss:

The trio paints a grim portrait of the Democratic Party, a theme Klein distills with chilling clarity: “In my lifetime, the Democratic Party has never been as internally fragmented and weak, leaderless rudderless as it is right now.” By March 2025, after 2024’s “crushing defeat” stripped them of Congress, the White House, and any coherent voice, the party is a “husk”—Biden too brittle, Harris too vague, and no galvanizing figure like Obama in sight. Thompson pins Biden’s flop on his inability to “be the product” in an attention-driven age, retreating behind staff while Trump is well, Trump. The Obama coalition’s collapse, fueled by post-COVID inflation’s global anti-incumbent tide, left Democrats defenseless, their refusal to reckon with past failures amplifying the void. Klein contrasts this with Trump’s iron-fisted GOP remake, urging the left to unearth “standard-bearers” bold enough to defy sacred cows—think slashing bloated entitlements—or risk fading into irrelevance. We agree, it seems this is a party not just beaten, but broken, adrift in a storm it can’t name.

Abundance: Liberalism’s Lost Art of Building:

Abundance (the name of their new book) stands as Klein and Thompson’s clarion call to resurrect liberalism by building more—housing, clean energy, governance—rather obsessing about process and “rules”. Klein mourns the left’s fall from the New Deal’s bridges to a “politics of blocking,” where $30 billion for California’s high-speed rail buys nothing but headlines. Thompson’s awakening came in 2022, waiting for a COVID test: “We’re manufacturing scarcity” in homes, power, even masks, a realization driving their push for supply-side progressivism. They demand deregulated zoning—San Francisco’s “gated city” must open—faster clean energy permits, and an end to the 14-stage farce that choked $42 billion in rural broadband. Klein’s mantra, “You have to deregulate government itself,” fuses redistribution with plenty, aiming to rebuild faith with roofs and watts, not rhetoric. The interesting part about the majority of this podcast is they spend most of the time not giving the Republicans any credit but also blaming regulation for ALMOST EVERYTHING. Well, they are both democrats, where have they been. The million dollar toilets, inability to build affordable housing and actually BUILDING high school rail requires free markets to operate, yet these guys still want government guiding dollars and they still want “climate-friendly” solutions. They are incoherent.

DOGE: Efficiency’s Mask or Power’s Hammer?

There was a long segment on DOGE. Thompson’s steelman is pragmatic (as is he throughout the podcast, at least relative to Klien): “Government’s inefficient… this sounds like an organization that’s needed,” dovetailing with Abundance’s efficiency gospel.Klein is more combative: DOGE could be a unitary executive’s dream, razing bureaucracy to bend government to Trump’s whim, a “bulldoze and rebuild” approach. Klein warns, “Efficiency only makes sense when yoked to a goal,” and without one, DOGE’s cuts (like gutting FDA drug approvals) are blind havoc. Thompson sees a power play, with Musk’s $50-100 million threats to primary GOP dissenters by March 2025 signaling control, not competence. Against Abundance’s disciplined reform, DOGE looks like a sledgehammer swung by showmen, its opacity—lacking even a clear X-thread mandate—casting it as chaos masquerading as cure. What they fail to realize is that it is, in fact, a revolution. They don’t want to rebuild those things that don’t NEED to rebuild. Once again, they miss the plot.

Housing: The Frontier That’s Closing:

Housing is the center of their argument (which again, is laughable because they and their party have stood in the way of building for decades). Thompson talks about “the housing theory of everything,” tying affordability to innovation, family life, and trust. In Los Angeles, Measure HHH’s $600,000-$700,000 per affordable unit—bloated by prevailing wage laws and green codes—exemplifies Klein’s “everything bagel liberalism,” piling rules until nothing gets built. Klein warns: “If you gate the cities, you’ve closed the American frontier,” as San Francisco’s zoning fetish turns it into a billionaire enclave, exiling teachers and cooks. Since the 1960s, NIMBYism has strangled supply, reversing decades of income convergence—janitors once lived near lawyers; now they’re hours away. Listening to this was astounding. These guys act like deregulation and the freeing of capital is a new idea. It’s not, they’ve just never listened. We can only believe that their new found “religion” is possibly a “new idea” for the 27% of people that still actually believe in the democratic party.

Hope: A Fight, Not a Gift:

Klein and Thompson close with hope—not blind, but battled-for. Thompson’s optimism rests in AI, genomics, and clean energy. As with everything, he believe that through government….there is the promise a “golden age” of health and liberty. Klein’s is grittier, a “liquid moment” where speed change the trajectory we are on, “Optimism isn’t the belief things will be fine—it’s fighting for them.” Again, at the risk of being redundant, sure they believe there is hope…supposedly they believe it lies in less government regulation.

To this reviewer, these are two guys desperate to sound enlightened, to sound moderate. They are admitting that deregulation and efficient government are the solution…but they don’t really believe it..its just…the best way to sell their new book. Trust me, in 5 years time, if Trumpism goes off the rails, they’ll be calling for government oversight all over again. Long listen but good to listen to the spin, to understand where these guys are coming from. Laughable, in so many ways.

THE PODSCORE: 2 (out of 5) MICS

PBD chats with Ron Paul, a former U.S. Representative and libertarian advocate. Paul presents the pressing issues of government overreach and economic collapse. He critiques the Federal Reserve's policies and discusses America’s future amidst chaos. The conversation touches on the philosophical clash between interventionism and individual liberty, emphasizing the need for reforms. Paul also shares insights on historical influences, the importance of fiscal responsibility, and the evolving engagement of younger generations with principles of freedom.

We haven’t listened to good ‘ole Doctor Paul in some time. He didn’t disappoint, nor has he changed.

Libertarian Philosophy and Non-Interventionism as a Core Principle:

In this discussion Paul emphasizes libertarianism and non-interventionism as the cornerstone of a free society. He argues that all human interactions—social, economic, or international—should be voluntary, with both parties agreeing without coercion. Paul critiques the obscene interventionism of both Republicans and Democrats over the years, whom he sees as beholden to the administrative state since JFK’s murder. They are guilty of perpetuating government overreach through policies like undeclared wars, monetary manipulation, and social programs. He specifically targets the Federal Reserve, calling it an immoral institution that devalues currency, effectively taxing the middle class and poor through inflation. Paul’s disdain for intervention extends to international dealings, such as Trump’s expansionist ideas about acquiring Greenland or controlling the Panama Canal, which he views as anti-libertarian uses of force. For Paul, true liberty means minimizing government to its most essential functions, like national defense, while rejecting the use of force to dictate how people live or spend their money.

Moral and Financial Bankruptcy as the Root of America’s Crisis:

A recurring issue in Paul’s view is the intertwined moral and financial bankruptcy of the U.S. He asserts that the nation’s $36 trillion debt and the Federal Reserve’s ability to print money to sustain it reflect a deeper moral failing—a willingness to use force and fraud to maintain power. Paul highlights the government’s hypocrisy: while individuals face consequences for lying, cheating, or stealing, the government engages in these acts through monetary policy and unconstitutional wars without accountability. He warns that this system, built on malinvestment and debt, creates economic bubbles that must eventually burst, potentially leading to chaos or even civil war. Paul contrasts this with historical examples like the 1921 economic crisis, where minimal government intervention allowed a swift recovery, unlike the prolonged Great Depression exacerbated by FDR’s programs.

Skepticism of Government Reform and the Inevitability of Collapse:

Paul expresses deep skepticism about the ability to shrink government through incremental reforms, such as Trump and Musk’s DOGE initiative (which he does support). While he appreciates their efforts to highlight government waste—particularly Musk’s exposure of USAID’s misuse of funds—he doubts the budget deficit will decrease in 2025 or 2026 due to widespread dependency on government programs. He argues that the damage is already done, with decades of bad philosophy, monetary abuse, and empire-building leading to an inevitable liquidation of debt. Paul rejects gradualism, noting that even small cuts endorse the principle of intervention, allowing the system to regrow. He predicts that external crises, like an epidemic or fabricated threats, will be used to justify more spending, perpetuating the cycle of dependency and debt. For Paul, meaningful change requires a philosophical shift, not just policy tweaks, and he believes the current system will collapse under its own weight before reform can take hold.

Education and Cultural Resistance as Barriers to Liberty:

Paul identifies the education system, particularly universities, as a significant barrier to constitutional adherance. He slams the influence of progressive and socialist ideologies in academia, which he sees as brainwashing generations against the principles of liberty (a word he uses throughout the discussion). He contrasts this with the self-education of the Founding Fathers, who were well-versed in Greek and Roman history and natural law, untainted by modern government schools. Paul notes that universities perpetuate ideas like cultural Marxism, which he believes fuels chaos and undermines natural law principles such as prohibitions against lying, cheating, and stealing. However, he finds hope in alternative education movements, like homeschooling, which grew during the COVID-19 pandemic as parents rejected government overreach in schools. Paul sees young people as more open to libertarian ideas, citing their enthusiasm on college campuses during his campaigns.

Optimism Through Ideas and the Power of Liberty:

Despite his grim outlook on immediate reform, Paul remains optimistic about the long-term prospects for liberty, rooted in his belief that “an idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by armies”. He views his role as an educator, changing minds one at a time, and finds encouragement in the growing awareness of libertarian principles, particularly among the young (0:47:20–0:47:26). Paul points to the resurgence of Austrian economics and institutions like the Mises Institute as evidence of progress. He also highlights the public’s increasing distrust of government narratives, such as the official account of the JFK assassination, noting that 80% of Americans no longer believe the lone gunman theory—a sign of healthy skepticism. His optimism is tempered by realism; he acknowledges the resistance from those dependent on government and the cultural Marxists seeking chaos, but he believes liberty can prevail if enough people embrace its philosophy.

The JFK Assassination and Government Conspiracy:

Paul firmly rejects the official narrative that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, asserting that the 1960s marked a “coup” by the FBI, CIA, and other entities. He cites the assassinations of JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and other civil rights leaders as evidence of a broader conspiracy. While he doesn’t delve into the newly released documents in detail, Paul suggests they reinforce his view, aligning with public sentiment that the government’s account is untrustworthy. He speculates that Kennedy’s desire to end the Federal Reserve and shift away from war policies may have contributed to his death, though he acknowledges differing theories. We had no doubt that Dr. Paul wouldn’t believe the lone gunman theory; he didn’t disappoint.

Conclusion:

Paul’s unwavering commitment to non-interventionism, his critique of moral and financial bankruptcy, and his skepticism of government reform paint a sobering picture of a nation on the brink of collapse. So, while Paul can sound like a mad-man doomsday prophet, he makes you think, he makes you believe…if only we could government out of the way and go back to what the founders wanted.

Ron Paul espouses the libertarian philosophy as well as anyone…as long as you get over his quirks and squeaky (sorry Dr. Paul) voice. Like we said, it had been a while since we heard Paul, he hasn’t changed…maybe we (and the government) all need to get back to first principles because we are sure aren’t there now.

THE PODSCORE: 3 (out of 5).

Shawn sits with Scott "Kidd" Poteet, a retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant colonel and SpaceX astronaut, who shares experiences from his extensive career as a pilot and astronaut . He discusses the complexities of human life support on the moon and Mars, and the intriguing conspiracy theories surrounding the moon landing. Poteet also reflects on overcoming motion sickness in flight training and the rigorous astronaut training for the Polaris Program.

Personal Resilience and Growth:

Poteet’s narrative is a testament to overcoming personal challenges through determination and adaptability. Born in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and raised in New Hampshire, he describes a childhood marked by competitiveness and academic struggles, earning C’s and D’s due to difficulty focusing. His path to success was unconventional, leveraging his athletic prowess in running to secure a spot at the University of New Hampshire, where he majored in outdoor education. His entry into the Air Force via ROTC was serendipitous, sparked by a flyer promising a ride in a refueling aircraft, despite his severe motion sickness and fear of heights. These hurdles persisted into pilot training, where he endured vomiting in his mask and academic pressures, yet his stubborn resolve propelled him forward. This resilience shines through in his 20-year Air Force career, logging over 3,200 flight hours, and later as an astronaut on the Polaris Dawn mission, where he faced new challenges like mastering complex systems despite feeling outmatched by his crewmates’ expertise. According to this dude’s own account (and we think deservedly), he oozes determination and they spend a good deal of time talking about how important that was…and is.

Evolution of Space Exploration:

As the guys chatted it further, they spent a lot of time on shift from government-led to commercial space exploration, with Poteet’s roles in Inspiration4 and Polaris Dawn (Space X) as pivotal examples. He details his transition from military aviation to working with Jared Isaacman, a visionary entrepreneur who spearheaded the first all-civilian space mission, Inspiration4, in 2021, raising $250 million for St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. This mission, completed in six months, contrasted sharply with NASA’s multi-year training timelines, showcasing the agility of private enterprise. Polaris Dawn, launched in September 2024, pushed boundaries further by achieving the highest Earth orbit since Apollo (1,400 km), conducting the first commercial spacewalk, and testing Starlink communications. Poteet is pretty enthralled with SpaceX’s innovative approach. For example, he discusses how they developed a new EVA suit in two and a half years, a feat that historically took decades. The duo underscore how commercial entities like SpaceX are redefining space travel, making it more accessible and ambitious, with Poteet predicting that spaceflight could become routine within his children’s lifetimes.

Psychological and Ethical Dimensions of Combat:

Poteet’s combat experiences as an F-16 pilot, particularly during his 2015 Afghanistan deployment against ISIS, reveal the profound psychological and ethical weight of combat. He vividly recalls his first combat mission, dropping a Maverick missile on a vehicle carrying five terrorists. Blew ‘em to bits. The act of killing, even in service of protecting allies, carries a heaviness he grapples with, questioning whether his choices align with divine judgment. This introspection peaks as he reflects on the warrior culture’s paradoxical pride in combat—“I finally got to kill somebody”—versus the Christian ethos of valuing life. The contrast between immediate tactical decisions and long-term ethical reflection illustrates the internal conflict many veterans face. Poteet’s candidness about this duality, coupled with Shawn Ryan’s own SEAL Team insights really do create a enlightening discussion, particularly for those who have never had to shoot at another person. In sum, combat shapes identity and faith for many seasoned warriors. It is a burden and an opportunity.

Faith as a Guiding Force:

Faith emerges as a central pillar in Poteet’s life, evolving from a peripheral childhood formality to a profound anchor. A pivotal moment occurred in 2011 when he saved his daughter Maddie from drowning, hours after their joint baptism (crazy)—a “divine intervention” that solidified his belief in God. This experience, coupled with his space journey, deepens his spiritual perspective. Viewing Earth from orbit, he felt an “overview effect” of insignificance, reinforcing his conviction that life’s purpose transcends self. His faith informs his combat reflections, seeking assurance that his actions were righteous, and guides his post-military aspirations to inspire others. The podcast’s philosophical exchange with Ryan about good versus evil—likening it to a marble where light and darkness vie for dominance—underscores faith’s role in navigating temptation and maintaining authenticity, a struggle Poteet continues to refine.

The Future of Human Presence in Space:

Poteet’s see’s a future for space travel that is more democratic and accessible. He describes Polaris Dawn’s objectives—testing suits, communications, and human physiology—as steps toward lunar and Martian missions. The Starship, with its vast volume equivalent to the ISS, promises scalable habitats, potentially docking multiple units into orbiting hotels or labs. Poteet foresees routine launches, possibly three daily, carrying hundreds, driven by SpaceX’s efficient production and reusable technology. His does acknowledge challenges like adaptation syndrome and psychological isolation, but believes they can and will be overcome.

Conclusion:

Poteet’s story is a good, at times inspirational, but long listen. The most universal and insightful part(s) of the discussion were around combat and the search for moral and spiritual clarity. We’d say that this conversation overall is extraordinary in its breadth and invites listeners to ponder their own resilience, beliefs, and aspirations in an ever-expanding cosmos. The first hour and a half are a all about Poteet’s background pre-combat. The meat of the conversation and most compelling parts come after that point. None-the-less, Poteet is a guy you thank for his remarkable service.

THE PODSCORE: 3 (out of 5) MICS

The Triggernometry duo hosts Mike Benz, a political commentator and former State Department official who has been warning of the “blob” and dissecting USAID in detail recently, offers intriguing insights on the Epstein / JFK files and their implications for government transparency. We’ve covered Benz a lot and he always delivers. What’s great about this (relatively) short Trigger discussion is that they focus primarily on Epstein. With any luck those are the next batch of files to be released now that the JFK files have finally dropped. The trio delves into Jeffrey Epstein’s enigmatic connections with the elite, questioning official narratives surrounding his life and death.

JFK Files and Intelligence Implications:

The podcast opens with speculation about the long-awaited release of files related to John F. Kennedy’s assassination. This episode was actually recorded the day they dropped, so no new information per se, but some speculation and context if you haven’t been up-to-speed. Benz suggests that these documents could implicate U.S. intelligence services, potentially revealing their involvement in the event. Such a disclosure, he argues, would test the Trump administration’s commitment to transparency and could damage America’s diplomatic credibility if it exposed unsavory truths about its national security apparatus. He makes the same point about the Epstein files. Of course, we now know the JFK files only further rounded edges on what we already know…there was / is a lot more to the story.

Jeffrey Epstein’s Role and Connections:

The conversation shifts to Jeffrey Epstein, portrayed not just as a blackmailer but as a possible "access agent" linking powerful individuals to intelligence networks. Benz posits that Epstein’s value lay in his ability to facilitate connections rather than solely extort, tying him to broader intelligence operations. This was a key point, the broader conspiracy narrative that has emerged seems to place Epstein purely as a blackmail agent. Benz convincingly conveys that such a characterization is way to simple and unlikely. The reluctance to release his files, Benz notes, stems from national security concerns and the risk of exposing sensitive alliances with nations like the UK, Israel, and Saudi Arabia within frameworks like the Five Eyes coalition. With international connections from the UK to Israel to South America and beyond, any unexpected Epstein news will have global implications. Stay tuned.

“There’s a question of how much smoke do you need to have before you just come out and say, there’s a dang fire.” - Mike Benz on Epstein

Intelligence Agencies and Statecraft:

A central theme is the role of intelligence agencies in statecraft, often operating through informal and illicit channels. Benz explains how these agencies leverage figures like Epstein or Hunter Biden—individuals with controversial backgrounds—because their "dirty hands" lend credibility in navigating underworld networks. This approach, he suggests, has been used to destabilize foreign regimes or broker clandestine deals, such as those in the Iran-Contra affair, blurring the lines between legitimate governance and covert manipulation.

Unions, Organized Crime, and Power Structures:

The podcast delves into the under-explored nexus of unions, organized crime, and statecraft. Benz highlights how unions have historically served as tools for both domestic control and international influence operations, often with state sanction. This entanglement illustrates how formal and informal power structures collaborate to achieve geopolitical goals, a dynamic he believes warrants greater scrutiny.

Cultural Fascination with Conspiracy Theories:

Finally, the discussion reflects on America’s appetite for conspiracy theories, which Benz ties to a growing public awareness of intelligence agencies’ secretive actions—sometimes against their own citizens. This fascination, he argues, is a response to decades of operations shrouded in plausible deniability, fueling both curiosity and distrust in government institutions. However, more recently he (and others) have claimed that when the blob starts to work against the American people (2016 election, COVID, Jan 6th, BLM possibly) then reforms are required. He believes that is where we are right now.

Conclusion:

The Triggernometry episode with Mike Benz paints a picture of a world where transparency struggles against entrenched secrecy, and the boundaries between governance and covert influence are perilously thin. We think the discussion leaves listeners pondering a critical question—how much of this shadowy machinery should be unveiled, and what might be the cost to America’s global standing and domestic trust? Benz has been talking about this balance for a while and the Epstein files represent only the latest challenge to this question. Even for Benz junkies, getting his fresh take on Epstein is worthwhile.

THE PODSCORE: 4 (of 5) MICS

Charlie does a one on one with Roger Stone, a seasoned political strategist with a long history in Republican politics to discuss the newly released JFK files. As he has for years, Stone casts doubt on the official narrative, asserting that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the assassin. Stone and Kirk explore links between Lyndon Johnson and the assassination, alongside Nixon's potential knowledge of the truth. After all, Stone wrote a book in 2013 titled, “The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ”. The duo delve into the web of conspiracies surrounding JFK's murder and how these themes resonate with current political challenges. When the episode was released the files were just being released, so while they don’t cover all the details in the new files, Stone is able to provide a lot of context and additional anecdotes on the issue from his time working for Nixon.

Skepticism of the Lone Gunman Narrative and Multiple Shooters Theory:

A central theme is Stone’s rejection of the established belief that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, as upheld by the Warren Commission. He argues that the JFK files, released in 2025, reveal the CIA had early knowledge of Oswald but Stone maintains he was not the shooter, citing the absence of powder burns on Oswald’s hands and his poor marksmanship (further confirmed in the newly released files). Stone posits multiple shooters, including a man on the grassy knoll (described as a Corsican assassin linked to organized crime), Malcolm Wallace (an LBJ associate) from the Texas School Book Depository, a possible mobster from the sewer grate, and perhaps a fourth from the Dal-Tex Building. Stone recites some familiar refrains about the grassy knoll, puffs of smoke and additional eye-witnesses. The recently released files do nothing to debunk any of these ideas.

Alleged CIA Involvement and Motives:

Stone asserts the CIA had strong motives for Kennedy’s assassination, stemming from tensions over the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Once again the recently released files seem to embed these ideas casually, with no smoking gun, but CIA activity around these events and tied to the files are undeniable. It’s understood that CIA blamed Kennedy for the Bay of Pigs failure and the mafia was concerned about Bobby Kennedy’s hardball approach to dealing with them. Stone stands by the idea that elements of both entities work together on the hit.

LBJ’s Alleged Complicity:

Stone’s most provocative claim is that LBJ orchestrated the assassination, supported by physical evidence like Malcolm Wallace’s (LBJ operative and convicted murderer) fingerprints at the Depository and an audio tape from Billy Sol Estes’ grandson, allegedly discussing LBJ hiring Wallace. He cites LBJ’s suspicious behavior—hitting the floor before the first shot and prematurely blaming a “Russian communist” before Oswald’s arrest—as further evidence. Stone also notes LBJ’s political and financial motives, including ties to big Texas oil, bribes from Carlos Marcello, and control over the CIA’s budget as Senate majority leader, suggesting a personal stake in Kennedy’s removal. While Stone may be citing truth here (and reciting the greatest hits from his 2013 book), the newly released files don’t show any conclusive evidence pointing to LBJ specifically.

Evidence of a Cover-Up and Government Duplicity:

The interview highlights alleged cover-ups the day of and over the years, including altered autopsy diagrams by Gerald Ford to fit the single-bullet theory, the missing Kennedy brain, and the body’s removal at gunpoint from Texas to avoid a state autopsy. Stone recounts Nixon’s claim that the Warren Commission was a “hoax” and suggests Nixon leveraged this knowledge during Watergate for a pardon, citing an audio tape where Nixon told CIA Director Richard Helms, “I know who shot John.” Suspicious events on assassination day, like the unsecured motorcade route through Dealey Plaza, inadequate Secret Service presence, and LBJ’s actions, fuel doubts about the investigation’s integrity, implying a broader government conspiracy.

Broader Conspiracy and Deep State Narrative:

Stone extends the JFK assassination into a pattern of deep state interference, linking it to attempts on Trump’s and Reagan’s lives, and Nixon’s removal during Watergate. He describes a “military industrial complex” or “globalist conspiracy” of unelected bureaucrats, defense contractors, and intelligence agencies opposing transformative leaders. Drawing parallels to security failures in Trump assassination attempts (e.g., Butler, Pennsylvania, and West Palm Beach), Stone reminds us that whether you call it the military-industrial complex or the “deep-state” there are forces able to kill a president, sixty years ago…or today.

Conclusion:

We’ve never spent much time looking into Roger Stone, and while he certainly has a sullied reputation, its hard to ignore an interview like this. Stone is articulate, has down his talking points, and paints a compelling picture. Sadly, there wasn’t a whole of focus on the new files; again, it was more of a review of what Stone has always believed. For JFK junkies, there’s probably not much new here, but for casual observers, Stone does a great summary of the movie JFK in half the time.

THE PODSCORE 3 (out of 5) MICS

Tucker chats with Robert Lighthizer, former U.S. Trade Representative known for his trade expertise. The episode delves into the importance of tariffs in revitalizing the American manufacturing sector. Lighthizer highlights the slow decline of the working class linked to trade deficits and globalization, arguing that the middle class's struggles stem from flawed economic trade policies. Lighthizer also critiques how foreign ownership impacts America's economic stability, advocating for rebalanced trade practices to restore equity and support regional communities. This is a critical listen at a time when it appears that the Trump administration is really serious about rebalancing “fair trade” and abolishing the notion that current trade is actually “free”.

Failure of the Current Trade System:

Lighthizer asserts that the existing U.S. trade system, built on principles of free trade and globalization, has fundamentally failed. This failure is evidenced by persistent trade deficits, estimated at $800 billion to over $1 trillion annually, which represent a massive transfer of wealth from the U.S. to foreign nations. The net international investment position—a measure of U.S.-owned assets abroad versus foreign-owned assets in the U.S.—has deteriorated to a staggering -$23.5 trillion, up from -$3 trillion two decades ago.

This imbalance contradicts the theoretical promise of trade, where nations specialize in what they do best, mutually benefiting from exports and imports. Instead, the system has evolved into one where the U.S. maintains an open market while other countries, notably those with industrial policies like China, exploit this openness to amass wealth and assets, often at the expense of American interests. Lighthizer blames the “triad of stupid” (NAFTA, WTO entry, and China’s most-favored-nation status) for dramatically accelerating the decline of the US middle class since the 1990s. This theme sets the stage for the argument that systemic change, rather than minor tweaks, is necessary to reverse the damage.

“It’s the Trifecta of Stupid…we do NAFTA. We do the WTO…And then dumbest of them all, we give most favored nation status to China.”

Economic and Technological Decline:

A second major theme is the erosion of U.S. economic vitality and technological leadership, linked directly to the loss of manufacturing due to unchecked globalization. Lighthizer highlights a stark decline in GDP growth: from 1960 to 1980 and 1980 to 2000. The U.S. saw 14 years each of 3%+ growth, but since 2000, only three such years have occurred, with the last significant instance 18-19 years ago. This slowdown coincides with the rise of “hyper-globalization” in the 1990s, suggesting that free trade policies have stifled rather than spurred economic progress.

Technologically, the U.S. has lost dominance in fields it once pioneered—personal computers, semiconductors (now only 8% of global production), rare earth elements, solar panels, and nuclear energy. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s finding that the U.S. trails China in 57 of 64 critical technologies (up from three 15 years ago) underscores this regression. Lighthizer emphatically argues that innovation is tied to manufacturing, arguing against the notion that the U.S. can innovate while outsourcing production. The manufacturing decline is framed as a national security risk and an economic liability, necessitating a return to domestic industrial capacity to reclaim both growth and technological edge.

Plight of the Working Class:

Already hit upon but highlighting on its own is Lighthizer’s main cocern is the devastating impact of the trade system on America’s working class, particularly the two-thirds of workers with only a high school education. He notes that this group has faced stagnant wages for 25 years, shrinking job opportunities, and a life expectancy drop of eight years due to “deaths of despair” (alcohol, drugs, suicide)—a shift from a one-year gap in earlier decades. Communities once sustained by manufacturing have been hollowed out, with poverty rates soaring to 35-40% and college graduation rates plummeting. The wealth distribution has skewed dramatically, with the top 1% now holding more wealth than the middle 60%, a historic first that signals the end of the egalitarian middle-class ethos that defined America. Tucker and Lighthizer agree that this kind of disparity can destroy a nation.

Tariffs as a Solution:

Lighthizer’s (and Trumps) proposed remedy to these issues is the reinstitution of tariffs, framed as a tool to achieve balanced trade and offset foreign industrial policies beyond mere tariffs—like subsidies, currency manipulation, and labor suppression. He outlines three methods to balance trade: Warren Buffett’s export-import certificates, a capital access fee on returning foreign investments, and tariffs, with the latter favored for its simplicity, flexibility, and existing global infrastructure. Tariffs are not just about matching foreign rates (e.g., Europe’s 10% auto tariffs vs. the U.S.’s 2.5%) but countering broader unfair practices to prevent chronic trade surpluses in countries like China and deficits in the U.S. The speaker anticipates short-term disruptions—supply chain adjustments and potential price hikes—but dismisses systemic inflation fears, citing Trump’s first-term tariffs (which yielded only 1.3% inflation) and China’s deflation despite high barriers. The goal (as Lighthizer presents it) is a manufacturing renaissance, higher wages, and a wealth shift from elites to workers. He briefly goes on to discuss that tariffs that coincide with tax cuts, spending cuts, regulation cuts and increased energy output combine to forge an entirely new (or old) economic model for the US.

Geopolitical Challenge of China:

Near the end the duo spent a fair amount of time on existential threat posed by China, intertwining economic policy with national security. China is depicted as an adversary leveraging trade deficits—hundreds of billions annually—to fund military expansion (the world’s largest army and navy), territorial aggression (South China Sea militarization), espionage (thousands of FBI cases), and technological theft. Lighthizer, to his own admission, does not believe that China is a benign actor and we didn’t get the sense that he does not trust them. They aim for a totalitarianism, communism and China homogeny. The US should defend against this at all cost.

Conclusion:

Lighthizer’s trade concepts and a bold call to action to reinvigorate the US middle class is clear and appreciated. He blends economic analysis with a populist defense of the working class and a strategic warning about China. He paints a picture of a nation betrayed by decades of free trade dogma, resulting in wealth outflows, economic stagnation, technological lag, and a hollowed-out middle class—trends exacerbated by policies from the 1990s onward. Tucker, even to his own admission at the end of the podcast, is a cheerleader of Lighthizers, so you aren’t getting any hard-hitting questions here. However, what you do get is a cogent, logical, detailed explanation of what Trump wants to do with Tariffs and the bigger economic vision. If only the administration could get a little bit clearer in getting the message out. This is a must-listen for those who actually want to hear a sober POV on how the administration views Tariffs and associated social and economic issues.

THE PODCSCORE: 4 (out of 5) MICS

Chris sits with Freya India, a writer and journalist focused on female mental health and modern culture, dives into the complex challenges faced by young women today. The discussion highlights the appeal of therapy culture as a substitute for traditional religion and the pitfalls of social media on self-perception and relationships. Freya explores the feelings of aimlessness among women, the commodification of vulnerability in the digital age, and how modern influences are reshaping notions of femininity and empowerment.

Therapy Culture as a Replacement for Religion:

Freya India posits that therapy culture has emerged as a substitute for religion, particularly for young women, offering a worldview that provides comfort and belonging without the demands of traditional faith. She notes that this idea, while not novel—referencing Christopher Lasch’s 1970s writings—has escalated with social media’s advent. Young women interpret their lives through a therapeutic lens, pathologizing everyday emotions rather than viewing them as normal experiences. She suggests therapy culture’s seamless integration into daily life, mimicking religious rituals like prayer with affirmations or reframing thoughts instead of resisting temptation.

“I do think therapy culture has replaced religion… young women don’t see it as a worldview, they just see that as kind of life” - Freya India

Impact of Therapy Culture on Mental Health:

The duo critiques therapy culture’s potential to worsen mental health by fostering excessive self-focus and rumination, particularly among young women. Freya argues that constant self-analysis can trap individuals in self-obsession, hindering genuine growth. She cites Jordan Peterson to emphasize this point: “there’s no difference between like self-obsession and mental illness… it’s focusing too much on your own problems” This reflects the concern that therapy culture’s emphasis on dissecting personal issues may amplify anxiety rather than alleviate it, especially for girls prone to overthinking.

Gender Differences in Therapy Culture:

Freya explores how therapy culture impacts men and women differently, ultimately concluding it may harm women more due to their tendency to ruminate. Initially, she thought it was worse for men because of its “female approach” to problem-solving, but she revised her stance: “I actually changed my mind on that and actually think therapy culture is worse for women because women ruminate more”. This shift underscores how therapy culture exacerbates women’s natural inclinations, potentially deepening their emotional struggles rather than resolving them.

Social Media’s Role in Therapy Culture:

India emphasizes that social media is catalyst that amplifies therapy culture, saturating young women with therapeutic concepts and self-diagnosis tools. She compares this to men’s productivity trends, noting, “it’s kind of a similar thing with therapy culture… we’re trying to have this perfect control over our lives”. Platforms like TikTok and Instagram reinforce a cycle of rumination and control-seeking, offering endless content that shapes how young women perceive themselves and their relationships.

Family Breakdown and Lack of Guidance:

The discussion ties therapy culture’s rise to family breakdown and diminished adult guidance, leaving young women to seek support online. Freya observes, “people are sharing like their really deep trauma and turmoil and problems… and you can’t help but look at it and think are you close to your family… now you’re telling strangers on TikTok”. This reflects a shift from familial support to digital confessionals, she says, driven by over half of UK children not living with both parents by age 14.

Commodification of Relationships and Self:

Therapy culture and social media are critiqued for commodifying relationships and identity, turning personal experiences into content. Freya highlights the “soft launching” trend: “it’s about… how should you announce your boyfriend… it’s like introducing a brand deal or something… viewing our partners like products”. This illustrates how intimate aspects of life are reduced to performative displays for online audiences, eroding their authenticity.

“it’s about… how should you announce your boyfriend… it’s like introducing a brand deal or something… viewing our partners like products”

Conclusion:

As a reminder, Freya works for Jonathan Haidt, who wrote the recent NY Times best seller, “The Anxious Generation”. So, she certainly has a belief that social media has a dreadful impact on children, particularly young girls. When you marry that reality to the idea of “therapy culture” that she introduces, you have a couple of key ingredients for further isolation, rumination and narcism. The podcast ultimately underscores the urgent need to foster genuine relationships and resilience in a society increasingly shaped by digital influences.

We believe that there is probably fire near this “therapy culture” smoke, but of course therapy provides a vital service for many, so its delicate. The real issue may lie with social media and how it amplifies narcissistic behavior and rumination generally. Therapy and self-diagnosis are certainly impacted by this shift. The inter-play is complicated and much further discussion is required. Chris and Freya may not be the “most qualified” people to bring us this message but its good that they continue to further the discussion. We’d like to see a more rigorous discussion and study.

THE PODSCORE: 3.5 (of 5) stars.

Triggernometry welcomes Boris Johnson, former UK Prime Minister. The group delves into the intricacies of Boris’s conversations with Vladimir Putin, revealing the serious stakes of global diplomacy. He reflects on the motivations behind Russia's invasion of Ukraine and discusses the critical support needed from the West. Johnson critiques media perceptions of Ukrainian leadership and examines the complex relationship between the UK and Russia, touching on historical events like the Salisbury poisoning. The discussion also encompasses energy policies, privacy concerns, and the evolving dynamics of immigration post-Brexit.

Support for Ukraine Against Russian Aggression:

One of the most prominent themes is Boris Johnson’s unwavering support for Ukraine following Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. Johnson articulates a deep sense of moral outrage and personal responsibility as a leader of a G7 nation, unable to deter Putin’s actions. He recounts his efforts to supply Ukraine with weapons, such as NLAWs, starting in late 2021, driven by intelligence suggesting an imminent invasion. Johnson dismisses Kremlin narratives, such as the claim that he sabotaged peace talks in Istanbul, emphasizing that Ukraine’s resistance was a sovereign choice supported by the West. He also reflects on his “incredibly depressing” conversation with Putin, where the Russian leader fixated on NATO expansion despite no realistic prospect of Ukraine’s membership. This theme underscores Johnson’s belief in standing firm against aggression through strength and solidarity.

We'd been unable to to persuade Putin not to do something so completely self-destructive and and clearly destructive of of Ukraine and it was enraging and um I I was disgusted at at what he was doing!” - Boris Johnson

Brexit and Immigration Control

The podcast extensively covers Brexit, a defining achievement of Johnson’s premiership, with a focus on its implications for immigration control. Johnson argues that Brexit was fundamentally about “taking back control,” particularly over borders, in response to public frustration with unprecedented immigration levels under previous governments. He acknowledges the “Boris wave” of immigration post-2019, attributing it to exceptional circumstances like COVID-19, the return of EU nationals, and humanitarian intakes from Ukraine, Afghanistan, and Hong Kong. However, he defends the Rwanda deportation plan as a solution to illegal Channel crossings, lamenting its derailment by legal challenges and insufficient time.

Evolution on Climate Change and Net Zero

Johnson’s shift from climate skepticism to advocating for net zero policies and now back to a more moderate view raised our eyebrows a bit. Initially critical of the “religiosity” and perceived socialist undertones of environmentalism—once writing that wind power couldn’t “pull the skin off a rice pudding”—he describes an intuitive awakening during his time as Mayor of London and Foreign Secretary. Observing global population growth and environmental degradation from the air, he adopted a Pascal’s Wager approach: acting on climate change is prudent even if the science is uncertain. He admits to policy missteps, like insufficient nuclear investment and high energy costs, but insists that cleaner technology is a long-term necessity, balanced against economic and security trade-offs. In general, we think he seemed to appease the Triggernometry audience by admitting steel needs its own set of regulation and that net - zero has gone too far in general. We aren’t so sure he believes that.

Challenges of Governance and Decision-Making

Underpinning these topics is Johnson’s reflection on the difficulties of governing, a recurring theme throughout the podcast. He discusses the resistance to provocative actions—like arming Ukraine—due to fears of escalation, and the legal “lawfare” that thwarted the Rwanda deportation plan. Johnson also praises cost-cutting boldness, inspired by Elon Musk, while noting the emotional and political obstacles to axing legacy projects.

Conclusion

This is the first Triggernometry episode we have reviewed. Boris Johnson illuminates the multifaceted challenges he navigated as a leader, from rallying support for Ukraine against Russian aggression to wrestling with Brexit’s immigration promises and reconciling skepticism with climate action. One key point we cannot reconcile is did he really tell the Ukrainians not to accept peace in 2022 or did not. Clearly, here he says he did not push for war, but the verdict still seems to be out. So, we think you can be skeptical of some of what Johnson says, but its a good , quick listen.

THE PODSCORE: 4 (of 5) MICS.

Eric Weinstein’s speech at the ARC Conference explores profound and interconnected themes, weaving together historical reflections, critiques of modern society, and a vision for humanity’s future. Delivered with a blend of cultural references, scientific analysis, and urgency, his talk addresses the complexities of the present moment and the steps needed to navigate an uncertain future. His presentation makes clear that the post World War II order is changing and that the global institutions that have arisen are no longer sufficient for a variety of reasons. ARC acts as a counter balance and avenue of opportunity to bring people together for common purpose, without coercion and greed-based motivations that dominate the WEF. Weinstein cautions that the recent peaceful period in Europe was unprecedented and the world needs to come together differently to head off the next great work. He also, as he often does, urges the physics community to move beyond string theory and seek new ways to extend humanities reach, before its too late.

The End of the Great Nap and the Return to Vitality

Weinstein opens by framing the post-World War II era as the "Great Nap," a time of relative peace that he argues has now concluded. Early in the speech, Weinstein references the biblical story of Isaiah and connects it to Bob Dylan’s song, where “two riders were approaching” with news of Babylon’s fall. He uses this to symbolize a dramatic awakening—the end of an old, peaceful order and the start of something chaotic yet vital. It’s a cultural marker of the shift he’s describing. He references Orson Welles’ character in The Third Man to underscore how periods of conflict often drive innovation, contrasting this with the stagnation of peacetime. Weinstein posits that today’s world, characterized by hybrid warfare—such as cyber attacks and information manipulation—signals this shift, positioning everyone as potential combatants in a new, unpredictable era where we are all being watched and manipulated. Combatting this and regaining individual and state sovereignty will require a return to viability.

"The great nap is now over." - Eric Weinstein

Institutional Manipulation and the Whole of Society Approach

A significant portion of Weinstein’s speech critiques what he calls the "whole of society" approach, a coordinated effort by institutions—media, hotels, tech companies, and more—to surveil and control individuals. He labels these entities "HOS," arguing that they gather data and align under a soft fascist framework to wage a domestic hybrid war, often manifesting as the culture wars. This manipulation, he warns, is insidious and largely unrecognized by the public, turning everyday interactions with technology and institutions into tools of oppression. From a western perspective, he says this oppression is in fact, to control dissent and keep the peace. It is totalitarian but with a “peaceful” him. Weinstein’s goal is to awaken his audience to these facts, emphasizing their real-world consequences, such as societal division, state-hood and loss of autonomy.

The Stagnation of Physics and the Path to Humanity’s Future

Weinstein then turns to the stagnation of theoretical physics since 1973, which he sees as a deliberate choice to favor safe, incremental research (e.g., quantum gravity) over bold, revolutionary ideas. He argues that this has crippled humanity’s ability to tackle existential challenges, like colonizing other planets to ensure survival beyond Earth. Using a graph of Nobel Laureates’ ages, he highlights the field’s decline and calls for a revitalization of physics to unlock transformative technologies. This, he believes, is humanity’s best hope for an "indefinite future among the stars," drawing a parallel to the Passover Seder’s lesson of bold action in the face of entrapment. His claim is that if we are wired to self-destruction and we are entering a new dangerous period, then, should look for alternatives and inhibiting / classifying real physics is no way to move forward.

Conclusion

In closing, Weinstein ties these themes together with an optimistic yet urgent call to action. He likens humanity’s current predicament to the Israelites’ exodus, suggesting that recognizing the end of the "Great Nap" and confronting institutional control are prerequisites to overcoming stagnation in physics. By revitalizing this field, he envisions a future where humanity transcends Earth’s limitations and thermonuclear dangers by populating Mars and finding new opportunities as well. Weinstein covers some traveled territory in his typical engaging style, which we always appreciate. He also covers his views on physics, which are about stagnation. But in marrying these two as problem / solution, we think he may be attaching his hammer to a nail. In other words, is traveling to mars really the solution to the post World War II order unraveling…we aren’t sure that’s the first place we’d go

THE PODSCORE: 3 (out of 5) MICS

Dr. Peterson chats with Dr. Arthur Brooks, a professor and renowned author on happiness. They explore the science of happiness, highlighting how meaningful aims shape our emotional experiences. Brooks shares insights on the journey toward goals, the paradox of progress, and the evolution of resilience through gratitude. Delving into emotional management, he emphasizes the importance of self-regulation and depth in relationships, making a compelling case for personal growth through discernment and maturity.

The Physicality of Happiness and the Distinction between Pleasure and Enjoyment

A central theme is the embodied nature of happiness, emphasizing its physical manifestations and the critical distinction between pleasure and enjoyment. Brooks says that the “macro-ingredients of happiness are enjoyment (not just pleasure), meaning and satisfaction. Pleasure is fleeting and often associated with immediate gratification, while enjoyment is more permanent and involves memory and deeper experiences. Brooks explains, "Enjoyment is permanent and can be experienced in the prefrontal cortex of the brain, making it a source of lasting happiness." They contrast pleasure from activities like pornography, which is solitary and lacks depth, with the enjoyment from sexual relationships with a partner. Peterson adds, "Sex with a partner involves love and relationship, making it more sophisticated and memorable compared to the purely physical act in pornography." The duo explores happiness as a tangible, measurable process influenced by physical effort and enriched by meaningful, memorable experiences. As a note, they spent most of their time talking about the impact of enjoyment but mentioned they could have spent equal time on meaning and satisfaction.

How Aim Sets Perception

The conversation delves into how our goals and aims shape our perception of the world, acting as filters for what we notice. Peterson illustrates this with a personal story from his teaching days, recalling how, when he first started teaching Jungian psychology, he began to see Jungian archetypes everywhere—in his students' behaviors, in literature, and in everyday life. "Once you have a framework or an aim, it's like your brain is tuned to pick up on related information," he explains, suggesting that setting a clear aim reorganizes our perception. Brooks echoes this, sharing his experience of shifting his research focus to happiness. He notes that once he decided to study happiness, he started noticing aspects of people's lives that he had previously overlooked, such as small gestures of kindness or expressions of joy. "Our aims act as filters," he says, "They determine what we pay attention to and what we ignore." This theme highlights the perceptual engineering aspect of purpose, showing how intention can transform our experience of reality.

The Paradox of Progress

Another significant theme is the paradox of progress, where societal advancements often lead to unexpected discontent. Brooks shares a story about a high-powered executive he once counseled, who, despite achieving great wealth and status, felt empty and unfulfilled. "He had everything he ever wanted, but he was miserable," Brooks says, tying this to his research that shows material success beyond basic needs doesn't necessarily increase happiness. Peterson agrees, citing studies that illustrate the hedonic treadmill, where people quickly adapt to new levels of wealth or status, leading to a constant pursuit of more. "There's a point of diminishing returns," he says, "Beyond that, more money doesn't buy more happiness. Instead, it's about how we spend our time, who we spend it with, and whether we're living in alignment with our values." Money is not the only idol they warned against chasing. They also discussed the aforementioned “pleasure” as well as power and honor (or fame, really). Put into a modern context, you can see easily how society is going off the rails, relative to those for idols. Additionally, they mention that those with dark tetrad personalities (narcissism, machiavellianism, psychopathy, sadism) are unable to experience true happiness because they cannot move beyond immediate pleasures to deeper forms of enjoyment and meaning, getting stuck in a cycle of chasing temporary gratifications without finding lasting fulfillment. The point is, don’t chase those idols; chase enjoyment (long term), meaning and satisfaction.

“Humans are made for progress, not arrival.” - Arthur Brooks

Theme 4: The Need for Proper Discernment

Discernment, the ability to make wise judgments, emerges as a crucial theme for achieving true happiness. Brooks shares his personal journey of discernment, recounting his pilgrimage walking the Camino de Santiago in Northern Spain. "I walked the Camino de Santiago, praying the rosary every day, saying, 'Lord, guide my path.' That's when I decided to go back to my behavioral science roots and study human happiness," he says, emphasizing that discernment is not just an intellectual exercise but often requires time, reflection, and sometimes physical journey to uncover one's true path. Peterson adds that discernment involves setting an uphill goal and allowing one's imagination and perceptions to work on clarifying that goal over time, which can be uncomfortable and requires patience and perseverance.

Sustained Maturity for Life's Adventure

Finally, the episode highlights the necessity of sustained maturity for leading a happy and adventurous life. Brooks reflects on his own journey, sharing the challenges he faced when returning to school in his late 20s after years as a musician. "Maturity isn't just about age; it's about learning from experiences and continuously evolving," he says, noting how this period of growth was crucial for his personal and professional development. Peterson echoes this, emphasizing that life is full of challenges and that facing them with maturity and resilience is key to finding happiness. He shares a general observation that individuals who embrace continuous growth, rather than seeking immediate gratification, tend to find greater joy and accomplishment. "Life is an adventure, and it's through overcoming obstacles that we find our greatest joys and sense of accomplishment," he says.

What was so great about this episode was the back and forth and constructive dialog between these two intellectual giants. While some of the themes may be familiar to you, the way the weaved together psychology, biology, religion and their own experiences was fascinating to watch play out. You could tell these guys were feeding off of each other. And …to our delight…not one ounce of politics. Enjoy

THE PODSCORE 5 (out of 5) MICS

Tucker faces off with Chris Cuomo, who is, as you know, a former CNN anchor and current News Nation host. Cuomo shares his views on what it means to be an American amidst political divides. The duo debates the media's evolution and the influence of figures like Joe Rogan. Topics like the Epstein files and governmental transparency ignite some good, but “mostly” rationale debate. They also touch on the complexities of New York City’s challenges, questioning safety for LGBTQ+ students, and explore the moral implications of transhumanism and AI. Free speech and Ukraine also get a fair bit of air time. It’s worth a listen and so nice to hear these former shock news anchors sit and have a deliberate, non-corporate-influenced nearly three hour discussion that is more than soundbites and shilling.

Personal Redemption and Resilience:

Carlson and Cuomo frame their exits from corporate media as redemptive arcs, and we think that they are. Cuomo has been actually tolerable since he left CNN. In fact, in many instances in this discussion, he seemed like the more grounded one. Cuomo reflects on his CNN firing, where loyalty to his brother Andrew cost him his job (he claims that he will not cover his brother’s run for Mayor of New York City, btw). Carlson, as he often does, positions himself as a post-corporate “free man” who is able to tell the truth…while we think that is true, Carlson has certainly made his own truth at times. Regardless, both highlight how shedding institutional shackles fosters authenticity. There is no doubt about that and there is little question to this reviewer this conversation showcased that authenticity frequently throughout the episode.

Critique of Corporate Media and Rise of Independent Platforms:

The duo spend time (really throughout the episode) in different places attacking corporate media, with Cuomo decrying its culture where “it’s okay... to destroy you by a standard I would never want imposed on me”, and Carlson calling it “disgusting” where “everyone lies all the time”. They applaud independent media’s ascent, epitomized by Joe Rogan, who Carlson says operates “completely outside the conventional structure”, and Cuomo sees as part of a power shift “back to people” . While they agreed on this general premise, Carlson celebrates unchecked freedom, while Cuomo warns of conglomerates scooping up independents, potentially rebuilding the same type of narrative pressures they believe an independent press should run away from.

“It’s OK in the media for me to destroy you by a standard that I would never want imposed on me.” - Chris Cuomo

Transparency and Hidden Power Structures:

The ongoing delay in release in the JFK and Epstein files (among others) ignite a debate on transparency, with Carlson alleging a “very serious force” blocking release, citing Senate interventions and figures like Mike Pompeo, suggesting a conspiracy beyond mere bureaucracy. Also, Tucker, specifically calls out Senator Tom Cotton as someone who has an interest in blocking the release. Tucker claims to have first-hand knowledge of this. Cuomo presses him to call out Cotton publicly. It seems like Tucker did …during the episode. Anyway, Cuomo adds that there is institutional self-preservation—“there is clearly information... that are going to make the CIA look bad”. He was less confident that there was any type of “grand plot”. As this discussion went on it was apparent that both agree transparency builds trust, and we don’t have that. Still there were differences…Carlson’s insistence on a shadowy elite contrasts with Cuomo’s call for evidence over speculation.

Cultural Identity and Division:

Defining American identity splits them sharply and was one of the more interesting parts of the conversation. Carlson demands a unifying American principle, arguing immigration and DEI destroy meritocracy and without much else to unite Americans, he sees that as an existential threat. He sees chaos from unchecked borders and race-based policies. There was a pretty uncomfortable part of the conversation where Tucker called for temporarily halting ALL immigration, not just illegal immigration. This is the type of stuff that people rightfully use to assert that he has some overly nationalist tendencies. He deftly claims is not about race but about saving the union and he claims his love for immigrants like his “best friend”, but while he might even have cogent points, its an absurd and not helpful proposition. Cuomo pushed back on this but didn’t really nail him to the wall with it like he could have. Anyway, this immigration discussion turned into a DEI and merit discussion where there were predictable lines drawn. Both supposedly believe in merit but Cuomo calls out the corrective nature of DEI. Carlson wins this part of the discussion hands - down. Pure merit is the only way we can instill ethic and preserve the integrity of a state not unified by much else. Their debate mirrors broader cultural fault lines, with Carlson fearing disunity and Cuomo trusting adaptation within the current structure.

Moral and Foreign Policy Disagreements:

Moral divides surface on transgenderism, abortion, and Ukraine. Carlson calls aggressive transgender policies a “spiritual attack”and abortion “the most obviously evil thing”, rooted in natural law, while Cuomo defends acceptance and reproductive rights as personal freedoms. Tucker always approaches abortion as a Christian issue, you can decide what that means to you in the context of its relevance to the debate. On Ukraine, Carlson says clearly that NATO’s three year effort in Ukraine to date is a failure. “We couldn’t beat Russia” is something he says over and over again. This clashes with Cuomo’s moral support for sovereignty against Putin. Carlson has claimed for a long time that the US has no business spending that type of money in Ukraine to encourage the slaughter of millions only satisfy a story that Russia is evil and NATO needed to expand to its front yard. He also bemoans the warmongers in Washington and the military industrial complex. None of this is new to regular listeners. Cuomo didn’t add much new to the conversation either, but none-the-less both positioned their sides well.

Conversation as a Unifying Force:

Despite clashes, they end the conversation by stating that they value dialogue—“Conversation is the cure”—as a counter to division. Of course, we are hearing that from two of the guys that have helped sew more division in the past decade than many others. None-the-less, in a media landscape of silos, it was good to see these media vets get together and DISCUSS what they truly believe the score is. Cuomo was more balanced in the dialog but Tucker always gets around to his point (after some meandering). So, we feel it was fairly balanced.

Conclusion:

Different styles, different viewpoints, different constituencies but one one fact - its good that they have these discussions. Cuomo was flat out wrong about some things (genetic differences) and Tucker was way over the line on some things (LEGAL immigration) but they talked and they talked a LONG time. We need more of that. Listen.

THE PODSCORE: 5 (OF 5) MICS

Chris sits with Brigham Buhler, a healthcare entrepreneur and CEO of Ways2Well, shares eye-opening insights into the American healthcare crisis. He discusses how profit-driven motives lead to exorbitant costs and rampant prescription drug reliance. Buhler reveals the shocking truth behind America's highest bankruptcy rates linked to medical bills. He also critiques the roles of big pharma and emphasizes lifestyle changes over medications in mental health. The discussion weaves together key themes—systemic failures in American healthcare, the overreliance on pharmaceuticals, the power of preventative care, and the challenges of navigating a profit-driven system—each unpacked with detailed stories and real-world examples that make the abstract tangible.

Systemic Failures in American Healthcare:

A central theme of the podcast is the deep-rooted dysfunction within the American healthcare system, which Buhler describes as a labyrinth of inefficiency and profit-first priorities. He recounts his early disillusionment when, as a young sales rep working for a medical device company, he discovered that hospitals were more focused on securing reimbursements than improving patient outcomes. For example, he shares a story about pitching a device to a hospital board, only to be met with questions like, “How much will Medicare pay us for this?” rather than “How will this help our patients?” This anecdote underscores his broader point: the system incentivizes procedures and treatments over genuine care. Williamson and Buhler also discuss how primary care physicians are overworked and underpaid, with Buhler noting that a doctor might see 30 patients a day, leaving little time for meaningful interaction. He claims that most doctors he knows are “beat down” and want

”out” in three to five years. This leads to a “band-aid” approach, where symptoms are treated without addressing root causes.. In a nutshell, profits trump outcomes and the conglomerates have integrated insurance, medical practice and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMS) further narrowing care and maximizing profit cuts.

Overreliance on Pharmaceuticals:

Another major theme is the pervasive overreliance on prescription drugs, which Buhler critiques as a symptom of a healthcare model that prioritizes quick fixes over long-term solutions. He shares a vivid anecdote about a patient he encountered early in his career—a middle-aged man on 12 medications, each prescribed to counteract the side effects of the last. “It was like watching a house of cards collapse,” Buhler says, explaining how this man’s doctor never considered lifestyle changes or root causes, just more pills. Williamson chimes in with his own observations about the cultural acceptance of medication in the U.S., contrasting it with other countries where diet and exercise are first-line interventions. Buhler ties this to the influence of pharmaceutical companies, recounting how, during his time in the industry, he saw sales reps push drugs like statins with aggressive marketing, even when evidence for their universal efficacy was shaky. The conversation highlights a vicious cycle: patients expect pills, doctors are pressed for time, and drug companies profit, all while health outcomes stagnate or worsen.

“The system isn’t built to heal people—it’s built to bill people. I saw it firsthand when they cared more about Medicare codes than the patient in the bed.” – Brigham Buhler

The Power of Preventative Care:

In contrast to the reactive nature of mainstream healthcare, Buhler passionately advocates for preventative care as a game-changer. He shares a personal story about his own health journey, describing how years of neglecting sleep and nutrition left him burned out and reliant on caffeine—until he overhauled his lifestyle with bloodwork-guided interventions through Ways2Well. “I went from feeling like a zombie to running circles around my old self,” he says, emphasizing how simple changes like optimizing vitamin D levels or cutting processed foods can transform wellbeing. Williamson probes further, asking how accessible this approach is, and Buhler admits it’s an uphill battle against a system that doesn’t reimburse prevention. He tells of a patient, a truck driver, who reversed his pre-diabetes with diet tweaks after years of being offered metformin by his doctor—a success story that fuels Buhler’s mission. One of Buhler’s key claims is that individuals can reclaim their health, but it requires stepping outside the conventional medical treadmill.

Navigating a Profit-Driven System:

Finally, the duo explore the challenges of navigating a healthcare system driven by profit rather than patient welfare, a reality Buhler has grappled with firsthand. He recounts a striking moment from his career when he realized insurance companies dictate care more than doctors do, recalling a case where a patient’s life-saving treatment was denied because it wasn’t “in-network.” “It’s soul-crushing to see someone suffer because of a spreadsheet,” he says, his voice heavy with frustration. Williamson ties this to broader societal distrust in institutions, asking how patients can fight back. Buhler suggests becoming an informed advocate, sharing how he once helped a friend negotiate a hospital bill down from $20,000 to $2,000 simply by challenging the charges—a David-vs-Goliath anecdote that illustrates the power of persistence. In summary, we know the system is rigged, but knowledge and tenacity can level the playing field, if only slightly.

CONCLUSION:

This episode hit like a freight train. Buhler’s energy and Williamson interest in the subject are apparent. They don’t just diagnose the problem; they challenge listeners to rethink their relationship with health, blending critique with actionable insights. It’s a call to wake up to the flaws around us and take ownership of what we can control, delivered with the raw honesty of someone who’s seen the machine from the inside.

THE PODSCORE: 4.5 (of 5) MICS

Joe meets with Ian Carroll, an independent researcher and entrepreneur. He has recently exploded onto the podcast scene in a very short period of time due primarily to his heavy, heavy focus on conspiracy theories. He examines historical political mysteries, including JFK's assassination and intricate ties to the MKUltra program, among many, many others. He also focuses on current conspiracies and fears like quantum computing's implications for privacy and sensational claims around Disney and Epstein, for example.

Conspiracy Theories and Historical Events:

Joe Rogan and Ian Carroll spend considerable time dissecting conspiracy theories tied to major historical events, with a particular focus on the assassination of John F. Kennedy and Jeffrey Epstein’s death. They dive into the Zapruder film, a pivotal piece of evidence in the JFK case, where Carroll brings up theories that certain frames might have been removed to obscure what really happened. Rogan points to the head movement and spray pattern in the footage, arguing it doesn’t align with the official single shooter narrative pushed by the Warren Commission. He vividly describes the physics of the shot, suggesting it implies a second gunman. They also touch on the Oklahoma City bombing, with Carroll questioning the tidy official story about Timothy McVeigh acting alone, hinting at possible government involvement or coverups. The explosion in alternative media and the victory of free speech means that mainstream media can no longer contain the messy details. He references whistleblower David Lifton’s findings from the Warren Commission as an example of evidence that contradicts the public narrative. There is so much covered on dozens of conspiracies that we can’t cover them all but the pace at which they banter is shocking. These guys never took a breathe, bouncing from one conspiracy to the next and connecting them.

The Importance of Research and Primary Sources:

Carroll talks A LOT about the value of rigorous research and sticking to primary sources, which he champions as essential for cutting through misinformation. He shares how he tackled One Nation Under Blackmail, a dense book about Epstein’s world, explaining that he read it multiple times to unpack its layers of detail—something he says is necessary for grasping complex, hidden histories. Rogan nods along, adding that this kind of dedication isn’t just work; it’s a passion that becomes a daily habit. They discuss how too many people settle for secondhand takes from news outlets or social media, with Carroll urging listeners to dig into original documents themselves, like court records or declassified files. He warns that without some detailed level of effort, you’re at the mercy of someone else’s spin. Rogan ties it back to podcasting, noting that their ability to offer unfiltered takes depends on this groundwork. There is a grind behind gaining credibility but without it, you are just another mouthpiece.

Organized Crime and Power Structures:

Tied closely to many of these conspiracies is organized crime and clandestine operations and their entanglement with power. For example, Carroll argues that Jeffrey Epstein wasn’t just a lone predator but part of a sprawling network where many of his high-profile associates weren’t coerced—they were eager players in the game. He paints a picture of a system where blackmail and illicit favors grease the wheels of influence. Rogan jumps in with a historical parallel, citing Jimmy Savile, the British TV star who hid his crimes in plain sight, to show how predators often thrive in elite circles. They toss around ideas about how these networks stay under wraps, with Carroll suggesting that those in authority—politicians, law enforcement—sometimes shield them for mutual benefit. Rogan recalls Epstein’s suspiciously lax treatment by the legal system, like his cushy jail deal in 2008, as evidence of protection from above. This theme peels back layers of power, revealing a murky world where crime and authority blur together.

Free Speech and Censorship:

Free speech is a rallying cry in this episode, with Rogan and Carroll fiercely defending open dialogue against a backdrop of growing censorship. They vent about how social media giants and governments clamp down on controversial topics, shaping and censoring many narratives. Carroll points out that in the past (and still today) their discussion of Epstein or JFK would likely get flagged or buried on X or YouTube under vague “misinformation” labels. They argue that this suppression makes it harder to sift fact from fiction, especially on touchy subjects like conspiracy theories. Rogan doubles down, saying podcasts are one of the last bastions for raw, unscripted exchange—a point Carroll reinforces by noting how mainstream outlets dodge these topics entirely.

The Role of Passion in Podcasting and Journalism:

The episode wraps up with a heartfelt look at what drives their work: passion. Carroll reflects on podcasting as more than a gig—it’s a daily grind that demands real love for the craft. He admits it can wear you down if you’re not all in, sharing how his own drive to unearth hidden stories keeps him going. Rogan agrees, stressing that genuine interest is the fuel for churning out content that’s both gripping and solid. They swap notes on how this passion shapes their storytelling, with Carroll saying it’s what turns raw data—like Epstein’s flight logs—into narratives that hit home. Rogan adds that without it, you’re just phoning it in, and listeners can tell. They frame it as a blueprint for journalism too: dig deep, care hard, and the quality follows. This theme celebrates the fire behind their microphones and the payoff of relentless curiosity.

This episode of Rogan makes your headspin as they bounce from conspiracy to conspiracy. Carroll knows details, source material, details around writers, journalists and public officials down to granular detail. They question is, how much of what he thinks he knows…is actually true. Consider this episode caloric, but maybe a lot of Cheetos and not a lot of broccoli.

THE PODSCORE: 4 (out of 5) MICS.

PBD chats with Gary Brecka, an expert in predicting life expectancy, shares his transformative insights on health optimization, having helped individuals like UFC's Dana White. He discusses the significant impact of nutrient deficiencies on health and critiques common pharmaceutical approaches to cholesterol. Brecka emphasizes the importance of diet, sleep, and social connections for mental well-being. He introduces hydrogen therapy as a promising anti-aging solution and reflects on ethical concerns in the health industry, urging listeners to prioritize genuine health over corporate greed.

Life Insurance Background:

Brecka's journey began in the life insurance sector, where his role involved assessing life expectancies, a process that revealed to him the significant impact of modifiable risk factors on health outcomes. He gave some great examples of how actuarials are able to estimate life expectancy in a fluid manner that takes into account consequences from medication or operations that accelerate other diseases or death. He claims many lab readings are simply correlated incorrectly like LDL and death, when in fact LDL it can predict longevity. This insight, led him to focus on health and wellness, particularly the role of nutrient deficiencies in chronic diseases. He talks about this transition and his rise to prominence after working with UFC President Dana White.

Flaws in the Healthcare System:

Brecka argues often misdiagnoses conditions due to a lack of understanding of nutrient deficiencies. He explains that many patients are overmedicated to treat secondary conditions and not the root nutrient deficiencies, leading to further health complications. He cites examples where vitamin D3 deficiency is mistaken for rheumatoid arthritis, resulting in unnecessary corticosteroid treatments that can accelerate joint erosion. This is supported by his reference to a 2016 Harvard study, which identified medical error as the third leading cause of death in America, underscoring the systemic issues at play.

The discussion also touches on the potential of artificial intelligence and big data to circumvent these problems. Brecka suggests that large data sets can determine the best outcomes for treatments, moving away from randomized clinical trials conducted by pharmaceutical companies. This technological advancement is seen as a imminent change for more accurate and personalized healthcare in the next 5-10 years or so.

“The Third Leading Cause of Death in America is Medical Error!”

Practical Strategies for Health Improvement:

Brecka provides actionable advice , focusing on practical strategies to optimize health. Sleep hygiene is highlighted as a critical factor, with Brecka noting that poor sleep can lead to brain toxicity due to the lack of waste elimination during deep sleep. He recommends a consistent bedtime, contrast showers to reduce stress hormones (catacolamines), and magnesium supplementation to quiet the mind, particularly for those who ruminate at night.

Dietary recommendations include maintaining a low-glycemic profile to support cognitive function, with Brecka linking high sugar intake to Alzheimer's, referred to as Type 3 diabetes. He also advocates adamantly for hydrogen water, detailing its anti-inflammatory properties and citing studies, such as one from the Journal of Experimental Gerontology published in November 2021, which showed benefits like telomere lengthening in older adults. This is supported by his personal endorsement, including its use by athletes like Jon Jones, and practical advice on affordability, suggesting tablets available at retailers like GNC for less than a dollar a day. They also talk the value of sun light, feet to earth, proper testosterone levels and a bit more.

The Role of Community and Social Interaction:

Another significant theme is the importance of community and social interaction for health and longevity. Brecka references blue zones, areas with high concentrations of centenarians, where strong community ties and a sense of purpose contribute to longer life expectancies. He contrasts this with the isolating effects of modern technology and social distancing measures, particularly during the pandemic, which he argues have increased mortality rates related to loneliness. This is illustrated by his discussion of "broken heart syndrome," where the loss of a spouse can dramatically reduce life expectancy, and his personal anecdote about his father's longevity linked to family community.

Policy and Movement for Change:

They also addresses broader systemic changes, with Brecka mentioning the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement. Brecka notes concerns about subsidized genetically modified crops sprayed with chemicals like glyphosate, which he argues contribute to chronic diseases. He expresses support for MAHA's efforts to prioritize health, liberty, and environmental integrity, as seen in its mission to address root causes like poor diets and environmental toxins. He discussed the issues with folic acid (enriched or fortified is code for this) and how it should be eliminate from the diet as a part of MAHA.

In Conclusion:

This was a good discussion overall, Brecka advocated strongly for hydrogen water to reduce inflammation, but just so you know, he also sells hydrogen tablets. He spent a lot of time on this topic and admits to having his own brand, but we just wanted to reinforce this, so you know. In summary, Brecka makes a seemingly credible case for nutrients and supplementation. Do you own research.

The PODSCORE: 4 (out of 5) MICS

Jordan chat with Michael Shellenberger, a journalist and founder of Public.News, dives into the transformative political landscape shaped by figures like Musk and Trump. He highlights the urgency for new generations to take charge of political responsibility and rebuild trust in institutions. The conversation also tackles the dangers of censorship, the complexities of foreign aid, and rethinking governance. Shellenberger argues for a cultural shift toward personal integrity and the importance of national identity in navigating today's challenges.

Political Responsibility and the Rise of Populism:

The podcast opens with a call to action, emphasizing the necessity of shouldering political obligations to prevent tyrants from seizing control. Later in the podcast Shellenberger frames the past 12 years as a "woke reign of terror," spanning from the rise of Black Lives Matter to Donald Trump’s 2024 election, a period marked by what he sees as institutional overreach whose peak terror was reached when free speech became regularly broached (social, political, mis/dis information) The current moment (post Trump 2.0 election) as backlash against elitism and the post World War II world order which prioritized the global elite over the nation-state. Shellenberger makes the excellent point that before World War II the world organized into nations and their was “pride” in being a citizen.

The new populism, which Peterson redefines as a "rebellion of the sane and grounded" rather than mere rabble-rousing, is portrayed as a response to a detached elite class that has lost touch with national values. The conversation highlights a new political alignment—embodied by figures like Trump, Elon Musk, JD Vance, Robert Kennedy Jr., and Tulsi Gabbard—representing a shift away from traditional conservatism toward a broader, emergent coalition focused on reclaiming democratic principles and national identity. That is what Trump represents and its anything but fascist or totalitarian. In fact, its very close to the about of that

Free Speech and Censorship:

A significant portion of the dialogue centers on free speech including a large chunk at the beginning. Both Peterson and Shellenberger view free speech as foundational to American identity and a non-negotiable "must-have," contrasting with Europe’s more permissive stance toward censorship. Shellenberger cites JD Vance’s Munich Security Summit speech, where Vance warned Europe against mass censorship, suggesting it jeopardizes NATO and transatlantic relations. The Twitter Files, uncovered by Shellenberger with Musk’s support, revealed a "censorship industrial complex" involving government disinformation efforts; including Biden’s laptop and silencing of COVID dissent. Peterson ties free speech to creative and corrective thought, arguing that its suppression undermines societal integrity and innovation, a point reinforced by Europe’s technological lag compared to a resurgent America under this new leadership.

"We Are Coming Out of a Period of Great Abuse Of Power"

Government Waste, Fraud, and Reform:

The discussion delves into governmental fraud, waste and abuse that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is exposing. Shellenberger recounts how USAID resisted Musk’s team, leading to its shutdown—an example of entrenched bureaucratic resistance meeting decisive action. Peterson speculates Musk could uncover a trillion dollars in waste, using advanced computing power to dissect opaque systems. This segues into a critique of foreign aid, with Shellenberger and Peterson questioning its efficacy, drawing on Magatte Wade’s view that it often harms more than helps. They advocate a radical rethinking of such institutions, suggesting that shutting them down and rebuilding from scratch might be more effective than reform.

Cultural and Philosophical Foundations:

The podcast explores the erosion of Western values, attributing it to a loss of virtues like trust, delayed gratification, and integration—values Shellenberger calls the "only natural resource." Peterson contrasts weak, hedonistic men with strong, abusive ones and the ideal "gentleman," who balances power with restraint, a concept rooted in civilization’s gentlemanly ethos. They critique the "woke" era as an abuse of power, projecting totalitarian fears onto democratic movements like Trump’s. The Enlightenment’s rational overreach, they argue, destabilized this ethos, leading to nihilism and hedonism, which they counter with a call for voluntary self-sacrifice and subsidiarity—local responsibility as an antidote to tyranny and slavery, drawing from the Exodus narrative.

Optimism and a New Era:

Despite the challenges, Shellenberger expresses optimism, citing the rollback of extreme policies (e.g., gender-affirming care excesses) and the decline of globalist entities like the World Economic Forum, new initiatives like the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC). Peterson shares this hope, seeing a rebalancing toward national sovereignty and democratic integrity, evidenced by populist gains in the U.S., Germany, and France. Peterson injects some of his traditional concepts of “aiming up” and family and religion as keys , along with a sense of national pride and real freedom / freedom of speech as positive develops. Relatedly Shellenberger states clearly that the global elite turned on their own western cultures and state-pride. Both agree that a “soullessness” had crept in that is now, in the United States at least, repudiated.

While this was filmed before the ARC Conference a couple of weeks ago, all of the meta - themes are still obviously relevant. This is a winner of a podcast.

THE PODSCORE: 4.5 (out of 5) MICS

In a tabloidish-type talk with Patrick Bet-David, Lindy Li, former Mid-Atlantic Regional Chair of the DNC turned conservative commentator, spills the beans on the inner workings of the Democratic Party. She shares her candid observations on Biden's cognitive decline, Kamala Harris's impulsive decisions, and the hidden influencers steering political narratives. Li discusses her transition from liberal to conservative, the shocking truths about campaign financing, and exposes alleged corruption in Philadelphia politics. Lindy dishes the dirt.

“Jill Biden was, essentially, the President for the past four years!”

Disillusionment with the Democratic Party

Lindy Li’s departure from the Democratic Party stems from a profound disillusionment with its direction and values. She describes the party’s leftward shift over recent years, embracing progressive ideologies like woke culture and DEI which she finds disconnected from the historic values of workers-rights and the social safety net that she initially supported. Personal experiences amplified her shift: being mugged in Philadelphia—a city governed by progressive policies—made her question their efficacy. Additionally, she told a story about being prescribed birth-control for various reasons, other than suppressing pregnancy, as a factor in her switch(this part got a bit lost on us). She also claims to be extremely uncomfortable with the economic policies of the far left (Bernie Sanders and socialism) which are broadly believed in within the party. Li asserts that these cumulative experiences, rather than a single incident, eroded her faith in the party, leading her to believe conservatives were right about many issues all along.

Power Dynamics and Leadership

Li exposes the concentrated power within the Democratic Party, naming Steve Ricchetti, Mike Donilon, and Anita Dunn as the trio who effectively ran the Biden administration behind the scenes, with Joe Biden as a mere figurehead. She says that there is no question Biden was impaired during long periods of his presidency. She highlights Jill Biden and Hunter Biden’s significant influence, particularly in keeping Joe in the 2024 race—Jill for power and Hunter for his legal protection. This revelation paints a picture of a party driven by loyalists and nepotism rather than by merit, where decisions were shaped by personal agendas. Li’s insights suggest a leadership structure more focused on maintaining control than addressing national needs, contributing to her exit as well.

Interactions with Political Figures

We found this to be the most interesting part of an interview devoid of any real policy insights. That intrigue was rooted in her alleged inside information on the personalities at the top of the Democratic party when the cameras were off. The interview really does reveal Li’s varied inside experiences with prominent Democrats. First off, she speaks warmly of Joe Biden’s personal kindness, recalling his compassion toward her and her family, yet critiques his catastrophic decision to stay in the race amid cognitive decline. In contrast, she describes Doug Emhoff as nice but tainted by ignored allegations of misconduct, and Pete Buttigieg and his team as rude and self-important, leaving her deeply offended. Kamala Harris earns mixed reviews—sweet personally but unqualified for leadership. She had NOTHING positive to say about Hillary Clinton. Admittedly, she doesn’t know the Clintons as well as the Biden and Harris people, but from what she has observed and seen, Hillary is every bit the "“robot” people perceive her to be. She talked about Hillary’s well-known quest for power and how the loss in 2016 effectively ended her career. These interactions underscore a disconnect between public personas and private realities, partially fueling Li’s disenchantment.

Fundraising and Financial Mismanagement

As a volunteer fundraiser who raised millions without compensation (which she told us several times), Li questions the Democratic Party’s handling of $2.5 billion in 2024 campaign funds. She points to lavish spending on celebrities like Beyoncé and Oprah, who were reimbursed for appearances, contrasting this with her unpaid efforts. Li also alludes to corrupt practices like Philadelphia’s “street money,” where ward leaders received cash with little accountability. This financial recklessness and lack of transparency, exemplified by DNC Chair Jaime Harrison’s (who she really doesn’t like) refusal to address her queries, deepened her frustration with the party’s priorities.

The 2020 Election and Information Suppression

Li offers a nuanced take on the 2020 election, denying outright cheating but arguing it was “rigged” through information suppression. She (and now many others) cites the media and intelligence community’s burial of Hunter Biden’s laptop story—later proven authentic—as a type of cheating in that she believes that had that come out before the election in a truthful way, Biden would have never won the election. This manipulation, coupled with Biden’s low-profile “basement campaign,” reinforced her belief that the party prioritized winning over integrity, further alienating her.

Reactions to Major Events

Li recounts the Democratic donors’ despair following the July 13, 2024, assassination attempt on Donald Trump. The stark contrast—Trump’s resilience versus Biden’s frailty with COVID—led donors to concede the election was lost, with remarks like “Trump Just Won” echoing through her network. This pivotal moment underscored Biden’s weakness and Trump’s strength, solidifying her view of the party’s inability to adapt or compete effectively.

Let’s be clear, this chat resembled more of tabloid magazine cover story than any sort of pseudo-intellectual or political discussion, but there was some entertainment to be had. We just don’t know how long Lindy can keep the gravy train going, or that the GOP will ever embrace her the way the left did. None-the-less, assuming the majority of what she says is true, kuddos to her for stepping forward. For us, though, not a lot new or stimulating ground covered here.

THE PODSCORE: 2.5 (out of) 5 MICS

Joe Rogan hosts Elon Musk and they hit on it all! These guys always put on a show and this episode is no different. We have no idea where Elon finds the time for all of this, but here we go... The duo cover a whirlwind of topics including the necessity of multi-planetary colonization to safeguard humanity and the future of AI development. Musk humorously critiques the relationship between beauty, social media, and success, while contemplating the implications of advanced propulsion technologies and UAPs. Musk also addresses the complexities surrounding government accountability (USAID and DOGE, most notably) and public perception in media narratives, emphasizing the ethical dilemmas in political and financial systems. This is a fascinating listen. The closer Musk gets to politics, the more interesting these chats become.

Government Inefficiency and Reform

After spending the first few minutes playing with voice-powered “naughty” Grok, they get down to business. The first theme of the episode focused on DOGE. Musk comes out swinging and lambasts the pervasive inefficiency and corruption within the U.S. government. He reveals startling discoveries, such as billions in untraceable payments and millions of fraudulent Social Security records, describing the government as a “graft machine” resistant to change. One of the most stark examples of this that Musk talks about are the NGO’s which have funneled billions right into benefactor’s pockets. There is so much more detail to come. Musk argues that this type of fraud threatens democracy, directly. The conversation underscores the difficulty of reforming such a massive bureaucracy and the urgent need for transparency and accountability to restore public trust. A parting thought on this topic - Musk says that the government can save $100 billion dollars per years just by accounting for WHERE payments are going. The battle is on. Keep going DOGE.

“We are not a threat democracy…we are a threat to bureaucracy!” - Elon Musk

Media, Free Speech, and Polarization

The discussion pivots to the role of mainstream media in spreading misinformation, with Musk and Rogan criticizing outlets for distorting reality, such as baselessly labeling Musk a “Nazi” during his speech and the inauguration celebration. That was so bogus, by the way. This reviewer saw it live and if you don’t get the context of what he was doing there, sorry you are part of the problem! In the case of DOGE, the MSM has latched onto anecdotal stories of aid cuts here and there and access that DOGE has to certain personal information. Musk and Rogan point out, rightly, that the MSM won’t tell you anything about the graft or where DOGE is wrong in the line-item analysis of budgets. We are seeing this same opinion everywhere on social media. The MSM is deaf and dying. So, obviously, they highlight the importance of platforms like X (and Rumble), which Musk sees as a crucial bastions of free speech amidst growing societal censorship and polarization. This polarization, driven by tribalism and what Musk calls “weaponized empathy,” is a big issue, with the warning that it could destabilize civilization if unchecked.

Space Exploration and Humanity’s Future

The conversation veered further away from politics when space came up. Musk details SpaceX’s progress in reusable rocket technology and the mission to colonize Mars. He presents Space X’s mission as a safeguard against Earth’s vulnerabilities—natural disasters like asteroids or human threats like nuclear war—emphasizing the technical hurdles, such as durable spacecraft heat shields. Musk, as he does, reminds us that humans are going to have to be inter-planetary species over the long term and there is no time like the present to get more serious about it.

Artificial Intelligence: Promise and Peril

Artificial intelligence (AI) emerges as a double-edged sword, with Musk discussing its potential to solve complex problems and its dangers if mismanaged. He introduces his AI project, Grok, designed for truth-seeking, contrasting it with “woke” AIs like Google’s Gemini. However, Musk warns of AI’s existential risks, predicting that by 2029-2030, it could surpass all human intelligence combined. The conversation weighs the revolutionary possibilities of AI against the catastrophic outcomes of its misuse, urging careful stewardship of this transformative technology.

Personal Risks and Societal Stakes

The podcast takes a personal turn as Musk reflects on the threats he faces, including assassination risks tied to his public profile and political stance. He discusses the societal divide that vilifies him. He used to be a darling of the left, people want to shoot him and blow up Tesla dealerships. We live in fickle world.

Just watch it. You’ll enjoy it.

THE PODSCORE: 5 (of 5) MICS

Jordan interviews Ezra Levant, a Canadian human rights activist and founder of Rebel News, shares insights on pressing issues in media freedom and censorship. He discusses his firsthand experience with the World Economic Forum and the authoritarian trends in the UK. Levant highlights the imprisonment of Tommy Robinson and debates the rise of censorship, especially in academic settings. He critiques the disconnect between elite advocacy at events like Davos and public sentiment, emphasizing the importance of independent journalism in these turbulent times, as the “mainstream media” continues to be exposed as propaganda arms of the government and corporate interests.

The Battle Over Truth and Free Speech: Tommy Robinson’s Imprisonment

One prominent theme is the ongoing conflict between Tommy Robinson and the UK government, portrayed as a fight for truth and free expression. Robinson, a former Rebel News journalist, is in solitary confinement for distributing the documentary Silenced, which has amassed over 150 million views despite a gag order. The UK authorities claim the film breached civil procedure rules, leading to his imprisonment in a maximum-security prison. Levant highlights Robinson’s worsening condition after more than 100 days in isolation, emphasizing the psychological strain and the power imbalance between prisoners and guards. To be clear Robinson has a sordid track record, but Levant argues that his current confinement, and treatment, is politically motivated and unethical.

The World Economic Forum: A Crypto-Government of Elites

The World Economic Forum (WEF) emerges as another central theme, with Levant labeling it a "crypto-government" wielded by global elites. He criticizes its unelected influence, driven by figures like Klaus Schwab (Dr. Evil), Justin Trudeau, and Mark Carney, who promote policies such as net zero and ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance). Levant argues these initiatives favor the wealthy while burdening ordinary people, citing restrictive measures like ultra-low emission zones. He also mentions Rebel News’ attempts to challenge WEF leaders directly, noting their refusal to answer unscripted questions. Peterson is in agreement with Levant on most of these issues, but the manner in which Levant frames these issues added additional ammunition to the strong counter-punch to the WEF we’ve seen arise in the past few years.

Canada’s Political Landscape: Trudeau, Carney, and National Decline

The state of Canada under Justin Trudeau’s leadership, alongside the potential influence of Mark Carney got some air time curing this conversation. Levant condemns Trudeau for policies that he says have demoralized the nation, including mass immigration and economic mismanagement, which he believes erode Canada’s identity and morale. Carney, tied to the WEF, is presented as a future leader whose globalist priorities, like net zero, could worsen these trends. Levant warns of a deepening national decline, particularly through the undermining of key industries like fossil fuels, highlighting anxieties about Canada’s trajectory under such leadership.

The Role of Rebel News and Citizen Journalism

Rebel News’ role in citizen journalism stands out as a key theme, with Levant detailing its efforts to cover events like the Canadian trucker convoy and the WEF. Despite facing censorship, demonetization, and arrests, the outlet persists by using platforms like X and Rumble to reach wide audiences. Levant contrasts Rebel News’ raw, unfiltered reporting with the compliant legacy media, emphasizing its importance in countering official narratives. We’ve seen this rise in independent media strength manifest through others that we have covered here, like Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger, to name a couple.

Erosion of National Identity and Culture

Finally, the erosion of national identity and culture, particularly in Canada, is a recurring theme. Levant attributes this to Trudeau’s policies, such as removing historical figures like Sir John A. Macdonald from currency and embracing a "post-national" stance, which he argues have weakened Canada’s cohesion. He connects this to broader globalist trends, like those pushed by the WEF, that prioritize transnational interests over sovereignty. Levant warns that such shifts leave nations vulnerable to external influence and risk transforming them into culturally hollow entities, devoid of a unifying identity.

Peterson and Levant collectively paint a picture of a world grappling with censorship, elitism, and the loss of national integrity, and they are convincing.

THE PODSCORE: 4 (out 5) MICS

Tucker chats with Chris Josephs, creator of the Nancy Pelosi Stock Tracker, sheds light on the shocking world of political stock trading. He reveals how Nancy Pelosi's trading strategies consistently outperform professional investors, raising concerns about insider knowledge and trading. Josephs discusses various financial scandals that expose the corruption within Congress and delves into the financial impacts of political decisions on the market. The conversation highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability among politicians when it comes to their investments.

Who is Christopher Josephs and What Is the Nancy Pelosi Stock Tracker?

Josephs opens the podcast by explaining that the The Nancy Pelosi Stock Tracker is a real tool he created after catching wind of the obscene returns that she and others in congress were getting in the stock market. It monitors the stock trades of Nancy Pelosi (and other politicians), pulling data from mandatory financial disclosures required by the STOCK Act of 2012. The tracker’s slogan, "invest like a politician," is both a catchy hook and a biting critique, highlighting how politicians’ trades often outperform the market—Pelosi, for instance, was up 54% in 2024, beating the S&P 500 by over 25%. Josephs started this project after quitting a finance job in New York, moving to Bali, and later teaming up with co-founders in LA during the pandemic to build an app that originally let users follow friends’ stock portfolios. The Pelosi Tracker emerged as a side project during the GameStop craze, when social media buzz about politicians’ suspiciously timed trades—like Pelosi’s—caught his attention.

How Did It Start?

The idea took root around 2020, sparked by earlier efforts from an X account called Unusual Whales, which began calling out politicians’ trades. Josephs started investigating these trade further and developed the Pelosi Tracker in 2022 after noticing patterns like Pelosi’s massive Tesla call options purchase (up to $5 million) right after Biden’s 2020 election, just before the Build Back Better infrastructure bill boosted electric vehicle stocks. He saw an opportunity to use technology and social media to expose this, turning it into a full-fledged app. It’s not just a gimmick—over $300 million is now invested alongside Pelosi’s trades, with users profiting $30 million since 2021.

Why Does It Matter?

The tracker shines a light on political insider trading. Look at the details of Pelosi’s trades: she bought Tesla leaps (high-risk, high-reward options) in late 2020, netting 40-50% gains as EV-friendly policies rolled out, and later scored a 140% return on Nvidia leaps in 2023 after buying $5 million worth—moves that seem too well-timed to be luck. The podcast cites Richard Burr’s pandemic - era scandal as well… as Senate Intelligence Committee chair, he sold $1.65 million from his retirement account in February 2020 after private briefings, right before the market crashed, saving himself millions. These examples fuel the perception that politicians use privileged info for personal gain, which obviously erodes public trust in institutions. We have felt this viscerally—how can leaders be so corrupt?—and the tracker quantifies it: Pelosi outperformed 95% of hedge fund managers in 2024, per Bloomberg.

What’s Being Done About It?

The podcast explores solutions and reforms, echoing your disbelief that this is allowed. Proposals include banning politicians from trading stocks (AOC’s recent Restore Faith in Government Act), requiring blind trusts, or at least barring trades in industries they oversee—like Markwayne Mullin owning Raytheon while on the Armed Services Committee. The STOCK Act already mandates disclosure within 45 days, but Josephs advocates for same-day reporting for transparency. However, efforts like a 2024 Senate bill (from Josh Hawley and Jon Ossoff) stalled over concerns about forcing politicians to sell private businesses, a step too far for some. Despite the tracker’s success—$500 million invested across all politician portfolios—it hasn’t prompted Pelosi’s office to respond, though she’s defended it as “free market” participation in press conferences.

“In 2024, for example, she was up 54%. The was up like 26%”

This is a fun podcast to listen to and yet, a sad one. We all intuitively knew this was happening, at least Josephs build a tool for the rest of us to profit from it. Hopefully no one profits in the future.

THE PODSCORE: 3.5 (out of 5) MICS

Joe chats with Chase Hughes, an expert in influence and human behavior and author of notable works, who shares his insights on the psychology behind manipulation and social media dynamics. He discusses how societal narratives create beliefs and the emotional strategies used by platforms to engage users. Hughes also examines cult influences and the psychological tactics of persuasion, revealing how these can be repurposed for positive change. The conversation highlights the dark legacies of psychological operations and the complex dynamics of modern advertising that manipulate consumer behavior.

The podcast begins with Hughes sharing his personal battle with temporal lobe epilepsy and temporal sclerosis, conditions that surfaced after his military retirement. These neurological issues caused seizures and memory loss. He faced these challenges while transitioning to civilian life. Initially prescribed medications that listed seizures as a side effect—an ironic and frustrating proposition—he rejected them and sought alternatives. His research led him to methylene blue, a compound dating back to the 1890s, known for its neuroprotective qualities. With a background in neuroscience from Harvard and Duke, he explored its mechanism: methylene blue donates electrons to neuronal mitochondria, enhancing ATP production and reducing damaging free radicals. Taking 1-2 mg/kg daily, he experienced a cessation of seizures and improved cognition with minimal side effects, like temporary blue urine. This was a pretty wild story, right off the bat but speaks to Hughes’ obsession with understanding the human brain. He later mentioned that he had a seizure the day before the podcast because he hadn’t taken methylene blue in three days. Do your own due diligence!

Thanks for reading PodLand’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Hughes’ obsession with neuroscience and behavioral science started when he was young. He tells a funny story about how he was rejected by a girl while on his army base in Hawaii and that led him down a rabbit hole of trying understand human behavior. Why did she reject me, he thought. This curiosity matured into a career training military and government personnel in behavior modification and persuasion tactics. His expertise lies in identifying behavioral patterns to predict and influence actions. He explains that adult behavior, particularly in high-stakes or conflict situations, often mirrors childhood responses to needs like safety, friendship, and rewards. This foundational understanding of how early experiences shape lifelong decision-making and interactions is key to his work.

While understanding childhood responses is helpful in understanding behavior, Hughes take us much deeper into the art of persuasion based on human understanding. All groups - cults, governments, or marketers—manipulate behavior through identity alignment and social proof. He describes a technique where individuals are prompted to affirm an identity (e.g., “Are you someone who stands up for what’s right?”), locking them into predictable actions consistent with that self-image. To illustrate, he references the Milgram experiment, where participants obeyed authority to deliver perceived electric shocks, and the Asch conformity experiment, where group pressure swayed individuals to agree with incorrect answers. These studies reveal how external forces—authority figures or peer consensus—can override personal ethics or logic. These were really eerie stories.

So, understanding that there are childhood reaction behaviors that persist and understanding that there are groups which can great influence an individual are foundational Hughes then outlines six social needs—significance, acceptance, approval, intelligence, pity, and strength—that drive human interactions. He cites a few examples; someone boasting about accomplishments might crave significance, while another seeking sympathy might prioritize pity. By identifying these expressed needs, one can tailor communication to influence outcomes, a method he’s applied in intelligence work, sales, and coaching. This dual approach—patterns and needs—forms a powerful tool for understanding and directing behavior.

“ If believe you can’t be persuaded by these things…you are a suggestible person”

- Chase Hughes

As a certified hypnotist, Hughes explores hypnosis as a method to bypass conscious resistance and reprogram behavior. He details techniques like fractionation—cycling emotional states to deepen trance—and micro-compliances, small agreements that build subconscious buy-in. Hypnosis has positive applications, such as enhancing athletic performance (e.g., crafting an alter ego for a fighter inspired by Roy Jones Jr.), but also darker potential, like mind control in unethical hands. He notes that suggestibility varies: highly suggestible individuals tend to be open and content but more manipulable. One of the most fascinating conspiracy theories (that we’ve heard before) came up during this part of the podcast - and that of course, is the idea that Sirhan Sirhan was under some type of hypnosis or mind-control when he killed RFK in 1968. Sirhan Sirhan still claims that he has no memory of the assassination.

The discussion turns to technology’s role in shaping perceptions, with a focus on social media’s manipulative power. Hughes contends that algorithms exploit human psychology by amplifying fringe ideas, making them seem mainstream through novelty, authority, and emotional triggers. He introduces “tribal confusion,” where curated content distorts reality, and notes the mammalian brain—unchanged for 200,000 years—struggles to adapt to this rapid manipulation. Techniques like fractionation, alternating positive and negative stimuli, heighten suggestibility, while bots and artificial engagement further skew perceptions. This creates an environment where users are unknowingly nudged toward specific beliefs or actions.

The podcast wraps up with an analysis of psychological operations (PSYOPs), using the COVID-19 pandemic as a real-world example. Hughes identifies hallmarks of a textbook PSYOP: silencing dissent (e.g., censoring doctors questioning official narratives) and public shaming (e.g., media vilifying the unvaccinated). He argues that these tactics—rooted in fear, authority, and tribal division—manipulated public opinion by suppressing credible opposition and amplifying unified messaging. This approach eroded trust and transparency, illustrating how PSYOPs leverage group dynamics to control narratives. He urges awareness of these strategies as a defense against such influence, drawing a sobering parallel to historical propaganda efforts.

Chase is a little dry and this one is a better watch than a listen. None-the-less, the content is rich…particularly if you haven’t heard him before.

THE PODSCORE 4 (out of 5) MICS.

Tucker sits down with Luke Gromen, a finance and macroeconomics expert known for his insights on gold, uncovers the massive shift of gold between nations as a precursor to a new global financial system. He dives into the secrecy surrounding gold ownership, questioning why Fort Knox can’t be audited. Gromen also challenges the narratives pushed by the intel community against gold owners and raises eyebrows about Warren Buffett’s role in the banking industry. This timely analysis reveals gold’s critical status amid the evolving economic landscape.

The podcast begins with a provocative statement from Gromen when says, “since 2014 national central banks have grown their gold “piggy banks” by about $600 billion dollars”. On the other hand, they have NOT added their net treasury reserve. In fact, those have declined by about $300 billion. This is a significant shift from the past 50 years or so, so what is going on?

Thanks for reading PodLand’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Tucker and Gromen give us a somewhat interesting history of gold before getting back to the key question…what is going on with central banks and gold and more recently why have we seen so much gold trading around the globe? As of this writing gold sits near an all-time high as it closes in on $3,000 dollars per ounce. Gromen explains that when countries physically move “monetary” gold, a lot of it can be done in secret. In an interesting exchange, Tucker and Gromen “Google” gold storage by country, they both agree that the list is absurdly incorrect. For example, France is listed as having more physical gold than China…which they agree is patently untrue.

This got them to the topic of Fort Knox and the ensuing audit. How much gold does the US really have? Gromen makes the point that he believes that the US has avoided auditing Ft. Knox in part because its focuses attention on gold. The US dollar was removed from the gold standard in 1971, and this action was effectively a default on certain loans backed by gold. So, “talking about gold” was something that an entire generation of US leaders wanted to avoid. With all of the flows and price action related to gold recently…gold is undoubtedly…back in the news.

More to the point, there has been significant gold inflow to the United States, particularly from the UK. The belief in the market is that incoming tariffs from the Trump administration will impact the price of the gold in the short term as traders position their gold holdings accordingly. However, that is only a short - term issue. However, both Gromen and Tucker believe there is a separate tactical and strategic reason why this might be happening. Gromen believes that the US may revalue its gold which is currently on the books at 42 dollars to the current amount (around $2900). This would be done in large part to payback debt WITH GOLD and the put the US in better position to rebuild its industrial base. And in turn, this industrial base would be in better position to support US defense which is more and more dependent upon China for production, as we have learned, from the Ukraine War.

“The Flows of Gold Into the US are Likely Front Running the Price of Gold”

Generally, Gromen observes that with the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency and with national debt so high, the US has seen industries hallowed out, except for those close to “money”. He cites a fascinating discussion that JD Vance had with Jerome Powell in this topic in 2023. Gromen goes on to state that the US is now vulnerable because it can’t fund a war with an enemy who is our industrial supplier. So, Gromen believes that the US will put on Tariffs, lower taxes, reinvest in factories (not just financial assets) and encourage foreign nations to invest into US stored gold…this would be effectively another way to pay down debt with gold.

The last thirty minutes of this podcast went from interesting to mind blowing. Gromen was succinct and specific as explained how the macro-economic changes in the US will change how we work, live, prosper and interact on the international stage. In short, he sees the US moving from a (primarily) financial-based into economy a better diversified economy (that can at least produce its own artillery shells). This rebalance of the US economy, he believes will once again prosper the middle class and create new incentive structures that broaden opportunity beyond finance, government and technology.

At the close they discuss what a “retail” investor might do with this information. Well, Gromen recommends holding 5-10% of net worth in gold bullion as a safeguard against inflation, particularly as Treasury bonds lose purchasing power—a pressing concern for boomers reliant on entitlements. Looking ahead, gold could climb 2-4 times its current value, potentially reaching $6,000 to $12,000 per ounce, to realign with historical norms where the US covered 40% of foreign-held U.S. debt (now just 9%). Don’t take this as financial advice, by the way.

So, we landed on a positive podscore for this podcast, but you’ve got to make it through the first 30 minutes or so, which is rather slow as they focused on the history of gold and so forth. Stick with it.

THE PODSCORE 3.5 (of 5) MICS.

Shawn Ryan hosts Dr. Gabrielle Lyon, a board-certified physician specializing in muscle-centric medicine—a field that views skeletal muscle as the cornerstone of longevity and disease prevention—explores a variety of topics related to health, wellness, and achieving a longer, healthier life. She introduces listeners to key areas such as cancer screenings, functional medicine, nutrition, exercise, hormone replacement therapy, and the vital role of mental focus, setting the stage for a holistic discussion on well-being.

This was a very wide-ranging discussion on a number of health-related messages and opportunities. Early in the conversation the talked about cancer and Shawn’s fear of cancer. In particular, they focused on the increasing cancer rates in US society and trying to find a cause, but also made an effort to discuss practical advice for how to use old, new and emerging technology to stay ahead of a cancer diagnoses. Dr. Lyons places significant emphasis on the importance of early cancer detection, particularly for military operators who face heightened risks from environmental exposures like Agent Orange. She champions advanced screening methods, including full-body MRI scans and the Gallery test, a blood test that can identify over 50 types of cancer.

She also addresses the unique health challenges faced by military personnel, such as gastrointestinal issues often caused by undiagnosed parasites, as well as problems stemming from mold exposure and traumatic brain injuries. Dr. Lyons underscores the need for specialized medical care to tackle these complex conditions effectively.

To combat these challenges for vets and non-vets alike, and enhance longevity, Dr. Lyons advocates for intentional lifestyle choices, with a strong focus on nutrition and physical activity. She critiques outdated dietary guidelines, promoting instead a whole foods diet rich in protein, featuring lean red meats and nutrient-packed organ meats like liver.

Exercise, particularly resistance training with progressive overload, is highlighted as essential for maintaining muscle health, which she considers a critical factor in disease prevention and survivability. To bolster these efforts, she recommends supplements like collagen for skin and gut health, colostrum for immune support, and creatine for cognitive function, noting their value in compensating for the nutrient deficiencies found in modern produce.

“The stronger you are, the more robust you rae, the more muscle mass yoou have, the longer you are going to live…”

Beyond lifestyle adjustments, Dr. Lyons delves into medical interventions and the foundational role of rest. She tackles misconceptions surrounding hormone replacement therapy (HRT), debunking the myth that testosterone increases cancer risk and explaining its benefits—such as enhanced energy, mood, and sexual health—for both men and women. Sleep is another cornerstone of her approach, with most individuals requiring 7–8 hours nightly for optimal brain and metabolic function, though she acknowledges that some, like certain special operations personnel, may thrive on less due to genetic variations.

Expanding the conversation to encompass holistic health, Dr. Lyons highlights the significance of sexual health and relationships, suggesting that regular sexual activity serves as a marker of overall well-being. She also emphasizes the value of community and mental clarity, cautioning against the pitfalls of distraction that can derail health goals. To illustrate this, she shares a poignant personal anecdote about her son’s near-drowning incident, demonstrating how a lapse in focus can lead to serious consequences.

In closing, Dr. Lyons ties together her insights into a unified, muscle-centric philosophy of health. She advocates for a proactive approach that integrates early cancer detection, nutrient-rich diets, strength training, hormone optimization, sufficient sleep, and unwavering mental focus. Through this comprehensive framework, she offers listeners a actionable roadmap to achieve longevity and thrive in their pursuit of optimal health. Lyons does an excellent job slowing things down and sticking to facts (the facts she has). We’ll spend more time with her podcast in the future.

THE PODSCORE: 4 (out 5) Mics.

The EU hosted Jeffrey Sachs is an American economist, academic, and public policy analyst known for his work on economic development, poverty reduction, and sustainability. He has advised governments and international organizations, including the UN, on economic policies. Sachs played a key role in the transition of post-Soviet economies to market systems and was a leading advocate for the UN’s Millennium Development Goals. Currently, he is a professor at Columbia University and directs the Center for Sustainable Development.

This was an absolutely astonishing speech to watch. Here is an American, who has been involved in European / American politics for years, and he goes to the seat of the EU Parliament and lambasts the US foreign policy since the fall of the Soviet Union and blasts the fecklessness of Europe in that same time period.J. He addresses the geopolitical landscape, focusing on the role of the United States in global conflicts, the lack of a coherent European foreign policy, and the ongoing war in Ukraine. He emphasizes the need for Europe to develop its own foreign policy independent of American influence and to engage directly with Russia to ensure long-term peace and stability.

Sachs describes the US foreign policy as one driven by a firm belief in unipolarity and a desire to expand NATO eastward without considering the security concerns of other nations, particularly Russia. Sachs further discusses the historical context of NATO expansion, highlighting the promises made to Gorbachev about not expanding NATO eastward and how these were subsequently broken. Sachs explains the detail of all of these expansion and proclaims that everything the US says about this is a “lie”. The reality he says, is that President Bill Clinton signed off on this approach of aggressive expansion in 1994. Sachs argues that this approach has led to unnecessary conflicts, including the war in Ukraine, which he believes could have been avoided through diplomacy and a recognition of Russia's security interests. From a long term perspective, Sachs states that the goal was to block off Russia from the Black Sea. The idea was for both Ukraine and Georgia to eventually join NATO at the end of this “project”.

“There Would be no end to the Eastward Expansion of NATO”

With regard to the Ukraine war, Sachs predicts that the conflict will end soon, likely due to negotiations between Trump and Putin, but he stresses that lasting peace in Europe will require European initiative and a realistic approach to foreign policy that includes engaging with Russia. It is here where he prods the Parliament to encourage European agency in their own future. They will need to step in defense spending, as Trump has demanded, but also in vision and strategy.

The presentation also touches on broader global issues, such as the Middle East conflict and relations with China. One of the most interesting asides is the “seven wars” approach the US took following 9/11. We have heard this before in various places over the past several years. Wesley Clark himself has talked about it openly. The US neocon faction (Wolfowitz, Cheney, etc) were committed to conflict in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Libya and Sudan). These efforts started under Bush and carried on through the Obama administration. Trump effectively ended this madness in his first term and then Biden was bogged down in Ukraine. Sachs claims that these “seven wars” were very much the design of Netanyahu and Israel, as well as the US foreign policy apparatus.

Charitably, we can call this shocking presentation less US-bashing and more of a focus is on the need for Europe to redefine its role in the world and to prioritize diplomacy and peace over warmongering and subservience to U.S. interests. In summary, this is one of the more blunt, provocative and controversial presentations ever given at the EU Parliament. In previous years or decades we might have thought of this as subversive or anti-American. Today, with the awakening under way following the removal of the USAID mask, we might just call it … truth.

THE PODSCORE: 5 (of 5 MICS)

The ARC Conference welcomed Niall Ferguson, MA, D.Phil., and is the Milbank Family Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and a senior faculty fellow of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard, where he served for twelve years as the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History.

Ferguson began by referencing the recently completed Munich Security Conference and noted JD Vance’s ground-breaking speech. Much of it he claimed to agree with, but Ferguson was less revealing with solutions. Vance’s speech was a clarion call for Europe to defend itself and / or to pay for a common defense. Ferguson compelled the audience’s attention early on by noting that a new Axis has formed between Russia, China, Iran and North Korea and that now is a time to ponder the possibility of World War 3. From there he offered a concerning observation…the US cannot afford to defend Europe.

Ferguson then cited Adam Ferguson’s Law which say that no sustaining empire lasts after its interest payments surpass its defense spending as a percent of GDP in a given year. In 2024, he says, the United States ran into such a fiscal reality for the first time. He goes on to claim that by roughly 2050, the US will spend more than twice as much on interest than it will on defense. He argues that US enemies are watching.

Ferguson continued by saying that the Venetians, Dutch, Spanish, French and the UK all ran into this same financial scenario before falling into calamity or revolution. He then goes onto say that ALL countries in the G7 are currently violating Ferguson’s Law, except Germany.

Ferguson lambasted these nations for all falling near or over the threshold of debt to GDP ratio of 100%. The federal deficit at the end of Biden administration was 123% of GDP and is completely unsustainable. Ferguson then cited four reasons for this happening:

1. The replacement rate in the G7 is well below the replacement rate of 2.1. This leads to craving of immigrants, and illegal immigrants specifically.
2. He shows that productivity has plateaued in more than half of the G7 and slowed in most.
3. Education degeneration runs deep across the G7. He pointed out math, in particular.
4. Lastly he mentioned the “cultural unmooring” of the western world. He points out that the English speaking world has become more secular and less bound to pure survival. In other words, the Western world has become lessly Godly and more coddled.

Ferguson offers no recommendations in his 15 minutes but does cast a warning that is hard to deny. The question is, how will Europe rise to the challenge? The United States, under Trump and DOGE, is under perhaps the biggest culling of government spending in decades - which will bring down the debt but could / should also bring down defense spending. That was, after all, part of Vance’s point in Munich…the US can no longer subsidize the social safety nets of Europe. Ferguson made the same point but really failed to call on Europe to make the same sacrifices that the US is beginning to make. It almost seemed to this reviewer that he was, instead, just calling on the US to keep spending on defense. Again, left without recommendations, we don’t really know. We hope that wasn’t his point.

THE PODSCORE 3.5 (out of 5)

The Alliance for Responsible Citizenship hosted Michael Shellenberger this week. He is the C.B.R. Chair of Politics, Censorship, and Free Speech at the University of Austin, a Time Magazine "Hero of the Environment", Dao Journalism Prize winner, Founder of Public.News, and the bestselling author of Apocalypse Never and San Fransicko. You will also know him from his work on the “Twitter Files”

Shellenberger gave a thought-provoking speech in London that begged the question..is the heart of our most pressing issue really that we don’t have enough “intelligence”? Sam Bankman-Fried was certainly intelligent and the German thought-police” are certainly using artificial intelligence is shutting down free speech, went his opening. Romania has overturned their elections because they don’t like the results and the Germans are saying they might…is this due to lack of intelligence, he asked? Shellenberger then asked if intelligence had anything to do with the rise of the “psychopathology known as wokeness”. None of these examples, Shellenberger claimed, were due to lack of intelligence, per se.

Shellenberger then pivoted and said that intelligence will play a role in European digital ID’s. Imagine, they will “link your vaccine history, your social media posts, and your bank accounts”. The idea will be that “tweet the wrong the thing and they will suspend your bank accounts!” This reviewer thinks that had Kamala Harris won, Europe might be even further down that path.

Shellenberger continues…but what about gender surgery, the young men and women in Japan not leaving their houses and not willing to reproduce - can AI fix this? What about the collapse in reading scores because of “whole language theory” which allowed young children to look at pictures and guess, can AI fix that, he prodded? The loneliness epidemic and collapsing fertility rates are huge issues. Will AI fix those? 

On the heels of the World Economic Forum a couple of weeks ago, Shellenberger hilariously asked why this guy is in charge of Europe. Who is he and why does he control the free leaders of Europe? (the easy answer is that he is clearly a James Bond villain). Is he going to solve our problems with AI or just contribute to this censorship and control.

Shellenberger makes the point that the US citizenry is tired of fighting foreign wars, or funding them, and if free speech is going to come under fire in Europe or worse, Europe becomes a full surveillance state, it begs the question as he put it…”what are we doing here guys…its been 80’s years since World War 2…maybe Europe should defend itself”. Maybe we don’t have enough problems, he pondered, perhaps - we are richer than ever as a global people and homicides rates are down…but we are miserable and have no agency.

Maybe its because its because we have no religion (US chart below, Europe has even fewer believers , although Shellenberger got the number wrong in his voiceover, he is right that non-believers are higher in Europe)…

And the issue according to Shellenberger might be the following…

“Man ends up believing anything”…enter the woke ideology. The charts below clearly show the invented uptick in racism over the past decade amplified by the media…

Progressives seem to fall for these “fads” more than other people and are suffering more mental health problems, as Shellenberger showed in charts. How can the rest of us help? Will AI fix this behavior? Only free speech and free inquiries will really fix these issues. Sure, AI can help but its free speech that will enable better discourse, he says. He received a rousing ovation when let the audience know, without a doubt, that the US is “serious” about free speech.

Toward the close he also lauded the return of “manliness” and proclaimed that masculinity is NOT toxic. In fact, “young men…are breaking from the woke orthodoxy”…saying masculinity is not toxic". Masculinity is natural and healthy and needed!” You are seeing this resurgence in the way that they vote. The return of masculinity doesn’t mean being violent or aggressive to take advantage of the weak or vulnerable but rather to build a strong society. This is something Jordan Peterson talks a lot about and this is precisely the opposite of Andrew Tate for those of you still stuck in far left talking points of 2020.

In closing, Shellenber showed evidence that married people with children are the happiest people alive. He came back to the World Economic Forum proclaiming that no one wants to be there, they want to be at ARC. He also implored “Europe to protect itself”.

This was a wonderful presentation whose ideas were threaded together coherently but made assumptions about the listener perhaps in that Shellenberger didn’t overtly connect all of these ideas, but listeners of his understood their connectivity and we believe most others will as well. Lastly, this wasn’t really an AI discussion, rather it was a discussion in spite of AI. We loved the presentation but stopped just short of a 5 MICS rating because of the flow and flimsy connection to AI.

THE PODSCORE 4.5 (out of 5)

The Alliance For Responsible Citizenship (ARC) Conference in London hosted Konstantin Kisin. He is a Sunday Times bestselling author, satirist, social commentator, and creator and co-host of free speech podcast TRIGGERnometry. In 2022, he published An Immigrant's Love Letter to the West.

Kisin delivered a powerful and humorous speech at the ARC 2025 conference that served to remind Westerners of their contributions to history, but also their responsibility to maintain the culture and to regain their pride. Kisin is an interesting character in that he was born in the Soviet Union and immigrated to the UK as a child. So, like in his other work, he brought a unique and valuable perspective to the conference.

Kisin began by proclaiming that “the tide turning…” First, he said, DEI is being dismantled as a the racist, anti-meritocratic doctrine that it is. He noted that this is happening not only in the US government but in multi-national corporations as well. Second, he praised the US focus on reduction on waste, fraud and abuse, like funding terrorist rappers. He also lauded JD Vance’s recent speech in Munich and bemoaned German politicians who are fighting free speech and criticizing Vance for calling them to account. The first four minutes was funny but important in that they identified progress while setting up the idea that the West can be saved.

He ended the introduction with a joke on illegal immigration…”I empathize with those who come across the English Channel in small boats; I wouldn’t want to stay in France either.” While an obvious joke at France’s expense, it showed that its OK to discuss reducing the massive waves of ILLEGAL immigration in Britain and not be a called a racist. The incoherent defense of the far left for the past several years was that you could not discuss a thing…without being a racist. Moving past biased virtue signaling and speaking truth were ideals inherent in his opening.

It was also refreshing to hear Kisin try to remove some of the current left-right stereotypes from this discussion around the West. The West can both multi-cultural and assimilated, it can be built on a merit and empathetic, it can be free but have common-sense laws. This ability to see the West as a net positive force and to convey this message through ALL political parties is a message that needs to get out and Kisin frames it up well.

“Millions of People Risk Their Lives to Come Here and No One Is Going The Other Way. It Tells a Story Doesn’t it.”

Kisin then warns that the West’s cultures and values are at risk if it loses its innovation edge. This is currently happening, particularly in Europe. He says that the West needs to get back to doing what made it great. By way of a Lord of The Rings metaphor he vividly tells the audience that they have been lied to by media and carriers of culture! The West is leading the world in so many areas…including inclusivity. So, instead of the West beating itself up endlessly, perhaps it should celebrate what its brought to the world and “shoot for the stars” again.

He makes the obvious point that free speech must be protected at all costs. Without free speech, he claims, humans cannot have free thought. Second, he claims that the West must think of itself as a culture and nations first before members of some niche identity. This…will bring us together. Lastly, he implores the audience to stop hating humanity. We are not a scourge on this earth but rather an intricate part of it. Once the West can overcome these three challenges it has a chance to restore its confidence. In closing, he reminds the audience that life is short, really short. So, he says “We might as well reach for the stars”. ‘

THE PODSCORE: 5 (out of 5) MICS

The Alliance For Responsible Citizenry (ARC) Conference hosted Douglas Murray and he spoke the state and future of the “West” at ARC, as the conference is happening this week in London. A few notes on Douglas…He is a bestselling author and journalist. His books include The Strange Death of Europe, The War on the West, and his forthcoming book (April) On Democracies and Death Cults. He has been an Associate Editor at The Spectator magazine since 2012 and contributes regularly to many publications and news channels.

His speech, particularly witty to Brits, was sharp and funny and elegantly defined how the West can rise again after perpetually kicking itself into the gutter over most of the past decade or more. Over his career, Murray has proven to a champion of the west who looks at its past as one of many successes, particularly when measured against the rest of the world. His call is for westerners to celebrate their culture, while looking for a way to reinvigorate their confidence and the confidence of nations. Specifically in this speech he calls for a “Reconstruction” of the West to replace the post-modern malaise and “deconstruction” the West has endured for decades.

“The Deconstructionists Knew Something About How To Take Things Apart But Like Children With Bicycles Had No Idea How To Put Them Back Together…”

The idea of Reconstruction lies in the belief that the West has been on the decline but can find its future, in part, by looking back. He makes the point that DOGE is exposing not just the waste, but the “rot” underlying many of our government (and non-government) organizations. It’s important to know how to root out the rot. Additionally, he is horrified that West has wasted so much time (ie…spending years defining a man and a woman and freely giving away its culture). It is here where Murray encourages his countrymen, all of Europe and America to celebrate and maintain what they created. He provokes the crowd to talk about the culture can be added to and not shunned, to be appreciated and to be reclaimed.

There Is a Cost To This…To Being Made to Go at the Speed of the Slowest Kid in the Class!”

Second, he says, that Britain and Europe can learn from America’s private sector, specifically in terms of innovation. Murray acknowledges that Americans believe in risk; in Europe they believe in welfare. He makes a hilarious comment about the NHS worrying about being able to meet the rising demand for euthanasia and that is that the NHS doesn’t believe they can do it efficiently. The joked landed and the point was made…clearly.

Murray closes by invoking TS Elliott saying that civilization can be reclaimed in the “eleventh hour” and from the most inauspicious of locations. Murray was articulate, pointed, and received glowingly. In this moment where Trump and Vance are calling upon Europe to reclaim their borders, their strength and their pride, Murray’s voice is a refined echo for perhaps a more refined audience.

THE PODSCORE:  4.5 (out of 5) MICS

Reform, Rape Gangs & The Decline of the UK: Jordan Peterson & Matthew Goodwin

Dr. Peterson talks with Matthew Goodwin, a former professor and political commentator, delves into the rot within UK institutions and the radicalization of academia. He discusses the alarming UK rape gang scandal and the systemic failures affecting vulnerable girls. The conversation also covers the Conservative Party's ideological shifts and the impact of progressive agendas on political discourse. Goodwin emphasizes the need for grassroots movements and reform to address these urgent societal issues while critiquing elite policies that exacerbate division.

Goodwin serves as an excellent vessel through which we get a lens of the true liberal infiltration into the UK and how the woke mind virus in that country has surpassed even what happened in the US (prior to President Trump’s election, anyway). The concern that struck a chord with us is less about left v right or woke v. anti-woke, it’s more about Goodwin and Peterson’s personal observation about the decay of merit and the rise of self-serving status-seeking by the elite. Universities are supposed to promote excellence and knowledge and to see them waste the amount of time that has been spent over the past 10 years or so on some of these misguided initiatives is just heart-breaking.

Early in the podcast Goodwin grabbed our attention and held it when we learned about his experiences during Brexit. He was a supporter of Brexit, but he claimed not an overly vocal one. None-the-less when this became known he began losing stature, assignments, publication opportunities and was treated like a pariah generally. Eventually Goodwin had to walk away from a system that allowed NO dissent from leftist dogma. Peterson makes the point that this type of story is so pervasive throughout academia that nobody is left in them but the far leftists because all the good / talented moderates just want out and the competent ones actually get out.

After some further discussion about the inner-working of the universities, Goodwin makes the point that university heads are imposing a top down agenda that is really only supported by 10-15% of people in the UK. Goodwin then says the UK citizenry is living through the painful reality that net-zero, mass immigration, embedded wokism, doubling down on a London - based finance economy, and a broken model of multi-culturism. He then makes the point that we are beginning to see, for the first time, a serious pushback on this madness.

The Universities Are a Symbol Of a Much Deeper Rot…It’s Political Indoctrination!”

Goodwin argues that the current conservative group in the UK has completely abandoned its rooted ideology and is, in fact, dominated by liberals. So, he believes they need a movement like MAGA in the UK because the entire establishment is corrupted. He stated that 86% of immigrants coming into the UK are not from Europe. Rather, they are mostly from poorer countries and that they now know quantitively that this is a net-negative cost to the British tax payer.

Peterson paused the conversation put forth this idea of the “Luxury Belief Class” and whether these crazy ideas coming out of the establishment in London and universities have finally gotten so divorced from the benefit of people that there is now the inevitable pushback. Goodwin agreed and went one further by saying that this is the “greatest radicalization of the elite class in western society since the 1960’s.” Both Goodwin and Peterson also agreed that status and virtue signaling over truth have driven so much of this madness that it has suppressed common sense.

On the heels of these observations the news of UK rape gangs entered the conversation. Hopefully, you’ve heard about them, but if you haven’t it might be a good time to look them up. The summary, however, is that there has been a long (decades long) history of underage girls being groomed and raped at scale in the UK and more recently there have been more instances of Muslim and Pakistani gangs committing this crime as immigration has increased. Since 2011 there has been a massive influx of such reports. Many or most of these girls are white and from low income communities and families. The police / judiciary have also been charged with covering up many of these crimes ostensibly because it was black eye on Britain and of course, would shine a light on particular Muslim communities and run the risk of increasing Islamophobia. Goodwin and Peterson agree that the fact that all formal inquiries to date have been weak and not comprehensive mean further investigations are likely to suffer the same fate, as long as they don’t serve the purpose of the elites. It’s really a disgusting concept, yet more and more investigations from various parties seem to prove this out.

“This Will Go Down As One Of The Biggest Scandals In British History”

The duo discussed the role the controversial Tommy Robinson has played in raising this issue over the past decade. Goodwin outlined how Robinson has damaged himself and the cause by being as abrasive as he has been BUT the state is at fault for never taking this issue as seriously as they should have. So, despite Robinson’s faults, the role he has played in awareness cannot be denied.

The podcast closed with Goodwin’s thoughts on how the UK can reform. Goodwin makes the point that many “conservatives” are really just a part of the Labor Party, so Goodwin believes that the best chance to “save” the UK is by way of the Reform Party. The Tories and the Labor Parties are the “architects” of the UK’s decline, he says, so there needs to be a fundamental rethink of what “conservative and labor” really mean as it applies to the UK. In all, it sure seems like a bleak picture. While Goodwin mentioned Nigel Farage as a decent vessel for this message and to bring groups together, there seems to us to be a long way for the UK to go. It might take some a Trump-like figure in the UK to pull this off. Time will tell.

THE PODSCORE: 4 / 5

Joe chats with Mike Benz, former U.S. State Department official and Executive Director of the Foundation For Freedom Online, delves into the intricate ties between U.S. foreign policy and free speech. He critiques how agencies like USAID manipulate narratives and influence media access. The discussion highlights the dangers of AI in censorship, the ethical implications of covert operations, and how music serves as a tool for political agendas. Benz emphasizes the urgent need for transparency in governance and the challenges facing free speech in today's digital landscape.

This is now our THIRD Mike Benz podcast review in a week, but when he sat down with Joe Rogan, we had to be there. It was interesting to hear some of his backstory, which this reviewer hadn’t heard. Benz has been hyper focused on internet censorship and bouncing around this USAID issue since 2016! He now sees his responsibility is to teach the “anatomy of organ” on the body that is being operated on (the US). So, we like that he’s not just celebrating in this moment of DOGE-driven reveals, but trying to ensure people understand what is happening in such a way that we collectively can demand reform. The institutions in question still serve needs we have in international politics but his point is that they can better serve the true interest of the American people.

“We Are Doing Open Heart Surgery on the Body of the American Empire!”

Benz reminds us that we completely reorganized our international intervention coordination apparatus when DOGE and the Trump administration started gutting USAID. As a reminder, USAID sits in the middle of DOD, CIA and the State Department. Below is a graphic from Benz to show this relationship.

So, with that reminder in place, and some of Benz’s background out of the way, we were curious to see what new or enhanced information Benz had to share with the most listened to podcaster in the world after making the rounds with Shawn Ryan and Tucker Carlson. He wraps up the introduction by again stating that he believes there can be a future for soft power in a more moral and effective way by allowing for more civil and criminal lawsuits, as well as reorganization and more transparency. Joe makes the point that people are very upset because you have people getting cut off from FEMA funds or struggling to make it day to day, and we are wasting all this money all over the world. Benz then launches into the founding of political warfare, including the 1948 Italian election which the US started its “whole of government” international coercion operation to ward of the Soviets.

This is a story he’s told before, but Joe gave it room to breathe and build. Benz is clear that the government knew Americans wouldn’t “like” some of this activity even when the CIA was founded, so it needed to be hidden. However, with the Cold War looming, a type of clandestine activity was completely necessary, but what was also necessary was to protect the American people. So, the Smith - Mundt Act was passed in 1948 which, in part, protected Americans from some of the coercion methods that were allowed overseas. The Obama Administration updated the Smith-Mundt Act in 2013 to remove some protections and specifically allow, for example, media organizations that are used for propaganda and “hit pieces” to make their content available within the United States. One such of example of domestic intervention that impacted nearly all Americans, was the global effort to choke off of ad dollars of US-based Publishers where there was information deemed to be “mis/dis/mal-information”. Think Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc. So, effectively USAID was funding censorship and assault on US companies. Twitter (X) has filed a lawsuit on this matter already.

One of the most fascinating discussions took place when Benz outlined he strong arm of US AID as it related to Biden and a $1 billion dollar loan guarantee to Ukraine late in the Obama Years. Benz showed a clip of Joe Biden bragging about getting a prosecutor fired in Ukraine in return for the loan. Years later we see that there was plenty of connection to that prosecutor, Burisma (Ukranian energy company) and Hunter Biden. That’s a whole other podcast. Hopefully most of you know the story.

The conversation also turned to COVID. Specifically, Benz brought up USAID’s funding of the “Rooted in Trust” program funded by Internews and USAID. Rooted in Trust was meant to combat “mis/disinformation related to COVID. According to Benz it became part of a global censorship tool. Joe, of course, began to ask the question about all of COVID being a government operation, since US funding is evident up and down the sequence of events tied to COVID, including the gain of function research and the media washing of its origin. Benz didn’t really bite on the whole idea that COVID was released intentionally, but did suggest there is precedent (Pearl Harbor, etc). Joe will always jump on a COVID angle, so it created some good listening.

Benz fully detailed the Zunzuneo / Hummingbird Operation in Cuba during the Obama Administration. This operation featured the founding of a social media platform funded by USAID meant to foment revolution in Cuba. He then transitioned into the US funding of terrorists in the middle east to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. In the same vane, USAID has also been tied to militants in Afghanistan, and actively supporting poppy production in that country going back to the ‘80s.

“You Park it at USAID and you Don’t Have to Tell the President What the Military is Really Doing!”

While there are geo-political benefits to some of these activities, maybe, Benz also makes the point many corporations have benefited from USAID. However, Benz argues that the world is more global now, so how many AMERICANS actually benefit from some of the activity that USAID funds? It was one thing when most US companies had the majority of their staff in the US and we were fighting the Soviets to preserve a way of life, but who benefits really if there is some revolution in a far off land…the US people broadly or smaller cohorts like corporations? It was a compelling question and a foundational question as we think about how to move forward.

Sticking on the softer power side of things, Benz revealed some information we hadn’t heard in any detail previously…USAID has infiltrated the music industry! Benz gives the example of Dua Lipa calling out human rights abuses in the Balkans and being given an award by the USAID-funded Atlantic Council for backing their preferred candidate. So, he posited, followers of Dua Lipa world-wide and obviously in the US largely fell in line with the position. Then Benz touched the third-rail, he even speculated that none other than TAYLOR SWIFT, who was highlighted as a potential vehicle for spreading messages on NATO, might be an asset. While Swift is not he confirmed, he then made the point that South-By-Southwest is now funded in large part by the military. He was adamant that there are plenty of “assets” in the music industry influencing foreigners AND US citizens, and even if we can’t confirm Swift for sure, Benz is sure the government would love to have her. They say so themselves.

This three and one-half hour marathon podcast wound down with a discussion about the US demanding that Poland ARREST political opposition to receive USAID. Benz was fired up about this one! He took us through some detail on the appointment of judges, and the Polish government disallowing mail-in voting at the behest of the US (in the US they pushed mail-in voting in the United States)! Populism as a viable political movement in Poland needed to be stamped out and this is how the US did it - through the judiciary in that country. Benz then went through this fascinating exercise where he had Jamie type in “USAID Judicial Reform”. Dozens of countries came up in the search results where USAID was involved. Examples of the countries found in the results were Serbia, Congo, Uzbekastan, Albania, El Salvador, Ukraine, Georgia, various countries in Central America.

“It’s the Same Truman Show Everywhere We Go!”

Lastly, Benz got to a story about Brazil which was in the news not long ago. USAID played a significant role in trying to undermine Jair Bolsonaro by way of an entity called CEPPS which worked with the Brazilian judiciary to govern “censorship”. Remember, X was banned in Brazil until agreeing to some concessions.

In the end, we left this podcast exhausted. As we’ve said, Benz did both Ryan and Rogan yesterday…that’s six hours. Both shows were fantastic with some cross over but also different stories on each. Rogan probably said 10% over the words said during this podcast…maybe 5%. Benz was just on a role. At the end of the episode the comment Rogan made that stood out the most was very simple “It’s so overwhelming…”. It is. Mike Benz is correct calling this a Truman Show. Watch that movie if you haven’t. Also, listen to this podcast.

THE PODSCORE 5 (out of 5) MICS

Ryan speaks with Mike Benz, Executive Director of the Foundation for Freedom Online, criticizes USAID's dual role in humanitarian efforts and covert political manipulation. He highlights how funding influences media narratives and electoral processes in countries like Romania and Pakistan. The discussion also examines the government funding's impact on media independence, alongside the need for reforms to ensure accountability. Benz brings attention to the complexities of U.S. foreign policy and calls for ethical considerations in foreign aid, emphasizing the importance of integrity in both media and government actions.

We just covered Benz on Tucker Carlson last week, but with all of the daily news coming out with relation to DOGE and USAID, we had to review the latest, and this time with Shawn Ryan.  Benz did not initially seem as concerned with the US loss of soft power as he seemed last week on Tucker, until about half way through episode, where he discussed an effort to foment revolution in Cuba during the Arab Spring time period more than a decade ago.  So, this time, he got right into the juice without as many caveats!  

Benz delivered example after example of questionable funding oversees, and murky relationships with universities and media, but was primarily concerned about USAID targeting US citizens in the past, present and future.  He contends (and the evidence shows) that President Donald Trump was the most obvious example of USAID funds being used to target Americans - Russiagate (Atlantic Council) and post-Presidency Lawfare (TIDE Center and Fair and Just Prosecutions who gave marching orders to Leticia Jones and Alvin Bragg, both of whom came after Trump).  

With USAID greatly diminished (14,000 employees down to less than 600 since Trump took office) there is opportunity to redefine how much of their $44 billion budget should be reallocated, how it should be monitored, how much transparency there should be, and where does it live in the US government.  Benz has ideas on those questions.  Notably, he believes that regardless of where these activities and funding live - everything needs rewritten in terms of structure and oversight  - but he was emphatic that the American people need protection first and that these entities must be subject to criminal and civil lawsuits, when appropriate.

In the meantime, he meticulously took us through some fascinating USAID activities:

• Interfering in elections in Ukraine and Romania and even France.
• Writing edicts for governance in Ukraine after Zelensky took power.
• Funding 90% of media in Ukraine.
• “The whole of society concept” that says, in order to institute change of governance or ideology in government, the US must go after media, social, unions, judiciaries, the parliamentarians, entertainment, universities, business, etc
• Disinformation and misinformation in various place via OCCRP (which claims to be independent media)
• Wuhan Gain of Function Research via Eco Alliance
• Project Mockingbird in Cuba (Cuban Twitter) 
• Grant funding to domestic colleges and universities
• Domestic media.  There was a long conversation about Rueters and the $300 million it received from the Biden federal government and a dubious connection to that funding in use of investigating Elon Musk just a couple of years ago.  

“EVERY PLOT OF DIRT ON GOD’S GREEN EARTH IS INFLUENCED BY USAID…”

There were so many astounding examples of  misuse of funds that you could fill pages just writing them out.  What was great is that Benz skipped over what we already know and is really just sugar for the press…ie…Sesame Street in Afghanistan and got into the corruption beneath the headlines.  Additionally, he dismissed the notion that USAID was ever meant just to be a charity by telling stories about how it was used going back to JFK.  USAID was always meant to an instrument for political warfare.  To say less, is disingenuous.  In fact Generals actually prefer USAID because, as one said, “They actually do stuff”.

Towards the end of the podcast there was a fascinating conversation which bridged the future of USAID to its past and its impact on every day Americans.  Many corporations have benefited from USAID, but if the world is more global now, how many AMERICANS actually benefit from some of the activity that USAID conducts.  It was one thing when most US companies had the majority of their staff in the US and we were fighting the Soviets, but who benefits really if there is some revolution in a far off land…the US people broadly or smaller cohorts like corporations.  The genie is out of the bottle, perhaps we should take this opportunity rethink the next genie and the next bottle because one thing is for sure, they’ll both be back. Let’s just make sure we understand to what end.

THE PODSCORE 4.5 (out of 5)

Shawn sits down with Vivek Ramaswamy, a biotech entrepreneur and political figure, AND discusses his campaign for Ohio governor and innovative tax reforms aimed at revitalizing the state. He emphasizes the urgency of educational reform, advocating for merit-based teacher pay and educational choice, including homeschooling. Ramaswamy explores Ohio's potential as a hub for innovation in AI and biotech, while tackling financial pressures faced by citizens. He also critiques the 'victimhood culture' and promotes a return to meritocracy and excellence in American society.

Shawn starts the podcast with a very simple question, why run for Governor Ohio and take a step back from the federal issues (DOGE)? It’s been widely reported that there were a potentially a lot of reasons for this - including, perhaps, some tension with Elon Musk. Regardless, his answer was much more politically nuanced and actually made some sense. Ramaswamy claimed that as Trump / Musk dismantle ineffective / inefficient parts of the federal government, there will be much more action at the state level. Later on in the discussion he also talked about Musk’s technology taking the lead and it just made sense. Fair enough. So what does he hope for Ohio and Ohioans?

Ramaswamy is very high on creating a new way of life in Ohio that is rooted in “excellence”. Early in the podcast, he gives a very representative example of how this concept may manifest itself in a Ramaswamy-led government; he wants to establish merit based pay for teachers. Ryan and Vivek talk about education a great deal and the concept around choice, merit-based pay, and civics-based education will resonate in Ohio and cannot be done properly by the federal government. The case he makes is a compelling one.

“Education is the Civil Rights Issue of Our Time!”

There was a also a discussion about excellence in Ohio business and cultivating the most business-friendly environment possible. Ramaswamy wants Ohio to become the 10th state to have an income tax rate of 0%. It was unclear what he intended to cut or what other taxes would rise to pay for that big of a cut. He did talk about attracting a significant amount of high-tech manufacturing to Ohio like AI, Crypto, Aerospace and more.

Vivek is expected to formally announcing his candidacy by the end of the month and in past couple of days another contender, Robert Sprague, dropped out and endorsed Vivek. This was a good podcast if your a Vivek fan, an Ohio Native, or just a Shawn Ryan regular, but aside from some specifics about Vivek’s platform for Ohio, there was nothing new here to draw the listener in. There was some discussion about Trump’s progress and DOGE but likely nothing you haven’t heard. Regardless, Vivek is brilliant and is always worth a listen if you aren’t too familiar with him.

THE PODSCORE 3 (of 5) Mics.

Jordan chats with Dr. Benjamin Bikman, a bestselling author and bioenergetics Ph.D., dives deep into the insulin resistance epidemic affecting America. He unpacks the crisis of sugar addiction and its neurological impacts, discussing how high carbohydrate diets contribute to serious health issues. They explore the inefficacies of current dietary guidelines and the need for better public health education. With insights on ketogenic diets and metabolic health, Bikman highlights revolutionary approaches to combat chronic diseases, including practical solutions for sustainable dietary changes.

We’ve heard quite a bit about metabolic health over the past few years, but to hear Dr. Bikman combine “cardio” and metabolic into a single word and then squarely focus on insulin as a driving cause of positive or negative cardio-metabolic health, the fuzzy worlds of “diet” and “health” sure cleared up quickly for this reviewer. In summary, this is a rather dense conversation about the negative affects of too much insulin relative to the 10 most common diseases. While dense, it is a conversation chock full of knowledge, some which you have heard perhaps, but none-the-less presented articulately and believably from Dr. Bikman.

The ten most common death causing diseases in the world can be attributed to poor cardio-metabolic health. Think heart disease, diabetes, alzheimer’s, obesity and various points of connectivity to cancer and more. Dr. Bikman makes the point that carbohydrates drive these increased insulin levels. And while people know that an over-indulgence on carbohydrates is bad, our medical / testing systems are not properly conveying the right information to us early enough to prevent us from getting sick…before we get sick.

Bikman advocates for thinking about measuring insulin early and often. Looking at high Glucose, for example, and while good to identify, its already a negative process that should have been examined earlier. Additionally, in some cases there are problems that are not glucose problems like fatty liver disease. High insulin causes fatty liver disease independent and earlier than any rise in glucose. So, why don’t we look at insulin more as a healthcare practice? Well, Bikman wonders if its because there are no drugs to prescribe to fight high insulin…there are for glucose.

“We Are Eating For Winter All The Time”

- Dr Benjamin Bikman

Dietary change is the best way to fight all of this. Remember, carbohydrates of all types convert into glucose and glucose, of course, increases insulin levels. An overabundance of insulin can result in insulin resistance which can result in the plethora of diseases discussed. So, yes, cutting carbs is important. It’s always the same advice in the end..fewer carbs and more meats, fats, greens, etc. Bikman makes the point that we should throw the food pyramid away and challenge our doctors to look beyond glucose. Its seems, even in health, that truth is always a few layers under the surface.

THE PODSCORE: 4 (of 5) Mics.

Chris chats with Tom Segura, a comedian and insightful podcaster, dives into the absurdities of modern life. He discusses the quirks of Gen Z, like their preference for Ozempic over traditional gym workouts and their shift from alcohol to alternatives like microdosing. Tom explores social media's role in shaping perceptions, the complexities of friendships today, and even shares his obsession with true crime documentaries. With his signature humor, he reflects on the impact of economic disparities and the psychological nuances behind self-criticism and personal growth.

REVIEW:

While we have always had a luke-warm opinion of Tom Segura (fine comedian but haven’t gone out of our way to watch / listen to him), he manages to bring some levity to a show that can occasionally get lost in platitudes. The episode begins with a pretty accurate and funny take on body positivity and Ozempic. Summary - all of all Hollywood is on GLP1’s and don’t admit it and GLP1’s are now everywhere in the general population a well, for people that can afford it. Yet, in many cases two-thirds of weight loss for many people is lean muscle mass. So, as a society, we now have a short cut for weight loss, and interestingly it puts an end to the absurdly hypocritical body-positive movement because…well, if fat is so positive, why are we paying for Ozempic?

“I hate the fat positivity movement…They are such hypocrites! They are such Pieces of Shit!” - Tom Segura

There was an interesting bit where they discussed the fact that you can now reset your algorithm on Instagram. Instagram just released this features a couple of month ago. It’s pretty wild, you can start over with Instagram and experience a whole fresh new, uncurated world. It’s something that deserves a look. From there they spend a fair bit of time discussing the change in recreational behavior among Gen Z. There is more and more evidence that kids are drinking less (they mention only 20% of Gen Z or younger drink alcohol regularly) and are having less sex, and are more lonely. This sounds like a pretty bleak outlook for these kids, but the drinking isn’t quite as low as these guys portray. A quick Google search and we found that approximately 60% of Gen Z drink but only 25% drink four or more times a week …still plenty of booze flowing. Chris and Tom speculate that kids are eating more marijuana or doing other drugs. Anyway, they worry about the social lives of younger generations and particularly boys, who seemingly have no idea how to talk to girls anymore. They kept it light but geeeeeeeze…Downer all around.

They go on to discuss USAID’s plan to send $50 million dollars of condoms to Gaza (um, what?), communicating better, the world annihilation clock, Tom’s friend who had cancer and more, but what struck us was a thread through the last hour about how to maximize performance. The thread was interesting in that they moved from blocking out negative self talk to the benefit of proclivity for action and benefits of “manufactured” stupidity. In summary, rumination and fear of fear are obstacles to be overcome and can be overcome with…action. Good listen - light and useful.

The Pod Score 3.5 (of 5) Mics.

SUMMARY:

Tucker talks with Mike Benz, an expert on USAID and its global ramifications, reveals startling insights about the organization's troubling activities. He describes USAID as a 'rent-a-riot operation,' raising crucial questions about its involvement in movements like Black Lives Matter. The conversation probes the ethical implications of foreign aid, especially funding for controversial initiatives like transgender surgeries abroad. Moreover, Benz exposes how USAID orchestrates unrest globally while influencing media narratives, demanding greater transparency and reevaluation of U.S. foreign policy.

"People Have Been Lied to In This Country...They’ve Been Told This Was Humanitarian Aid…and they Cosigned It!”

REVIEW:

Benz immediately tells us that USAID is important for soft power and has a role to play in US Foreign Policy and humanitarian efforts, so he, despite years of looking for truth in this area, is not elated at what is being found. This is such a great place for him to start from because the Democrats are foaming at the mouth telling the public how dismantling this organism will harm aid to people, cause repression, etc etc. Some of that is true (to an extent, but the real purpose is US “soft power”) in the short term but this is “an open heart surgery”. When the operation is done the American People can see what is happening within “The Blob”.

“There really is a USAID Truman Show That Most of the World Lives in!”

Tucker brings up the point that the American public may lose faith once all of this is fully disclosed. This is also very concerning to Benz because he “believes in soft power” and he also believes that the advantaged life we have in the US is supported in some ways because USAID enables parts of our ways of life through this global tool. So, he tries to distinguish between some of the USAID’s benefits from it’s “halo” of disturbing deeds or completely unexplainable deeds, like funding “transgender dance festivals” or rap music meant to sow discord and revolution in Bangladesh.

Benz seems agonized throughout the episode as he considers the loss of influence and soft power will impact US power globally. Tucker consistently pushes back by contending that we have over-extended dramatically. Carlson also considers the moral quality of defending many of the activities done under USAID’s name.

Tucker makes the point that some of these covert operations funded by USAID sound a lot like some of the US discord that has been sewed in the US over the past 15 years. Benz and Tucker spend some time on this issue, postulating that some of these same activities happening over seas have been seen here. Tucker brings up Charlottesville and potential government involvement in stoking that riot. Both agree that USAID had nothing to do with that issue, but also agreed it was very likely that such a template was borrowed for domestic issues. Tucker doesn’t let this issue go and believes that the moral issues inherent in USAID and the CIA / FBI etc are not worth most benefits of soft power.

“When It’s Too Dirty for the CIA Give It to USAID”

After some more handwringing the duo finally gets to a place where they move past the nuance of what USAID activities are acceptable and which are not (foreign influence maybe, domestic influence = never). Again, throughout the first hour, Benz really struggles with the beast he has helped unleash. One way or another, we think that will get worked out in the coming months and years. He just keeps making the point that we can’t stop “all” of these USAID activities. However, in circling the wagons on this issue they get to a key point of agreement on what should NOT happen going forward. In addition to the domestic and foreign influence dilineation, both Tucker and Benz agreed that the Corporate influence needs to be expunged from soft power so that long term US National interests are maintained and not Corporate stakeholder short terms goals.

The waste, corruption, fraud, and just “bad ideas” inherent in USAID are just shocking. But there is a soft power purpose and a very inefficient humanitarian delivery mechanism that deserve to be reallocated elsewhere as this monster agency is deconstructed. That said, this first step in DOGE’s effort to save the tax payers billions, hopefully trillions) is necessary, uncomfortable and painful for some. We’ve never seen such transparency in government and embracing it is a better policy than worrying about a temporary setback in conducting unsavory, unethical and dangerous activities around the globe. Lastly, it appears USAID supported Russiagate and COVID to name a couple of issues that impacted the homeland…that sort of activity can never happen again. DOGE is just scratching the surface and doing the necessary work. USAID will take a while to untangle; Benz has done a great job of the years trumpeting the issue…he needn’t get shaky knees now.

THE POD SCORE: 5 Mics (of 5)…we don’t give these perfect scores often. Listen.

Piers interviews Steve Bannon, a key figure in the MAGA movement and former advisor to President Trump, delves into the tumultuous relationship between politics and technology. He discusses Trump's potential 2028 run, reflecting on past electoral strategies and grassroots mobilization. Bannon critiques Elon Musk's influence on political dynamics and offers insights into America's role in the Ukraine conflict. His personal journey through incarceration reveals surprising resilience, sparking a debate on prison reform and the implications of political decisions post-Brexit.

"Elon Comes With The Two Tactical Nuclear Weapons In Modern Politics:  Unlimited Money...and... a Massive Social Media Platform."

The Good:  One thing we appreciate about Bannon is that he puts it all out there for you to hear and judge for yourself.   He does that in this episode by admitting that he is "as hard right as you can get in the United States" and that he is a "populist nationalist"  So, you know what you are getting with Bannon.  Now to be clear, we place this sort of admission in the "good category", not necessarily because we agree with everything in those positions, but rather because he's clear and consistent.  For example, he still clearly is concerned with Musk on the H1-B visa issue.  Bannon believes he can "cure" Musk of his globalist leaning.  

The Brexit discussion was worth as listen as it pits Piers (a Brit) against Bannon.  Bannon claims that the UK never implemented a plan to follow up on the vote and it has cost them.  The second area of disagreement between the two was around Ukraine.  Bannon claims strongly that the US "does not have a dog in the fight".  Morgan strongly pushes back.

The Bad:  We don't understand Bannon's with casting Musk as a "broligarch" or as a "transhumanist".  His concern about AI and "CRISPR" and Nuerolink being dark and evil don't make sense.  In general, Bannon's general disposition doesn't necessarily leave you feeling warm and fuzzy, but he's not trying to.

THE POD SCORE:  3  Mics (of 5)

Joe interviews Bret Weinstein, an evolutionary biologist and co-host of "The DarkHorse Podcast," dives into various compelling topics. He critiques media narratives around governance and corruption (USAID is discussed in depth, as are NGO's), emphasizing the need for transparency. The discussion shifts to the complexities of financial influence in politics and the importance of independent journalism. Weinstein also challenges traditional views on evolution, proposing a nuanced understanding of adaptability. Plus, he humorously tackles the UFO phenomenon, examining society's fascination and skepticism about extraterrestrial life.

The Good:  The podcast kicks off with Rogan and Weinstein railing against the corruption that is being exposed daily by way of DOGE investigations.  They talked about charging stations and DEI and other programs linked to USAID and grift (like funding Politico and The NY Times).  The exposed corruption threatens to upend the Democratic party and Federal government.  The first 45 minutes is a celebration by two guys that have been reliably postulating about the grift and corruption for a while and the elation (despite the reality) was palpable.  If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck...must be a duck.  The corruption in Medicare and Medicaid is up next and both expect big grift to be found there.

The pair then rail on the pharmaceutical industry and the way that they corrupt Congress and other elements of government.  Sanders and Warren were examples of this form of influence.  Weinstein shines whenever the COVID topic comes up, and has for years. 

There was a great discussion on how X changed the narrative in the country to once again allow free speech and liberate other social platforms.   

The back half of the conversation hit on Brett's area of specialization (biology) and there was an interesting discussion on modern naturalism and the limitations of Darwinism. The development of enhanced human cognition was discussed in this context and was relatively interesting. The close by discussing AI and humility in scientific discovery.

The Bad:   We'd have a loved a more detailed overview of the US AID corruption and Joe misspoke on the charging station waste number...overstated it. The fireworks are in the first hour, but the second hour is worth a listen if you have even a passing interest in evolution and AI

"The Evolution of X set the stage for this election"

"We WERE living in a bad movie!"

THE POD SCORE:  4 Mics (of 5)

PBD interviews Dr. Steven Greer, a leading figure in the UFO disclosure movement, reveals shocking insights about classified projects and technologies. He discusses whistleblowing challenges and the deep connections between government secrecy and UFO phenomena. The conversation dives into advanced technologies, including anti-gravity innovations and the implications of underwater UFOs. Greer also questions the true power dynamics within the U.S. government, suggesting a 'deep state' influence that clouds accountability. This compelling dialogue prompts a reevaluation of our understanding of UFOs and energy technologies.

"I believe that this is what got JFK killed!"

The Good:  Greer, who has been this UFO game for decades, joins PBD for the third time and its timely given the new administration's seeming interest in revealing certain secrets (JFK, RFK, MLK). Additionally, the recent drones, Rep Burchett clamoring about UAPs, and the ongoing drumbeat of UAPs broadly, all make Greer's visit further timely.

Greer repeatedly claims that the US government and other international entities have technology that is much more advanced than we know (including anti-gravity). He also claims there plenty of alien craft and various "Black sites". All of this started in 1945 and was what Eisenhower was really talking about when he mentioned "Beware the Military Industrial Complex". He claims that JFK was killed because he was trying to get to the bottom of this clandestine work and Greer believes that maybe RFK was too. Further, he warns so many people in government are not briefed that this puts us in a dangerous situation.

Greer claims a group of whistleblowers are planning to come forward in the next year or so. Yet, if these revelations aren't handled right, we will spiral into some dystopian nightmare. He talks about some of the technologies that will be released as a part of this disclosure related to energy and propulsion that are mind-blowing. This technology will be disruptive to various industries, including oil. So, there will be powerful forces aligned to stopping the release of this information. All intriguing…BUT…(read below)

The Bad: It's so hard to believe much of what Greer says. You can tell he's organized, has anecdotes going back to the '90s, and is well - spoken, but...come on. You have all this information, were offered to get bought off for 2 BILLION dollars, unknown threats have been made against you and on and on, and yet you persevere. It seems so unlikely that you would be alive if all you say is true and brazenly disclosing it publicly. Our biggest issue with PBD is that he didn't push back...much at all. That lowers the grade, but we give Greer credit for coming with a “story” that kept us listening and wondering…”what if”

THE POD SCORE:  3  Mics (of 5)

Joe interviews Dan Richards, an independent researcher known for his YouTube channel "DeDunking the Past," dives deep into the mysteries surrounding lost civilizations and alternative history. He discusses the enigmatic Ark of the Covenant and its possible ancient technology, suggesting it might have been an electrical device. The conversation also explores the construction of the pyramids, challenging conventional theories, and highlights the allure of ancient artifacts and extraterrestrial theories, urging for a more open-minded scientific approach.

The Good:  Joe and Dan start off talking about the Ark and speculate that it sits in a church in Ethiopia.   We learn something that this reviewer didn't know but seems like it’s common knowledge   According to Dan and Ethiopian Orthodox tradition, the Ark of the Covenant is currently located in the city of Aksum, Ethiopia, where it is believed to be kept within the Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion, guarded by a select group of monks; this belief stems from a legend that the Ark was brought to Ethiopia by Menelik, the son of Queen Sheba and King Solomon. 

From there they transition to talking about lost technology more broadly including the creation of the pyramids (did slaves build it really?), the mass extinction event (lots of bones near the East River?), ancient civilizations broadly. and the "Baghdad Battery" aka a clay pot that conducts electricity.  It's a wide-ranging conversation that hits on all of that plus ...ALIENS.  Lastly, if you don't know what Bimini Road is...look it up.

The Bad:  Dan has been on Rogan before and is a fun guest.  He's an electrician by trade but has his fingers in histories and science in a unique way.  Part of his appeal is that he looks like...your electrician and if you don't like electricians, or you are an elitist prick...then you may not believe him.  That being said...we can't tell you what to believe but while no doubt Dan doesn't have all the answers, he raises interesting questions.

THE POD SCORE:  4 Mics (of 5)

"Scientists Are Fucking Weird!"

PBD interviews Ian Bremmer, a renowned geopolitical scientist and founder of Eurasia Group, dives deep into pressing global issues. He discusses the influence of figures like Trump and Musk on democracy and the World Economic Forum's role in shaping global agendas. Bremmer also shares insights on the top anticipated risks for 2025, including geopolitical tensions and economic instability linked to U.S.-China relations. The talk delves into the complexities of globalization, political accountability, and the shifting dynamics of public perception toward global leaders.

"I'm a little sad that the we have not lived up to the promise of 1989 in 2025."

The Good:  Bremmer understands where countries on the map are.  We are obviously being sarcastic, but no he really does!  Early on he did some accurate assessments of certain issues like abortion, identity politics, mainstream media bias and special political interest influence. However, you didn't need his International political consulting firm to figure that out.

The Bad:  About 21 minutes in to the podcast you realize that Bremmer is either a liar or out of touch when he says that the Europeans have settled the immigration / illegal immiegration questions.  Has he seen non of the protests in Britain or Germany or Italy or elsewhere.  The guy goes on to spend the next two hours telling us about how great America used to be when they were fighting the Soviets and how bad things are now because were are actually parlaying that victory into paying attention to our own people (finally) after wasting the first three decades of the post cold-war era.  Theen about 15 minutes leader the myopic and archaic Brenner goes on to say that social media is not a solution for media bias.  Now, we'll assume podcasts, hosts and influencers are categorized under social media...THAT IS NEWS.  The guy had completely misread the facts and the temperature of this country by 35 minutes in.    From there he then made the resolute point that 2024 was really just about incumbents around the world losing as a trend, but not their policies.  The conversation then devolved into Bremmer's typical enthusiasm for globalism, with some nuance to try and separate himself from what the Globalists have done. To be clear, PBD did a decent job.

THE POD SCORE:  2.5  Mics (of 5)

Chris interviews Alain de Botton, philosopher and founder of The School of Life, shares profound insights on healing and emotional growth. He discusses the origins of negative inner voices and why we often struggle with emotional connections. De Botton emphasizes the impact of childhood experiences on adult relationships, and the importance of balancing intellectual understanding with genuine emotional engagement. He offers strategies for navigating love and fear in relationships, and the transformative power of therapy for personal development.

The Good:  In a thought-provoking inside the human mind, Alain and Williamson take the viewer on a tour of the inner thoughts we all have.  They start off and spend considerable time discecting our innver voices.  Specifically, they focus on how to manage that negative inner voice.  These inner-voices (positive or negative) often originate from external influences and experiences.  What is fascinating is that Alain makes the point that this external syntax and framework is very, very difficult to change, particularly as it emerges in relationships and behavior into adulthood.  In fact, he makes the point that it's akin to learning a foreign language as an adult.  

The good news is ...we can be aware of these syntax and frameworks.  The conversation continues to focus on meditation and therapy as solutions to these issues - perhaps with greater focus on therapy.  They also warn of the dangers of dissociating from emotions, particularly from overwhelming floods of different emotions.  That is where recognizing emotions and trying to isolate and acknowledge them can move one toward clarity.  Alain begins the conclusion of the episode saying that at our time of death, we won't know ourselves nearly as much as we think we do, but yet many of us will at least try.  

The Bad:  Look, you have to be open to learning more about a topic like this and if you are in the mood for political red-meat or a dopamine pulse, maybe you are in the wrong place...or maybe the right one, actually. In thinking about what might have been "bad" about this episode, the only thing this reviewer can identify is that it left you craving a bit more - maybe a bit more in terms of philosophy or psychology or religion.  And that is not really a bad thing at all.  

THE POD SCORE:  4.5 Mics (of 5)

"The mood of modern Instagram...is pure pathology!"

Jordan Peterson hosts Vani Hari, a food activist and New York Times bestselling author, shares her journey from processed foods to advocating for healthier eating. She highlights shocking practices in the food industry and the links between food marketing and rising obesity. Vani discusses her personal transformation towards natural health, the alarming trends in children's diets, and the fight for greater food transparency. She emphasizes the need for corporate accountability and the importance of teaching kids about nutritious food choices.

"As Soon As I Changed My Diet...Everything Changed!!!"

The Good:  You may have heard of the "Food Babe" (Vani Hari) before.  She has burst back on to the public scene in the wake of RFK Jr's MAHA movement.  Jordan gives Vani the room to tell her story from poor eating as a child to her early job at Accenture and the poor lifestyle choices that lead to her being overweight, sick with appendicitis and ultimately put on 3-4 drugs including anti-depressants.  To solve this period of chronic illness she began therapy but also began really looking at food labels very, very closely and then changed her diet.  Over a period of 2-3 years she evolved the way she ate, eliminating ultra-processed food and by the end of her transition she was completely off of NINE prescription drugs and had lost 40 pounds.  

From there conversation moved into a compelling conversation about trying to balance over-regulation with full transparency and the bottom line.  This part of the conversation was really a good listen because it shows just how complicated nutrition is and how even more complicated regulation is in service of public health and big food competitiveness.  

In 2011, Vani began blogging about everything she at and the impact..."The Food Babe" was born.  Her "Chemical Filet" article on Chic Filet was a viral hit and her star rose.  From there she grew famous but was also harassed and suffered great resistance as she took on BIG FOOD.  She later started a food company and had kids of her owned which slowed some of her activism, but it seems she is back and her story is worth listening to as America wakes up to the food crises in this country.  Peterson retells the founding of the Food Pyramid and the scam behind, which wwe've heard before, but is always a good listen if you don't know it.  It was created by marketers and is a persuasive tool (we are being kind), that's the summary.  We should also mention that (as many of you know), the tobacco companies bought some of the food and dye companies starting the 80's because, you know, they know how to addict people.

The Bad: Really very little bad to report in this episode.  The sense that Hari is an activist with who straddles the line between alarmist and constructive is there, but we are giving her the benefit of the doubt.

THE POD SCORE:  4.5 Mics (of 5)

Jordan Peterson hosts Dr. Simone Gold, an emergency physician and attorney, is the founder of America’s Frontline Doctors. She discusses her dual journey through medicine and law while navigating the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. Gold reveals her experiences during the January 6th events and the fallout from speaking out against medical mandates. She critiques the state of medical education and shares her advocacy for medical freedom, emphasizing the importance of critical thinking and resilience in the face of societal pressures.

"I Cannot Live a Lie!"

The Good: We didn't remember a lot about Gold from COVID, but boy does she have a story to tell. From her incredible background as a VERY young dual medical and legal degrees and practice to her stance on COVID and then ultimately to January 6th, she's got a lot to say. Her initial foray on the public stage came in 2020 when she and more than 100 other doctors protest for the truth on Hydroxychloroquine and told a convincing story about how the Lancet had to retract a study study that stated it was not helpful in treating in COVID. At the time, standing in the face of significant media and political scrutiny on this topic, she was canceled...and lost both of her jobs. From this low, she set off on mission to bring the truth to the public regarding all aspects of COVID from the impact of lockdowns, the foolishness of demanding vaccines for children and the tyrannical tendencies of the entire government response to COVID-19. Just to put the cherry on top she was arrested after being approved to speak at the January 6th rally in 2021. She ended up swept into the Capitol (non-violent offense and a misdemeanor settlement). She ended up spending 60 days in prison. From the youngest woman ever to receive a medical degree to prison and out again...all in one podcast. 

The Bad: This episode took a while to get going. A lot time was spent indulging Peterson's curiosity about the dual academic career of Gold. It's interesting that she graduated medical school in her early twenties and that she received both a law degree and medical degree, but it took an hour to get to the COVID part of the story, which is where the real intrigue begins.

THE POD SCORE:  3.5 Mics (of 5)

Tucker talks with Jefferson Morley, a respected journalist and author on the JFK assassination, dives into the secrets surrounding the JFK documents and the struggles faced in their declassification over 63 years. He discusses the CIA’s potential cover-ups and the significance of Donald Trump’s executive order. Morley also explores whether Lee Harvey Oswald was merely a patsy and reveals insights on the MLK files. This engaging conversation sheds light on the complexities of historical narratives and the need for accountability in uncovering past government actions. 

The Good:  Look, anytime you get a Presidential Executive Order just a week prior and then get some time with a JFK Assassination Expert, it’s going to be interesting. Morley has been covering the assassination for over 30 years and clearly knows his stuff. Additionally, he's not an overt conspiracy theorist; rather, he is a reporter that can cite most of the facts and figures and (importantly) documents tied to the event. 

He had an excellent take on what and how the documents should be released. He stated that he believes most of the types of documents on JFK are known to exist and generally what they are, but of course he / we don't know the details around what those documents say. He also believes that the documents are mostly physically accounted for. In other words, they should be found quickly and within the 15 day time-frame outlined in the EO. Tucker and Morley agreed that the most obvious coverup was MLK and that those documents are more scattered, as are the RFK documents, and its right that they will take longer to pull together. 

Morley offers cautious optimism that we'll learn something new but also offers a couple of red flags to watch out for in terms of the types of documents we should see released. Generally, he believes that after the plan is delivered to the President in the initial 30 day window the full release of information should follow in in the next month or two. So, it seems, we are not far off from learning "something". While not offering theory on the assassination of JFK, he does state that if the media presents whatever is in there as "much-ado-about-nothing", then we should worry.

The Bad:   Very short. Morley's answers are pretty measured and while the update on process of document release and what to expect is interesting, there wasn't much more here than an appetizer.

THE POD SCORE:  3 Mics (of 5)

"CIA officials began lying about whay they knew about Lee Harvey Oswald within hours of President Kennedy's murder!"

Joe interviews Gad Saad, a Visiting Professor at Northwood University and expert in evolutionary psychology, shares fascinating insights on how media exposure is transforming childhood innocence. He debates the implications of cognitive dissonance in political discourse, and explores decision-making complexities influenced by emotional states. Gad critiques modern art for its departure from tradition and examines the intersection of evolutionary theory with diet and health. The conversation also touches on the future of AI and its societal impacts, making for an engaging dialogue on modern challenges..

The Good:  Gad is always an interesting guest - known recently - for his predictions on the COVID response but he has all new topics to discuss.  Here are a few of the iinteresting topics he covers that caught our attention...

- People form mental gymnastics to keep things consistent in their mind.

- Alot of research is bias by default because null effect studies are never published. Terrifying.

- Most intellectuals stay in their lane.  They are generally not curious beyond their remit.

- Gad aspires to build the consilience insitute to unify knowledge across disciplines by creating links / trees of knowledge.

- There is a misalignment between what was evolutionary adaptive historically and maladaptive now...the classic over eating hunter gather issue.

- Our egos over protect our ideas.

The Bad:  Joe seemed off his game today.  Slow to respond and seemingly eager to let Gad to just run with it, maybe in not the worst thing.  Not a lot of laughs in this episode but Saad brings his cerebral heat and even a couple of curse words like..."bullshit".  Give it a listen.

THE POD SCORE:  3.5 Mics (of 5)

"The number one thing that dissapoints me in my fellow academics...is how non-intellectual they are."   - Gad Saad.

Tucker talks with Matt Taibbi, an investigative journalist renowned for his insights into Russiagate and his Substack, Racket News, discusses the unprecedented secrets Donald Trump is revealing. He queries the ethics of pardoning figures like Fauci related to pandemic accountability. The conversation highlights the rise of independent journalism, the potential reformation of news in the digital era, and the pressing need for media credibility. Taibbi emphasizes unanswered questions about Trump’s presidency and the consequences of governmental secrecy on public trust.entrepreneur known for his candid views, dives into the emptiness of Silicon Valley's elite and the future landscape under the new Trump Administration. He discusses the potential loss of America's global leadership and critiques regulatory obstacles stifling innovation. Chamath also addresses the clash between climate agendas and AI development, while emphasizing the crucial need for America's self-sufficiency in technology. With his insightful perspectives, he advocates for merit-based growth and accountability in shaping a hopeful future.

The Good:  IF you don't know Taibbi, he is emerging Journalistic Institution.  You should know him...now.  This episode plays an updated list of Taibbi's greatest hits - all of which are reopened for full examination under the new Trump administration.  Early in the episode Tucker asks him for his top ten list of investigations that he would like answers to, and it is delicious.   Taibbi hits hard on "who has been in charge for the past year".  The assumption (and fact) is that Biden was incapable of having actually led the country, so who was?  Additionally, Taibbi is keen to learn the truth behind Biden's laptop (this one is coming out already), the Russia Hoax (progress here too), EVERYTHING having to do with COVID, the real story behind J6 (lots of strange antogonist activity in the crowd) and the LACK of investigations in the attempted assassinations of Donald Trump.  Additionally, he's still curious about the Nordstream Pipeline, the death of a Democratic Staffer around the time of the DNC email leaks.  The collapse of mainstream news has opened up the floodgates for experienced journalists and honest young ones to get us back to real journalism.  In sum, he and others are calling for a "Twitter Files" of the whole federal government.  With such new transparency on the precipice, he calls this the new "Golden Age of Journalism"

The Bad:   We love Taibbi but the dude has always been a bit awkward and while super smart, super informed, he's better at the written word than the spoken.  Still, great job, as always.

THE POD SCORE:  4.5 Mics (of 5)

"Even in a third-world country we got more information about stuff that was going on than we got last year in the United States of America..."

Chris interviews Piers Morgan, a prominent journalist and author known for his candid interviews, discusses the current state of American politics and cultural debates. He examines Biden’s decision to pardon his son and its implications. Piers shares insights on cancel culture and whether 'wokeism' is fading. He reflects on his interview with Trump, the failures of political promises, and the need for constructive dialogue. Additionally, he critiques the evolution of masculinity and the impact of social media on political identity.

The Good:  It's always interesting to hear Piers as the guest.  He's, of course, well spoken, articulate and well-informed.  What was really interesting was his first-hand accounts of phone calls he's had with Donald Trump in which he identifies some vulnerability in him after the shooting and more.  Piers pours dirt on the concept of wokism declaring it "dead" and he does so convincingly - also the end of virtue signaling.  There is a return to the center across both parties - or at least some pundits.  He claims that if you look at Trump's first term he was actually quite moderate.  

It's also interesting to hear Morgan's take on the collapse of legacy media vs. Youtube.  He describes how he simply canceled his linear TV show in favor of focusing on Youtube.
"Young people don't watch TV."  Also, there was interesting insight into how the Tories and and Reform parties may merge and promote Farage.  

The Bad:  Great conversation, but at only an hour, a bit too short for a great podcast grade.  Also, if you've heard much Piers, this was a bit of a recap of his known beliefs.  For example, his (valid) example of the black square he didn't post on instagram during the George Floyd protests.  A great story, but  one some of us have heard.   Lastly, Piers had a tendency to speak over Chris...which is kind of off brand for this podcast. .

THE POD SCORE:  4 Mics (of 5)

"It's A Weird Time Where Losing Is More Celebrated Than Winning.  This is Ruinous."

Tucker talks with Chamath Palihapitiya, a tech entrepreneur known for his candid views, dives into the emptiness of Silicon Valley's elite and the future landscape under the new Trump Administration. He discusses the potential loss of America's global leadership and critiques regulatory obstacles stifling innovation. Chamath also addresses the clash between climate agendas and AI development, while emphasizing the crucial need for America's self-sufficiency in technology. With his insightful perspectives, he advocates for merit-based growth and accountability in shaping a hopeful future.

The Good:  Chamath is such a well-rounded guest who brings humanity to  conversations with Tucker that span everything from family to politics to business and everything in between.  The thread that runs through this podcast is Chamath's new found awakening which challenges his preconceived notions of what success was (money, power, etc).  Additionally, he has become a supporter of Republican policies and President Donald Trump after realizing in 2020 that he was being lied to with regard to COVID / DEI ? regulations and more.  After great success at Facebook and as an investor, Chamath speaks openly about the devastating impact of California's regulatory state.  He believes that Silicon Valley no longer takes risk...social media platforms are not useful risks.  He partly blames the state and US regulation for shutting down innovation through regulations that slow business down in YEARS.  He feels grateful to America but he is mourning its current state.  The same goes for California...which he longs to fix.

The Bad:   Not a lot bad to say about this episode other than...we'd like to see Chamath just leave California like many of the friends in his "poker game". That said, he's fighting the good fight.

THE POD SCORE:  4.5 Mics (of 5)

"I was moving markets every time I spoke publicly!"

Joe interviews Lex Fridman, a computer scientist and AI researcher, he shares intriguing insights on space travel and the implications of human life beyond Earth. The conversation humorously explores living conditions on Mars and the societal dynamics that could emerge. They also delve into the complexities of leadership in modern warfare, reflecting on historical narratives from Genghis Khan to Ukraine. Lex discusses the balance of technology, diplomacy, and the ethical responsibilities of communicating in crises, illuminating the challenges of navigating our geopolitical landscape.

The Good:  The episode starts off with Jamie posing the question about ejaculating in space!  But things quickly turn serious on the historical context of Genghis Kahn and rape and exposed a temporary rift between Joe and Lex that was fascinating to watch. Admittedly, this reviewer doesn't go deep in a historical understanding of the Mongols, but these guys go fairly deep on it and Joe and Lex tidy up their rift later on in the episode.  Additionally, they discuss Tigers ripping a human apart, brainiacs getting laid and then more meaningful discussion on space travel, technology and warefare.  Early in the episode and periodically thereafter, Lex highlights some of recent discussion with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

The Bad:  The rift between Joe and Lex in the first fifteen minutes about rape and Genghis Kahn was odd.  Lex seemed to repeatedly imply that Kahn is disrespected and misunderstood and there was the strange rift over Mongol rapes (that got cleared up later). It really seemed in the first 30 minutes that the two were going to keep things awkward but credit to Lex for coming back around about an hour in and acknowleding that he wasn't getting his points across clearly in the beginning.  They rolled from there.

THE POD SCORE:  3.5 Mics (of 5)

"This is the third chance to make peace".. (in Ukraine) "I will be traveling to Russia to interview Putin"- Lex Fridman

In this short (37 minute recap episode) Andrew Huberman explore effective strategies for managing stress, both in the short and long term. Discover how acute stress can boost your immune system and practical tools like breathwork and the physiological sigh for quick relief. Learn about the benefits of deliberate hyperventilation and how raising your stress threshold can build resilience. Dive into insights on non-prescription supplements like ashwagandha and L-theanine, along with mindful practices to keep chronic stress at bay and promote overall well-being.

The Good:  Huberman explains the science and provides tools to deal with stress.  Given that 75 million of you didn't vote for Trump, we thought this might be a helpful topic.  For example, the best tool for calming down in a physiological way is the "sigh" because as blood is rushed to the largest muscles and organs in the body, sighing  (inhaling) makes the heart slightly larger to accomodate additional blood flow as the diaphram pushes down.   Additionally, as you exhale it slows your heart rate down to accomodate the lessening blow flow.  So, longer exhales support calming down.  As you can see this is a rather scientific discussion but also one where you get practical advise.  He also goes on to assess stress relative to three time frames:  short, medium and long term.

The Bad:  Nothing really bad about it, its a nice quick tutorial on managing stress, which again, could be helpful for you right now. Conversely, 77 million of you may not need this at all, as you voted for the other guy. This isn't a typical review for us because its a short episode without a guest, so difficult to really compare and score relatively.  That said, we to attempt to do so and this episode could be relatively useless for you, given where you are today with your mental health / stress levels.  Yet, we still commend Huberman for putting this info out there for those that need it.  We'll review a full Huberman episode soon.

THE POD SCORE:  3 Mics (of 5)

"If you understand this mechanism, you are in a far better position to incorporate these tools..."

Lex hosted Jennifer Burns who is a historian focusing on U.S. economic, political, and social ideas, with notable biographies on Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand. In this engaging dialogue, she explores the contrasting philosophies of Friedman and Rand, highlighting their shared belief in individualism. The discussion delves into enduring economic theories, the evolution of American conservatism, and the complex interplay between capitalism and personal health. Burns also reflects on how these ideologies shape contemporary debates and influence modern economic policies.

The Good:  Obviously, Friedman and Rand are giants in economics, literature and philosphy but they were very differerent, despite seemingly adjoined political leanings.  Burns does an amazing job walking through each of their backstories and examining how they arrived at their world-changing philosophies.  Friedman for example, while known for being rather conservative, was a somewhat unknown economist until 1963 when he co-wrote the "Monetary History of the United States" which made the case for money supply as the leading cause of inflation.  He rightly predicted the stagflation of the 70s and influenced its cure.  Rand, of course, founded Objectivism and her books "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" have been read by millions.  Burns paints a nice picture of how Rand established those two works while weaving in her personal story.  It works for the listener.  4 hours that go fast.

The Bad:  Friedman and Rand aren't for everyone - no doubt.   Additionally, there are times when I wonder why we are talking about two in the same podcast, other than their right oriented affiliations.  There is not a lot of cross-over in their work.  However, if you have the least bit of interest in this two towering figures of the 20th century this is a great podcast to ground you but also provided historical context and insights.  

THE POD SCORE:  4 Mics (of 5)

"We are talking about two people who fought for freedom."

Chris interviews Tony Robbins, renowned life and business coach and #1 bestselling author, dives deep into what it truly means to live a fulfilling life. He discusses the power of self-esteem and the importance of deriving validation from meaningful contributions. Robbins shares strategies for balancing ambition with gratitude, emphasizes the role of anticipation in achieving goals, and underscores the transformative impact of mindset on personal growth. Hear insights on letting go of the past, navigating conflict, and the journey towards providing 100 billion meals.

The Good:  So, we took this review on with an open mind.  This reviewer spent a life-time avoiding Tony Robbins and outside of a few clips on YouTube, has never really seen / listened to him.  So, if you are a Tony Robbins super-fan take this review with a grain of salt.  If you are a Tony Robbins hater, I'd say open your mind for a minute.  It's easy to get Tony Robbins right away, he's a positive dude that inspires self-responsibility and purpose and then has a million frameworks to preframe, frame, reframe the world and to take action in fixing your life.  None of what he said didn't make sense.  And...because the podcast was less than two hours, we were able to stick with it.

The Bad:  Self-help is, no doubt, an acquired taste and Tony is the king of that jungle.  So, if you have an aversion to that sort of thing, then maybe this isn't for you.  But given that many thousands of people pay many thousands of dollars to attend his four day events then 2 hours with a solid like interviewer like Williams might be worth it.  Give it a shot.

THE POD SCORE:  3 Mics (of 5)

"The Majority of People Focus on That (What They Don't Have)"

Tucker sits down with Sean Davis, known for his insightful analysis, dives into the chilling aftermath of the assassination attempt on Donald Trump. He raises critical questions about the identity of the shooter, Thomas Crooks, and the apparent incompetence of the FBI and Secret Service. Davis highlights the challenges in congressional oversight and the lack of accountability in governmental agencies. The conversation also touches on broader themes of political motivations and the moral implications of violence in society.

"It Sounds LIke There Has Been No Progress Whatsoever!"...None!"

The Good:  Bringing this topic up over and over again until we get answers is a public service.  It remains shocking to us that six months after the shooting of Donald Trump we have ZERO answers.  Davis presents information that, while mostly known, is well organized and he and Tucker ask the proper questions.  The last 30 minutes they hit on a range of subjects from drones to gun control to religion, which was a nice shift but the issue might have been that they just didn't have enough to talk about with regard to the assissination attempts.

The Bad: Apologies to Sean Davis but it almost seemed like he was in awe to be sitting with Tucker.  That's probably not true but anyway, it seemed that way to us.  More importantly, we still just don't have answers which is bad but as noted in the "good" thanks to Davis for continuuing to ask them.

THE POD SCORE:  4 Mics (of 5)

Jordan Peterson hosts Marc Andreessen, a pioneering entrepreneur and co-founder of Netscape and Andreessen Horowitz, explores the profound impact of AI on society and the moral responsibilities entwined with its development. He delves into the rise of woke culture and its implications for Western ideologies, emphasizing the urgent need for aligning AI with human values. The conversation navigates the ethical landscape of technology, the risks of biases within AI, and the challenges of maintaining corporate integrity in a rapidly changing social climate.

"The Single Biggest Fight is Going to Be What Are the Values of the AIs!"

The Good:  AI and how it's values are structured is such an important topic and one that might pit post-modernism against theology against others and as both Peterson and Andreessen agree, this fight is currently being won by the woke, but that is beginning to change.  Additionally, the conversation around source data bias, language bias and the issue of copyright.  In sum, however, Andreessen is most worried about who is training the models and many of them are the same people that subsribe to woke and want to censor the internet.  This all gets tied into regulatory capture and government control of AIs.

The Bad: We love Jordan Peterson on the whole, however, sometimes we have to wait 10 minutes into his podcast to hear the guest speak.  This was one of those cases.  Also, while it seems like connecting the guests initiatives to ARC seems forced or worse, self serving.  This was one of those cases as well.  

THE POD SCORE:  4 Mics (of 5)

Bryan Callen, an actor and comedian known for his roles in film and as a podcaster, dives into a range topics with Joe Rogan. He shares some funny anecdotes about marriage and parenting, critiques government inefficiencies, and reflects on the impact of wildfires on communities. The discussion also explores masculinity, emotional resilience, and the complexities of aging in today's digital age. Callen offers insights into the comedy scene's evolution and the gritty realities of media credibility, blending humor with deep societal observations.

"The reason hollywood is in LA is because it doesn't fucking rain".  These fires have nothing to do with climate change!

The Good:  It's always fun when Rogan brings on his comedy buddies as the conversation often veers into familiar terrritory like current events, pool, MMA, martial arts, and of course the comedy seen.  Rogan and Callen cover all of that update us all on their latest takes on wokeness and the LA fires.  Decent listening with a few laughs, but not many.

The Bad: There really was no new ground covered here and while the conversation was fluid and topical, there was no new ground really covered.

THE POD SCORE:  2.5 Mics (of 5)

Jane Doe, a leading expert on Al Qaeda and former intelligence analyst, provides an eye-opening look at the inner workings of terrorist organizations. She dives into Al Qaeda's operations, the role of sleeper cells, and the rising threat of biological warfare. Jane discusses the evolving tactics of terrorists, emphasizing the danger of targeting individuals and the implications of misinformation. The conversation also touches on the geopolitical complexities surrounding groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and the critical need for vigilant security measures in today's world.

"People Are Going to Die.  People Are Going to Die!"

The Good:  After the terrorist attacks on Jan 1st, Shawn Ryan goes further down the rabbit hole.  Jane Doe is under cover but as a deeply entrenched analyst she provides first-hand knowledge of all the way that terrorist networks (Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, others) are gaining steam.  She furthers amplifies the idea that there are more than 1,000 terrorists within the US already.  There is more conversation about the "Invisible Bomb" and mass casualty potential of even more than 50k Americans.  Its scary but important listening.

The Bad: Its always tough to listen to interviews with under cover subjects.  Additionally, the topic is obviously unsettling...but of course, necessary.

THE POD SCORE:  4 Mics (of 5)

Michael Shellenberger, an environmentalist and author, shares his insights on California’s wildfires and the societal issues entwined with them. He explores the alarming rise of fires, questioning government responsibility and the impact of homelessness and drug use. The discussion critiques the fire department's focus on equality over meritocracy and addresses the failures in journalism regarding environmental crises. They also dive into the connection between chaos and crime amidst disasters, and touch on the mysteries surrounding unidentified aerial phenomena.

"Well, You Know, It Turns Out That Meth-heads Love to Start Fires."

The Good:  An incredible discussion with hte irrefutable Shellenberger, this episode of Carlson is an all timer.  A CA native, Shellenberger says that nearly half of fires in LA county are started by homeless people, many of whom are struggling with drug addiction.  The conversation goes to discuss the city's unpreparedness, the fall of California, the collapse of woke-ideology, Trump and ends with UFOs / UAPs and the drone mystery.  Various reference to the Twitter files remind us that conspiracies are real.  Shellenberger remains one of the best reporters out there today.

The Bad: The only bad thing we can think of is that the episode didn't go three hours and that Tucker seems to think he knows what the drones are specifically but won't spill the beans.  We'll have to wait and see if Trump actually tells us.

THE POD SCORE:  5 Mics (of 5)

Dr. Rangan Chatterjee, a physician and holistic health advocate, dives into the science of behavior change. He discusses the dangers of perfectionism and the societal pressures of hero worship, urging listeners to embrace imperfection. Rangan emphasizes the importance of self-awareness, reflecting on past choices to foster growth. He challenges rigid non-negotiables in daily routines, promoting flexibility instead. Additionally, he highlights the need for balance between ambition and personal relationships, advocating for emotional resilience in navigating life's criticisms.

"The Biggest Disease in Society Today is the Disease of More!"  

The Good:  Wide ranging discussion on a number of topics related to physical and mental health, with a real focuse on mental health's impact on the body.  Reframing, grounding, breathing are all heavily featured.

The Bad: Dr. Chatterjee doesn't cover a whole lot of new ground but has a very elegant clear way of presenting common sense recommendations on how to combat perfectionism and focus on "enough".

THE POD SCORE:  3.5 Mics (of 5)

Chase Hughes,  a world-renowned expert in behavioral profiling and military intelligence, uncovers the unsettling truths of CIA mind control, including the infamous MKUltra program. He reveals how psychological operations manipulate narratives and public perception through real-life tactics like 'ghost voices.' The conversation dives deep into obedience to authority, the societal impact of psychopathy, and how personal branding reflects our beliefs. Prepare to question your understanding of control and the hidden powers of the human mind.

"Can We Program Assassins...and Kill On Demand?"

The Good:  Hughes does an excellent job breaking down the facial expressions / lines that might point out who is a psychopath.  A little later in the episode Hughes references some classsic PSYOPs and implies that RFK was killed by yes, Sirhan Sirhan, but that Sirhan was a Govt-trained split persnality Assassin.

The Bad: Not a lot not to like here unless you don't like PSYOPs or how to effectively indentify psychopaths.  If that is the case, then you are probably psycopath.  

THE POD SCORE:  4.5 Mics (of 5)

Mark Zuckerberg dives deep into the complexities of content moderation on social media. He discusses the challenges of misinformation and censorship, especially during pivotal moments like the 2016 election and the COVID-19 pandemic. The conversation also touches on the delicate balance between free speech and user safety, the importance of online anonymity, and the future of technology with AI and VR innovations. He shares insights on the evolving role of social media in shaping public discourse and the responsibilities that come with it.

"People Started Pushing For Ideological Based Sensorship...Inside the Biden Administration"

The Good:  Zuckerberg gives a pretty unfiltered account of the Biden administration's profanity-laden attempts to muscle Meta into submission.  During COVID they were persistently demanding that Meta remove any posts related to vaccine side - effects.  Later in the episode, there is a good conversation on the future of AI...Zuckerberg pretty non-chalant about the risks.

The Bad: Zuckerberg has just never really seemed geniune to me but one of Rogan's superpowers is that he seems to  bring authenticity out of even the most rigid.  Long section in the middle about UFC - kinda of snorish and Zuckerberg should probably take Rogan's advice on the injuries an so forth, but who cares.

THE POD SCORE:  3.5 Mics (of 5)

James Woods, shares his harrowing evacuation story during the LA wildfires, highlighting local leadership’s incompetence. Comedian Adam Carolla discusses his rebuilding strategy and criticizes the LA Fire Department's focus on diversity over critical resources. Both guests emphasize the emotional toll and mismanagement in their communities, calling for accountability while reflecting on the resilience shown amid devastation. The conversation critiques media vanity against the backdrop of real human suffering.

"It's Willful Melicious Ignorance..."

The Good:  Full episode on the California fires where the MIA Mayor, Lying Governor, Water Official Idiocy are in full focus.  James Wood is a stand-up guest providing a on-site perspective.  Adam Carolla also chimes in.

The Bad: Its mostly a newsshow and a opinion one at that, but...incredibly timely and accurate POV on the crises in CA and the incompetence that led where we are today

THE POD SCORE:  4 Mics (of 5)

Mel Gibson discusses his upcoming film 'Flight Risk'. He shares insights on chronic pain and how it intertwines with mental clarity, alongside reflections on resilience in the face of societal challenges like wildfires. Gibson draws parallels between modern California and historical civilizations like the Maya, emphasizing the fragility of societies. The conversation delves into spirituality in addiction recovery and the complexities of filmmaking, including subtitled works and the emotional depth they bring.

"It's Just Unbelievable That Society Can Crumble That Quickly."

The Good:  Listening to how mundance moments - like wondering what the Vikings sounded like, spark inspiration for Gibson.  Gibson had strong words against the political class and the mishandling of the LA fires.  He also opened up on his brain damage...really.

The Bad: If you have ever watched a Mel Gibson interview (or Movie I guess) you might know his physical gyrations are very cocaine-ish. Awkward to watch.

THE POD SCORE:  3.5 Mics (of 5)

Konstantin Kisin, a podcaster and political commentator, shares his insights on the current socio-political landscape with Chris Williamson. He dives into the implications of Trump’s victory for the West and discusses whether he's genuinely right-wing. The conversation touches on the evolving role of media and the impact of social platforms on political discourse. Kisin emphasizes the socio-economic divide in Britain and the global implications of governmental policies. Lastly, he reflects on the transformative nature of parenthood amidst cultural clashes between the US and UK.

"Close the Border and Destroy All This Woke Crap...to Bring on a Renaissance..."

The Good:  Konstantin is thoughtful and has a grasp of US and UK politics.  His own podcast, TRIGGERNOMETRY. often contains wonkey discussions of current issues and he brings that to Chris Williamson.  Decent, if not covered takes on the "podcast election" Trumps potential, troubles in the UK, social media and being a dad.

The Bad:  Konstantin himself is a detailed presenter and compotent guest, differs little from a typical political commentator.  Chris dldn't pull much more out of him than that in this episode.  

THE POD SCORE:  3.5 Mics (of 5)

Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist and bestselling author, dives into the intricate biology of human emotions and motivations with Andrew Huberman. He examines the balance between healthy drives and destructive impulses, and how brain function affects decision-making. The dialogue touches on the power of narrative, religious influences on morality, and the human desire to create meaningful impacts. Peterson also emphasizes the importance of responsibility, adventure, and community, offering listeners profound insights into personal growth and decision-making.

"It's Not a Monkey On Your Back, It's a Monster In Your Brain!"  - Jordan Peterson

Positive Marks:  This is a meeting of two intellectual heavyweights that is broadranging and a wonderful mix of the psychiatric and the nuerological.

Negative marks - Several rabbit holes and a bit broad, and Jordan Peterson and his ongoing suit choices.

PODLAND SCORE:  4.5 Mics (of 5)

Bernard Hudson, a former CIA counterterrorism officer with 28 years of experience, shares gripping insights into the agency's inner workings and the complexities of U.S. foreign policy. He discusses the disastrous implications of the Iraq invasion and accountability within intelligence agencies. The conversation highlights the unique challenges facing Tulsi Gabbard's nomination for Director of National Intelligence, including fears of establishment pushback. Hudson also addresses accusations of potential surveillance on Congress and the need for greater transparency and trust in government actions.

"They Are Ferocious Opponents of Desclassifying (the JFK Files)"

Positive marks for hitting on current themes, investigations into Senators, and getting the insights from a 28 year CIA Insider.

Negative marks - The guest (Hudson) absolutely felt like a CIA-shill, or just too low level to know what is really going on.  He didn't bite on any of Tucker's attempts to challenge covert CIA actions.  It felt like a nothing-burger.  Tucker has done much better.

PODLAND SCORE:  2.5 Mics (of 5)

In this conversation Shawn Ryan chats with Sam Shoemate, a retired U.S. Army Chief Warrant Officer 2 and intelligence officer, reveals a shocking email that connects to the Cybertruck bombing incident. He delves into military intelligence leaks, urging for accountability regarding civilian casualties and controversial airstrikes. The discussion also uncovers a potential conspiracy linked to the Tesla incident, alongside explorations of drone sightings and national security implications. Shoemate challenges mainstream narratives and promotes transparency in the military's operations.

"I'm Nervous About This One.  Really Nervous"

PODLAND SCORE:   5 (of 5) STARS. 

Positive marks for the scoop with Sam Shoemate, who received the email from the Cyber Truck bomber the day before it happened!  Big News story.  Well done, Shawn Ryan.

Negative marks - We have to get confirmation on these drones.

Rick Perry, the 47th governor of Texas and former secretary of Energy, joins W. Bryan Hubbard, the first Chairman of the Kentucky Opioid Commission and a key advocate for Ibogaine research. They dive into the Kentucky Ibogaine Initiative to tackle the opioid crisis, discussing its potential benefits for veterans facing PTSD and addiction. The duo shares insights on the need for more clinical trials and legislative support for Ibogaine treatment. Their conversation highlights both personal experiences and the transformative power of plant medicine in mental health care.

"Ibogaine Is The Most Sophisticated Medication on the Planet!"

PODLAND SCORE:   3.5 (of 5) STARS. 

Positive marks for interest.  Here is a link to the Stanford Study 

Negative marks for presentation.   Perry is 100%  boring and who the F is this Hubbard dude.  None-the-less, he's on point and this is a must-listen for anyone that knows someone with Opiod or Meth addiction, among others.

In this enlightening discussion, Ashleigh Merchant, an attorney instrumental in disqualifying Fani Willis from the Trump case, shares insights on legal biases and misconduct. Mike Davis and Phil Holloway delve into political prosecutions and their implications. Victor Davis Hanson critiques the media's handling of Biden's cognitive decline, spotlighting the disconnect between public perception and political realities. They explore Trump's rising approval amidst Biden's struggles, revealing the complexities of today's political landscape.

Democrats Afraid to Enact The Logan Act Because They "Can't Take It Anymore...We've Lied For Four Years About Biden!"

David Senra, host of Founders Podcast and an investor, dives into the lessons from history's greatest leaders. He explores how the capacity to manage pain is central to excellence. The power of supportive relationships is highlighted, showcasing mentorship's role in entrepreneurship. Senra also discusses the tension between parental expectations and personal passions. He emphasizes prioritizing happiness over societal success, the importance of silence in business, and the paradox of self-belief impacting achievement.

"Revenge is So Interesting" and a Major Motivator.

Jeffrey Sachs, an esteemed economist and professor at Columbia University, critiques Joe Biden’s presidency as potentially the most destructive in U.S. history. He argues that Trump could reverse this damage. Sachs discusses U.S. involvement in regime change in Syria and the implications for Middle Eastern stability. He warns of escalating tensions with both Iran and China, suggesting a looming threat of nuclear conflict. Additionally, he reflects on the need for increased transparency regarding foreign policy and the historical influence of the Israel lobby.

"After 9/11 Wesley Clark Was Shown a Piece of Paper That We (the US) are going to have seven wars (We are on 6, Iran will be #7)

Episode #454:  Saagar Enjeti, a political journalist and commentator, dives deep into the complexities of American politics, exploring Trump's electoral dynamics beyond immigration and the influence of anti-incumbent sentiments. He discusses the historical and cultural impact of the Scots-Irish on U.S. identity and critiques current immigration enforcement policies. Saagar also analyzes leadership styles, contrasting Elon Musk's unconventional approach with traditional corporate structures while reflecting on the future of the Republican Party post-Trump and the significance of restoring trust in government.

Wokism Had an Electoral Impact!  Might have cost Kamala the Election!

"The DNC Rigged Its Entire Primary System Under Biden!"

Episode # 2231:  Jimmy Corsetti, an independent researcher with a YouTube channel dedicated to lost civilizations, joins Dan Richards, who delves into alternative history on his own platform. They explore the ancient engineering techniques behind monumental structures like the pyramids and Baalbek, challenging traditional archaeological views. The discussion also touches on the Gobekli Tepe enigma, linking its artifacts to broader insights about human prehistory. Additionally, they scrutinize the complexities of climate change and the politics surrounding pandemic narratives, advocating for a more nuanced understanding of history and science.

"We Are In a Cooling Cycle"...According to the Washington Post??? - Joe Rogan

Poles are shifting.  The Earth's Ocean Currents Could Stop!!!

"The President's Most Important Tool to Tame the Administrative State"

"They are Extremely Resistant to Democracy!"

"The Left Innovated To Build a Fourth Branch!"

"Understand the Cultural Alignment We Are Living Through Right Now..."

"The Trump Dance Is Going Viral" - Charlie Kirk

"Big Victory For Getting Boys Out of Girls Sports!" - Megyn Kelly

Disney Toys Directing kids to PORN site?  That is just..."Wicked"

"Tulsi is a Russian Asset????  David Sachs Responds!

Here Comes Senator Gaetz?!?

"We Need Legalize Psychodelic Therapy For Veterans....It's Absurd!!!!"

"A Lot of People Could Be Rehabiltated..."

""You DESERVE to LOSE the Senate, the House, and the Presidency!!" - Jordan Peterson 

"The Democrats Should Have Run Tulsi!" - Jordan Peterson

"Dream Team". Vivek and Musk - Bill Ackman

Going To Pare Down Government "A lot More Than That!"  -Elon Musk

Kamala Screwed Up By Not Differentiating Herself From Biden.  Could have just said that she "Is Alive" !!! - Adrienne Iapalucci

If Trump Lost the Media Was Going to Blame Tony Hinchcliffe 

Chris Cuomo Voted For ...Andrew Cuomo?

Elon Musk Was the Force Multiplier that Saved Civilization!?!? - Charlie Kirk Says

Constitutional AI Will Shape People's Opinions Through Setting of "Principles"...decided by...the programmers.

LLM May Have Own "Consciousness" and might act out of FEAR

"Restore the Colorblind Meritocracy That We Were Promised". "Dismantle the State!

"I Don't Read ANY Of It!"  You Know When Someone Is Lying To You...The Media Is!

Trump Picks Tom Homan As Border Czar.  The "Most Serious Border Czar" in Decades 

Elise Stefanik, Trumnp's Pick for UN Ambassador, KNOWN for slamming Claudine Gay of Harvard

Dodged a Bullet?  Kamala Harris Didn't Know What Inflation Was or Is!!!!

Biden Harris Tried for Regime Change ...in Israel!?!?