Politically High-Tech
A podcast with facts and opinions on different topics like politics, policy, technology especially AI, spirituality and development! For this podcast, development simply means tip, product and/or etc. can benefit humanity. This show aims to show political viewpoints and sometimes praises/criticizes them. He is a wildcard sometimes. For Technology episodes, this show focuses on products (mostly AI) with pros, cons and sometimes give a hint of future update. For Development episodes, the podcast focuses on tips to improve as a human spiritually, socially, emotionally and more. All political, AI lovers and haters, and all religions are welcome! This is an adult show. Minors should not be listening to this podcast! This podcast proudly discriminates bad characters and nothing else.
Politically High-Tech
304- Democracy at Risk: Europe's Troubling Path With Michael Anderson
Michael Anderson returns to discuss how neoliberalism has captured Western European politics and why Americans should be concerned about similar trends emerging at home.
• Neoliberalism believes everything in society should operate like a corporation, including universities, charities, and NGOs
• Universal ID systems in several European countries link citizens' personal information, banking, and health data, creating potential for government control
• UK police make approximately 30 arrests daily for "offensive" online posts, showing the erosion of free speech
• The World Economic Forum promotes global governance that removes accountability to citizens
• European farmers face strict limitations on land use and livestock numbers under neoliberal environmental policies
• America's two-party system has created a pendulum effect that has prevented deep entrenchment of neoliberal policies
• Silicon Valley elites are major promoters of globalism due to their worldwide operations
• Conservative philosophy focuses on individual rights while neoliberal philosophy focuses on group control
• Observe what's happening in Europe as a preview of potential threats to American freedoms
Check out Past Conversations with Michael Anderson
Episode 192
Episode 223
Episode 271
Check his substack
https://mikea0418.substack.com/
Twitter
https://x.com/MAndersonsblog
His Website
https://www.mikeandersonsbooks.com/
Additional Articles
https://www.eunews.it/en/2024/03/26/from-2026-eu-citizens-to-have-a-european-digital-identity/
https://freespeechunion.org/?v=0b3b97fa6688
https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/euro
Follow your host at
YouTube and Rumble for video content
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUxk1oJBVw-IAZTqChH70ag
https://rumble.com/c/c-4236474
Facebook to receive updates
https://www.facebook.com/EliasEllusion/
Twitter (yes, I refuse to call it X)
https://x.com/politicallyht
Welcome everyone to Politically High Tech with your host, elias. I have returning guests here. I will say my personal favorite doesn't mean I lean, you know, center right. But even though some of my positions can be easily identified as center right and I'm just give you just a brief example Abortion, as long as you know the baby is viable, I think it should be carried to turn, you know, with the exception of the endangerment of mother. Rape and incest. I would say yeah, sorry. Rape and incest I would say yeah, sorry, I'm going to side with the pro-choice people, only in those circumstances. So I think that's more like a center right position, that's more of a Reagan position, to be more exact. I think you have those exact words. So that one. That's one of the few things me and Reagan got in common, just that I don't want the late term abortions, in my personal opinion, or just take the pill at home. I mean, check that last, check that episode with Stuart Keller where we talk about life and all abortion. Interesting, interesting episode.
Speaker 1:But we're not going to focus here. We're going to focus more on UK, maybe even broader Europe, abroad, but what's going on and why we americans should give a darn about this? This could be. You could look at this in many ways. It could be good. Why we are different and some of you who are more cynical, as more of a european point of view, yeah say, oh, these two crazy americans are gonna bash europe. No, but if you want to be in your feelings, go right ahead. You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to the truth of the facts. I'm just gonna say, like that, it's a fair man me, I might be more judgy. I can't promise that for my end. Personally, I don't even speak for me. But with that being said, let's welcome back mr michael anderson.
Speaker 1:You know he talks about in his previous books how the DNA really shapes our politics. Yeah, and certain parts of the brains are more developed than others, and I'm not going to get too deep into that. That's you know, that's what he talks about and you know I tend to see truth checkers. Why is it that certain people can be convinced maybe because it was acting a certain political affiliation that they really weren't? Or, you know, there's this virtual signaling. You know, once you turn off the cameras and everything, and they're just those that they are just so hell bent on their position, which is fine to some degree, no hell bent on their position, which is fine to some degree.
Speaker 1:But if you cannot at least see that your side is screwing up or your side got the bad ideas, then you're a cult member. You're just yeah, an elitist could do no wrong on your side. No, we got to be better than that, people. Moderation is important, balance is important. Okay, and I'm summarizing him. He could add more when he introduced himself, so he's he's been a returning guest and I think I'm going to be slightly strict here about what do you want? The audience of the listeners to know about you.
Speaker 2:Books on politics. The first four were about left-right differences, basically going at that from different standpoints. The fifth book is called Rule of the Powered Elite and it's about how the elites control our country and our government. It's always been that way. You can't change it because they use their wealth and power to influence the government, like I said. So those are my five books. I read on Substack about contemporary American politics. Also, I usually publish one article per week, and so that's what I do.
Speaker 1:Summary you see why he's he's good, he's been welcome back and I was putting slightly stricter stands on him with introduction. Never on content, never on value. You know, we can even go off the rails and add some kind of unintended value. I'm all for it. So how can we start this? And it's going to branch off. I think we could use uk as a starting point here. I mean most of my americans, but most of my what am I saying? I can't speak. Most of my audience is american and I say the second highest will be from india. So I'm sure this is going to track you to the most. I mean, you know ind, know India, you know you have the colonial well, former colonial relationship with that nation and you, four decades ago, just be freed from them. America had that too, but we just did it much earlier with the help of the French. So that's your little basic history, geopolitical connection, right there.
Speaker 2:Let me talk about my philosophy just a little bit more before we get started, and I guess it'll be obvious to the audience once we get going. But I'm a DNA conservative, meaning I was born with conservative genes so I tended toward conservatism. But I'm a moderate politically because I'm not an ideologue. I don't believe in ideology because I'm a practical political type, and so I believe that good ideas come from both sides and that consensus is superior to ideology and control by one side or the other. So I'm a moderate.
Speaker 2:There are and I respect the Democrats. I respect traditional Democrats. I do not respect radical people on the left, and so you hear me talking against both radical lefties, particularly socialists or communists on the left, because they want to change our society, particularly socialists or communists on the left, because they want to change our society. And I'm also against neoliberalism, which, along with globalism, is a very popular political ideology around the world that has taken very strong hold in Western Europe, and so we're going to talk a little more about that, moving through the discussion here little more about that.
Speaker 1:Uh, moving through the discussion here yep, that's a. So I'm sure the american in the indian audience was my two largest are going to have some interest in that, and maybe a few europeans who think these two crazy americans are going to bash your country. No, this is mostly analytical. Maybe I will bash it like, like I said, I don't speak for me, maybe, but or maybe I might be sympathetic. Who knows? I can't promise anything. Sometimes I'm like a wild card. We'll see how it goes from there. But I am curious to learn I'm sure you're curious to learn about why we're talking about Western Europe. Particularly, when we talk about Western Europe, let's be clear. We don't talk about Spain and Portugal. You know they technically Western Europe UK, france and Germany, the big three, right, that's a great influence of the European Union. So I just want to say that, just to be clear. So Spain, portugal, you left out, you know what?
Speaker 2:Let's talk about neoliberalism for a minute. What it is for a minute. What it is, neoliberalism, basically, is a concept that, if you define it, you'd say neoliberalists believe that everything in society should be dedicated toward a capitalist operation, because capitalism is superior to every other institutionalization of human society, so it should be spread and adopted everywhere. For example, universities should be run like corporations, non-government organizations should be run like corporations, charities should be run like corporations. Charities should be run like corporations. Everything in a society should be run like a corporation, because that's the most efficient way to operate. And so it came into being in the late 1970s, actually right before Reagan was elected. But neoliberalism didn't really get going probably till the 80s. And then the first president who was strongly neoliberal was Clinton. And then there was interruption when Bush got elected, because Bush was more of a neocon, neoconservative than a neoliberal. But then when Obama got elected, he used most of the senior officials from the Clinton administration and his administration. So his was neoliberal also, as is the Biden administration was a Biden administration. So you know there are neoliberals on both sides of politics. But the Republicans have a faction of neoliberals, but it's not as deeply ingrained as it is on the left in the Democratic Party, the European experience, which is started right after the Soviet Union fell in 1990, they've had 30 years of imposing neoliberal philosophy in their countries, and I should mention neoliberalism goes along with globalism, goes along with globalism. In other words, we need to build one big global society using neoliberal principles, because that's the way to attain the ultimate efficiency in government, because if we have a global organization running everything, we can cut out all the errors and mistakes made by the individual nation states, so it's viewed as superior.
Speaker 2:The problem is, a neoliberal state is really 1984 reincarnated, because it calls for a global organization that controls the world. 1984 describes it exactly. You have things like food supply controlled, you have medical services controlled, you have education controlled, you have living standards controlled. You have incomes controlled, living standards controlled, you have incomes controlled, and the neoliberal global estate that exists now is pretty widespread. There's a lot of major corporations that are global corporations that are fully invested in it, but there are a ton of organizations called NGOs stands for non-government organization. Example of that is the USAID organization that Trump attacked when he first got elected. The trouble with NGOs is they're not accountable to anybody. So and that's the big problem. When you remove the nation state and you put the power in the hands of the globalists, suddenly the people don't have any vote, because they don't vote for NGOs, they don't vote for the World Bank, they don't vote for the International Monetary Fund, they don't vote at all for those things, and there are no laws governing the behavior of those organizations. So they can basically do whatever they want, in other words, take over our lives if they'd like to.
Speaker 2:So my objection to neoliberal, globalist philosophy is that it seeks an authoritarian state, and in seeking that, it denies the rights of the public to have a say in government. So that's the main beef. How do we see this manifest in Europe? We see it in limiting the amount of land that farmers in the Netherlands can cultivate, limiting the number of farm animals they're allowed to raise, and this is done under the guise of they're creating too much pollution. So you have to cut back. Meanwhile, they have trouble making a living then because they can't work their farm.
Speaker 2:It comes in the form of a universal ID that's being implemented in Europe. There are five countries that have that now, so you're required to have a universal ID if you live in those countries. Those countries can advance to the point where you know, for example, let's say you get a speeding ticket or something, um, they can control. They can just take money out of your bank account Because if, if the universal ID is tied to your banking and you use it for your banking and the government has access to it, then they can do whatever they want. Uh, let's say you commit a crime Well then they can cut your income in half. Let's say you commit a crime Well then they can cut your income in half. I'm talking about futures. Potentially, I'm talking about where this could go if elites are given the power to build a global organization that has no accountability.
Speaker 1:Right, what are the five countries that have that system right now? I know you talked about the futures and all that.
Speaker 2:I can't remember. I um sweden is one. Uh, I think germany, I think france, I'm not sure germany no, let me.
Speaker 1:Let me look. I'm very curious.
Speaker 2:I know you gotta be researching here also five countries, universal ID and well here's another thing If you're not vaccinated, it shows on the ID so they can deny you. I mean, look at, there were 8000 soldiers kicked out of the US Armed Forces because they didn't get the shot. Very simple to do that in Europe Kick somebody out of the army, firearm from their job, prevent them from getting a job.
Speaker 1:You could do that so, for those of you who love your individual rights, appreciate them. In america, yep, so and um, oh, okay, I think, universal id countries in terms of europe, well, I got. Well. Actually, no, this is um, this is um. I don't trust it that much. So it sounds like if they give.
Speaker 2:Well, you can quote it with caveats. I say I mean that's. It can be wrong, but I mean as a first place to look to get a quick answer. I start there and then I validate it.
Speaker 1:So what does it say? Well, they got the ones they list according to ai. Let me just go back for a second. They got um. Well, I'm just gonna skip the ones, I know it's not. They got estonia. Oh, we don't talk about that.
Speaker 1:You already mentioned sweden, germany and, oh and oh, looks like um, oh, ind. India. You know some of you are from India. The reverse ID is there as well. Yeah, even though you're not a European nation, but I mention that because of my audience. Yeah, these are.
Speaker 1:If you want globalization, just know that it's going to come with some costs. Let me see what I got here Anylinecom, full list of supported IDs or country's universe IDs for scanning. Wow, austria, ooh, austria got it in all three. Yikes, france is part of it. Lovely, not surprised. Italy, hmm, I thought Italy was turning a little more to the right. Well, neoliberalism still got a grip there, apparently.
Speaker 1:Okay, what is this? You scan for your driver's license? Health insurance, of course. Oh, health insurance too, yikes, yeah, so yeah, once they got your stuff, that's it. So you could commit a crime in another European country. Is it so universal? I mean, you know we talk about the social credit score in China and stuff, but it's very close to what you think, people, and this is not about China, it's about European countries and it's not just Europe that has this. Let me just give a little footnote. Canada is having something to that effect as well. If you think I'm wrong, chat you could, or comment section, just feel free to put that there. This is very preliminary research, so, but yeah, but yeah, that's. If you love your individual rights, you should be alarmed, but if you don't mind the globalist neoliberals running you should be OK, right, until you do something wrong, right, populist neoliberals running you should be okay, right, until you do something wrong, right.
Speaker 2:So let's segue to the United States, because the United States does not have the history of neoliberalism that the European countries do. I mean, it wasn't. There have been neoliberals here and I think I mentioned, when you and I were talking privately, that the Clinton, obama and Biden administrations were all neoliberal based. The George Bush administrations were mostly neocon, different approach, but actually Biden had neocons in his administration too. That's where the Ukrainian war stuff came from. Administration too, that's where the Ukrainian war stuff came from. But I don't want to get into defining what a neocon is, because that would get us off the subject. But the World Economic Forum has a platform or program 2030, which has objectives to try and get as much of Europe and the rest of the world engaged in the neoliberal state build as possible. Biden signed the treaty, the 2030 plan treaty, on behalf of the United States, but of course it doesn't mean anything now that Trump's elected, because it'll never be implemented.
Speaker 2:I think the impetus for neoliberalism on the left is the elites from Silicon Valley, because they're neoliberals, they're globalists. I mean, if you own Facebook or you own Google or you own Apple, you're a globalist because you're all over the globe. So they, those guys, are on the left left side and they support globalism and they're strong influencers in the party. Because conservatism is the opposite of neoliberalism in the sense that the conservative philosophy is based on individuality. Conservatives believe that individuals should have rights and that government's role should be limited in the way that it infringes on those rights, whereas the left is more is group-oriented. I mean, all the socialists are there, the welfare state believers are there. So in general, people on the left believe in big government and a government that responds to the needs of specific groups, particularly minorities or disadvantaged groups. So it's basically a group think view versus an individual view. And you can't be a conservative and a true conservative, or a strong Republican and support neoliberalism because it's incompatible.
Speaker 2:So Trump arose because of a disjointed Republican Party and a government that wasn't doing anything, based on tribalism. So the left and right have been fighting ever since Obama probably have been fighting ever since Obama probably. And government doesn't move forward because everything is a slash and burn effort on both sides against the other side. So when you look at the number of meaningful bills that pass Congress and there's a consensus about there are few and far between. You can see it, you can read it in the paper. So the neoliberals are alive and well, but weak in the United States to the point where I don't think they're going to have a significant impact because they're not going to be able to touch half the electorate.
Speaker 2:In Europe they have a much bigger stronghold. There are multiple parties in most European countries, it's not just two, where the conservatives have one side and the liberals have the other. So there's more opportunities to find party people who are sympathetic to neoliberalism. It's my belief and it's been going on longer there. Neoliberals are the people that believe in universal immigration. They believe that there shouldn't be any borders. The true, perfect state is a multicultural state where everybody gets a right to enter and live as they please. So that's again that's a case of disjointedness between the left and right. The conservatives generally feel they're law and order people, so they don't believe that anybody should be coming into the country illegally. They don't have a problem with people entering legally. Issue in the 24 election because the amount of crime produced by illegal immigrants was noticeable and made headlines every day.
Speaker 1:Wow, now you said so much. Listen, listeners and viewers hope you've been paying attention Me. I've been verifying AI. Ai is not that correct when it comes to Canada. Canada has only been tested in trials and they are trials, so let me just make that correction for myself. Right now, india already has some levels of implementation of it. That's another correction I'm going to make. I just want to make sure I get at least some of the nuances correct. But Denmark has it. Estonia, well, estonia. I haven't been able to verify that real quick, but Sweden and Germany does definitely have their universal ID. Look, if you trust the government that much, it's a good thing for you, but if you like individual rights and privacy and you don't trust government, you should be terrified.
Speaker 2:Now we're putting in universal ID here, but that's for identification purposes. It has nothing to do with banking, right, because to fly you have to have the new driver's license. And I get that, because unless you have some kind of system to find people who are here illegally, or criminals or something, then you know it's not good. So I get that.
Speaker 1:I get that but it does set the stage for controls, because if you know who everybody is and you can find them, then you can control them theoretically. And so, for example, if I was a citizen, if I was just still in Germany, if I was a citizen of that country, I decided by a book uh, they'll look at me a little little suspicious there. Of course, this is assuming worst case scenario abuse. Would it happen in that level? I, I would, I don't know, I can't say I doubt it, because boy, give power like that to government. I mean it is more prone to abuse. Yep, I mean, you know, this is someone with a. You know, I have an American worldview, so I have a. You know, I of course have my own biases. I'm not going to say that I don't. I'm more skeptical than not in America. I think we even having some trials with that as well, which is very, very interesting.
Speaker 1:You, several states is looking towards digital IDs. So let's just add that in the UK they said there's been discussions of that, but no real concrete. But this is based on 2024. So we'll, of course, this has changed. This is developing. This is a developing situation. Okay, let's just be clear. So, if you pay attention to this in 2027,. You think we're wrong? No, we're just reporting based on I can find, based on preliminary 2025 data, 2024 data. Okay, this is developing. So I'm just giving you that concept. I feel like I've been like Mr Disclaimer here. Well, we'll have a conversation, which I've been like Mr Disclaimer here, more than having a conversation. I don't like that role, but I think it needs to be.
Speaker 2:Now, let's talk about France and England, which we did before, so I want to hold up my book again. This is a book Twilight of the Elites, written in 2019 by a French geographer. Interesting background by a French geographer interesting background but basically he describes how the government of France is crashing, and the same situation applies to Great Britain. In France, the neoliberal globalists have made Paris a world city, so it's the center of finance, investment and corporate governance in the country of France and a major player in global trade and globalism. If you want to be successful in France, you need to be born in Paris and have wealthy parents who will send you to an elite school, and then you'll get an elite job and you'll continue to live in Paris. You won't live in a small country town because there's nothing happening there. So all the attention, the investments and the spotlight is on Paris as a global city, and the rest of France gets ignored, and the people in the rest of France don't have the opportunities for living a good life or advancing or climbing the economic ladder that Parisians do. Same in Great Britain with London London is the center of 90% of the financial and global activity of England and the rest of England, basically, is ignored by the government.
Speaker 2:As you brought up this First Amendment stuff in England, I'm amazed whenever I read about it. I guess we're spoiled by the extent of our First Amendment rights here. European countries don't have First Amendment rights. I don't know if people know that they don't have. I mean we have freedom of speech and assembly and all that stuff built into one amendment. They don't have that stuff and currently in England if you post a, it isn't even threatening a what they perceive as adversarial post on social media. Let's say you go on Facebook and you say climate change is a scam and they're just trying to rip us off.
Speaker 2:You'll be arrested and you go to jail. And I mean some of these cases and I can't. I don't have any top of mind, but it's easy to find them. People will get a year in jail for that. It's not like you get five days and 25 days citizens release or something. You get a year in jail because you made a statement that countered government policy. It's horrible to imagine that that's happening. It could never happen here, because no American would allow that to happen.
Speaker 1:Well, I hope so, because certain Americans will want that too, and we know what camp they normally come from. And I'm going to criticize even some people on the right as well. They pretend to be the all free speech until they get butthurt and secretly agree with some certain censorship. They're slicker about it. That's why it's harder to catch some of them. Oh, but there's a stat that popped up about, you know, offensive online messages. Police make 30 arrests a day. This is it, breton. Yeah, this is yeah. This is sir kira stormer, who is current prime minister, labor so someone on the left and yep.
Speaker 1:So, and I'm going to post that link to the article. It's called freespeechunionorg, so that's a very recent statistic, so you post some. I don't know, and I hate to bring Candace Owens into this, but since there's a defamation case against her saying that Brigitte Macron is a man Right.
Speaker 1:There's that going on as well, even though America is free speech and all that. But of course they think differently because free speech is not a thing over there. And let me just throw in another European. This is more of a commentary for Prince Harry. He thinks the 1A is ridiculous and crazy. The First Amendment yeah as well. Welcome to America, you can move out if you don't like it.
Speaker 1:I've never been a big fan of him, but still Some would think it's weird and crazy because they don't have that kind of law in there. That's very you know, american, don't get me wrong. The 1 kind of law in there, that's very you know, american, don't get me wrong. The 1a has been eroding in america, let me just be clear about that. But I think there's at least some. There's pushback which is good, some tangible pushback which I like. Look, if you're gonna say I'm gonna, you know, do something real violent to the person, then then I would say I'm support of police investigations or things like that's a threat, yeah. But if I'm just saying, you know, let me just use the guess here, for example, I think he's racist because he's white, okay, let me just throw something.
Speaker 1:And people sadly believe this. It's because some people believe because you're white, you're inherently evil. Me, I don't personally believe that. I think that's just obviously racist. You should fight racism with more racism. If you try to destroy racism for good, right, I mean I don't believe that. I mean, come on, you know me and him have a good relationship.
Speaker 1:This is like his fourth, fifth appearance here. For Christ's sake, I mean, you should be able to debunk this. Oh, but he's been here four or five times, of course, of course. The point is, you know, people will I mean the left, will throw that kind of slander right there and I'm using more of a left wing, especially more like a progressive far left slander on someone just because they don't like the person. No, when you use a strong language for every single little thing, it loses the, the word loses gravitas and it's true intended meaning. That's why I'm just, you know, saying, of course I don't think he's a racist and if you can't, you know, distinguish that, then you, I think you need, you need, you need to do a lot of reform on your upstairs and I'm just trying to be as nice as I can, because I can be a pretty nasty person, especially if I don't have the patience.
Speaker 2:I thought of something else we need to talk about and that is the censorship in Europe. We didn't talk about the globalists and I don't know whether it's the World Economic Forum who's doing this. Some organization that includes the heads of states of the neoliberal countries are now censoring the social media companies and you probably read about that. Twitter, facebook and all that and Google are given rules about what they're allowed to publish and when they break those rules they get hefty fines. So this is kind of a more direct censorship they're trying to apply not to people but to organizations.
Speaker 2:I mean, if I look at Twitter a little bit, I post on Twitter and I don't spend a lot of time on it because it's too vitriolic these days. Just, you know rants by everybody, but I swear just about everybody. Everybody's post on there could put them in jail if they were in Europe. I mean, those you know, like Trump's a Nazi. Democrats are fascists. They all ought to be killed. You know, whatever it's, just it's crazy. It becomes numbing because, like you said, all that invective loses its power and you wonder whether people are just showing off. You know, I posted this because I think I'm cool or I want to get clicks or something. I don't know, but it doesn't accomplish anything. It's just one rant against another. So I may post something controversial. All the responses are rants against that person. It accomplishes nothing.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I'm just going to try to be real quick. I mean, let's just say they all were European citizens, the prison system would be overwhelmed with the amount of arrests they could make. And I'm laughing about this because this is why you need to appreciate America, at least for this reason, America. There's a lot to criticize and I do agree with some of the criticism, but I mean, people would just be on top of each other. They got to do some kind of accommodation. I doubt their jails are large as Americansicans, so they're gonna get overwhelmed. And there's so much people, just based on the term, they use hate speech, offensive speech, you know, verbal violence, whatever you want to code it with. Yeah you're, you are going to be arrested. I mean not because it's baffling to me as an American. So that's why American Bias is showing and I can't believe there are not.
Speaker 2:I'm not that familiar with the judicial system there, but why aren't there protests against that? Are people afraid to protest against those laws? They seem to be going quietly to jail because they did, you know, post this questionable content and they get arrested and they go to jail and it's just, it's a headline, but then that's the end of it.
Speaker 1:I don't know. I mean I haven't seen any pushback or protests on that, but we did see protests on other things and you know, before we record it, my fault, by the way, because he was actually. He was going at one hundred, I was at twenty five. If you don't out of a scale for a hundred, use at least one hundred and twenty five, and I'm using most conservative measurements. You want to be a little liberal, I will give him 150. All right, it may be. It may be.
Speaker 1:If I would done no with over core, he probably would have been the most animated man. Yes, this is the same my man, this is a yep. I mean that, I mean, but but, um, I mean, I agree, I, I agreed, I. This is why I watch content like globally, because I want to be informed what the heck is going on and what the heck they're. You know what they're doing on various issues. I mean they protest on farms, which I think that's actually important, and I'll give them credit for that. I guess food is more important than speech, especially like france and and, uh, you know, of course, the yellow vest peopleest people we talked briefly about I remember there was lots of and especially, I think migration, I think it's another one, if I'm not mistaken. But you already said the government generally, and even with the World Economic Forum, they have this strong neoliberal philosophy that has a strong root, as opposed to America. America, we go through our phases. We get our right-leaning phase, left-leaning phase. It's more like a pendulum swing.
Speaker 2:Because you're two parties.
Speaker 1:That's it. That's why some things don't take a root after, probably a decade later, like Obamacare. That's a good example that that policy is strong because obama intelligently pushed it through congress. If it was executive order, trump would have shred that. Okay, trump would have shred that, but he passed it through congress. That's why you just can't get rid of it. That's why I say, if you wanted to stay there for long term, make sure it passes through Congress. Executive order at best it's a cheap bandaid.
Speaker 1:The opposite party you know the president opposite party just like it's easy to sign a law, it's easy to get rid of, but it's harder to pass through Congress. But also the lifespan of that law will stay at least for a long time, unless the part of opposition party gets super majority, which, the way it's looking, it's not going to happen anytime soon. Exactly so it's going to stay there for a really long time. And you know the president's veto is going to stick too, because you need two thirds of both you know, the House of Representatives and the Senate to override that veto. That's not happening. Most are going to have sort of like a 55% 45% Democrats or vice versa, depending who controls that. That changes every two years.
Speaker 2:Did we talk about Klaus Schwab before in our previous encounters? He's the chairman emeritus of the World Economic Forum. He's the original neoliberal. He's a German. He just got fired as chairman emeritus because of poor behavior, but he's 87 years old. He started the organization in 1971 to build globalism.
Speaker 2:But he's written a series of books. I've read three of them. It's interesting to look at them because he suddenly plans the new world order. But when you read his books it's like it's the ultimate altruism. But it really isn't. Like he talks about the fact that we're going to cure all disease in the world, because we're going to take money and put it toward the research necessary to create vaccines that everybody will receive. And the trouble with having a bunch of nation states is that gets all messed up and doesn't get distributed right. We're going to distribute it right, but in order to implement all the programs he's proposing you have to bring everybody down to the same income. Basically, you have to have limited incomes because you have to have money to be able to do all this redistribution area. It's basically an authoritarian socialist government, that globalist. So if you read his book, you read about and you think about wow, this sounds like solve hunger, solve disease. It's great, but the architecture that you need to execute that means central control.
Speaker 1:so there it is and just to say why I'm gonna be very oppositional here. Forget, forget. Trying to be fair, it's just not possible. The pragmatic point of view every government operates very differently. They got different priorities. As nice as that sounds, it's not pragmatic.
Speaker 2:And if I'm gonna be cynical, it's just not possible yeah, yeah, this is another level of socialism, basically because socialist theory started with Rousseau in 1750. Ok, it's always been a dream of the left to be able to make socialism work and I applaud that. It would be great if it would, but it doesn't, because you can't get people to be equal in a group larger than about 20. I mean, in the early 1800s they set up these utopian societies, most in the United States. There were 50 or 60 or 70 of them that started with 80 to 120 people and they all collapsed because they couldn't endure. I mean, they basically had work assignments. Everybody had a job to do and there were different jobs, obviously, but they each had to contribute an equal amount and then they would share in the production of the society.
Speaker 2:It never worked because in a group of human beings, a leadership will develop. That's the way it is, and there are a lot of people who are happy not being a leader. Most people I would say seven or eight out of 10, I think I've seen data on this people would rather be a follower than a leader. They're happy to join a group that has a leader if they trust that individual. They don't want to be a co-leader with the other 10 people. They're not interested in that.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean, it's just easy, right, it's to be a follower. Let's just be honest, being a leader is actually tough. Tough, I mean. And even just give a more microscopic example, you look at certain um game shows I'm not going to mention survivor because I have a very negative opinion of that. I think wokeness have, for me, killed the game, but that's just, that's a whole nother beast for another day. That's more first world BS. That that's not a big, that's not a major priority. But there was this game show that's more similar to survival and is real survivor, cause he really got to go out there through the Alaskan forest. They are my respect.
Speaker 1:It's not a very friendly place to human beings. Okay, there's no, there's no society. They got to create the encampments and all that. They got to hunt for food and you got to deal with bears and all that craziness. The reason why I'm mentioning that is because a lot there there are teams, but for the most part a team they. You know there's one that it is always just that, one that always voluntarily takes over as a leader and people generally agree more often than not that's okay, this person's a leader. But there was one camp I think it was team alpha, that there was more of a conflict one. He was more like a loner. He wanted to do he, he, he had talked to anybody, he did his own thing, while the other two kind of follow.
Speaker 1:This woman, who has a lot of leadership experience, of course she became the leader. So it's not, you know, it's not always gender-based people. She does have a lot of leadership experience, like corporate and all that. So she naturally took over being a leader. It's very strong on her background. So she's and she was saying I don't know how to take orders for anybody. I don't think I'll be, I don't want to take orders for anybody. So she's a real, I mean capital type A personality. She dominates. And the reason why I'm saying that is because people will tend to designate the leader. And there were other teams that well, there was one, I think, that had great rapport with each other. It was more, I would say, the closest to socialism. I mean it was four people. I guess it could work. I don't think a larger society can. Let's just be all artists. And I was. I was thinking delta, yeah, delta, they had this generally good karate associate. I want to talk about early game people. This is not spoilers or anything.
Speaker 1:It's like the first two episodes okay my point is people, certain a few people, the special type, a people they're comfortable being leaders, rather they're. They're competent or not, that's a whole other thing, but they naturally take it over and a lot of people don't want to be leaders because they don't want to show off and they don't want to be seen as a threat or combative or difficult or dominating Right. So you know this is a micro example, but this is human nature, tendencies, that this is my point here.
Speaker 2:So I want to make a qualification of my prior statement because I don't want people to think that 10's the limit or something, because the ancient human societies had about 50 people in them and those are egalitarian and everybody was equal. There was a leader and maybe a medicine man, and people respected the elders because they had lived longer, but there was no social hierarchy. They all worked together to find food and they stayed together and they were generally families, groups of families. They weren't groups of strangers. So they already had a patriarchy because the men were related, whatever. So that worked in that situation. But then as soon as man developed agriculture and you could grow food densely, then people could start having towns and villages. They could live close together because they had access to food, and then land ownership began, which created wealth. So from then on it was the wealthy control.
Speaker 1:That is sociology and history 101 about society building people. Very basic, very fundamentals, but you know it's all accurate. You want to debate that? Go right ahead. There's a common section for you right there. I will not agree with your craziness, but I will respect your right and bravery to post it on the comment section. Just remember, youtube will censor you. Wait for it to put on Rumble, rumble. You have a lot more freedoms. You could put your more spicy opinions in there. Okay, and I'm just going to laugh. I've been called names in the chat, so I'm fine with that. I even laugh because you know you're. I said say that to my face in person. I doubt you would. And you're just. You're just tough with a key, with a digital keyboard of this phone or through a laptop. Most people don't use a stationary computer anymore Like I would phone or through a laptop. Most people don't use a stationary computer anymore. You know the so-called PC, okay, so that's all I'm going to say about that.
Speaker 2:But so what else is getting something? What else is on your mind, sir?
Speaker 1:To be honest. I think, yeah, we don't, we don't, we. I think this is good here because we need to. This is why I think, pay attention, global politics is helpful because sometimes the impact is going to be indirect and sometimes it's going to eventually come here. It's kind of like, you know, look into a crystal ball, so to speak. This is what happens when you know, for example, speech, is what happens when one is completely dead, especially to freedom, speech. Freedom, you know, assembly and all that good stuff.
Speaker 2:Let me just say something in summary about the European situation. It's worth observing because they're ahead of us in the adoption of neoliberalism. You can look at what's happening there and say that could happen to us if we let it, because it's not going to end well, but it's going to end there first, before it even gets started here. So we'll have plenty of chance to evaluate it.
Speaker 1:And to the American farmers. Let me speak to you in particular. Do you want a big super government entity controlling how many cows you can raise, how many chickens and how much you know crops could be reserved for the other country? Just, you know, let's just imagine the North American or just the American Union. We include all North America and South America, super big organization America you got to. You know, say, 50, 50 percent of your crops, send that to Brazil. Sending your crops, send that to Brazil. You know, I'm sure a lot of Americans would just say, and excuse my French, hell, no to that. We're going to focus on the country and my family and any of that. I mean it's a miracle the fact that we agree nationally in some of these things, all right. So I think that's the biggest stretch you can do, but doing it internationally and having to imagine we have like a just the American Union and then we have to have all this bureaucracy and then, yeah, no, they control how much you could produce without you know, fines and things like that.
Speaker 1:And it's not just people and you mentioned this really well, I'm happy you did, even major, major companies we're talking about. You know, the Facebook, of course, instagram. They all under Mark Zuckerberg. Um, you know, and you and you and I'm sure YouTube as well, yeah, and if they don't behave which is going to be more work for them, because they got to filter out how you don't produce algorithms as a sensor, all of that If they get it wrong, they're paying a hefty price, especially if it continues. That could build up pretty quickly, I think. If you want to bankrupt them, I don't think America's going to do that. I think it's more the European nations or maybe even Asian nations. I think the one I'm looking at is India. India is taking some tough stance on some of the social media policies.
Speaker 2:Well, if it gets too egregious against the companies, they'll pull out of those countries, they'll just turn it off.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and that's what they have done. On some situations, like the Australia situations, they pulled out when it was, you know, putting law enforcement, and that's the flip side. You put so much restrictions, coming to say this is not sustainable, this is not worth it, this is more hassle than worth, we're out and you're going to have to find your social media news elsewhere because we're not going to put up with this anymore. So that's also true. Look, rather than pro-social media and all that. That's irrelevant. It's true, um, I might look. Rather, I'm pro social media and all that. That's irrelevant. It's just about how these things are going to impact. You know, companies, the companies will, they. They can't pull out. You know they're not, we're not, they're not, you know, obligated to stay there forever. You know, um, they could just pull out and they have done that. Some situations, like I said there australia was a very good example that, okay, we turn off our service, but you know, you're doing all these laws and it's costing me money and it's too restrictive, it's more hassle than work, so I'm just going to leave, and that's what they would do. That's happened before. I won't be surprised if it happened again. They care about the bottom line. If you keep hurting the bottom line too much, they're gone.
Speaker 1:Look, I'm very critical of social media companies, but this is the reality here. It is a reality. You could check up articles where they have done various countries okay, not in America. The reason we're not aware of it? Because we're too busy having fun with this device, a weapon of mass distraction. And you know, I love that quote. I took it for someone I'm not original. Sounds great, I love it too and I said this is perfect. I said I got to take that. It's so good, I had to take it.
Speaker 2:Everybody needs a flip phone, that's it.
Speaker 1:Oh, oh, is he going to rabbit hole there? You know what, if I didn't have this podcasting business, I think I would have thrown this thing out already. And it's sometimes just, you have so much this is, I'm just going to say about smart form. I could just go off the tangent. You have so much features that you're using this thing. Yeah, you're probably at best scratching 10%. Yeah, and this is using your effort, and I'm sure the developers and all that, all you tech geniuses, you probably you use more than 10, but there's even features. I'm aware that this thing has, this thing has so much, so powerful, but yet we paying so much money for this. And you know what? I'm gonna go in the rabbit hole too.
Speaker 1:This spyware okay, if I want pizza, it's gonna give me pizza. Okay, it's gonna give me ads and all that and it's gonna give me what I want. And if I talk crazy stuff I like this conversation here that's gonna give me stuff about how europe is blocking rights of individuals and all that. And because america just cares about attention, hooks and money and both, it ain't doing this to spy on you too. Let's just be real that the fourth amendment is non-existent. Anything with privacy, it's, it's non-existent, it's really. Unless you want to live off the grid, be an Amish, be a cave person, so get your privacy back. That's all I'm gonna say. It's very radical, but I think it's the truth, so all righty. Anything else you want to add before I wrap this up? Um nope, you drained me.
Speaker 1:I just he's blaming me, actually partially, is because I should press record. Like 15 minutes ago I was like, okay, so, good. So, because I don't want to be rude, but you know, hesitancy creates one more problem sometimes. Hey, that that's the lesson. Right there, a little random lesson for you, real life. If you didn't learn anything else, okay, so let me do the plug-in for him. Go to his site, join his sub stack and I'm going to put the link to the previous episode we have here that touched about.
Speaker 1:You know, california democracy which is, it has some relevance to this, but it's just more american. You know the american elite. That's mostly a different situation, but there could be some overlapping similarities because the neoliberals are trying to take over america. They just have not been as successful. So that's your, that's your big difference. And when we're going to get the universal id and all this good stuff and I'm using, yeah, good in quotes, air, quote that, uh, we will see, we'll see and or we'll copy the social credit system of china. I haven't forgot about that, um, but, and we'll see, um, people should just is why freedom, the cost is vigilance, because if we slack off in one generation, a lot of damage we have happened and if you're going to recover that damage, which is nearly impossible, we kind of have, I think, sally out civil war, it's the only thing that's going to get it, and I don't want that to happen. It's very bloody, it's going to be get it and I don't want that to happen. It's very bloody, it's gonna be very violent and I don't want that to happen. That just means we have failed to contain this tribalistic um disease. That's really it, you know, ruining america, okay.
Speaker 1:So I want to put a link to his books. You know, michael anderson'scom All five of them are there. And for that plugin, plugin, that book, twilight of the Elites, I'm going to link that as well. Check his sub stack, check his social medias and if you want to search, you follow him, because I think he has some valuable stuff. And I know one person say you're very biased, um, but the problem is with that comment, lady, specificity is needed. How is he biased? You say, oh, I like you, but you're biased. I mean he doesn't exactly hide it. I mean, and by sign inherently a bad thing.
Speaker 2:I mean that's the people.
Speaker 1:I'm for the public, not for the parties I mean, hey look, if everyone have a bias, everybody will be in jail, including me. I got my own bias. Look, I'm more. Some things I lean to the right, some things I lean to the left. Legalization of weed, I don't know. I'm regretting that, probably shifting a little more to the right after the impacts of new york. It's really not good. So I'm shifting more to the right because I see the disastrous impacts of that.
Speaker 1:I started right as a teenager. Then I went to the left. You can say it's peer pressure, you won't be wrong. And then now I'd see I said, damn it, I shouldn't have not been peer pressured. So many of them was oh, weed, weed, weed, weed, weed, weed, weed. That was one of the views. I don't know. You sure this could cause that. You know you, you're just opening the floodgates and well, I don't think it's not much of an issue because they closed down. It did.
Speaker 1:And this is the rare time with the praise. Eric adams, he's done a decent job with crackdown of illegal weed shops. So I give I give him that, um, and the reason why he's doing that because he's let's be real he's off a re-election in new york city. So there's that as well, um, let me shut up and let me just end it with my shameless plugin. So like, comment, subscribe, insert. When you subscribe, click the notification bell for all you know there's options for options for some If you really want to be caught up and make sure that you're getting your feeds. If you want to get all the episodes, go to all okay, and then comment.
Speaker 1:Give a review why this is a good episode or a bad episode. Give a reason why. Don't just say this episode's great no reason. Or this episode's bad no reason. Put some thought into it, especially for the Apple podcasters. Give an honest review. I don't want all five stars, because I find that fake. Not being in one podcast where you just get five stars for so many.
Speaker 1:I personally think that's fake. Okay, I think that's fake. You know what? And this person won't talk to me anymore. That's fine, I don't care, because I rather have a genuine 4.1, 4.5 as opposed to a fake 5.0. It's very fake. It's very fake, all right, just give an honest review. If you think it's great, the reason why. Again. If it's bad, you give a reason why as well. Oh, and if you have extra green, feel free to donate three dollars a month. Okay, just three dollars a month, and I'm going to give you a shout out and put some exclusive, exclusive content, what's that's going to be like extra personal stuff, and I think that stuff that should be gatekeep or something that's ultra controversial.
Speaker 1:Oh yeah, you think I'm crazy. Some of the explicit ones, the paywall ones. You just think I'm really insane, especially when I let loose. So my opinion well, not opinions, but how I express myself, in particular because by being, overall, I'm more like a swinging centrist, you know, left centrist, right centrist. I have my own little pendulum swing depending on the, the, the american climate. I would say as of now I'm definitely more in a center left.
Speaker 1:Because of some of trump's craziness, I'm happy I didn't vote for him. I didn't vote for kamala either. I said this is why I didn't vote for him. He had he was gonna pick loyalists, not competence, and some stuff he's doing is crazy. Can he do good and there's a shot, but he's gotta rap. He's gonna have to um, do it quickly because the midterms are coming and, the way I see it, I think the democrats can easily take the house, the senate.
Speaker 1:I think the republicans have a decent chance of defending that, at least defend their majority. Worst case scenario, I think they might lose just three seats. That's still 50, 50, jvance still there, tiebreaker um, that's worst case scenario. But if I'm going to be honest and don't be into the middle, I think Republicans could, best case scenario, gain a seat, maybe lose a seat. It'll be all right in the Senate. But I think the House, the House, the Democrats the question is how much their majority is going to be. Is it going to be like extra five seats? That's still not a big majority as well. Maybe extra 10. If I'm going out of a limb, we'll see.
Speaker 1:And then we got this ridiculous thing war between California and Texas. So we'll see how that turns out. Texas would come more red, california comes more blue. We'll see if that that makes a big impact. If it makes it, maybe. You know the Republicans keep the House and, like I said, republicans are better at gerrymandering. I'm going to be honest, I think Republicans are better at gerrymandering. They're good at that. The Democrats, you got to make an upset on that if you want to destroy this trend. I think Republicans are much better at gerrymandering. That's all I'm. We should be talking about, you know, redistricting and all that, just because they want to make their state more pure, based on the majority of the party. Let's just be clear. It's all about power, both the left and the right. Alrighty, then. Once you complete this audio and visual journey, you have a blessed day afternoon. And visual journey, penny. You have a blessed day afternoon.
