Is a Ceasefire Happening? + Should Christians be Socialist?
Summary
Geopolitics: The discussion centers on the Iran conflict, a fragile ceasefire, Israeli actions in Lebanon, and the Trump administration’s shifting foreign policy posture.
Oil and Shipping: Mention of ~15 tankers/day through the Strait of Hormuz and a recent uptick in gas prices highlights potential supply risks but without a specific investment call.
Market Implications: Guests note weak market and economic sentiment tied to war uncertainty and political volatility, emphasizing elevated geopolitical risk.
Policy Dynamics: Debate over Israeli influence on U.S. decisions, internal U.S. intelligence skepticism, and complications of negotiating with Iran’s decentralized power structure.
Military Risk: Concern about potential escalation from air campaigns to boots on the ground and the possibility of internal military discontent or sabotage.
Public Opinion Shifts: Younger generations’ growing skepticism of U.S. foreign policy and establishment media could constrain future war mobilization.
Ideological Debate: Segment critiques on Tucker Carlson’s platform around capitalism, religion, and anti-Enlightenment sentiment, with warnings about drifting toward state-centric solutions.
No Specific Picks: No tickers, sectors, or investment themes were pitched with sufficient depth to meet the inclusion criteria.
Transcript
Welcome back to the power and market podcast. I'm Ryan McMin, editor-inchief at the Mises Institute. And joining me today are two of our contributing editors. We've got Connor O'Keefe and we've got th Bishop and this this is the current events podcast for the Mises Institute. So if you would you like the most casual form that the Mises Institute can take in terms of its content, this is it. I sometimes still get emails uh from people saying, well, what was what was the source? You didn't uh right, you didn't have a footnote uh in that that thing you said in the Power Market podcast. Friend, this is not the place for that. Uh you know, 99% of our content is written. It's got footnotes. It's got sources. It's got links. And most of what we're talking about here is based on content at the page written down. It has the precision of the written word, which is not what the Power Market podcast is about. We're here to maybe push you in the direction of some of the other more precise content. But if you want to see any of that, go to mises.org. That's mises.orgg. And we do have, speaking of more scholarly works, we've got some of that coming up uh in April with some of our events, right though? >> Yes correct, Ryan. We've got uh in San Diego, California, California's decline, a warning to America, including a great speaking lineup not only of Ryan McMakon and Connor O'Keefe, but we've got Peter Klein coming in from Baylor. We've got Ed Fuller, who's always a good time, Chris Cton, friend of the show, uh and Bill Anderson. Great, great lineup there. That'll be on April 25th in San Diego. Glad to be out on the West Coast. Uh then after that uh Rothbart University May 14th through the 16th a great opportunity to experience a Misesu style event if you are if you're postcolaged. Um that's going to be again May 14th through the 16th. Great great lineup for that. And uh even in uh for for our folks our friends in New Hampshire we'll be coming up your your way in June on the 27th talk about why the health care system is broken. Um so that and many many more events including I just saw that we've got a August uh lecture seminar on ethics for liberty with uh the great uh Wirya. So all sorts of great things popping up. You can find this and many many more at mises.org events. >> And also if you want to get weekly or daily updates be sure and click on subscribe at the top of mises.org as well. So, well, let's talk about what's going on this week uh in the headlines. We can't escape it. I mean, I I don't know if right and I was thinking, boy, isn't there some other topic we can talk about like the central bank, minimum wage? Remember all those great topics we used to talk about? >> I miss Jerome Pal. >> Right. Well, everything has been consumed by this foreign policy. This administration has decided that everything it's going to talk about, everything it's going to focus on now is war in Iran and other for related foreign policy issues which generally come back to Iran as we'll talk about today. And so foreign policy has now become Trump's obsession. He's basically thrown his administration away to become obsessed with uh foreign policy now. So much for uh deport uh deporting criminals. We never hear about that anymore. Um no real regulatory changes. No cutting the budget. Of course, that's completely out of control. And no, it's all about whatever Netanyahu told uh Donald Trump to do this week. That's that's what the US presidency has been reduced to. And so there's just it's hard to find something to talk about in terms of current events. that isn't the war in Iran. And the most recent issue on this was the quote unquote ceasefire which occurred and which as far as I could tell lasted like overnight a little bit. Uh >> work in process, right? Work in process >> if that much. >> Because if you were paying attention at all, you know that Iran had its 10point uh ask, if you will, in terms of what it considered it needed to get in order to come to the bargaining table. And a big part of that was ending Israel's war on Lebanon. And so then Trump comes in, says, "I've got a deal." The Israelis immediately start like on a level unseen prior start just bombing the hell out of Lebanon, killing a a large number of them Christians. Uh their women and children, non-combatants, leveling apartment blocks, this sort of thing. Uh, I mean, obvious war crimes. And And then Trump says, "Oh, I didn't know that Lebanon was part of it," which has to be a lie. Um, well, maybe he personally didn't know it was part of it because he never knows what's going on as far as I can tell. He just believes whatever somebody tells him, but clearly his advisers knew that the the cessation of Israel's invasion and attack on Lebanon was part of any real ceasefire. Uh, so that's over. Um, Iran has not engaged in any significant reprisals as a result. So, it's difficult to say what's going on there and uh, United Arab Emirates is engaged in some level of hostilities against Iran as well. So, certainly not a real ceasefire by uh, any stretch of the imagination, although a lessening of hostilities in terms of just overall bombing. Uh but just just the latest disconnect between what the Trump administration claims is going on and what is actually going on. But as have we found the way this administration works is you can just say anything and the general public hasn't the slightest idea what's going on and just kind of in their minds hears Trump say some wonderful things are happening and that's kind of what sticks and that it's real easy to fool the public. Let's put it that way and and Trump is very good at it. So, how will this uh this quote unquote ceasefire end? I have no idea. Though, where do you think we go from here? >> Well, I mean, right right now we're in a a state of flux. There's going to be, you know, more negotiations going on. You know, the wild card of the Israeli component to it, you know, particularly the Lebanon question is is really up in the air. I think we're, you know, where we're now getting some firm uh movement of what 15 tankers a day from from the straight of Hermuse. So, we'll see how how how that impacts the price of gas. I saw that um you prices were already ticking up from a decrease yesterday on uh buying the the uplifting positive uh narrative out there. So, I mean, you know, we're kind of essentially where we were um you know, two days ago at this point is that, you know, there's plenty of details here um and that no one knows where this thing is going to get. I mean, it's still up in the air on exactly who they are negotiating with within the country as well. I mean that's that's one of the issues is that you do not have a very clean concise control control structure within you know what is currently exists of the Iranian regime. Um and so you know that component of it on top of everything else in the wild card mix of different geopolitical uh complexities. I mean I I what this clearly shows is the very real desire from the administration to to get a resolution to this. Um I I do love this this constant game of just this you 2026 the dumbest year um of that I can recall but you know few things embody that more than the the taco narratives that you get this was playing out your first time around with last year with the the tariff stuff but like the same people that were understandably so like with Trump's uh that now infamous Easter message about destroying civilizations you know rightfully criticizing that sort of rhetoric and then saying oh well Trump is chickening out. It's like that whole that whole thing I think is one of one of the most weird and bizarre aspects of of just how uh really insane um DC conversations about, you know, serious issues can be just just the the pure partisan uh opportunism that comes with with some of those things there. Um, but I think one of the most interesting aspects of it that is connected to it, um, and we can perhaps talk about this more is is the New York Times reporting that came about the the decision-making process getting us in this conflict as a whole, which in many ways kind of vindicated, uh, that the Joe Kent narrative about basically Israelis coming in contradicting CIA, you you American intelligence on a variety of fronts. something you have within this article Rubio saying that you know Israel is basically lying about the regime change component to it the extent to which that was part of the original plan from the get-go which goes into you know you know the the the the mission accomplished banners that are going to be wave you waved if whenever this end result of this conflict goes in. Um and so again you know that's kind of where we're at right now is that in forward looking we have no resolution to any of this sort of stuff. you know, the the main lens by which to view this conflict continues to be the decision-making process that led up to this in the first place. the clear Israeli influence and the the contradictions or the the Israeli intelligence um u contradicting and and being triumphant in Trump's eyes in the decision-making process here and what all this means in terms of how these negotiations can going forward given you have a major military partner if you will um that that has demonstrated it's it's has no problem lying and misrepresenting the facts on the ground in order to get its own desired this is you know the the beauty of the situation we find ourselves right Yeah, it's it's not good. Not good >> for sure. And this isn't at least to me wasn't surprising. We've been sort of talking about this. You can never know for sure what Trump is thinking or trying to do, but it it seemed at least for most of this operation so far that he's wanted an off-ramp. It doesn't seem like he wants anything like the worst case scenario like a a nation building exercise with hundreds of thousands of troops going in. He wanted something closer to Venezuela, a quick in and out. We can call it regime change because the, you know, people died. Um, but it was pretty clear, pretty quick and definitely something uh we've been talking about that there wasn't an easy way for him to get that like the whole situation basically this whole time since uh day one when you know the missile started flying after the supreme leader was dead and it was clear that the Iranians they have people that are going to find fight back even if it's a decentralized structure that there was no easy way for Trump to get out of this and so um I was expecting him to just declare victory at some point when it was clear to anybody that was paying close attention that that's not what happened. But it was the main question was is he going to do something specific so he can do that like people were worried about trying to seize an island or um trying to take uranium out of the the the tunnels in Isvahan or dear Fordo um and so that was kind of the big question like is he going to try to get some big you know spectacle that he can then point to um and didn't seem like he he did that. I mean there there's spec speculation about this operation to to rescue the one of the pilots that um was uh there's a F-15 shot down. Was that only last weekend? Feels like months ago. Um and there's speculation like the the operation does not look like what you would typically expect one of those operations to look like. It's usually, you know, a small group of helicopters or, you know, one or two at most. and you know this kind of highly specialized trying not to draw a lot of attention to where this downpilot is and they were sending in a bunch of you know like C130s and helicopters. So there's speculation that maybe there was an attempt to actually seize some uranium and it did not uh go through regardless there we didn't get you know some big we got the uranium and therefore we can declare victory. It was just this kind of clumsy. I mean, you know, obviously Trump put out this message that Iranian civilization was going to die and I had written on Twitter, but I I find that disgusting in a lot of ways. But I also did the pattern for Trump espec at least in 2020 in 2026. Yeah, this has been a very interventionist year for him is that um he tends to talk in deescalatory ways right before he escalates unless the markets are opening. those like the two reasons he'll uh talk in deescalatory ways is you know it's Monday morning and the markets are about to open or he's about to escalate you know when he with Maduro launching this whole operation he was sort of talking in ways like oh you know it's probably not a big deal um in state of the union it was nothing really crazy so it's actually when he's talking really like fire and brimstone everything's going to you know completely ratchet up that uh it's not impossible that um he would actually follow through on that, but the it would be a shift in the pattern. So, I wasn't like super convinced he was actually going to go about doing that. But then, yeah, last minute I think with like 90 minutes to go before his deadline, he announces that he has accepted a ceasefire and of course tries to frame it as if like the Iranians came begging to him with these 10 points when in fact and once again it sort of to what uh you were saying earlier um those of us that were paying attention to this, it was so obvious that he was just fabricating this whole he he's fabricated these talks acting like the Iranians have been begging for this to come to an end this entire time when that is clearly not true if you've been paying attention. Um, and then acting like through these desperate last minute talks they presented they basically completely conceded presented something to Trump and he thought it was acceptable enough to therefore accept a ceasefire. None of that is true. It's just that Trump was done and decided to frame his language in a way that could kind of give that impression to people that are not watching this closely. Um, and you know that seemed to have kind of worked. The Iranians, I think, went along with it because it seems like they were uh s they were probably surprised by the fact that he said the there are 10 points is an acceptable starting point. Um including you know ending the the conflict or a ceasefire with Lebanon too and then also just essentially negotiating away the closure of the straight of Hormuz which is like a le that's something the Iranians did to get leverage. It's not you know they don't always want the straight to be closed. So from their perspective, it's probably like, "Oh, excellent. This is a lot better than we were expecting." So they probably agreed to the ceasefire, but it gets complicated going forward and we've seen that already. It it is it is messy to say the least. >> Yeah, I was watching another interview with John Mirshimer to this morning and he basically does a daily interview now with uh some podcast or another with Judge Npalitano and others and he's been right about the conflict every step of the way. He was saying he predicted that Iran would do everything it's it's done including close the straight of Hormuz and that they have zero motivation to open it until they get some sort of guarantees in terms of their safety. But one thing that he notes repeatedly is that there is absolutely no motivation for the Israelis to abide by any sort of peace treaty here. we've discussed earlier um here on this show, but also Mir Shimemer has made it clear. It seems that what the Israeli plan is and has been is just to cause the total chaos and destruction of every country near it and that includes Iran and going forward will probably include Turkey. And the idea isn't to have just decapitation or regime change or something like that. The whole point is to reduce each country to just such a state of chaos that it cannot possibly mount any sort of actual state action against the state of Israel. And it doesn't matter how many millions have to die. It doesn't matter what humanitarian crimes have to be uh committed. You just have to destroy all of these other countries. And that is clearly uh Netanyahu's uh agenda right now based on everything that he's actually done. So it's no surprise at all that they broke the ceasefire immediately as everyone except Trump apparently understood it to be including the Pakistanis who hosted the the peace conference and that is just now what we've come to expect from the Israelis and it's just going to continue to go like that moving forward as as much as I can see until Trump tells them no which he's clearly unwilling to do. This was another point Mish Sharma made was that right you say Trump's looking for an off-ramp. Of course he is because he was sold by MSAD and by others that this was going to be a Venezuela type operation. It was going to take two or three days. It was going to be over. Look, you're going to look great. It's going to be wonderful for you. And it hasn't turned out that way at all. And now it's been a political disaster for Trump. And it's clear now that where does Trump care more about? Does he care about public opinion and uh his fellows within the Republican party? Or does he care about Netanyahu? It's pretty clear which side is coming down on this because he could just simply tell the Israelis to cut it out that we're not going to support you anymore. Hey, look, we negotiated a separate peace and you're on your own if you violate the peace. He could say that, but he won't uh because he's been tricked or he truly adheres to one of these crackpot religious theories. uh that so many of these evangelicals subscribe to supporting the state of Israel. So he has no interest in actually pursuing sanity and law and order. Uh so I just don't see how this could possibly end short of a military problem uh strategic defeat embarrassment on such a high level that it makes the US regime so allergic to the state of Israel that they finally start telling it no. But I don't see how that occurs in the short term. Uh I don't I don't know what would have to happen politically because we all know what's going to happen with the Democratic party, right? You get you get Democrats in, they're not going to do anything different unless somehow the left wing of the Dems manages to put in all of these anti-Israel people. But even then, will they have the guts to follow through on anything? I have no idea. So, yeah. What do you think on that? Well, I I think it's notable here because, you know, and that's why I find the New York Times piece so interesting. And of course, you know, it's New York Times journalism, yada yada yada, but like, you know, these are you if if we take it at face value, I mean, the language that was used in the in the going into the the decision to to strike Iran regarding the Israel question, it was not, you know, assuming these quotes are correct, right? Uh it was not like massaged and and diplomatic like it was very clear. it was using very almost Trumpian language. I mean you the CIA director called again like this the entire notion of of a of an easy regime change faracle uh Rubio uh said it was Um uh uh General Kaine um said that in his experience uh the standard operating procedure for the Israelis is that they oversell and the plans are not welldeveloped and that is what it is. What they need is us and they're hard selling, right? like this was the language used by the people closest to the decision-making about this particular instance and yet this is still what we have. So like I mean I just this was this was very blunt sort of assessments that that have proven to be quite accurate. Well, those side the American side. Yeah, that's not defense of Rubio. It's not a defense of any of these people, but like it's it's like this was this was precisely what was outlined during the decision-m process in those sort of terms. And >> said that straight up. He said, I think the American deep state was opposed to this war, >> but Netanyahu and MSAD had Trump in their little hands. >> Yeah. and managed to essentially overrule the the US security state which was trying to do what they thought was good for the regime, right? What was good for the US regime, but Trump decided to go with what was good for the Israeli regime. And that seems to be what the distinction there is. >> Yeah. Right. And this was like none of this was surprising. Everybody that was paying attent or those of us that were advocating against it like this is a reason because there's no easy way out of it. I think and I mean I'll do more reflecting on this. Maybe there's some kind of middle position, but it seems like the only two paths forward are either go all the way and try to you know like we've been saying this whole time the they don't actually seem to be trying to do a regime change like a real regime change in Iran. There's no backup like you know government and waiting to be installed. It's an attempt to regime collapse. Yeah. Well, >> they keep killing the the internal alternatives but they're not serious about like the the the monarchists or MK. Like there's no even the whole like the Kurds were going to run. They're not trying to turn it into Kurdistan. Like it's they're trying to collapse the government and have a permanent state of civil war. That's the Israeli goal here by all indications. And there it is important to remember that there is some little distinctions within Israel too. It's like none of these groups are complete monoliths. There's interesting divides between Netanyahu and the IDF. But um but anyway uh the so like either they go all the way there or there has to be some kind of like you said Trump or the US government somebody in the US on the US side telling the Israelis no. And I just struggle to see that working right now. I think the the Israelis the Israel lobby they've just invested way too much time and money into getting Trump to do this. I think they they you're you're right, Ryan, that like I'm not convinced that with the next election like the US government's going to turn against Israel. There's no way that's going to happen. But they do have to be somewhat worried about the opinion polls and how Israel is just losing support amongst the American population. And I just think that from their perspective, it's it's now or never. And I I was getting this a bit. I uh my personal rule throughout this whole war has been I'm not going to be I'm not actually going to be convinced that like there's an actual ceasefire like a real attempt at an off-ramp until I see Mark Levin and Lindsey Graham freaking out. That was what I was looking for. And um sure enough like Lindsey Graham kind of had this like sort of sad post about how like you know I just want these goals and maybe negotiations are the way but I don't really think so. And then Mark Levin I watched his he went on Hannity. Yes. shortly after the um the ceasefire went into effect and it was interest I was very interested to watch how he would handle it um because their strategy has been to use flattery to get Trump like you're just the most amazing leader in history and that's why you're so great and so he couldn't criticize Trump directly but this is not what Livin or you know his his tribe want so the approach he took which I thought was kind of clever is essentially that Trump is a I think he said a once in a century president that he is just that good and that means that no matter what the next president is not going to be Donald Trump and so therefore if this isn't if this issue isn't solved while Trump is president then you know no amount of negotiation uh as long as that regime stays there is going to be sufficient because the next president even if it's JD Van like no there will just not be another Donald Trump and so therefore uh they're they're probably going walk away um and go after some, you know, Obama style debacle. So, that's kind of a clever way to go about it. That's probably what the Israel lobby and like the the uh approach they're going to be taking with Trump right now. Um so, it's just this battle between Yeah, like you said, the opinion polls terrible on this war, stock market, the economy terrible. But it, you know, it would also be um not easy for Trump to completely uh completely turn on the Israelis in like a meaningful way. Not just like the June style, you know, tweeting out something about how they need to turn their planes around, but like really going against them as they try to get him to go all the way. It I just I think we have more steps um before we really get to the decision point. And it's just like this whole thing is going to continue to be messy and then we'll see. Yeah, I I think that maybe uh the only hope for like non crazy foreign policy is to make sure that the Republicans are humiliated in in the fall. That would be like the only thing that would seem to get Trump's attention, I would think. And then that's that brings with it all sorts of unpleasant domestic policy then for sane people. I mean, I remember what it's like with Democrats in charge. And >> I think the messy race would be a a a not messy way to do that earlier, too. I think that could potentially be huge if he wins. >> That would be great. >> Yeah. >> Yes. Of course. I Yeah. I hope Massie wins with a landslide against the the Trump handpicked person. Uh and of course, everyone Trump handpicks is awful. Uh they end up as neocons. They're supporting like amnesty bills in Congress for immigrants and stuff. I mean, it's unbelievable. Basically everything that everyone thought they were voting for Trump for they got the opposite essentially from Trump even on immigration which was supposed to be his uh his centerpiece of his administration that's all come to basically nothing and kind of one of my favorite conspiracy theories and you know and as you know I don't use that as a pjorative just like it's a theory about the the ruling regime conspiring against decent people is the way it works is uh right the Democrats do terrible things uh importing a million criminals and putting them on welfare that sort of thing. You get a Republican in who promises to get rid of the million criminals, take them off welfare, kind of does that a little bit, not really a little bit, and then starts a whole bunch of wars that basically destroy the Republican party, bankrupts the Americans, uh, creates all sorts of geopolitical problems. And so then you get rid of them, and then you can get back to importing a million criminals again and putting them on welfare. It's this it's this nice cycle that the regime has invented and which works endlessly. And of course, I think a lot of people say that in the hope of motivating people to vote Republican, but uh of course, you're just destroying yourself in a different way with these sorts of Republican policies. And it's no, of course, no uh surprise that Trump has recently come out to speak well of spy programs and all of these police state programs that he says are now absolutely essential in combating the Iranians and other foreigners and that sort of thing. So, he's just he's just George W. Bush with all of his uh surveillance state policies and wants to spend more on it, wants to tax you more on it, wants to raise your cost of living. And what's your other choice? Oh, just the Dems who will do that in a slightly different way. Who's never gets threatened in any way by this very convenient setup, of course, is the actual ruling class that's going to be fine and happy and the foreign policy blob. They're always going to end up getting what they want uh no matter what. So, it's a perfect system. There's no escape. They they just they throw they give you increasingly bad options. Then, if you try to escape from them, they've already prepackaged horrible options for that, too. So, and until people start finally um stop uh being so gullible and thinking that this time will solve the problem. They just the only answer of course step one is just withdraw your consent from the regime. Stop speaking well of it. Stop talking about how it'll work fine if we just elect the right people or we just get back to the Constitution or we just get the right judges. It's never going to happen, friends. It's never going to happen. >> And >> well, I think that's the thing though is is you see it with like this, you know, again, the most defining aspect of modern modern American politics in my opinion is the stark, very real generational divides on these issues. And it's like yet Theo Vaughn on like a Joe Rogan's podcast, it was last week or whatever, and he started going off about, you know, Israeli influence and whatever. Like Joe's like, you know, you need to step back, bro. Like I kind of think like that that the vaugh represents a large portion of millennial and zoomer Trump voters. Again theo von was at the the inauguration right last year. And I think that very much like a kind of my my running uh sort of framework is that like like anti- libertarian sentiment like you know is is obviously very very high right now amongst like the the young right in particular and we talked last week a little bit you know for some reasons for it but I think like Gen Z in particular is is they're anti- libertarian but they're also Rothbartian coded in the way that they view a lot of these things and you know the change I mean it's it's not a coincidence you look at and there's a poll today for Thomas Massie for example um it was very good for Massie like double digits up. But like go if you look at the generational breakdown, right? It's the boomers. It's the ones whose primary source of of consuming news is watching Mark Levin, you know, crash out on Hannity. Those are the only that that is the most like how you consume your news. If if you tell me, you know, what's your major news source, you can predict with 80% certainty their opinions on, you know, whatever the top 10 issues are. And that is the fountain from from which everything else stems. And we're seeing major changes in that. Like that's why you can't and and and I think one of the positive things in spite of this being the the the biggest military conflict we've had since Iraq war, since the Iraq war is is that you it is very clear that the foundation of the American war machine is severely undermined in terms of the ability to build up this national sentiment. And the only thing that people can point to is like, oh well selfidentified MAGA Republican voters have like an 85% approval rating. ignored from that is okay what's the portion of Americans that identify as MAGA Republican voters it's a much smaller contingent a portion than it was last year and and certainly la 2024 November and like the ability to you know have this rally around the flag effect the ability to completely control a narrative whether it's a domestic issue like COVID or a foreign policy issue like that like that is fracturing before our eyes and so as bad as this you this situation is pretty bad um you know these are I think some of the more positive trends in terms of you know real underlying significant transformations of how the American political state operates. Um you know this is this and and again I think and Rothbartian lens you know is a he does a very good job of explaining this sort of stuff but that that is that is that is a silver lining uh for for the pessimistic uh if anything's going to to destroy the ratchet effect that you described there Ryan. Um it's it's I think that is the dynamic going forward that has the potential to do so. Yeah, it does happen, right? The collapse of the Soviet Union shows that it does happen. It just doesn't happen in any legal way, right? The collapse of the Soviet Union was not a legal process. It in the end forced a legal process wherein the Soviet Union legally disbanded itself, which was great and that's that's the endgame you want. But of course, none of the buildup was anything legal. It was all stuff deemed illegal by the Soviet state. And so this idea that there is this legal offramp where we'll just pass some laws and it'll all be fixed. They'll never let you pass laws that would fix it. They'll never let you elect people that would actually change things in any significant way. Yes, Thomas Massie will be allowed uh because that's one guy in Congress, but you're not going to get Ron Paul as president or someone who believes like him. won't will not be allowed to happen unless the system is broken down so far that there's like no legitimacy left and you've got basically what like a Boris Yeltson sort of posts Soviet twilight of the Soviet state sort of situation. Uh that's just when the state's power has ceased to function and it cannot prevent you from doing those things. Uh, but you can only get that when you stop stop supporting the government. And and to your point though, right, you can totally predict what a person's news source is and who they're listening to when they're out there in social media of trying to still they're still on this old tired game of accusing people who aren't siding with the government of being unpatriotic, of saying that you're with the M moolas if you're not rooting for Washington. And it always reminds me of I think it was 2003 where National Review, it's always the National Review, uh had their unpatriotic conservatives issue. I still remember when that came out because I was writing for Lou Rockwell.com back then. So I man, I was zeroed in on that whole phenomenon. >> You're upset you didn't get a mention. >> I Well, they did mention Lou. So that seemed sufficient to me. Yeah. They singled out Lou Rockwell and Papy and a couple other people and said, "These are unpatriotic conservatives. They're not even real conservatives into the outer darkness, right? They're they're we're we're excommunicating them from anything that people might call conservative." Now, of course, not like Lou Rockwell cared. He never called himself a conservative, so whatever. It just showed how dumb they were that he thought he maybe considered himself a conservative or something. And uh that was just they hated the idea so much that there weren't people signing off on everything that George W. Bush did that they were considered basically guilty of treason. That's that's all they that's their main tool that they've got. Oh, you don't want to support whatever the government is doing right now? Well, then you're guilty of treason. You're guilty of lack of patriotism. And I still see that all over the place in social media and elsewhere saying it would be nice if you people would root for America just once. When they say America, they mean the US government. That's what they always mean. They mean Yeah. They mean Washington DC. They mean the taxfunded coercive state that is the US government. They don't mean America. Although some of them are so adult that they can't distinguish between the government and America. But that's to your point too though, right? Is that the younger people who are quote unquote Rothbart coded, they can tell the difference between the state and the people. They actually are smart enough to know the distinction. But if you went to public school in the 50s and 60s or whatever, your brain ceased to function and so you can't tell the difference. >> What's the difference between seeing, you know, being a Washington, you know, level government employee of being a a you know, proud public servant or being a pedophile and like that's essentally the distinction by which, you know, like that that is the narrative by people tend to view things in one of two ways right now when it comes to DC. And uh you know it's that's just where we are. >> And the only reason to care at all about what happens to the US government in this is the fact that there are ordinary enlisted men and stuff whose lives will be ruined by this. And those people who signed up before, right? They didn't they were probably thinking this sort of thing couldn't happen where they'd be shift shipped off to the Persian Gulf to get into suicide missions in Iran. Uh although I would say if you are currently signing up for the US military, if you are currently thinking it's a good idea to enlist, I wonder what's going through your mind. Like do you legitimately think defending Israeli pedto is like your calling? Is it your calling to to stand up for the worst people in the world and to defend the butchery of Israelis? Because that's what serving in the US military means. It means serving in the Israeli military essentially. It means America last. It means Israel first. So, it's weird for me that someone who fancies themselves an American would still consider signing up for military service at this point or would reinlist if their enlistment comes up. But I guess there's some people who are just have drunk so much Kool-Aid on this that they still think they're serving they're making America safe or something. That's just simply not the reality. But I guess there's enough people out there to keep that train going. Well, there's also uh from my understanding, I haven't read a lot into this, but economics plays a role too. For some people, it's kind of the only re reasonable option. So, I think there's a lot of, you know, there's also families that, you know, it's just sort of what you do. There's probably still pockets of the country where it's kind of a somewhat common thing if you don't have a clear path. So, I I imagine that with the younger gen Z, it's probably not ideological uh necessarily. It's probably more for other reasons. And I I mean there has been an issue with uh like enlistment rates in recent years. I don't know if that has changed. I haven't looked at that for a bit, but I would imagine it's kind of similar. So and we were talking about there were like um reports that um early on in this war that like the their the military was having issues with all their these soldiers like making jokes about how this is all for for Jeffrey and stuff like that. So I think like that the intellectually we're already kind of there. I think there's just so many structural reasons why uh the the problem is persisting for now. But yeah, I don't see especially Gen Z being motivated. I think barring something like another 9/11 level attack even there. Like if 911 happened today, I don't know if you would see the same kind of rally around the flag effect that you saw back then. Um we're just in a different place right now. But uh yeah, so I think there it's like the worse the economy gets, especially for young people, um that's definitely going to push some people into the these ranks, it could be a perverse incentive. >> To your point, Connor, I mean, you did have enlistment rates. I mean because I there was significant inclines particularly of multigenerational military families you know during the Biden years in particular and there's aspects of like the the the cultural components that were being projected within you know the military itself but you saw enlistment rates tick back up and I think a big part of it is that there was a belief that there was a readjustment you know no more Middle Eastern wars you know that there was going to be a renewed focus on you know make America you know America first right and I think this is you know you you talk to a Zoomer enlisted person their their opinions are not the same in my in my experience particularly their opinions are not the same as Sean Hannity or Mark Levin or or or Lindsey Graham um and so it will be interesting to see given you know given this dynamic going forward how that I I think that actually be a very interesting measurement of of of Zoomer discontent with the MAGA movement is post and after 2026 enlistment rates to that to that very point >> yeah that would be interesting and we've talked a little bit about that too with like the it's easier for Washington to get the military to do something like this when it's essentially an air campaign. But if you were sending troops in, that there's a lot more potential for some serious issues. And there were there were reports indicating that some things like the the toilet problems and the laundry fire on that aircraft carrier may have been uh sabotaged. like that it could be that as we move closer to that if you know the Israelis have their way and they get Trump back into this um and we move closer to boots on the ground like a mass boots on the ground scenario I think there's a lot of potential to see some real uh maybe not necessarily you know standing up and disobeying orders directly but if if we've already seen a little sabotage um we it may become a lot more obvious that yeah the gen the Gen Z enlisted folks in the US military are not uh brainwashed to the to the extent that previous generations of enlisted soldiers have been. >> Yeah. Don't never forget that Ron Paul was by far the preferred favorite candidate among enlisted men back when he was running for president because uh a lot of those people didn't want to die for pointless wars on the other side of the planet. So there definitely is is that. But it looks like the US is going to be involved in this sort of thing for quite some time at this point. So, I would suggest that if actually defending the United States is something that you value, uh, the US military is not for you. You'd probably, if you want to help your fellow man, you'd probably be much better off working in an oil field or something that contributes to humanity, uh, in a real concrete, meaningful way. Well, let's go ahead and change gears a little bit. I was going to bring up the NATO thing, but, uh, we don't have a whole lot of time left. Uh so we can do that next time. Trump has become increasingly obsessed with NATO and framing it as the US doing a favor to Europe. Uh when really probably the opposite is true. But uh I think we have enough time now to talk about our buddy Tucker Carlson who had an interesting guest and has said some interesting things in the last couple of weeks I would say. So let's talk about Tucker. He is an interesting guy in the sense of right how many different versions of Tucker Carlson have there been over the last 20 years. Uh I remember he was kind of a Ron Paul guy for a while and then he became like this super anti- capitalist guy. I'm not sure he ever totally abandoned that but that hasn't been like his the thrust of his work in recent years. Uh I mean vaguely I seem to remember him just being kind of more of a standard conservative at one point. That was a long time ago. And >> that was bow tie tucker. >> Yes. Right. So now I'm not sure which which Tucker this is. Uh so what what version of Tucker are we currently living with and what are the implications of that? >> Actually I had someone ask me about that last night. They were they were not a fan of of current Tucker, which I think is best Tucker. Um, but I I I I think if you're if you're to drill down like what what Tucker is right now, um, I think it's first and foremost um a a belief that America is in decline, which ties both into uh his economic concerns, which he wrongly that that's where he flirts into the the capitalist critiques, um, where obviously we have our a very distinct view on that. Um but also ties very heavily into his you know view that America needs to embrace um or needs to accept the rise of of a multipolar world um which is where you see a lot of overlap in terms of you know a lot of his foreign policy guests you know Dave Smith is you know become a regular on Tucker Carlson's podcast um in that in that regard um uh deep deep distrust of DC experts at large which would include professional economists which I think ties back into that overarching um uh capitalist critique that arises from that and but but then also I think perhaps most most fundamentally that a a very much a a spiritual component to current political conflict um which ties into a lot of his focus on religion and the supernatural um in in various ways. And you know, obviously there was a viral clip that went on this weekend um about uh you know, and the guy that he had on was he was a filmmaker. I think it was was a broader within a broader critique of like megaurches and things like that. This was not an economist. He was not bringing on some Marxist and things like something like that. Um you know, but this this filmmaker, you know, critiquing um the concept that Christianity can be capitalistic in any way. Um and I think this goes you know you both there's plenty of content on misus.org about Christianity and capitalism and you I think one of our defining characteristics, right, is we kind of define our our our original branch of economic thought, you know, dating back to the the Catholic thought. Ryan, I'm sure you have some can build on that far better than I can. Um but it is this this um you know there there very much is this interesting component to the this generational aspect that we're talking about in regards to foreign policy is heightened skepticism of the American regime u tying directly into very scathing skepticism of American foreign policy in particular but it being connected to this anti- libertarian and you know often as a proxy for this concept of a very atomized notion of capitalism. Um that is, you know, somewhat connected to kind of the economic status quo and, you know, kind of a a a broader critique of liberalism as kind of destroying family, you ethnic bonds, family bonds, um you know, these these these pro these pre-political sort of instruments of of society. And and again, I think there's very few people that do a better job of fueling that than quote unquote, you know, free market experts in DC and and you know, goes back to our conversation last week about unrealistic libertarians and and you know, views on immigration being a great example of that. Um, but I I thought that was an interesting moment of seeing that go viral is that I think it it it hits a a very important component to like if we're if we're going to throw cold water on the positive trends that we were referring to in terms of these perceptions of the American regime. This is the the other side of that is you growing skepticism of you know economics itself being being a discipline that markets do anything besides you know we're riching oligarchs that capitalism is nothing but a a foolish game for uh that that that you working class people get trapped into. And you know, at its core, that there's a a spiritual cultural decline and decay that is irreplaceable from a a a society grounded in property rights and um and markets. And I think this this is one of those aspects that that that you those who who recognize the importance of private property and civilization and kind of all the hallmarks that you know I think embody the the Mises Institute brand if you will, you know, this is um you know, one of the most important things that we have to tackle. Yeah, I mean the so the the guest is a guy named Nathan Appul and the portion that went uh this so always happens on social media, right? The portion that went viral uh emphasizes what was really just a minor point he was making in the larger interview. Uh he's a documentarian. Uh not really my guy. I'm clearly not the target audience for this guy because I went to the website and his bio reads like like one of those like gladhanding marketing majors you'd meet in college and they've always they've always got some they're always calling themselves like a founder and a a creator of some new app or platform or something like that because you read his bio and it starts out talking about how we need to recreate accountability in religious institutions. ions and he's mostly talking about megaurches >> uh here and I think really just trying to tackle the the strange phenomenon where you have these megaurch pastors that are multi-millionaires uh making boatloads of money off of what he calls the religion business which I think is the name of the actual documentary that he's promoting. Uh, but as you read the bio, it then eventually gets down to where it's basically turns out it's all an ad for an app essentially that he's created to help you run your church or your nonprofit or whatever. Um, and so I wonder if the entire documentary just functions as PR for for sales on the app. I don't know. Um, and so reading this I'm like, okay, so fine. we can see what the the general game is here. Uh but I didn't have any like big problem in general with just his saying that u there's there's a certain corruption at the core of church leaders who use it to get rich. I mean how old is this right? People have been saying this for since before Christianity. um fine. But then he gets in and it's a lot it's within that context that he's saying that quote capitalism should not be anywhere near Christianity unquote. Uh so you could take that in a variety of different ways I suppose. But what he's basically saying is that these people that he's talking about in the documentary are using Christianity as a capitalist might use a factory or something is is the way I'm I'm taking uh it. But then he doesn't leave well enough alone because then he goes on he says quote Christianity is socialism at its core which that's a whole other contention that they're way on top. It's one thing to say, "Yeah, I don't think you should run a church like a business," which you should not. It's not a for-profit venture. It's uh I mean, if you actually read the gospels, you're not actually supposed to be better off at all uh from running the church. You're supposed to, you know, it's supposed to be the people at the top are supposed to be the ones giving the most service. And uh that's apparently not what he's saying because he has to take it step f step further and say that Christianity is socialism. And then Tucker's just kind of like nodding uh along and Yes. Right. So, but I do think that his motivation is what you're talking about though, right? Is that this idea of corrupt institutions and something has to be done about that. >> Well, it's it's that capitalism being a um you basically a synonym for for materialism. And again, the problem is is that like and here's the here's the biggest problem and I've I've written articles about it. We've all written articles on this is is that I mean like there's a lot of blame to be to be laid at the feet of both you know libertarians and economists. >> Yeah. >> For creating this. And I I always love like you know I I you know see this it's going viral and and you know like you know see our our objectivist friends out there saying oh yeah see Einran was right about this like Christianity is in conflict with capitalism but capitalism is better. you know this this is this you know why why we have to kill God for so so Staint Iron Ryan Rand um you know the beacon uh embodiment of reason and rationality which is certainly true if you read a biography um that that this this is we must destroy Christianity in the west to bring about uh you know a true free market and it's just like they're feeding right into exactly why this is exactly why certain people have this this sort of mentality >> well I think a lot of this stems from It's it's really just kind of an anti-enlightenment um movement, I think, is where I see so much of it coming from. >> They go hand in hand. Yeah. >> And now the Rand people are very pro-enlightenment, right? They're hyperrationalistic and uh they don't like anything. They hate tradition. They they hate anything that has any metaphysics involved. Although of course they have their own substitute metaphysics uh which they define as pure rationality. Uh right? So if you define everything you like is good and everything you don't like as uh nonsense. Uh right the spaghetti monster. Everything we don't like is the spaghetti monster. Everything we like is pure rationalism. That's basically what the Randians do. Uh so but that is the sort of thing that a hyperenlightenment sort of person would do is is those that sort of trickery and try and define everything in terms of rationalistic uh thinking and buzzwords and framework. You see that uh a lot within anyone who speaks well of the enlightenment in general. And I think I think the PR for the enlightenment has gone off a cliff with younger generations. I don't think people buy into that stuff at all because they suspect that's what what got us to where we are today. >> Yeah, unless we got we got a good in-house enlightenment revisionist uh figure right here. >> Yeah, we got well the music institute has plenty of that. is definitely a strain and not just uh from me but yeah within uh the institute overall and of course Rothbart as a thist um certainly had his own reservations as well and because he was and Ralph Reiko certainly had a lot of reservations about the enlightenment and most of the people that we call enlightenment quote unquote liberals weren't liberals at all. Right? We're told nowadays that people uh like Rouso and maybe Voltater were somehow liberals, which they weren't at all. Their value system had nothing to do with free markets, with classical liberalism, with the sort of human rights that that uh we know and love nowadays. But you you'll hear from your school teacher that they all just sort of roll up together. John Lockach and Voltater and all of those French enlightenment people like they're all had kind of the same goal of freedom and liberation but they didn't at all. Uh Voltater is just called a I think it was Actton who said this. He listed off a bunch of these enlightenment guys like Voltater and said Voltater was only called a liberal because he hated the clerics. That was it. That was the only thing he had in common with some liberals since liberalism in general doesn't require anti-clericalism. Uh, and so they just slapped all these labels on these people and weren't liberal at all. And really, what does Enlightenment have to show for it, right? The French Enlightenment was not a pro- freedom thing and didn't really actually improve anyone's standard of living. Uh, a lot of it was just people making jokes and trying to look witty and clever and had this snide attitude toward everything. Uh, and Reiko >> doesn't sound like the modern era at all. >> Yeah. Right. I mean, yeah, we're we're all children of the Enlightenment because everybody's a jerk. And that was uh that was kind of Reiko's point was that what the Enlightenment gave us was everybody just trying to top each other in terms of how sarcastic and dismissive they could be of the good things in life. And yeah, that's the unfortunate reality. And I think that young people have had enough of that, right? That they crave for something of actual value, for some actual guidance and that sort of thing. And they're sick of it. And I think and when I see uh Tucker responding positively to these sorts of statements, I I read it as simply an anti-enlightenment sort of attitude, which I think has its upsides, but it's I I don't think Tucker has really clarified his thinking on that. So, he's he just kind of knows what he doesn't like. But then he's got guys on that say Christianity is socialism at its core. Socialism is a modern movement that requires the existence of the state. And historically, Christianity is the historical enemy of the state and thus an enemy of socialism as well, which is simply a state hopped up on steroids. And so there's no way that you could actually square that circle with historical Christianity, although I'm sure you can invent some new variations of it, >> right? And I I think that uh to th's point that it's a tremendous opportunity for roughbardianism. I think because like what we're really seeing from the my read of the generational uh phenomenon we're talking about is that it is a negative vision and that it's it's just talk it's they're finally waking up to how everything it's not that it doesn't work but it's working against them. But there isn't yet this mass kind of positive answer like how the system ought to work. And uh yeah, like when um there this anti-lbertarianism, this anti- capitalism, it's there for a reason. They're not thinking of Rothbartianism when they think of that. They're thinking of uh the kind of libertarianism and capitalism that we're very much opposed to. And so there's a real opportunity to and I like that Rothbart Rothbard coded is a good way um to put it like I think that and we've already seen it. Um I know the three of us have seen it to some degree that there there's a lot of people young people especially are receptive to um the Rothbartian insights into how this is all working. Um, and it's just like the there's a lot of as things fall apart, there's a lot of potential for chaos and for this to all pivot in a much worse direction, especially if that kind of um socialist anti- capitalist, you know, extra interventionist um side of this takes on. Um, so I think it's it's really up to those of us that understand it um to really push it especially hard right now and especially aimed at young people because they their instincts are correct. They just need to hear the right answers and they're not they're not hearing them right now. >> Yeah, it's good to keep in mind that many socialist movements have actually been based on some variation of hypertraditionalism. uh Mao actually justified a lot of his work on reclaiming the land and going back to the land and it's a peasant movement and uh we'll all go back to the old ways of doing things overturning modernism and of course it produced Mauism uh in practice which is horrific and a lot of socialists in England historically have been uh justifying their version of socialism based on some sort of bucolic fantasy about the past and so you do encounter that a lot so it Doesn't take that much imagination to imagine a bunch of people who they're saying that they want to recapture the traditionalism of the past. And what do we end up in the end? Another hyper socialistic state. It's happened before. It could happen again. uh so that this doesn't inoculate you against granting the state all sorts of power because what you're saying is oh we want to go back to uh some sort of great uh communal vision of of the human existence based on what people were doing right in the 13th century that sort of thing because we've shown that those sort of sentiments often lead to socialist hell and I think we have a a lot of work to do with these people when because if they're saying things like Christianity is socialism that points exactly in the direction of socialist hell in the name of traditionalism and that could be a big problem and I there's also something too I used to break the fever of this this idea that Washington can be repurposed for whatever your desired political aims are you see this I think Curtis Yarvin's an example of it's like like Curtis Yarvin has has you know you know he will he will wax poetic about the virtues of astronomics about Manger. He's read this stuff like you know say whatever you will about anything else that courtesy of believes like I mean if if you were to ask him okay like what what what branch of economics like what what tradition of economic thought is the most right he he would say astron economics without I think any any sort of hesitation there um but you know he part of you know particularly his later political commentary was explicitly trying to to have like a counter FDR- like figure and if you do that you can't have you know you can't have that sort of centralizing state and a you know in in a capitalist economy as we would define you cannot have that with LZ fair you you have to you know you have to have a predatory economic regime to finance that political end goal um and I know this might people out there say like oh actually everyone wants this and this but like that's fine whatever but like that's that ultimately like you know what you've had in this this this period of time where like these you know late late millennials early zoomers there's been this assumption that a a Trump-like figure can repurpose the federal government can can you know elevate their preferred cultural values and crush the left right and you know hopefully you know it's not until that entire idea and notion is broken that I I think that you're going to see a renewed interest that's why I like I the the Ronpaw bubble the astronomics bubble of the early 2000s I mean a big part of that was a a multi-prong um recognition the Bush years and and a lot of the the prevailing political wisdom had been wrong um coupled with the internet and the ability to get resources like like uh Mis institute. So as long as you know I think I think pe there's you know a lot of people are interested in economics to the extent that they start with an interest in politics and realize you have to understand there's economics that justify that and it's until you have you have a you can break the fever of these of this fantasy of centralized power particularly in the in the American context as a as a as a useful sword to protect the nation rather than as the greatest threat to the nation um that I I think if you'll get you know opens the door to to revive ing some of these um uh anti-market thoughts that are are very common with um you know with younger generations right now. >> 100%. And with foreign policy, I'll be quick. I know we're running over here. Like I've noticed that a lot with Gen Z and the Israel stuff is they will talk as if if only Israel as a lobby can be essentially uh set aside then finally we would have this giant global empire that would work for the benefit of the American people. And that has never been the intent of this whole system. Israel is utilizing the system as it's designed to be used. It's not corrupting the system and making it work differently. And so it's this it's this dream that we can have the current system in DC, but it's, you know, utilized for the average American. That is impossible. It was never designed to do that. It is not structured to do that. And it is impossible to make it do that based on how it's currently structured. That is something I've been pushing that in my articles a lot. That is an idea that we need to get across because it's that same. It's just the wrong people are in charge. And if we can just change that, the whole thing will work like we learn it should in elementary school. And yeah, we just need to wake them up. >> All right. Well, with that, we'll go ahead and wrap up this episode. We're about an hour in now. So, uh, thank you, Connor. Thank you, Tho, for joining me today. Uh, I predict we'll have similar topics still happening on the front pages, uh, in the next coming weeks. So, we'll be back, uh, to discuss, uh, these topics and more next time. So, we'll see you then.
Is a Ceasefire Happening? + Should Christians be Socialist?
Summary
Transcript
Welcome back to the power and market podcast. I'm Ryan McMin, editor-inchief at the Mises Institute. And joining me today are two of our contributing editors. We've got Connor O'Keefe and we've got th Bishop and this this is the current events podcast for the Mises Institute. So if you would you like the most casual form that the Mises Institute can take in terms of its content, this is it. I sometimes still get emails uh from people saying, well, what was what was the source? You didn't uh right, you didn't have a footnote uh in that that thing you said in the Power Market podcast. Friend, this is not the place for that. Uh you know, 99% of our content is written. It's got footnotes. It's got sources. It's got links. And most of what we're talking about here is based on content at the page written down. It has the precision of the written word, which is not what the Power Market podcast is about. We're here to maybe push you in the direction of some of the other more precise content. But if you want to see any of that, go to mises.org. That's mises.orgg. And we do have, speaking of more scholarly works, we've got some of that coming up uh in April with some of our events, right though? >> Yes correct, Ryan. We've got uh in San Diego, California, California's decline, a warning to America, including a great speaking lineup not only of Ryan McMakon and Connor O'Keefe, but we've got Peter Klein coming in from Baylor. We've got Ed Fuller, who's always a good time, Chris Cton, friend of the show, uh and Bill Anderson. Great, great lineup there. That'll be on April 25th in San Diego. Glad to be out on the West Coast. Uh then after that uh Rothbart University May 14th through the 16th a great opportunity to experience a Misesu style event if you are if you're postcolaged. Um that's going to be again May 14th through the 16th. Great great lineup for that. And uh even in uh for for our folks our friends in New Hampshire we'll be coming up your your way in June on the 27th talk about why the health care system is broken. Um so that and many many more events including I just saw that we've got a August uh lecture seminar on ethics for liberty with uh the great uh Wirya. So all sorts of great things popping up. You can find this and many many more at mises.org events. >> And also if you want to get weekly or daily updates be sure and click on subscribe at the top of mises.org as well. So, well, let's talk about what's going on this week uh in the headlines. We can't escape it. I mean, I I don't know if right and I was thinking, boy, isn't there some other topic we can talk about like the central bank, minimum wage? Remember all those great topics we used to talk about? >> I miss Jerome Pal. >> Right. Well, everything has been consumed by this foreign policy. This administration has decided that everything it's going to talk about, everything it's going to focus on now is war in Iran and other for related foreign policy issues which generally come back to Iran as we'll talk about today. And so foreign policy has now become Trump's obsession. He's basically thrown his administration away to become obsessed with uh foreign policy now. So much for uh deport uh deporting criminals. We never hear about that anymore. Um no real regulatory changes. No cutting the budget. Of course, that's completely out of control. And no, it's all about whatever Netanyahu told uh Donald Trump to do this week. That's that's what the US presidency has been reduced to. And so there's just it's hard to find something to talk about in terms of current events. that isn't the war in Iran. And the most recent issue on this was the quote unquote ceasefire which occurred and which as far as I could tell lasted like overnight a little bit. Uh >> work in process, right? Work in process >> if that much. >> Because if you were paying attention at all, you know that Iran had its 10point uh ask, if you will, in terms of what it considered it needed to get in order to come to the bargaining table. And a big part of that was ending Israel's war on Lebanon. And so then Trump comes in, says, "I've got a deal." The Israelis immediately start like on a level unseen prior start just bombing the hell out of Lebanon, killing a a large number of them Christians. Uh their women and children, non-combatants, leveling apartment blocks, this sort of thing. Uh, I mean, obvious war crimes. And And then Trump says, "Oh, I didn't know that Lebanon was part of it," which has to be a lie. Um, well, maybe he personally didn't know it was part of it because he never knows what's going on as far as I can tell. He just believes whatever somebody tells him, but clearly his advisers knew that the the cessation of Israel's invasion and attack on Lebanon was part of any real ceasefire. Uh, so that's over. Um, Iran has not engaged in any significant reprisals as a result. So, it's difficult to say what's going on there and uh, United Arab Emirates is engaged in some level of hostilities against Iran as well. So, certainly not a real ceasefire by uh, any stretch of the imagination, although a lessening of hostilities in terms of just overall bombing. Uh but just just the latest disconnect between what the Trump administration claims is going on and what is actually going on. But as have we found the way this administration works is you can just say anything and the general public hasn't the slightest idea what's going on and just kind of in their minds hears Trump say some wonderful things are happening and that's kind of what sticks and that it's real easy to fool the public. Let's put it that way and and Trump is very good at it. So, how will this uh this quote unquote ceasefire end? I have no idea. Though, where do you think we go from here? >> Well, I mean, right right now we're in a a state of flux. There's going to be, you know, more negotiations going on. You know, the wild card of the Israeli component to it, you know, particularly the Lebanon question is is really up in the air. I think we're, you know, where we're now getting some firm uh movement of what 15 tankers a day from from the straight of Hermuse. So, we'll see how how how that impacts the price of gas. I saw that um you prices were already ticking up from a decrease yesterday on uh buying the the uplifting positive uh narrative out there. So, I mean, you know, we're kind of essentially where we were um you know, two days ago at this point is that, you know, there's plenty of details here um and that no one knows where this thing is going to get. I mean, it's still up in the air on exactly who they are negotiating with within the country as well. I mean that's that's one of the issues is that you do not have a very clean concise control control structure within you know what is currently exists of the Iranian regime. Um and so you know that component of it on top of everything else in the wild card mix of different geopolitical uh complexities. I mean I I what this clearly shows is the very real desire from the administration to to get a resolution to this. Um I I do love this this constant game of just this you 2026 the dumbest year um of that I can recall but you know few things embody that more than the the taco narratives that you get this was playing out your first time around with last year with the the tariff stuff but like the same people that were understandably so like with Trump's uh that now infamous Easter message about destroying civilizations you know rightfully criticizing that sort of rhetoric and then saying oh well Trump is chickening out. It's like that whole that whole thing I think is one of one of the most weird and bizarre aspects of of just how uh really insane um DC conversations about, you know, serious issues can be just just the the pure partisan uh opportunism that comes with with some of those things there. Um, but I think one of the most interesting aspects of it that is connected to it, um, and we can perhaps talk about this more is is the New York Times reporting that came about the the decision-making process getting us in this conflict as a whole, which in many ways kind of vindicated, uh, that the Joe Kent narrative about basically Israelis coming in contradicting CIA, you you American intelligence on a variety of fronts. something you have within this article Rubio saying that you know Israel is basically lying about the regime change component to it the extent to which that was part of the original plan from the get-go which goes into you know you know the the the the mission accomplished banners that are going to be wave you waved if whenever this end result of this conflict goes in. Um and so again you know that's kind of where we're at right now is that in forward looking we have no resolution to any of this sort of stuff. you know, the the main lens by which to view this conflict continues to be the decision-making process that led up to this in the first place. the clear Israeli influence and the the contradictions or the the Israeli intelligence um u contradicting and and being triumphant in Trump's eyes in the decision-making process here and what all this means in terms of how these negotiations can going forward given you have a major military partner if you will um that that has demonstrated it's it's has no problem lying and misrepresenting the facts on the ground in order to get its own desired this is you know the the beauty of the situation we find ourselves right Yeah, it's it's not good. Not good >> for sure. And this isn't at least to me wasn't surprising. We've been sort of talking about this. You can never know for sure what Trump is thinking or trying to do, but it it seemed at least for most of this operation so far that he's wanted an off-ramp. It doesn't seem like he wants anything like the worst case scenario like a a nation building exercise with hundreds of thousands of troops going in. He wanted something closer to Venezuela, a quick in and out. We can call it regime change because the, you know, people died. Um, but it was pretty clear, pretty quick and definitely something uh we've been talking about that there wasn't an easy way for him to get that like the whole situation basically this whole time since uh day one when you know the missile started flying after the supreme leader was dead and it was clear that the Iranians they have people that are going to find fight back even if it's a decentralized structure that there was no easy way for Trump to get out of this and so um I was expecting him to just declare victory at some point when it was clear to anybody that was paying close attention that that's not what happened. But it was the main question was is he going to do something specific so he can do that like people were worried about trying to seize an island or um trying to take uranium out of the the the tunnels in Isvahan or dear Fordo um and so that was kind of the big question like is he going to try to get some big you know spectacle that he can then point to um and didn't seem like he he did that. I mean there there's spec speculation about this operation to to rescue the one of the pilots that um was uh there's a F-15 shot down. Was that only last weekend? Feels like months ago. Um and there's speculation like the the operation does not look like what you would typically expect one of those operations to look like. It's usually, you know, a small group of helicopters or, you know, one or two at most. and you know this kind of highly specialized trying not to draw a lot of attention to where this downpilot is and they were sending in a bunch of you know like C130s and helicopters. So there's speculation that maybe there was an attempt to actually seize some uranium and it did not uh go through regardless there we didn't get you know some big we got the uranium and therefore we can declare victory. It was just this kind of clumsy. I mean, you know, obviously Trump put out this message that Iranian civilization was going to die and I had written on Twitter, but I I find that disgusting in a lot of ways. But I also did the pattern for Trump espec at least in 2020 in 2026. Yeah, this has been a very interventionist year for him is that um he tends to talk in deescalatory ways right before he escalates unless the markets are opening. those like the two reasons he'll uh talk in deescalatory ways is you know it's Monday morning and the markets are about to open or he's about to escalate you know when he with Maduro launching this whole operation he was sort of talking in ways like oh you know it's probably not a big deal um in state of the union it was nothing really crazy so it's actually when he's talking really like fire and brimstone everything's going to you know completely ratchet up that uh it's not impossible that um he would actually follow through on that, but the it would be a shift in the pattern. So, I wasn't like super convinced he was actually going to go about doing that. But then, yeah, last minute I think with like 90 minutes to go before his deadline, he announces that he has accepted a ceasefire and of course tries to frame it as if like the Iranians came begging to him with these 10 points when in fact and once again it sort of to what uh you were saying earlier um those of us that were paying attention to this, it was so obvious that he was just fabricating this whole he he's fabricated these talks acting like the Iranians have been begging for this to come to an end this entire time when that is clearly not true if you've been paying attention. Um, and then acting like through these desperate last minute talks they presented they basically completely conceded presented something to Trump and he thought it was acceptable enough to therefore accept a ceasefire. None of that is true. It's just that Trump was done and decided to frame his language in a way that could kind of give that impression to people that are not watching this closely. Um, and you know that seemed to have kind of worked. The Iranians, I think, went along with it because it seems like they were uh s they were probably surprised by the fact that he said the there are 10 points is an acceptable starting point. Um including you know ending the the conflict or a ceasefire with Lebanon too and then also just essentially negotiating away the closure of the straight of Hormuz which is like a le that's something the Iranians did to get leverage. It's not you know they don't always want the straight to be closed. So from their perspective, it's probably like, "Oh, excellent. This is a lot better than we were expecting." So they probably agreed to the ceasefire, but it gets complicated going forward and we've seen that already. It it is it is messy to say the least. >> Yeah, I was watching another interview with John Mirshimer to this morning and he basically does a daily interview now with uh some podcast or another with Judge Npalitano and others and he's been right about the conflict every step of the way. He was saying he predicted that Iran would do everything it's it's done including close the straight of Hormuz and that they have zero motivation to open it until they get some sort of guarantees in terms of their safety. But one thing that he notes repeatedly is that there is absolutely no motivation for the Israelis to abide by any sort of peace treaty here. we've discussed earlier um here on this show, but also Mir Shimemer has made it clear. It seems that what the Israeli plan is and has been is just to cause the total chaos and destruction of every country near it and that includes Iran and going forward will probably include Turkey. And the idea isn't to have just decapitation or regime change or something like that. The whole point is to reduce each country to just such a state of chaos that it cannot possibly mount any sort of actual state action against the state of Israel. And it doesn't matter how many millions have to die. It doesn't matter what humanitarian crimes have to be uh committed. You just have to destroy all of these other countries. And that is clearly uh Netanyahu's uh agenda right now based on everything that he's actually done. So it's no surprise at all that they broke the ceasefire immediately as everyone except Trump apparently understood it to be including the Pakistanis who hosted the the peace conference and that is just now what we've come to expect from the Israelis and it's just going to continue to go like that moving forward as as much as I can see until Trump tells them no which he's clearly unwilling to do. This was another point Mish Sharma made was that right you say Trump's looking for an off-ramp. Of course he is because he was sold by MSAD and by others that this was going to be a Venezuela type operation. It was going to take two or three days. It was going to be over. Look, you're going to look great. It's going to be wonderful for you. And it hasn't turned out that way at all. And now it's been a political disaster for Trump. And it's clear now that where does Trump care more about? Does he care about public opinion and uh his fellows within the Republican party? Or does he care about Netanyahu? It's pretty clear which side is coming down on this because he could just simply tell the Israelis to cut it out that we're not going to support you anymore. Hey, look, we negotiated a separate peace and you're on your own if you violate the peace. He could say that, but he won't uh because he's been tricked or he truly adheres to one of these crackpot religious theories. uh that so many of these evangelicals subscribe to supporting the state of Israel. So he has no interest in actually pursuing sanity and law and order. Uh so I just don't see how this could possibly end short of a military problem uh strategic defeat embarrassment on such a high level that it makes the US regime so allergic to the state of Israel that they finally start telling it no. But I don't see how that occurs in the short term. Uh I don't I don't know what would have to happen politically because we all know what's going to happen with the Democratic party, right? You get you get Democrats in, they're not going to do anything different unless somehow the left wing of the Dems manages to put in all of these anti-Israel people. But even then, will they have the guts to follow through on anything? I have no idea. So, yeah. What do you think on that? Well, I I think it's notable here because, you know, and that's why I find the New York Times piece so interesting. And of course, you know, it's New York Times journalism, yada yada yada, but like, you know, these are you if if we take it at face value, I mean, the language that was used in the in the going into the the decision to to strike Iran regarding the Israel question, it was not, you know, assuming these quotes are correct, right? Uh it was not like massaged and and diplomatic like it was very clear. it was using very almost Trumpian language. I mean you the CIA director called again like this the entire notion of of a of an easy regime change faracle uh Rubio uh said it was Um uh uh General Kaine um said that in his experience uh the standard operating procedure for the Israelis is that they oversell and the plans are not welldeveloped and that is what it is. What they need is us and they're hard selling, right? like this was the language used by the people closest to the decision-making about this particular instance and yet this is still what we have. So like I mean I just this was this was very blunt sort of assessments that that have proven to be quite accurate. Well, those side the American side. Yeah, that's not defense of Rubio. It's not a defense of any of these people, but like it's it's like this was this was precisely what was outlined during the decision-m process in those sort of terms. And >> said that straight up. He said, I think the American deep state was opposed to this war, >> but Netanyahu and MSAD had Trump in their little hands. >> Yeah. and managed to essentially overrule the the US security state which was trying to do what they thought was good for the regime, right? What was good for the US regime, but Trump decided to go with what was good for the Israeli regime. And that seems to be what the distinction there is. >> Yeah. Right. And this was like none of this was surprising. Everybody that was paying attent or those of us that were advocating against it like this is a reason because there's no easy way out of it. I think and I mean I'll do more reflecting on this. Maybe there's some kind of middle position, but it seems like the only two paths forward are either go all the way and try to you know like we've been saying this whole time the they don't actually seem to be trying to do a regime change like a real regime change in Iran. There's no backup like you know government and waiting to be installed. It's an attempt to regime collapse. Yeah. Well, >> they keep killing the the internal alternatives but they're not serious about like the the the monarchists or MK. Like there's no even the whole like the Kurds were going to run. They're not trying to turn it into Kurdistan. Like it's they're trying to collapse the government and have a permanent state of civil war. That's the Israeli goal here by all indications. And there it is important to remember that there is some little distinctions within Israel too. It's like none of these groups are complete monoliths. There's interesting divides between Netanyahu and the IDF. But um but anyway uh the so like either they go all the way there or there has to be some kind of like you said Trump or the US government somebody in the US on the US side telling the Israelis no. And I just struggle to see that working right now. I think the the Israelis the Israel lobby they've just invested way too much time and money into getting Trump to do this. I think they they you're you're right, Ryan, that like I'm not convinced that with the next election like the US government's going to turn against Israel. There's no way that's going to happen. But they do have to be somewhat worried about the opinion polls and how Israel is just losing support amongst the American population. And I just think that from their perspective, it's it's now or never. And I I was getting this a bit. I uh my personal rule throughout this whole war has been I'm not going to be I'm not actually going to be convinced that like there's an actual ceasefire like a real attempt at an off-ramp until I see Mark Levin and Lindsey Graham freaking out. That was what I was looking for. And um sure enough like Lindsey Graham kind of had this like sort of sad post about how like you know I just want these goals and maybe negotiations are the way but I don't really think so. And then Mark Levin I watched his he went on Hannity. Yes. shortly after the um the ceasefire went into effect and it was interest I was very interested to watch how he would handle it um because their strategy has been to use flattery to get Trump like you're just the most amazing leader in history and that's why you're so great and so he couldn't criticize Trump directly but this is not what Livin or you know his his tribe want so the approach he took which I thought was kind of clever is essentially that Trump is a I think he said a once in a century president that he is just that good and that means that no matter what the next president is not going to be Donald Trump and so therefore if this isn't if this issue isn't solved while Trump is president then you know no amount of negotiation uh as long as that regime stays there is going to be sufficient because the next president even if it's JD Van like no there will just not be another Donald Trump and so therefore uh they're they're probably going walk away um and go after some, you know, Obama style debacle. So, that's kind of a clever way to go about it. That's probably what the Israel lobby and like the the uh approach they're going to be taking with Trump right now. Um so, it's just this battle between Yeah, like you said, the opinion polls terrible on this war, stock market, the economy terrible. But it, you know, it would also be um not easy for Trump to completely uh completely turn on the Israelis in like a meaningful way. Not just like the June style, you know, tweeting out something about how they need to turn their planes around, but like really going against them as they try to get him to go all the way. It I just I think we have more steps um before we really get to the decision point. And it's just like this whole thing is going to continue to be messy and then we'll see. Yeah, I I think that maybe uh the only hope for like non crazy foreign policy is to make sure that the Republicans are humiliated in in the fall. That would be like the only thing that would seem to get Trump's attention, I would think. And then that's that brings with it all sorts of unpleasant domestic policy then for sane people. I mean, I remember what it's like with Democrats in charge. And >> I think the messy race would be a a a not messy way to do that earlier, too. I think that could potentially be huge if he wins. >> That would be great. >> Yeah. >> Yes. Of course. I Yeah. I hope Massie wins with a landslide against the the Trump handpicked person. Uh and of course, everyone Trump handpicks is awful. Uh they end up as neocons. They're supporting like amnesty bills in Congress for immigrants and stuff. I mean, it's unbelievable. Basically everything that everyone thought they were voting for Trump for they got the opposite essentially from Trump even on immigration which was supposed to be his uh his centerpiece of his administration that's all come to basically nothing and kind of one of my favorite conspiracy theories and you know and as you know I don't use that as a pjorative just like it's a theory about the the ruling regime conspiring against decent people is the way it works is uh right the Democrats do terrible things uh importing a million criminals and putting them on welfare that sort of thing. You get a Republican in who promises to get rid of the million criminals, take them off welfare, kind of does that a little bit, not really a little bit, and then starts a whole bunch of wars that basically destroy the Republican party, bankrupts the Americans, uh, creates all sorts of geopolitical problems. And so then you get rid of them, and then you can get back to importing a million criminals again and putting them on welfare. It's this it's this nice cycle that the regime has invented and which works endlessly. And of course, I think a lot of people say that in the hope of motivating people to vote Republican, but uh of course, you're just destroying yourself in a different way with these sorts of Republican policies. And it's no, of course, no uh surprise that Trump has recently come out to speak well of spy programs and all of these police state programs that he says are now absolutely essential in combating the Iranians and other foreigners and that sort of thing. So, he's just he's just George W. Bush with all of his uh surveillance state policies and wants to spend more on it, wants to tax you more on it, wants to raise your cost of living. And what's your other choice? Oh, just the Dems who will do that in a slightly different way. Who's never gets threatened in any way by this very convenient setup, of course, is the actual ruling class that's going to be fine and happy and the foreign policy blob. They're always going to end up getting what they want uh no matter what. So, it's a perfect system. There's no escape. They they just they throw they give you increasingly bad options. Then, if you try to escape from them, they've already prepackaged horrible options for that, too. So, and until people start finally um stop uh being so gullible and thinking that this time will solve the problem. They just the only answer of course step one is just withdraw your consent from the regime. Stop speaking well of it. Stop talking about how it'll work fine if we just elect the right people or we just get back to the Constitution or we just get the right judges. It's never going to happen, friends. It's never going to happen. >> And >> well, I think that's the thing though is is you see it with like this, you know, again, the most defining aspect of modern modern American politics in my opinion is the stark, very real generational divides on these issues. And it's like yet Theo Vaughn on like a Joe Rogan's podcast, it was last week or whatever, and he started going off about, you know, Israeli influence and whatever. Like Joe's like, you know, you need to step back, bro. Like I kind of think like that that the vaugh represents a large portion of millennial and zoomer Trump voters. Again theo von was at the the inauguration right last year. And I think that very much like a kind of my my running uh sort of framework is that like like anti- libertarian sentiment like you know is is obviously very very high right now amongst like the the young right in particular and we talked last week a little bit you know for some reasons for it but I think like Gen Z in particular is is they're anti- libertarian but they're also Rothbartian coded in the way that they view a lot of these things and you know the change I mean it's it's not a coincidence you look at and there's a poll today for Thomas Massie for example um it was very good for Massie like double digits up. But like go if you look at the generational breakdown, right? It's the boomers. It's the ones whose primary source of of consuming news is watching Mark Levin, you know, crash out on Hannity. Those are the only that that is the most like how you consume your news. If if you tell me, you know, what's your major news source, you can predict with 80% certainty their opinions on, you know, whatever the top 10 issues are. And that is the fountain from from which everything else stems. And we're seeing major changes in that. Like that's why you can't and and and I think one of the positive things in spite of this being the the the biggest military conflict we've had since Iraq war, since the Iraq war is is that you it is very clear that the foundation of the American war machine is severely undermined in terms of the ability to build up this national sentiment. And the only thing that people can point to is like, oh well selfidentified MAGA Republican voters have like an 85% approval rating. ignored from that is okay what's the portion of Americans that identify as MAGA Republican voters it's a much smaller contingent a portion than it was last year and and certainly la 2024 November and like the ability to you know have this rally around the flag effect the ability to completely control a narrative whether it's a domestic issue like COVID or a foreign policy issue like that like that is fracturing before our eyes and so as bad as this you this situation is pretty bad um you know these are I think some of the more positive trends in terms of you know real underlying significant transformations of how the American political state operates. Um you know this is this and and again I think and Rothbartian lens you know is a he does a very good job of explaining this sort of stuff but that that is that is that is a silver lining uh for for the pessimistic uh if anything's going to to destroy the ratchet effect that you described there Ryan. Um it's it's I think that is the dynamic going forward that has the potential to do so. Yeah, it does happen, right? The collapse of the Soviet Union shows that it does happen. It just doesn't happen in any legal way, right? The collapse of the Soviet Union was not a legal process. It in the end forced a legal process wherein the Soviet Union legally disbanded itself, which was great and that's that's the endgame you want. But of course, none of the buildup was anything legal. It was all stuff deemed illegal by the Soviet state. And so this idea that there is this legal offramp where we'll just pass some laws and it'll all be fixed. They'll never let you pass laws that would fix it. They'll never let you elect people that would actually change things in any significant way. Yes, Thomas Massie will be allowed uh because that's one guy in Congress, but you're not going to get Ron Paul as president or someone who believes like him. won't will not be allowed to happen unless the system is broken down so far that there's like no legitimacy left and you've got basically what like a Boris Yeltson sort of posts Soviet twilight of the Soviet state sort of situation. Uh that's just when the state's power has ceased to function and it cannot prevent you from doing those things. Uh, but you can only get that when you stop stop supporting the government. And and to your point though, right, you can totally predict what a person's news source is and who they're listening to when they're out there in social media of trying to still they're still on this old tired game of accusing people who aren't siding with the government of being unpatriotic, of saying that you're with the M moolas if you're not rooting for Washington. And it always reminds me of I think it was 2003 where National Review, it's always the National Review, uh had their unpatriotic conservatives issue. I still remember when that came out because I was writing for Lou Rockwell.com back then. So I man, I was zeroed in on that whole phenomenon. >> You're upset you didn't get a mention. >> I Well, they did mention Lou. So that seemed sufficient to me. Yeah. They singled out Lou Rockwell and Papy and a couple other people and said, "These are unpatriotic conservatives. They're not even real conservatives into the outer darkness, right? They're they're we're we're excommunicating them from anything that people might call conservative." Now, of course, not like Lou Rockwell cared. He never called himself a conservative, so whatever. It just showed how dumb they were that he thought he maybe considered himself a conservative or something. And uh that was just they hated the idea so much that there weren't people signing off on everything that George W. Bush did that they were considered basically guilty of treason. That's that's all they that's their main tool that they've got. Oh, you don't want to support whatever the government is doing right now? Well, then you're guilty of treason. You're guilty of lack of patriotism. And I still see that all over the place in social media and elsewhere saying it would be nice if you people would root for America just once. When they say America, they mean the US government. That's what they always mean. They mean Yeah. They mean Washington DC. They mean the taxfunded coercive state that is the US government. They don't mean America. Although some of them are so adult that they can't distinguish between the government and America. But that's to your point too though, right? Is that the younger people who are quote unquote Rothbart coded, they can tell the difference between the state and the people. They actually are smart enough to know the distinction. But if you went to public school in the 50s and 60s or whatever, your brain ceased to function and so you can't tell the difference. >> What's the difference between seeing, you know, being a Washington, you know, level government employee of being a a you know, proud public servant or being a pedophile and like that's essentally the distinction by which, you know, like that that is the narrative by people tend to view things in one of two ways right now when it comes to DC. And uh you know it's that's just where we are. >> And the only reason to care at all about what happens to the US government in this is the fact that there are ordinary enlisted men and stuff whose lives will be ruined by this. And those people who signed up before, right? They didn't they were probably thinking this sort of thing couldn't happen where they'd be shift shipped off to the Persian Gulf to get into suicide missions in Iran. Uh although I would say if you are currently signing up for the US military, if you are currently thinking it's a good idea to enlist, I wonder what's going through your mind. Like do you legitimately think defending Israeli pedto is like your calling? Is it your calling to to stand up for the worst people in the world and to defend the butchery of Israelis? Because that's what serving in the US military means. It means serving in the Israeli military essentially. It means America last. It means Israel first. So, it's weird for me that someone who fancies themselves an American would still consider signing up for military service at this point or would reinlist if their enlistment comes up. But I guess there's some people who are just have drunk so much Kool-Aid on this that they still think they're serving they're making America safe or something. That's just simply not the reality. But I guess there's enough people out there to keep that train going. Well, there's also uh from my understanding, I haven't read a lot into this, but economics plays a role too. For some people, it's kind of the only re reasonable option. So, I think there's a lot of, you know, there's also families that, you know, it's just sort of what you do. There's probably still pockets of the country where it's kind of a somewhat common thing if you don't have a clear path. So, I I imagine that with the younger gen Z, it's probably not ideological uh necessarily. It's probably more for other reasons. And I I mean there has been an issue with uh like enlistment rates in recent years. I don't know if that has changed. I haven't looked at that for a bit, but I would imagine it's kind of similar. So and we were talking about there were like um reports that um early on in this war that like the their the military was having issues with all their these soldiers like making jokes about how this is all for for Jeffrey and stuff like that. So I think like that the intellectually we're already kind of there. I think there's just so many structural reasons why uh the the problem is persisting for now. But yeah, I don't see especially Gen Z being motivated. I think barring something like another 9/11 level attack even there. Like if 911 happened today, I don't know if you would see the same kind of rally around the flag effect that you saw back then. Um we're just in a different place right now. But uh yeah, so I think there it's like the worse the economy gets, especially for young people, um that's definitely going to push some people into the these ranks, it could be a perverse incentive. >> To your point, Connor, I mean, you did have enlistment rates. I mean because I there was significant inclines particularly of multigenerational military families you know during the Biden years in particular and there's aspects of like the the the cultural components that were being projected within you know the military itself but you saw enlistment rates tick back up and I think a big part of it is that there was a belief that there was a readjustment you know no more Middle Eastern wars you know that there was going to be a renewed focus on you know make America you know America first right and I think this is you know you you talk to a Zoomer enlisted person their their opinions are not the same in my in my experience particularly their opinions are not the same as Sean Hannity or Mark Levin or or or Lindsey Graham um and so it will be interesting to see given you know given this dynamic going forward how that I I think that actually be a very interesting measurement of of of Zoomer discontent with the MAGA movement is post and after 2026 enlistment rates to that to that very point >> yeah that would be interesting and we've talked a little bit about that too with like the it's easier for Washington to get the military to do something like this when it's essentially an air campaign. But if you were sending troops in, that there's a lot more potential for some serious issues. And there were there were reports indicating that some things like the the toilet problems and the laundry fire on that aircraft carrier may have been uh sabotaged. like that it could be that as we move closer to that if you know the Israelis have their way and they get Trump back into this um and we move closer to boots on the ground like a mass boots on the ground scenario I think there's a lot of potential to see some real uh maybe not necessarily you know standing up and disobeying orders directly but if if we've already seen a little sabotage um we it may become a lot more obvious that yeah the gen the Gen Z enlisted folks in the US military are not uh brainwashed to the to the extent that previous generations of enlisted soldiers have been. >> Yeah. Don't never forget that Ron Paul was by far the preferred favorite candidate among enlisted men back when he was running for president because uh a lot of those people didn't want to die for pointless wars on the other side of the planet. So there definitely is is that. But it looks like the US is going to be involved in this sort of thing for quite some time at this point. So, I would suggest that if actually defending the United States is something that you value, uh, the US military is not for you. You'd probably, if you want to help your fellow man, you'd probably be much better off working in an oil field or something that contributes to humanity, uh, in a real concrete, meaningful way. Well, let's go ahead and change gears a little bit. I was going to bring up the NATO thing, but, uh, we don't have a whole lot of time left. Uh so we can do that next time. Trump has become increasingly obsessed with NATO and framing it as the US doing a favor to Europe. Uh when really probably the opposite is true. But uh I think we have enough time now to talk about our buddy Tucker Carlson who had an interesting guest and has said some interesting things in the last couple of weeks I would say. So let's talk about Tucker. He is an interesting guy in the sense of right how many different versions of Tucker Carlson have there been over the last 20 years. Uh I remember he was kind of a Ron Paul guy for a while and then he became like this super anti- capitalist guy. I'm not sure he ever totally abandoned that but that hasn't been like his the thrust of his work in recent years. Uh I mean vaguely I seem to remember him just being kind of more of a standard conservative at one point. That was a long time ago. And >> that was bow tie tucker. >> Yes. Right. So now I'm not sure which which Tucker this is. Uh so what what version of Tucker are we currently living with and what are the implications of that? >> Actually I had someone ask me about that last night. They were they were not a fan of of current Tucker, which I think is best Tucker. Um, but I I I I think if you're if you're to drill down like what what Tucker is right now, um, I think it's first and foremost um a a belief that America is in decline, which ties both into uh his economic concerns, which he wrongly that that's where he flirts into the the capitalist critiques, um, where obviously we have our a very distinct view on that. Um but also ties very heavily into his you know view that America needs to embrace um or needs to accept the rise of of a multipolar world um which is where you see a lot of overlap in terms of you know a lot of his foreign policy guests you know Dave Smith is you know become a regular on Tucker Carlson's podcast um in that in that regard um uh deep deep distrust of DC experts at large which would include professional economists which I think ties back into that overarching um uh capitalist critique that arises from that and but but then also I think perhaps most most fundamentally that a a very much a a spiritual component to current political conflict um which ties into a lot of his focus on religion and the supernatural um in in various ways. And you know, obviously there was a viral clip that went on this weekend um about uh you know, and the guy that he had on was he was a filmmaker. I think it was was a broader within a broader critique of like megaurches and things like that. This was not an economist. He was not bringing on some Marxist and things like something like that. Um you know, but this this filmmaker, you know, critiquing um the concept that Christianity can be capitalistic in any way. Um and I think this goes you know you both there's plenty of content on misus.org about Christianity and capitalism and you I think one of our defining characteristics, right, is we kind of define our our our original branch of economic thought, you know, dating back to the the Catholic thought. Ryan, I'm sure you have some can build on that far better than I can. Um but it is this this um you know there there very much is this interesting component to the this generational aspect that we're talking about in regards to foreign policy is heightened skepticism of the American regime u tying directly into very scathing skepticism of American foreign policy in particular but it being connected to this anti- libertarian and you know often as a proxy for this concept of a very atomized notion of capitalism. Um that is, you know, somewhat connected to kind of the economic status quo and, you know, kind of a a a broader critique of liberalism as kind of destroying family, you ethnic bonds, family bonds, um you know, these these these pro these pre-political sort of instruments of of society. And and again, I think there's very few people that do a better job of fueling that than quote unquote, you know, free market experts in DC and and you know, goes back to our conversation last week about unrealistic libertarians and and you know, views on immigration being a great example of that. Um, but I I thought that was an interesting moment of seeing that go viral is that I think it it it hits a a very important component to like if we're if we're going to throw cold water on the positive trends that we were referring to in terms of these perceptions of the American regime. This is the the other side of that is you growing skepticism of you know economics itself being being a discipline that markets do anything besides you know we're riching oligarchs that capitalism is nothing but a a foolish game for uh that that that you working class people get trapped into. And you know, at its core, that there's a a spiritual cultural decline and decay that is irreplaceable from a a a society grounded in property rights and um and markets. And I think this this is one of those aspects that that that you those who who recognize the importance of private property and civilization and kind of all the hallmarks that you know I think embody the the Mises Institute brand if you will, you know, this is um you know, one of the most important things that we have to tackle. Yeah, I mean the so the the guest is a guy named Nathan Appul and the portion that went uh this so always happens on social media, right? The portion that went viral uh emphasizes what was really just a minor point he was making in the larger interview. Uh he's a documentarian. Uh not really my guy. I'm clearly not the target audience for this guy because I went to the website and his bio reads like like one of those like gladhanding marketing majors you'd meet in college and they've always they've always got some they're always calling themselves like a founder and a a creator of some new app or platform or something like that because you read his bio and it starts out talking about how we need to recreate accountability in religious institutions. ions and he's mostly talking about megaurches >> uh here and I think really just trying to tackle the the strange phenomenon where you have these megaurch pastors that are multi-millionaires uh making boatloads of money off of what he calls the religion business which I think is the name of the actual documentary that he's promoting. Uh, but as you read the bio, it then eventually gets down to where it's basically turns out it's all an ad for an app essentially that he's created to help you run your church or your nonprofit or whatever. Um, and so I wonder if the entire documentary just functions as PR for for sales on the app. I don't know. Um, and so reading this I'm like, okay, so fine. we can see what the the general game is here. Uh but I didn't have any like big problem in general with just his saying that u there's there's a certain corruption at the core of church leaders who use it to get rich. I mean how old is this right? People have been saying this for since before Christianity. um fine. But then he gets in and it's a lot it's within that context that he's saying that quote capitalism should not be anywhere near Christianity unquote. Uh so you could take that in a variety of different ways I suppose. But what he's basically saying is that these people that he's talking about in the documentary are using Christianity as a capitalist might use a factory or something is is the way I'm I'm taking uh it. But then he doesn't leave well enough alone because then he goes on he says quote Christianity is socialism at its core which that's a whole other contention that they're way on top. It's one thing to say, "Yeah, I don't think you should run a church like a business," which you should not. It's not a for-profit venture. It's uh I mean, if you actually read the gospels, you're not actually supposed to be better off at all uh from running the church. You're supposed to, you know, it's supposed to be the people at the top are supposed to be the ones giving the most service. And uh that's apparently not what he's saying because he has to take it step f step further and say that Christianity is socialism. And then Tucker's just kind of like nodding uh along and Yes. Right. So, but I do think that his motivation is what you're talking about though, right? Is that this idea of corrupt institutions and something has to be done about that. >> Well, it's it's that capitalism being a um you basically a synonym for for materialism. And again, the problem is is that like and here's the here's the biggest problem and I've I've written articles about it. We've all written articles on this is is that I mean like there's a lot of blame to be to be laid at the feet of both you know libertarians and economists. >> Yeah. >> For creating this. And I I always love like you know I I you know see this it's going viral and and you know like you know see our our objectivist friends out there saying oh yeah see Einran was right about this like Christianity is in conflict with capitalism but capitalism is better. you know this this is this you know why why we have to kill God for so so Staint Iron Ryan Rand um you know the beacon uh embodiment of reason and rationality which is certainly true if you read a biography um that that this this is we must destroy Christianity in the west to bring about uh you know a true free market and it's just like they're feeding right into exactly why this is exactly why certain people have this this sort of mentality >> well I think a lot of this stems from It's it's really just kind of an anti-enlightenment um movement, I think, is where I see so much of it coming from. >> They go hand in hand. Yeah. >> And now the Rand people are very pro-enlightenment, right? They're hyperrationalistic and uh they don't like anything. They hate tradition. They they hate anything that has any metaphysics involved. Although of course they have their own substitute metaphysics uh which they define as pure rationality. Uh right? So if you define everything you like is good and everything you don't like as uh nonsense. Uh right the spaghetti monster. Everything we don't like is the spaghetti monster. Everything we like is pure rationalism. That's basically what the Randians do. Uh so but that is the sort of thing that a hyperenlightenment sort of person would do is is those that sort of trickery and try and define everything in terms of rationalistic uh thinking and buzzwords and framework. You see that uh a lot within anyone who speaks well of the enlightenment in general. And I think I think the PR for the enlightenment has gone off a cliff with younger generations. I don't think people buy into that stuff at all because they suspect that's what what got us to where we are today. >> Yeah, unless we got we got a good in-house enlightenment revisionist uh figure right here. >> Yeah, we got well the music institute has plenty of that. is definitely a strain and not just uh from me but yeah within uh the institute overall and of course Rothbart as a thist um certainly had his own reservations as well and because he was and Ralph Reiko certainly had a lot of reservations about the enlightenment and most of the people that we call enlightenment quote unquote liberals weren't liberals at all. Right? We're told nowadays that people uh like Rouso and maybe Voltater were somehow liberals, which they weren't at all. Their value system had nothing to do with free markets, with classical liberalism, with the sort of human rights that that uh we know and love nowadays. But you you'll hear from your school teacher that they all just sort of roll up together. John Lockach and Voltater and all of those French enlightenment people like they're all had kind of the same goal of freedom and liberation but they didn't at all. Uh Voltater is just called a I think it was Actton who said this. He listed off a bunch of these enlightenment guys like Voltater and said Voltater was only called a liberal because he hated the clerics. That was it. That was the only thing he had in common with some liberals since liberalism in general doesn't require anti-clericalism. Uh, and so they just slapped all these labels on these people and weren't liberal at all. And really, what does Enlightenment have to show for it, right? The French Enlightenment was not a pro- freedom thing and didn't really actually improve anyone's standard of living. Uh, a lot of it was just people making jokes and trying to look witty and clever and had this snide attitude toward everything. Uh, and Reiko >> doesn't sound like the modern era at all. >> Yeah. Right. I mean, yeah, we're we're all children of the Enlightenment because everybody's a jerk. And that was uh that was kind of Reiko's point was that what the Enlightenment gave us was everybody just trying to top each other in terms of how sarcastic and dismissive they could be of the good things in life. And yeah, that's the unfortunate reality. And I think that young people have had enough of that, right? That they crave for something of actual value, for some actual guidance and that sort of thing. And they're sick of it. And I think and when I see uh Tucker responding positively to these sorts of statements, I I read it as simply an anti-enlightenment sort of attitude, which I think has its upsides, but it's I I don't think Tucker has really clarified his thinking on that. So, he's he just kind of knows what he doesn't like. But then he's got guys on that say Christianity is socialism at its core. Socialism is a modern movement that requires the existence of the state. And historically, Christianity is the historical enemy of the state and thus an enemy of socialism as well, which is simply a state hopped up on steroids. And so there's no way that you could actually square that circle with historical Christianity, although I'm sure you can invent some new variations of it, >> right? And I I think that uh to th's point that it's a tremendous opportunity for roughbardianism. I think because like what we're really seeing from the my read of the generational uh phenomenon we're talking about is that it is a negative vision and that it's it's just talk it's they're finally waking up to how everything it's not that it doesn't work but it's working against them. But there isn't yet this mass kind of positive answer like how the system ought to work. And uh yeah, like when um there this anti-lbertarianism, this anti- capitalism, it's there for a reason. They're not thinking of Rothbartianism when they think of that. They're thinking of uh the kind of libertarianism and capitalism that we're very much opposed to. And so there's a real opportunity to and I like that Rothbart Rothbard coded is a good way um to put it like I think that and we've already seen it. Um I know the three of us have seen it to some degree that there there's a lot of people young people especially are receptive to um the Rothbartian insights into how this is all working. Um, and it's just like the there's a lot of as things fall apart, there's a lot of potential for chaos and for this to all pivot in a much worse direction, especially if that kind of um socialist anti- capitalist, you know, extra interventionist um side of this takes on. Um, so I think it's it's really up to those of us that understand it um to really push it especially hard right now and especially aimed at young people because they their instincts are correct. They just need to hear the right answers and they're not they're not hearing them right now. >> Yeah, it's good to keep in mind that many socialist movements have actually been based on some variation of hypertraditionalism. uh Mao actually justified a lot of his work on reclaiming the land and going back to the land and it's a peasant movement and uh we'll all go back to the old ways of doing things overturning modernism and of course it produced Mauism uh in practice which is horrific and a lot of socialists in England historically have been uh justifying their version of socialism based on some sort of bucolic fantasy about the past and so you do encounter that a lot so it Doesn't take that much imagination to imagine a bunch of people who they're saying that they want to recapture the traditionalism of the past. And what do we end up in the end? Another hyper socialistic state. It's happened before. It could happen again. uh so that this doesn't inoculate you against granting the state all sorts of power because what you're saying is oh we want to go back to uh some sort of great uh communal vision of of the human existence based on what people were doing right in the 13th century that sort of thing because we've shown that those sort of sentiments often lead to socialist hell and I think we have a a lot of work to do with these people when because if they're saying things like Christianity is socialism that points exactly in the direction of socialist hell in the name of traditionalism and that could be a big problem and I there's also something too I used to break the fever of this this idea that Washington can be repurposed for whatever your desired political aims are you see this I think Curtis Yarvin's an example of it's like like Curtis Yarvin has has you know you know he will he will wax poetic about the virtues of astronomics about Manger. He's read this stuff like you know say whatever you will about anything else that courtesy of believes like I mean if if you were to ask him okay like what what what branch of economics like what what tradition of economic thought is the most right he he would say astron economics without I think any any sort of hesitation there um but you know he part of you know particularly his later political commentary was explicitly trying to to have like a counter FDR- like figure and if you do that you can't have you know you can't have that sort of centralizing state and a you know in in a capitalist economy as we would define you cannot have that with LZ fair you you have to you know you have to have a predatory economic regime to finance that political end goal um and I know this might people out there say like oh actually everyone wants this and this but like that's fine whatever but like that's that ultimately like you know what you've had in this this this period of time where like these you know late late millennials early zoomers there's been this assumption that a a Trump-like figure can repurpose the federal government can can you know elevate their preferred cultural values and crush the left right and you know hopefully you know it's not until that entire idea and notion is broken that I I think that you're going to see a renewed interest that's why I like I the the Ronpaw bubble the astronomics bubble of the early 2000s I mean a big part of that was a a multi-prong um recognition the Bush years and and a lot of the the prevailing political wisdom had been wrong um coupled with the internet and the ability to get resources like like uh Mis institute. So as long as you know I think I think pe there's you know a lot of people are interested in economics to the extent that they start with an interest in politics and realize you have to understand there's economics that justify that and it's until you have you have a you can break the fever of these of this fantasy of centralized power particularly in the in the American context as a as a as a useful sword to protect the nation rather than as the greatest threat to the nation um that I I think if you'll get you know opens the door to to revive ing some of these um uh anti-market thoughts that are are very common with um you know with younger generations right now. >> 100%. And with foreign policy, I'll be quick. I know we're running over here. Like I've noticed that a lot with Gen Z and the Israel stuff is they will talk as if if only Israel as a lobby can be essentially uh set aside then finally we would have this giant global empire that would work for the benefit of the American people. And that has never been the intent of this whole system. Israel is utilizing the system as it's designed to be used. It's not corrupting the system and making it work differently. And so it's this it's this dream that we can have the current system in DC, but it's, you know, utilized for the average American. That is impossible. It was never designed to do that. It is not structured to do that. And it is impossible to make it do that based on how it's currently structured. That is something I've been pushing that in my articles a lot. That is an idea that we need to get across because it's that same. It's just the wrong people are in charge. And if we can just change that, the whole thing will work like we learn it should in elementary school. And yeah, we just need to wake them up. >> All right. Well, with that, we'll go ahead and wrap up this episode. We're about an hour in now. So, uh, thank you, Connor. Thank you, Tho, for joining me today. Uh, I predict we'll have similar topics still happening on the front pages, uh, in the next coming weeks. So, we'll be back, uh, to discuss, uh, these topics and more next time. So, we'll see you then.