Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: In this episode, we discuss how the recent no Kings protests were so widespread and also how they may reflect something deep inside the American psyche.
Hello, welcome to the Call. Like I see a podcast. I'm James Keys, and joining me today is a man whose deep, booming voice can knock you off your feet. Tunde. Ogonlana Tunde. Are you ready to hit him today with a love tko?
[00:00:40] Speaker B: Yeah, man, I don't even know where to go with that, so let's just have a show.
[00:00:46] Speaker A: All right, so, yeah, we're recording on October 28, 2025, in Tunde. Everybody knows about the October 18, 2025, no Kings Day protests that brought out an estimated people across 2,700 events all around the country.
And as the name suggests, these huge. And they were peaceful. These huge, peaceful protests really focus on America's disdain for unchecked and concentrated power. That is a king which has unchecked and concentrated power. And really harken back to the founding of the country, which was literally about the disdain for and the desire to overthrow King George in England, you know, who had unchecked power. And to set up a system also where there would never be a king. You know, like, so much work went into setting up a system where a king could not arise out of this.
Now, the mindset still. Still resonates clearly, you know, with 7 million people taken to the streets and now. But one thing that was very interesting is that a recent Harvard study on this protest suggests that it may have been the most geographically widespread in US History. So it's popping up everywhere. So, Tonde, what are your thoughts? I guess to start on the protests in general, but then also on the idea that it resonated so broadly from a geographical standpoint, all, you know, from sea to shining sea, so to speak.
[00:02:05] Speaker B: Well, apparently you've been watching the fake news media because it was a Hate America rally that was paid for by George Soros.
[00:02:14] Speaker A: Oh, yeah.
[00:02:15] Speaker B: Because only he can afford to.
[00:02:16] Speaker A: George Soros can get 7 million people to take to the studio. Yeah, I was gonna say only he can.
[00:02:20] Speaker B: Only he can afford to pay 7 million people, like 1,000 doll to show up, take off a day off work and show up. So that. That apparently was the.
[00:02:29] Speaker A: But all of that. All of that efficiency and ability to move people doesn't pay off when it comes to voting, though, for whatever reason. All that. It's just for show.
Yeah.
[00:02:38] Speaker B: You know, obviously there's something there. Right. This many Americans coordinated together in 2726-2700 different locations around the country.
For a record turnout of 7 million people in one day to protest something.
So I think it's notable. I think what I'm. What I'm finding more interesting is just kind of the reactions to it and I don't know, I think maybe the collective inability to make sense of everything.
[00:03:10] Speaker A: That we've been to this year, to me.
[00:03:11] Speaker B: And so, yeah, that's.
[00:03:14] Speaker A: Well, no, I found it to be very interesting because you and I have bemoaned the idea that people in leadership don't seem to want to keep separation of powers and due process. And I'm not just talking about the executive branch here, like the guy who wants to be king or who wants to be treated like a king, to be treated as if he's above the law and all this other stuff, but everybody else, like, that stuff happens because the people in Congress decide, like, oh, yeah, well, we have all this power under the Constitution, but we'll just let you. We'll just have you do what you want to do, Mr. Executive. Or the Supreme Court saying, yeah, yeah, executive branch, it's okay if you guys don't follow the law. You know, we'll bless that. And so the other centers of power, if you have separation of powers, you have three separate seat, three centers of power. What's most interesting to me about all this is how the other two centers of power have been voluntarily, I don't know if that's the right word, but they have been eager to push their chips and their power over to the executive branch. That's been the trend, you know, I guess not when Biden was in power, but they're eager to do this now. And so the thing that's very interesting to me about it is like, okay, so I thought that that impetus was coming from the masses of Americans. I'm like, oh, well, maybe Americans, generally speaking, don't have the same aversion to the idea of centralized power anymore, of unchecked power anymore. And the separation of powers is not something that they value anymore. This refutes that this means. Okay, so the American people are still into the idea of three separate branches of government, each having their own thing to do and the other and not stepping on each other and so to speak, checks of power and all that. And it's for whatever reason, although the people are still into that, enough people in power have kind of departed from that and said, no, no, no, we're going to give all our power to this one guy, you know. So that disconnect was very interesting to me because, like, I Said, I just, I hadn't seen that. Cause this widespread stuff they're talking about, this is in red states, this is in blue states, this is in, this is across the board where you have a lot of people saying, hey, no, no, no, we don't want a king. And I'm like, well man, did their members of Congress get this memo? Because their members of Congress are like, yeah, go ahead, let's have a king. At least enough a majority of the Congress are saying that.
[00:05:28] Speaker B: Yeah, well, that's why I find the reaction to it so interesting. I mean, to your point about the Congress. Right. The co equal branch of Congress, you know, you had Mike Johnson, who's the speaker of the House, the leader in Congress right now, basically say that this before the event said that this was going to be a hate America campaign filled with Marxists and leftists. And.
Yeah, I mean, first of all, I just find this allusion to Marxist comical at this point because there doesn't seem to be anybody that really espouses that has any real power in the United States.
[00:06:03] Speaker A: But, well, nobody calls themselves that. Nobody's out here saying, yeah, we gotta adopt more Marxist principles. It's an epithet that's just calling somebody a jerk or whatever. Because even the people that are hearing Marxist Marxists don't even know what they're. What they're the, the descriptive term of that. I mean, but that's, remember that we've talked about that. Conservative doesn't mean anything other than I'm on this team. People that are conservative will be arguing for radical change half the time. But, but they call themselves conservatives just to say what team they're on. And so him saying calling people Marxists is just to say somebody who's not on my team.
[00:06:35] Speaker B: Yeah, and they can define it about as good as they can define the term woke. So, but that's the benefit of it.
[00:06:40] Speaker A: Is that you can define it how, whatever. It doesn't have to apply factually. It's just a signal of not my team.
[00:06:47] Speaker B: Yeah. And so the, the, the, the thing I'm getting at is that the co equal branches that you discuss that are supposed to put a check on executive overreach, let's just say.
And really all three branches checking each other is the reason I bring up Mike Johnson is he's the speaker of the House of Representatives.
[00:07:08] Speaker A: He's one of the other centers of power.
[00:07:10] Speaker B: That's my point. He's the one that his job is to protect the US Constitution as a co. Equal branch to the executive.
And the point you just made is very accurate. For some reason, we have two of the three branches, meaning the judicial branch, which is the Supreme Court on down, and the legislative branch, which is the Congress.
They have kind of abdicated their positions in a lot of ways. Sometimes the Supreme Court may push back. A lot of times it doesn't.
And Congress seems to have not pushed back at all. Not only, remember, the Supreme Court has.
[00:07:45] Speaker A: This thing now where they take all of the Trump cases out of order, like, they rush into the front, and then whenever the brakes are put on what he wants to do, they take those brakes off and then say, okay, yeah, now we'll take our time to consider this. Over the next three or four years, they've handed over a lot of power. And the thing is that Trump's not the first president to try to exceed executive authority. You know, but historically, when that's happened, the other branches of government like the idea of three branches of government, the separation of powers.
What that relies on is the idea that other people with power won't voluntarily give up their power. They'll be like, oh, no, no, you're stepping into my land here. This is my job. You don't get to do that. And so that kind of falls apart when the other people who have been granted that power start saying, oh, no, here, sir, have my power, too. I know I'm the one that's supposed to be able to make tariffs and stuff, but why don't you have that policy or that power? You know, Mr. President, Congress doesn't need it. And so it's kind of anti what we thought the human nature would be, what we being the founder of the United States, the Founding Fathers like, oh, well, the people in Congress would never just voluntarily hand over all this power to consolidate it into the executive because they'd want to hold onto it themselves.
[00:08:57] Speaker B: Yeah, well, they didn't think about the pool of things like religious zeal and transactions.
[00:09:06] Speaker A: Literally think about that.
[00:09:07] Speaker B: The transactions that some may make with others. Right for power. And also, I mean, look, you're right based on the amount of times we talk about George Washington's farewell address, they did recognize the risks of these kind of issues. But just to finish the thought about Mike Johnson is his sworn duty. He took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. And it's a great point you bring up about the tariffs, because the Constitution says that Congress regulates commerce.
And what we have is a president who by decree has said, I'm doing tariffs. And the Congress has not said, no, sir, the Constitution doesn't say that we need to debate this on Congress.
[00:09:47] Speaker A: That's our job. We'll get back to you on whether or not we'll do this.
That's what they're supposed to do there.
[00:09:53] Speaker B: And remember, on behalf of the American people as a House of Representatives.
So I think your point is well made. Where.
And that's why I kind of feel like I'm watching the reactions to it more. So, like, I get that 7 million Americans are upset with what they're seeing in terms of how the executive branch is, you know, operating right and displaying its power and not being checked. But it's like I'm seeing just all the reactions from people. And I feel like part of it is our fractured ecosystem because I talk to people too in my personal life that have all kind of opinions on it. And I kind of realized, well, your opinion seems to be based on what you were told, based on who you watched, versus actually that you actually looked at this stuff yourself. So it's not really there. I just feel like it's a big mess for us to hold it.
[00:10:42] Speaker A: It's not really their opinion then is it something they were fed?
[00:10:45] Speaker B: You're right.
[00:10:47] Speaker A: But, but no, I mean, I think that you're right, though. I mean, the point of. And I mean, I think we get to the point of this, and I think this is why maybe it's starting to resonate with people. Is that the reason why we did not want unchecked, unaccountable authority housing housed in one with one person or one branch of government is because we didn't want national policy to be subject to the whims of a person or whims of a small group of people. And that's what we're seeing. Like, we literally are seeing we got trade policy now based on a whim. You know, like, oh, I saw, you know, President sees a commercial he doesn't like, and he's going to change the trade policy for the whole nation. And it's like, well, that's not the setup was supposed to prevent. We don't want trade policy based on a win. We got foreign policy based on a win.
Let me finish the point. We have foreign policy based on a win. Foreign policy. Hey, we're going to just give $40 billion to this other country because I like the guy. And it's like, what? You know, like, that's crazy. Like, and so when you have, we see this national, of course, military policy is on a whim also, you know, where it's like, okay, I'm Just going to send against. Against the law. I'm just going to send troops to American towns. You know, up until this point, we don't have troops in American towns. And now it's like, okay, we got troops and all this other stuff going on. So we, we are basically operating on a man's whims. And that was that. That was the setup we weren't supposed to have. And I think that that has rubbed people, regardless of whether you agree or disagree, you know, and the people who disagree, obviously it's going to rub them the wrong way. But even people that agree with are being made uncomfortable by the idea of the whimsical nature of governing and so forth. So I did want to get to the reaction or, you know, I know you already jumped on it a little bit, but was there any other point you had there? Because I had some thoughts on the reaction as well, but I, you know.
[00:12:30] Speaker B: I was just going to say that the point you made about we literally have announced a trade, a change in the trade policy with, I think, our third largest trading partner, which is Canada, because of a commercial. And I remember how many people told me last year in the election that a woman couldn't be president because she'd be too emotional.
That's all I'm gonna say.
[00:12:53] Speaker A: Well, I mean, I don't think that that's one of those where the conclusion was made before the reason, and then the reason just came for that. They just used the reason. They came up with the reason after the fact.
[00:13:05] Speaker B: Apparently, men aren't emotional. They don't make decisions off emotion. So.
[00:13:09] Speaker A: But, but the thing I'll tell you though, man, and the reaction, the part of the reaction that stood out to me, like, I didn't think there was much reaction from political figures. There was a reaction from Mike Johnson, there was reaction from Donald Trump. But those guys are out there in the intent trying to get attention, you know, like they're trying to. But by and large, you didn't see, I didn't see a lot of people getting out, really trying to make a big deal about this. Like, they seem to kind of just want to let this thing pass by and large, as far as elected officials. One person that really seemed to throw his weight behind it, though, that was very interesting to me was Joe Rogan. And where Rogan was really taking this position that this thing that the people who were protesting were a joke or not serious people, and getting out there saying all these people are all funded by somebody and none of this, not backing any of this stuff Up. He seemed like a personal affront to this stuff. It was really crazy to me how extreme of a reaction he had, both before it happened and then after it happened, but feeling the need to double down on all this stuff. And it really stood out. Like, yo, you know what actually it reveals, it's revealing to me because it's like, okay, Joe Rogan is an elitist. You know, he's not. He, he, he, he like cosplays as a common man, but he's out here, you know, millionaire, you know, all this other stuff, thinking like, oh, what are these common people? Let me, let me tell these common people how they should be doing things or what they should be thinking or in anything that they do. It can't be organic. It has to be organized by another elitist like me. Because these, these, this rabble can never organize themselves or they don't have feelings other than what I give them, you know, so it was really the disdain he showed for an organic critic or an organic getting, getting together of Americans, you know, like that's, that's like the most pure American type stuff. Like, hey, we're going to gather together, we're going to have an issue with something. We're going to do it peacefully. And this guy's talking like, like he's coming straight out of Iran. The way he sound, the way he sounds like, oh, yeah, these crazy people and this and that and this and that. It's like, yo, I made it clear. This is not a common man. This is not an everyman. I mean, maybe he's subject easily manipulated. You know, that's a commonality of him. But in terms of the way he sees the world, he's an elitist.
[00:15:13] Speaker B: Yeah, I think you just said it very well, succinctly. There's no other way to kind of look at it. I mean, let's not forget on that show, he was smoking a fat cigar that probably cost a pretty penny. And he's sitting there with his buddy. And you're right, they're sitting there as elitists. And I don't dislike Joe Rogan. I listen to his show and I think he's got some good guests on and I like him. Right. Like, meaning as a consumer of him. I don't know. But I find that when people like him and I watch them and there's others, too. I'm not here to name everybody. Right. But I do think you're right, James. There's a disconnect. I'm sure Rogan grew up like most American kind of middle class.
He worked hard. I remember he was in Fear factor in the 90s and stuff. But somewhere like you're saying in the last generation or so, last 20 years of his life, he got disconnected from stuff like this, like the First Amendment and recognizing that that's exactly what was being practiced in this. No kings protest Americans. Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom to redress the government of their grievances.
Also freedom of the press to cover it. Right. And my issue with someone like Joe Rogan, which I find a lot of people in American culture now, both entertainers like him as well as people I know in my personal life, they have expressed with direct detail and I'll name a few.
With Rogan, he's addressed the freedom of speech with things like Jimmy Kimmel that he didn't like the way the president and the administration handle it. He doesn't like the way the Epstein files are being handled, which to me is a knock on Congress for not checking the executive and all that, deportations. He doesn't like the lack, the lack of due process and the use of the military, as you mentioned, both domestically and in foreign excursions, like with Venezuela now, without really announcing what's going on. And so there's a couple more I won't go on for the sake of time.
So my point is he's expressed himself as Joe Rogan over this last six, seven months. A lot of issues with the administration's overreach on civil rights of Americans. But yet when faced with the opportunity to join in with other Americans who feel this way, he has to bash them. And I think that's the cognitive dissonance, James, that I'm seeing more and more, even with people in my personal life. They'll start saying, I don't like this over here. But when there's something like this protest, they also say that this stuff is being funded by George Charles and that they can't bring themselves to go against the, the, you know, the God king so well.
[00:17:47] Speaker A: But that goes back to, you know, I've said it a lot of times and just it's illustrated to me so often over and over again. A long time ago, before he was prosecuted, you know, now he's being prosecuted for political reasons or retribution. That's another. On the whim of the executive. Now we people would have to get prosecuted, you know, like. And he demands the Department of Justice prosecute people, figure out ways to prosecute people. But that's a new thing. Another new thing now that we got but weaponized D.O.J. yeah, yeah. Well, imagine. I would think people would have complained about that, you know, and they have, but now it's okay, apparently to those people that used to complain about that. But when you have.
I'm talking about James Comey, what he said, and this is when he resisted the efforts and during the first term of Donald Trump, wanted him to swear personal loyalty to him. And Comey was like, well, no. And then Comey was very insightful, though, in terms of what was going on. What he saw going on around him is what he said. His is his quote. He said, donald Trump eats your soul. And what it is is that he forces you to make small compromises on what you thought your principles were over and over and over and over again. And each little small compromise ends up taken away from your ability to ultimately stand up to. When he keeps pushing it over and over again, you end up in a place where you'll just accept anything he does at a certain point. Because it's just like, I've already made all these other compromises. I'm already so far committed to this guy that I've let this slip, I've let this slip, I've let this slip. I've let this slip. Even though I said I cared about all this other stuff before, I said I cared about people trying to weaponize the doj, but now I don't. Now that he's doing it, I don't care anymore. And it's because of the way he forces. He constantly forces people to make small compromises on what they say they believe in. And what you say you believe in is very important, not things you don't care about, like, oh, I care about people being honest. Well, he forces you to make compromise on that. Everybody has to be honest but him, or I'll make excuses when he's not doing it. And so that's what you see there, basically, is that he's been able to will his way into these people's minds to where they can't bring themselves to, no matter what he does, no matter if they agree with it or don't agree with what he does, to go against him. And anybody who does, then instantly. Because that reminds them that they can't do it. That lets them know, like, yeah, I couldn't imagine doing that. So they have disdain for the people that actually aren't. Don't. Didn't have their souls eaten, that are able to say, no, I don't like this. And so it's amazing to see, you know, and again, I only can see it this way, because he said. I saw it when he said this back, you know, eight years ago or whatever it was. And then I've seen it happen so many times to so many different people where they start out in one place. And look at J.D. vance. J.D. vance started out in one place, like, oh, what Trump is doing is terrible. If you go look at some of the quotes from J.D. vance from years back as far as how bad Donald Trump would be for this country, you'd be amazed that he's defending everything he does now. But that's exactly the progression you see once these people, once they take a bite basically, of that apple that Trump offers.
[00:20:50] Speaker B: So hold on.
You messed me up, because I got to say, a joke with J.D. vance, dude. Well, let's go back to his starting. The freaking starting is the guy was, I mean, I guess, pluralistic enough person that he found himself able to marry an Indian American woman and also lean into being open about.
I wouldn't say he hasn't converted to Hinduism, but he's been open about having his kids raised with the Hindu influence and going to. I've seen pictures of him on X with, where he's with the Indian family, all in the kind of traditional Indian garb, and I'm fine with that. I think that's great.
And then I see him last week after the group chat of the Republican Nazis, and he's sitting there defending white supremacists when he's got three brown kids. So you're talking about people making a leap. Where he started in his personal life to where he is now as a professional is a huge leap, which, I mean, you know how.
[00:21:49] Speaker A: I was just saying where he started politically and the criticisms he used to love at Trump.
[00:21:53] Speaker B: No, but I'm just saying about if must be also a type of personality trait for someone to be able to go this far. I mean, he must be a magician on how he keeps his wife, you know, happy that he can behave like this in public and somehow not be like this.
[00:22:07] Speaker A: I think, actually, I think once what it seems to me, at least it seems like once people start going down the path, they can't stop. And so really the decision is because it's not the Never Trumpers, so to speak, that you saw with this issue. The Never Trumpers, you know, like, they kind of just got out immediately and they didn't have the issue, but the people who weren't seemed to continue. Like, they started in one place where they were like, oh, this guy's bad news. You know, he's deceptive he's a liar. He's, you know, this and that.
And then they, like, if they didn't get out, though, if they said, all right, what? But, you know, if he's the nominee, we'll do it, then what ends up happening is that they go from being. Telling us all, warning us all about how terrible it was going to be if this guy got into power, to being the main ones defending him. And so. But, you know, so it seems like once you start making. And that's why I say, like, it's eating your soul. It's like it's slow. It's. It's like you make the. He forces you to make these compromises. Like, remember we laughed about when he did the thing with the hurricane map and he drew and, like, they had the hurricane map, and he had said, oh, well, it was going to go to Alabama, and that. The hurricane map didn't show that. So he got a hurricane map and drew.
The path of the hurricane was in white lines. He drew in a black line in a little extra little loop to make it look like it went to Alabama.
It wasn't even in the same color of line, so it was clearly doctored. But it's like, all right, now, I did that. Now you believe it. So again, it's challenging. It's like, yo, you can see bs, but you are going to have to eat it because I own you. And that's what he does to people.
[00:23:38] Speaker B: You know, the hurricane was supposed to go that direction.
[00:23:41] Speaker A: Huh?
[00:23:42] Speaker B: I said the hurricane was supposed to go that direction.
It didn't listen. By decree.
[00:23:47] Speaker A: By decree. That was what it was.
[00:23:50] Speaker B: It was an executive order to the hurricane.
[00:23:51] Speaker A: It wasn't like they took, like, an AI image and doctored the map so you couldn't tell the difference. They made it very clear and very apparent that this thing had been docked, that the line that went into Alabama was not the same color as the line that went into the rest. That was the rest of the track for the hurricane. It was like, yo, they're not even trying to fool people here. This is a loyalty test, you know.
[00:24:14] Speaker B: No, it's great. It's all psychology. It's interesting. We're just watching everyone else go crazy.
[00:24:19] Speaker A: So what do you make of the disconnect, then? The disconnect that we have where you have people in leadership who seem to be willing, more than willing, to hand over power as much as they can to the executive branch with every demand, Hey, I want to be able to do this. Okay? I want to be able to do that, and they just hand over more and more power to the guy.
This is in opposition to the way that the country is set up. Interestingly enough, the way the country was set up assumed that the people, again, the people in these other branches of government would try to hold onto their power. But in this case, we have people getting power and then voluntarily trying to give it to this other guy.
That disconnect that you see in leadership versus the disdain the people still have for that, what do you make of that disconnect? How is that able to exist?
[00:25:06] Speaker B: Yeah, so I think, you know, obviously not all the people have a disdain for it. I mean, we know that a lot do, but there's enough that are able to keep the people in power propped up. Right. Like new votes and things like that.
And so I think we're seeing a lot of things. Jane, I think you've got several issues. I think some of it is maybe, like we just talked about the vice president. Maybe some of it is just the proximity to power, that once. Once you get a little bit in and you start tasting it, it's like, oh, yeah, you want to give it.
[00:25:36] Speaker A: Away a little in, and you start tasting it's like, oh, here, bro. Yeah, you can't give it away.
[00:25:41] Speaker B: But that's the thing. Like, I'm going to keep going down this road because this is too good. Like, some people are like, all right, they get open and they go through certain doors and they just can't go back. And so I think usually, though, but.
[00:25:53] Speaker A: Once you get a taste of power, you want more of it. Not that you want to have less and you want to give it to somebody else. So I'm not disagreeing with you in the ast. I'm just saying, like, it sounds kind of crazy the way you're saying that.
[00:26:03] Speaker B: Well, hold on, let me. Let me preface that then, because, I mean, this could be a greater set of comments than I was intending to, but because it's also about the person in that position, like J.D. vance. And I'm not sure to go psychoanalyze everybody. Right. But there's a lot of people that themselves may not have the confidence for them to be in the top of the pyramid and directing and driving everyone else, but they're willing to follow someone who is. Who can get them to a certain level of a position of power or someone like a young vice president to an older president who just is old enough that we can say he's got health problems and stuff like that.
[00:26:41] Speaker A: Well, but the vice president is the Worst example, though, because he doesn't have any power we're talking about.
[00:26:45] Speaker B: What I'm saying is he's going into a door. That's why I don't want to make this about him specifically. But I'm just saying he's a young vice president.
By him putting up with this for a little bit of time, there's a chance he could become president. So that's all. That's a little bit different.
[00:26:56] Speaker A: Mike Johnson, that doesn't. That is.
[00:26:58] Speaker B: So here's. So here's where I'll go with him on my thought. I think that there's a lot of transactional people in.
In life in general, but right now in our power structure. So I would say this. Mike Johnson also strikes me as someone himself that doesn't look like he's trying to run everything.
But Mike Johnson. I'm going to say this in a very. I'm going to say careful way. Hopefully it's comes out of my mouth the way it's in my head.
Mike Johnson is an example of a certain section of American people that, in my opinion, they hate America themselves. So they keep projecting on everyone else. When he said that it's going to be a hate America rally, I think that's a projection. He hates what America is right now.
[00:27:40] Speaker A: And wants to make it something. He wants to make it something else than what it is. Right?
[00:27:43] Speaker B: Correct. In his mind, America should be something else. It should be a Christian nation and.
[00:27:47] Speaker A: It should be a hierarchical nation.
[00:27:49] Speaker B: He doesn't like in the First Amendment that the Congress should not legislate a religion. I think that he is an example of someone who is making a transaction whether it's overt or just in his mind, meaning overt. Like him and the president have talked. But I think that he's going to allow the president to do certain things and to abuse and use power and wield it a certain way in exchange for a promise that this can become a theocracy one day or something close to it. Like what's happened in Oklahoma and Texas where they're putting the Ten Commandments in public schools. Right. Like, so these are things that maybe another administration, through the DOJ or others, would have been suing the state of Texas and the state of Oklahoma for this. This doj.
[00:28:34] Speaker A: Yeah, These things would have been. It's not the first time they tried to do that stuff, but we know that.
Yeah.
[00:28:40] Speaker B: So that's what I'm saying is that this could be the type of transaction where the President is winking to the speaker of The House saying, hey, man, you know, just let me do this one over here. Let me use the military this way. Don't check me on this over here. But, you know, we're going to make sure that these, these, these, these plans you have in these state legislatures and the school systems and all that. We're not going to, we're going to. Not going to stop you from make this.
[00:29:00] Speaker A: No, I think, I think you're onto something there in the sense that it's like these people, apparently many of them would rather be on the team of absolute power than having a realm of power on their own, you know, and saying, okay, I'll be able to control or I'll have a big role in, you know, one of the three branches of government that has power, like, as opposed to that. It seems like they're like, well, let's throw all our power to this one guy, and then we'll be on that team and then we can get some, some benefit from that. I mean, unfortunately, and I'm not an overly religious guy, you know, I have my spirituality and stuff, but that sounds a lot about us, a lot like what they used to talk about when it's like making deals with the devil.
I'm going to give up my fraud in exchange for this promise of this and that, but I'm not going to go down that for that any further. But I do will note that this is kind of a structural issue that we've run into, I think, because I think that the fundraising requirements, the way that people acquire power in the United States, within the need for constant fundraising and all that actually makes them less principled and more transactional. Like, you can't really be a very principled person in many, in many cases and also be a good fundraiser because you're out here trying to get money from all these different types of people, you know, like, I guess the only principle, one principle that you can have and still fundraise well is that big business is, you know, big business is good like that. You can fundraise on that principle. But a lot of other principles will have people that is, oh, well, if you're. That, then if you, if you put that above this check that I'm giving you, then I'm not giving you the check, you know. And so. But the thing I would say also that contributes to this is, I think this is when we've talked about the book, you know, directly, but this is amusing ourselves to death because this is an example of a level of focus and seriousness from the American People like about a serious issue that I don't know that can be sustained in a modern kind of environment, you know, and because with amusing ourselves to death, it's kind of like this, this mindset that as, as the society and this goes into, you know, like with the proliferation of video and so forth, it changes the way we process information. It changes the kind of information that rise to the top and that we get and then how we actually internalize it and so forth. And the great example he gave was like, well, a lot of people are fearful of the Orwell type of takeover, but he was like really a Huxleyan type of brave new world. Takeover is much more of a concern. That was one of the premises and amusing ourselves to death because people will be distracted. People will be, they'll be so caught up in their distractions that as serious things are happening and society has changed or society is upended, they won't be able to maintain focus on the serious issues long enough to actually deal with them. So I think there's some of that too. Like yes, people can get together and be like, hey, this is unacceptable. We kind of saw what's been going on. But, but can they sustain that energy for any period of time before it's like, oh look, a bird. Oh look, a video here. Oh look, this celebrity got married. And you know, like, because that stuff is not, that stuff's not just I have to go to the grocery store and see it. That stuff's on my pocket, buzzing all the time. And that stuff is going to just pull my attention away and make it hard to stay looking at and maintain kind of an energy towards something like this.
Anything before we close off.
[00:32:17] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, I'll just finish with this. That I think it's, it's, it's probably going to be even deeper than that, unfortunately. Because I think what we're dealing with, and I think a lot of people are elected officials, meaning in Congress and Senate, are susceptible to this is people have become radicalized. Because I can also think that if you've been like you said, the medium of how we receive information now is mostly videos and certain things. I saw a guy just yesterday on YouTube who I subscribe to. He's an interesting ex military guy and he had this doctored video that was showing these hordes of black people, like literally like hundreds of people like rushing into a Walmart. And he was saying that this is happening now in Tampa, Florida because of people, you know, because of the president. Not, you know, or something with the food. Right. The Government shut down and people don't have food to eat. And I thought, man, how dangerous is this? You could tell. I could tell that was a doctored up video. But some people will believe it, right? And it'll make them scared, especially if.
[00:33:17] Speaker A: That'S something that they would like to believe. You know, something in there once, like.
[00:33:20] Speaker B: That'S kind of confirmation.
[00:33:21] Speaker A: That's that confirmation bias thing that you got to. Yeah.
[00:33:24] Speaker B: So then, so then that's where I feel like when we're talking, I'll specifically name the speaker of the House, Mike Johnson. Again, I, I, again, not in his head, but there's other people in Congress that again, because they've been radicalized and they believe these things like, that they're being replaced and all this, these threats to them. I think they're also more willing to make these kind of like deals with the devil, Faustian bargains, and saying to the executive, you know, kind of like that whole thing, I need a strongman. You just fix this. All these hordes of people coming over the border and all that.
[00:33:52] Speaker A: And I think we can't solve this with debate kind of thing.
[00:33:56] Speaker B: Right? Yeah, exactly. It's too, it's too far gone now. We need a strong man to just come in here and clean all this up. And that's obviously how he got elected. And I think what, some of the anxiety we're seeing, like the no Kings parade, is a reflection that more Americans are waking up than saying what I'm seeing. I don't know if, if we shouldn't be debating some of this stuff, right? Like this, this may not be what we thought we signed up for. And people like you and I can say, yeah, we read Project 2025. This is exactly what the country signed up for when they elected this guy. But a lot of people weren't paying attention, and we all got to live through this now.
[00:34:30] Speaker A: So, yeah, yeah, I mean, it's, I think, you know, that's well put. So I think we can wrap from there. We appreciate everybody for joining us on this episode of Call. Like I said to the podcast, rate it, review it, tell us what you think, send it to a friend. Till next time, I'm James Keys.
[00:34:42] Speaker B: I'm Tunde.
[00:34:44] Speaker A: All right, we'll talk soon.
