Speaker 1: From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
Speaker 1: riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
Speaker 1: learn the stuff they don't want you to know. A
Speaker 1: production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2: Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt,
Speaker 2: my name is Noel.
Speaker 3: They call me Ben. We are joined as always with
Speaker 3: our super producer Paul Mission Control Decant. Most importantly, you
Speaker 3: are here. That makes this the stuff they don't want
Speaker 3: you to know. Ooh the or well you feel it
Speaker 3: when you hear it. Who controls the past controls the future? Guys?
Speaker 3: Not too long ago. It seems like just yesterday there
Speaker 3: was an election. Remember time is weird, guys.
Speaker 4: I think the pandemic really screwed time perception up for
Speaker 4: all of us. Also, getting older sort of skews time
Speaker 4: a little bit. I feel like it contracts and expands
Speaker 4: a little differently than when you're young, and you know,
Speaker 4: a year seems like an eternity, and now it's just
Speaker 4: like a blip.
Speaker 3: It's odd. Yeah. People who are not in the United
Speaker 3: States are always laughing when we talk to them, and
Speaker 3: they always say, oh, it's another election. Oh that's happening again.
Speaker 3: The rhetoric is heating up. There is an ideological battle,
Speaker 3: and the battle lines are drawn, the debates are underway.
Speaker 3: Like as you hear this tonight, folks, there have already
Speaker 3: been at least a couple of debates between the two
Speaker 3: main US presidential candidates, Republican Donald Trump Democrat Joe Biden. Again,
Speaker 3: as John Stewart pointed out, they will be the two
Speaker 3: oldest guys running.
Speaker 2: Yeah, ever, it's a race to see who's best great
Speaker 2: great granddad.
Speaker 4: No, I think Joe likes to go by Uncle Joe.
Speaker 4: Isn't that sort of I guess there's Uncle Bernie. But
Speaker 4: just the term uncle gets thrown around a lot, you know,
Speaker 4: because they don't want.
Speaker 3: To go with grandpa.
Speaker 4: Grandpa Joe evokes images of that that sponge Grandpa Joe
Speaker 4: from the Willy Wonka movie.
Speaker 3: You know, nobody likes.
Speaker 2: Sim gotta say great Grandpa Joe.
Speaker 3: And the thing about these guys is, look, we know
Speaker 3: that political conversations can be sensitive, so we're exploring things
Speaker 3: with objectivity. The objective truth is that both Trump and
Speaker 3: Biden have been president before. One of these guys was
Speaker 3: vice president before he became president. Kaugh cough Bush whatever.
Speaker 3: And the groups they represent both of these, the purported
Speaker 3: Democrats the purported Republicans. They have a huge agenda before them,
Speaker 3: policies and laws that, if enacted, will determine the course
Speaker 3: of our great American experiment. None of this is unfamiliar.
Speaker 3: There's one thing, however, that may change the game. The
Speaker 3: supporters see it as a silver bullet to solve America's many,
Speaker 3: many problems. The opponents see it as a conspiratorial, existential
Speaker 3: threat to the idea of democracy. The name for this
Speaker 3: thing is Project twenty twenty five. Here are the facts well.
Speaker 4: Project twenty twenty five, or the Presidential Transition Project, as
Speaker 4: it's more officially known, was spearheaded by something called the
Speaker 4: Heritage Foundation. This whole thing is essentially a collection of
Speaker 4: policy proposals that are meant to restructure the entire federal
Speaker 4: government in the event of a Republican presidential win in
Speaker 4: twenty twenty four. This whole thing began in twenty twenty
Speaker 4: two with the goal of bringing on tens of thousands
Speaker 4: of Conservatives into DC and the hopes of replacing existing
Speaker 4: federal servants public servants with individuals more aligning with a
Speaker 4: certain set of ideological goals.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, and that's at every level, so starting younger folks,
Speaker 2: especially at the lower levels and moving them up kind
Speaker 2: of the way Ben and I started as interns at
Speaker 2: How Stuff Works.
Speaker 3: Hey, come on.
Speaker 4: It's also one of those things where a lot of
Speaker 4: folks seem to think that some of the maybe more
Speaker 4: regressive ideas in politics, some of the slightly more othering
Speaker 4: and perhaps could be even characterized eightful ideas will eventually
Speaker 4: get aged out as younger people enter into politics with
Speaker 4: more progressive ideas. This is designed to mitigate that and
Speaker 4: make sure those young people are in line with the
Speaker 4: ideas that are already in place by said party.
Speaker 2: Which you know, if we just take this alone, right,
Speaker 2: this isn't a crazy idea. It's people who want what
Speaker 2: they want, and they've got a plan to try and
Speaker 2: get people who like the things they like to do
Speaker 2: to do enact laws and make policies for stuff they like.
Speaker 3: That's the same the toorch sort of white kid doesn't
Speaker 3: make a Christmas list.
Speaker 2: But I guess what I mean is this alone, this
Speaker 2: fact alone, as like, if that's what Project twenty twenty
Speaker 2: five was, Okay, that's what it is. It's a plan
Speaker 2: and it's out there in the open. Nobody needs to
Speaker 2: be afraid of that. That's not that weird.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the thing is the idea. There is a sort
Speaker 3: of bad faith actor concept in terms of specifically putting
Speaker 3: people in positions of authority over a thing they seek
Speaker 3: to eliminate. Not too long ago, former presidential candidate Rick
Speaker 3: Perry ran on the idea of eliminating the Department of Energy.
Speaker 3: He did not win the election for potus. He ended
Speaker 3: up being the Secretary of the Department of Energy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a really good point, though, Ben if the
Speaker 2: sole purpose not just to replace existing public servants in
Speaker 2: those positions, but to replace them and then wipe it
Speaker 2: out like whatever it is.
Speaker 4: Well, we see all the time, though, how you know,
Speaker 4: folks as like maybe a bit of an atta boy
Speaker 4: get placed in positions, these high level positions, you know,
Speaker 4: heading up departments.
Speaker 3: We're talking about Secretary of State Hillary Clint.
Speaker 2: That or even members of the Heritage Foundation.
Speaker 3: Will get it. I guess.
Speaker 4: My point though, is that a lot of times they're
Speaker 4: placed in these positions with zero qualifications or experience in
Speaker 4: whatever the logistical you know, like actual things that require
Speaker 4: experience might be to head up something like the Department
Speaker 4: of Energy, the Department of Transportation.
Speaker 3: You know, I mean you would think there would come.
Speaker 4: To be an expert, give us an expert.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: Well, the expertise, as we'll find, is proposed in terms
Speaker 3: of ideology rather than the subject at hand. The philosophical
Speaker 3: heart of Project twenty twenty five is a controversial interpretation
Speaker 3: of Article two of the US Constitution. It's this idea
Speaker 3: called the unitary executive theory, but it's taken to the extreme.
Speaker 3: It's the idea that if you are president of the
Speaker 3: United States, you have absolute, absolute power over the executive
Speaker 3: branch from the moment you end your oath of service,
Speaker 3: you can do whatever. And we'll get into the specifics
Speaker 3: as we continue our exploration, but before we do, maybe
Speaker 3: the best way to understand Project twenty twenty five is
Speaker 3: to look at its parent organization, its creator. It's Potter
Speaker 3: familias the Heritage Foundation.
Speaker 4: Oh, ky, does the word heritage feel a little dog
Speaker 4: whisty to you? Like, I mean, maybe I'm being extreme,
Speaker 4: but it just feels to me sort of like the
Speaker 4: idea of the way patriot has been sort of twisted
Speaker 4: in this odd way. To me, Heritage describes like, yeah,
Speaker 4: we want things to be like they used to be,
Speaker 4: you know, back when things were so good. But the things,
Speaker 4: the times that we're talking about are the imagine thing.
Speaker 4: The things that they weren't actually that good. They were
Speaker 4: bad for many, many, many, many people.
Speaker 2: Yeah, for sure, in very very specific ways. This organization
Speaker 2: is what we call a think tank, right, that's very
Speaker 2: important to get out there. There are many think tanks,
Speaker 2: as we've discussed on this show. This one specifically was
Speaker 2: set up in nineteen seventy three to influence Congress, to
Speaker 2: influence lawmakers, and specifically to influence them in conservative values,
Speaker 2: in conservative legislation, things that would be I guess considered conservative. Again,
Speaker 2: that is a weird thing too. Conservative. Liberal has like
Speaker 2: changed has a couple of times, right.
Speaker 3: Like democratic preimposed Civil war, like the nomenclature will change.
Speaker 3: The idea also that I think we're getting at here, Matt,
Speaker 3: is that there is nothing wrong with identifying as a
Speaker 3: conservative person.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, It's just different. It's just different. And again, every
Speaker 2: individual is an individual, right, so you can't paint everybody
Speaker 2: with the same brush. It's just these specific individuals that
Speaker 2: founded the Heritage Foundation. What would you say, came from money?
Speaker 3: I would argue that they are leveraging and weaponizing certain
Speaker 3: psychological tendencies or identifications to advance the end of democracy.
Speaker 3: And I know we're interesting. I know we're not yet
Speaker 3: at the part where we go crazy. But here are
Speaker 3: the facts. As you said, Matt, it is a think tank,
Speaker 3: the Heritage Foundation or street name Heritage, founded in nineteen
Speaker 3: seventy three by a get this, a nice triumvirate, Paul
Speaker 3: Wayrich Edwin and Joseph Course these of course, course of
Speaker 3: the course. Course of course you are.
Speaker 4: So good you can drink it with your mouth, I
Speaker 4: believe is the tagline. Uh well, for disclosure, we've done
Speaker 4: ads for course, we were talking about it off off
Speaker 4: the air.
Speaker 3: Just put it out there right now. So let's walk
Speaker 3: through these guys. So, Paul Weyrich is a big time
Speaker 3: what we would call religious activist Christian religious activist commentator.
Speaker 3: He is the guy who coined the term moral majority.
Speaker 3: Nice one, Paul, I love that one would approve or disapprove. Yeah,
Speaker 3: you know what I'm saying. He would say, it's double plus.
Speaker 3: I'm good. Yes, But this guy, Paul also also co
Speaker 3: founded something. We have a previous episode on the American
Speaker 3: Legislative Exchange Council or ALEC. ALEC love that ALEC. Can
Speaker 3: we describe ALEC real quick?
Speaker 4: I wish we would. I'm a little foggy on the details.
Speaker 3: So ALEC is a again a think tank, a thought leader,
Speaker 3: and what they have been accused of and proven to
Speaker 3: have done is to write legislation and then hand it
Speaker 3: to members of Congress who just rubber stamp it.
Speaker 5: That's right, yeah, yeah, which is again something that the
Speaker 5: Heritage Foundation does. We're going to get into it, but
Speaker 5: if you look up some of their early publications that
Speaker 5: ended up turning directly into legislation, like Mandate for Leadership
Speaker 5: Policy Management in a Conservative administration, or the ones that
Speaker 5: Waywich probably had a lot to do with, where they
Speaker 5: extol the virtues of religion and how religion is going
Speaker 5: to stop illegitimate babies and it's time stop.
Speaker 3: Have you heard about religion, well, the new thing, but it.
Speaker 2: Was a big deal in the news, especially in the
Speaker 2: news cycles. We'll get into all this stuff, but they
Speaker 2: they basically said, hey, guys, religion is getting a bad
Speaker 2: rap these days. We really need to fight for religion
Speaker 2: and get people in Congress to talk about how awesome
Speaker 2: religion is again.
Speaker 3: What about that separation of church and state. That's fine,
Speaker 3: Get him out of here.
Speaker 4: Can I just point out nominative determinism is hilarious and delightful.
Speaker 4: The guy's name is way Rich just putting that out there,
Speaker 4: Homie is way Rich in w y R.
Speaker 3: H In Christ. The second guy we Mentionedner Fulner Junior.
Speaker 3: Technically he's a former congressional aid. He's a real like
Speaker 3: little Finger, he's a whisperer. He's a quote unquote foreign consultant,
Speaker 3: whatever the hell that means. Uh. He served as a
Speaker 3: full time think tank executive. He was president of Heritage
Speaker 3: from nineteen seventy seven all the way to twenty thirteen,
Speaker 3: So I guess they don't have elections either. And then
Speaker 3: he was president that's for me. And then he was
Speaker 3: president again from twenty seventeen to twenty eighteen, so he
Speaker 3: returned for another term.
Speaker 4: You cou'd say, well, and then to your point earlier,
Speaker 4: ben about expertise, it becomes a different flavor of what
Speaker 4: expertise actually means. In this case, it's a matter of
Speaker 4: like the foremost sort of standard bearer of a set
Speaker 4: of goals, a set of yeah policy ideology, whatever. It's
Speaker 4: not necessarily about who's the best man for the job,
Speaker 4: the best person for the job based on years of
Speaker 4: experience within a certain field. It's more about being like
Speaker 4: you said, that term, which also I find to be
Speaker 4: loaded in orwellian thought leader.
Speaker 2: Mm hmm.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 2: And one of the things that ED did is create
Speaker 2: this thing called within the Heritage Foundation called the Resource
Speaker 2: Bank that ends up being another way, kind of like
Speaker 2: Project twenty twenty five, to bring in other thought leaders
Speaker 2: to function both within the Heritage Foundation and independently to
Speaker 2: work with the Heritage Foundation basically to get policy. Again,
Speaker 2: the same thing trying to influence Congress, but in this way,
Speaker 2: not through words that you write in a giant, you know,
Speaker 2: a couple hundred page document that gets sent to specific
Speaker 2: Congress members, but by individuals who end up having little
Speaker 2: chats with a Congress member or something.
Speaker 4: And you know, democracy is designed so that the individual
Speaker 4: citizen can in theory influence Congress can in theory influence policy.
Speaker 4: But you start to realize when you talk about these organizations,
Speaker 4: is that the decks are way stacked against the individual
Speaker 4: because of these mega, mega powerful groups of whisperers that
Speaker 4: have direct access that you or I or people you
Speaker 4: know of our kind of echelon. Uh could never possibly
Speaker 4: attain what.
Speaker 3: No way, uh, and none of this would be none
Speaker 3: of this would be possible without the third of our triumvirate. Here,
Speaker 3: Joseph COR's senior, the grandson of Adolph Coors, not Adolf Hitler,
Speaker 3: Adolf course, uh, the Hitler of beer, the Hitler beer.
Speaker 3: That's a great tack, like, no, you guys didn't have that.
Speaker 3: Two Cours. Yeah, So Joseph Cours for a long time
Speaker 3: was the president of the Corps Brewing Company. He actually
Speaker 3: funny story. He came up working for the company in
Speaker 3: their porcelain division because Cores had a porcelain division to
Speaker 3: keep them alive during prohibition. But they made it, and now.
Speaker 4: Were Coors beers at at any given time sold in
Speaker 4: porcelain or completely separate. I just wonder what usually when
Speaker 4: you see these pivots during wartime or whatever, it's because
Speaker 4: they already had the infrastructure of the machinery to do
Speaker 4: said other things.
Speaker 3: Like how refrigerator manufacturers made tanks. That's right, just curious.
Speaker 3: I wouldn't I wouldn't be surprised.
Speaker 2: That what if they were manufacturing corps urinals. That's brilliant.
Speaker 3: Finally, did you make you have to pay? We call
Speaker 3: that vertical illegration. That's the best. That's the best idea
Speaker 3: Everard all bit Well, the best way to say, the
Speaker 3: best way to describe our pal Joe is to say
Speaker 3: that he was the money guy for the Heritage Foundation.
Speaker 3: He provided an annual let's call it. Perhaps endowment is
Speaker 3: a little better and stipend maybe. Yeah. At first, Heritage
Speaker 3: was like so many other think tanks. It was an
Speaker 3: ideological organization, was kind of struggling to get policymakers and
Speaker 3: nerds and billionaires or I guess we should say tycoons
Speaker 3: on its side agree with us right and proselytize for us.
Speaker 3: We want to be contagious. All think tanks want to
Speaker 3: be contagious. By the Reagan era of the nineteen eighties,
Speaker 3: Ronald Reagan, famous actor, was also president for a bit
Speaker 3: in the United States. By the Reagan era, the Heritage
Speaker 3: Foundation assumed a leading role in conservative thought. The Reagan
Speaker 3: administration took so many policy cues from Heritage, and so
Speaker 3: from their perspective, things are awesome. It's working. They're like
Speaker 3: the most successful think tank in DC.
Speaker 2: And on heritage website they say they basically wrote the
Speaker 2: quote policy Bible for the Reagan administration. That's everything from
Speaker 2: regulations on crime, taxes, national defense, that strategic defense in
Speaker 2: the wars exactly, and which is just a missile defense
Speaker 2: shield a concept, right if you imagine. We've talked about
Speaker 2: this on other episodes, but like with the Project from
Speaker 2: the New American Century, they were all about this too
Speaker 2: in the early two thousands.
Speaker 3: Also, I will say, I don't think Reagan ever read
Speaker 3: that Bible. Well, I don't think Trump. I don't think
Speaker 3: Trump oh that Bible. Sorry, I just yeah, like like
Speaker 3: like like Trump policy Bible. That's fair, Yeah, like.
Speaker 4: Trump probably never read the actual facts Bible.
Speaker 3: I do want to.
Speaker 4: I think it's very interesting the way the term that
Speaker 4: what you're describing the ex Bible or whatever has been
Speaker 4: adopted in cinema and in like creative circles or like
Speaker 4: even like in a company, you have the Bible, which
Speaker 4: is your design standards, you know, for like your your
Speaker 4: logos and branding.
Speaker 3: It's all in this Bible.
Speaker 4: But I do think the use of that term back
Speaker 4: in this day is a little more pointed than what
Speaker 4: it has become.
Speaker 3: Very much right. Yeah. Yeah, the more secular term would
Speaker 3: be a concordance.
Speaker 4: People use Bible though, man, I mean, I know you
Speaker 4: guys have both worked with different teams and creatives and stuff,
Speaker 4: and like a show Bible, Yeah, would be the arcs
Speaker 4: of various characters as is codified within the universe and
Speaker 4: the world of your story. I just think it's an
Speaker 4: interesting the way that term has evolved.
Speaker 3: I get in trouble if I call it a Torah
Speaker 3: or a Quran in American English, you just gotta call
Speaker 3: it the Bible.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, yeah, I think that's just an industry term
Speaker 2: that's been.
Speaker 4: But I just wonder if if this is this is
Speaker 4: describing something very similar. It is a set of standardized
Speaker 4: things that we all as an organization must follow.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's that mandate for leadership policy management. And a
Speaker 2: conservative administration that had two thousand recommendations in it. And
Speaker 2: according to the Heritage Foundation, maybe they're tooting their own
Speaker 2: horn here a little bit, but the Reagan administration, according
Speaker 2: to them, they adopted two thirds of those two thousand
Speaker 2: recommendations all of the testaments.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's the Reagan era, and they have multiple guys.
Speaker 3: Mandate for leadership is a franchise novel. Yes, it continues,
Speaker 3: and Project twenty twenty five has its own Mandate for
Speaker 3: Leadership as well. You know, we see this during the
Speaker 3: weird thing about It, our Palchuck would call it hinky.
Speaker 3: The hinky thing about it is that, regardless of which
Speaker 3: political party is in office, every single administration since Nixon
Speaker 3: has adopted at least a few of Heritage Foundation's ideas.
Speaker 3: George H. W. Bush got pushed into Desert Storm inspired
Speaker 3: by Heritage He adopted six of the ten policies written
Speaker 3: in Mandate for Leadership three A the return. However, what
Speaker 3: do they call it? A suggestion for leadership three? You know, mandate.
Speaker 3: So now there's these these things are very intentional. Well
Speaker 3: they're two there, there's still a little too scared to
Speaker 3: call them commandments. That's also true, guys.
Speaker 2: I was just thinking really quick, and we're talking about
Speaker 2: policy bibles for administrations. I just want to point out
Speaker 2: here that every other presidency has had some kind of organization,
Speaker 2: think tank, whatever that's kind of in their corner.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: It's not always Heritage Foundation, it's not always you know,
Speaker 2: something on the liberal side. But there is one called
Speaker 2: the Center for American progress that had a huge impact
Speaker 2: on several presidents who were at least recently democratic.
Speaker 3: And you know it's in the back of every room,
Speaker 3: rand dude.
Speaker 4: Another way, you guys, remember a project for the New
Speaker 4: American Century? Yes, sir, that was a popular one as
Speaker 4: well for a time in DC in terms of shaping
Speaker 4: foreign policy with a decidedly conservative bent.
Speaker 2: Oh hey, and they sorry, they just like, just like
Speaker 2: the Heritage Foundation, have these giant headquarters that are just
Speaker 2: a quick little stroll the Capitol Hill.
Speaker 3: Shout out DuPont, shout out K Street. Also, yeah, no,
Speaker 3: that's exactly what Matt was talking about, the Project for
Speaker 3: a New American Century. We have an episode on it.
Speaker 3: Do check it out. We're not saying these things are
Speaker 3: inherently bad, right, the same way a weapon is not
Speaker 3: inherently bad. It depends upon on the tree. Yeah, the
Speaker 3: aims of the operator, the literal aim, you know, where
Speaker 3: it's pointed.
Speaker 2: Imagine you're a president with all that stuff on your shoulders,
Speaker 2: all that pressure. Okay here, president, right, You shoulders are big, dude.
Speaker 2: You got to think about everything, right, and you're thinking
Speaker 2: about everything all at once, and.
Speaker 4: You're starting to hunch a little bit bro, let us
Speaker 4: help you with this. Let us take some of this burden.
Speaker 3: I don't have time.
Speaker 2: To read, you don't have time to think. Bro, you
Speaker 2: just got to act.
Speaker 4: If we gave you a tank, that would do it
Speaker 4: for you.
Speaker 3: Blast your opponents, all right, tell me about the Middle
Speaker 3: East and three sentences.
Speaker 2: Perfect, do that.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So Heritage continued to gather power even when what
Speaker 3: we would call ideological opponents were in office. For instance,
Speaker 3: again we always say this, do not be fooled by
Speaker 3: the k fabe of American politics. During the Clinton administration,
Speaker 3: the Heritage Foundation took up with the idea of what
Speaker 3: we would call culture wars. We call it that today
Speaker 3: in the United States. So they needed something to get
Speaker 3: on Clinton aside from jobs, so they went for culture wars.
Speaker 4: You know, maybe to nip this in the bud too,
Speaker 4: lest we at some point espouse a political opinion that
Speaker 4: might piss off one side or the other. I just
Speaker 4: want to point out, and I think we're on the
Speaker 4: same page. I don't trust either side, and I think
Speaker 4: either side serve very similar masters. And it's sort of
Speaker 4: one you know, it's like a puppet show. I really
Speaker 4: do truly believe that to a degree, and I find
Speaker 4: the system of American politics to be inherently broken, and
Speaker 4: we're seeing more and more of that with what's happened
Speaker 4: with this move towards totalitarianism and this move towards the
Speaker 4: basic abolition of democracy. But I'm not saying I think
Speaker 4: Biden's the answer. I think he's as much of a
Speaker 4: shill as anybody. And it all kind of pisses me
Speaker 4: off and makes me want to throw my hands up
Speaker 4: in outrage.
Speaker 2: If you really want to freak yourself out, go back
Speaker 2: to nineteen ninety two when the Heritage Foundation is working
Speaker 2: real hard on healthcare reforms in the name of it
Speaker 2: or in with the goal of giving Americans choice.
Speaker 4: I will look get to it, look what actually got pushed,
Speaker 4: and look at what's contained within.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I got it.
Speaker 2: No, no, do the do the Bentrick with the two fingers,
Speaker 2: and then look at Hillary Clinton, look at Obama.
Speaker 3: It's right right now, Let's give it right now. So
Speaker 3: during the Clinton administration, we got the Heritage Foundation, UH
Speaker 3: leveraging and deploying the concept of culture wars. They wrote
Speaker 3: a publication called Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, and it's
Speaker 3: sort of this argument disguised as science about how fourteen
Speaker 3: different variables like how life is worse due to democracy,
Speaker 3: and the Clinton administration responded. They adopted Heritage policy recommendations,
Speaker 3: particularly in regard to welfare reform, and they fast forward
Speaker 3: through the second Bush. Yes, sorry, non Americans. One guy
Speaker 3: was president and was CIA till he died, and then
Speaker 3: his son also became president. I'm sure he was the
Speaker 3: best person objectively for the job.
Speaker 2: He's one of the most fun presidents to.
Speaker 3: Paintings. He's pretty good.
Speaker 4: And at a time, I remember it was when I
Speaker 4: was first starting to get quote unquote maybe more politically radicalized,
Speaker 4: and I just thought he was the devil. But in retrospect,
Speaker 4: the guy's a teddy bear, you know, for a.
Speaker 3: Guy from Connecticut. He does a killer Texas accent. Yeah,
Speaker 3: I just you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 4: Though at the time, he just seemed like the worst
Speaker 4: possible thing for democracy and like the whole I mean
Speaker 4: everything about it. But now in retrospect it just seems
Speaker 4: laughably benign.
Speaker 3: I would hang out.
Speaker 2: I want to pat him on his head.
Speaker 4: You know, when he's talking to the kids and the
Speaker 4: guy whispers to him about nine to eleven, I'm like,
Speaker 4: bless his heart.
Speaker 3: I feel like we would have a lot of fun
Speaker 3: at David Busters dude.
Speaker 2: For sure, drinking of cors Man.
Speaker 3: I think he gave that up. But we do have
Speaker 3: to get to your original point, Matt, which is, uh,
Speaker 3: former President Barack Obama also followed the lead of the
Speaker 3: Heritage Foundation on particular policies, most notably healthcare. And then
Speaker 3: it was weapon the fact that that administration adopted a
Speaker 3: pretty uh objectively free market conservative approach to healthcare. You know,
Speaker 3: and the number one crime in the United States is
Speaker 3: to be poor. Uh. The the ACA right as it's called,
Speaker 3: was weaponized into being called the Obamacare Act.
Speaker 2: Right Affordable Care or Obama.
Speaker 4: Wait, was that debated that on purpose? Or was it
Speaker 4: the other side?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 4: No, what I'm saying it feels like it was.
Speaker 2: It was an attack.
Speaker 3: It was an attack, thought, that's what I thought.
Speaker 4: It's sort of like calling it the you know, the
Speaker 4: Chinese flu or what it was not a complement.
Speaker 3: No, I didn't think.
Speaker 4: So It's again, a lot of time goes by and
Speaker 4: it all compresses weirdly, and you start to kind of
Speaker 4: forget where some of these things come from, which is
Speaker 4: Orwell's whole point about language and the nature of rhetoric.
Speaker 4: It's really easy, as smart as you might be and
Speaker 4: as well read as one might be, to just accept
Speaker 4: these things and kind of forget where they came from.
Speaker 3: And now it's twenty twenty four. Yep.
Speaker 2: Just call it the Heritage Consumer Choice Health Plan.
Speaker 3: Or one of the original names.
Speaker 2: Yeah, or the Bill Clinton Health Initiative alternative.
Speaker 3: For the people. Guys, don't make me be that person
Speaker 3: who sees the Christian Bible and says, I like the
Speaker 3: earlier work. Whatever. Heritage Foundation is a powerful organization and
Speaker 3: as always as anything tank worth its salt should, it
Speaker 3: has a plan, and now more than ever, thanks Fox News,
Speaker 3: the opponents of Heritage are worried about this think tanks
Speaker 3: plans for the future of the American experiment. So what
Speaker 3: exactly is Project twenty twenty five? What does it propose
Speaker 3: are the opponent's right to be concerned? We'll tell you
Speaker 3: after a quick word from course, here's where it gets crazy,
Speaker 3: the Project twenty twenty five stuff. It depends on whom
Speaker 3: you ask. There are people who will dismiss it as
Speaker 3: a pipe dream, you know. There are people who will
Speaker 3: say it is an existential threat to the concept of democracy.
Speaker 3: But if you look at the papers, if you look
Speaker 3: at the policy, which is freely available online, you will
Speaker 3: see that Project twenty twenty five, by its own words,
Speaker 3: assumes some very high stakes for the authors of it.
Speaker 3: They are the last line between tyranny and you know,
Speaker 3: whatever their halcyon vision of America would be, which does
Speaker 3: not include you.
Speaker 4: If you're listening, Oh man, well, guys, like, what is
Speaker 4: a conspiracy if not just a plan that doesn't include you?
Speaker 3: You know what I mean?
Speaker 4: It's sort of hatched in secrecy. But a lot of
Speaker 4: these ones that are hashed in secrecy you can read
Speaker 4: about them. There's information out there about them. You just
Speaker 4: don't have the equipment or the know how or you know,
Speaker 4: the information to decode what they're actually going for in
Speaker 4: certain senses. And I feel like that's what this is.
Speaker 3: Like.
Speaker 4: This stuff is technically out in the open, but it
Speaker 4: feels like a conspiracy to me.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, it really is fully out in the open.
Speaker 2: You can go on their website and read all about it.
Speaker 2: You can go on BBC News or PBS or any
Speaker 2: of these other places, Fox News, CNN, and they'll tell
Speaker 2: you all about the specific policies that we're going to
Speaker 2: get into and they I just I cannot re emphasize
Speaker 2: enough Ben that when you read through it, those stakes
Speaker 2: could not be higher. I'm just I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Speaker 2: It seems in it's some of it seems intense. The
Speaker 2: hope as we go through all of this stuff and
Speaker 2: we learn about it is that whoever is president next
Speaker 2: will only adopt one or two.
Speaker 3: Right, Yeah, there's a rule of attrition. They've baked in
Speaker 3: the idea that not all of this will work as
Speaker 3: opposed to that what third you said that the Reagan
Speaker 3: administration adopted two? Yeah, two seconds. Okay, So the idea is,
Speaker 3: the idea is you hope for one or two and
Speaker 3: everything else is bonus credit because if you structure it correctly,
Speaker 3: then getting the right one or the right to will
Speaker 3: make to do the rest of the job.
Speaker 2: And that's just to twelve years down the road.
Speaker 3: Right, because we got skulledas now it's chess, right, I
Speaker 3: mean it really is.
Speaker 4: Well, you know, we're we're scared of these people in
Speaker 4: many ways, but also I got to applaud their tenacity
Speaker 4: and their their their forward thinking.
Speaker 3: You know, it's it's kind of something to behold Forward
Speaker 3: Thinking is a podcast on the Iheartrangio. Oh yeah, that's true,
Speaker 3: it's true.
Speaker 4: But you know, you know what I'm saying though, It's
Speaker 4: like they're thinking so many steps ahead and they know
Speaker 4: they can only get X, Y or Z probably right away.
Speaker 4: But they it's all tiered, it's all designed with the
Speaker 4: future and mind, and that's not easy to do.
Speaker 3: And in their defense, objectively, from their perspective, they do
Speaker 3: see it as a greater good. Yeah, in their opinion.
Speaker 3: So again we talked about this franchise of novels basically
Speaker 3: of policy papers. The one that people are referencing when
Speaker 3: they talk to you about Project twenty twenty five is
Speaker 3: a thing called Mandate for Leadership holand a conservative promise. Spoiler.
Speaker 3: It's about as long as the unabridged copy of The
Speaker 3: Stand by Stephen king On and on. Yes, sir, it's
Speaker 3: not as good as the Stand.
Speaker 4: And I mean, we know parts of the unabridged Stand
Speaker 4: probably should have been abridged. But yeah, no, that's wild.
Speaker 4: And that's another thing. A lot of this is like
Speaker 4: they what is it like when when they don't an
Speaker 4: a legal team dumps all the documents on you at once,
Speaker 4: so that you are literally stuck sifting through all of
Speaker 4: it to find one or two things of value or
Speaker 4: of meaning in your defense, That to me feels like
Speaker 4: a lot of what these overly long documents are. They're
Speaker 4: ensuring that the average individual is not going to take
Speaker 4: the time to read it, and if they do, it's
Speaker 4: going to be too complex and daunting for them to
Speaker 4: actually pull anything out that's that's you know, worth analyzing
Speaker 4: or discussing.
Speaker 3: I feel you, man, I would say that they are
Speaker 3: not attempting to to obscure things through legal ease or
Speaker 3: through you know, arcane terminology. They are writing this for
Speaker 3: anyone who wants to read it. They're very upfront. You've
Speaker 3: got to give them credit where it's due. They're very
Speaker 3: upfront about what they want to do. If it is
Speaker 3: it's a conservative agenda for whomever happens to be the
Speaker 3: next Republican president.
Speaker 2: And anyone in Congress who feels similar.
Speaker 3: Yeah, anyone who's got a good vibe over on DuPont Circle,
Speaker 3: you know, join up.
Speaker 2: But basically, here here is as we said, we're gonna
Speaker 2: use it. The term overtime a policy bible for everybody.
Speaker 2: If if there is someone who gets in office that
Speaker 2: would want to enact these policies. Hey, guys, you're on
Speaker 2: our team. Uh uh, this is the policy bible, so
Speaker 2: work towards these goals.
Speaker 3: And what a back I want to back up on this.
Speaker 3: When the point about folks not reading things, it is
Speaker 3: it is written in an approachable way, but the assumption
Speaker 3: does seem to be that the majority of folks supporting
Speaker 3: one or two of the policy points have not read
Speaker 3: the whole thing. Yeah, I think that is correct.
Speaker 2: Let's go back to just at that point. Ben in
Speaker 2: the year two thousand, the House Majority Leader Dick Army
Speaker 2: at the time, quote real name. He is quoted in
Speaker 2: the Heritage Foundation as saying, if candidates read nothing else,
Speaker 2: they should read issues. No candidate should run without it.
Speaker 2: And he's referring to this thing that they wrote called issues,
Speaker 2: the Candidate's Briefing Book, which was a similar thing, not
Speaker 2: the exact same thing, as one of these mandates for leadership,
Speaker 2: which is a whole as you said, been a franchised
Speaker 2: Marvel universe of its own. It's a very similar thing
Speaker 2: that gave everybody a starting point and specific end goals.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah, executive summaries talking points isn't that weird. That
Speaker 3: isn't that weird that that would be the decider? You know,
Speaker 3: tell me about the Middle East, and three sentences says America.
Speaker 2: How about two thousand pages?
Speaker 3: Okay, okay, I'll read the first three sentences they say.
Speaker 3: So audits website right now, you can go to Project
Speaker 3: twenty twenty five and you will see they would love
Speaker 3: to give you a pdf. They would love to give
Speaker 3: you a copy of Mandate for Leadership, a conservative promise.
Speaker 3: They will also tell you that this handbook, as they
Speaker 3: call it, is quote the next conservative president's last opportunity
Speaker 3: to save our republic credit where due. This is is
Speaker 3: the brainchild of many, many people. Some of the thought
Speaker 3: leaders in this one are folks like Mark Meadows, who
Speaker 3: used to be chief of staff at the White House.
Speaker 3: Stephen Miller, who is famously a diplomatic.
Speaker 2: Yeah not my friend Dick, Not my friend Stephen Miller
Speaker 2: that I grew up with. This is a different guy.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, different.
Speaker 2: Well, Steve, you were big.
Speaker 4: He was big in the early Trump administration because he
Speaker 4: was on TV all the time, just like as this
Speaker 4: kind of very acerbic, kind of young conservative, just talking
Speaker 4: point master. And I remember he would get real salty
Speaker 4: on some of these shows, and real righteously indignant and
Speaker 4: like singing Trump's praises and calling him a genius and
Speaker 4: all of this stuff.
Speaker 3: I just don't I just don't think you're a good
Speaker 3: white nationalist if you take money from Saudi's.
Speaker 4: Oh well, that's the thing though, right, Like a lot
Speaker 4: of this the flag waving of white nationalism and all
Speaker 4: of these ideological things, nine times out of ten are
Speaker 4: just smoke, you know, to appeal to certain voter bases,
Speaker 4: whomever there might be. I don't think a lot of
Speaker 4: these politicians believe much of anything.
Speaker 3: That's It's so let's go to the director of Project
Speaker 3: twenty twenty five, as we record on Friday, June twenty First,
Speaker 3: he's a guy named Paul Dans And I know some
Speaker 3: of us have a thing about people with two first names,
Speaker 3: but that is his real name. It's not as cool
Speaker 3: as Dick Army. But his name is Paul Dan's and
Speaker 3: he used to work as the chief of staff for
Speaker 3: the Office of Personnel Management in the administration of former
Speaker 3: President Donald Trump. And the handbook itself Project twenty twenty
Speaker 3: five does not, to be clear, it does not directly
Speaker 3: assume that Donald Trump will be a messionic figure, it says,
Speaker 3: any any conservative president, right, and to also follow through
Speaker 3: on that logic. If Joe Biden got re elected and
Speaker 3: totally went on board with Heritage Foundation, they would say
Speaker 3: he's a great guy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they would. Well, let's say there's an all out
Speaker 2: war that begins immediately or very soon after the president
Speaker 2: is almost elected, or maybe right after they're elected. Adopting
Speaker 2: some of this stuff would I don't know what would
Speaker 2: make for a good movie version of reality.
Speaker 3: You're talking about the Golden goose. You're talking about the
Speaker 3: real thing.
Speaker 2: Somebody actually just grabs the reins in this way because quote,
Speaker 2: we're under attack.
Speaker 3: I mean like a coup, like a legitimate no.
Speaker 2: I feel like it's Independence Day, it's ID four, and
Speaker 2: you know whatever, we're under attack and somebody's got to
Speaker 2: hold the reins and just make all the decisions. And
Speaker 2: you know.
Speaker 4: Why's it got to be us?
Speaker 3: Though? Right?
Speaker 4: I guess that's my question is like who, It's just
Speaker 4: a matter of who seizes it, right, who takes it
Speaker 4: and runs with it?
Speaker 2: Well, I'm not well, I guess what I'm saying in
Speaker 2: ninety four, I'm imagining the speech that the president of
Speaker 2: that movie gives built pullman, I.
Speaker 3: Think, bizarre but independent state.
Speaker 2: But what I'm saying is somebody, the president in this
Speaker 2: case of the United States, stands up and says, guys,
Speaker 2: I've got this. I'm seizing executive control.
Speaker 3: Hyeah, I got you, I got you. That's the golden Goose,
Speaker 3: the unitary theory, and it's a dangerous thing. And make
Speaker 3: no mistake. Project twenty twenty five is essentially to the
Speaker 3: earlier reference about comic books and films. It is an
Speaker 3: Infinity War level crossover Heritage Foundation and Project twenty twenty
Speaker 3: five is like that moment in The Avengers where Captain
Speaker 3: America is at the end of his row open is
Speaker 3: you know, his shields all messed up and and all
Speaker 3: of a sudden, these doctors, strange portals open out and
Speaker 3: nowhere and all these other In this case, conservative think
Speaker 3: tanks join the fray. It is a coalition. Project twenty
Speaker 3: twenty five is a coalition of hundreds of interrelated think tanks.
Speaker 3: And I would argue they are all pursuing neo feudalism.
Speaker 4: Are the tax exempt Well think about it, Well, I'm
Speaker 4: just I mean, is it like being a nonprofit like,
Speaker 4: do they I know they must have to be designated
Speaker 4: as that. Do they have some benefits some tax loophole
Speaker 4: benefits in order to do they? Are they registered in
Speaker 4: I'm sorry if I didn't mean to derail.
Speaker 3: No, No, it's case by casey because it depends upon
Speaker 3: it depends upon the specific demographic of the think tank.
Speaker 3: Is it private industry? To your point? Is it not
Speaker 3: for profit? Is it nonprofit? Is it a loose coalition
Speaker 3: of academics you know who are still pissed about the
Speaker 3: free market?
Speaker 4: Because because an NNGO could technically also be a think tank, right,
Speaker 4: associated think tanks?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Absolutely, guys. The Heritage Foundation is a five oh one
Speaker 2: C three organization, just as Akato Institute is. Hey are
Speaker 2: many of these nac Yeah?
Speaker 3: Hey you can donate now, yeah yeah yeah, yeah yeah yeah.
Speaker 2: Do you have five million dollars?
Speaker 3: You could take a dollar? Yeah, we'll take one dollar
Speaker 3: and then we'll send you mail for the rest of
Speaker 3: your life. And weird texts. Uh. The The Heritage Foundation
Speaker 3: Excuse Me Project twenty twenty five also notes some wild stuff.
Speaker 2: But I want to get back to the thing you
Speaker 2: said right before we talked about taxes. What did you say,
Speaker 2: neo feudalism, Ben, what can you just describe what you
Speaker 2: mean by that?
Speaker 3: Fiefdoms?
Speaker 4: Right, it's like political fiefdom I mean, I think.
Speaker 3: Yeah, one hundred percent. It's the idea of replacing the
Speaker 3: Great American experiment with something closer to monl lords. Yes,
Speaker 3: got it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they just want a king again.
Speaker 3: Yeah, which is what George Washington legendary pill shout out
Speaker 3: Shane Gillis. George Washington was correct when he refused monarchy.
Speaker 3: And there are some people in his crew that really
Speaker 3: love this idea of using Kinglee terms and throwing him around,
Speaker 3: and he flatly rejected it. And if I could just
Speaker 3: take this moment to recommend listening to the Ridiculous History
Speaker 3: episode with AJ Jacobs about the Constitution and his book
Speaker 3: on living Constitutionally and crazy, crazy thing that this guy
Speaker 3: did and wrote a book about it, basically to get
Speaker 3: to what the letter of the intent of the Constitution was.
Speaker 3: And a lot of things we're talking about today come
Speaker 3: up in that episode.
Speaker 4: So give it a listen. I think it'd be a
Speaker 4: good supplement to this conversation.
Speaker 3: Aj Bahamas Jacobs The Year of Living Constitutionally. He also
Speaker 3: has a show with us called the Puzzler. You can
Speaker 3: hear some surprising cameos, including Roywood Junior, Michael Ian Black.
Speaker 3: He's just a delightful, very sharp guy, and he's also
Speaker 3: concerned about this idea because the thing about monarchies is
Speaker 3: if you are the monarch, you love that system. Right.
Speaker 3: If you are going back to some of our earlier
Speaker 3: episodes recently, if you are the land lord, then you
Speaker 3: love a land lord system. Project twenty twenty five also
Speaker 3: notes the following quote, It is not enough for Conservatives
Speaker 3: to win elections. If we are going to rescue the
Speaker 3: country from the grip of the radical left, we need
Speaker 3: both a governing agenda and the right people in place
Speaker 3: ready to carry this agenda out on day one of
Speaker 3: the next concernervative administration. That is the goal of the
Speaker 3: twenty twenty five Presidential Transition Project end quote. And as
Speaker 3: we'll see later, it's low key hilarious that they're using
Speaker 3: the word transition in particular.
Speaker 6: Yeah, yeah, more more like seizing, right the Yeah, transition
Speaker 6: has nothing to do with it, like what we saw
Speaker 6: with the insurrection.
Speaker 4: This is the idea of rejecting transition, is what it is.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a radical left term.
Speaker 3: If you have me. Yeah. Also, like as we're saying earlier,
Speaker 3: this project, you, if you sit through this unabridged policy
Speaker 3: version of the stand, what you're gonna find is that
Speaker 3: it's if we're listening tonight, If we're listening tonight and
Speaker 3: we feel that we are ourselves maybe more conservative, fiscally, socially, whatever,
Speaker 3: you will be surprised, fellow conspiracy realist, by how hyper
Speaker 3: conservative Project twenty twenty five is. I can say with certitude,
Speaker 3: no matter how you feel when you're listening right now,
Speaker 3: you will find something in this document that you think
Speaker 3: is super up. Because it is a blue sky, messy
Speaker 3: spaghetti bowl of ideas that don't always agree with each other.
Speaker 3: They're trying to upend norms and institutions, and to the
Speaker 3: earlier points we made, they are assuming that they only
Speaker 3: need a few of these to get through and become laws.
Speaker 3: I mean, let's look at the specific goals.
Speaker 2: Ben. I think about this as for some reason, a
Speaker 2: shotgun and like bird shot round that sprays really wide
Speaker 2: with tiny little balls, But in this case, it's like
Speaker 2: busshot sized balls inside the amount that you would get
Speaker 2: with a bird shot round.
Speaker 4: It's the literal spray and pray method, you know, I mean,
Speaker 4: I mean sorry.
Speaker 2: But let's wait for a second. Here a word from
Speaker 2: our sponsor, and then get into these specifics.
Speaker 3: So the Project twenty twenty five document this Leadership or
Speaker 3: Thought Leader novel. It generally has four pillars, right, because
Speaker 3: it echoes in some ways the structure of religious thought.
Speaker 3: So the first pillar is to quote restore the family
Speaker 3: as the centerpiece of American life. What do we think
Speaker 3: that means? Can we hear that whistle?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 4: And I choked on it, I mean, ever choked on
Speaker 4: the little thing inside a whistle, and then all of
Speaker 4: a sudden you're just whistling every time you breathe.
Speaker 3: That's what's happening. Okay, well it happens. It happens delightfully
Speaker 3: in cartoons.
Speaker 4: But yeah, dude, the idea, Yeah, it's it's it's inherently
Speaker 4: dog whistley the American life. The family. Families mean so
Speaker 4: many different things these days, and and and this idea
Speaker 4: of the heritage version of the family. Think about the
Speaker 4: families of old you know, husband, wife, you know Johnny, Jenny,
Speaker 4: you know, well that too. But that's the thing though,
Speaker 4: all of its illusion, all of it's a fantasy. You know,
Speaker 4: the husbands were cheating left and right. There is abuse
Speaker 4: going on, you know, horrible things. It's there's no magical
Speaker 4: golden time where the family was this perfect unit of existence.
Speaker 4: But what this means is getting rid of any kind
Speaker 4: of queer uh you know, elements in families, you know
Speaker 4: lgbt Q I plus just burn it with fire, kill
Speaker 4: it with fire.
Speaker 2: It's uh yeah, now, hold on, does it say that
Speaker 2: specifically in there that the family is a man, a woman, kids,
Speaker 2: and a but there.
Speaker 4: Are because of the elements that can unfilteredly spew that
Speaker 4: kind of stuff as talking points, and that's what gets
Speaker 4: people on board. And then they're they're kind of tacitly
Speaker 4: supported because no one's saying that that's wrong.
Speaker 3: It's also yeah, it's it's a culture war piece, right.
Speaker 3: And the second pillar is the idea of dismantling institutions
Speaker 3: and norms, which just you know, if you have ever
Speaker 3: spent time in Latin America or the continent of Africa,
Speaker 3: when that stuff goes sideways, it escalates quickly. It is
Speaker 3: very important to remember that, you know what I mean, Libertarian, conservative,
Speaker 3: Green Party, Democrat, whatever, you kind of need that stuff
Speaker 3: to happen. You need the roads to work, you need
Speaker 3: the light switch to turn on, you need to be
Speaker 3: able to drink the water or Project twenty twenty five
Speaker 3: aims to dismantle a lot of the I would say,
Speaker 3: the circulatory system the anatomy of the American.
Speaker 4: State, and replace it with what feudalism? Isn't that chaos?
Speaker 4: Isn't that anarchy? I just who's you know, who's in
Speaker 4: charge of the utilities, Like I don't understand like the
Speaker 4: basics of running the infrastructure. Where does that go to?
Speaker 4: You know, someone's got to run those administrations. And we
Speaker 4: know there are a lot of red tape and it's
Speaker 4: a pain in the butt to deal with. But it's
Speaker 4: at least you got someone, you know, you know who
Speaker 4: to call if your lights don't work.
Speaker 3: That's a great point. I'm being a little hyperbolic. The
Speaker 3: idea is to eliminate some institutions like the Department of Energy, Education, Commerce,
Speaker 3: and then to make the Department of Justice sort of
Speaker 3: like a lag sock puppet, a place to replace the
Speaker 3: current federal employees civil servants with people whose only qualification
Speaker 3: is their ideological loyalty.
Speaker 4: Yeah the word yeah, So this would eliminate a crap
Speaker 4: ton of jobs.
Speaker 2: Well, well it would my understanding via the BBC. In
Speaker 2: a couple other places, they would remove protections like that
Speaker 2: you've got a good government job, you're protected in that position.
Speaker 2: They would remove the protections the shielding that let's say
Speaker 2: an individual government employee has, then that person could be
Speaker 2: fired and an appointee then like they're making it easier
Speaker 2: for an appointee system to be put in place where
Speaker 2: they literally bring in their own troops.
Speaker 3: Basically that partation is your voting record.
Speaker 4: That part of it's scary, But I will say there
Speaker 4: is something to be said of those protections yielding malaise
Speaker 4: and complacency.
Speaker 3: We always talk about government jobs.
Speaker 4: They're cushy, and you know you can never get fired,
Speaker 4: so you kind of just phone it in. So there
Speaker 4: is part of me that's like, maybe that could be
Speaker 4: reformed a little bit and maybe people would do a
Speaker 4: better job. But then the whole replacement part is where
Speaker 4: it gets real sticky and real politically to tintinuous.
Speaker 2: Maybe you should be able to be a senator for
Speaker 2: eighty years, not with that attitude.
Speaker 3: So stroke the midstroke, the third pillar here is the
Speaker 3: idea of defending what they would call the nation's sovereignty
Speaker 3: and borders, aka build physical walls and adopt adopt immigration
Speaker 3: policies that we could argue if we were the founding
Speaker 3: fathers are kind of against the constitution. Just not picking
Speaker 3: a side on this one. I'm just saying, if you read,
Speaker 3: you see the disagreements.
Speaker 2: But one thing to add on the immigration reforms that
Speaker 2: they're hoping to put in place, or it's something we've
Speaker 2: talked about with other countries that are it's a system
Speaker 2: that's offered for other countries very often where if you
Speaker 2: have enough money, you can fast track your application. If
Speaker 2: you've got that premium dollar that you roll in with,
Speaker 2: you get an American citizenship. But everybody else who doesn't
Speaker 2: have that kind of premium money, it's way harder to
Speaker 2: get in YO.
Speaker 4: I met a guy on a train in Spain or
Speaker 4: a couple. They're from New Zealand, and I asked them
Speaker 4: about the whole deal, where like, can you really fast
Speaker 4: track New Zealand citizenship by dumping a whole bunch of
Speaker 4: money into the economy And he was like sure enough,
Speaker 4: and he basically almost gave me a number, Like it's
Speaker 4: something that folks that live over there are like intimately
Speaker 4: aware of It.
Speaker 3: Was very interesting conversation. Also, you're meeting people who are
Speaker 3: outside of their home country, which means that we can
Speaker 3: assume they're a little better off by a by capability
Speaker 3: of travel in that regard, and it is a known thing.
Speaker 3: To Matt's point, the idea of sovereignty and borders is
Speaker 3: very much a rules for thee, not for me situation
Speaker 3: across the world. It is, and it's only going to
Speaker 3: accelerate as as traditional climates migrate into further further inhospitable environments.
Speaker 3: It is going to happen now very soon. The fourth
Speaker 3: pillar just going to leave that one there. Think about
Speaker 3: that one. The fourth pillar is Project twenty twenty five.
Speaker 3: Wants to secure what they would call God given individual
Speaker 3: rights to live freely. This translates to tax cuts for
Speaker 3: wealthy people.
Speaker 4: Well, can we talk a little bit right now about
Speaker 4: this thing I brought up on a recent episode.
Speaker 3: I can't remember it was.
Speaker 4: It was not about this, but Trump has recently come
Speaker 4: out saying that he would eliminate the income tax and
Speaker 4: replace it with with tariffs like heavy tears. Isn't that
Speaker 4: sort of within this kind of conversation here, that idea
Speaker 4: of like being isolationist and you know, getting rid of
Speaker 4: like these taxes that we have to pay, giving us
Speaker 4: big old tax cuts or again to your point, probably
Speaker 4: more likely the super wealthy and passing that on to
Speaker 4: other countries that we do business with. But it's kind
Speaker 4: of inherently flawed and would cause the whole system as
Speaker 4: it currently exists to collapse under its own weight.
Speaker 2: I'm just going back in time, guys, thinking about the
Speaker 2: North American Treaty. What is NAFTA, the North American Free
Speaker 2: Trade Trade Agreement agreement that was isn't that Clinton administration?
Speaker 2: Maybe it's before that. I thought that was Clint administration,
Speaker 2: But that the concept of open free trade right where
Speaker 2: it's it's easier to do business, it's better for the corporations,
Speaker 2: versus that kind of system that you just described, where
Speaker 2: it's way worse for the corporations, but it's better for
Speaker 2: the individuals who maybe own the corporations. Which is an
Speaker 2: interesting battle like ideological battle happening, but in the end,
Speaker 2: the same people benefit.
Speaker 3: Dun Dun dun, dun, dun, dundun, dundun.
Speaker 4: Moves within moves, but Devil's advocate. Wouldn't we also, as
Speaker 4: the individuals who are not corporate shareholders and benefits well think?
Speaker 4: Nor would those tariffs ultimately get passed on to us
Speaker 4: in terms of the increase in price of consumer goods.
Speaker 2: We are the great battery the consumer, right, each one
Speaker 2: of us. We are buying the stuff that is being
Speaker 2: manufactured that tariffs are being placed upon the ular.
Speaker 3: Sorry, it's just no, no, don't apology.
Speaker 4: So we might say, so we might save something by
Speaker 4: not having to pay as much tax, but we're gonna
Speaker 4: end up paying it somewhere down the line eventually, no
Speaker 4: matter what.
Speaker 2: We'll feel so good because we're paying the man less.
Speaker 2: But then we're like, oh crap, this twenty five dollars
Speaker 2: can of cours?
Speaker 3: How much get a can of cors possibly costs? Matthew,
Speaker 3: I say that we proposed a new currency system. You
Speaker 3: can have regular dollars or you can have premium dollars.
Speaker 3: Because we use the word premium earlier. So why don't
Speaker 3: we go America plus? Yeah, you know what I mean.
Speaker 3: Now you've got now, you've got your dollar plus, you
Speaker 3: got your five dollar plus.
Speaker 2: And whatever Saudi Arabia is trading oil in now, Hey.
Speaker 3: It's double plus. I'm good. Oh we missed our strange news.
Speaker 3: We had such good conversations about it. Oh, we could
Speaker 3: never go to Saudi Arabia again. So first, as we
Speaker 3: mentioned earlier, twenty twenty five, Project twenty twenty five calls
Speaker 3: for fiery thousands of unelected civil servants hashtag nerds or
Speaker 3: as you said, in some cases, it's true people just
Speaker 3: running the clock down for their pension. Project twenty twenty
Speaker 3: five also does hate the idea of pensions. The idea
Speaker 3: of firing these people or the logic is that they.
Speaker 2: Are somehow.
Speaker 3: Allied with a deep state. And the problem is, and
Speaker 3: Project twenty twenty five recognizes this. The problem is that
Speaker 3: those positions, those civil servant positions which are unelected are
Speaker 3: mission critical to the function of the United States in
Speaker 3: terms of both statehood and in terms of business domestic
Speaker 3: and abroad. So they have to replace them with someone
Speaker 3: They're going to replace them with people whose qualifications are
Speaker 3: entirely ideological. That just seems real sketch to me.
Speaker 4: It's like when Elon does in and took over Twitter
Speaker 4: and fired all those like crucial key workers, and then
Speaker 4: all of a sudden, the systems broke because he just
Speaker 4: left these whole departments that were, you know, mitigating some
Speaker 4: of the horrible content that was on there and like
Speaker 4: you know, being gay keepers for the kind of stuff
Speaker 4: that was allowed to flow through all of a sudden
Speaker 4: that just wasn't happening, and then they were surprised to
Speaker 4: find that the system broke down.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry.
Speaker 4: I was using business as a microcosm of like what
Speaker 4: we're talking about here.
Speaker 2: I want to add something that Mike Wendling wrote pretty
Speaker 2: recently in the BBC about this and its notes on
Speaker 2: his notes on Project twenty twenty five's adjustments to climate,
Speaker 2: the way the government handles climate issues as well as
Speaker 2: economic issues that we're talking about here in those government jobs,
Speaker 2: and how that's all interconnected and what Trump recently said. Okay,
Speaker 2: just really quickly, Yeah, he says. The paper sets out
Speaker 2: two competing visions on tariffs and is divided on whether
Speaker 2: the next president should try to boost free trade or
Speaker 2: to raise barriers to exports, but the economic advisors, writing
Speaker 2: within Project twenty twenty five suggests that a second Trump
Speaker 2: administration should slash corporate and income taxes, abolish the federal Reserve,
Speaker 2: and even consider a return to goldbacked currency. So it
Speaker 2: really is exactly what we're talking about here. It is divided.
Speaker 2: But to hear a presidential candidate who is currently campaigning
Speaker 2: for that position again basically put forth and say, hey,
Speaker 2: this is what I want to do, and it's the
Speaker 2: exact thing that's written and described here by the BBC,
Speaker 2: that's written in Project twenty twenty five, it is pretty striking.
Speaker 3: I would say, one hundred percent. You know, like any Bible,
Speaker 3: it doesn't necessarily agree with itself. Here is also the
Speaker 3: golden goose of the thing. Right, The main reason or
Speaker 3: the main reason in the United States that powerful people
Speaker 3: will fund a given candidate is because ultimately they want
Speaker 3: control of the court. You know. At the very top
Speaker 3: they're supreme. Yeah. Yeah, at the very top there are
Speaker 3: nine kind of ring wraiths who never have to leave
Speaker 3: until they die and what they say goes, and they
Speaker 3: are in charge of their own oversight, which is gross
Speaker 3: and weird and stupid.
Speaker 4: They've already been stacked in a particular direction that's going
Speaker 4: to have implications for you know, many many years to come.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: They're also in charge of keeping those private plane trips quiet.
Speaker 3: Hey you said you wouldn't talk about it. So here's
Speaker 3: the golden goose of Project twenty twenty five. Just the
Speaker 3: same way that the ultimate goal of any political party
Speaker 3: in the US is to control Scotus, the ultimate goal
Speaker 3: of Project twenty twenty five is to execute something we
Speaker 3: will call u unitary executive theory in a hyper hyper
Speaker 3: idealized way. The concept is that if you are president,
Speaker 3: you control everything under the executive branch. There are three
Speaker 3: branches in American government. The executive branch is low key
Speaker 3: a big deal. So this means that if you're president,
Speaker 3: you automatically control the Department of Justice, hire and fire
Speaker 3: at will right a point, or de appoint. You could
Speaker 3: scuttle investigations. You can see how this would be convenient
Speaker 3: if you were, just, for a hypothetical example, a president
Speaker 3: of the United States with some heavy federal charges dogging you.
Speaker 4: What about the thing that I always remember from early
Speaker 4: Civics class, the idea of checks and balances?
Speaker 3: Does that always go out the window?
Speaker 4: Is this like the goal here is to like kind
Speaker 4: of remove those checks and balance says and have the
Speaker 4: president be acting completely autonomously and just you know, single
Speaker 4: that unilateral right?
Speaker 3: Is that right? With the assumption that the war branch
Speaker 3: is on three fronts. So if you control the judiciary, right,
Speaker 3: the judicial branch, and you are the god of the
Speaker 3: executive branch, then all you need to do is get
Speaker 3: the legislative branch to play ball.
Speaker 4: And if they're all in your corner politically speaking, and
Speaker 4: they couch out to everything you say, and then you've
Speaker 4: got that locked.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, and everybody's got a Bible that you can reference.
Speaker 2: Just go to page twelve.
Speaker 3: Oh, that's a good one. That's a good pitch. Check
Speaker 3: out the footnotes. The fire footnotes are amazing. One of
Speaker 3: the key things here that a lot of people miss
Speaker 3: again is the removal of certain government institutions. I get it.
Speaker 3: Paying taxes sucks. Okay, it's not. The wealthy people don't
Speaker 3: really pay taxes. Is just for we the poor, the
Speaker 3: vast majority of the United States and this crazy experiment.
Speaker 3: But the reason we have to play this game is
Speaker 3: because it's like being in a country club. Right. The
Speaker 3: idea is that you pay some dues and you receive
Speaker 3: certain things. So the idea of cutting things like the
Speaker 3: Department of Education, it's machavelian to the level of taking
Speaker 3: the courts right, Like if you remove and I'm getting
Speaker 3: Overwellian here. If you remove the ability to articulate and
Speaker 3: understand a concept, then you have disabled people. They will
Speaker 3: not be able to synthesize information. It's evil, it's brilliant.
Speaker 3: It's some real snake in the garden stuff.
Speaker 2: Comply, comply, they sure will comply for you.
Speaker 3: Obey, consume right, they live.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they'll. I'll enjoy that big Mac in that cores well.
Speaker 4: But big Macs are three x the cost they used
Speaker 4: to be though, Like, I mean, seriously, I saw a
Speaker 4: table of like fast food prices, which I think is
Speaker 4: a good metric of inflation because they used to be
Speaker 4: like the value menu and things were ninety nine cents.
Speaker 3: That isn't even a thing anymore.
Speaker 4: Now they call it the like there's another name for
Speaker 4: it that it's no longer like the ninety nine cent
Speaker 4: value menu or whatever. But I mean literally, the cost
Speaker 4: of a big Mac is like practically five or six dollars,
Speaker 4: and it used to be just like, you know, three Maybe.
Speaker 3: The dollar store is selling things that are over a dollar.
Speaker 4: So what do we visible store? I guess my questions.
Speaker 4: We're still paying taxes out the wazoo, and there's prices
Speaker 4: are going up and a lot of jobs. You know,
Speaker 4: people are fighting for unionizing so that they can ensure
Speaker 4: that they get these cost of living increases, because that's
Speaker 4: not guaranteed either.
Speaker 3: What are we getting, Like, I.
Speaker 4: Don't really understand where the trade off is even happening.
Speaker 3: Well, there is a there is under this proposal a
Speaker 3: deputized national guard that can invade non compliance states like
Speaker 3: within what Yeah, that's like Civil Wars.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's this movie that came out called Civil War. Yeah,
Speaker 2: watch it.
Speaker 3: There's an excellent novel by our pal Robert Evans, good
Speaker 3: friend of the show, called It Could Happen Here, and
Speaker 3: it is a continuing podcast as well. Please do check
Speaker 3: it out.
Speaker 2: Oh man, I could wasn't it? Wasn't that a Sinclear
Speaker 2: Lewis book two way back in the day. I think
Speaker 2: I have that one. It Can Happen Here, and it's
Speaker 2: all about this exact kind of thing. But I'm okay,
Speaker 2: I want to read just so you really get this.
Speaker 2: Go right now, if you've got your phone, if you've
Speaker 2: got a computer near you, go to Project two zero
Speaker 2: two five dot org slash policy. Just go there, okay,
Speaker 2: and you will see You'll see Policy Policy Agenda. And
Speaker 2: this is the short paragraph we're you're just going to
Speaker 2: read it verbatim. This is about that book that been
Speaker 2: described Mandate for Leadership, the Conservative Promise. Quote. This book
Speaker 2: is an invitation for you, the reader, mister Smith, missus Smith,
Speaker 2: and miss Smith to come to Washington or support those
Speaker 2: who can. Our goal is to assemble an army of aligned, vetted,
Speaker 2: trained and prepared conservatives to go to work on day
Speaker 2: one here. It is to deconststruct the administrative state.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Also go to Project while you're there, go to
Speaker 3: Project two zero two five dot org Forward Slash Playbook. Oh,
Speaker 3: and that'll give you a direct link to Mandate for Leadership,
Speaker 3: the Conservative Promise. It's all about the one hundred and
Speaker 3: eighty day period after an election, which is very big
Speaker 3: here in the United States. Look, we know it's weird,
Speaker 3: fellow conspiracy realist, we get that it's stupid. Uh, these
Speaker 3: are strange rules, but they are being weaponized. I would
Speaker 3: say the most dangerous thing, and even you know, the
Speaker 3: the why did you do this thing is the concept
Speaker 3: of the culture war. This document aims to erase language.
Speaker 3: It mandates the idea of removing terms like sexual orientation
Speaker 3: or diversity, or gender equality, or even abortion or reproductive
Speaker 3: rights from all federal laws and regulations. Like Orwell said,
Speaker 3: it is removing ability to think about a thing and
Speaker 3: to articulate that thing.
Speaker 4: It is what does mean for those communities that are
Speaker 4: that those things that are directly represent and that are
Speaker 4: in a fight to attain or continue to have access
Speaker 4: to those things.
Speaker 3: Is just the case idea.
Speaker 4: It's a those communities, you don't exist as far as
Speaker 4: we're concerned. Your struggles do not exist as far as
Speaker 4: we're concerned.
Speaker 3: And here's the con here's the GAF, here's the grift.
Speaker 3: The people proposing that kind of culture worse stuff. For
Speaker 3: the large part, they do not care. The idea is
Speaker 3: that you find someone who is desperate and you hook
Speaker 3: them in with a tribal identification of some sort, and
Speaker 3: then by getting them in the door with that, they
Speaker 3: will follow all your other stuff. So the people who
Speaker 3: are proposing this, and again just a political this is
Speaker 3: a genuine objective point. People who try to take you
Speaker 3: in or shepherd you in with this kind of rhetoric
Speaker 3: window dressing. What they really want to do is to
Speaker 3: have a loyal follower for fiscal policy that one hundred
Speaker 3: percent will not benefit you if you are most American people.
Speaker 3: All right, let me get off the soapbox.
Speaker 4: Here, quick recommendations that it's popping right now. The new
Speaker 4: season of the Boys really starts to get into some
Speaker 4: of these types of political machinations. It's just dropped, like
Speaker 4: first three episodes are out and it's it's dark as
Speaker 4: all get out, and four I think maybe yeah, and
Speaker 4: it's it's very very good and very dystopian and deals
Speaker 4: with a lot of these kind of themes that we're
Speaker 4: talking about here.
Speaker 2: I love that show me too.
Speaker 3: Here's the scary thing. This is where we end. And folks,
Speaker 3: we know that people have political sensitivities. Obviously we're not
Speaker 3: attacking anyone. We're walking through again a wish list of
Speaker 3: stuff that if one hundred percent of it is enacted,
Speaker 3: it is bad for democracy, regardless of who wins the
Speaker 3: next election for president and arguably Congress folks are more
Speaker 3: important than a president any in this model, right with
Speaker 3: unitary ex Yeah, the thing is that no matter what happens,
Speaker 3: any single Project twenty twenty five proposal would immediately be
Speaker 3: challenged in court. The thing is, if you already own
Speaker 3: the courts, who gets to make the call. I mean,
Speaker 3: the reason they be challenged is because they are fundamentally uncoonritutional,
Speaker 3: un American. I would say, they're not part of the vibe,
Speaker 3: and we have to face it as a Western civilization.
Speaker 3: There's a very young experiment. It's very hold my beer.
Speaker 3: America is crazy and scary. It always has been. You know,
Speaker 3: it's always Halloween in America. There's a reason that this
Speaker 3: country is the world's leading exporter of horror films. It's
Speaker 3: because people are, you know, freaked out right. So the
Speaker 3: idea is that if any anybody takes up a couple
Speaker 3: of these policies, they will trigger a snowball effect, right,
Speaker 3: a domino reaction. And again, like our earlier examples with
Speaker 3: the Clinton administration, the Obama administration, the Biden administration, the
Speaker 3: thing is, it is a very very good offer. If
Speaker 3: you were president, the idea of unending executive power. You know,
Speaker 3: you are beyond impeachment, you are beyond you are literally
Speaker 3: beyond justice. Don't be fooled. Don't think it's just Republicans
Speaker 3: that would do that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it only has to happen one time, right, and
Speaker 2: then you don't have elections anymore, or there's a potential
Speaker 2: to lose the ability to elect you know, your team
Speaker 2: or the other team, because you only need two teams,
Speaker 2: right anybody.
Speaker 3: Russia has elections every couple of years. The numbers are wild.
Speaker 2: Oh hey, did you know if North Korea or Russia
Speaker 2: goes to war, now the other one is obligated to
Speaker 2: go to war as well. Isn't that interesting?
Speaker 3: Yeah? Yeah, yeah yeah. And also, a president unimpeachable is
Speaker 3: no longer a president by definition. Instead, it becomes a
Speaker 3: fascist at template, Messiah, a monarch. Dare I say, how
Speaker 3: an American a king at least authoritarian, right at the
Speaker 3: very least.
Speaker 4: Well, do you think, though, they would keep a semblance
Speaker 4: of some kind of light democracy in place to appease
Speaker 4: some folks?
Speaker 3: You know, again, Russia has some bangor elections.
Speaker 4: That's what I'm saying. You know, I just don't think
Speaker 4: they would. I think it would be too much of
Speaker 4: a of a jarring change. Dare we say transition lol,
Speaker 4: to like just completely eradicate the elections as we know it,
Speaker 4: So it would be a slow burn kind of I
Speaker 4: think the way it would ultimately take place, it would
Speaker 4: be kind of teered and you know, Oh no, no,
Speaker 4: we'll still have these elections.
Speaker 3: You can still vote for your local officials.
Speaker 4: You know, to give the semblance of that umami of
Speaker 4: democracy while functionally obliterating it for all intents and purposes
Speaker 4: on a larger federal scale.
Speaker 3: Check out our upcoming episodes on election monitoring. If you
Speaker 3: enjoyed this one, check out also our episode on the
Speaker 3: history of artificial flavors upcoming on Ridiculous History. Have we
Speaker 3: mentioned fun at parties? I think it must be said.
Speaker 3: Here's the question, though, really, just objectively, what president Democrat
Speaker 3: Republican at all would have the integrity to pass over
Speaker 3: the chance at such enormous power. This is the ring
Speaker 3: of souron kind of situation, and that remains the danger
Speaker 3: since seventeen seventy six to twenty twenty four. This is
Speaker 3: the stuff they don't want you to know. We look
Speaker 3: forward to your thoughts. We try to be easy to
Speaker 3: find online. That's right.
Speaker 4: You can find us at the handle Conspiracy Stuff, where
Speaker 4: we exist, on Facebook, where you can join our Facebook
Speaker 4: group Beers where it gets crazy, Also on XFKA, Twitter,
Speaker 4: and on YouTube where we have video content rolling out
Speaker 4: every single week. I'm quite delighted by a current video
Speaker 4: float around out there of bloopers of some of our shoots.
Speaker 4: See a peak behind the curtain. Now the sausage is made,
Speaker 4: the conspiracy video sausage that is. You can also find
Speaker 4: it's a conspiracy stuff show on Instagram and TikTok.
Speaker 2: I really love that video, by the way, it makes
Speaker 2: me very happy, me too. If you want to call us,
Speaker 2: keep in mind that before you do, we are attempting
Speaker 2: to see the big picture here and analyze it with you.
Speaker 2: So if you've got just some perspective that we either
Speaker 2: missed or we need to think about, let us know.
Speaker 2: Just be constructive when you call in. We're a team, everybody.
Speaker 2: We're all part of the same team trying to deconstruct
Speaker 2: this the strain of state.
Speaker 4: We're all hands in the same sock puppets, you know, whatever,
Speaker 4: sock puppets on the same hand.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I'm just saying, let's keep it, let's keep it nice, everybody,
Speaker 2: cordru call one eight three three std WYTK give yourself
Speaker 2: a cool nickname. You've got three minutes. Do say whatever
Speaker 2: you'd like. We're not putting rules on it. We're just
Speaker 2: giving a suggestion. If you've got more to say than
Speaker 2: can fit in that three minutes, why not instead send
Speaker 2: us a good old fashioned email.
Speaker 3: We are the entities that read every email we receive.
Speaker 3: Be well aware the void writes back. We will also
Speaker 3: say to the excellent point that Matt made just a
Speaker 3: moment ago, this is a all edit together thin. No
Speaker 3: human civilization resides anywhere other than Earth for now, so
Speaker 3: we have to figure it out. Life is one long,
Speaker 3: non consensual improv game. This is the escape room conspiracy
Speaker 3: at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 2: Stuff they Don't want you to know is a production
Speaker 2: of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 2: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.