Hello, and welcome to another episode of The Mark Moss Show, where we're always talking about the decentralized revolution. I'm breaking down the way the world is changing so you can understand what's going on, where we're going and what you should be doing about it. And I like to bring you some education to kind of help you understand things differently, and some late breaking news so you can see the play by play of how these changes are taking place.
And that's what we got coming up today. I got a lot of news stories that happened this week. I want to cover something really, really really big happened in the financial space with the SEC Security Exchange Commission and cryptocurrency big deal. I want to talk about the problems the United States is having when it really comes down to dealing with this global decentralization that's happening, specifically in regards to ramping itself up against China and so forth.
I want to talk about what is going on in the US real estate market with some new entrants into the space, as well as presidential candidates wane in against that and who you won't believe what this teacher just said to the student. It goes, it builds on exactly what I talked about last week on the show. We're going to cover all that and more, a whole lot more. So don't tune out. I got to cover all this. If you do have to tune out, don't worry. You
can catch up on the podcast. Just search the Mark More Show on your favorite podcast player. Now, like I said, big news in the financial space overall, this is really about bitcoin and cryptocurrency. However, it's really about the financial system overall. What am I talking about. I'm talking about the SEC Security Exchange Mission getting whacked again, getting slapped again, let's say, getting their butt kicked again. If I should say, so, what am I talking about? Well, the SEC is meant
to protect consumers. Of course, they don't do that. All they do is put consumers into more harm. That's what they do. In my opinion, as I've said many many times, I think they should just shut down in disgrace. They didn't stop any of the problems that happened in cryptocurrency over the last five six, seven years. They didn't prevent anything from going on. With the terror Luna collapse, that didn't help anybody. With the Celsius collapse, which is a
US based regulated company. They didn't help anybody. They didn't help anybody prevent loss with the block file, which is again a US based company. They didn't help anybody with the FTX, even though Gary Ginslow, the head of the SEC is buddy Buddy and with with the FTX crew Sam Binkman Fried, they didn't help anybody with any of that. As a matter of fact, in my opinion, they only helped it get worse and harm more people. So I
think they should shut down his grace. However, I think as I as I warned back I think November of last year, that Gary Ginzer was gonna come out swinging. He has egg on his face, he looks horrible, and he can't go out like that. So he's got to come extra heavy handed to really prove his proof, prove that he could get things under control, right, that he's a man of action or something like that. And so I warned that was gonna be the case, and that's
certainly has been the case. They have started to slap judgments, or not judgments, but a regulatory action against all types of crypto projects as well as most of the crypto exchanges, which is what I had had predicted would be the main choke point. It's way usual to go after five or six exchanges, that is, you know, twenty five thirty thousand tokens. He's done some of both. But what's interesting is that they're getting the SEC themselves and Gary Ginsler
is the one getting the SmackDown. So we've seen several high ranking law members basically calling for Gary Ginsler's resignation. We see, you know, people calling for him to step down, people for him to quit all of that. And at the same time, a lot of these enforcement actions that
has been filing have also been getting slapped down. We saw I think I covered a few weeks ago, how the long standing case that everybody's been watching is the SEC versus Ripple and XRP and they sort of lost on some sort of made up on the other and I want to go back into that. But now another one which the SEC has been basically denying every single bitcoin ETF that's come across its desk, which doesn't make
a lot of sense to me. They say that the reason why that they want they don't want to allow a spot bitcoin ETF is because they're not sure how much manipulation is out there in the market, but I don't. I've never really understood that. And the reason why is you have two types of ETFs. ETF one is where you don't really buy the underlying products. So what does
that mean. That means if I were to buy a bitcoin ETF, a spot ETF, and I gave them a thousand dollars, they would have to go buy one thousand dollars with a bitcoin to back my thousand dollars in there. That's a spot ETF. But the other way is on the futures, where basically I'm just betting on the price direction of the underlying asset. And that's how most gold ETFs are. There's rumored, don't even know, it's rumored to have about five hundred fake paper ounces for every one
real physical ounce. And so they're doing bitcoin the same way. So they've allowed those types of bitcoin ETFs to happen. But we don't have a spot a physical bitcoin ETF. And they say, because we don't know how much manipulation's out there, Well, if you manipulate the price, you manipulate the price, what difference does it make if I own the asset or not. We're still betting on the price of the asset either way, right, So that never made
sense to me. But that's what they've been hanging on. Well, there's Grayscale Bitcoin Trust I've talked about for a long time, which is sort of like an ETF, but because ETFs aren't allowed, it's under a different sort of entity called a trust. But they Gray Scale wants to convert from this trust into an ETF. They already hold the bitcoin and so they've been trying to get that converted, and the SEC has continued to deny their application to convert from the trust into the ETF. So Gray Scale sued
and Gray Scale one. The Gray Scale won the lawsuit. As a matter of fact, the judges unanimously repudiated the SEC's arguments and the agency of what the agency said. The appeals court found that the SEC to be arbitrary and capricious in its denial order of gbtc's conversion into
an ETF, and it vacated the decision. They repudiated virtually every argument made by the SEC when comparing the bitcoin spot and the futures markets, saying the agency failed to adequately explain why it approved ETFs tracking one and not the other. That's exactly what I've been saying this whole time. They reputed virtually every argument made by the SEC. So the SEC is trying to say, no, no, no, these are different. You know, the spot and the futures are different. Well,
the judge said, no, they're not. And so this is a big deal, and it continues to discredit, It continues to take away the credibility of the SEC and what Gary Ginsler is doing. And apparently, according to Bloomberg Intelligence, they're saying that now because this has happened, the chances of the SEC approving a spot bitcoin ETF this year have risen to seventy five percent from just sixty five
percent or before the win. Now, Bloomberg Intelligence says that they believe that the odds are ninety five percent before the end of twenty twenty four. Now that's a big deal for a bunch of reasons. Like I said, it's a big deal if you're a GBTC holder, a Grayscale Bitcoin Trust holder. It's a big deal because it can unlock those tokens for you. It's also a big deal because it's showing a string of events where the SEC
is continually getting smacked down. And so we're starting to see that this over you know, overburdensome, heavy handed approach by the SEC is getting peeled back. And I think that's a good thing. Like I said from the beginning, I think they should just shut down. And so they're not going to do that, but maybe it'll start to slow them down a little bit, take away some of them, like I said, some of their heavy handed actions. Now,
the big ETF that everybody's waiting for is this Blackrock ETF. Now, Blackrock is the largest asset manager in the world. They're essentially an extension of the government, if you will. They do a lot of purchases for the FED, et cetera. And they have an ATF that's on the docket, a physical ETF, and they could be the first one in. Now is Blackrock good or bad for the future of bitcoin and crypto? Well, I'm no fan of Blackrock. That is not a mystery. I talk bad about them all
the time. They've taken all your money and they use it against your best interest. So I would say that they're probably good and bad. I'm afraid that if they do like what they always do, which is take over majority interest in all these companies, they could use that for bad, like they do all the time. I could also argue that it could be good because it could bring a massive amount of people into the bitcoin in the cryptocurrency space, which could push the asset prices up
sky high to the moon. So I guess it depends on it's good if you own crypto and bitcoin and you'd like to see it go higher. It could be bad because they could potentially try to centralize and manipulate it like they don't normally do. Now, if you're just tune in, you're listening to the markmas Show, we're talking about the decentralized Revolution. We've been talking about some of the latest breaking news headlines of the week. I got a lot more to cover when I come back, So
don't go away. I'll bear back, all right, Welcome back. If you're tune in, you're listening to the Mark mass Show. We're talking about some of the latest breaking news headlines that happened this week that continue to build on our
narrative of this decentralized revolution. Now, looking at the economy, I always like to look at through the lens of politics, finance, and technology, because it's really when you look at the convergence of those three things that you really start to build out a better picture of what the heck is
going on. But in regards to the economy, which is driven by both politics and finance, if you want to know what's going on there, you kind of have to look at Jerome Powell, the head of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve sets the monetary policy, uh, not just for the United States, but really for the whole world by setting the price of money. Right, so when they increase interest rates, like they've done the fastest rate in history,
then we they're changing the price of money. They're making money more expensive. When money's more expensive, less people buy it. You buy money by paying the interest rate. Now, the FED just had their annual meeting in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, where it wasn't just the US and the FED, it was the international bankers as well. Christine Leguard from the ECB European Central Bank was over there as lots of
other bankers were as well. Now, of course, since it's in the US and it's the Jerome Powell and the Fed's meeting, of course, mister Powell gave his keynote address. Now, a couple of things of interest in there was that he said that the fight against inflation wasn't finished and that there was still a long way to go to get the job done, which seems kind of hawkish. He said that the lower monthly readings for core inflation in
June and July, we're welcome, So he liked it. But he said two months of good data are only the beginning. Twelve month core inflation data is still elevated. So he's kind of saying, look, we're committed to bring it down inflation. He said this many times. He said there's going to be pain. He said, we have to get back to two percent. He said, sure, we've seen some trends going down,
but we're not content with that yet. So he said that quote, we see the current stance of our policy as restrictive, putting downward pressure on economic activity, hiring, and inflation. But we can't identify with certainty the neutral rate of interest, and thus there is always uncertainty about the precise level of monetary policy restraint end quote. Hmmm, kind of cryptic.
Let me break that quote down for you a little bit. So, first of all, he said that we see that the current stance of policy as restrictive so that's his policy. So the policy he's enacting is restrictive. He says, quote we see as restrictive putting downward pressure on economic activity, hiring, and inflation. So we see current stands of policy, his policy that he's enacted being restrictive and putting press down pressure on the economy, hiring and inflation. So downward pressure
on economic activity. Do you own a business, well, he is purposely trying to make it hard for your business. He's trying to push down economic activity. He doesn't want your business to have as many consumers or customers. That's his goal. He says that it has downward pressure on hiring, so unemployment. They want unemployment to go up, They want
less people working. Think about that. What he's saying. Our current stance of policy, the policy that I, as the FED chair, have put in place, is trying to slow economic activity and hiring down. We don't want you to have a job your job making more money is a problem for us. It goes against what I'm trying to do because I'm trying to bring inflation down to two percent, and in order to do that, I need less people working, and I need less people making. I need more people
making less money. How's that? Well, a good thing for jern Powace. He doesn't get voted in. We don't vote for him. Imagine people voting for someone who's literally trying to destroy their businesses and their livelihood. Pretty interesting. And then he goes on to say, we can't identify with certainty the neutral rate of interest, and thus there's always uncertainty about the precise level of monetary policy restraint. We can't identify the certainty. Well, there is no such thing
a certain certainly. You can't control the certainty of the outcome of the financial system. To think that you can just show you that you're an idiot. But what he said is that the the precise level or the neutral rate of interest. So they're changing again the price of money, that's the interest rate, trying to find the neutral rate of interest. What the heck is the neutral rate of interest? Well, they can't define it with any certainty. But what they're
trying to define is the rate. Is it four three percent? The rate at which monetary policy is neither contradictory nor expansionary. So when interest rates get low, the price of money, the rate of interest goes low. Money's cheap, so lots of people borrow it, so it expands. Expansionary is the word you use. But if it's expensive, then less people
use it, and then it's contractory. So if money is expensive, then I don't open up that new office, I don't hire more people, I don't bring on new trucks, I don't service new clients because the money is too expensive for me to do that. So that's that's contracting the economy. But if money's too cheap, then I expand. Now I would argue that the market's always doing both and for them to this point, we cannot identify with certainty the neutral rate of interest. Well, of course you can't because
you don't understand. You don't have enough information. It's not just your own power. Anybody who thought they could do that would be out of their mind. You don't have enough information to manage three hundred and thirty million people in the NY State, eight billion people in the world, and all they're changing once needs and desires. That's why the price of money is not supposed to be set. The price of money is set in the free market. You see.
The way it works is that if I want to open up a new office, and I want to get new trucks so I can service more customers, and I have to go borrow money. I need to know how much that money's going to cost me. If it's too expensive, I don't take it. If it's too cheap, I do right. But the problem is is when that's not found in the free market. So the way it works is that if a lot of people have a lot of savings,
then that money is cheap. We have more people with savings, more people trying to lend me money, so there's less people borrowing, more people trying to lend the price of that money goes down. When that money goes cheap, it tells me a lot about the economy. It tells me that there's customers out there that have money. So I borrow the money at this cheap rate because I know it's cheap and I know the economy is good. Now.
The other the flip side is if there's a lot of people wanting to borrow and not very many savers and lenders, then the price of the money goes very expensive, and that tells me that maybe I shouldn't take on that loan because the economy is probably bad because there's not a lot of extra money in the system, so the price of money is supposed to change, Oh, you mean mark like all other prices, on supplying demand. Yes,
on supplying demand, but somehow magically. Jerome Powell is trying to come up with the rate of interest, the neutral rate of interest, but he can't the personal quotes, so he's prepared. He says, quote, we're prepared to raise rates further if appropriate, and intend to hold policy at a restrictive level until we're confident that inflation is moving sustainably down toward our objective. But even then, he said, we'll proceed carefully with future rate hikes. So basically it's a
bunch of wishy washy back and forth. We're pausitive, we see some good signs, but we're not sure if we're out of the woods yet, so we're gonna kind of wait and see. So, in my opinion, if you want me to interpret this fed speak, that's what we call it FED speak to you, he's playing both sides, leaving his options open. But in my opinion, he's setting the stage for no more hikes and saying that we might only have one or two more and we'll be done.
That's what I'm thinking, That's what I'm getting out of this FED Speak. But what do you think i'd love to hear from you? Hit me up on social media at one Mark Moss and let me know. I'm gonna take a very quick break. If you're just tuning to listen to the Mark Mass Show, I'll be back with more in a minute though, so don't go away. I'll be right back, all right, Welcome back. If you're just
tune in, you're listening to the Mark Mass Show. We're talking about the latest breaking news headlines of the week to show you that our decentralized revolution thesis is in full effect. What's happening, where we're going and what you should be doing about it. Taking you through the play by play so you don't get caught off guard. Now we talked before the break. I was talking about the FED speak and what they're doing to try to control
the market, which is pretty crazy, right. The market is a organic organism that's made up of three hundred and thirty million people that have all different once changing one's needs and desires. Now, what their goal is that that they have a central planner that'd be able to essentially plan everything, But there's the problem that they don't have enough information. Of course, there's the problem the future that
Klaus Schwab paints in his book. He paints his picture of this AI where all of our brains are hooked to this AI cloud, and then it can it can have enough data where it can manage this for us. But the problem I think that never works is that we as humans are irrational, and so while an AI might be able to look at every single decision I've ever made and map out my next most probable decision rationally based off of data, it doesn't take into effect
into account that humans are irrational. So I always want steak every time I go to dinner. I have steak all the time. But for some reason, that chicken looked really good, and I just feel like having chicken right now. I don't know why, just for some reason, I just thought I'd have chicken, and so it can't take it into account. But where they're trying now other ways they're trying to control the economy is through well, as I said before, changing the price of money, but also by
changing incentives. And this is what starts to get interesting. You see, when a government tries to control an economy with or i should say, a complex system with one single lever. It leads to other unintended consequences. So what am I talking about. Well, the FED has tried to slow down inflation by making you broke, and they do that by making the price of money very high. So when the price of money goes very high right now,
buying a home is very difficult. As a matter of fact, buying a price of home depends on where you're at, but it has gone up by thirty forty percent just because of the price of money going up, and so it's harder. It's harder for people to buy homes. And so that is the government policy. They've tried to fix a problem from a different cause, but by changing the price of money. But then unintended consequences is other people
go around that. So for example, we saw this week that that Zillo, you know, the website that tells you how much your home is worth, Zilo home Loans, is now offering a home loan with only a one percent down payment option. You see, So the FED wants to slow home buying down by making the price of money higher, and a company like Zillo just says, well, Okay, well what has changed the program? So we'll still make it attractive, which is why you can't change a complex system with
one single thing. It's like your body. Your body's a complex system. And so I have let's say I have heartburn. So I go to my doctor. Hey, doctor, I have heartburn, and he gives me an ant ad, a prescription and tasset. But then I have all these different side effects. Right, all these medications you see advertised on TV all the time, they have all these different side effects. So all I did was have heartburn. My doctor could have said you should have a more alkaline diet. That would be easy.
But it'saad he puts around on a prescription because he's trying to affect one thing in a complex system. And that's exactly what happened. So Zilla's mortgage arm launched a down payment assistance program where the company will cover two percent of the borrowers down payment at closing, which would allow buyers to pay just one percent up front. Well, when you make money cheap, when you make it easier to buy homes, more people will, that's what they want.
Is just funny because that's not what the government wants. Now, this is as of right now, it's only available for It's only available and eligible for people in Arizona, which I think is pretty interesting. I don't have any I don't have any data to tell me why only Arizona. Part of what I'm thinking is because maybe they think Arizona might be the best real estate market right now.
I do have some investor friends who are buying department buildings in the Greater Phoenix area the suburbs of Phoenix, because they think it's one of the best markets out there. So maybe they're saying, well, we wouldn't want to do it in like Seattle or San Francisco, which are two of the worst real estate markets in the nation, but we feel pretty good about Arizona's will do that. I'm
saying that, I'm guessing at that. I don't have that as fact, but basically, what they want to do is allow you to take this two percent portion of the down payment and pay it and pay it during the closing, not as a payment to the borrower. Right now, it's only eligible for first time borrowers in Arizona, and the option to put a one percent to three percent down payment on a home, and then ZILLA will provide the
rest as a grant. So, for example, let's say that you chose a five percent down payment, then they'd cover two. You'd have to come up with three something like that. A minimum qualifying FICO a credit score of six twenty or better, and you have to have income no more than eighty percent of the area medium income where the property is located. So yeah, there is some qualification that you have to follow, but the credit score is pretty low six twenty and minimum you know, income for the area.
A home buyer looking to purchase a two and seventy five thousand dollar home in Phoenix, Arizona, makes eighty percent of their AMI and saves five percent of their income would need only eleven months to save for the down payment. So if you made eighty percent of the area median income, it should take you and you're only saving five percent of your income, which by the way, should st save way more than that, it would take you eleven months
to save for the down payment. By comparison to the same buyer who needed to save three percent of the purchase price would be required thirty one months. So they take the amount of time you have to say, from thirty one months all the way down to our eleven
months now. Interesting enough. Presidential candidate RFK Junior came out this week and said something very similar, and he proposed that if elected president, he would introduce a three percent mortgage rate for Americans, backed by the government and funded two selling of tax rebonds. Well, interesting enough, RFK, the government already does that. That's sort of the whole point of what Zillo's doing. If you take a three percent
down payment, they'll cover two of it for you. So he wants to introduce a three percent mortgage, but we already have that. And I hate to tell you, RFK Junior, but most of the home loans under that are under jumbo size, are backed by the government already. That's the Fanny, the Freddie, the VA. We already have that. So that's pretty interesting that he said that. I think it's like a last ditch effort to buy votes, and it's pretty sad. I've never voted Democrat in my life, but RFK is
somebody that I could get behind. I think he could beat Biden heads up straight up in any election right now today, But he seems to be kind of falling behind, maybe in a little bit of relevance in the polls. Maybe this is like a hell Mary last its effort for him to buy some votes. I don't really know, but we already got that. Now. Another thing that I saw this week that really caught me off guard was
the new quote quote new affordable housing market. Now, we saw Lenar Holmes, based out of Florida, selling tiny homes in Texas for one hundred and thirty thousand dollars, sparking criticism.
This is the new affordable housing market. So they are literally they built an entire community of tiny homes, tiny homes, three hundred and fifty square foot homes in San Antonio, Texas, three hundred and fifty square feet homes in San Antonio, Texas, an entire neighborhood of them, and there are one hundred and thirty thousand dollars. Critics questions question to whether it's enough. That's enough? I mean, is that price enough? One hundred and thirty thousand for a tiny that should be like
fifty thousand, maybe one hundred and thirty thousand. I mean, wow, So that's an affordable home for you. Now. California has their own way to deal with the affordable housing crisis. As a matter of fact, good old Gavin Newsom, he signed a bill legislation to increase affordable housing supply in California. And you know what their plan was. Their great plan was, why don't you just build a new house on a
second house on your lot. If everyone just were to add a second house onto their existing lot, well that would make it more affordable. And as a matter of fact, let's give out grants. We'll give anyone between twenty five thousand to forty thousand dollars if they'll build one of these houses. So the absurdity of trying to make housing affordable by either making it so tiny you can living it tiny homes in San Antonio three and fifty square feet,
or just build a second house on your lot. None of those addressed the underlying problem, which is why your house is so expensive in the first place. If you're just tuning in, you're listening to the Mark Mass Show talking about the decentralized Revolution. I got a lot more to cover when I come back. You don't want to miss it, so don't go away. I'll be her back,
all right, welcome back. If you're just tune in, you're listening to the Mark Mass Show, We're talking about some of the latest breaking news headlines of this week so you can understand the play by play and what the heck is going on with this decentralized revolution that we have. And I saw these stories that popped up this week
that really just struck me. Maybe a little bit different stories than I typically talk about, but I thought very important and timely to talk about because it really highlights where we're at right now, and it actually dovetails in with a story I talked about last week. So what am I talking about? Well, a video went viral in the last couple of days of a kid in middle school, a twelve year old boy in Colorado Springs basically being chastised by a school administrator because he had a patch
on his backpack. Now this is significant for any number of things. The patch on his backpack was the Gadson flag. Now you might know what I'm talking about because last week I talked about the Gadson flag specifically, I didn't know the story was going to come out. I talked
about how I typically have a mug. I don't have it with me today, but I typically have a mug that has the Gadsen flag on there, and I was also wearing a shirt that had it, and I was explaining why I like that and what it means to me, and I talked about the history of that. So now you are educated more than this school administrator, who obviously has no idea what they're talking about. I mean, how
ignorant are these people running our schools. I mean, if this doesn't highlight it, then I don't know what does. And so basically, the school administrator sitting down this twelve year old kid and his mother and saying that you can't have this backpack, this patch on your backpack because it represents slavery. Slavery and the slave trade is what they said, and that the patch is disruptive to the
classroom environment. Now, if you listen to my show, or if you could just spend a couple seconds on Google, you'd find out the truth that the flags has nothing to do with slavery. As a matter of fact, the gads and flag is the rattlesnake that says, don't tread on me. That's the slogan don't tread on me. And it originated during the American Revolution. It was at a time when America was beating back the British. That's what it was for the Americans, was telling the British, hey,
don't tread on me. Had nothing to do with slavery. Now, the American Revolution is something that I'm very proud of. It's something that I was taught to be proud of. It's something I think we should continue to teach people to be proud of. And apparently this administrator obviously doesn't know anything about it or their life and making it up. Why is that? Well, and this is my opinion, so
let me dive into opinion a little bit here. The opinion is that they don't want you to have anything that would make you bold or rally people to stand up and be an individual. How dare you show something that says, don't tread on me. How dare you encourage other people to stand up for what they believe? How dare you fall in line, be a good student, Listen to what you say, repeat back what I ask you,
and that's it. Don't think on your own, don't ever think you could challenge me, and certainly don't be an example to get other people to stand up. That's what they say. The reason why is because when everybody's been forced to live a lie. As soon as one person can stand up and burst through the crust of that lie, other people are going to want to as well. Look, don't want to be told what to do, and that don't tread on me. As I gave you the reason why I like it so much last week. Is the
thing that it's the message they don't want. And this video that went viral, I think sums it all up. There's an article written that said the jocks are going to save the republic one defiant grin at a time. So if you see this video, you see this little kid, twelve yearl good, with this like smug smile on his face.
And the contrast that you saw between this petty administrator and a middle schooler, it couldn't be more opposite, right, You see this petty administrator with this like face like she just sucked on a limit, and you got this boy who's just kind of got this smile on his face. And one represents a class of power hungry pta hoa president types whose greatest joy in life is just to use any type of power they can get to tell you what to do right, whether in your neighborhood or
your school, whether it's the airline. You know, they used to be customer service on the plane. Now they just want to enforce rules any type of power they can get. They like that that represents one side, right because no one else in their lives are probably going to listen to them. These are the types of people who would track you down in a grocery store, you know, during the pandemic, and tell you need to put on a
face covering. Now. Unfortunately, and not to make this sexist, but women typically are overwhelmingly the numbers that are in jobs like HR, administrative services, education, community service, social work sectors with higher rates of things like that. Stereotypically, males move into stem science technology things like that, women sort of move into those roles now because of that, Now you might have noticed that they have to then enforce
these petty rules. Maybe they want to, maybe they're forced to, but either way, they're enforcing these petty rules. Stand in line, don't ask questions, don't put a flag on your back, even though it doesn't mean what I say it means. Now, we also see statistically that young men have a greater tendency to challenge those rules. We see that what we're seeing through lots of polls is that males are now
starting to lean much more conservative. According to the Federal Monitor the Future Survey of twelfth grade boys are nearly twice as likely to identify as conservatives versus liberal. Among senior girls, the trend was actually the opposite. So why are young boys being turned off by left wing ideology? Could it be that they're sick of being told that their masculinity is oppressive and evil, that women actually run
the world, that the best boys are actually girls. Are they maybe getting sick of having their thoughts and actions dictated by babysitters in middle management. Well, there's a school in Florida was making headlines. They're saying that Ron DeSantis is leading the charge over there, and they had a headline that says gender studies are out and jocks are in.
Male toxic masculinity seems to be coming back. Now there's a TikToker that made a lot of noise ms petch and she bemoaned how as a liberal woman, is it really hard to find a man who's willing to play the more traditional masculine role in the relationship in today's day and age who's not a conservative? So she's asking why is it that I can't find someone to be a traditional masculine role model as a liberal. That's because the answer is because they're not. They're conservative. And I
don't really like these labels. I don't like to use that, but that is the world that we're seeing. And now let me just be clear, we also need very gutsy women too. Now. Shout out to my wife. She is she will go to war on anybody trying to impose on our kids like this. And we need more mothers like this kid's mom as well, who sat there in the room with this teacher and challenged her and said, look, you don't know what you're talking about. You don't even
know what the flag is. The flag is not about slavery. The flag is about the British and the Revolutionary War. We need more mothers like that as well. Now we're starting to see this seep into greater culture. We saw this week that CNN just had their third president hired in just the last eighteen months, and we're starting to see the same thing now. One thing that I think how this dovetails in is that we saw that the CNN president or the head of the new network now
was purchased by David Zaslov. He also owns Discovery, HBO, Warner Brothers. And he said that we face pressure from every direction, structural, political, cultural, and you name it. He said that, he said that their news outlet is approaching peak disruption, and these are why why are they as a company facing structural changes and cultural changes? We know that we talked about the culture right with the difference of the men and the women, the difference of the
administrators versus the real people. But why political? Why political? Well, there's a question that you should be asking ourselves. These are the signs that show where the world is going as we continue to break apart. And you know it's a structural change as well. Like I said that they're approaching peak disruption, it's always technology that changes the world. We no longer need to be on a network that feeds us linear content time after time, and so technology
has changed the world. If you're just tuning in listening to the Mark Maus Show, I've been talking about the decentralized revolution, running you through the latest breaking news headlines of the week, keeping you up the date so you know what's going on and what to do about it. That's what I got, Thanks so much for listening,