Hi, I'm Jesse Hirsch, and welcome to another episode of Metaviews, recorded live in front of an automated audience.

And I'm really looking forward to today's episode on the future of journalism with Jeremiah Patterson, who I'm a new and avid fan of, only because I've had a chance to listen to a number of Jeremiah's episodes, and I've even had the privilege of being a guest on Jeremiah's podcast.

So on some levels, this is kind of a part two, where part one started over on Jeremiah's podcast, Part two is here on Metaviews, and I've actually got a secret agenda for part three.

But look, Jeremiah, I gotta tell you, I deliberately try to throw my guests off by starting every show with two segments which are meant to be icebreakers.

Although in your case, I suspect the news, which is our first segment, will not be difficult for you.

I do this partly because I like to promote Metaview's newsletter, but really my goal here is to throw to the guest and say, what kind of news have you been focused on?

This is the craziest news cycle as far as I've ever been alive.

But, Jeremiah, you are actually the first guest I've had who's not only an active news consumer, you're an active news producer.

So share with our audience.

What are you paying attention to?

What have you got your eyes on in this crazy news environment we find ourselves in?

There is a really weird authoritarian story happening locally right now in North Carolina that I've been following since, like, December.

Basically, you have the Republican in the race who lost the race to a Democrat Supreme Court justice, and he is trying to get 65,000 votes thrown out of the election because he won the election by just a matter.

She won.

The Democrat won the election by just a matter of 714 votes.

So that margin is so tight that he's trying to get 65,000 ballots thrown out so that he can actually take her place on the Supreme Court and not have her be there.

Because so basically, he's doing this whole litigation and everything.

And a court just ruled, a appeals court just wrote essentially, that this is going to have to stay in the state, state courts.

It can't go to the North Carolina Supreme Court, because if it went to the North Carolina Supreme Court, they were saying that they'd be more likely to give him the win.

And so it's just something to watch because it's insane, you know, to lose an election and then to do litigation saying, actually, I didn't lose this election.

It's something that's new in Republican politics.

Well, and it, I think, really foreshadows what we could be seeing on the federal level in terms of some of the constitutional challenges and some of the legal challenges against the Trump regime.

And the question both is a if it gets to the Supreme Court, the US Supreme Court, whether they would be truly independent or just go with their buddy or, you know, or conversely, if, you know, the Republicans can use the courts as part of their own agenda when they, to your point, may not have the votes or may not have the law on their side.

So these are kind of scary times.

But they do lead us to our second segment of every Meta Views, which, appropriately enough, we called WTF or what's the Future?

And obviously a bit of a double entendre there.

But again, we are a future centric podcast, so we love to sort of throw to our guests and say, what do you see on the event horizon?

What have you got your eyes on?

When it comes to what comes next, what should our audience be paying attention to?

I feel like there is a really dangerous takeover right now in the federal government.

I was doing research last night for my show today on what exactly is happening with Doge and Elon Musk, and reading the article from like the Sunday Times, it was like, 19 year olds break into the Treasury Department's federal payment system.

Like this.

This reads like a spy movie.

Like, it's actually, it would be funny in a really good, enthralling, you know, Hollywood depiction if that was, you know, fictional.

But this is actually happening.

No, the fact that 19 year olds and 25 year olds are helping Elon Musk break into like, federal databases and steal information and get access to everyone's Social Security numbers.

And then a federal judge recently stopping it.

But I'm like, this is like calling the cops days after the robbers broke into your house.

Like, I don't understand what we're stopping if it's already been done.

It's, it's just insane.

It's like the, the decapitation of the United States federal government and the hacking of it with the aiding and abetting of the president.

I mean, that would make for an insane Hollywood depiction.

But this is real.

And that's, that's the scary part.

So it's just like watching everything that's happening here with a billionaire oligarchy takeover.

I was talking to my mom today and she was asking me about the podcasting and she was saying, how's it going?

And I said, well, it's cheaper than therapy because to your point, this stuff drives me insane.

Yeah.

I could never have imagined this.

Right.

And to your point about being a spy thriller, I.

I would never have written a spike thriller this thrilling because no one would believe it.

Exactly.

I'd be like, no, that's not plausible.

No, that would never happen.

Sorry, no editor would approve it.

They would just go, no, that's not plausible.

And this is what I have difficulty with in terms of processing this stuff.

But normally when I do this segment, I just have the guest to the wtf.

But since we're on more of a dialogue level here, I'm gonna do my own WTF today.

Because I was thinking about this earlier and you reminded me of it when you sort of said, it's like calling the cops days after the robberies happened.

It's too late.

Right.

Your stuff has been taken.

You're not getting it back.

To get sober for a moment, but somber for a moment, but still be kind of funny, I think Canada's done.

As a futurist, as someone who tries to see possible futures and see likely futures, I kind of came to the conclusion today that Canada does not have one.

That on the one hand, the Trump regime and the hawks behind it.

And I started unpacking their logic in terms of war with China and climate catastrophe.

Like, they need Canada territorially.

They cannot have Canada operating under a different government, especially if that government at some point becomes hostile, which it would.

The more that they start to push us around and kick us around.

And the Canadian government's just not ready for this.

The Canadian public is just not ready for this.

They're focused on little tariffs, like it might cause their groceries to get more expensive.

They are not anticipating the bully tactics that this guy's gonna use to in some way shape or form take over Canada.

And so, again, this is me doing a wtf, what's the future?

Where?

The best part, Jeremiah, about being a futurist is you get to be wrong, and you get to be wrong a lot.

So I hope I'm wrong, but I'm calling it here.

I don't think Canada has a future, barring a change in direction by Canadian government or Canadian leaders in which they realize the fight that they're facing and what they need to do to actually survive this fight.

I think that they are going to get caught completely unprepared.

And pretty soon, my friend, we're going to be living under the same government, which is why I personally try to have these conversations with as many Americans as I can, because we need this Kind of cross cultural dialogue.

I digress.

But I'll give you a moment to respond before I go to our next segment.

That is absolutely horrifying because I saw this, this TikTok video yesterday and then I was able to corroborate it with some reporting on the fact that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was like caught on a hot mic moment.

And the possibility of Canada contemplating the threat of the United States trying to physically, you know, invade it is something that's horrific looking at it as an American, because this is not something we've seen in terms of imperialism since like the, the 30s when Hitler tried to do the same thing, taking countries all across the world.

And Trump about to do the same thing.

Because on the one hand it's not just Canada he'd be going after, he wants to go after Greenland, which Denmark is already saying no.

So it's like this is a full.

You talk about the United States sort of reducing back to this point of isolationism, but at the same time we're reaching out and seeing, snatching other countries.

That's insane.

I mean you have to laugh to get through it, but it's really horrifying.

And that's how you know they're liars.

Right?

They say one thing and do another.

Exactly.

And to your point about Greenland, the stink around taking over Canada will be so large that no one will notice that they take Greenland.

Right.

That'll just be another island in the Arctic after they take all the Canadian ones.

And I'm laughing to your point, cuz that's how you have to relieve the tension.

That's how you have to kind of process this stuff.

But again, I wouldn't be surprised if the Canadian government recognizes this threat.

If they're not having at their equivalent of the National Security Council their oh my God, what we do.

But the rest of Canada is not at all prepared and they won't be because I keep hearing this amongst people and again, I wanna move on, but I will give you another chance to respond.

Cause I'm curious what you think of this.

The one thing I keep hearing from business people and conservatives and like what I would consider to be smart and not fanatic conservatives, like people on the right who are educated and who understand history, they all think that Trump is joking.

Like they all think that he's just saying this to negotiate and instead he's not going to follow through on all this.

As a journalist, Jeremiah Patterson, I'm curious what you think.

One thing that I have come to factor in when it comes to Trump and his antics and the administration from watching it the first time to noun is it's important to watch what the administration is doing rather than what they're saying, because Trump will say something on the campaign trail and then do something completely different.

Or he'll say something in a speech to his followers like, I'm going to bring down grocery prices and then has no concept for actually how to bring down grocery prices.

So I think it's so important to like watch what they're actually doing behind the scenes.

And that tells you a lot because it's the fact I keep telling people not to underestimate the leader in terms of what Donald Trump says or what he's preparing to do, because what we could be thinking is construed as a joke to him is actually serious.

Like, Donald Trump is not a guy that jokes or even routinely smiles.

So that's just the concern here, underestimating him and then finding out that he was actually serious, but it's already too late because he's on the doorstep.

And that's the terrifying part.

Yeah, well said.

All right, let's roll into our feature conversation, which as I mentioned, is where we sort of take three pillars and use those pillars as a way to have a spontaneous, free flowing chat.

And I think history is a good place to start because, you know, as I think both of us were kind of alluding, it's hard to take this guy as if he's just bullshitting, as if he's just saying stuff when you understand history and you can connect the dots between the actual policies that they are implementing, the rhetoric that they're using, whether the dog whistle stuff or the bear honest stuff.

Like being dictator from day one.

Exactly.

Before we get into the history, let me ask you a personal question.

How did you get into history?

What was the appeal for you in terms of deciding, hey, this stuff's fascinating where many other people just find it boring.

I remember my cousin, she had gave me a, a presidential history book as she was cleaning out her room one day.

And it was from her fifth grade teacher.

And I was in second grade at the time.

And I was like, okay, I'll just go home and check this out.

And I remember, you know, going through a couple of pages and checking out the book.

And one of the presidents that sort of captured my attention was jfk.

So I was able to do lots of research on him.

I would go into like the library and get lots of books on JFK and stuff, and a bunch of the other presidents, like they eventually knew that every time I was walking into the library is to get a book.

And then I remember, you know, getting home sometimes on Friday afternoons after school, and my grandpa would be like, hey, there's this historical documentary I would like to watch with you.

Or like, something on World War II or Martin Luther King.

And so I would watch a bunch of those.

And that's sort of where, like, my affinity for history really started.

Right on.

And so within the context of specialization, is there because, like, history is such a broad, sweeping concept.

Other than American history, which you are clearly quite familiar with, are there other areas of history that attracted you or sort of drew your curiosity?

I would say the rise of authoritarianism, that type of history to me was always starking because it's like, how can you convince an entire population to be on board with the Holocaust?

How can you convince an entire population in the south, in the Southern United States, to go to war because they can't own human beings?

That part is always so interesting.

It's just like the rise of authoritarian leadership and how that happened, studying it and the history of corruption worldwide and how exactly we can end right back up here if we don't know that history.

Well, okay, then let me ask you that.

As a practicing historian, at what point did you see the current patterns or the history repeating or rhyming in terms of where it's currently headed?

Let's see.

It was.

And to give you context, but also time to think.

I've been hearing a lot of revisionist history about Trump's first term, and it's fair to compare them, because this regime, this administration, is different than the first administration.

They've certainly learned a lot and they're moving a lot faster.

But I don't think he was entirely authoritarian the first go round, although the signs were there.

So this is again, at what point did the little spidey sense in the back of your head go, fuck, this ain't looking good?

There were definitely major constraints the first time under Trump 1.0, which is why lots of us could sort of collectively breathe, because we knew that adults were still in the room going to bed.

But what sort of struck me was on the campaign trail this time around, where Trump's in the way that he was speaking, he spoke this time more like a demagogue.

This was someone that was more seasoned, more sort of.

It's like something was different about him this time around.

He had time to prepare and time to mature as a politician and as someone who was authoritarian.

And it was sort of echoing the authoritarian Rise of the past, where you had your Hitlers, you had your Mussolinis.

Talk about imprisoning political dissidents, capturing the judicial system, getting rid of Congress, like just little tiny things like that this time around, that I was like, okay, if he were to win re election, this is not going to be anything like it was the first time.

It's going to be absolute hell.

And that's the point of comparing that history to.

To back then and how even so, it's the citizens that can aid and abet that by voting that person in.

And that's exactly what happened in terms of back then.

It wasn't always a violent takeover, it was a nonviolent takeover.

And a lot of that starts with the citizens voting the leader in, not believing what they're saying is actually going to happen.

Or conversely, and I think this is where the Republican Party, for lack of a better phrase, outperformed the Democrats because they understood the rejection of the status quo.

Right.

Because even though fundamentally the Republican Party is the establishment, they've gotten elected as the anti establishment.

Right.

Which is the sort of paradox.

And it kind of.

There were a few things I wanted to respond to there, but I want to sort of stick to the history thing for a moment because what I really like about your podcast, what I really like about sort of the way you approach these things, is you use history in a kind of traditional, educational way, but you do it in a gentle kind of bottom up rather than hitting people over the head with it.

Right.

The way academics often do.

Like, I know history and that makes me better than you.

Right?

You have much the opposite, much more of a nurturing, like, guys, fuck, you should know about this history, you know?

So I'm curious, both how did that.

Was it just natural because you're into history?

And what role do you think history plays in this moment of conflict, in this moment of crisis, so that we help understand, including Trump voters.

Right.

The perilous moment we're in.

Because I feel especially we're recording this on Super Bowl Sunday, a lot of people are like, yeah, there's nothing wrong.

There's nothing bad going on.

Like, why are you guys so alarmed?

Right?

Versus if you know history, you're like, holy fucking shit, the roof's on fire.

I was inspired by Rachel Maddow, a journalist on msnbc, and the way that she sort of analogized the past to the present.

And I sort of started doing the same thing, but in my own way, and also realizing that there are lots of little tiny moments in history that maybe People didn't, you know, get in history class or that people didn't study or that's rarely ever talked about.

And just understanding the context of the past when you look at the present is horrifying because sometimes the parallels are like a huge red line just like jumping out at you.

And that's exactly what's happened here.

I mean, and to your point there, about people thinking that this is like a normal Sunday and it's a Super Bowl Sunday, as maybe there's a fraction of us freaking out is, is the horrifying part because oftentimes again in history, people woke up when it was too late.

I mean, people woke up when the, the, the Rush tag fire happened and, you know, political dissidents were being shot and arrested and the, the Nazi camps were starting.

Like, I just, I feel like I've been screaming for four, six years now that the alarms are here.

And if Donald Trump were to get reelected, we may be in an untenable, irrevocable situation.

And it's like, it's so enraging now that we're, we're back here again because it's like, I feel like people believing that the systems and the institutions will defend you and you don't have to do the work.

That is the type of wishful thinking.

Yes, wishful thinking and also naiveness that has caused some of the most horrific atrocities in history before.

And this is where I should point out that the Nazi death camps weren't really discovered until the war ended.

Yeah, like the people who operated them knew that they exist, and there were probably many people of German and French and occupied society that sort of knew about them.

But I worry that our, the prison system will, will devolve in a similar manner, that people won't understand the full horrors of what criminals and immigrants and other people detained by the regime are experiencing.

Because if they really do crack down on journalists, then that's an easy way to prevent kind of, who knows, this stuff.

I did actually make a joke in my substack to be published tomorrow that I was taking bets on when the state would shut me down.

It's kind of like censorship pool.

Again, I'm joking because you have to joke about these things.

But it's important, I think, to your point about history, that we raise these scenarios because it's not entirely clear to me that people share our alarm.

And quite the opposite.

There is in our society an incentive to try to soothe people.

Right.

To try to get them to calm down, to try to get them to not be so loud to try to get them to just go along, to get along.

And that is often the first sign of a fascist society is the extent to which manufacturing consent, it's bottom up, people do it on their own.

And you and I, in part one of this conversation, talked a little bit about how the mainstream media is kind of doing this, how they're sort of preemptively showing loyalty.

I'd love for you to comment on that and at the same time talk about your role as an independent journalist.

Right.

Who provides not only an alternative voice to the mainstream media, but a more honest one.

Right.

A more humble one, if you don't mind me saying.

There definitely is a more.

Just looking at that dichotomy.

There is a huge difference between mainstream media and independent journalism.

And I feel, because looking at it this time around, you would have thought that, you know, mainstream media would have learned the lessons from Trump the first time, but it's like this is the second time.

It's not just that they, they haven't or they, they have learned the lessons, but this is, you know, being full, fully complicit.

And it's like they're fully indulging in everything that's happening here.

It's like, okay, Trump's back in office.

You know, viewership are, is going to go up because lots of people are going to want to tune into the news to see what's happening.

But to me, the striking part is one of the things that Trump wants to do is get rid of journalism and get rid of, you know, journalism the way it is and replace it with stuff, state media.

But lots of the journalism networks are already doing that for him in terms of the capitulation, which is the, you know, the terrifying part.

So it's like he doesn't even need to do certain things because they are already, you know, echoing his viewpoints or echoing essentially the lies or pretending like what he's saying is true.

So it's just that part there, the erosion of, of accurate truth telling journalism and reporting.

And when you do have journalists that do that on mainstream media, they're either silen silenced or they're, they're censored or they're, you know, conveniently let go of.

I mean, it's just, it's happening right now on a massive level and it's, it's something that's alarming and why lots of people aren't tuning into mainstream journalism anymore.

And so what you see with independent journalism is people trusting it as a source of guidance in this time Providing updates on real live news that's happening, stories that mainstream media is not covering, but also balancing it with some good national ones that are happening, that are sort of being overshadowed by the tragedy and dystopian news that's transpiring right now.

Well, and I am unfortunately quite a bit older than you, and where I do consume all of my news via digital sources, most of the people in my peer set and most of the people who are older than me are still kind of locked into the mainstream kind of mentality or mindset, although that's changing.

And part of the reason I'm more actively podcasting is to try to bring some of them with me.

I'm curious, both in terms of your age and your peer set, what's it like interacting with your audience or your community or your network or however you think of it?

Is it more interactive or is it passive, the way that mainstream media tends to be?

Other than.

And we can talk about this a bit more if you want, the approach to journalism itself, what's it like in terms of where I often think of it, having a constituency and serving that constituency as part of what you're doing, being that you're more than just some shill trying to sell aspirin.

You know, there's a large, larger civic purpose to the work that you're doing.

It's definitely more so interactive because I'm actively reaching out to, you know, followers and asking them, is there something that's specifically happening in your community locally or something that you think I should be covering that I may not know about, or I'm not covering, because the way that mainstream media is set up is there.

Everything is direct.

It's to you, they're feeding it to you.

But for independent journalism, you kind of have more of an interactive network because you're able to connect with the followers.

And they say, hey, there's a story that's happening locally that's not getting national attention or not getting attention at all that I feel needs to be covered.

And so it's much more of a personal, sort of intimate relationship with the followers to make sure that you're covering things that are sort of underreported.

And in that sense, it's a higher degree of responsibility because you're actually delivering stories that your followers are definitely inclined in wanting to hear.

So I love using baseball metaphor as an interviewer.

Let me throw you, then, the fastball, the hardball right down the plate, which this is the question I think all journalists have to be ready to swing at and in my view, this is the difference between a strikeout and a home run.

So here's the question, and I want your intuitive answer.

Okay.

What do you think of objectivity?

Objectivity, okay.

Yes, this is a big one.

Objectivity.

I believe that the way we originally view objectivity in terms of our Walter Conkrite system, excuse me, Walter Cronkites and Dan Rathers, is the news was delivered to people in a way that was.

It was direct, it was, you know, coherent.

It was comprehensive.

But my thing is, noun viewing objectivity, in a sense, is sort of complicit, in a sense, in terms of the way that the state of the world is the way our government is right now, because I genuinely believe there is no way you can report the news now in a way that is objective and also not sound the alarms, because sounding the alarms takes away the objectivity.

But I feel like that has to happen because people need to understand sort of the history of what's happened in the past and how it correlates to what's happening right now, but also just the.

The threat of what is happening now.

And that sort of takes out the objectivity there.

So you can still maintain that objectivity, but it's also a higher sense of.

Of your job as a journalist and reporting and your.

Your responsibility to deliver the news to people, but also alert people of the threat of.

Of what that news is.

Exactly.

And I feel like that's the higher calling right now for journalism.

Now, I have to admit that I'm not a great podcaster and that my intent doesn't always keep up with my ability to press buttons.

So can you do me a huge favor and say, sound the alarm again?

Sound the alarm.

Absolutely.

Like, I got the thing programmed in the board.

You said the words, and I wasn't ready.

I wasn't wrong.

I appreciate that.

You allowed me to walk that back.

And again, most people, when I throw the pitches, I don't actually tell them where the hit went, but in your case, I will.

You hit a double, and the only reason you hit a double is you were hesitant on the swing.

The pitch was coming hard and fast, and you hesitate a little.

You made good contact, but, you know, you should assert at the outright.

Yeah, objectivity is dead.

Right.

And, you know, I'm here to.

But also be fair and reasonable and help people with, you know, what they want to deal with.

Generally speaking, I think that's possible.

Go ahead.

About objectivity being dead.

I mean, there's this channel called Fox News, which, I mean, we really should be calling it Fox Entertainment because it's like 24 hours of opinion television.

It's not actually direct reporting.

And then sometimes you have, like, Trump and other Republicans call in, and it's like a reality TV show network.

It's like, what news show can I turn to the most that I can agree with?

And my job as a journalist is not necessarily to get you to agree with me, but to educate you on everything that's happening.

And that is the most important part.

It's.

To me, it's.

You can have opinion and opinion and education in there, but it's.

It's so important to get people the news directly, but also say, hey, this is what's happening.

You should be alarmed.

Well, and to your point, I think one of the core drivers of fascism is ignorance and mythology.

Exactly.

And, you know, if we are to either keep a democratic society alive or build a democratic society out of the ashes, it does have to be built around some form of knowledge, of discussion, of exploration, of knowing current affairs in the news and what's going on.

And that's why, again, for me, if I'm going to do podcasting, the first segment's always going to be the news, because that's the interesting part.

And I actually had.

Not the last episode, the episode before that.

I had my first guest who didn't make it past the news.

He Rage, quit before the news segment ended.

And it's my most popular episode yet.

So clearly the news segment, not just as a great way to chat with people, but as a litmus test for my guests to see if they make it past the news segment.

I think that's a great way to look at it.

Still within the journalism piece.

You know, you mentioned Rachel Maddow earlier.

Are there other journalists right now that, you know, you.

You respect that you follow that you would recommend the rest of us kind of keep an eye on and check out.

There is an independent journalist on TikTok that I think a lot of people have sort of clung to.

Aaron Parnas is one.

Lots of people have checked him out.

In terms of an alternative to independent news, I can't really think of individual independent journalists, but I do read lots of sort of, you know, independent media or local journalism.

I would say check out ProPublica.

They have deep investigative reporting, long subsidized articles.

The Intercept is also a good other alternative network.

The New Republic has really good pieces in terms of calling it out like it is.

And what's another one that I would recommend for people to see?

Your local Journalism at best is, is easy and definitely good to, to follow because local journalism is, is dying right now.

And if local journalism dies, that is a, another sound the alarm moment because.

Sorry, I have my arms folded, so I appreciate you took the pause there.

Thank you.

Because you really, if local journalism dies, what we know from our history is you're going to have people like Huey Long from the past rise up and you're going to have sort of remnants or echo ships of small dictatorships like what happened in Louisiana back then, all over the country.

Not to bring us back full circle to earlier conversation we had here on the show, but you wouldn't, you probably wouldn't be surprised to know that here in Canada, local journalism is basically dead.

Has been for some time.

Our news media is currently owned by American hedge funds.

Really, what's the word?

Completely optimized and drained of any capacity.

And the reason for that difference between the Canadian local journalism industry and the American one is when you have elections every two years, with elections that are so money centric that all sorts of advertising dollars flows into local media at least every two years, sometimes every year.

If you include some of the gubernatorial and mayoral elections, we don't have any of that.

So that's a huge source of revenue that both sustains American media but also kind of taints it.

Right.

Because not everyone has the same amount of money and therefore it kind of tilts one way or the other.

And to your point about Huey Long, if you look at the premier, so instead of governors, you know, we have premiers of provinces and oh, boy, do we got some Huey Longs.

I mean, here in Ontario, we got this guy Doug Ford.

And Doug Ford is the brother of Rob Ford, who was the crackhead mayor of Toronto.

Wow.

I don't know if, you know, you were the kind of person to follow sensational news 10 years ago or so, but Rob Ford is a character.

He was Trump before Trump.

He was the mayor of Toronto.

You know, open crackhead, huge guy, like obese guy, you know, alcohol problem, like, just shot his mouth off.

And people loved him and voted for him because of that.

Wow.

Right.

Because he was their guy.

He was a good old boy you could get high with and, you know, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

He pretty much died in office.

Like he was running for reelection and would have run, but his stomach cancer was so bad that he couldn't do it.

So his older brother Doug, who was a hash dealer back in the day before marijuana was legal, he's now our premier and he is the head of the Conservative party, the right wing party.

And he's a good old boy and that's why he wins, right?

And like he's exactly like Huey Long on so many levels, totally corrupt.

He just created this highway in the middle of nowhere cause all his developer friends owned the land.

Like so again we're kind of in the future in this and that's just Ontario.

In Alberta they got Danielle Smith who she went to Mar a Lago and the inauguration like she's an anti vax, anti mask, like far right, total wingnut.

And the scandal, they, the scandal brewing in Alberta right now is she's fired.

So again we have socialized medical care so the province pays for everything.

In the last year she's fired the board of directors for the Alberta health system three times.

And there's this whole scandal because she's an anti vaxxer, an anti masker and she's trying to get rid of all the people in the healthcare system who disagree with her.

And it turns out that's everybody because they all actually believe in medical science.

Then there's Saskatchewan and this guy, Premier Mo again, he's exactly like Doug Ford.

Another good old.

Like they're there.

This is why I'm saying Canada has no future.

Cuz these guys love Trump and like they are already the Huey Long.

So they are all ready for the kleptocracy that allows them to hand out to their friends and they win elections by just talking shit.

Like I could go on and on and on.

This is why I want you Americans to learn more about what's going on in Canada.

Because our future is linked and I'm telling you the patterns here Jeremiah, are disturbing.

Okay, I got a question for you though.

So we changed the tone a little bit.

You mentioned to me the other day a really smart congressperson who I actually just followed on TikTok.

So I appreciate that cuz I want to expand my horizons beyond just aoc.

But with that said, are there Democrats particularly, you know, congresspeople who have less stake and more incentive to really raise a fuss that we should have our eye on as Canadians, as people who don't follow American politics as well as you do, who are some of the up and coming politicians who you think deserve a follow or deserve more attention?

Maxwell Frost, of course you also have Elizabeth Warren, of course, long time congressional member.

You also have.

Who else is there?

Because there are Lots of them.

In terms of the new resistance.

Goodness.

Elisa Blunt Rochester, a new senator.

And.

And in the U.

S.

Senate, of course, one that is.

Is also.

Jasmine Crockett.

That's who you mentioned.

Yes, Jasmine Crockett.

So it's like there's a whole plethora of new resistance of that young energy that's being filled right now in the.

In the Congress.

And I think a lot of them definitely deserve a lot more attention.

Yeah, yeah.

And that's up to us as independent media producers that, you know, we find opportunities.

In my case, the other thing we try to do here on Met Abuse is get into policy, because often I feel that policy is left to experts and insiders and political wonks when I think policy should be of the people and should be as accessible as possible.

And the example I give in Toronto, where I spent most of my life, the biggest policy that everyone feels entitled to talk about is bike lanes.

And Doug Ford actually just overruled the city of Toronto and is forcing them to remove all of their bike lanes.

So bike lanes is this real hot potato.

And it's because everyone feels that they have a stake versus, I think, all policies.

Everyone has a stake, and they should be informed enough to have a position and talk about that position.

Do you ever get into policy work?

Do you ever have any thoughts on policy and its role in journalism and a democratic society?

Policy work?

I have.

It's not something.

It's something that I've seen and I've read about, but I haven't fully gotten into, like, decisively.

But I will say, regarding policy, something that Joe Biden was able to get done under his.

His first term as president was, you know, passed major infrastructure legislation.

And this is something that, you know, Donald Trump now is going to try to take credit for as the new highways and stuff is built.

He's gonna be like, I did all this, but it was actually done under Biden's, you know, first term in office.

And it's something to me that's sort of filled with hilarity because under Trump's first term, they kept saying they were going to do infrastructure.

There's going to be infrastructure week.

This is going to be the infrastructure day.

And it actually never happened.

So it's like this, this rhetoric of saying, I'm going to do something and then actually making my followers believe that I'm.

I'm actually actively doing this thing as I keep saying it, even though nothing's actually happening.

And then when it actually happens, but from a different guy, I get to take credit for it.

And that's something that, you know, in terms of policy that all of us hold a hold of stake in, but it's something that sort of the right has been able to.

So it's like just holding on to the thing that you actively do so the other side doesn't get to take credit for it.

You just inspired a rather dystopian thought, but I'm going to articulate it with you as my witness so that if it happens, you and I as history buffs can say we called it.

Yeah, I bet you.

Because again, to bring it back to Canada, the current justification for these tariffs is the fentanyl trade, right?

As if all this fentanyl is flowing through the Canadian border, which is absolutely absurd.

And you know the guy who Rage quit two episodes ago, that was partly what he was talking about.

And he was a Canadian and he was going on and on about how this drugs was coming through Vancouver.

So here's my crazy prediction, and I threw this in my notebook a week ago, and at some point I will write about it just so I can claim this prediction.

On the one hand, right now Trump is using the bullshit war on drugs narrative, which Republicans love, but I bet you if he really becomes the dystopian dictator that we fear, he's going to make an alliance with the cartels and allow drugs to flow into the country freely.

And the reason I say this is the CIA crack connection, right?

When the CIA flooded especially the west coast with crack cocaine so they could raise money for their covert missions, why wouldn't the Trump regime, who loves money and a lot of their users, are opiate addicts.

I'm sorry, A lot of their voters are probably opiate addicts.

That's why they're easily.

And I'm not trying to disparage opiate addicts.

I understand why people would use painkillers, but I just imagine Trump being like, I'm helping you with some good medicine.

Here you go.

My friends are making it available again.

We're in crazy time.

So I can say something crazy and maybe it doesn't sound so crazy thoughts.

I could absolutely see that because we're talking about the same guy that wanted to invite the Taliban to Camp David.

I mean, this is someone that is so extreme and so off the rails in terms of breaking point precedent that what you just Said there is not even, it's, it's not even hyperbolic.

I mean, that is completely believable when you think about it.

But it's like to your point about the whole fentanyl thing, like it's less than 1% that's actually happening.

So I mean, if people just did like the basic research, they'd realize that this is not an actual crisis that's happening.

There's not really an emergency at the border.

This is something that the right has sort of made their, their captor of politics since like the 80s with Ronald Reagan and stuff.

Immigration is the problem.

And it's like the whole fentanyl thing, it's like it's this made up crisis that they're capturing on to, to do the mass deportation to justify everything.

But I could definitely see, you know, Donald Trump making an alliance with the cartel, the very same people he declares to be the enemy.

Well, and you know, that's where again, history reminds us that the enemy is a variable, not a constant.

Yeah, right.

Like today it's trans people, tomorrow it's journalists.

Exactly right.

And you know, the other kind of line that we've been coming up and repeating here on Meta Views is, you know, if you don't leave your comfort zone, your comfort zone will be taken from you.

Exactly.

That we are not in the world we grew up in.

We're in something much different.

And when we need to recalibrate, which I think is a great opportunity to switch to your book Resistance, a strategic guide on how to.

Before we talk about it in general, give me a little bit about your motivation.

There's a lot of reasons to put out a book, a lot of reasons to choose the subject in which you put the book out on.

Why this, why now?

I wrote this book after the election because I was really feeling sort of the, the rage in, in people as sort of as a student of history, the rage in people not understanding exactly the threat.

And I got to the point where the election and I was like, okay, well, you know, that was my biggest concern.

The fact that people were actively not going to pay attention or understand the severity of this existential threat.

And so I decided to write the book because, I mean, now that he's already been elected, this is now the Resistance.

Because if you look at history and you go through what Happens the only way to defeat authoritarianism is mass resistance.

And so electing him is one thing, but if you want sort of some hope, something to get through this moment that's, that's going to take mass resistance, otherwise obeying in advance and just letting you know everything happens that is going to cause the dictatorship to take over faster.

Well, then let me ask you as an author, to what extent did you weave that hope into the book?

Or did you leave it out because you were trying to make something more tactical and more universal?

I will say it's tactical as well as universal, but there is sort of like little remnants of hopes, sort of like, you know, guides from the past or warnings from the past in terms of what other autocracies went through, in terms of the people not rising up or the people sort of, I guess, to use this as a lack of better word, sleepwalking into fascism.

And the book really does provide you with seven tools, seven rules on how to, to get through this moment and sort of a hopeful character, but also understanding history and understanding that a lot of what happened in the past is about to happen now, if it already had not, has not happened, and why we should be alarmed here.

And have you gotten any feedback or response?

I definitely have gotten feedback in response.

I mean, lots of people have said that the book is, is a wake up call to them.

You know, they voted Democratic in this election, but they didn't see it as a threat.

That that was, it was this big.

You know, the potential of not having a presidential election in four years is something that even they thought was too extreme.

But if you look at the book, but also looking at the history of authoritarianism, it's absolutely something that could happen here.

And I sort of put in the book that we look at the rise of authoritarianism as something even in history as foreign.

And that's why I put Huey Long in the book here, because this is something that's happened here in the United States.

Whereas Huey Long, you know, floated the possibility of potentially running for president, you know, and if he had ran for president, we probably be looking at a different America.

If he had gone up against FDR for reelection.

Yeah.

I mean, so although, I mean, it, if, if Huey Long was a New York governor or maybe even a Virginia governor.

Yes, right.

Because he had a particular backing of the Southern elite.

If he had Wall street behind him, then to your point, it's a different America completely.

Exactly.

And I just wanted to draw that in there because I feel like Americans sometimes can be naive in thinking that they the threat of fascism and authoritarianism is like seas away from us.

Like, oh, that's happening in Argentina.

That's not going to happen here.

Oh, that's happening in North Korea.

There's no way that's going to happen here.

It's already happening.

But it started a long time ago in terms of the cultivation and the building up of it that I'm not quite sure people are familiar with in terms of that history that they need to know that that threat is already here.

And by the time it's just, that's why the book is sort of like a wake up call to lots of people.

Well, and then allow me to take your ridiculous prognosis and double down and make it even more ridiculous.

I don't think the election in two years from now is certain.

Yeah, I think it's likely.

But the pace of motherfucking change we have seen in the last two weeks, in the last month is absolutely fucking bonkers.

And you know, where it is certainly possible that a constitutional conflict arises within months that derails the election within two years.

It's also possible that the election two years from now goes hard.

Right, gives him super majority in Congress and Senate.

Especially if you factor in that there could be Canadians voting for the fucker again.

That could mean that there's no election in four years to your prediction.

I think we are at a point in history where nothing should be taken off the table.

And until we have a greater power, greater democratic power to hold these people accountable, we should make no assumptions and prepare for the worst.

Right, Exactly.

Better to be wrong as a futurist than to be in jail.

And that was my great concern.

And my concern here that I feel.

I mean they did to your point.

But go on, that a lot of people don't get is that when Donald Trump got elected in November of last year, that effectively ended the republic in a way that the way that we normally think about it now in terms of, oh, maybe the resistance is the midterms.

The resistance really was not voting for Donald Trump again for a second term.

I mean, to your point, when you talk about the acceleration of ending the democracy in executive orders and in statements is so fast paced, I mean, I don't think by the time we get there, I mean, what is going to be left of democracy or even just looking at the North Carolina example locally, is there going to be the illusion of, you know, that Americans still have a democracy, but they have a situation like in North Carolina where Democrats win big nationwide and you have all of these contentions in terms of, oh, the Republican actually won and the courts giving the wins to Republicans and it just becomes this huge electoral steal.

Like, I just feel like faith in elections and the way that elections are going to be normally conducted under MAGA and you know, people like who stormed the Capitol wanting to seek elected office after getting pardoned, I feel like that's something that is, is going to be horrifying.

I'm not sure we're going to get a midterms, let alone a presidential election in four.

Yeah, I was holding on that sound effect, but it seems very, very appropriate there.

And you know, to your larger point, I wrote a post recently pointing out that their ideology is literally called effective accelerationism.

Yeah, right.

Like that's what these Silicon Valley bros back in Trump believe in.

So the more gasoline they can throw on the fire, the, the faster they're going to do it and we should be aware.

So, you know, to ask you a very pointed question, but, but one I suspect you've thought about previously.

And this is where we try to end our conversation on a more hopeful or upbeat tone.

Where do you see your role in the resistance?

What role do you see for independent journalists in helping to mobilize the kind of mass movements that we're going to need in order to get through the next few months, the next couple of years.

I always say that I always report the news without, you know, fear, first of all, favor and then corporate interference.

So those three major pillars in terms of reporting the news openly and honestly, but also delivering it with, with context and history is so essential.

I see my role as a huge, big responsibility in a time like this where, you know, autocratic powers that be want to effectively end journalism edit as, as it is.

And that also includes coming for independent journalists as well.

I see my role as such a huge responsibility and clear and direct job that, you know, getting the information out there is completely necessary because the censorship is, is already starting and it is going to get bigger and bigger and just making sure that people can trust you, but also that you can interact with your followers to maintain that sort of intimate relationship and knowing that they understand and comprehend everything that you're saying.

But also bringing attention to local stories and issues and uncovering corruption or things that are happening under the radar that people aren't following or aren't aware of.

And that is looking like, you know, maybe spending, sitting, maybe spinning us spending a Sunday sitting down reading like 15 articles or like watching, you know, 12 videos on things that's happening right now and sort of bringing that to the audience, but in a wider, a wider.

Scope or spending time on a Sunday chatting with a crazy Canuck and learning about Huey Longs up in Canada that the more you dig into them, the more you be like, whoa, this is crazy.

And then you'll be telling everyone about Doug Ford and, you know, all the craziness up there in Ontario.

Exactly.

Also to the point there, this is, you know, we talk about ending it on a hopeful note, which we can get back to.

But I did want to point out here, to your point about Doug Ford and, you know, Rob Ford and all these other authoritarian actors, the concerning part to me, not just with the reelection of Donald Trump, is also the rise of authoritarianism around the world.

I mean, we just saw the, the, the leader of South Korea try to have an armed direction there, and then, oops, the citizens rose up and there was major resistance.

So that failed.

And then he gets, I believe he got impeached for insurrection or something like that.

And, and he effectively got arrested.

So just that there.

And then he was at Trump's inauguration.

Then we have the French government falling apart because of authoritarianism rising Germany, which is horrifying when you think about their past.

Yeah.

And then you just have, like, just it's so much happening with the consolidation of power, but also the backing of, of what's happening is the billionaires.

And that's the concerning part, because it's not just authoritarianism, but it's, it's who's funding them.

And that's where you get situations like what's happening in, like, Texas where billionaires are trying to buy the state house.

And that here's where I see the hope in what you're describing, that on some levels, it's easy to think that the frog is in the boiling water.

And the water is boiling so slow that that frog is never going to jump out.

But what you just described is a raging fire, right, that is boiling this pot so fast.

I do think and know we are going to have a part three, and in part three, we're going to talk about TikTok.

Because TikTok is still uncertain.

Like right now, TikTok is still not in the Apple or Android app stores in the United States.

That is true.

And my reading of the situation is that the Chinese government is not going to allow any sale.

Chinese government is going to demand that TikTok be shut down in the United States.

Partly just to say, you know, fuck you, Trump.

And.

And just to do that, I say that because I am seeing the seeds of this mass revolt on TikTok.

I am seeing the seeds amongst younger generation, amongst older generations, amongst educated people, amongst poor people, that there's a growing diverse group of people who are like, holy fuck, this ain't gonna be good for me.

I don't like this.

Right, which is why I think the work you're doing is incredibly important.

Because we need to have folks on the ground on these social media platforms providing antidotes, providing informational vaccines, trying to counter the way in which this shit is happening.

And to me, that's the resistance.

We just need more and more of us to be doing this kind of at scale.

Cause we don't need a Joe Rogan on the left.

Cause that would just be another asshole like Joe Rogan.

But I did before I throw to our final segment, and again, as regular viewers will tell, I don't normally treat guests with the amount of respect and friendship that I do with you, Jeremiah, only because we had a part, one a lot of fun.

One of the things that we've looked at here at Meta Views for years, and I do mean years, is trust.

And both the scholarly research around trust, the politics around trust, the culture around trust, and I've been able, based on all those years and getting into it, having salons and workshops, to reduce it to a single word and it really comes down.

Trust, in its most human form is about vulnerability.

So the journalist, the revolutionary who seeks to earn and maintain the trust of their audience, their constituency, their followers, is to be vulnerable, right?

To be authentic.

And you do that spectacularly well, partly because of the way, as a historian, that you frame your thoughts and your concerns.

Right?

But at the same time, I think the way in which you, while still being a journalist, bring your thoughts and your ideas and your analysis into that reportage.

So this is me giving you positive reinforcement and saying, I think that's the future to the independent journalists, that they are vulnerable in a way that mainstream media is not.

I'll give you an opportunity to respond before we go to our last segment.

You are very kind, my friend.

I do appreciate that.

I feel like sort of me taking on that role in the way that I changed that I was initially reporting with being objective and just delivering the news is giving people the news.

That way they're not only able to comprehend everything more, but they're also able to be educated and understand and.

Well, be educated, understand and also trust you more as a journalist.

Because there is a.

There's a growing connection there.

You know, it's like, hey, let's.

Let's all take a deep breath together.

This has been a crazy news week.

Sort of like starting off the show like that sometimes is a way that people can connect with you, be like, okay, this is a real human being.

They have feelings and emotions, as do I.

And they're also, you know, looking at this, but able to deliver the news in a way that is calm and also provides.

Provides hope in a sense.

Well, and that's what I look for.

And we've been both joking and serious about the mental health dynamics of being in the news maelstrom these days.

And I think as independent news producers, there is now a social work dynamic to what we do, because otherwise.

And it just reminded me actually of an anecdote, which I will think.

I'm the host and I can indulge in such things.

One of the best trips I ever made in my entire life was a trip up to James Bay, which is really far north, borderline Arctic, and a Cree community called Attawapiscat, which here in Canada.

There's a lot of politics associated with this particular community because one of the chiefs, previous chiefs, did a huge hunger strike that got national attention.

Anyway, I was there with a few bunch of people, and the chief at the time wanted this guy who did addictions to go on the radio and to talk to people about addictions because, you know, painkillers, opioids were a real problem there.

And he said he wouldn't do it.

And he said, why?

He goes, well, there's so much pain in the community that if you unleash that pain without the support structure to deal with it, you're making the situation worse.

Right?

So he's like, if you want me to come on the radio and talk about this, I'll do it next time and we'll Bring up some counselors and we'll bring up some social workers so that we don't just open up the Pandora's box to see what happens, but we do it with the supports in place and we do it with the care in place so that we take responsibility for the impact that our words will have.

And it blew my mind only because it was very powerful, but it reminded me that words are powerful, that when we say the things we do and we share the knowledge we do, we have to be mindful of the emotional, the.

The impact, the psychological impact that it has on people.

And so that's why I think we can't be objective anymore.

We have to put ourselves into it and we have to be holding the hands of our community so that there is that trust and that there is that kind of bond.

Now, again, as the host, I will indulge my, or abuse my power and my privilege by throwing us into the last segment of Meta Views, which is the shout outs.

Because, you know, we do believe that there's no such thing as an original idea, that, you know, we stand on the shoulders of giants and owe so much to the people who came before us.

So this is where we throw to our guest and say, you know, who would you like to shout out to?

Who should our audience know more about?

I've already been doing that with you throughout the show by getting you to mention different people.

So we've been cheating in that regard.

But I am, I am making up a new rule for the shout outs because some guests have gotten carried away.

One or two shout outs, not a dozen.

We're trying to wrap the show up here.

We're not looking to have, you know, all the people you've met your entire life.

A couple of shout outs, I will say.

And I've made no other restrictions.

This could be living.

This could be dead, could be fictional, could be real, could be animal, could be mineral.

You can give the shout outs as your intuition calls you to do.

Okay, shout outs.

Shout outs, let's say.

I would like to give a shout out, of course, to all of the local journalists out there who are doing their best to, to survive as a network, as an institution, despite the attacks, despite the.

The decline in paid subscriptions.

I will say local journalism, right there is, is on the ground doing the best they can and doing absolutely incredible work.

You know, I just bought an LA Times subscription because there was this article I needed to read.

So I'd say local journalism is fantastic.

It's great.

It's good for people to Read, because it also exposes what's happening locally in the community that affects people's lives a lot more than the way that they actually think local politics works.

And that's why it's important not just to vote every four years, but every two years as well, because local politics has a huge impact on your life.

I'm a big fan of the saying vote early and vote often.

Yes.

Yes.

Now, I do recognize that you're a very busy person, so I'm saying this more out loud for our listeners and anyone in the ether, but I wonder if there's a Blue Sky Local journalism starter pack, which I don't know if you're familiar with starter packs on Blue sky, but they're like little things you can create where it lists all the people in the group and then someone can press one button and automatically follow everybody who's in the group.

Wow.

But I.

Or you or someone listening.

Thanks, David.

Fingroup needs to find if there is a Local Journalism Blue sky starter pack and if so, share it with us because we'd be interested.

And if not, please start one.

Anyone listening?

Because I would love to focus on that and I'm afraid I don't currently have the time scarcity.

And again, like our W2F WTF segment, I will indulge in a shout out and I will give a shout out to my mom because I had a really nice chat with her earlier today.

Yeah, that kind of brings us to an end.

Go ahead.

Yeah, you can break the rules now that the outro is playing.

Go ahead.

Okay, so this is a personal shout out.

I would like to give a shout out to my girlfriend and family for being a great support system, but also keeping me sane amid this insane time that's happening right now with everything.

So thank you so much for your support and all that you do for me.

And then last but not least, we have to give a shout out to our libraries because the getting rid of books and as you talked about, the revisionist history is.

Is dangerous.

And it's.

It's an allusion to the past that we should be concerned about.

I did a talk, I want to say, in the fall, certainly before the election.

I think that's on YouTube called we don't try to remember the exact name, but it was something like, we need less libertarians, more librarians.

Yeah.

And.

And it was a good rap speaking to librarians, Ontario librarians.

It was a good role.

Jeremiah, this has been fantastic.

Thank you very much for coming out, hanging out, having a fantastic conversation as I said, I do have a scheme about part three, which I will mention briefly once I press the stop button on the record.

I will be uploading this this evening Sunday for all the folks who have no desire in watching the super bowl so you can listen to us as thoroughly entertaining because we never hesitate to.

You know I'll do that again.

We never hesitate to at every and any opportunity that kind of get mixed up.

But yeah, Metaviews is on your socials.

We put publics publish semi regularly and tomorrow we got a special 100th issue of our substack.

So check that out.

We'll see you all again soon and take care.