January 5, 2023 • 55 mins
I recommend listening at 1.25X
And check out Gene's other podcasts:
justtwogoodoldboys.com and unrelenting.show
Gene's Youtube Channel: Sir Gene Speaks
Donate via Paypal http://bit.ly/39tV7JY Bitcoin or Lightning strike.me/sirgene
Can't donate? sub to my GAMING youtube channel (even if you never watch!) Sub Here
Weekend Gaming Livestream atlasrandgaming onTwitch
StarCitizen referral code STAR-YJD6-DKF2
Elite Dangerous
Kerbal
Podcast recorded on Descript and hosted on BuzzSprout
Story Images and Links are only visible to Podcasting 2.0 Apps - see all the ...
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Gene (00:01):
Well, good morning.
Or afternoon.
We're evening or whichever it isright now when you're listening.
Today.
I don't have a guest, but it'sbeen a little while since I put
out an episode.
So I wanted to get an episodeout there.
But also kind of fill you in onsome thoughts that I have and
some things that are coming up.
I will be recording a couple ofmore interview episodes.
(00:24):
Probably in about a week or so.
And those should be interesting.
These are not my sort oftypical.
Interviews of people withsimilar political thoughts.
One is actually going to be aninterview.
With a Buzzsprout, which is afollowup to interview I did over
a year ago.
With the M the same person inthat company.
(00:44):
I don't think he's the CEO, buthe is.
I think one of the founders.
And I wanted to kind of gothrough after a year of
experience with a company.
African for some questions, aswell as get some more insight on
what their plans are.
I'm still very happy with bussprout.
It is definitely a full servicecompany.
Unlike some of the other podcasthosting solutions.
(01:06):
and I'm, I think I'm paying 20bucks or 25 bucks a month.
Something like that for them,which is, I know more than some
other hosting companies as well,but they really make things
simple.
And one click and the less workI have to do.
Producing podcasts, the happiera person I'm going to be.
The interview is going to bewith a gen Z person who is a kid
(01:28):
of a friend of mine.
And what I wanted to do is justkind of ask a lot of the similar
questions that we've beentalking about.
The old farts like me.
That I've talked about withDarren and with Ben and other
folks, and see what somebodyfrom gen Z is thinking.
I'm very curious, because myimpression of gen Z from about
(01:52):
six, seven years ago was Ithought, okay, this generation
feels like it's growing up waymore conservative than the
millennials.
So things are probably going tobe pretty good.
But there's also been a lot of.
Not so good stuff that I've seenabout gen Z as well.
And That has, I think moreculturally to do with what's
been going on in that generationand the fact that they're still
(02:15):
young and impressionable duringCOVID.
And the two years that that canhave screwed up.
I don't think that that manyfavors either.
So looking forward to thatinterview, that'll be a fun one.
Hopefully we have plenty of timeso I can.
Ask a multitude of questions andnot to say that this person
speaks for the whole generationby any means.
(02:35):
People only speak for themselvesjournals really, but.
But it will nonetheless be anopportunity to have somebody
that that I'm recording of thatage group, meaning somebody
that's in, I think he's 20.
Right now.
So, still very much a kid,although when I was 20, I very
much thought I was an adult.
As I'm sure everybody else does.
(02:56):
All right.
So that's the stuff coming up.
What's what's new.
What are my thoughts?
A few things.
First of all.
McCarthy.
Having trouble becoming thespeaker of the house.
So I think this is a greatthing.
But it also is a bit of apredictive of potential negative
(03:17):
outcomes thing.
What I mean by that is.
I hate the fact that every yearfor the entirety of the year,
People that are libertarians.
Conservatives are just populousin general.
I keep complaining about thestatus out there, the unit
party, the government that justseems to do things.
(03:38):
For its own benefit and not forthe benefit of the people that
are electing people.
And then as soon as electionscome, everybody still votes for
their guy.
Who is generally more on theunion party side.
There are a fairly smallpercentage of people that are
currently in office that don'talign with the unit party.
(04:01):
And that's a, that's a problem.
I remember.
And I've talked about this.
I remember literally writing.
An article in high school.
That talked about the solutionto the political issues.
And this is way back in theeighties that the solution to
political issues should includea limit on the number of terms
(04:24):
that senators and congressmencan serve.
And in my thoughts at the timewere pretty similar to what they
are today.
Two terms for Senate three termsfor Congress.
That's it.
You did not want to havelifelong politicians like Nancy
Pelosi.
Or Mitch McConnell.
That have spent the entirety oftheir adult lives are Joe Biden
(04:46):
for Christ sakes.
He was the youngest Senator.
Ever elected.
At the time of his election.
And So his entire job for hiswhole adult life has been.
Politics.
I don't think that's good.
I don't think that's healthybecause politics.
Unlike most other jobs whosegoal is to create the same
(05:07):
product, but better and moreefficiently.
As time goes on.
Politics should represent theviews of the populace and the
view of the populous.
Both changes over time.
And needs to have a connectionto its past at all times.
And I don't think politicians.
Are financially incentivized.
(05:28):
To actually carry out thatrequirement.
Unfortunately.
Because politicians can createtheir own insight intern in.
Let me get this word out.
Incentivization structure.
They tend to incentivize thingsfor themselves.
That focus on them earning moremoney.
(05:51):
I don't believe there's been asingle Senator to have been
elected who was not amillionaire.
When they were elected, whohasn't become a millionaire.
During their tenure and Senate Ihave read this.
A number of years back.
So it may be, it's not a truething, but I, I have a hard time
envisioning anyone who didn't dothat.
(06:12):
Even people that were one time,one term Senator is like Barack
Obama.
Ended up.
Becoming millionaires over thecourse of six years.
So I think that this idea thatyou go.
To a national political office.
In order to become rich,unfortunately.
Is what's driving people to getelected.
(06:35):
And it has a lot less to do withhow good of a job they're going
to do, representing the peoplethat elected them now.
I know.
Well, one of my co-hosts Benwould argue that.
That people shouldn't be luckingsenators anyway.
The senators are supposed to beelected by the local state
(06:55):
congresses as a representativeof the state political bodies.
I don't think that's a good ideaeither because knowing how
politicians actually work.
You would effectively becreating a one level removed.
From the populous form ofgovernment.
I'll the government of the EU.
(07:18):
Which no actual European votesfor the entire government of the
country of the European union.
Which is made up of the states.
Their government is not electedby the populace that government
is elected.
By the legislatures of thestates, they, everybody sends
representatives.
And then of thoserepresentatives.
(07:39):
They they vote and they liked aa president.
So.
Not really for that idea.
I, the super simple solutionthat I was right.
All those years ago and I'mstill right on today.
Is to simply impose arbitraryterm limits.
And what I mean by arbitrary isthey're not tied to performance.
(08:00):
Somebody could be a greatSenator for two terms or
somebody could be a shittySenator for two terms.
The point is they can't be aSenator for a third term.
And this is a good thing.
And people always point topeople like Rand Paul or Ron
Paul, before that I was like,well, what you want to lose?
That guy's ability.
Yes, I do.
Yes, because.
If we had term limits, therewould be an opportunity for a
(08:23):
lot more Rand Paul's to get intooffice because there is no
incumbent.
Race between multiple parties,even if it's two, but ideally
three or four or more.
But even if it's just twoparties, a race between two
parties.
With knowing incumbent.
Because the outgoing incumbenthas maxed out their term.
(08:44):
Would be a great thing.
It would put both people onequal standing.
And it would be a lot more aboutappealing to the.
People in your district.
And coming up with things thatrepresent them as your
platforms.
Then it is to simply say, well,you vote for me.
(09:08):
Or that evil party is going toget in that bad guy is going to
get in.
Like so many politicians rightnow.
On both Republican and Democratside.
I literally run on the, youdon't want the other guy
platform.
They're not running for anythingthey're running against the bad
guys.
And of course the bad guys orwhoever the other party is, it
(09:30):
depends on who's running.
Right.
So.
It is a.
It's a very problematic form ofgovernment that we have with
unlimited terms.
I think the idea that we'retaught anyway, about George
Washington being the person thatcreated.
This concept of a presidentshould only serve two terms.
(09:50):
Unfortunately, that was neverextended to other offices.
Like the Senate.
And you think about it.
The president serves threeterms.
That's eight years.
The Senator to terms for aSenator would be 12 years.
12 years is a long time over adecade.
Uh, In one job.
The idea that we have peoplethat have been in the same job
(10:11):
for 30 or 40 years.
Is ridiculous.
Now you combine that with thespecial privileges that these
people have, like givingthemselves raises, making
immunity for themselves.
From prosecution for anythingthat is said on the chamber
floor, it doesn't matter whatsaid.
You can't prosecute for it.
Creating special exemptions forthemselves.
(10:33):
For being able to use non-publicinformation.
To buy stocks and to trade.
And be able to make money.
Effectively because they haveinsider knowledge that other
people would actually go toprison for being doing trades.
Have they had.
Everybody else is not allowed touse insider knowledge to do
(10:54):
trades.
The politicians are talkingabout the federal branch here,
obviously.
So, If we can limit theduration, it solves so many
other problems.
And the fact that this is such asimple, straightforward thing.
I think his Makes it a lot morepractical, but it's also never,
ever, ever talked about.
(11:15):
In the media because thepoliticians are all very much in
it for life.
They don't want a different jobwhen they get out.
They want to have the same jobforever.
And so I've certainly heardAgron saying yes, that may be
true, but you don't ever havepoliticians voting for their own
terms.
Well, guess what?
(11:35):
You will.
If that's one of their campaignpromises and then all you need
to do.
It's to get to that magicnumber.
Of a majority of politiciansthat had in their campaign
prompts.
Again, I don't care if they'reliberals or conservatives or
anything in between.
That like this should just be auniversal issue for everybody in
(11:57):
every party.
Is, will you pledge to vote forterm limits?
When the vote comes up and.
Even if we, if we know that thatvote is gonna be a losing vote
because only 10 or 20 or 50.
Of the people in Congress.
Have agreed to make this pledge.
(12:19):
It doesn't matter.
You've got to start somewherebecause that number will grow.
If more people profession on it.
Now the other way to do this,which is I think a more
difficult way.
Is to enforce term limits by notvoting for the guy that you
support for anything over thesecond term that they've run for
senators or the fourth term forhouse members.
(12:41):
And by the way, for four termsfor house would be eight years
as well.
Just like the presidency.
So.
That's something most people arenot willing to do because they
assume the other guy, the guythat's running against their
guy, isn't going to have peopledoing that.
So it was like, well, why wouldI not vote for the guy that
represents my views?
And then I do vote.
(13:03):
Or then the, the other sidewe'll have the guy that
represents their views.
That'll run for office.
That's.
You know, it's just a way to notget me in there.
Well, that's blame I guess,blame the people voting in the
primaries that that's the otherperson.
I occasionally there areunchallenged primaries that
certainly happens where.
Everybody just assumes the guythat's in office is going to get
(13:26):
in.
So why bother running anybodyagainst them.
But quite often you actually dohave primaries that have
challenges and those challenges.
Most of the time gets shut down.
They don't really.
End up winning.
So.
I guess that I think it's aharder way to do it than simply
passing a law that says youcan't run more than X number of
(13:49):
terms.
Now we did this for thepresident.
After FDR basically became thedictator of the U S with four
terms in a row.
And that was a horribleprecedent.
And I think enough peoplerecognize it that.
The codafide that?
No, you can't do that.
That the original gentleman'sagreement for two terms of
president was the correct numberof terms.
(14:12):
And then no future presidentshould serve more than two.
But I just think they stoppedshort at not making that same
exact.
Amount of terms for the senatorsas well.
So.
Hopefully that kind of conveysmy thoughts on.
Part of the problem of inabilityto drain the swamp is.
(14:35):
We could have a self drainingswamp valve and it's called term
limits.
And too many people.
Get scared by the muggy man of,Ooh, if we have term limits,
then your guy's going to loseand the other guy's going to
win.
You don't want that.
Do you?
And she better off having thesame guy represent you for 40
years, but he's your guy he'sgoing to vote the way that you
(14:56):
do.
You likes the way that you'rethinking.
That's the problem.
The swamp is the swamp, theswamp acts mainly in its own
interest.
And we see this.
With the.
The number of people, includingTrump incidentally.
And marginally Taylor green.
That are perfectly willing to.
(15:18):
Vote for McCarthy or?
Well, Trump's not voting, butindoors, McCarthy.
I think it's a drastic shift forboth of those people.
I think this is the nail on thehead for Trump, frankly.
I've said for a while that heought not to be run because he
carries too much baggage, not tomention his age.
I am sick and tired ofgrandparents running for office
for president.
(15:38):
Fuck that shit.
I'm almost that age, myself.
And these people have just neverlet up.
So, I don't, I don't really, Ijust don't need another person
in there.
Seventies or eighties everrunning for office in my
lifetime.
And That may not be very long atthis point.
I'm getting up there, but.
(15:59):
But it's just ridiculous.
We need more people that arelike John F Kennedy's age, like
in their fifties, people thathave lived in life long enough
to be able to.
See the impact of theirdecisions and the decisions of
others.
But young enough that.
They're not.
Thinking like an old person onthe edge of death.
(16:23):
Which is what I think both.
Biden and Trump.
Have a tendency to think.
I think this was reflected inTrump by the absolutely piss
poor.
Staffing that he had in, when hewas in the office, he literally
hired and brought in all thewrong people.
'cause he, you know, he'sdelegating.
He was, he was making too manydecisions.
(16:46):
Via other people, whether it wasJared or whether it was a Ivanka
or whether it was just otherpeople that he brought in.
I feel like an awful lot of the.
The negative aspects of theTrump presidency.
Had to do with bad hiringchoices.
And I don't think that he'salways sucked at hiring for his
(17:08):
whole life.
I think he's progressivelygotten worse at it as he's
gotten older.
I don't care if he doesn'tsleep.
If he feels energetic.
He still has an awful lot of oldgrandpa characteristics about
them.
And I don't like that.
We just don't need it.
And this idea that, oh, well youcan't be agents.
Well, fuck that shit.
You need to take the totality.
(17:28):
Of the person for job asimportant as prednisone.
And I think age matters.
I don't know if I'd go so far asto put a law in that also limits
presidency.
With a pop age.
So you can't be, what is itunder 40, but I can't remember.
I'd have to look it up, but Ibelieve it's, you can't be under
(17:49):
40, but there's no upper limit.
Well, maybe we need to say youcan't be.
Under 40 or over 65, like 65 isthe oldest that you're allowed
to run for office forpresidency.
I'd be totally okay with that.
Again, you could call itarbitrary call you.
You want.
It's going to achieve a betterend result to have more
(18:11):
generational churn because theonly president that we've had.
That wasn't a baby boomer.
At this point.
Is Obama.
That's it.
Now he was happened to be ahorrible president.
For a number of other issues,but.
There's a reason that he gotelected.
And it wasn't just his skincolor, I think because the
(18:34):
Republicans kept runninggeriatrics against him.
And that is completely a losingformula.
Unless the other party does theexact same thing.
When he got each party runningan 80 year old against each
other.
Something's wrong, man.
They, these are not the partiesthat are making decisions in
the, in the greatest interest ofthe country.
(18:54):
That's for sure.
These are people that feelentitled and rewarded.
For what they've been able toaccomplish to have that job?
Well, fuck that shit.
That's what I say.
All right.
Next topic.
What have we got?
So, I don't know if there's awhole lot to talk about Ukraine.
I've been kind of weaning myselfoff, talking about it.
Because frankly I think Ukrainefatigue is setting in, even on
(19:17):
me.
The progress that is happeningin Ukraine.
Here's the bottom line.
The, the people benefiting themost.
Out of what's going on inUkraine.
Are the arms dealers andmanufacturers.
From the entirety of the world.
Everybody is using Ukraine as anopportunity to do real-world
(19:42):
testing.
Of a particular type of arm.
What, what do you guys thinkthat the us keeps changing?
And updating what they'reshipping over.
It's not because there's a sucha small, limited supply of these
missiles and other weapons thatwe have.
No it's because themanufacturers want all to get in
(20:03):
on this.
On testing their equipment andreal-world scenarios.
And it's exact same thing withRussia.
Why do you think.
That there's Chinese weapons.
Why do you think there areIranian weapons that are being
utilized.
The, this is not because, oh myGod, Russia ran out of a
weapons.
Now.
Russia has a very goodstockpile.
They will not be running outanytime soon, because part of
(20:27):
what Russia has that other.
Oh, well, the U S doesn't is Atstate ownership.
Of the arms manufacturers.
China has the same thing,incidentally.
So.
They can simply make anexecutive decision.
And then shift more focus onmeaning hire more people.
Put change more factories overto production.
(20:48):
Of any of these.
Missiles and any of thisequipment, the way it works in
the us.
And maybe it's not a worst wayto do it in the us, but it's
definitely different.
Is the us government simply putsout money.
Attached to a winning bid.
They put an RFP out.
And said, okay, we need amilitary equipment that fulfills
(21:08):
this need.
Here's the contract for eachcompany that will take
participate in the trials.
We're going to pay X amount.
I don't know.
25 million.
So 25 million pays for theresearch development and
production of test units.
And then whoever wins thecontract, we'll get like a$200
million contract to actuallymanufacturer.
(21:30):
That process takes a lot longer.
It may result in better qualityweapons.
I'm totally in agreement withthat, but it absolutely is a
much longer lasting process.
And It.
Benefits the company that didthe best job in their prototype.
(21:52):
But quite often the companydoesn't have the capacity to
actually fulfill the realcontract that follows until many
years later.
Because it's all speculative.
You're not going to have fourdifferent companies that are all
billing, bidding.
On the same contract.
All have.
Factories, just sitting thereready to start production of all
(22:13):
this new equipment.
In fact a lot of the production.
Has to happen in the U S butnormally they would just
outsource everything to Chinaand have Chinese factories that
are standing by to me stuff.
Make it, but when it comes tomilitary equipment, there are
certain regulations in placethat require at least portions
of the military equipment in theU S to be manufactured here.
(22:34):
So in China, in Russia, theydon't have to deal with any of
that stuff.
It's stayed on state controlledand the state can regulate the
expansion or contraction.
Now you can certainly say, well,without competition, you get
worst equipment.
Yeah, probably.
I I'll agree with that.
That's a very likely scenario,but you, what you do have is
(22:55):
speed.
Of production and change toproduction.
And so Russia will be able tokeep manufacturing.
All the missiles.
All the tanks and all equipmentthat they need.
That they need to replace.
For indefinitely.
For years and years and years.
(23:16):
And also remember unlike the U SRussia actually has all the raw
materials in the country.
This is something that us usedto have.
We have both factories and rawmaterials.
But because of environmentalregulations, because of cheaper
labor for factories in China.
Most of those have been shutdown the U S so the U S actually
(23:37):
imports an awful lot of materialfrom China, from even Russia, as
we found out that uranium thatis in a us nuclear power plants.
Actually comes from Russia.
The uranium in most of Europe'spower plants like France with
all its nukes.
Out.
It's actually coming fromRussia.
They're all buying it fromRussia because digging out a
(23:59):
uranium is a dirty business.
So get outsourced to a countrythat was willing to do it.
And that was Russia.
Same thing with like titanium,Russia produces the vast
majority of titanium in theworld.
I think there's actually quite abit also in Australia, but
there's very, very little.
In north America or southAmerica.
(24:21):
And very, very little in Europe.
So they're kind of screwed.
There.
The manufacturing of equipmentin Russia is much cheaper.
Cheaper labor.
Along with locally sourced, rawmaterials.
So this, this whole notion thatkeeps popping up with these.
(24:41):
Supposedly military experts inthe U S they keep saying,
Russia's almost run out ofmilitary equipment.
They're almost out of missiles.
They're almost out of tanks.
They're almost out of all thesethings.
It mostly demonstrates the lackof actual knowledge of the
capabilities of Russia by thesepeople.
And this is not like secretknowledge.
I'm not sharing something thatis insider info.
(25:03):
You can literally look this upin any kind of.
I don't know, there's tons ofmanufacturing related statistics
that you can gather forcountries all over the world.
This is, this is clearlyavailable.
And if you know that the statecontrols the production.
Facilities, the manufacturingfacilities for military
equipment.
(25:24):
Then.
It doesn't really take a geniushere to see why Russia isn't
going to run out of anything.
Ukraine ran out of everythinglong time ago, the only
equipment being used in Ukraine.
Is it grip?
Coming from the U S and Europe.
That's it.
There is nothing that is locallymanufactured that they might
(25:45):
have.
In fact, I think they do have,if I'm remember seeing it, they
do have a small arms factories,like they can produce.
Small arms ammo.
You know, people in this countryin the U S have been buying.
Ammo.
Coming from Ukraine as the cheapRussian shit.
That that is made withSteelcase.
Instead of brass because steelis cheaper than brass.
(26:08):
It's also, I mean, arguably ifyou're not going to reuse it,
which is brasses main benefit isyou can reuse it because it's
malleable.
You can stretch it and crimp it.
But if you're not going to reusea, you could put much higher
pressure loads and steel rounds.
Then you can brass rounds.
So there's actually moreconformity of the steel rounds.
(26:29):
To a wider set of loads than youwould from brass, but that's
kind of going off on a tangent,but I don't need to go off on
there.
People that know way more.
About the manufacturer of smallarms than I do.
That was never a big interest ofmine, but I know enough to say
that.
So while they can do that, they,they don't have a tank factory.
(26:50):
They don't have missilefactories.
They did have a whole bunch ofdrug factories that were
conveniently swept under the rugvery, very quickly somehow.
All these research facilitiesthat we saw the documents
authorizing by Congress ofgrants and the spending of two
fond that all of these viralrisks, research facilities, AKA.
(27:12):
You know, the same kind offunding that went to Han lab.
Funding where the us governmenttakes.
Things off shore that it isforbidden to do within the
continental United States.
Which is a testing, biologicalweapons.
Everybody knows being done.
It's, it's not a surprise, buteverybody's so damn hush about
it.
Well, you notice.
(27:34):
There was about two weeks ofconversation about that topic in
the media.
And then it all justconveniently disappeared.
It was first said, oh, Russianmisinformation until some of the
reporters started showing actualcongressional documents with
funding authorizations for thesefacilities and copies of checks
being cashed at thosefacilities.
(27:55):
So it's like, ah, no, these allexisted and yes, the us
government was paying for them.
You, I guess you can argue aboutwhat the purpose was and right
away, they said, no, these werejust research facility.
Well, there was like 12 of them.
In a fairly small country likeUkraine.
Yeah.
Ukraine's about the size ofTexas.
Yes, it's Texas is a big state.
(28:16):
But Ukraine's a fricking countryand it's, so it's about the same
size Texas.
So.
Having that many.
Research facilities that areexperimenting with Either level
two or level three contaminants.
Biologicals is very, very, verysuspicious.
Now the interesting thing to mewas the Russians very quickly
(28:38):
shut up about it as well.
Which kinda leads me to thinkthat the Russians actually
obtain the research informationthemselves.
Because if they didn't, thenthey should have made a much
bigger deal about it and kept onusing that as a, a prod against
the west, doing illegalresearch.
But because they didn't do that.
(29:00):
It definitely makes mesuspicious of the Russians and
what, wait, wait a minute.
If you guys stopped talkingabout it.
Maybe you've got all the datayou needed and it's no longer.
Beneficial for you to keepbringing up the idea that both
the U S and.
Russia now have all this dataabout biological agents.
Not a pleasant thought becausea.
(29:22):
While biological agents areprobably the most efficient
means of exterminating yourenemy.
It's also the scariest and mostgruesome.
And it's one that typically willjustify a very strong response.
So if there's a like either, ifyou end up using chemical
weapons, you have to use them onthe entirety of your enemy all
(29:45):
at the same time.
If you don't do that.
You are likely to get nuclearretaliation back.
So, if you manage to getbiologicals to wipe out a whole
country, Then you're probablyokay.
If you just do it in a city.
You're, you're gonna win in thatcity.
You gonna take out the city.
(30:05):
But you're probably going to endup getting a nuclear response
back as a result of that.
So.
The use of biologicals by the US is a very risky procedure
because I think.
Even the idiots that wecurrently have on.
They they realize that.
The dates that we have runningthe country right now realize
that Any.
(30:28):
Any use of special weapons inescalation, in Ukraine.
Will trigger a nuclear response.
As it should.
There's.
Nuclear.
Only works as it turns.
If the other side believes that.
You're capable of using it.
And saying that nuclear responseis only going to happen.
(30:51):
As a second strike, meaning theother guys have to do a first
nuclear strike and then we willretaliate for nuclear.
Well, yeah, that's kind ofgiven, like, you don't even need
to specify that because if youhave nukes and you literally
don't use them after you've beennuked.
Then you might as well, notbother having nukes and all the
expense associated with them.
(31:12):
But I think the bigger threat isthe escalation to the use of
nukes.
For non nuclear use.
And this, this would be like,I'll give you a couple of
examples here.
For example.
The use of biological agents bythe U S.
In the guise of its allies, theus number, it takes credit for
any of this stuff.
(31:32):
But it certainly.
It condones the use ofbiological weapons.
And it certainly pays for a lotof research of that count.
And if you're listening to thisand you go, oh, that's bullshit.
That's only not true.
Just Google what I'm asking.
Google the topics that I'mtalking about, you.
You will very quickly.
(31:53):
Without even needing to getahold of me.
I find articles that you canGoogle that.
Talk about this.
The us has absolutely covertly.
Supporting biological weaponresearch.
Now.
So as everybody else.
And I'm not pointing the fingerat the U S saying, these are,
this is the major bad guy.
Every country is doing it.
(32:14):
China's doing it.
Russia is doing it.
Basically every country that canafford to is doing this
covertly.
And they're doing an allcovertly.
Because no country wants to havethe finger pointing.
Saying, oh, well you guysclearly were the ones planning
to use it.
We're all innocent.
Look, we're all abiding by anon-proliferation of biological
(32:34):
weapons.
Agreements here.
Yeah, no everybody's doing itbecause it's all an outgrowth of
other research in medicine.
When you do something that endsup having.
A mortality, a high mortalityresult.
Instead of a cure.
Result.
(32:54):
Guess what?
You just created a biologicalweapon that your government
would like to know.
How to make use of.
So it is definitely happeningeverywhere.
And is to be expected.
But anyway, my point is.
And use of biologicals wouldtrigger a nuclear response a, an
attack.
By a third party.
(33:16):
On Moscow.
Or St.
Petersburg on the two majorcities.
With probably trigger a nuclearattack.
Nuclear.
Response from Russia ispredicated on a.
Really what would be aperceived.
Existential threat.
An existential threat.
I know everybody's heard theterm by now.
(33:37):
Is a threat to the existence.
So if there is a threat to theexistence of Moscow, Not even
the whole country of Russia, butjust that city or a threat to
the existence of St.
Petersburg.
Which is the cultural politicalcenter of Russia.
This is where for the majorityof Russian history.
Well, I shouldn't even say thatthat's technically not true.
(33:59):
So Moscow actually has a longertimeframe than St.
Petersburg St.
Petersburg.
Is only 300 years old, which isa drop in the bucket for a
country.
That's about a thousand yearsold, a little less than that
right now.
But the, which again is a dropin the bucket for a lot of
Chinese cities that like Thatmost people have only heard of
in this country.
(34:19):
As a result of the initialoutbreak of the virus there.
But woo Han.
Dan is literally a 3000 year oldcity.
It is changed an awful lot inthose 3000 years.
But it is a city that peoplehave been living around that
area permanently.
For over 3000 years.
(34:41):
And how has the U S right now250.
Roughly.
Give or take.
It'll be 250 and 2026, I think.
So.
Yeah.
That's the real drop in thebucket is just how short of a
time the U S has been around andhow.
How.
(35:03):
Much work.
We all have to do to make surethat the sticks around longer.
Because those original thoughtsof the framers of the United
States.
Our fast being replaced with a.
Really what I would call theculture.
That existed.
During the collapse of the Romanempire.
(35:25):
It's the culture of excess.
The culture of sexual depravity,the culture of really focusing
in on things that only richpeople can focus on.
People that are trying tosurvive.
Don't have time.
To worry about.
Whether they hurt somebody'sfeelings or not.
(35:46):
The priority is not starving todeath and not getting killed by
your neighbor.
The priority is not.
Being careful of mis-genderingsomebody.
These are not just first worldproblems.
These are literally problemsthat were already happening at
the collapse of the Romanempire.
(36:06):
This is late stage empire.
And the U S is going through it.
In a very short time after theFormation like country.
I mean, honestly the us.
Only been around for 250 years.
Not even that.
And it's already going throughthose late stage empire stages.
(36:27):
But I was talking about.
He's a nuclear weapon.
So.
Attack on Lindo cities wouldprobably trigger a nuclear
response.
I think that's I don't thinkthat like political meddling or
spy craft, would it ever triggera nuclear response because the
whole point of doing it thatway, doing it through subversion
(36:48):
and.
Y in fact, the us hashistorically preferred the
method of subversion to themethod of direct Military
conflict.
Is because the subversion, evenif it doesn't work, generally
doesn't result in much cost tothe United States.
So you can see the total cost ofthe U S going into Afghanistan.
(37:12):
Staying there for 20 years andthen pulling out.
As a.
I can't remember how manybillions it was, but it was an
insane amount of billions ofdollars.
It was a very, very high cost.
Now you compare that.
So the cost.
Of the United States.
To create a revolution inUkraine or any of the color
(37:33):
revolutions revolution in Egypt.
And then they get example.
That cost was minimal.
We're talking nowhere near abillion that was probably in the
twenties of millions range,maybe 50 million at tops.
To achieve those because theywere done through subversion and
spycraft rather than throughdirect frontal military assault.
(37:57):
So from a purely financialconsideration, If you want to.
Invade a country or change aregime.
To one that is favorable towardsyou.
It is much, much, much morepreferable to do it through
subversion than it is throughdirect military assault.
This is also why.
(38:18):
The us is right now, really.
In a, a bad spot because.
It's on the verge of having to.
Have direct militaryintervention in Ukraine.
Like I, and I'm going to.
Just off the cuff here, I'mgoing to predict it.
I think there will be us bootson the ground.
(38:39):
Officially not as volunteers,not as.
As mercenaries.
And I think we're going to haveactual us brigades.
Ukrainian territory.
Before the end of the year.
That's the path we've been goingdown.
That's the path we're likely toend up in because the
alternative and the one thatvery few people currently in
(39:01):
office want.
Is to just let Ukraine fall and.
And even with the supply ofAmerican weaponry.
There are literally.
Getting to be there.
I mean, there's still some rightnow, but they're getting to be
almost no soldiers on theUkrainian side left to fight.
(39:22):
The majority of the peoplecurrently fighting.
We're not actually Ukrainians.
They are P and that we know isby identifying the death.
So, by looking at the peoplethat have been killed and when
their bodies are recovered fromthe Russian side.
Over half of the people killedare not actually Ukrainians.
(39:42):
Now you can say, wow.
That's a huge outpouring ofmercenaries.
Yeah.
Could very well be, or it couldbe that what we're calling a
mercenary is actually a state.
Sponsored mercenary.
Now, what what is a statesponsored?
Mercery.
Well, it's somebody that's fromthe, the British SAS.
Getting paid a salary in the UK.
(40:05):
That is taking off their SASuniform.
And then putting on a Ukrainianuniform.
But isn't that detachment of allBritish soldiers.
Operating British equipment.
So that's how we ended up withover half the dead in Ukraine.
(40:26):
Actually being non Ukrainians asbecause I'm.
A lot of countries are doingthis and us is doing it, but I
think a little more carefullythan other countries.
When we ship them new equipment.
It comes.
With a a whole slew of personnelfor training purposes.
And if you think that none ofthose people will actually be
(40:47):
involved in targeting solutions,you're drinking.
Hopium here.
Because there absolutely are.
The biggest thing I think the US has done up to this point is
just to have a, a directive outthere that said no frontline
troop action.
Like us troops.
That are part of these trainingsquadrons.
(41:09):
They are not allowed by Ukraineto be pushed out into the front
lines.
And I think there's two reasonsfor that.
One is visibility.
It's optics.
The us doesn't want to getcaught.
By having a bunch of deadAmerican soldiers being shown on
the RT, which are then certainlya great reason that RT was
instantly banned in the U S.
(41:30):
This idea that some.
Some news channel and I don'tcare where it comes from.
It could be Iran could be China,it could be Russia.
Can be banned by the U S ispreposterous.
It literally is just spitting onthe first amendment.
It's spinning on the idea thatthe populous shouldn't have
access.
(41:51):
To all including badinformation, including
information paid for by otherstate actors.
It doesn't matter.
It's not about, well, you've gotall the truth information here,
but we're going to prevent youfrom accessing false
information.
The us is not our parents.
That there it is not within therights of the government.
(42:15):
To restrict the access ofinformation.
Books should not be banned.
And they usually are only byNazis.
And that's the way the currentus administration has been
acting in an awful lot ofthings.
And thankfully now the courts.
Who have been pussies onanything related to politics?
They're not willing to.
(42:36):
They're they're basicallygetting out of having to handle
any kind of political questions,which is a total pussy move.
If you ask me.
But at least they're standing upon some of these Biden.
Executive orders and saying,well, no, like Biden can't
force.
Every company.
With over a hundred employees tomandate COVID testing.
(42:57):
He's not, that's not part of hispower to do that.
They're, they're reigning thatin.
Same thing.
Should be happening on theability to.
Lock down certain informationchannels, whether it's the
COVID.
Resistance channels out there.
The fact that you had the, theThe head of doctors, was it
(43:19):
called the.
Doctors I can't remember thename of the other group, but
it's the guys that were on TVstanding up for I remember when.
And how the government shouldn'tbe allowed to prevent them from
prescribing anything they want.
To their patients.
It is none of the government'sbusiness.
What kind of medicines areprescribed it's between the
(43:40):
doctor and the patient.
And You know, they were totallyde platformed.
And the way as we've seen withthe Twitter files, all this de
platforming happens.
I shouldn't say all.
A chunk, a large chunk of thosede platforming happened.
Because of governmentintervention and also Democrat
(44:01):
party intervention.
So even outside of thegovernment, just Democrats.
Intervening on behalf of theparty itself.
This is ridiculous, like usingprivate companies to enforce
government policies.
The government is not allowed toactually impose.
Is not a workaround.
This is not legitimate.
This is not.
(44:22):
Something that is okay.
This was not the intent of thefounders of the constitution and
the people that created thiscountry.
Nor have the people thatpredominantly for the last 200
years I've been running thiscountry.
Using work arounds.
You know, it's kinda like whatsame thing happened with Bush
with torture?
During he has an administration.
(44:43):
The us is officially not allowedto use storage or we have
policies against utilizingtorture for any purpose,
including together information.
Now some countries.
Use torture, not for gaininginformation, but purely as a
means of.
Of enjoyment and relaxation fortheir military.
Because when you've beenfighting in somebody and you
(45:04):
win.
There's a certain benefit thathistorically goes along with
victory.
He gets a rape and pillage.
You, you get to take the townthat you just conquered.
Plunder it steal all its bounty.
Rape it's women and kill it'smen.
And Honestly, if that all soundsbarbaric.
(45:24):
Well, you got to remember.
This only became barbaric.
In the last hundred years.
Prior to that.
Going back thousands of years,it was the human norm.
This is what we did.
Now the.
The percentage of rape happeningand the percentage of plunder
may have changed.
(45:44):
Some people.
We're more vicious and known fortheir rape.
I think gang is con.
Is related to about one seventhof the globe because they took
that side of it very actively.
And whenever the the horde.
Conquered new territory.
The the best looking women wereshipped over for a genius genius
(46:07):
to however you pronounce that.
Two.
Personally.
Do with what he wanted to.
And as a result, there's a lotof pregnancies and a lot of
babies are related to GenghisKhan.
But Nonetheless that washappening.
You know, the Victor gets thespoils.
It is a very recent phenomenonthat this doesn't happen.
(46:28):
So anyway, going back to thetopic of, of the U S.
Not allowing to use of torture.
What did the us do during.
Bush.
With all the the high valuecapture targets.
While some people would say,well, we send them to get Mo no,
no, no, no.
Get Mo only gods a select few.
(46:49):
And mostly people that we haveprior identifiable knowledge of.
And those didn't get Moe werethe lucky ones.
Because they just gotwaterboarding.
The rest of the folks that werecaptured and interrogated were
sent off to black ops sites allover the middle east and in
(47:11):
Eastern Europe.
Because guess what boys andgirls, when you joined NATO, the
us gets to use your country tohouse political prisoners.
People that.
It doesn't want to bring back tothe us because that would give
them human rights.
But.
It's much more convenient tobring them to countries of the
(47:33):
NATO block or our partners atleast.
For now.
Although who knows for how long,like Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia.
How's the number of these.
And what happened was the U Sefficiently handed over.
These prisoners of war.
To the local authorities,thereby cleansing its hands of
(47:54):
what happens after that.
And those countries don't havethese regulations on non-use of
torture whatsoever.
And so people were literallytortured to death.
And some instances to gaincertain pieces of information,
which may or may not have beentrue.
There is some good stats sayingthat majority of the information
(48:15):
that you gain as a result oftorture is actually false.
And that falls because peopleare lying, trying to cover up
but falls because they willliterally tell you.
Anything you want to hear tomake the pain stop?
Or sometimes for you to justkill them.
Because that's another way ofmaking the pain stop.
Of the people that weredelivered to these black sites,
(48:36):
we have no idea on thestatistics of how many of them.
Ever made it out alive.
The presumption is they all,they were all killed.
So when the U S black bag Jew.
And ship you from Afghanistan orIraq.
Or a number of other countriesthat have less popular
conflicts.
(48:56):
And you were shipped off siteArabia.
That was a death sentence, butit was worse than the death
sentence because your deathwasn't going to be fast.
It wasn't going to be somethingthat happens on the battlefield.
It's going to be slow.
By having your teeth extractedyour nails pulled out.
Electricity.
Applied to your genitals andevery other place in your body.
(49:20):
By having hot scorching metalPearcey or skin and cauterize
you.
So you don't die as fast.
The, the amount of creativitythat goes into torture.
Is tremendous.
It's huge and countries wheretorture is not banned.
They, this is a profession.
This is something you can go toschool for.
(49:41):
So you really learn how to keepa person alive the longest.
And suffering the most pain, thelongest.
The U S doesn't have schools forthat.
Because we don't do that.
We're an enlightened country.
But.
We get around things just likewe get around everything else.
We find a partner that has noproblem with torture.
(50:03):
And we use them.
You S is not allowed to do aresearch on biological weapons.
Okay.
So we just pay other researchinstitutions, like the one who
hon.
To do the research on ourbehalf.
And again, what is a biologicalweapon?
It's essentially anything thatis the opposite.
Of a cure.
(50:24):
Any, any drug that you work on,any kind of procedure process
you work on?
That.
And when I say work on, by thetime he gets to the stage of
using rats to test it on.
If the net result is a higherrate of mortality.
Then no use of the drug.
(50:45):
You're creating a biologicalweapon.
Well, where you can call itanything you want, but that's
what it is.
Any drug that is in the processof being tested that.
Determines to actually have a, ahigh mortality rate.
Is a potential drug that couldbe utilized.
As a A weapon.
A biological weapon.
(51:05):
And the beauty of it is, isthat.
Biological weapons that arecoming out of drug farm
companies out of farmers, farmpharmacological companies.
They are generally.
Close biologically to othersimilar drugs because everybody
starts off with a known thing.
And then.
(51:26):
Tries tinkering with it.
That if you would say you wantit to just assassinate somebody.
Like say a president of anothercountry.
You would probably want to do itas the U S in a way that doesn't
point the finger directly backat you.
And so.
An easy way to do that is byhaving that person to have a
(51:46):
heart attack.
Which is the result of naturalcauses.
There's a, a number of differentdrugs that will not appear as
anything unusual.
In a person's body and when theydo their autopsy, That can
absolutely lead to a heartattack.
That'll make that person's heartstop.
(52:08):
Is that a biological weapon?
I think it is by the traditionaldefinition, but.
You know, not what most peoplethink of.
I would think biologicalweapons, most people think of
like, you know, Or was thatthing that was used in Anthrax.
Yeah.
That's what most people thinkof.
Eh, anthrax is by no means theonly category of biological
(52:29):
weapons.
There, there are plenty of otherones.
So.
I know I've kind of went roundthe boat, a variety of topics
here, but these are all thingsthat just hadn't made it to
conversations.
Any of the other podcasts I'vebeen doing and also update for
what's coming up in here.
So I appreciate you guyssubscribing.
(52:51):
As usual, the best thing you cando to help me grow the podcast.
Is to do a review in eitherGoogle or apple.
I think that's the two big onesin their podcasting sites.
And just mentioned that youenjoy the show and the types of
topics that covers.
That helps other people find outabout it, learn about it.
Yada, yada, yada.
(53:12):
No illusions that I'm ever goingto be like a huge podcast, or
I'm doing this for fun guys.
And that's another reason Idon't really collect money.
I don't.
Ask for money.
Is because I'm digging thisbecause I enjoy it.
I like putting out content likethis.
I like having the conversation,keep going.
Even if you guys hear this, notin real time after I said it,
(53:36):
but eventually later If youstill respond, you still have
thoughts.
You still maybe do something orthink differently as a result of
it.
These are all awesome things.
And I certainly think it's wellworth doing the podcast, even
though I'm I'm.
Technically losing money onevery episode, but it's not
really a lost money.
It's, it's an it's money.
I'm paying to enjoy myself.
(53:58):
It's money.
I'm paying to have fun.
So a few hundred bucks a year isa fine for me for doing that.
Hopefully you enjoyed thisepisode.
And like I said, we've got someinterviews coming up.
So stay tuned for those.
And have a good evening.
Afternoon or morning wheneveryou're listening to this.
Well, good morning.
Or afternoon.
We're evening or whichever it isright now when you're listening.
Today.
I don't have a guest, but it'sbeen a little while since I put
out an episode.
So I wanted to get an episodeout there.
But also kind of fill you in onsome thoughts that I have and
some things that are coming up.
I will be recording a couple ofmore interview episodes.
(00:24):
Probably in about a week or so.
And those should be interesting.
These are not my sort oftypical.
Interviews of people withsimilar political thoughts.
One is actually going to be aninterview.
With a Buzzsprout, which is afollowup to interview I did over
a year ago.
With the M the same person inthat company.
(00:44):
I don't think he's the CEO, buthe is.
I think one of the founders.
And I wanted to kind of gothrough after a year of
experience with a company.
African for some questions, aswell as get some more insight on
what their plans are.
I'm still very happy with bussprout.
It is definitely a full servicecompany.
Unlike some of the other podcasthosting solutions.
(01:06):
and I'm, I think I'm paying 20bucks or 25 bucks a month.
Something like that for them,which is, I know more than some
other hosting companies as well,but they really make things
simple.
And one click and the less workI have to do.
Producing podcasts, the happiera person I'm going to be.
The interview is going to bewith a gen Z person who is a kid
(01:28):
of a friend of mine.
And what I wanted to do is justkind of ask a lot of the similar
questions that we've beentalking about.
The old farts like me.
That I've talked about withDarren and with Ben and other
folks, and see what somebodyfrom gen Z is thinking.
I'm very curious, because myimpression of gen Z from about
(01:52):
six, seven years ago was Ithought, okay, this generation
feels like it's growing up waymore conservative than the
millennials.
So things are probably going tobe pretty good.
But there's also been a lot of.
Not so good stuff that I've seenabout gen Z as well.
And That has, I think moreculturally to do with what's
been going on in that generationand the fact that they're still
(02:15):
young and impressionable duringCOVID.
And the two years that that canhave screwed up.
I don't think that that manyfavors either.
So looking forward to thatinterview, that'll be a fun one.
Hopefully we have plenty of timeso I can.
Ask a multitude of questions andnot to say that this person
speaks for the whole generationby any means.
(02:35):
People only speak for themselvesjournals really, but.
But it will nonetheless be anopportunity to have somebody
that that I'm recording of thatage group, meaning somebody
that's in, I think he's 20.
Right now.
So, still very much a kid,although when I was 20, I very
much thought I was an adult.
As I'm sure everybody else does.
(02:56):
All right.
So that's the stuff coming up.
What's what's new.
What are my thoughts?
A few things.
First of all.
McCarthy.
Having trouble becoming thespeaker of the house.
So I think this is a greatthing.
But it also is a bit of apredictive of potential negative
(03:17):
outcomes thing.
What I mean by that is.
I hate the fact that every yearfor the entirety of the year,
People that are libertarians.
Conservatives are just populousin general.
I keep complaining about thestatus out there, the unit
party, the government that justseems to do things.
(03:38):
For its own benefit and not forthe benefit of the people that
are electing people.
And then as soon as electionscome, everybody still votes for
their guy.
Who is generally more on theunion party side.
There are a fairly smallpercentage of people that are
currently in office that don'talign with the unit party.
(04:01):
And that's a, that's a problem.
I remember.
And I've talked about this.
I remember literally writing.
An article in high school.
That talked about the solutionto the political issues.
And this is way back in theeighties that the solution to
political issues should includea limit on the number of terms
(04:24):
that senators and congressmencan serve.
And in my thoughts at the timewere pretty similar to what they
are today.
Two terms for Senate three termsfor Congress.
That's it.
You did not want to havelifelong politicians like Nancy
Pelosi.
Or Mitch McConnell.
That have spent the entirety oftheir adult lives are Joe Biden
(04:46):
for Christ sakes.
He was the youngest Senator.
Ever elected.
At the time of his election.
And So his entire job for hiswhole adult life has been.
Politics.
I don't think that's good.
I don't think that's healthybecause politics.
Unlike most other jobs whosegoal is to create the same
(05:07):
product, but better and moreefficiently.
As time goes on.
Politics should represent theviews of the populace and the
view of the populous.
Both changes over time.
And needs to have a connectionto its past at all times.
And I don't think politicians.
Are financially incentivized.
(05:28):
To actually carry out thatrequirement.
Unfortunately.
Because politicians can createtheir own insight intern in.
Let me get this word out.
Incentivization structure.
They tend to incentivize thingsfor themselves.
That focus on them earning moremoney.
(05:51):
I don't believe there's been asingle Senator to have been
elected who was not amillionaire.
When they were elected, whohasn't become a millionaire.
During their tenure and Senate Ihave read this.
A number of years back.
So it may be, it's not a truething, but I, I have a hard time
envisioning anyone who didn't dothat.
(06:12):
Even people that were one time,one term Senator is like Barack
Obama.
Ended up.
Becoming millionaires over thecourse of six years.
So I think that this idea thatyou go.
To a national political office.
In order to become rich,unfortunately.
Is what's driving people to getelected.
(06:35):
And it has a lot less to do withhow good of a job they're going
to do, representing the peoplethat elected them now.
I know.
Well, one of my co-hosts Benwould argue that.
That people shouldn't be luckingsenators anyway.
The senators are supposed to beelected by the local state
(06:55):
congresses as a representativeof the state political bodies.
I don't think that's a good ideaeither because knowing how
politicians actually work.
You would effectively becreating a one level removed.
From the populous form ofgovernment.
I'll the government of the EU.
(07:18):
Which no actual European votesfor the entire government of the
country of the European union.
Which is made up of the states.
Their government is not electedby the populace that government
is elected.
By the legislatures of thestates, they, everybody sends
representatives.
And then of thoserepresentatives.
(07:39):
They they vote and they liked aa president.
So.
Not really for that idea.
I, the super simple solutionthat I was right.
All those years ago and I'mstill right on today.
Is to simply impose arbitraryterm limits.
And what I mean by arbitrary isthey're not tied to performance.
(08:00):
Somebody could be a greatSenator for two terms or
somebody could be a shittySenator for two terms.
The point is they can't be aSenator for a third term.
And this is a good thing.
And people always point topeople like Rand Paul or Ron
Paul, before that I was like,well, what you want to lose?
That guy's ability.
Yes, I do.
Yes, because.
If we had term limits, therewould be an opportunity for a
(08:23):
lot more Rand Paul's to get intooffice because there is no
incumbent.
Race between multiple parties,even if it's two, but ideally
three or four or more.
But even if it's just twoparties, a race between two
parties.
With knowing incumbent.
Because the outgoing incumbenthas maxed out their term.
(08:44):
Would be a great thing.
It would put both people onequal standing.
And it would be a lot more aboutappealing to the.
People in your district.
And coming up with things thatrepresent them as your
platforms.
Then it is to simply say, well,you vote for me.
(09:08):
Or that evil party is going toget in that bad guy is going to
get in.
Like so many politicians rightnow.
On both Republican and Democratside.
I literally run on the, youdon't want the other guy
platform.
They're not running for anythingthey're running against the bad
guys.
And of course the bad guys orwhoever the other party is, it
(09:30):
depends on who's running.
Right.
So.
It is a.
It's a very problematic form ofgovernment that we have with
unlimited terms.
I think the idea that we'retaught anyway, about George
Washington being the person thatcreated.
This concept of a presidentshould only serve two terms.
(09:50):
Unfortunately, that was neverextended to other offices.
Like the Senate.
And you think about it.
The president serves threeterms.
That's eight years.
The Senator to terms for aSenator would be 12 years.
12 years is a long time over adecade.
Uh, In one job.
The idea that we have peoplethat have been in the same job
(10:11):
for 30 or 40 years.
Is ridiculous.
Now you combine that with thespecial privileges that these
people have, like givingthemselves raises, making
immunity for themselves.
From prosecution for anythingthat is said on the chamber
floor, it doesn't matter whatsaid.
You can't prosecute for it.
Creating special exemptions forthemselves.
(10:33):
For being able to use non-publicinformation.
To buy stocks and to trade.
And be able to make money.
Effectively because they haveinsider knowledge that other
people would actually go toprison for being doing trades.
Have they had.
Everybody else is not allowed touse insider knowledge to do
(10:54):
trades.
The politicians are talkingabout the federal branch here,
obviously.
So, If we can limit theduration, it solves so many
other problems.
And the fact that this is such asimple, straightforward thing.
I think his Makes it a lot morepractical, but it's also never,
ever, ever talked about.
(11:15):
In the media because thepoliticians are all very much in
it for life.
They don't want a different jobwhen they get out.
They want to have the same jobforever.
And so I've certainly heardAgron saying yes, that may be
true, but you don't ever havepoliticians voting for their own
terms.
Well, guess what?
(11:35):
You will.
If that's one of their campaignpromises and then all you need
to do.
It's to get to that magicnumber.
Of a majority of politiciansthat had in their campaign
prompts.
Again, I don't care if they'reliberals or conservatives or
anything in between.
That like this should just be auniversal issue for everybody in
(11:57):
every party.
Is, will you pledge to vote forterm limits?
When the vote comes up and.
Even if we, if we know that thatvote is gonna be a losing vote
because only 10 or 20 or 50.
Of the people in Congress.
Have agreed to make this pledge.
(12:19):
It doesn't matter.
You've got to start somewherebecause that number will grow.
If more people profession on it.
Now the other way to do this,which is I think a more
difficult way.
Is to enforce term limits by notvoting for the guy that you
support for anything over thesecond term that they've run for
senators or the fourth term forhouse members.
(12:41):
And by the way, for four termsfor house would be eight years
as well.
Just like the presidency.
So.
That's something most people arenot willing to do because they
assume the other guy, the guythat's running against their
guy, isn't going to have peopledoing that.
So it was like, well, why wouldI not vote for the guy that
represents my views?
And then I do vote.
(13:03):
Or then the, the other sidewe'll have the guy that
represents their views.
That'll run for office.
That's.
You know, it's just a way to notget me in there.
Well, that's blame I guess,blame the people voting in the
primaries that that's the otherperson.
I occasionally there areunchallenged primaries that
certainly happens where.
Everybody just assumes the guythat's in office is going to get
(13:26):
in.
So why bother running anybodyagainst them.
But quite often you actually dohave primaries that have
challenges and those challenges.
Most of the time gets shut down.
They don't really.
End up winning.
So.
I guess that I think it's aharder way to do it than simply
passing a law that says youcan't run more than X number of
(13:49):
terms.
Now we did this for thepresident.
After FDR basically became thedictator of the U S with four
terms in a row.
And that was a horribleprecedent.
And I think enough peoplerecognize it that.
The codafide that?
No, you can't do that.
That the original gentleman'sagreement for two terms of
president was the correct numberof terms.
(14:12):
And then no future presidentshould serve more than two.
But I just think they stoppedshort at not making that same
exact.
Amount of terms for the senatorsas well.
So.
Hopefully that kind of conveysmy thoughts on.
Part of the problem of inabilityto drain the swamp is.
(14:35):
We could have a self drainingswamp valve and it's called term
limits.
And too many people.
Get scared by the muggy man of,Ooh, if we have term limits,
then your guy's going to loseand the other guy's going to
win.
You don't want that.
Do you?
And she better off having thesame guy represent you for 40
years, but he's your guy he'sgoing to vote the way that you
(14:56):
do.
You likes the way that you'rethinking.
That's the problem.
The swamp is the swamp, theswamp acts mainly in its own
interest.
And we see this.
With the.
The number of people, includingTrump incidentally.
And marginally Taylor green.
That are perfectly willing to.
(15:18):
Vote for McCarthy or?
Well, Trump's not voting, butindoors, McCarthy.
I think it's a drastic shift forboth of those people.
I think this is the nail on thehead for Trump, frankly.
I've said for a while that heought not to be run because he
carries too much baggage, not tomention his age.
I am sick and tired ofgrandparents running for office
for president.
(15:38):
Fuck that shit.
I'm almost that age, myself.
And these people have just neverlet up.
So, I don't, I don't really, Ijust don't need another person
in there.
Seventies or eighties everrunning for office in my
lifetime.
And That may not be very long atthis point.
I'm getting up there, but.
(15:59):
But it's just ridiculous.
We need more people that arelike John F Kennedy's age, like
in their fifties, people thathave lived in life long enough
to be able to.
See the impact of theirdecisions and the decisions of
others.
But young enough that.
They're not.
Thinking like an old person onthe edge of death.
(16:23):
Which is what I think both.
Biden and Trump.
Have a tendency to think.
I think this was reflected inTrump by the absolutely piss
poor.
Staffing that he had in, when hewas in the office, he literally
hired and brought in all thewrong people.
'cause he, you know, he'sdelegating.
He was, he was making too manydecisions.
(16:46):
Via other people, whether it wasJared or whether it was a Ivanka
or whether it was just otherpeople that he brought in.
I feel like an awful lot of the.
The negative aspects of theTrump presidency.
Had to do with bad hiringchoices.
And I don't think that he'salways sucked at hiring for his
(17:08):
whole life.
I think he's progressivelygotten worse at it as he's
gotten older.
I don't care if he doesn'tsleep.
If he feels energetic.
He still has an awful lot of oldgrandpa characteristics about
them.
And I don't like that.
We just don't need it.
And this idea that, oh, well youcan't be agents.
Well, fuck that shit.
You need to take the totality.
(17:28):
Of the person for job asimportant as prednisone.
And I think age matters.
I don't know if I'd go so far asto put a law in that also limits
presidency.
With a pop age.
So you can't be, what is itunder 40, but I can't remember.
I'd have to look it up, but Ibelieve it's, you can't be under
(17:49):
40, but there's no upper limit.
Well, maybe we need to say youcan't be.
Under 40 or over 65, like 65 isthe oldest that you're allowed
to run for office forpresidency.
I'd be totally okay with that.
Again, you could call itarbitrary call you.
You want.
It's going to achieve a betterend result to have more
(18:11):
generational churn because theonly president that we've had.
That wasn't a baby boomer.
At this point.
Is Obama.
That's it.
Now he was happened to be ahorrible president.
For a number of other issues,but.
There's a reason that he gotelected.
And it wasn't just his skincolor, I think because the
(18:34):
Republicans kept runninggeriatrics against him.
And that is completely a losingformula.
Unless the other party does theexact same thing.
When he got each party runningan 80 year old against each
other.
Something's wrong, man.
They, these are not the partiesthat are making decisions in
the, in the greatest interest ofthe country.
(18:54):
That's for sure.
These are people that feelentitled and rewarded.
For what they've been able toaccomplish to have that job?
Well, fuck that shit.
That's what I say.
All right.
Next topic.
What have we got?
So, I don't know if there's awhole lot to talk about Ukraine.
I've been kind of weaning myselfoff, talking about it.
Because frankly I think Ukrainefatigue is setting in, even on
(19:17):
me.
The progress that is happeningin Ukraine.
Here's the bottom line.
The, the people benefiting themost.
Out of what's going on inUkraine.
Are the arms dealers andmanufacturers.
From the entirety of the world.
Everybody is using Ukraine as anopportunity to do real-world
(19:42):
testing.
Of a particular type of arm.
What, what do you guys thinkthat the us keeps changing?
And updating what they'reshipping over.
It's not because there's a sucha small, limited supply of these
missiles and other weapons thatwe have.
No it's because themanufacturers want all to get in
(20:03):
on this.
On testing their equipment andreal-world scenarios.
And it's exact same thing withRussia.
Why do you think.
That there's Chinese weapons.
Why do you think there areIranian weapons that are being
utilized.
The, this is not because, oh myGod, Russia ran out of a
weapons.
Now.
Russia has a very goodstockpile.
They will not be running outanytime soon, because part of
(20:27):
what Russia has that other.
Oh, well, the U S doesn't is Atstate ownership.
Of the arms manufacturers.
China has the same thing,incidentally.
So.
They can simply make anexecutive decision.
And then shift more focus onmeaning hire more people.
Put change more factories overto production.
(20:48):
Of any of these.
Missiles and any of thisequipment, the way it works in
the us.
And maybe it's not a worst wayto do it in the us, but it's
definitely different.
Is the us government simply putsout money.
Attached to a winning bid.
They put an RFP out.
And said, okay, we need amilitary equipment that fulfills
(21:08):
this need.
Here's the contract for eachcompany that will take
participate in the trials.
We're going to pay X amount.
I don't know.
25 million.
So 25 million pays for theresearch development and
production of test units.
And then whoever wins thecontract, we'll get like a$200
million contract to actuallymanufacturer.
(21:30):
That process takes a lot longer.
It may result in better qualityweapons.
I'm totally in agreement withthat, but it absolutely is a
much longer lasting process.
And It.
Benefits the company that didthe best job in their prototype.
(21:52):
But quite often the companydoesn't have the capacity to
actually fulfill the realcontract that follows until many
years later.
Because it's all speculative.
You're not going to have fourdifferent companies that are all
billing, bidding.
On the same contract.
All have.
Factories, just sitting thereready to start production of all
(22:13):
this new equipment.
In fact a lot of the production.
Has to happen in the U S butnormally they would just
outsource everything to Chinaand have Chinese factories that
are standing by to me stuff.
Make it, but when it comes tomilitary equipment, there are
certain regulations in placethat require at least portions
of the military equipment in theU S to be manufactured here.
(22:34):
So in China, in Russia, theydon't have to deal with any of
that stuff.
It's stayed on state controlledand the state can regulate the
expansion or contraction.
Now you can certainly say, well,without competition, you get
worst equipment.
Yeah, probably.
I I'll agree with that.
That's a very likely scenario,but you, what you do have is
(22:55):
speed.
Of production and change toproduction.
And so Russia will be able tokeep manufacturing.
All the missiles.
All the tanks and all equipmentthat they need.
That they need to replace.
For indefinitely.
For years and years and years.
(23:16):
And also remember unlike the U SRussia actually has all the raw
materials in the country.
This is something that us usedto have.
We have both factories and rawmaterials.
But because of environmentalregulations, because of cheaper
labor for factories in China.
Most of those have been shutdown the U S so the U S actually
(23:37):
imports an awful lot of materialfrom China, from even Russia, as
we found out that uranium thatis in a us nuclear power plants.
Actually comes from Russia.
The uranium in most of Europe'spower plants like France with
all its nukes.
Out.
It's actually coming fromRussia.
They're all buying it fromRussia because digging out a
(23:59):
uranium is a dirty business.
So get outsourced to a countrythat was willing to do it.
And that was Russia.
Same thing with like titanium,Russia produces the vast
majority of titanium in theworld.
I think there's actually quite abit also in Australia, but
there's very, very little.
In north America or southAmerica.
(24:21):
And very, very little in Europe.
So they're kind of screwed.
There.
The manufacturing of equipmentin Russia is much cheaper.
Cheaper labor.
Along with locally sourced, rawmaterials.
So this, this whole notion thatkeeps popping up with these.
(24:41):
Supposedly military experts inthe U S they keep saying,
Russia's almost run out ofmilitary equipment.
They're almost out of missiles.
They're almost out of tanks.
They're almost out of all thesethings.
It mostly demonstrates the lackof actual knowledge of the
capabilities of Russia by thesepeople.
And this is not like secretknowledge.
I'm not sharing something thatis insider info.
(25:03):
You can literally look this upin any kind of.
I don't know, there's tons ofmanufacturing related statistics
that you can gather forcountries all over the world.
This is, this is clearlyavailable.
And if you know that the statecontrols the production.
Facilities, the manufacturingfacilities for military
equipment.
(25:24):
Then.
It doesn't really take a geniushere to see why Russia isn't
going to run out of anything.
Ukraine ran out of everythinglong time ago, the only
equipment being used in Ukraine.
Is it grip?
Coming from the U S and Europe.
That's it.
There is nothing that is locallymanufactured that they might
(25:45):
have.
In fact, I think they do have,if I'm remember seeing it, they
do have a small arms factories,like they can produce.
Small arms ammo.
You know, people in this countryin the U S have been buying.
Ammo.
Coming from Ukraine as the cheapRussian shit.
That that is made withSteelcase.
Instead of brass because steelis cheaper than brass.
(26:08):
It's also, I mean, arguably ifyou're not going to reuse it,
which is brasses main benefit isyou can reuse it because it's
malleable.
You can stretch it and crimp it.
But if you're not going to reusea, you could put much higher
pressure loads and steel rounds.
Then you can brass rounds.
So there's actually moreconformity of the steel rounds.
(26:29):
To a wider set of loads than youwould from brass, but that's
kind of going off on a tangent,but I don't need to go off on
there.
People that know way more.
About the manufacturer of smallarms than I do.
That was never a big interest ofmine, but I know enough to say
that.
So while they can do that, they,they don't have a tank factory.
(26:50):
They don't have missilefactories.
They did have a whole bunch ofdrug factories that were
conveniently swept under the rugvery, very quickly somehow.
All these research facilitiesthat we saw the documents
authorizing by Congress ofgrants and the spending of two
fond that all of these viralrisks, research facilities, AKA.
(27:12):
You know, the same kind offunding that went to Han lab.
Funding where the us governmenttakes.
Things off shore that it isforbidden to do within the
continental United States.
Which is a testing, biologicalweapons.
Everybody knows being done.
It's, it's not a surprise, buteverybody's so damn hush about
it.
Well, you notice.
(27:34):
There was about two weeks ofconversation about that topic in
the media.
And then it all justconveniently disappeared.
It was first said, oh, Russianmisinformation until some of the
reporters started showing actualcongressional documents with
funding authorizations for thesefacilities and copies of checks
being cashed at thosefacilities.
(27:55):
So it's like, ah, no, these allexisted and yes, the us
government was paying for them.
You, I guess you can argue aboutwhat the purpose was and right
away, they said, no, these werejust research facility.
Well, there was like 12 of them.
In a fairly small country likeUkraine.
Yeah.
Ukraine's about the size ofTexas.
Yes, it's Texas is a big state.
(28:16):
But Ukraine's a fricking countryand it's, so it's about the same
size Texas.
So.
Having that many.
Research facilities that areexperimenting with Either level
two or level three contaminants.
Biologicals is very, very, verysuspicious.
Now the interesting thing to mewas the Russians very quickly
(28:38):
shut up about it as well.
Which kinda leads me to thinkthat the Russians actually
obtain the research informationthemselves.
Because if they didn't, thenthey should have made a much
bigger deal about it and kept onusing that as a, a prod against
the west, doing illegalresearch.
But because they didn't do that.
(29:00):
It definitely makes mesuspicious of the Russians and
what, wait, wait a minute.
If you guys stopped talkingabout it.
Maybe you've got all the datayou needed and it's no longer.
Beneficial for you to keepbringing up the idea that both
the U S and.
Russia now have all this dataabout biological agents.
Not a pleasant thought becausea.
(29:22):
While biological agents areprobably the most efficient
means of exterminating yourenemy.
It's also the scariest and mostgruesome.
And it's one that typically willjustify a very strong response.
So if there's a like either, ifyou end up using chemical
weapons, you have to use them onthe entirety of your enemy all
(29:45):
at the same time.
If you don't do that.
You are likely to get nuclearretaliation back.
So, if you manage to getbiologicals to wipe out a whole
country, Then you're probablyokay.
If you just do it in a city.
You're, you're gonna win in thatcity.
You gonna take out the city.
(30:05):
But you're probably going to endup getting a nuclear response
back as a result of that.
So.
The use of biologicals by the US is a very risky procedure
because I think.
Even the idiots that wecurrently have on.
They they realize that.
The dates that we have runningthe country right now realize
that Any.
(30:28):
Any use of special weapons inescalation, in Ukraine.
Will trigger a nuclear response.
As it should.
There's.
Nuclear.
Only works as it turns.
If the other side believes that.
You're capable of using it.
And saying that nuclear responseis only going to happen.
(30:51):
As a second strike, meaning theother guys have to do a first
nuclear strike and then we willretaliate for nuclear.
Well, yeah, that's kind ofgiven, like, you don't even need
to specify that because if youhave nukes and you literally
don't use them after you've beennuked.
Then you might as well, notbother having nukes and all the
expense associated with them.
(31:12):
But I think the bigger threat isthe escalation to the use of
nukes.
For non nuclear use.
And this, this would be like,I'll give you a couple of
examples here.
For example.
The use of biological agents bythe U S.
In the guise of its allies, theus number, it takes credit for
any of this stuff.
(31:32):
But it certainly.
It condones the use ofbiological weapons.
And it certainly pays for a lotof research of that count.
And if you're listening to thisand you go, oh, that's bullshit.
That's only not true.
Just Google what I'm asking.
Google the topics that I'mtalking about, you.
You will very quickly.
(31:53):
Without even needing to getahold of me.
I find articles that you canGoogle that.
Talk about this.
The us has absolutely covertly.
Supporting biological weaponresearch.
Now.
So as everybody else.
And I'm not pointing the fingerat the U S saying, these are,
this is the major bad guy.
Every country is doing it.
(32:14):
China's doing it.
Russia is doing it.
Basically every country that canafford to is doing this
covertly.
And they're doing an allcovertly.
Because no country wants to havethe finger pointing.
Saying, oh, well you guysclearly were the ones planning
to use it.
We're all innocent.
Look, we're all abiding by anon-proliferation of biological
(32:34):
weapons.
Agreements here.
Yeah, no everybody's doing itbecause it's all an outgrowth of
other research in medicine.
When you do something that endsup having.
A mortality, a high mortalityresult.
Instead of a cure.
Result.
(32:54):
Guess what?
You just created a biologicalweapon that your government
would like to know.
How to make use of.
So it is definitely happeningeverywhere.
And is to be expected.
But anyway, my point is.
And use of biologicals wouldtrigger a nuclear response a, an
attack.
By a third party.
(33:16):
On Moscow.
Or St.
Petersburg on the two majorcities.
With probably trigger a nuclearattack.
Nuclear.
Response from Russia ispredicated on a.
Really what would be aperceived.
Existential threat.
An existential threat.
I know everybody's heard theterm by now.
(33:37):
Is a threat to the existence.
So if there is a threat to theexistence of Moscow, Not even
the whole country of Russia, butjust that city or a threat to
the existence of St.
Petersburg.
Which is the cultural politicalcenter of Russia.
This is where for the majorityof Russian history.
Well, I shouldn't even say thatthat's technically not true.
(33:59):
So Moscow actually has a longertimeframe than St.
Petersburg St.
Petersburg.
Is only 300 years old, which isa drop in the bucket for a
country.
That's about a thousand yearsold, a little less than that
right now.
But the, which again is a dropin the bucket for a lot of
Chinese cities that like Thatmost people have only heard of
in this country.
(34:19):
As a result of the initialoutbreak of the virus there.
But woo Han.
Dan is literally a 3000 year oldcity.
It is changed an awful lot inthose 3000 years.
But it is a city that peoplehave been living around that
area permanently.
For over 3000 years.
(34:41):
And how has the U S right now250.
Roughly.
Give or take.
It'll be 250 and 2026, I think.
So.
Yeah.
That's the real drop in thebucket is just how short of a
time the U S has been around andhow.
How.
(35:03):
Much work.
We all have to do to make surethat the sticks around longer.
Because those original thoughtsof the framers of the United
States.
Our fast being replaced with a.
Really what I would call theculture.
That existed.
During the collapse of the Romanempire.
(35:25):
It's the culture of excess.
The culture of sexual depravity,the culture of really focusing
in on things that only richpeople can focus on.
People that are trying tosurvive.
Don't have time.
To worry about.
Whether they hurt somebody'sfeelings or not.
(35:46):
The priority is not starving todeath and not getting killed by
your neighbor.
The priority is not.
Being careful of mis-genderingsomebody.
These are not just first worldproblems.
These are literally problemsthat were already happening at
the collapse of the Romanempire.
(36:06):
This is late stage empire.
And the U S is going through it.
In a very short time after theFormation like country.
I mean, honestly the us.
Only been around for 250 years.
Not even that.
And it's already going throughthose late stage empire stages.
(36:27):
But I was talking about.
He's a nuclear weapon.
So.
Attack on Lindo cities wouldprobably trigger a nuclear
response.
I think that's I don't thinkthat like political meddling or
spy craft, would it ever triggera nuclear response because the
whole point of doing it thatway, doing it through subversion
(36:48):
and.
Y in fact, the us hashistorically preferred the
method of subversion to themethod of direct Military
conflict.
Is because the subversion, evenif it doesn't work, generally
doesn't result in much cost tothe United States.
So you can see the total cost ofthe U S going into Afghanistan.
(37:12):
Staying there for 20 years andthen pulling out.
As a.
I can't remember how manybillions it was, but it was an
insane amount of billions ofdollars.
It was a very, very high cost.
Now you compare that.
So the cost.
Of the United States.
To create a revolution inUkraine or any of the color
(37:33):
revolutions revolution in Egypt.
And then they get example.
That cost was minimal.
We're talking nowhere near abillion that was probably in the
twenties of millions range,maybe 50 million at tops.
To achieve those because theywere done through subversion and
spycraft rather than throughdirect frontal military assault.
(37:57):
So from a purely financialconsideration, If you want to.
Invade a country or change aregime.
To one that is favorable towardsyou.
It is much, much, much morepreferable to do it through
subversion than it is throughdirect military assault.
This is also why.
(38:18):
The us is right now, really.
In a, a bad spot because.
It's on the verge of having to.
Have direct militaryintervention in Ukraine.
Like I, and I'm going to.
Just off the cuff here, I'mgoing to predict it.
I think there will be us bootson the ground.
(38:39):
Officially not as volunteers,not as.
As mercenaries.
And I think we're going to haveactual us brigades.
Ukrainian territory.
Before the end of the year.
That's the path we've been goingdown.
That's the path we're likely toend up in because the
alternative and the one thatvery few people currently in
(39:01):
office want.
Is to just let Ukraine fall and.
And even with the supply ofAmerican weaponry.
There are literally.
Getting to be there.
I mean, there's still some rightnow, but they're getting to be
almost no soldiers on theUkrainian side left to fight.
(39:22):
The majority of the peoplecurrently fighting.
We're not actually Ukrainians.
They are P and that we know isby identifying the death.
So, by looking at the peoplethat have been killed and when
their bodies are recovered fromthe Russian side.
Over half of the people killedare not actually Ukrainians.
(39:42):
Now you can say, wow.
That's a huge outpouring ofmercenaries.
Yeah.
Could very well be, or it couldbe that what we're calling a
mercenary is actually a state.
Sponsored mercenary.
Now, what what is a statesponsored?
Mercery.
Well, it's somebody that's fromthe, the British SAS.
Getting paid a salary in the UK.
(40:05):
That is taking off their SASuniform.
And then putting on a Ukrainianuniform.
But isn't that detachment of allBritish soldiers.
Operating British equipment.
So that's how we ended up withover half the dead in Ukraine.
(40:26):
Actually being non Ukrainians asbecause I'm.
A lot of countries are doingthis and us is doing it, but I
think a little more carefullythan other countries.
When we ship them new equipment.
It comes.
With a a whole slew of personnelfor training purposes.
And if you think that none ofthose people will actually be
(40:47):
involved in targeting solutions,you're drinking.
Hopium here.
Because there absolutely are.
The biggest thing I think the US has done up to this point is
just to have a, a directive outthere that said no frontline
troop action.
Like us troops.
That are part of these trainingsquadrons.
(41:09):
They are not allowed by Ukraineto be pushed out into the front
lines.
And I think there's two reasonsfor that.
One is visibility.
It's optics.
The us doesn't want to getcaught.
By having a bunch of deadAmerican soldiers being shown on
the RT, which are then certainlya great reason that RT was
instantly banned in the U S.
(41:30):
This idea that some.
Some news channel and I don'tcare where it comes from.
It could be Iran could be China,it could be Russia.
Can be banned by the U S ispreposterous.
It literally is just spitting onthe first amendment.
It's spinning on the idea thatthe populous shouldn't have
access.
(41:51):
To all including badinformation, including
information paid for by otherstate actors.
It doesn't matter.
It's not about, well, you've gotall the truth information here,
but we're going to prevent youfrom accessing false
information.
The us is not our parents.
That there it is not within therights of the government.
(42:15):
To restrict the access ofinformation.
Books should not be banned.
And they usually are only byNazis.
And that's the way the currentus administration has been
acting in an awful lot ofthings.
And thankfully now the courts.
Who have been pussies onanything related to politics?
They're not willing to.
(42:36):
They're they're basicallygetting out of having to handle
any kind of political questions,which is a total pussy move.
If you ask me.
But at least they're standing upon some of these Biden.
Executive orders and saying,well, no, like Biden can't
force.
Every company.
With over a hundred employees tomandate COVID testing.
(42:57):
He's not, that's not part of hispower to do that.
They're, they're reigning thatin.
Same thing.
Should be happening on theability to.
Lock down certain informationchannels, whether it's the
COVID.
Resistance channels out there.
The fact that you had the, theThe head of doctors, was it
(43:19):
called the.
Doctors I can't remember thename of the other group, but
it's the guys that were on TVstanding up for I remember when.
And how the government shouldn'tbe allowed to prevent them from
prescribing anything they want.
To their patients.
It is none of the government'sbusiness.
What kind of medicines areprescribed it's between the
(43:40):
doctor and the patient.
And You know, they were totallyde platformed.
And the way as we've seen withthe Twitter files, all this de
platforming happens.
I shouldn't say all.
A chunk, a large chunk of thosede platforming happened.
Because of governmentintervention and also Democrat
(44:01):
party intervention.
So even outside of thegovernment, just Democrats.
Intervening on behalf of theparty itself.
This is ridiculous, like usingprivate companies to enforce
government policies.
The government is not allowed toactually impose.
Is not a workaround.
This is not legitimate.
This is not.
(44:22):
Something that is okay.
This was not the intent of thefounders of the constitution and
the people that created thiscountry.
Nor have the people thatpredominantly for the last 200
years I've been running thiscountry.
Using work arounds.
You know, it's kinda like whatsame thing happened with Bush
with torture?
During he has an administration.
(44:43):
The us is officially not allowedto use storage or we have
policies against utilizingtorture for any purpose,
including together information.
Now some countries.
Use torture, not for gaininginformation, but purely as a
means of.
Of enjoyment and relaxation fortheir military.
Because when you've beenfighting in somebody and you
(45:04):
win.
There's a certain benefit thathistorically goes along with
victory.
He gets a rape and pillage.
You, you get to take the townthat you just conquered.
Plunder it steal all its bounty.
Rape it's women and kill it'smen.
And Honestly, if that all soundsbarbaric.
(45:24):
Well, you got to remember.
This only became barbaric.
In the last hundred years.
Prior to that.
Going back thousands of years,it was the human norm.
This is what we did.
Now the.
The percentage of rape happeningand the percentage of plunder
may have changed.
(45:44):
Some people.
We're more vicious and known fortheir rape.
I think gang is con.
Is related to about one seventhof the globe because they took
that side of it very actively.
And whenever the the horde.
Conquered new territory.
The the best looking women wereshipped over for a genius genius
(46:07):
to however you pronounce that.
Two.
Personally.
Do with what he wanted to.
And as a result, there's a lotof pregnancies and a lot of
babies are related to GenghisKhan.
But Nonetheless that washappening.
You know, the Victor gets thespoils.
It is a very recent phenomenonthat this doesn't happen.
(46:28):
So anyway, going back to thetopic of, of the U S.
Not allowing to use of torture.
What did the us do during.
Bush.
With all the the high valuecapture targets.
While some people would say,well, we send them to get Mo no,
no, no, no.
Get Mo only gods a select few.
(46:49):
And mostly people that we haveprior identifiable knowledge of.
And those didn't get Moe werethe lucky ones.
Because they just gotwaterboarding.
The rest of the folks that werecaptured and interrogated were
sent off to black ops sites allover the middle east and in
(47:11):
Eastern Europe.
Because guess what boys andgirls, when you joined NATO, the
us gets to use your country tohouse political prisoners.
People that.
It doesn't want to bring back tothe us because that would give
them human rights.
But.
It's much more convenient tobring them to countries of the
(47:33):
NATO block or our partners atleast.
For now.
Although who knows for how long,like Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia.
How's the number of these.
And what happened was the U Sefficiently handed over.
These prisoners of war.
To the local authorities,thereby cleansing its hands of
(47:54):
what happens after that.
And those countries don't havethese regulations on non-use of
torture whatsoever.
And so people were literallytortured to death.
And some instances to gaincertain pieces of information,
which may or may not have beentrue.
There is some good stats sayingthat majority of the information
(48:15):
that you gain as a result oftorture is actually false.
And that falls because peopleare lying, trying to cover up
but falls because they willliterally tell you.
Anything you want to hear tomake the pain stop?
Or sometimes for you to justkill them.
Because that's another way ofmaking the pain stop.
Of the people that weredelivered to these black sites,
(48:36):
we have no idea on thestatistics of how many of them.
Ever made it out alive.
The presumption is they all,they were all killed.
So when the U S black bag Jew.
And ship you from Afghanistan orIraq.
Or a number of other countriesthat have less popular
conflicts.
(48:56):
And you were shipped off siteArabia.
That was a death sentence, butit was worse than the death
sentence because your deathwasn't going to be fast.
It wasn't going to be somethingthat happens on the battlefield.
It's going to be slow.
By having your teeth extractedyour nails pulled out.
Electricity.
Applied to your genitals andevery other place in your body.
(49:20):
By having hot scorching metalPearcey or skin and cauterize
you.
So you don't die as fast.
The, the amount of creativitythat goes into torture.
Is tremendous.
It's huge and countries wheretorture is not banned.
They, this is a profession.
This is something you can go toschool for.
(49:41):
So you really learn how to keepa person alive the longest.
And suffering the most pain, thelongest.
The U S doesn't have schools forthat.
Because we don't do that.
We're an enlightened country.
But.
We get around things just likewe get around everything else.
We find a partner that has noproblem with torture.
(50:03):
And we use them.
You S is not allowed to do aresearch on biological weapons.
Okay.
So we just pay other researchinstitutions, like the one who
hon.
To do the research on ourbehalf.
And again, what is a biologicalweapon?
It's essentially anything thatis the opposite.
Of a cure.
(50:24):
Any, any drug that you work on,any kind of procedure process
you work on?
That.
And when I say work on, by thetime he gets to the stage of
using rats to test it on.
If the net result is a higherrate of mortality.
Then no use of the drug.
(50:45):
You're creating a biologicalweapon.
Well, where you can call itanything you want, but that's
what it is.
Any drug that is in the processof being tested that.
Determines to actually have a, ahigh mortality rate.
Is a potential drug that couldbe utilized.
As a A weapon.
A biological weapon.
(51:05):
And the beauty of it is, isthat.
Biological weapons that arecoming out of drug farm
companies out of farmers, farmpharmacological companies.
They are generally.
Close biologically to othersimilar drugs because everybody
starts off with a known thing.
And then.
(51:26):
Tries tinkering with it.
That if you would say you wantit to just assassinate somebody.
Like say a president of anothercountry.
You would probably want to do itas the U S in a way that doesn't
point the finger directly backat you.
And so.
An easy way to do that is byhaving that person to have a
(51:46):
heart attack.
Which is the result of naturalcauses.
There's a, a number of differentdrugs that will not appear as
anything unusual.
In a person's body and when theydo their autopsy, That can
absolutely lead to a heartattack.
That'll make that person's heartstop.
(52:08):
Is that a biological weapon?
I think it is by the traditionaldefinition, but.
You know, not what most peoplethink of.
I would think biologicalweapons, most people think of
like, you know, Or was thatthing that was used in Anthrax.
Yeah.
That's what most people thinkof.
Eh, anthrax is by no means theonly category of biological
(52:29):
weapons.
There, there are plenty of otherones.
So.
I know I've kind of went roundthe boat, a variety of topics
here, but these are all thingsthat just hadn't made it to
conversations.
Any of the other podcasts I'vebeen doing and also update for
what's coming up in here.
So I appreciate you guyssubscribing.
(52:51):
As usual, the best thing you cando to help me grow the podcast.
Is to do a review in eitherGoogle or apple.
I think that's the two big onesin their podcasting sites.
And just mentioned that youenjoy the show and the types of
topics that covers.
That helps other people find outabout it, learn about it.
Yada, yada, yada.
(53:12):
No illusions that I'm ever goingto be like a huge podcast, or
I'm doing this for fun guys.
And that's another reason Idon't really collect money.
I don't.
Ask for money.
Is because I'm digging thisbecause I enjoy it.
I like putting out content likethis.
I like having the conversation,keep going.
Even if you guys hear this, notin real time after I said it,
(53:36):
but eventually later If youstill respond, you still have
thoughts.
You still maybe do something orthink differently as a result of
it.
These are all awesome things.
And I certainly think it's wellworth doing the podcast, even
though I'm I'm.
Technically losing money onevery episode, but it's not
really a lost money.
It's, it's an it's money.
I'm paying to enjoy myself.
(53:58):
It's money.
I'm paying to have fun.
So a few hundred bucks a year isa fine for me for doing that.
Hopefully you enjoyed thisepisode.
And like I said, we've got someinterviews coming up.
So stay tuned for those.
And have a good evening.
Afternoon or morning wheneveryou're listening to this.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.