0106 Sir Gene Speaks with Dude named Joshua

Support the show

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 ...

Episode Transcript

Track 1 (00:00):
That's Sir Gene.

(00:00):
And joining me today is sirJosh.
How are you

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_12101 (00:03):
I am doing wonderful Sir Gene,
thanks for having me on.

Track 1 (00:06):
Yeah, it's been you were on once or twice before.
I can't

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_12101 (00:10):
I believe it was last summer that
was on.

Track 1 (00:13):
Okay,

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_12 (00:15):
Yes, sir.

Track 1 (00:15):
gotcha.
And just to remind people,you're going through getting
your, uh, is it a history degreeor an education degree?
What, what are you

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_1210 (00:25):
a, it's a Bachelor of Arts in
History and with a focus on UShistory.
anD I'm minoring in religion.
'cause I, I, I, I come intoreligious kind of, you say
accents when I study certainhistorical events.

Track 1 (00:42):
Mm-Hmm.
Mm-Hmm.
Yeah.
And you and I have just gotten,gotten.
Chatting about quite a bit ofhistorical stuff lately, and I
thought, you know, it'd be, it'dbe fun to get you back on

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_ (00:54):
course I'm, I'm always happy to, to
come on the show for from timeto time.
It's always a, it's, it's, it'svery interesting.
This particular format that'sconversation based.
It's, it, it's very it's, it's,it's a new type of podcast that
I, that I, I actually preferover some of the other things
that are out there.

Track 1 (01:13):
Yeah.
The way I always look at it ismost of the podcasts I do are
just hitting the record buttonon what otherwise would be a
phone conversation.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_12 (01:22):
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir.
And some, and, and oftentimesyou get a little bit more of
that unscripted, uh, organicelement that I, I, I see as very
kind of unique to, to a podcastthat I, I think is more
approachable and kind of wantingof the general public at large.

Track 1 (01:43):
Absolutely.
Yeah.
I, I enjoy that.
Plus it requires less work, soI, I enjoy that part as

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_12 (01:48):
Yes.
Yes.
Script.
Scripting a podcast from startto finish.
It takes a, it takes a lot ofwork.
Sometimes the almost off thecuff discussion is a little bit
more fun, more dynamic, and inmy, and in many ways,
challenging

Track 1 (02:04):
Yeah.
And I, I'll, I think definitelythe fun part of it is there for
sure.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_12 (02:10):
sir.
Absolutely.

Track 1 (02:12):
Let's see.
We can talk about a, a, a slewof things, as it were, but wE,
we sure seem to be living in ainteresting time that I think
other people will be readingabout from a history standpoint.
It's what the hell was Americadoing with all this meddling in
other people's wars all time?

(02:34):
What's from a historicalperspective as you've been
studying history of the world,what's your take on this?
I mean, is it, is it seem, areyou sharing kinda my oh, there
we go.
Gotta remember to turn off the,the old ringer.
Do you share my perspective thatit seems like we have an

(02:57):
unusually active, uh, currentinterest in, in getting into
other people's business thenhistorically is the case or do
you think that it's just, I'mreading into it something that's
not there?

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_12101 (03:11):
I share with your SI share your
sentiment quite a bit.
The United States does have a,um, a history of getting
involved in other conflicts, andthat really started to manifest
itself.
Following the American CivilWar, certainly there was one
instance, the Barbery Wars ofthe early 18 hundreds during the

(03:32):
Jefferson administration, wherewe were engaged in, in that
conflict in the Mediterranean.
But really from my perspective,it was really the Spanish
American war that really kind oflaunched the United States onto
this, onto this national scenewhere we're going to go out
there and, and take whatever wewant.

(03:54):
And some people would point atthe Mexican American War, but
that really had a completelydifferent policy and purpose for
making war with Mexico in 18 46,48.
And that was all surrounding,essentially we wanted Texas, uh,
and so we were gonna take Texas,whether we, whether Mexico

(04:14):
wanted us to or not.
And so war was just inevitable,um, with Mexico in that regard.
But the Spanish American War asthe United States wanted to come
onto this national scene to be abig player.
And that was part of, kind ofalmost this domino effect where
monarchies were more or lessbeing toppled toppled and taken

(04:34):
down.
And that would culminate, ofcourse, with World War I, the,
the, the, the, the series ofWorld War I and World War ii, as
they would come to be laternamed.
With all of these former empiresbasically being, being just
destroyed and dismantled.
And so I would say that sincethe Spanish American War the

(04:55):
United States has, has had ahistory of, of putting itself
into other countries, affairsspecifically for its own gain.
Namely resources, resources,land strategic military value,
and so on.

Track 1 (05:12):
Mm-Hmm.
Yeah.
And there's certainly a, um, Ithink a, a history of US
business kind of driving that.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-20 (05:27):
Precisely the American Fruit Company would
be one.
And I believe the I don't thinkit's Dow Chemical, but the, the
other premier chemical companythat was around, I think
might've been DuPont or theprevious company that became
DuPont in the early in the early20th century the, the, those
large American corporationswere, were behind the, the

(05:48):
military engagements throughoutcentral South America throughout
the Southeast Asia, includingthe Philippines and Guam, as
well as China.
We were instrumental in kind ofgoing over to China and, and,
and wrecking shop there as well.

Track 1 (06:03):
Now, it certainly is not limited to the United States
though, because we had the theWest Indie Indian, what were
they, what were they called?
The was it the West Indiescompany?
West indian com.
What the hell were

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121 (06:16):
The

Track 1 (06:17):
The guy.
The British guys.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121 (06:19):
the EIC, the East India Trading
Company.
Yeah.
Yeah.
The,

Track 1 (06:22):
the one?
Yeah.
East Indian Training Company.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_12 (06:24):
were they, they were the kind of the
lapdog of the British Empire.
The, the once Britain more orless became a, a parliamentary
monarchy system following theglorious revolution in the late
17th century that kind of ledthe way for Parliament to kind
of run things and Parliamentliked to more or less
compartmentalize and havecertain you know, certain

(06:48):
entities take care of things.
And the East India TradingCompany just became, you know,
one of those entities that wouldhandle the the large scale
transportation of goods.
On this, on this large highwayknown as the High Seas.
And India was a, was a premierlocation and really came into
its own in the 19th centurybeing a, a, a place where you

(07:09):
could get a lot of cotton goodsand spices and so on.
In fact a very popular beer theIndia Paleo IPA became known for
its wonderful voyage to India asa result.
And the East India TradingCompany had a lot of problems.
They were, they were the, theproblem with the Sepoy mutiny in
1857.
They were the reason that the,the British monarchy had to come

(07:32):
in, in, in exact control overIndia and the latter part of
that century.
And it was just a, it was just amess.
There, there's a history withbusiness driving warfare, um,
and not, and, and it's not justthe United States, but the
Britain, Britain, Russia, China,they all do it.

Track 1 (07:51):
Yeah.
And, and certainly I think we'vebeen seeing quite a bit of that
including in the most recent,uh, conflicts us been involved
in with Ukraine and sort of byproxy with Israel, where,
there's a lot of, I think,emotions flying around on every

(08:12):
side here, the, the thing youcan't objectively you know,
ignore is that for the last 40plus years, the US industrial
military complex, or the, if youwanna be more, um, I guess.

(08:32):
More descriptive is just theAmerican arms.
Manufacturing companies havebeen getting paid for selling
arms to Israel, but getting paidby the US government.
So effectively, Israel has had acredit line for all kinds of

(08:53):
arms from US arms manufacturing,which that credit line ends up
actually getting paid by the USgovernment rather than Israel.
A lot of people that reallylooked at how this works, assume
that the US is just shippinggreats of dollar bills to Israel

(09:14):
and giving them money.
The reality is much like withUkraine, uh, the, the free money
that Israel is getting, the.
Isn't completely free, it isbasically tied to an equivalent
amount of spending with USmanufacturing.
So really, I, I guess sort of a,maybe a slightly socialist way

(09:38):
to describe it is it's a welfareprogram for the United States
military industry.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_ (09:44):
That's a, that's a good way of putting
it.
A welfare program, for themilitary industry.

Track 1 (09:49):
Yeah.
Because it, it's guaranteedspend every year that the
government pays for, but whichis not coming out of the same
budget as the Pentagon sales.
So the Pentagon buys arms aswell every year, and they, you
know, they've got their ownconsumptive needs.
But on top of that, there's anumber of countries, uh, and is

(10:12):
by no means is Israel the onlyone there.
There are a, a plethora ofcountries.
The United States effectivelyprovides money, provides grants
to, in exchange for contractsfor those countries to buy US
military equipment.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_12 (10:28):
Wow.
I had no idea that it was, thatwas that kind of you know, not
necessarily, scandalous might bethe right word, but just more or
less just kind of out there inyour face that, you know, we're
taking all this money and we'regoing to guarantee, you know, a
certain amount of armed sales todeliver to these countries.
I didn't, I didn't necessarilyrealize that.
That's, that's, that's prettyspec.

Track 1 (10:51):
It's a win-win for everybody except the taxpayers
because it, it, it makes, youknow, for the, the countries
that are getting grants from theus it, it ensures that they stay
on the US' friendly side andthat they're, they're less aptt
to be troublemakers.
Right.
They're getting top quality,presumably US manufactured

(11:16):
military gear.
I.
For the us military productionindustry, it's a great deal
because this is additional moneybeyond what the United States
military itself would spend.
So they're getting a biggerpercentage of the worldwide
market share without necessarilyeven having to go out there and
spend money on trying to marketthe product.

(11:38):
And to the politicians, youknow, they're, they, they all
work off of the trade of favors.
So by doing deals that bringmoney into a particular arms
dealer, uh, they're almostguaranteed, if not completely
guaranteed, of getting campaigndonations from those companies

(12:01):
as well.
Like I said, everybody winsexcept for the US taxpayer,
which is on the hook foradditional money every year.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_12 (12:10):
Hmm.
Additional money that we, thatwe seem to not be able to pay
back, which is it's just a hugeproblem that I see for the, the
United States moving forwardinto the 21st century.
If we want to continue to bethis this place that can
continue to manufacture and giveweapons to whomever, whether it
be Ukraine or Israel or, youknow, insert, you know, next

(12:35):
favorite country, um, you know,that, that doesn't seem like
it's going to be able tocontinue, um, forever.
As though that type of thingwould, I would say, would be
finite, that eventually it wouldcome crashing down at some
point.

Track 1 (12:52):
Oh yeah.
It, it has to, I mean, like lastyear the US gave 3.8 billion,
and again, I mean, it, it'stechnically true to say US gave
3.8 billion to Israel, but it'snot an unconditional 3.8.
It's basically.
US paid for 3.8 billion worthof, uh, military equipment that

(13:14):
Israel got.
Now, it's, it is also, not tosay that that is a hundred
percent of the Israeli militarybudget.
They get 3.8 billion, but thenthey also buy another 10, 20
billion themselves.
So it's it's not like the US iscovering a hundred percent of
the Israeli military budgeteither.

(13:35):
But a lot of people will pointout that hold on.
Israel has free medical care forits citizens.
Israel has, you know, all kindsof programs in place that the US
does not for its citizens.
So why are we providing money tosomebody that really is in a
better financial position thanwe are?

(13:57):
And it's a, I think it's a veryvalid question to ask and.
You have to, I think, recognizethat the, the rationale for
providing money doesn't haveanything to do with need.
It's not a need-based, um, aid.
It's still technically calledaid, which is I think maybe a
little not not accurate.

(14:18):
It, it's a payment certainly.
But I think it's, it's primarilydriven by political interest
rather than, uh, needs-basedinterest.
So it's not the same thing asoh, the country of sedan is
starving.
Let's sell them some money forfood.
This is, this is more we don'twant to lose an ability to land

(14:43):
our planes in the Middle East,so we're gonna ensure that
Israel always has runways andfresh fuel available for us.
More of that kind of mentality.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_1210 (14:54):
So a strategic asset.

Track 1 (14:56):
We're doing the same thing with Saudi Arabia,
frankly.
I mean, we're, we're notlimiting ourselves to the the
Jews or the Christians we'redoing it with Muslims as well.
iT's, it's basically just partof the you know, buying friends
strategy that super powers havealways done.
Same thing that Russia was doingwith Cuba for 40 years.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023 (15:19):
That's, that's pretty incredible.
I almost kind of, you know,forgot that the United States
was in fact still doing businesswith Saudi Arabia.
Every time that kicks up, I'mlike, oh we're actually still
sent, who's Saudi Arabiafighting?
And it's, it just one of thosethings that, that I'm not always

(15:40):
able to kind of keep up with inthe, in the current events,
because m most of the newssources that I try to ser that I
try to, to survey or, or, orSkimm through and try to get
some kind of an idea on what'sgoing on in the world today.
They don't always I mean, someof the stories that they put up,
it just, it's this isn't news.

(16:01):
This is just nonsense.
I mean, I don't, I don't care.
You know about some, you know,gymnast, boyfriend and they had
a wonderful date, but, you know,you, you scam, you, you, you.
It's gonna be easy.
Like you, you looking at likecelebrity news and it's this is
just garbage.
So yeah.
It's really, it's reallyterrible.
But I, I get your point on the,the military spending this kind

(16:25):
of military welfare spending, asit were, that's really kind of
more or less setting the stagefor, for some of these conflicts
and it's, it's, ratherunsettling.

Track 1 (16:38):
Yeah.
And I think it could all beexplained like there is, it's
not all n nefarious necessarily.
When you look at, um, theability for a large country with
a, a massive GDP to be able touse a very small slice of that
to impact relations in anotherpart of the world.

(17:01):
It's not necessarily a bad thingfor the country, like it's a
strategic investment intogetting something that you want.
It's, it's all part of the wholeeconomic hitman strategy, right?
Which is you come in withboatloads of money in order to
then create a structure whichbenefits you and is worse for

(17:25):
whoever you're, you currentlydislike at the moment.
So US isn't providing militaryassistance to Taiwan because the
US likes Taiwan or Taiwanesepeople who are actually Chinese
people.
thE, the thing that the US isdoing is not wanting to lose

(17:46):
control of the location of thehighest, um, generation, like
the most advanced chip makingfacilities in the world.
So we're, we're going to protectour ability to get high-end

(18:06):
computer chips.
And if that helps people thatare living in Taiwan for the
time being, that's fine.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_1210 (18:12):
Of course, of course.
You know, the, the situationwith, with Taiwan, for me it's,
it is still, it's one of thoseyou know, world events that I
don't always get the, the utmostinformation.
But as you, as you point outwhen you're looking for trying
to get you know, something assimple as these computer chips
from Taiwan, it benefits theUnited States in, in certain

(18:36):
ways to, to safeguard Taiwan orprovide them with certain
defense measures against aforeign aggressor.
Whether that be China or whetherthat just be pirates in the
region.
And as I understand it, the USNavy, I.
It's still is, is, is stillpatrolling those particular

(18:57):
waters, um, to, to guard againstpiracy and, and other forms of
terrorist activity.
And

Track 1 (19:05):
Yeah, that's just bullshit.
That, that's propaganda.
The, there's a lot of that's myopinion anyway.
There's an awful lot of thisthe, you know, the US is
providing safety on the highseas to all the shipping.
There's no piracy.
This is, this is such utterbullshit.
And it's not to say thatsomething couldn't spring up
potentially, but we know wherepiracy exists and the US isn't

(19:29):
guarding a whole lot there,which is right around Somalia.
Any place where the industry ofpiracy.
Can be successfully built up.
It happens.
And all the ships moving throughthere have to have
countermeasure as a board, whichmost of them essentially hire a

(19:51):
you know, a what used to becalled Marines, which would be a
military, military detachmentaboard a, a vessel.
And so there's, there's groupsof guys with guns aboard,
aboard.
A lot of, not all, but a lot ofthe oil tankers moving through
that area, uh, for the expresspurpose of keeping the pirates

(20:14):
at bay.
This is not something that the,the US is gonna be spending
money on, is ensuring that everysingle ship of every country
doesn't get attacked by pirates.
But yet we hear this all thetime, uh, from from people that
work for the US government.

(20:34):
In providing this type ofnarrative, which is that without
the United States, the, thewhole shipping industry and all
the ships that China hasshipping products overseas,
they're all going to get robbedby pirates.
The, there, there are not enoughcompetent ships or, or a

(20:54):
competent ship.
There are not enough competentpirates and also not enough
ships to be able to steal allthat product.
I mean, it's just a ridiculousthing to think.
And if you're gonna have piracy,it's gonna be in a very close,
uh, geographic distributionaround ports.

(21:14):
aren't going to pirate in themiddle of the Atlantic because
it's dangerous and because thenwhat?
Okay, so now you've just donesomething that will put a, a
target on your back.
You are days away from beingback on land.
Somebody doesn't need a Navy,they just need to have, uh, a

(21:37):
capability to send some missilesyour way, and there's nothing
you can do about it.
So I, I think that that portionof it is extremely overblown, is
that this whole, like us, is theguardian of the world shipping
trade.
It, it probably started off thatway immediately after World War
II to where most, mostcountries, virtually every large

(22:02):
country, uh, had paid a, a hugetoll during World War II in the
destruction of theirinfrastructure and the reduction
of their capabilities, uh, toboth produce and to safeguard.
And the United States being onthe other side of the world
really only suffered onelocation at the hands of the

(22:25):
Japanese.
In Pearl Harbor, and for themost part was unaffected by any
sort of anything from World WarII really, which reduced the
rest of the world'scapabilities.
China was devastated.
Japan was devastated.
Australia was devastated.
All of Europe, all the Europeancountries, uk, all their
capabilities were severelyreduced.

(22:46):
Russia, obviously you know,there were countries in Africa
which didn't have anymanufacturing capabilities, so
they were unaffected.
That goes in part with southAmerica as well.
Countries where there was notmuch capability in the first
place were obviously also notgreatly affected by World War
ii.
But of the countries that didhave capabilities, United States

(23:09):
was the only one that was leftsort of standing.
So in a way, a defacto becamethe high power on the seas, um,
because, first of all, US stillhad a, a substantial supply of
military ships that it produced,um, during World War ii.

(23:31):
There were also plenty of shipsthat were still active, that
were produced prior to World Warii, and they could represent a,
a single country had a biggerfleet than pretty much all the
other countries put together atthe time.
So I think that that sort ofidea of the US safeguarding the
world's commercial pathways inthe oceans came from a, a

(23:55):
realistic place.
I just think that today it isseverely, uh, over-hyped to a
regard where it's certainly nolonger actually the case.
If you look at it.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_1 (24:07):
That, that makes a lot more logical
sense that you put it that way.
And, and as I said, you know,I'm kind of a victim, if you
will of a lot of that, you know,hype, that propaganda that, or
misinformation if you wanna callit that, because that, that was
my basic understanding of, ofwhat you know, several of our
Navy vessels are typicallyalways doing in certain parts of

(24:30):
the world is guarding againstpiracy.
And that may be true in certainlocations, but you make the
point quite eloquently, youknow, if there's a, a particular
pirate that wants to take, totake on this particular vessel
that's out at sea, I mean, whatare they going to do?
They're not going to have the,the, the logistics to be able to
move all of that cargo, oil,whatever it happens to be on

(24:52):
their little, you know, dinghythey got.
And so mm-hmm.

Track 1 (24:56):
The, the biggest change that happened, uh, in relation
to the safety on the, on thehigh seas.
It has nothing to do with Navyof any country.
It has to do with space.
And the fact that we've now putenough satellites up there to be
able to look at every squaremeter on the planet Earth 24

(25:19):
hours a day.
So there, there is no hiding inthe way that a pirate ship could
have hidden, I don't just meanthe 17 hundreds pirate ships,
but even like turn of thecentury, turn of the 20th
century pirate ships, uh, theway that they could have just
sort of, you know, hijacked aship, stolen whatever they were

(25:40):
looking for and thendisappeared.
That cannot happen anymore.
You can literally monitor everysingle ship in real time on the
oceans across the world.
tHere, there is no disappearingact that can happen.
And so it's sort of like puttinga bunch of.

(26:01):
Closed circuit TV cameras into abank?
It makes bank robberies a lotmore dangerous.
Not because there's more guns,but because you cannot not be
seen, you can't avoid beingseen, like you will be seen
before you even enter the bankon the outside with cameras.
And your path will be tracedthrough multiple cameras inside.

(26:23):
And then, you know, even ifyou're covering your, your face
up,'cause you're pretending tohave covid, um, your, your path
in that bank and even out ofthat bank will be easily
traceable up until somebody isactively looking for you.
So it's the, the advent of, Ithink satellite did more to

(26:46):
reduce piracy than anythingelse.
And if you look at the Somalipirates back when they were big,
what you're talking about isliterally a group of a dozen
guys with AK 40 sevens.
That were in two relativelyshallow water boats.
Like these boats could not goanywhere near the open ocean.
And their only real ability tosteal these ships and to take

(27:11):
over ships was in the fact thatthere were no weapons on most
ships, most commercial VEvessels for whatever reason.
I don't, I mean, I don'tunderstand why I would sure tell
have guns on there, but they,they did not.
And they're so automated thattheir crew crews are fairly
small these days.
So you have these, you know, ahundred ton, a hundred thousand

(27:35):
ton rather vessels goingthrough.
And they might have a crew of 12people.
You got a dozen guys with gunsthat just jumped on your ship,
boarded it from small ships andclimbed up ladders.
Of course you're gonnasurrender.
There's not much to do.
But there's nothing that the,that.
The US military is gonna doabout that, either not until it

(27:57):
becomes like a focused,concentrated problem and they're
getting pestered to do somethingabout it.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_12101 (28:04):
I like that.
Pestered to do something that's,that's, that's, that's pretty
excellent deed.

Track 1 (28:10):
It's, I mean, you know, it's the old squeaky wheel gets
to grease.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_1210 (28:14):
of course.

Track 1 (28:16):
So that's kinda, I think what we've got going on.
And then the the Ukrainesituation seems like it's
winding down.
The the Ukrainian troops arecompletely demoralized.
They understand now that thechance of more money coming in
from the US is shrinking everyweek.
The focus is very much on Israelright now, and even if Israel

(28:38):
ends up wrapping up, I thinkmost people are tired and done
with Ukraine anyway, and there'snot gonna be any support to
resume anything further.
The fact that they've wiped outa whole generation of men and
currently have over 50% women,uh, fighting on the ground, uh,
is, is not a good image forwestern nations who tend to like

(29:00):
to protect their women and nothave them be in, in dangerous
situations.
the fact that they've shut downnewspapers down to the point
where there's only one statecontrolled newspaper, that
they've literally bannedreligions, including, uh,
orthodox religions, which bothRussians and Greeks practice

(29:22):
from the country, again,demonstrates the type of
mentality that they have.
It, this is it, it's always soironic hearing Ukrainians or
certainly the president ofUkraine, um, calling Putin a
dictator while himself actinglike an actual dictator and

(29:43):
canceling elections.
Meanwhile, Putin has been goingthrough regular scheduled
elections every, every time thatthere's supposed to be
elections.
So it, it's a it may be hard tobelieve, I think for, for some
people in America or maybeUkraine, but, uh, the population

(30:03):
of Russia is in higher supportof Putin today than they were
two years ago.
There are more people that arein support of what he's been
doing, uh, than were supportinghim prior to this action taking
place.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_12 (30:21):
That is, that is definitely a hard
pill to swallow, I think formany Americans today who
probably hear com the completeopposite about what's going on
in Ukraine.
I, I, I never drank the Kool-Aidwith, with Ukraine.
I never drank that.
I always, I was always on theside that, you know, Ukraine was

(30:41):
a country itself.
That's more of a.
Of an illusion you know, the abyproduct of when the Soviet
Union fell and they created thiscountry, and then here they are.
And they've always had a, ahistory of corruption and
they've always had a history ofa certain amount of human
trafficking that's gone throughthat particular part of the

(31:01):
world.
And that particular region hasalways had conflict associated
with it.
And, you know, it's always beenconquered by this group or the
other across the many centuries.
But recently with them outlawingreligion.
When you have a state that'sgoing to outlaw, you know, one
religion or the other, or all of'em, I mean, that's pretty

(31:22):
telling about what thatparticular country wants to do.
It's because the, the stateitself is going to be the, the,
the religious hierarchy.
And so that, that, that statereligion itself that should ring
some kind of alarm bells off inthe American psyche because we
continually speak about theseparation of church and state

(31:46):
and how important that is.
And it's not necessarily just aseparation, but it has a lot to
say about we don't want ourgovernment itself to be able to
establish a state religion.
And that was the, the, thefirst, the first tier of that
argument is when you have a, agovernment that has establishes

(32:08):
a state religion, then we wouldhave precisely what was going
on.
In England, right about the timeof the revolution where they had
the, the, the state, the statereligion, the Anglican church,
which, which for all purposeswas, was mostly Catholic as far
as its how it was set up and,and its traditions and so on.

(32:31):
They just had that separationfrom Rome.
That separation from the papacyand that state religion was very
was very dangerous.
And it demonstrated a a, aspecific intolerance to other
Christian groups that began toemerge, not just in England, but

(32:51):
throughout, throughout WesternEurope.
And if a state, if a state isgoing to go after religion that
way, then they're not going tohave anything that the, the, the
kind of underpinning.
Purpose of religion is going todeliver inside of, of that
particular country.

(33:12):
And I would say one of theprimary purposes of religion
would be to instruct people on,you know, moral matters.
You know, differences of rightand wrong.
That would be one reallydistinct purpose.
And it looks to me that thatukraine's gonna be going in a
really bad direction as a, as asa result of that.
That's just my opinion on it.

Track 1 (33:33):
Unfortunately, they're just fucked.
I mean, there's no other way todescribe it at this point.
There is no good future for

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121 (33:41):
no.

Track 1 (33:42):
It's, it's a bad future.
It is completely the result ofthe rainbow revolutions that
were orchestrated by HillaryClinton's group, um, where they
decided to take the chance tosay, Hey, you know, I think we
can pull it off.
We can flip the government ofUkraine.

(34:02):
If we get the current guy out ofthere and make people think that
it's a, it's a countrywiderevolution.
Then we can take Ukraine, whichis a.
A completely Slavic country.
It's literally the southwesternpart of Russia.

(34:22):
It'd be like, you know, if, ifthe US breaks up and Arizona and
Southern California formed acountry, it's okay.
It was never a country.
It used to be part of Mexico.
Then I was part of the UnitedStates.
Never been an independentcountry.
Now we have the country of, youknow, Cali Zona

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_12 (34:43):
Cali Zona.
The Cali, the the Cali ZonaHypothesis on Surging Speaks.
I love it.
This is gonna be

Track 1 (34:49):
that's right.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_1 (34:50):
Okay.

Track 1 (34:51):
Cal Zona.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_1 (34:52):
There you go.
You go.

Track 1 (34:54):
and, and that's essentially what we end up with.
And, and so really the way I'vebeen describing is this whole
situation is this, is, this issomething that started off as a
US directed action to a.
Flip Ukraine to be able toexpand American influence.

(35:15):
So it's not just expand NATO orexpand the eu eu, but really
expand American influence deeperand deeper.
And nobody at the time reallythought it was a big deal'cause
Russia's weak, so who cares?
But what it turned into is moreof a Slavic revolution, which is
people on, even on the, what wasUkrainian side of the border,

(35:42):
did not, did not want to be partof this new World American
order.
And so they said, no, this is abullshit fake revolution that
happened.
The legitimate government isstill in control and just'cause
you guys chased them outta thecountry doesn't mean that you
get the country.

(36:03):
And so that created a.
Over a decade worth of fightingfrom those eastern provinces
against this government, thecurrent government.
And finally, there were agrowing number of people in
Russia that were essentiallytelling the government, telling

(36:23):
Putin, and, Hey, our relativesare getting the crap beat out of
them.
aNd they're the ones that aresupporting, what was the
legitimate government ofUkraine?
You gotta do something.
And for a decade, Putinresisted.
'cause he's very much contraryagain to the American portrayal.
he, he's the opposite of a warmarger.
He's somebody that always likesto come up with a negotiated

(36:47):
solution to things, you know,he's not prone to, uh, the, the
sort of rhetoric that we hearfrom people like Lindsey

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023 (36:57):
Lindsey Yeah.

Track 1 (36:58):
Graham.
Yeah.
Exactly very war hawkish.
No, that's, you never hear stufflike that from Putin because,
uh, he's actually intelligent.
like Lindsey Graham, he, heunderstands that you get a lot
further by having goodrelationships with a lot of
different people that all helpeach other.

(37:20):
And so it was a difficult andlong coming decision for him,
um, to come to the aid of thepeople that were stuck in
Eastern Ukraine.
But the end result is gonna bethat anyone who wants to be
Russian effectively is going tobe living in Russia without

(37:44):
having to move.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_12 (37:46):
Wow,

Track 1 (37:47):
And that's, that's a end result that I, I think
America didn't count on.
Certainly the current leadershipof Ukraine didn't count on.
But if anyone actuallyunderstood the history of Russia
and the history of all thefighting in that part of the
world fighting with the OttomanEmpire, fighting with the Mongol

(38:10):
herds, then this is the clear,inevitable outcome.
This was always something thatwas gonna happen.
And that's why on the first dayafter that event on Sine Speaks,
I actually talked about what mypredictions are, which is a line
drawn from just north of Odessa,uh, and of Kiev that ends up

(38:36):
becoming Russia because thatpart still has very close
affiliation and ties to Russia.
The most western part of Ukraineat times was captured by
Germans.
There's some German influence attimes it was captured.
By Poland.
So there's quite a bit of Polishinfluence there.

(38:57):
And in fact, the very westernpart of Ukraine used to be
Poland and was, um, it becamepart of Ukraine after World War
ii, uh, after Russia won thewar.
So there it was essentially aspoils victory kind of thing.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_12 (39:13):
The, yeah.
Poland used to actually bebigger.

Track 1 (39:15):
like around iv,

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_1 (39:17):
Yeah.

Track 1 (39:18):
Poland's gotten bigger and smaller a number of times
over the years.
You know, they used to be partof the the Lithuanian Polish
Empire, which controlled a lotof territory, including roughly
half of what modern day Ukraineis.
There, there have been,

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_1 (39:36):
Okay.

Track 1 (39:36):
Like a lot of European countries, they've gone through
periods of great success,followed by periods of a lot
less success.
And so it's not just Rome thathad a huge empire.
There were a lot of'em.
The Austro-Hungarian Empire, uh,was very sizable.
And you know, there's, there's aa lot of France had a much

(40:02):
bigger impact.
Obviously you, if you look atthe Napoleonic Wars, you can see
just how much territory Francecontrolled at the time as well.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_12 (40:10):
the, that was.

Track 1 (40:11):
And we, we all liked to make fun of France for just
being the white flag country.
But there were certainly periodsof time where the influence of
France was quite a bit greaterand in, in some ways looking
more, uh, towards the theRenaissance era is, you know,

(40:32):
friends really was challengingRome for the the religious
supremacy as well as being thetrue holders of the faith as it
were.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_12 (40:44):
Wow.
That's European history itselfis is very challenging.
Indeed.
Is

Track 1 (40:50):
Which I think is hilarious because honestly
that's the main history thatexists, like of, of all the
history books ever written, ifyou categorize them by what is
the topic of the book, what areaare they about?
iT's probably about probablyabout five to 8% East eastern

(41:14):
history, China, Japan, uh,probably a similar percentage
around India.
Less in Africa, quite a bit morein the Middle East, but probably
about 5% in the United Statesand about 75% Europe, because
there's been a thousand years towrite history books in Europe.

(41:37):
It's It's been barely over 200years to write history books
about America.
aNd a lot more has happened inEurope, obviously than in the
United States.
And you know, I'm sure somepeople would say what you're
implying that there was nothinghappening here before the white
man came?
If there was, they weren'twriting about it, were they?

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121 (41:59):
No, they,

Track 1 (41:59):
I mean, not, not my fault.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023 (42:01):
really, they really weren't writing
about it.
There, there, there is aculture, and I can't remember
the name of this culture, butthey existed in South America.
Again, I can't remember the nameof the country, but they had
these these strings and theywere all kind of connected to a
central point and it almostlooks like a wig, if you will.

(42:21):
And they had a series of knotsin them.
And what it was, was a, a, a, astory that's recorded in the way
the knots are tied and arrayedon, on these series of strings
and they have yet to decode it.
I wish I could remember the nameof the.

Track 1 (42:41):
It could have just been a mop.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_12 (42:43):
have been a mop.
Yeah.
Or a, or a, or a broom.
A it could have been anything,could have been a child's toy.
But that, that was the assertionthat that's what they were
doing.
But you, you're right, a, amajority of of history on the
North American continent, amajority of that history is not
written.
It is in the oral basedtraditions of, of what are the

(43:05):
the North American the, theNative American tribes that,
that lived

Track 1 (43:08):
Mm-Hmm.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121 (43:08):
And they didn't have a written
language for the most part.
And written language was one ofthose things that the, the white
men of course, brought over fromEurope.
And it was a

Track 1 (43:20):
Along with smallpox.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-202 (43:21):
smallpox and a myriad of other things.
And along with that was ofcourse, more warfare.
And the the Native Americantribes began to understand the
written word more so as the,this term, this thing called a
treaty was to become moreprevalent.

(43:41):
And they had to start you know,having some of the members of
their tribe learn to read andwrite in the English language or
the French language or what haveyou.
And that's what they did.
So that whenever treaties Werewritten and signed and agreed
upon that there could be amutual understanding of what
those treaties would mean.

(44:01):
And of course, for the mostpart, those treaties would,
would be, you know, not, notfully honored and so on.
It was you could call it the, Ithink it's called the, the, the
backroom dealing or thebackwards dealing where you
agree upon something and thenyou renege on the deal or you
don't honor the deal.
That was very, very commonplace.

(44:22):
Because well as the, as theEuropean settlers began to have
more and more success, uh, alongthe coastal cities and they
wanted to continue to encroach,westward into the continent, to
ac to take advantage of the, ofthe resources of the land they
had to, they had to move thoseNative American people out of

(44:43):
the way, and they either, youknow, bought the land or they
took it.
And it's pretty much the, thetwo ways that you get that land.
You either pay for it or, or youjust take it by force.
And ma many of them were many,many of those guys, they didn't
wanna sell their land off.
They just didn't want to, theywanted to keep their, their
lands in, in, in theirpossession.
And so they, they sold it soldit with their lives, which is,

(45:07):
you know, tragic.
But it does happen throughouthistory.

Track 1 (45:12):
Yeah, I think it's totally natural.
I mean, that's mostly whathappens the.
The organizational skills of theEuropeans were hundreds, if not
thousands of years ahead of theNative Americans here.
And so it was not that hard forthem to be successful.

(45:35):
And it's not just a matter ofone group had guns, the other
one didn't.
The, the by, by the, certainlyby the time that the west was in
full-blown expansion in theearly 18 hundreds, um, most of
the Native American tribes hadboth horses and rifles, uh, that

(46:00):
there are, uh, tons of tradeopportunities, uh, for them to
be able to acquire those.
And so it wasn't really a matterof, I think, being necessarily
technologically.
But it was more a matter of justthe raw number of Europeans that

(46:20):
were coming over and being born,the raw number of Christians
being born on the East coast andfamilies wanting to migrate
further west.
The population densities of theNative American tribes were just
not sufficiently high enough tobe able to combat that type of
expansion.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_12 (46:40):
Hmm.

Track 1 (46:42):
You gotta have more cannon fo you can't lose your
entire military when the enemystill has most of

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_1 (46:50):
Yeah.
When you, when you lose the themanpower to fight, there's just
the, the, you can, you can'trec, you can't recuperate those
losses.
And,

Track 1 (47:01):
and a big part of that was because they were, they were
still early in the agrariandevelopment, so they, they did
not have the ability to createmassive farms to support large.
pOpulations.
Now, ironically, some of themost developed Native American
tribes like the the Aztecs andthe what's the other one?

(47:26):
The Maya down in, in Mexico andCentral America, uh, ahead and
much better able to confront aninvading army.
They, they were no longer aninfluence by the time that the,
not even just the West, but eventhe Midwest was being conquered.

(47:47):
They, they were completely gone.
Their, certainly their ancestorswere still alive, but they'd
gone back to a much moreprimitive ways of living than
what was going on during theMaya and the Aztec heydays of
those empires.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_1 (48:02):
Yeah.
The Spanish were, were verysuccessful at, at, at conquering
at conquering those thosecivilizations at that time.

Track 1 (48:11):
I think that was mostly just luck because the, there
were a lot more people died as aresult of a lack of antibodies
to infections than due to anykind of great military strategy
by the Spanish.
Yes, they brought gun power withthem, but the weapons that the

(48:34):
the native populations utilized,uh, were very good at killing
people.
yoU know, there, the obsidianknives were many times sharper
than the steel weapons that theSpanish had with them.
The the blow dart pipes thatthey were using, uh, were also.

(48:58):
Very accurate and quiet and ableto deliver a poisonous shot to
somebody with nobody aroundthem, even knowing what
happened.
But if you combine that with theinfections that were brought
over that there was no way totreat, um, you know, that is,

(49:19):
that is what what you saw wasthe core base example of of the
way that again, I'm blanking outof yeah, I lost the word.
But basically the, the way thata population that is unprepared

(49:46):
for something effectively has torely on random genetic mutations
within that population.
I.
To finally be reduced down tothe people that are able to
fight the infection as being theonly ones left to reproduce.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121 (50:01):
Ah, okay.
I, I, I, I, I see, I understand.
Yeah, I, I understand whatyou're saying.

Track 1 (50:08):
it's, yeah, I mean, it's a, it's sort of an
evolutionary process that'sslowly happens, but it's greatly
sped up when you, when you havea, a brand new pathogen like
that that nobody's prepared Soit's, you know, there's certain
things you can, like theinfections that you survive

(50:32):
through and you get antibodiesfor, uh, certainly are gonna be
a lot less dangerous movingforward.
But when they're so novel thatthere are.
No antibodies being manufacturedin 99.9% of the population.

(50:53):
It's that randomly geneticallymutated 0.1% that you're relying
on to preserve the populationand genetics.
And that's kind of whathappened.
I think it's just tremendousnumbers of people died not as a
result of, of good militarystrategy, but as a result of a
lack of antibodies.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_1210 (51:13):
of a ba, basic internal protection
against foreign pathogens.
And so they would be,

Track 1 (51:18):
Yeah, I mean it's, it was really un an unplanned, but
it was really the first form ofbio warfare.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_1 (51:25):
yeah.
Which is a, which is a veryterrible thing to think of, but
it does, it does happen.
And it's probably happened a lotmore throughout history than we,
than we probably, you know, everthought possible.
I mean, just the, you know, I, Ialways think of bubonic Plague
and Bubonic Plague as Iunderstand it, traveled traveled

(51:47):
the silk Road from, uh, notnecessarily India, but in a
region around India westward.
And that's how it got to Europe.
And unfortunately the thespecific flea that, that carried
this pathogen,

Track 1 (52:03):
Yeah.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_12 (52:04):
just kind of,

Track 1 (52:05):
It's a rat flea.
It was a rat

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121 (52:09):
And it's just kinda spread around
and nobody was able to, tohandle this particular illness,
and it just killed people inmass and you know,

Track 1 (52:17):
Yep.
And, and the problem was thatpeople at that point kept rats
as pets.
I mean, the rats were basicallysquirrels at that point.
They, like when you look at asquirrel, you don't think what a
disgusting, horrible animal.
You think, oh, it's kind of cutething with a bushy tail, right?
Give it a nut to go take back toits house.

(52:38):
That's essentially the way thatpeople thought of rats back
then.
They were just, these smalllittle rodents didn't really
bother anyone.
And although they did eat grain,they certainly liked to eat our
food, but they weren't thoughtof as these like really
disgusting things that mostpeople don't want to have
anything to do with.
Most people don't ever want totouch a rat given an

(53:00):
opportunity.
Right?
And I think that that isliterally up at this point still
a general civilizational feelingbased on what happened during
the black plate.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_12101 (53:15):
A a cup, one of those conscious
things that you're still kind ofreeling about because that, that
those events

Track 1 (53:21):
It's kinda like Friday the 13th.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_1 (53:23):
13th.
Yeah.
The, the, the notion of, of aFriday and the number 13 and how
that particular event thatoccurred, and I believe it was
1307 when the Knight's Templar.

Track 1 (53:34):
Yeah.
It was October 13th, 1307

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121 (53:37):
and I was think it was King
Philippe, and I want to say itwas, it was either Pope Bonnis
or Clement iv.
I can't remember which.
But yes, that, that, that, thaticonic event of all these people
being magically arrested andthen.
And tried for crimes, convicted,of course, they were all
convicted and then they were,you know, brutally executed in

(54:00):
a, in a number of ways.
And, you know, that, that occursthroughout the land.
I mean, you're gonna rememberthat particular day.
And, you know, especially forfor the the Christians they
would definitely see that as,you know, a a day that should
live in infamy.
And then it just lives on, inour psyche and our horror films.

(54:22):
And even to this day, I think westill have a couple of nursery
rhymes that ring around theRosies one.
That's all about the the plagueand the symptoms of the plague
and all that.
And you know, sometime,

Track 1 (54:34):
We all fall down.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_12 (54:35):
they all fall down.
Ashes.
Ashes, we all fall down, youknow, the, the nursery rhymes
and horror films, you know, kindof.
Play off of these almost, youcould almost call it genetic
memory in a way, but not really.
But these, these events that arejust

Track 1 (54:53):
Yeah.
It's institutional memory, Ithink is the term.

sir-joshua_2_11-2 (54:57):
Institutional memory.
Yeah.
Okay.
That's better.
Instead of genetic memory.
We don't have genetic memoryyet.

Track 1 (55:03):
Yeah generic, I mean, genetic memory I think is
slightly different.
Genetic memory is more like whatthe survivors of the Inca would
have.
Not memories of, you know,relatives getting killed or
anything.
But it, it's essentially the,the fact that, that they all do
have, um, genetic capability tofight these diseases now.

(55:25):
I think it was, um, other thanthen what else was there?
I think one of'em was syphilis,the other one was chickenpox and
then there was another couple

sir-joshua_2_11-24-20 (55:40):
smallpox, syphilis.
I think typhus typhus would'vebeen a big one.
I.

Track 1 (55:45):
So all, all these things that, there probably is.
Now, I don't know this, I'm notlooking up data, but I would bet
because it, it would make sensethat there's actually a smaller
percentage of people with NativeAmerican blood DNA, that would
be, um, at risk from thosediseases today than there are in

(56:12):
the general European populationbecause so many of them that
died out that the bloodline wasreinforced to only be containing
the DNA of people who survived.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_1210 (56:30):
It is, it's kind of, it's kind of
just like almost all awestruckto consider that, you know, the,
the, these populationsexperienced such an event that
reduced their numbers down tothis, you know, those those
thresholds where they may not beable to continue to sustain
themselves and, and, and, uh,anthropologists out there claim

(56:55):
that there's, there's beenseveral of those points for the
entirety of the human species,uh, during some points in, in,
in recent history, geologicallyspeaking, recent history

Track 1 (57:07):
Yeah.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121 (57:07):
we, we almost

Track 1 (57:08):
Yeah.
I think Europe from what Iremember if you go back far
enough in Europe back to about12,000 years or so, that
they've, they've only found avariance of about 40 women in
all DNA that is in your, that isof European ancestry today.

(57:33):
So e essentially, it's not tosay that we know for a fact that
the population literally gotreduced to.
40 females is just that, um,we've not been able to find more
than that.
So even if it was a highernumber, it was still a number.
Not too far from that.
Let's say double.
So a hundred, we like theentirety of the European genetic

(57:55):
pool, uh, stems from roughly ahundred people.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_ (58:00):
That's incredible.
And that would've, and about12,000 years ago, that would've
been

Track 1 (58:05):
Yeah.
The younger dress.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121 (58:06):
the younger Dryas event which was a
great cataclysmic event.
I follow Randall Carlson andhis, his talks on the younger
dryas

Track 1 (58:15):
Mm-Hmm.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121 (58:17):
and the the glacial meltwater series
that occurred.
It's it's, it's prettyincredible that that type of
information, it's almost, it'sthe, the information is almost
literally so large that it'shard to process when you start
talking about large, largevolumes of water washing over a

(58:37):
land mass and moving largeboulders that are just immovable
today with modern technology

Track 1 (58:47):
There.
There's not a single historicalcivilization that doesn't have a
flood myth

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_12 (58:54):
that literally, yep.

Track 1 (58:55):
all over the world.
All, all some of em are in thereligious context.
Others, just in the historicalcontext, every civilization has
a flood myth.
That's, that should tell yousomething.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121 (59:11):
it, it, it tells me that, that the,
that the, the flood mythsthemselves are not necessarily
true, but in reference tosomething that most definitely
occurred in the past.

Track 1 (59:24):
Yeah, it's a broken telephone, right?
So it may have started off withsome truth, but after many
generations of verbally passingon the information, it may be
quite different, but at least weknow there was something that
happened that affected theentire world.
And the other interesting thing,I find that if you do the math

(59:47):
to look back at

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023 (59:49):
Mm-Hmm.

Track 1 (59:50):
Atlantis and when Atlantis would have existed, um,
you find the same thing that itgoes back to 12,000 years ago.
I think it was 11,200 forAtlantis.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_ (01:00:05):
11,400 or so to speak?
Yes.

Track 1 (01:00:08):
Yeah.
That it's, again, it's justbased on verbal tradition.
But, you know, our oldestreferences to Atlantis are
essentially coming from about4,000 years ago in Greece.
And they're, they're alreadytalking about something that
happened thousands of years ago.

(01:00:30):
So it, it's, it's fascinatingstuff.
You know, again, I, I wouldnever make the argument that we
know facts from any of this.
We're just sort of puttingpieces of a puzzle together and
we're saying, oh, that kind oflooks like a foot.
Oh, this, this kind of lookslike a horse.
But, but nonetheless every yearwe can uncover more and more of

(01:00:52):
these pieces that we're puttingtogether.
And the picture that it'sdrawing is sometimes amazingly
similar to what we read about inreligious texts.
Which, you know, some people issurprising because they think

(01:01:13):
that religion is just stories.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_12 (01:01:15):
they do think that, and the, the
religious context for thesestories, you know, for me, I, I,
I look at'em and I'm, I'm justin awe that many of them have,
you know, survived through theages.
You know, I would've always havethought that, you know, we'd
probably Have taken the story ofNoah and, and, and changed it

(01:01:37):
around so much over the courseof, of 1500 years of
Christianity bickering amongstitself.
But for the most part, the storyhas remained the same at least
from what I know and understand,and it, it's, it's really awe
inspiring.

Track 1 (01:01:53):
Yeah.
And you know, the fact thatwe've got, now the ability, or
very close to the ability atleast of bringing back extinct
animals.
The, the wooly mammoths.
I know there's a number ofprojects going on right now, I

(01:02:13):
think in both Russia and China.
That will be recreating woollymammoths essentially, uh, you
know, taking the DNA that's beenextracted from frozen samples
and, um, combining it with DNAfrom elephants and then having

(01:02:35):
an actual mammoth be born.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_12 (01:02:37):
that would be something pretty
incredible to see.
Now, however, I mean, we'retalking like a real life
Jurassic Park type, you know,situation.
So they would be, they'd betaking, you know, DNA out of
this wooly mammoth that's beenpreserved in the tundra.
and I mean, would that DNA befully intact?

(01:03:01):
I mean, that's a question Ihave.
I don't know.
I don't know.
And

Track 1 (01:03:05):
Yeah.
They certainly have sufficientDNA.
There's a lot of, I mean, that'sthe other interesting thing
about the whole mammoth frozenin the Siberia thing is that,
um, they, they weren'temancipated when they froze,
which means that this was afairly fast event

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_1 (01:03:28):
yeah.

Track 1 (01:03:29):
because they didn't even have time to lose weight
because they couldn't find food.
These were critters that wereliving there and eating and
walking around, and all of asudden, one week the
temperatures just dropped andkept falling and getting colder
and colder.
And they literally froze todeath rather than starved to

(01:03:53):
death, which is totally contraryto what the, the normal theory
of climate change has been forthe planet.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_ (01:04:02):
that's it presents an interesting
argument for the, for theclimate change alarmist is, is
how does the the climate in anarea, and I, I don't know how
big this area was when theseanimals were w walking around,
but this particular, you know,woolly ma, woolly mammoth that
was, you know, frozen willpreserved sometimes they were,

(01:04:26):
you know, had just got doneeating, the food wasn't even
digested in their stomach, andnow they've literally frozen to
death.

Track 1 (01:04:35):
Mm-Hmm.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_12 (01:04:35):
does that happen?
Like at what, what, what is itthat would have to occur to make
those that that particular, youknow, circumstance occur in, in,
in, in a cli in a climatesetting?
It's just abs.

Track 1 (01:04:49):
And I, I think the, an the most straightforward answer
is is that there would have tobe no daylight.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121 (01:04:57):
No.

Track 1 (01:04:58):
It would have to be, the sun would have to be blocked
out completely to where theearth could not warm up during
the day.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_1 (01:05:08):
Yeah.
So if that, if that would betrue, then there's something in
the atmosphere that's blockingthe sunlight.
So my mind instantly would go tosome type of, you know, comment,
meteor impact, where there's alot of,

Track 1 (01:05:21):
That's the most likely.
I mean, you can stretch and saya giant spaceship stood between
the earth and the sun too.
I guess

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121 (01:05:28):
Or, or, or, or the moon.
The moon was, uh, a particulardistance.

Track 1 (01:05:35):
The moon would have to be right next to the earth for
that to work.
It's so far away

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_12 (01:05:40):
you, if you

Track 1 (01:05:41):
it couldn't block out that

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_1210 (01:05:43):
we could definitely take a you
know, an ancient alien astronauttheory apply it here.
And the the moon is a artificialsatellite put there by by an, by
an alien civilization, and theywere moving it with their remote
control device.
Yeah, there you go.
That's a good one.
I mean, it's not very plausible,but you could definitely, you
know, you could throw that onearound upside,

Track 1 (01:06:05):
And, and the problem with having the moon closer is
that if it's closer, then it'smoving faster around the earth,
which means that it couldn'treally block out the sun for any
period of time.
I mean, it would be for a matterof a minute or two.
Because it's just like theInternational Space Station, you

(01:06:28):
know, at, at that height.
It's making, what is it, I think24 rotations or 28 rotations
around the earth every, everyday.
So it's, it's less than an hourfor it to go all the way around
the earth.
So there's a lot of issuesthere, but I, that's why I think
I also lean towards the, themeteor impact or giant volcanic

(01:06:51):
explosions that

sir-joshua_2_11-24-20 (01:06:52):
eruption.
Yeah, those, those two seem mostplausible.
Of a, of a causation for, youknow, there to be enough
particulate matter in theatmosphere to, to, to block out
the sun for a period of time sothat, you know, the, the
temperatures just plummetbecause

Track 1 (01:07:08):
And I'm sure somebody could do the math on it.
I don't, I don't know what thosenumbers are to calculate just
how much of a lack of sunlightit would take.
In order to cool thetemperatures down sufficiently
enough that it would you know,make animals that are living in
the Northern Hemisphere freeze,um, due to the weather.

(01:07:29):
And it's, I'm, I mean, my guessis it's probably, you know,
maybe three or four weeks withno sunlight,

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_12 (01:07:38):
that sounds about right.

Track 1 (01:07:40):
but I'm just pulling that on my ass.
It could be, it could be a lotmore, it could be a lot less,
but it would certainly have tobe a lot more than just a few
days because we've gone througha few days with no sunlight when
it's really shitty weather andthe earth still isn't that cool.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_1210 (01:07:59):
it would have to be,

Track 1 (01:08:00):
So it's interesting, it's interesting stuff to look
at because you know, you, youbeing a a student of history and
eventually a teacher of it, um,I've always just.
Kind of taking the old adagethat if you don't understand
history, you're gonna repeat it,uh, to heart.

(01:08:21):
And so I've always enjoyedlearning about the past, but the
older I get, the more I realizethat there's very few of us that
do.
Most people really could give arat's ass about the

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_12 (01:08:34):
They that, that, that attitude is
very, is very prevalent.
It's very common.
A lot of people just don't care.
I, I've had coworkers in thepast that, you know, they, they
really honestly don't care aboutwhat happened in World War I,
world War ii.
They wouldn't, they wouldn'tcare.
I've had you know, fellowclassmates, you know, they don't
really care about, you know,studying wars, revolutionary War

(01:08:56):
for one, they don't care.
You know, more and more of ourour students that are coming
outta high school, you know,they can't find Washington DC on
a map you know, let aloneIsrael.
And yet you'll have these kidsthat are on college campuses
having, you know, some very, youknow, disheartening things to
say about that conflict.
You know, despite the fact thatthey really don't have any

(01:09:17):
contextual information.
About that conflict.
And

Track 1 (01:09:21):
Mm-Hmm.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121 (01:09:22):
my, my driving force is to have more
information about the people andthe places and the events so
that I can have a greater senseof respect for them.
Having more, uh, having morerespect for the culture that's
involved in a conflict.
You know, for example, you know,the, the, the Israel Hamas

(01:09:43):
conflict.
More, more information aboutthem.
The more I'd learn about them,the more I can at least give
them respect.
You know, there's still peoplethat are being hurt.
There's still people beingkilled.
That's a tragic thing.
No matter, no matter whatanybody has to say, it's a
tragic thing to lose people.
However, there's a, a conflictthere and not many people
understand it.
And the message that we get inthe, as the general public is,

(01:10:07):
is, is very much far fromaccurate.
So it's, it's, it's all.

Track 1 (01:10:12):
Yeah, it's all going through a filter.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_12101 (01:10:16):
I will go Yes.
That, that and that filter thatyou're, that you're referring to
is, is not just some of thepeople who are, um, in our
government that are, you know,presumably giving us information
that is supposed to be right.
That is supposed to be good.
But they are but they're alsoare, are our media people.
Our, our people in the, thetelevision news industry, they,

(01:10:39):
they don't give us informationthat's, that's really
actionable.
That's really, you know, usefulto us that, that, that
enlightens us.

Track 1 (01:10:47):
It's not their job.
Their job is to selladvertising.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_1 (01:10:50):
Yeah.
Selling advertising.

Track 1 (01:10:52):
they're just using the format of news as a vehicle to
sell advertising.
anD that's again, if more peoplejust recognize it for what it
is, then I think we'd have a lotfewer people being shocked that
there's fake news because.
Most of the news that's callednews is fake news because it's

(01:11:13):
simply the method that they'reutilizing to sell ads.
The only thing I would actuallycall actual news or real news,
would get from people that haveno monetary interest in the
matter at all, and no politicalinterest in the matter.
So if, if there's a a fire thatburns down a barn silo, uh, or a

(01:11:38):
farm silo, and I'm not a farmerand it's really not gonna affect
me a whole lot in any way, butit's just kind of newsworthy.
It's interesting, and I tell myfriends about it, like that's
literally the only unbiased newsout there because everything
else is done for a reason.
The news stations would tell youabout that to sell advertising

(01:12:00):
and nothing sells advertising.
More than a conspiracy theory orsome kinda salacious thing to
blame somebody for that.
yOu know, anybody that'sinvolved with the farm would
tell you about it, but they alsohave a very distinct
self-interest in this, which istrying to get people's help to
fix this situation.

(01:12:20):
So everybody has an angle, uh,or vast majority of people do,
but yet most people don't seemto recognize that everybody has
an angle.
It's the weirdest thing.
Everybody just treats theirpreferred media source as the,
uh, authoritative media source,and they're anything but.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_12 (01:12:47):
Wow.
That's definitely a, a lot totake in and, and you're, you're
hitting it right on the head.
It's it's very difficult to findany type of source of
information that's unbiased andthat doesn't have the, you know,
some kind of skin in the game.
I mean, we don't necessarilyhave direct access to that.
That's, that's why right nowit's, it's, it's very difficult

(01:13:08):
for me to, to get really goodinformation about any type of,
you know, world event.
Almost everything out there is,is in it to sell some form of,
of, of advertising whether it's

Track 1 (01:13:22):
and it doesn't have to be unbiased.
I mean, that's the thing, it's,that's a sort of fallacy too, is
to think if only we could getunbiased news.
No, you don't need unbiasednews.
You just need to recognize thebias in the things that you see.
And so if you are watching, uh,you know, some show that clearly
leans in a particular.

(01:13:43):
Political direction.
There's no downside to seeingwhat they have to say as long as
you understand that they have astrong lean in a particular
direction.
So it's, it's like a filter.
You subtract that filter backout, and what you're left with
is probably closer to reality.
And then you do that withmultiple different people that

(01:14:03):
all have preferably differentbiases.
And that's really the only waythat you're gonna arrive at the,
something resembling unbiasednews because today it's, it's
really almost impossible totruly see something unbiased
because anybody that's going tobother reporting on it, that's

(01:14:26):
gonna bother repeatingsomething, they have a reason
for that, for doing it, forrepeating it,'cause taking, if
it doesn't cost them money, atthe very least it costs them
time.
So what was the reason that theywanted to spend their time?
Telling you about thisparticular thing.
What do they, what do they getout of telling you this?

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_ (01:14:45):
right.

Track 1 (01:14:46):
Once you figure that out and you subtract out that
bias, then you'll be left withwhat reality is.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023 (01:14:52):
sounds, that sounds, that sounds
excellent.
I like that.
Similar to what I do when I'mconducting a certain amount of
research into a given topic.
I like to look at not just thenot just who wrote the
particular, um, source, but thetime period that it was written
in.
And time periods can give you anidea on.

(01:15:15):
How far removed this particularsource is from the event.
yoU can also take into accountwhen you're looking at a primary
source, a firsthand account suchas a journal entry.
Journal entries are really goodbecause you're, you're reading
the words that someone put onpaper, uh, that, that surround
that event.

(01:15:35):
And those, and those types ofsources really give you kind of
like a snapshot of what theperson is thinking, what the
person is feeling, what it isthat they're talking to somebody
else about this particularevent.
And, uh, when you start from thewhen you start at a primary
source and you go forward intime to your tertiary sources
that happen much, that happenmuch later down the timeline,

(01:15:58):
it's, it, it's, it's a lot offun.
And that's where you can startputting together pieces of the
puzzle.
oF, of, of what happened.
The Boston Massacre is perperhaps one such event where we
as pro-American history peoplewe always view that as this
barbaric event that happened andthe the British were these

(01:16:19):
horrible people that, that shota bunch of Americans dead in the
streets.
And that's actually not anaccurate way to recall or to,
to, to recount that eventthat's, that's not factually
true.
And there's a, there's, there'sa a brilliant piece called John
Adams John g Paul Giamatti playsJohn Adams.
And a big part of that is thetrial of the Boston Massacre.

(01:16:43):
But principally the, one of thebiggest pieces of propaganda.
Is the engraving that PaulRevere died that Paul Revere did
Paul Revere made the, the famousengraving and that, that
engraving is, is in the historybooks.
So you study the BostonMassacre, your history book will
most likely have that painting,or it'll have a, a, a painter's

(01:17:05):
rendition of the engraving init.
And it, it definitely gives youthe, the, the appearance that
the British did thatintentionally to kill people.
Versus the, the events are a lotmore, it, it's a lot more
accurate to say that you had acontingent of soldiers who were

(01:17:26):
supposed to protect thisparticular building'cause it was
a tax office.
And they were being hounded.

Track 1 (01:17:32):
Yeah.
I mean the, and, and they were,they were being attacked by
hundreds of

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_1 (01:17:36):
Yeah, being attacked by protestors.
They were having you know,bottles and these rope rope
bats.
A lot of these guys weresailors.
So they had these little batsthat they used to beat the
ropes.
And so they were throwing thesethings at them and they were
being they were being goatedsaying, shoot me, go ahead,
shoot me.
And eventually it was somepoint, one of the one of the
guys in that in that contingent,you know, fired his weapon.

(01:17:59):
And then the, then the, theremaining of the shooting
happened, and then the officergot control of his men and, and
then the city was placed onlockdown.
sO

Track 1 (01:18:12):
And you have to remember, they were shooting
British

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_1 (01:18:14):
Yeah, they they were shooting British
subjects, not Americans.

Track 1 (01:18:17):
They were fully within the

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_1 (01:18:19):
Yeah, they were.
And it's, it's a, it's a veryinteresting event that occurred.
And I think it has a lot of, Iwould say, a modern day context
for us when you look at how lawenforcement handles protests,
how law enforcement handles youknow, violent violent subjects
when they're trying to bringthem into custody.

(01:18:40):
And you look at that particularevent that was, you know, part
of the resistance movement atthat time, and it was part of
igniting this wholerevolutionary mindset and, and
that, that, that type of, Ithink that type of attitude is
still probably pretty much aliveand well today.
However, you know, if you lookat how law enforcement's

(01:19:02):
handling things today, I thinkyou can draw some, you know,
some, some similarities to whatthe, what the British were doing
to try and maintain order in asociety that was kind of going
down that road of going intodisorder.
Mm-Hmm.

Track 1 (01:19:17):
Absolutely.
Yeah.
And it, it, there's a lot ofthings that you can point a
finger at that the colonistsdidn't about England, but I.
They're kind of like smallerthan things that we don't like
about our current government.

sir-joshua_2_11-24- (01:19:38):
Absolutely.

Track 1 (01:19:39):
Like you're talking about the tax rates.
The tax rates are higher todayto the US government than they
were to the UK government fromthe colonies.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_12 (01:19:49):
Yes.
And, and yet we, we will go downthat road of no taxation without
representation.
aNd that's not true.
The, the, the colonialgovernments were all represented
in parliament.
They had a specific, represent arepresentative body in in
government that, that, thattended to the needs of the

(01:20:09):
colonies and that, and that,that was where their their,
their you know, their voice washeard and, you know, probably
much to, much to theadmonishment that it's king
George III was actually verymuch on side of the colonists up
until the Boston Tea Party.
He actually did side with thecolonists with their with their
with their concerns.

(01:20:30):
And as a result you know, themost infamous, the horrible
Stamp Act, the Stamp Act wasrepealed And people like to say
the Stamp Act was one of thethings that really made us all
mad.
I'm like by the time therevolution kicked off, the Stamp
Act had already been repealedfor almost 10 years.
So you can't use the stamp actas a real causation for war.
And it just, yeah, PE people,people don't study the interwar

(01:20:55):
period prior to theRevolutionary War to really
understand,

Track 1 (01:20:59):
People don't study jack

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_1 (01:21:00):
yeah, they'll study Jack shit but.

Track 1 (01:21:05):
Yeah.
Yeah.
And, and like you mentioned,Paul Revere's etching, I mean,
it's complete propaganda becauseyou have the correct number of
British soldiers.
You have eight soldiers there,and then you have about 15
people dressed in BlueAmericans, even though I
guarantee you they weren'tactually wearing blue.
But the reality was there was acrowd of over 150,

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121 (01:21:26):
was a, there was a lot of, there was
a lot of people there.

Track 1 (01:21:28):
I mean 150 versus eight, uh, who were protecting
an office filled with gold.
Okay.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_12 (01:21:38):
Yep.

Track 1 (01:21:40):
A little different than what the propaganda would

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_ (01:21:42):
little bit different.
That's correct.
And

Track 1 (01:21:44):
We better wrap up This episode of Britain was Right and
US still belongs to England.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121 (01:21:49):
You go.
Hey, that's a good one.
Hey, that, that, that, that's agreat show title

Track 1 (01:21:53):
That'd be a really popular podcast.
Yeah.
That that'll go over reallywell.
But the, but it's just, it's agood illustration of how we let
propaganda become defactohistory.
And if you don't take the timeto find out for yourself, it,

(01:22:15):
you're never gonna know thetruth.
And unfortunately, right now,this is my last thought is, um,
with history moving off thewritten page to the internet, it
is insanely easier to alter nowthan it ever has been.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121 (01:22:34):
I'd have to agree with that.

Track 1 (01:22:36):
And that's, that's a very, that to me is a bigger
danger than ai as much aseveryone's panicking right now
because changing one's historyis it, it's the best method of
controlling future minds.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_12 (01:22:52):
Hmm.
As a student of history, I wouldhave to agree.

Track 1 (01:22:56):
Yeah.
All right man.
I, I enjoyed chatting with youas always.
We'll have to do another one ofthese.
Our, our phone conversations arealmost identical to what we just
recorded.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_12 (01:23:05):
Yes.

Track 1 (01:23:07):
Although a, a wee bit later at night, I had to
actually fall asleep last timewe chatted'cause it was getting,

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_1210 (01:23:12):
It was, it it was

Track 1 (01:23:13):
I think towards 1:00 AM

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_1210 (01:23:14):
It was pretty late in the day.

Track 1 (01:23:16):
But I thought it'd be fun to let other people hear as
well, uh, what it is that wechat about.
And it's also somethingcompletely different from any of
my other

sir-joshua_2_11-24- (01:23:25):
Absolutely.

Track 1 (01:23:26):
as far as the topic.
And I, I, I always have enjoyedlooking at history and all kinds
of different, uh, aspects ofhistory.
And so it's always a treat to beable to chat with you about that
topic.
'cause most people don't give ashit.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_1210 (01:23:41):
of course, sir Gene, it's a, it's a
pleasure to come on the show.
I'm really happy that we had thetime to sit down and record and
we'll have to thank my wife aswell.
She did a great job getting thekids outta the house.

Track 1 (01:23:51):
Oh yeah.
Handling the kids.
Perfect.
All right, man.
Take

sir-joshua_2_11-24-202 (01:23:54):
Bye-Bye.