132 Blood and Circuits: Gaming in a World of Cyber Threats

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Howdy Ben, how are?
You today Doing good Geneyourself.

Speaker 2 (00:04):
Alright, alright, alright, alright, alright.

Speaker 1 (00:09):
Okay, matthew, oh man .
Long way.

Speaker 2 (00:16):
I keep getting older.
But those girls, they just staythe same age.

Speaker 1 (00:20):
Yeah, I'm definitely getting older man.
Travel is taking its toll on me.
Yes, well, I I made some poordecisions.
I don't know if we want tostart with my travel, woe.

Speaker 2 (00:33):
But sure, why not?
So I had to go to norfolknorfolk yes, to go and talk to
the boss got it.
So I had to go in and talk tothe boss, got it.

Speaker 1 (00:43):
So I had to go to Norfolk for the first part of
the week and then Tuesday I hadto fly up to Hanover.

Speaker 2 (00:50):
Oh.

Speaker 1 (00:51):
And there is no flight from Norfolk to BWI, but
there is one to Dulles and Iwasn't thinking.
I wasn't thinking.
I was like I'll get therebefore rush hour.
Except the flight was delayed.
Bag took forever, rental cartook forever.
I'm leaving Dulles at 5 o'clock, so what should have been an

(01:14):
hour drive turned into athree-hour drive and I'm just
sitting there going.
My God, it would have beenfaster for me to fly to Boston
and then back to BWI.

Speaker 2 (01:23):
Yeah, or take the train faster for me to fly to
Boston and then back to BWI.

Speaker 1 (01:26):
Yeah, or take the train.
I want those connections rightnow for status reasons.
Yeah.
I did go to Bethesda on thistrip too.
Okay, I went to the Spy Museumthere at the NSA.
Always passed by it, I'vealways passed by it never been.

Speaker 2 (01:49):
What did you think?

Speaker 1 (01:50):
I mean, it's a small little museum, but it's pretty
interesting.
I laughed and scoffed at theirUSS Liberty exhibit, though,
because USS Liberty wasabsolutely a false flag, but
this is still unknown.

Speaker 2 (02:04):
Oh, we don't know if it was a false flag.
It could have been a majormistake that somebody made.
The thing we do know is thatthe uss liberty was a spy ship,
exactly, yeah, which generallyyou don't use spy ships for
false flags.
You use either civilian vesselsor military vessels.
So that's well.

(02:24):
The question to me is it's awhy?
I think that would have been agood chance.
It was a fuck up no, no, no the.

Speaker 1 (02:31):
The reason why I'm saying it's a false flag is
because israel immediatelyblamed it on the egyptians.
Yeah, and I'm pretty damn sureit was israel did it.

Speaker 2 (02:43):
Well, that's fine, but my point is simply that it
wasn't.
I don't think that ship wassupposed to have been the false
flag, not from the US standpoint.
The false portion of the flagis that somebody, somewhere, set
things up for this to bemisconstrued.
Yeah.

(03:04):
Otherwise it's a mistaken flag,not a false flag.

Speaker 1 (03:09):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (03:10):
So I mean, I'm not saying it's categorically that
it couldn't have been a falseflag, I just think that it could
have.
I've watched a few debates onthis topic and it definitely
seems to me like there wasplenty of room for error well,
either way, I thought theirexhibit was interesting, the way

(03:31):
they phrased it.

Speaker 1 (03:31):
I thought being able to see a cray one in person was
pretty cool you know lots of thetechnology, everything else yep
so yeah, it was worth going.
I I got a couple challengecoins given to me on this trip
too.

Speaker 2 (03:47):
Nice, nice.
Now you're into that, so that'scool.

Speaker 1 (03:52):
Yep, I'm going to need a bigger display.

Speaker 2 (03:55):
Right.
Well, you could make abulletproof vest out of them
yeah right.
Just walk around, covered inchallenge coins.
Challenge coins.

Speaker 1 (04:06):
Save my life, all right.
So on serious topics, like Isaid, I was traveling this week,
but I have caught up prettygood since we didn't do it
Thursday.
Today's Saturday.
Yeah, where do you want tostart?

Speaker 2 (04:27):
well, I mean, uh, the thing that I'm getting some
serious schadenfreude from isthe massive amount of smiles
turned into frowns for libs thatare losing their jobs, losing
their homes, losing theirhusbands, losing all kinds of
things because they fuckedaround and then they found out.

Speaker 1 (04:44):
Yeah, I sent you the statement that that chick that
you know ruined her boyfriend'selectrical business statement
she put out.

Speaker 2 (04:53):
I did, I did, and so this is something John C Dvorak
wrote about, and I still wouldvery much say fuck around, find
out.
Yeah.
You know, these people thinkthey live in a consequence free
bubble, when they actually livein a glass house.

Speaker 1 (05:20):
I don't know if it's a glass house, but you know
they've got lots of windows.
How?

Speaker 2 (05:25):
many of these people, do you think, have more than
one month's worth of savings,almost zero, exactly, glass
house.
Okay.
Not living in the bunker.

Speaker 1 (05:36):
Okay, they're getting their just desserts, though,
right?

Speaker 2 (05:39):
Yeah, they are.

Speaker 1 (05:40):
Including Jimmy Kimmel Fuck him.
Oh yeah.
Oh my God.
God, this is so terrible.
First of all, it wasn't the fccthat did jack.
Right was shit.
What are the two broadcasters?

Speaker 2 (05:54):
well, it was disney owned abc, but really the
affiliates.

Speaker 1 (05:58):
Yeah, yeah but I'm trying.
I'm trying to remember the nameof the affiliates that said
that they were not.
I don't remember, but I don'tknow that it even matters.

Speaker 2 (06:02):
There's no point in out of the affiliates that said
that they were not, I don'tremember, but I don't know that
it even matters.
There's no point in outing theaffiliates.
The point here is theaffiliates are the ones who are
paying for the programming.

Speaker 1 (06:11):
And they said Well, with what he said, it's pretty
ridiculous and he shouldn't havesaid it and he shouldn't, he
shouldn't have gone to doubledown on it.

Speaker 2 (06:21):
Here's how he could have totally said that, in my
opinion.
We to double down on it.
Here's here's how he could havetotally said that, in my
opinion is have he not, for thelast eight years, gone political
?
If he was still a comedian likehe was in the man show, he
could have said something likethis to get a laugh.
But that's not what happenedhere.
What happened here is he's beenvery much a political

(06:45):
commentator with jokes, butreally doing political
commentary, and then he just,you know, said something he knew
his audience would laugh at andthat would appreciate, because
they agree with him on it, notbecause it's funny, but because
it's like, yeah, let's juststick it to the conservatives,

(07:05):
because they got what was comingto them One of their own killed
one of their own.
So fuck them, we don't care,right, folks?
And then he what he didn't planon is that the people that are
paying for his show to be on theair don't all live in LA.

Speaker 1 (07:23):
Well, and one of them was Sinclair, by the way.
I finally remember that.
But you know Sinclair is mostlySouthern and mostly
conservative, right yeah?
So I don't know, man, I don'tknow, it seems like a dumb
mistake.

Speaker 2 (07:42):
Dumb mistake, but not really a mistake in so much as
taking for granted that he wasuntouchable.
Mm-hmm.
I don't think he had concernabout what he said.
It's not like he made a mistakein saying something and had he
realized he wouldn't have saidit.
It was that this isn'tcontroversial in his mind, that
this isn't controversial in hismind.

(08:03):
This is something his actualin-studio audience completely
agrees with.
So, yes, good writtens.
I honestly am hoping theentirety of those people get
replaced sooner than later.

Speaker 1 (08:21):
Well, colbert's working on it next man.

Speaker 2 (08:24):
Yeah, I would love to see colbert be done like this
month and not a year from now,which you know.
They said they're not going torenew them past this year well,
but I think that's why he'strying to do this.

Speaker 1 (08:37):
he knows he's done and there you know his show's
been canceled, so so he'ssitting there just saying just
end it, let me see somethingegregious and just end this.

Speaker 2 (08:51):
Yeah, yeah.
And then you contrast that toBill Maher with, if you remember
, on our last show.

Speaker 1 (08:59):
I mentioned Bill Maher's latest club, random.

Speaker 2 (09:03):
Yeah, yeah, that's what I'm talking about.
Okay, bill Maher's latest clubrandom.
Yeah, yeah, that's what I'mtalking about.
Okay, that you know.
On our last show I said I I amwaiting to see what Bill Maher
has to say, because he talked toCharlie.
He may not have agreed withCharlie and everything, but he
certainly saw that Charlie was avery nice guy.
Yeah, and that's essentiallywhat he said.
Is that?

(09:25):
This is?
You know, he still believes inthe same principles that he
believed in 20 years ago as aliberal, but he doesn't know,
you know, he's like he doesn't.
The people that call themselvesthe Democrat Party today are

(09:46):
not liberals in his mind, and Ithink many people that have
walked from that side, includingElon Musk, including Tim Pool
you know these are allself-identified liberals, not
that many years ago.
I think they're all saying thesame thing right now, which is

(10:10):
that, hey, man, my opinions ofthings haven't changed, but the
definition of what the DemocratParty has.

(10:32):
And musk reposted a tweet imagethat somebody sent basically
showing three frames.
First frame is a lefty kind ofmoving to the left, while a
centrist leftist meaning a guyto the left, of center, but
still not extreme was just kindof standing and looking at him.
And then the next frame is thatsame frame in terms of the
right and the center is guy, buthe's now exactly in center and

(10:53):
the left keeps pulling to theleft.
And the last frame is theleftist like three times further
to the left and then saying youknow where are you going?
Fascist.
To the guy that's been standingstill in the same spot, who's
now a right winger.

Speaker 1 (11:12):
So like if you keep pushing the left to the left
everyone's a right winger.
Did you see the one I just sentyou?

Speaker 2 (11:19):
Well, if you sent it since we started the show, then
no, let me look, you should look.

Speaker 1 (11:23):
So this was just posted on X not too long ago.
I don't see anything from you,it's on Signal and it's a guy
standing in the middle.

Speaker 2 (11:33):
Yeah, I don't see it on Signal dude.
You sure it's on to me.

Speaker 1 (11:41):
I didn't press enter.

Speaker 2 (11:42):
Oh.

Speaker 1 (11:44):
Alright, anyway, there's a guy standing in the
center between the two sidesyeah, and he's colored pink.
Yeah, not blue, not red and hesays I'm here to bridge the gap,
let's talk.
And the blue side shoots himand the red side says they shot
him, yeah.
And the blue side says yourside needs to turn down the

(12:04):
temperature.
And now they're dark, dark redwith glowing eyes.
I mean we had reports of anarmed man outside of the
memorial event there in Arizona.
Turns out he was a known personand a registered guest, but he
was impersonating lawenforcement and armed Jesus Wow.

(12:25):
Yeah, like registered guests,but he was impersonating law
enforcement and armed jesus.

Speaker 2 (12:27):
Wow, yeah, look it's.
It's obvious that if theshootings continue, there will
be an in-kind response well, I'mI'm surprised we haven't seen
anything else happen.

Speaker 1 (12:42):
Pleasantly surprised, but surprised.
But I mean we have left thisdoubling down on the on calls
for assassination and everythingelse.
Yep, we had people calling forerica and their children to be
killed which is just insanity.

(13:02):
And she's doing what I thoughtshe would do she's stepping in.
She just got voted the new CEOof Turning Point USA.

Speaker 2 (13:09):
I don't like that.
I'm against that.
I've said that from the get-go.
I think those children deservebetter.

Speaker 1 (13:16):
That's the problem.
It's too soon.
Her statement came too soon.
Yeah, it was a little too roteand scripted.
Now I know that's the only wayshe got through it, right.

Speaker 2 (13:26):
but you know, hey, go grieve right, yeah, go grieve,
go figure out what you're goingto be doing with your kids.
Now the other thing that Ifound out was actually charlie's
worth is 300 million, god damnit.
So all these people donatingmoney to the poor grieving widow
to make sure that she and herkids are okay.

(13:48):
Yeah.
I mean, if it makes you feelgood, do it anyway.
I'm all for that.
But it's not that they're okay,they're going to be okay.
Whatever?
Yeah, yeah, whatever, yeah yeahand and it's.
There's one I can't rememberthe guy's name, but it was one

(14:08):
of the other sort ofconservative rich dudes that
talked about meeting with elonand charlie and a couple of
other multi-millionaires, andthat's when he realized that,
okay, charlie is just, he's verygood at being the guy next door

(14:29):
, right, actually, he's right upthere with those guys.

Speaker 1 (14:34):
Turning point usa gets an incredible amount of
donations now, is that turningpoints value or Charlie's value,
because that'd be a differentthing.

Speaker 2 (14:45):
Well, it's not a nonprofit Right and she now owns
100%.
Are you sure about that?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, they havenonprofit chapters that they
start in colleges, but theactual company that does all the

(15:06):
management and facilitationthat Charlie was quote unquote
working for, that's for profit,okay, but it's again, this is
not a negative.
I'm not saying this to you know, say anything bad about him or
his wife or anybody else.
It's just I want to make surethat people don't feel like, oh

(15:27):
my God, that poor woman, what'sshe going to do now that her
husband's not out there debatingon campuses?
I think she'll be okay.
Now the kids are going to beobviously missing a dad and that
sucks.
And this is exactly why I don'twant the mom now to quote
unquote take up the mantle andto go to work, because the kids

(15:47):
deserve their mom.
A parent yeah.
Yeah there's.
They're stuck now with just one, and I would hate to see that
one become not available.
I don't think.
I hope to God no one shoots her.
I certainly don't think theywill.
But even just her being awayand working is not preferential

(16:08):
in my opinion.

Speaker 1 (16:12):
Well, I mean, it depends on how much of a
hands-on role she takes versuseverything else.

Speaker 2 (16:18):
Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
I mean, they could be doingthis purely for image, but then
she's still not really activelyspending time doing work, so
that's fine.
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (16:31):
Well, all I can say is my heart goes out to them.
I think people need to tonedown the rhetoric on both sides.
That's not what you were sayinglast week.
I think that's not what youwere saying last week.
Well, it is.
I'm taking Crowder's stance ofdefense.

Speaker 2 (16:50):
Crowder said fuck around, find out.
That's what Crowder said.

Speaker 1 (16:53):
Yeah, but defensive violence, only defend yourself,
defend others, take up theoffense, and I tend to agree
with that.

Speaker 2 (17:03):
Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 1 (17:09):
Did you see Harris slams?

Speaker 2 (17:11):
trump over kimball suspension, uh harris yeah.

Speaker 1 (17:14):
So harris went through and saying jimmy came
alive off the air defendingkimmel, that it's an outrage and
abuse of power, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah.
Who's?
Harris, kamala Harris.

Speaker 2 (17:27):
What does she know?
She's not really anything, isshe?

Speaker 1 (17:30):
No, she's nothing, yeah well then who gives a shit?
Hold on.
And then, anyway, Musk found anold tweet of hers and brought
it back up, and hilarity ensued.
But never mind.

Speaker 2 (17:43):
Yeah, and what did it say that sometimes you have to
go and fire?

Speaker 1 (17:47):
people or what.
Let me find it here.
Look, let's be honest.
The at real Donald Trump'sTwitter account should be
suspended.

Speaker 2 (17:56):
Mm-hmm, yeah, yeah, exactly they have no problem
suspending a president, but ohGod forbid somebody suspends a
nighttime show talk show host.

Speaker 1 (18:08):
Yeah, where you have legitimate financial
considerations yeah well, andall of them look.

Speaker 2 (18:13):
Aoc did a speech between an to an old empty room
where basically even thoughcharlie kirk was a naz, fascist,
homophobic piece of shit, myheart really goes out to his
wife and kids.
Mm-hmm, yeah, it's like goddamnBetter, just say nothing, you
know, just keep your mouth shut.

(18:34):
Yeah.
Keep your mouth off of CharlieKirk.
To quote Will Smith Keep yourdamn mouth off, Charlie Kirk.

Speaker 1 (18:47):
That was such a stage bullshit Of course it was yeah.
All right, I got a couple.
Anything else we want to sayabout Charlie.

Speaker 2 (18:58):
No, I guess not.
I mean I just I.
I am slightly not crazily, butslightly annoyed at the number
of people utilizing this tragedyto benefit them personally.
There's a lot of donationcollecting going on right now

(19:20):
for things that are not actuallyCharlie Kirk.

Speaker 1 (19:23):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (19:24):
And so, when this comes to mind, a few other folks
did you see?

Speaker 1 (19:28):
did you see brandon herrera's statement?

Speaker 2 (19:32):
no, what do you say?

Speaker 1 (19:35):
everybody should go watch the video on youtube.
He just came out and said I'mnot going to be canceling any
live events.
I'm going to be doubling downon them.
We cannot let.
I'm not going to be cancelingany live events, I'm going to be
doubling down on them.
We cannot let them scare usaway from this.

Speaker 2 (19:48):
We have to go and fight.
Well, that's good, because bothTim pool and what's his face.
Crowder.
No, no, no the Jewish guy.

Speaker 1 (19:57):
No, Ben Shapiro isn't canceling any events.

Speaker 2 (20:00):
He is now.
Okay, it just canceled them.

Speaker 1 (20:04):
Okay, well, he said he wasn't.

Speaker 2 (20:06):
I know he did say he wasn't.
He announced that and he waslike we're going to fight and a
bit like three, four days later,press release goes out.
All bench fears will becanceled, Refunds forthcoming,
Wow.
I mean it's like obviously.
What he probably got told isyou're gonna lose insurance if

(20:30):
you go through with this well,and that's what tim said yeah,
yeah, yeah, that makes sense,tim is.
Tim is funny, though, because Imean not because he's getting
harassed like this or andgetting death threats and stuff,
but like tim is so still naive,even though he's older than you
are.
No, he's not.
I thought he was, isn't he like38 now?

(20:54):
dude, I'm 39 okay, he's a yearyounger than you and he's still
naive like a 20 year old.
He's like, yeah, we're gonna godo this.
It, dude, you're saying shitbefore anybody on your staff has
checked anything.
You're just like talking aboutshit Like, okay, I made a
decision, it's good to go.
It's not how shit works in thereal way, so you gotta hold off

(21:17):
a little bit on announcementsand then, because you're going
to end up rolling them back andthat's exactly what's happened
here.
So, yeah, I don't know, man, II think I hope that anybody
doing public events in the openwill have drone coverage from an

(21:38):
hour beforehand to an hourafter, and then those drones
should be monitored and youshould have some snipers of your
own to eliminate any potentialthreats immediately.
I watched a video of NickFuentes getting harassed at his

(22:03):
house, and I'm not a big fan ofNick Fuentes, you know.
I think he's kind of a douchebag.
I like the gay Mexican memethat's going around them, but
also I don't think he ought tobe killed and also I don't think
he ought to be harassed.
Leave the damn guy alone andit's just.
You know, I don't care whatside of the political

(22:26):
instruction people are on thiseven though it's 99 liberal
women, but still just.
You need to stop harassingpeople for what they say.
It is ridiculous.

Speaker 1 (22:44):
Well, you want to try and get, except you were
calling for doxing and there's abig difference if you want to
have youtube, kick him offyoutube, I'm all for that.

Speaker 2 (22:55):
But if you want to show up in front of his house
and ring his doorbell and thentry and get him to do something
that you can call the cops andaccuse him, well, quite frankly,
anyone who's doing that, you'rerisking your own life.
Let's be clear yes, but alsohe's 26 years old.
I don't want even a crazypro-nazi dude having to end up

(23:20):
having to deal with lawsuits fordamages that he did to somebody
in self-defense.
Like self-defense still costsyou an arm and a leg financially
and a temporary loss of freedom, even if you're totally in the
right.
So I just I don't like thattrend, man.

(23:42):
Yeah.
Do you want to get somebodyfired?
Get them fired, but don't showthat trend, man.
Yeah, if you want to getsomebody fired, get them fired,
but don't show up at their house.
Agreed.
Mm-hmm.
So all of this does have an airof silver lining on it, because

(24:03):
clearly the mood of the countryis more in line, more in sync
with the conservative side thanthis with the liberal side right
now.

Speaker 1 (24:13):
Oh, I don't agree.
I think the left is just asradical as they.
I think I think it's a clearerdivide.
I think that most people whodon't pay attention are siding
with the conservatives.

Speaker 2 (24:27):
That's what I meant by that.

Speaker 1 (24:28):
Okay, the two politically aware sides, the
people who pay attention to thenews, are more entrenched and
further apart than ever.

Speaker 2 (24:39):
Yeah, I don't disagree with that.
I mean, in terms of just thepeople that have been less
politically inclined and I'msaying that mostly because I
watch a lot of gaming content onYouTube, twitch People that
have never mentioned politics,or, if they have, it's only been
in the context of laughing atit all of a sudden now are super
serious and talking about how,what the hell is going on with

(25:02):
the left.
What are these people thinkingand saying?
Because they just they'reretarded, like the R word is
coming out a lot from centrists.

Speaker 1 (25:13):
The problem is the centrists, like Dr Mark Siegel
on Fox, I wasn't going to bringthis up, but since we're
continuing, he wrote an op-edtitled Charlie Kirk's shooting
suspect shows the danger of lostkids in gaming culture.
Yes, literally blaming gamingthey did for this.

Speaker 2 (25:32):
I read that yeah, insane.
Yeah, absolutely, yeah it's.
We've had gaming culture,including shooting guns and
games, for, oh, I don't know, myentire life pretty much I
remember playing wolfensteinyeah, yeah, go shoot a nazi

(25:52):
literally exactly so.
And then you think about that.
This is just.
It is such a perverse long gamethat the socialists have been
playing by to so many people whoclearly are not nazis that it

(26:27):
actually blurs the lines it.
It may not be the cause ofcharlie getting called, but it
sure as hell contributed to it.
So I, yeah, I just I'm not aI'm not a obviously a supporter

(26:49):
of anyone that's gonna beblaming video games, any more
than somebody blames guns andgun culture.
It's like, well, it's reallythis guy's parents that are
responsible for the gun culturethat he grew up with that got
him to use a gun to commit thismurder.
It's like, no, yeah, that's,that's insanity all right.

Speaker 1 (27:11):
So next do you want to go to gaza, ukraine or h1b?

Speaker 2 (27:19):
h1b let's do a fun topic yeah.

Speaker 1 (27:21):
So this is actually a fucking win total win crazy 100
and the indians are apoplecticover it, like modi has really
stood up to trump and like thisis gonna have humanitarian
repercussions and so on yeah,humanitarian please oh why?

(27:41):
Because your diaspora is gonnahave to come home, not only that
, because the diaspora sendsgoing to have to come home.

Speaker 2 (27:46):
Not only that, because the diaspora sends money
home even when they work abroad.
And that's really what he'stalking about.

Speaker 1 (27:51):
So, for those that don't know, trump has signed an
executive order requiring$100,000 per year Per employee,
per H-1B recipient, to be paidto the government.
So what that means is H-1B issupposed to be highly skilled
workers that you can't find thatskill here in the US.

(28:11):
Well now, god damn it, that'sgoing to be quite the thing, and
it's funny because BBC issaying this is going.
You know, workers from Indiaare by far the most skilled visa
in the program, just as morethan 70 of those issues, so the
india is the biggest one goingto be hit.

(28:31):
Oh, totally, totally.
But here's the thing every h1bworker I've ever known a some of
them are good, but there'salways an american that's just
as good yep, and they are wageslaves because they can't change
jobs.
They can't, they.
They have to find someone tosponsor them.

Speaker 2 (28:48):
Yeah, and the us sends over 41.5 billion yeah,
back to india yeah, it's insaneand it's somebody that is both
hired and gotten rid of h1bs fordifferent companies in the.
We all knew it was a scam, likewe knew it was a scam 20 years

(29:10):
ago when we were hiring H-1Bsand we did them like.
I was part of the team that didthe analysis financially.
Here's what we need to do.
Here's what it's going to saveover the course of five years
and here is the contract, thelanguage that has to go in there
for us to ensure that this is aprofitable activity.
Like everybody knew, they weregoing to perform worse than

(29:33):
Americans.
That's expected.
Everybody knew all the issues,the problems and we even knew
the fact that some of thesepeople cannot afford to fly home
for holidays.
This is all a known quantity andcompanies did it to save money,
period, end of story.
There was no pretense even that.

(29:56):
Oh well, we can't find enoughof these people Bullshit.
We had all the American peopleand this is back when I was
doing information security work.
We had tons of people in the USthat we could have been hiring,
but we didn't, because we couldget Indians to work for $45,000
to $50,000 a year, yep, and wehad to pay Americans $100,000 a

(30:18):
year Yep.
I mean, this was an area kind oflike AI is now right.
You can't hire somebody for AIfor under 250K Like no one will
just take a job for less thanthat.
And it was the same kind ofthing 20 years ago in InfoSec,
where it was a hot field.
We just got through Y2K and thesalaries got up to into six

(30:40):
figures, and so people wereexpecting that.
Six figures, and so people wereexpecting that.
And then this magic fountain ofoh, this guy graduated with a
master's degree in informationtechnology security from the
institute of bangladesh and wecan get them for 46 000 a year,
hell yeah.
And then you realize you knowwhat indian degrees aren't worth

(31:01):
the paper they're written on no, they're not're not, because
it's more about who you know,who you paid and who fucked who
than it is about people thatactually did really well in
school.
Now Japanese people you hirethat have advanced degrees they
are super geniuses.
Indians not so much.

Speaker 1 (31:19):
So do you know how many the official current
estimates of H-1B visa holdersare in the US?

Speaker 2 (31:26):
About 14 million too many.

Speaker 1 (31:29):
No, it's not even a million.

Speaker 2 (31:31):
Is it that?

Speaker 1 (31:31):
long 730,000.

Speaker 2 (31:33):
Yeah, but that's.
But I would guess it's actuallya little more than that.
I think that that number isprobably underestimated.

Speaker 1 (31:41):
The other thing is Well, my point is even let's
take that number that Google AIis giving me, Sure, but it
caveats that there's no singleofficial total, da-da-da-da-da.
But estimate is this let's sayit's over a million, doesn't
matter.
Let's say it's 500,000.
Doesn't matter.
The fact of the matter is youremove by this time next year

(32:03):
those 500,000 positions.
That's 500,000 Americans thatare going to get those jobs.
Yep, that's a huge uptick.
That's money that isn't leavingthe country.

Speaker 2 (32:19):
It will make my wage more valuable.
Yeah, absolutely, it is.
Essentially, it's going to makethe H1B what it was originally
supposed to be, which is, if acompany truly is let's say,
you're finding that you'retrying to steal that engineer
from NVIDIA, right, and you'renot going to be paying them a
hundred grand a year, you'regoing to be paying them 800,000

(32:41):
a year, and a hundred grand ontop of that for the H1B fee is
nothing.
800,000 a year and 100 grand ontop of that for the H-1B fee is
nothing.
That's going to still be worthit to do for the right companies
Facebook X, whoever.
Right For a very, very skilledapplicant.
Very skilled, exactly.
And you know for a fact Musk isstill going to do this, even
with $100,000 fee.

Speaker 1 (33:00):
Sure, for the right person, it makes sense.
Yeah, for someone making 50grand, it doesn't.
It does not.
Yeah, for someone making 50grand, it doesn't, it does not.
No, because if you can pay anAmerican 130 grand to do it,
that's cheaper.
Yeah, absolutely.
We are going to see a massiveincrease in real wages because
of this.
Yeah, it's a great move.
I'm glad someone floated theidea by him and he's executing

(33:21):
on it.

Speaker 2 (33:21):
Yeah, but also it's been a very long time since you
got a good deal on indians orany h1bs like that also
disappeared over the course ofthe last 20 years to where your
h1b is maybe 10 cheaper thansomebody's comparable us wage.

(33:42):
But companies are so used tousing the H-1Bs and now you've
got whole fleets of managersthat themselves were H-1Bs 10,
15 years ago, have become UScitizens and only hire people
from their own countries now.

Speaker 1 (33:58):
One of the things I would say is I have never hired
an H-1B.
I've never worked at a companythat would sponsor an H-1B.
What we did, though, was hirecontractors like HCL we do use
them all the time, yeah.
Yes, and those HCL workers wereso poorly paid and HCL is an
Indian company by the way LikeTata and WePro, and they were so

(34:22):
underpaid.

Speaker 2 (34:22):
Tata and WePro.

Speaker 1 (34:23):
They were so underpaid and they could not
change jobs, because unless yourcompany specializes in bringing
in H-1Bs, you don't do it.
Yeah.
And anyway, regardless, there'sa ton of them out there.
They're almost all going away.
It's going to go from a millionseven hundred some odd thousand

(34:44):
down to a couple thousand ayear yeah, as it should be yes,
and I I've I've said that formany, many years, for over 20
years, that we need to stopabusing the h1b system.
You think these indians that arehere are are, whatever
nationality, are here on the h1bprogram?
Yeah are they going to leavewillingly?

Speaker 2 (35:09):
I think a lot of them will test the waters legally
through everything they can,meaning they will apply for
exemptions, for appeals I thinkthere's gonna be lawsuits saying
, hey, change the program on uswhile we're already.
I suspect in californiathere'll be a lot more that end
up staying than in other statesbecause California is not going
to be doing anything to help theenforcement of that.

Speaker 1 (35:32):
I've seen that with Newsom.

Speaker 2 (35:33):
Yeah, but in the end, even if the trickleback is slow
, just the prevention of any newH-1Bs happening.
Plus, you've got to rememberthe H-1Bs naturally do expire
and so there is a naturaldeprecation that's going to
happen, whether you like it ornot, if they're not issued, if

(35:55):
they're not renewed.
But also, I love the shit Trumpis doing, but I don't trust Pam
Bondi.
I don't trust Pam Bondi.
I don't trust Patel.
I don't trust any of thosefuckers that Trump brought in,
frankly.
Why?
Because they haven't done agoddamn thing.
I don't know if you watched anyof the hearings with Kash Patel

(36:20):
.
I did.
He's a jackass man.
He's a jackass that has zero,damn good he didn't know, he did
especially on the senate side Iknow he did poorly.
What are you talking about?
No, he, I disagree nailed thedemocrats.
What are you talking about?
That is not his place to naildemocrats, as a witness coming

(36:40):
in to testify.
But what he's going to end updoing is getting more senators
against Trump.
That's what he accomplished,congratulations.
He's going to have moreRepublicans actually nodding
their heads in agreement withthe Democrats going yeah, this
administration's out of control.
We need to start putting inlegislation to limit them.
Thanks, cash.

(37:00):
Eh, we'll see.
I thought it was a very poorperformance, see, for a guy that
hasn't achieved a goddamn thingsince he got into office.
There's nothing that he talkedabout before he was in office
that he's actually accomplishedin office For a guy that hasn't
done jack shit.

(37:21):
He let his mouth loose asthough he was still a podcaster
when he was being testifying infront of Senate.
This is not a joke, and he wasacting like it was.
Al.
I think one of two things isgoing to happen Either Cash gets
fired or Cash is going to quitBecause the repercussions will

(37:42):
be on the administration.
I guarantee you that all he'sdone so far is prolong the
conversation about Trump'sinvolvement with Epstein.
This is not the play that theTrump administration wants.
So, yeah, I think he clearlywas a bad hire, much like his

(38:07):
boss, who is a god-awful hire,who wants to put a limit on free
speech, who has been lying tothe american people about the
epstein files which, by the way,breaking what breaking.

Speaker 1 (38:20):
Yeah, the prosecutor who reached the plea deal with
Epstein just got a plea dealhimself to testify.

Speaker 2 (38:31):
Good, I was afraid you were going to say just
committed suicide with two tothe back of the head.

Speaker 1 (38:38):
Nope, he just reached a deal to testify.

Speaker 2 (38:42):
Well, that's interesting, because that means,
he knows something.

Speaker 1 (38:48):
Yes, it does.
I wonder what, and me too yeahand there's.

Speaker 2 (38:50):
we will have to wait to see, but I guess.
I guess there there's been aconspiracy theory that trump was
a an informant for the fbiagainststein and that's why he
can't talk about it.
To me that sounds like a bunchof bullshit.
Even if he was providinginformation to the FBI, he sure

(39:15):
as fuck could talk about it.
I'm not buying that the currentsitting president is going to
be held on some court order fromseven years ago to not talk
about some topic.
He, the guy, can literally, youknow, declassify anything he
wants.
Yeah and uh, his response waswhat you guys are still talking

(39:36):
about this after all.
this time I will say?

Speaker 1 (39:39):
I will say that, yes, he can declassify anything that
he wants, and if there's a CIAfile, for example on epstein, it
should be released yeah butwhat he can't do is violate a
court order without fighting itout in the courts, and they are
trying to do that right now well, he?
Yes, yeah, generally speaking,although there are definitely

(40:02):
exceptions but I would say is,to quote one of our founders the
court has made their decision,now let them enforce it, right?
So there's that.

Speaker 2 (40:11):
Yeah, there's also a matter of national security that
overrides courts.

Speaker 1 (40:15):
Yeah.
So, yeah, anything else onEpstein or Cash or Bondi.

Speaker 2 (40:20):
Yes, so I don't know if you've been following.
I think I forwarded you theinfo about Franklin Arms.
Oh yeah.
After a decade in courts,finally getting an enforceable
positive ruling that explicitlysays that two of their guns I'll

(40:41):
just call them guns- that arecapable of shooting multiple
calibers.
Right that that basically oneof them shoots five, five, six
and the other one was, I think,45 long.
Call that they are firearms notsubject to the NFA and
therefore are not short barreledrifles.

Speaker 1 (41:02):
Yes, and this goes for.
This goes for anything that youcan shoot, .410 or .44 long,
called .22, with rat shot.
Before you get going too far,hold on.
Well, this is Guns and Gears'opinion.

Speaker 2 (41:17):
Okay, go ahead, and then I'll tell you what's going
on.

Speaker 1 (41:20):
What's really interesting is, I think this
could potentially even take outshotguns on short-barreled
shotguns, because you can shootmultiple types of ammunition out
of a short-barreled shotgun.

Speaker 2 (41:33):
So as of.
That's not part of this rulingyet, as of 7 pm last night, the
ATF released an open letteradvising Franklin Arms that
their products have beenreclassified as firearms for the
ATF and that they will beenforcing the National Firearms

(41:55):
Act as prescribed because of achange of interpretation, mm hmm
.
So basically they won a 10 yearold long court case battle
which the ATF, convenientlyunder Pam Bondi's direction and
Cash Patel's leadership, hasbeen fighting tooth and nail and

(42:16):
has now pulled a switcheroo anddoubled back, forcing Franklin
Arms to issue a letter to allbuyers of their products for the
last several days, advisingthem that refunds will be made
promptly and all products haveto be returned back to Franklin
Arms.

Speaker 1 (42:34):
The court ruling, though, is very clear.

Speaker 2 (42:37):
So, if it is, if I, however, the Department of
Justice, the trump department ofjustice under bondi and patel
over the atf, are saying wedon't give a shit, we don't care
what the courts say well, we'llsee what happens.
I think I mean, that's theanswer to everything that we're

(42:59):
talking about.
Literally is that we'll seewhat happens, because all of
this is emotion.
None of None of this has been,even though this we thought was
decided in our favor for achange turns out nope, the ATF
is going to ignore it.

Speaker 1 (43:12):
Quite frankly, this is going to end up going to the
Supreme Court and it may be thedissolution of the NFA.
So cool.

Speaker 2 (43:19):
If that's what ends up happening and I'm sure
there's some QAnon-type groupout there just trust the plan.
This is all exactly what wewant.
Yeah, well, that's not what Iwant.
I want to be able to orderthese things and not have to
think about the fact that ATFchanged their mind.
So it's you know they weretalking.

(43:42):
Franklin Arms was even talkingabout licensing this to other
manufacturers.

Speaker 1 (43:47):
Franklin Arms said they will license this.

Speaker 2 (43:49):
Yeah, yeah yeah, and well, it's all moot now.
Okay, we'll see.
And I really don't like that.
This is happening under thecurrent administration.
I would have expected this tohappen on the previous one.
That this is happening underthe current administration.
I would have expected this tohappen on the previous one.
What in the hell is preventingTrump from providing a direction

(44:10):
to Bondi, who then, in turn,provides it to Patel, saying
thou shalt not enforce bullshit?
Yeah, they're saying exactlythe course that the ATF was
under previous administrationsand doing nothing to act in a
pro-gun manner, which certainly,I think a vast majority of MAGA

(44:35):
are pro-gun.
Yeah, you think?
Well, one would think, butTrump administration clearly
doesn't think that.
That'd be like the Democratsall of a sudden being
anti-abortion.
It's like well, you know, wehave to look at this, but for

(44:58):
now, let's just hold off and notdo abortions.
Really, that's not what yourpeople voted you in for.
So major disappointment on mypart on that count, because this
is not an independent entity.
This is an entity that has astraight direct reporting line
through trump and the peoplethat trump brought in, and it's

(45:21):
acting exactly in the samemanner as it was acting under
Biden or Obama or Clinton.

Speaker 1 (45:30):
So I'm still hopeful for some of the lawsuits on the
NFA about the tax stamp stuffand everything else.
It'll be interesting to seewhat happens.
I, I'm hopeful that there beinteresting to see what happens.
I, I'm hopeful that there'sgoing to be some changes, but
we'll have to wait and see.

(45:50):
Yep.
On another note, two majorcyber events happening right now
.
Have you been tracking?

Speaker 2 (46:01):
Not beyond the X headlines.

Speaker 1 (46:04):
All right, you been tracking not beyond the x
headlines.
All right, so we've gotheathrow.
That is going through whatc-tac went through?
uh, last year, ransomwaregetting on the baggage handling
computers and the plcs thatcontrol, you know, the, the
belts and everything else andcausing massive disruptions.

(46:25):
And what's funny is I'mactually I've consulted with
SeaTac on their cyber event.
I'm well aware of what happenedthere.
I have to limit what I sayabout SeaTac because of that,
but what I can say is everyHeathrow seems to be a repeat of
what happened to SeaTac fromeverything I see.

(46:48):
So it's going to be interestingto see that the other major one
we have have you looked atJaguar?
Have you seen what's happenedto Jaguar and Land Rover?
No, dude, they're going to beout over a month on their
production lines.
Really, yes, major, majorattack Estimated to cost them
more than 1 billion euros inrevenue.
So their manufacturing linesare in total stoppage right now,

(47:13):
like Range Rover and Jaguar arenot producing any vehicles
right now.

Speaker 2 (47:20):
Okay, I mean their marketing campaign pretty much
put a stop to production ofvehicles anyway.

Speaker 1 (47:28):
So Not on the Range Rover side.
Jaguar yes.

Speaker 2 (47:33):
Jaguar definitely, I mean.
They said their sales were down72%.

Speaker 1 (47:37):
Right, but again In one year.
But this is my domain, dude.
This is ICS environments thatare not protected.
And I will tell you the mostprotected sector on ICS is US
Electric.
Yeah, us Electric, let's hopeso.
The most investment there?
Yeah, the weakest is.

Speaker 2 (47:58):
ICS, that's for control systems.

Speaker 1 (48:00):
Yes, the weakest is arguably airports and line
manufacturing.

Speaker 2 (48:06):
Yeah, and that's not a good thing to hear.

Speaker 1 (48:07):
No, oil and gas is shockingly weak, like even the
super majors.
I've done work for Chevron.
I've done work for ExxonMobil.
Yep, yep, they don't have greatprograms.
Yeah, what we have is thisTootsie Pop mentality in a lot
of these industrial systemswhere you have a hard on the

(48:30):
outside, soft and smooshy on theinside.
As soon as you break thatbarrier at all, you're done.
Yep, and like I was on the ISA99 drafting committee, which
became 62443.
So I literally helpedinstantiate some of the ideas
around zones, conduits and notmicro-segmentation, because you

(48:50):
can't in these environments, butrisk-based segmentation and
risk to your process andeverything else.
And all I can tell you is thisis nothing but job security for
me.
Yeah, yeah, totally this isnothing but job security for me
and I'm very yeah, yeah, totally, but anyway no between heathrow

(49:11):
and jaguar, like the.
When I was talking to someoneabout heathrow, their immediate
reaction was well, but we heardabout c-tac.
Why didn't they make anychanges?
Why didn't they do anything?
And the answer is because therearen't enough people to make
the change in any meaningfulspeed.

Speaker 2 (49:26):
Yeah Well, good thing , there's going to be a whole
lot of Indians looking for worksoon.

Speaker 1 (49:32):
Yeah, they can go to the UK.

Speaker 2 (49:34):
Exactly.
Well, I think it's super easyto get a US passport as an
Indian.
Why?
Because they still have a lotof political what do they call
them, not charters, basicallyagreements between India and the
UK that make it much easier.

Speaker 1 (49:51):
Oh, you said US.

Speaker 2 (49:53):
I meant UK if I said US.

Speaker 1 (49:55):
Okay, so while we're talking about the UK, it
happened today the UK andPortugal recognized Palestine as
a state.
Yep, yep Thoughts.

Speaker 2 (50:17):
Well, I mean, it's not surprising, frankly, the UK
originally recognized.
After promising Israel to Herzland the coalition of Jews that
are commonly referred to asZionists, they backtracked and
said well, but we also need tohave a land for the people that

(50:41):
are living there right now, forthe people that are living there
right now.
And that, effectively, is whatbecame.
What do you call it Jordan?
So we had Transjordania and wehad the Palestinian mandate.

(51:10):
These were all administeredterritories that were conquered
by the British from the Ottomans, and that was the split that
they agreed to.
Now, somewhere in the mix, theEgyptian portion of the

(51:36):
coastline of Israel, gaza,started becoming its own thing,
and I remember when thishappened.

Speaker 1 (51:47):
This happened with Israel originally was Palestine
under the British right.
Yeah, it was the PalestineMandate, soine mandate, so the
the mandate before the zionistmovement really kicked off after
world war ii it really kickedoff in 1862.

(52:07):
The the it had no tractionuntil after world war ii well,
it, it, had it it.

Speaker 2 (52:15):
What happened after World War II was a mass sympathy
for Jewish people, and so a lotof people that simply just
would not give a shit and justdidn't care one way or the other
.
Well, all of a sudden agreedthat well, yes, yes, they
probably should have their ownland to escape to when they're
getting prosecuted somewhereelse.

Speaker 1 (52:37):
And you know what's ironic?
This is exactly what ishappening to the palestinians
today, not really.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, let me.
Let me explain why.
Yeah, because the palestinians,much like the, the jews, after
one or two, yeah, you had thismassive population of refugees.

(53:00):
Yeah, that no one wanted intheir country.

Speaker 2 (53:04):
Yeah, yeah, okay, you're.
You're right about that.
I can't argue with that.
Here's the bit that you got toremember the part that is Gaza
was not part of the Palestinianmandate the British administered
.
That was part of thePalestinian mandate that the

(53:25):
British administered.
That was part of Egypt sincethe Ottoman Empire.
That was actually territorytaken by Egypt from the Ottomans
, and so Jordan was the half ofthe territory that was the
mandate of Palestine.
That was supposed to be for theArabs, and Israel was the part

(53:49):
that was supposed to be for theJews.
And Jordan is Arab.
I mean, there's no two waysabout.
It is Arab.
I mean, there's no two waysabout it.
It has had a, you know,typically Arab relations with
Israel, but also a much morepeaceful relation with Israel.

(54:11):
Certainly, since the Six DaysWar, the normalization of
relations with Jordan and withEgypt effectively created
borders that really haven'tchanged since the 1960s.

(54:32):
So you know, it's a power peg,no matter how you slice it.
But I think the Gaza situationand you're absolutely right in
that nobody wants them isbecause the country that should
be forced to take them in ifthey're going to go anywhere
Egypt Is Egypt, Because that isthe last country that held that

(54:56):
territory and lost thatterritory as part of its attack
on israel well and is.

Speaker 1 (55:04):
Egypt could easily create a new settlement for them
and, like they have, the landmass saudi arabia has more money
and land.
Well, the star doesn't haveland, but has the de facto
government of al-islam so let'sand I want to talk about the
israeli bombing of gaza as welland that, like 70 of the

(55:28):
buildings are just destroyed.
I think it's over 70 yeah, it'sthe, the israelis have.
There's nothing there, there'sno infrastructure, there's no
possibility of rebuilding well,it will take time, but it's
basically going to be everybodyhas to leave like, yeah,
everybody has.
It's not, it's not livable,it's not livable this is one of

(55:48):
the most dense yeah populationper my square mile in the world
and there is no infrastructure.
You don't have fresh waterthere.

Speaker 2 (56:00):
Yeah, well, you do.
I mean, there's tons of freshwater there.
Israel supplies water, unsupplies water.

Speaker 1 (56:06):
No, no, no, I'm talking naturally occurring
resources, oh naturally.

Speaker 2 (56:09):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, and there's no desalination plants
or anything You're not pumping.

Speaker 1 (56:13):
They've been destroyed.

Speaker 2 (56:15):
I don't think they ever existed, dude.

Speaker 1 (56:16):
They did, but that's.
Are you sure about that?
Yes, okay.

Speaker 2 (56:20):
Because Qatar built Qatar.

Speaker 1 (56:22):
Qatar, that figures, yes, and, by the way, for those
who don't know, qatar and UAEover 90% of their water, and now
, for instance, dubai, 98% oftheir water is desalinated.

Speaker 2 (56:35):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, which makes sense.

Speaker 1 (56:42):
And I think the problem with US doing that is
just cost Well in theenvironmental impact.
What do you do with the slurry?
What do they do?
They dump it into the desert.
Oh well, there you go, yeah.

Speaker 2 (56:53):
So, by the way, we have the salt and sea, we can
dump it in there.

Speaker 1 (56:56):
All right.

Speaker 2 (57:06):
So here's a quick quiz for you, gene.
What group of people are the?

Speaker 1 (57:09):
most inbred in the world Most inbred, I would say,
defined as marriage between thehighest incidence.
No, I'm talking about ethnicpopulations, not specific
families.
Oh.
That's a pretty inbred ethnicpopulation in the world, based
off of marriages between firstcousins.

Speaker 2 (57:31):
I think it probably would be one of the Arab states,
maybe Turkey, even, becausethat's not considered a.
You know, it's not illegal outthere.

Speaker 1 (57:42):
Okay, so Pakistan is number one with rates exceeding
60% marriages between firstcousins, Cousins yeah, Kuwait,
Qatar and the United ArabEmirates is second with above
50%.

Speaker 2 (57:55):
Really, I wouldn't have thought that.

Speaker 1 (57:57):
Saudi Arabia comes in third at 40%.

Speaker 2 (58:00):
And that includes, like the common people, not just
the royalty.

Speaker 1 (58:04):
No, no, no, no.
It only counts citizens, andthat's the thing.
So Kuwait, Qatar and UAE theyall have.
When we think of Dubai, wethink of Dubai as this huge
multi-million person city.
Is this huge multi-millionperson city, but 90 some odd
percent of their population,maybe 99 percent?

Speaker 2 (58:25):
of their population aren't citizens.
Yeah, yeah, that's true, you'reonly counting the emirati there
okay, all right, yeah, I guessthat makes sense.
I mean, the saoud, the saoudfamily, is like tens of
thousands of people, yes, andthey all marry each other.

Speaker 1 (58:42):
Yes, at least one of them.

Speaker 2 (58:47):
Well, good point.
I know that they definitelylike to import the Europeans
there as well, and the Americans, and the Americans, yeah.
Yeah, how about Oman Do youknow any stats on them.

Speaker 1 (59:00):
No, it's not listed as the top ones.

Speaker 2 (59:03):
But it's interesting to me that.

Speaker 1 (59:04):
Pakistan is 60% 60% inbred Yep.

Speaker 2 (59:11):
Yeah, doesn't surprise me.

Speaker 1 (59:14):
And when you think that Pakistan and India used to
be one country, yet theircultures are so divergent that
India doesn't even make thislist.

Speaker 2 (59:25):
Well, also remember, india was never one country
before the British came.

Speaker 1 (59:31):
Fair enough, fair enough.

Speaker 2 (59:32):
Yes.
So there are very distinctgroups there.

Speaker 1 (59:35):
Right, and this is why we had the Great Divide and
everything else yes.

Speaker 2 (59:40):
I wonder why Afghanistan isn't't listed.
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (59:44):
I couldn't imagine they're any different than
pakistan I can just because of,I don't know, the bedouin
culture of trading wives.
Yeah.
Right, so that culture.
Women are often traded.

(01:00:05):
Historically have been tradedbetween groups For two camels
yeah.
Well and to keep the peaceright.

Speaker 2 (01:00:11):
Right, I meant that, yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:00:13):
So I guess that would probably disperse that psalm.
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:00:18):
I think they also have a pretty small population.
Yeah, that was always the bigthing about how, look at, look
at, look at how afghanistan,with a population of five people
, defeated russia.
Yeah, well if you know the realstory, you know exactly why and
exactly who defeated russia.

Speaker 1 (01:00:35):
But yeah what is going on with Israel and Yemen?

Speaker 2 (01:00:43):
So that's interesting .
I am not an expert on Yemenwhatsoever, so I'm completely
relying on what I watch onYouTube for that.
But it seems like Yemen hasreally taken up the shield of
Islam and is being verynon-diplomatic in just, you know

(01:01:06):
, completely calling for theelimination of Israel and Jews
in general.
I mean, they don't.
This is the thing thatAmericans don't really see much,
because the way that it'spresented here is a little
different.
It's like they don't likeIsrael.
The country, no, all theseMuslim countries are going off
the Koran.

(01:01:26):
The Koran doesn't say you mustdestroy the country of Israel.
It says you must kill all theJews Until the rock cries out.
That's right.
There's a Jew hiding behind me,oh, worshiper of Muhammad.
And then the trees will say thesame thing, except for the one.
I can't remember the name ofthe tree, but that tree, that

(01:01:47):
tree is the Jewish tree and itwill hide the Jews and it will
not cry out there's a Jew behindme.

Speaker 1 (01:01:52):
Yeah, yeah.
One of the things that I foundinteresting about this reading
the Guardian on it.
Mm-hmm.
You know, the Yemeni responsewas this was a brutal,
unjustified attack targetinginnocent people whose only crime
was working in the media field,armed with nothing but their
pens and their words.
And Israel's response is wetargeted quote-unquote military

(01:02:16):
targets, mm-hmm.
So I mean?
My understanding is they tookout some journalists.

Speaker 2 (01:02:22):
I wouldn't call that a military target, personally
well it is if they're sittingnext to military targets.
Look, if a journalist isinterviewing hitler and you're
targeting hitler, you're goingto take out a journalist I I
don't like those arguments.

Speaker 1 (01:02:37):
That sounds sounds very Charlie Kirk-esque to me.
Oh.

Speaker 2 (01:02:41):
Charlie Kirk-esque, it's true, though, because we
don't.
We in America do not regard thecivilians around military
targets as anything other thancollateral damage.
We're the model for the west.

(01:03:07):
Yeah, anyway, israel's rampingshit up.
Yeah, well, they lookinternally.
Israel's months ago said thatthey're gonna fully take over
gaza.
Like everybody knows this.
This is not some new thing thatshould be discovered, like it
was obvious from a while agothat gaza is done.
There will not be a gaza.
Now you can argue whetherthat's a good thing, a bad thing

(01:03:29):
or whatever, but but israel,after that attack over a year
ago, now israel had had itsenough is enough, fuck around,
find out moment, and it got alot of the more liberal groups
in Israeli politics to actuallysay agree with the more

(01:03:52):
conservative group and say, yeah, this has to end.
So again, you know, like theTuckerlson hit piece on israel
with the like oh they're,they're targeting christians in
gaza.
There, there are like 12christians in gaza, and if those
christians are sitting inbuildings, that are military

(01:04:16):
targets then when you say areyou mean?

Speaker 1 (01:04:20):
clearly you're talking about you and the other
Jews' military.

Speaker 2 (01:04:23):
They're designated military targets.
I don't know by who or why.

Speaker 1 (01:04:27):
You're missing my point, because it's Israel doing
it, dude, and you just saidours.

Speaker 2 (01:04:32):
No, no, I said, if they are A-R-E, not O-U-R, okay,
if they are military targets.

Speaker 1 (01:04:39):
CSB.

Speaker 2 (01:04:40):
Check the time code whatever, I know what I said, I
did.
You've been there a lot closerto israel than I have.
I've never been there I'venever been to israel, you've
been closer though qatar and uaeyes, damn near close, right
there, exactly Okay.

Speaker 1 (01:05:02):
So it's a Also been close to NSA headquarters.
That means nothing Exactly.

Speaker 2 (01:05:05):
Oh yes, it does, and everybody knows it.
So there's.
A.

Speaker 1 (01:05:10):
It was just a cover for my GPS location?

Speaker 2 (01:05:12):
Yeah, exactly, exactly.
So my only point is that ifanyone is surprised that when
you attack a large percentage ofa country's population and
remember, relative to size ofpopulation, the number of people
that died, the number of peoplethat, after being kidnapped,

(01:05:34):
were not returned or returneddead, that total number of dead
people would be like 9-11 times8.

Speaker 1 (01:05:43):
No, that would be 9-11 times 8 per population
density.
Let's be very clear about whatwe're saying there.

Speaker 2 (01:05:51):
Yeah, exactly.
Per population density.
Yeah, per capita yeah, yeah,per capita, exactly.
So it should not be a surpriseto anyone that the response that
we're seeing is the responsethat we were going to see.
I think that there were somepeople that thought, oh,
israel's going to bomb a coupleof places, all the hostages will

(01:06:13):
be returned and things can goback to more or less normal and
Gaza is going to be on their wayto becoming independent.
Go back to more or less normaland Gaza's going to be on their
way to becoming independent.
Yeah, obviously it wasn't goingto happen.
So what other topics you got,ben?

Speaker 1 (01:06:32):
Alrighty, so the next topic I want to talk about is
also in the vein ofcybersecurity, and then we can
get back into some politicalstuff.
All right, because on this tripI had some interesting things
happen to me.
We've all seen spam of generichey, I know your browser history
this, that and the other.
Right, oh, it's hilarious.
Well, I got a message on Signalwhich, by the way, everyone

(01:06:57):
should change their settingsthat if you don't know a person,
someone that they can't contactyou.
But anyway, since signal wentto people not having to know
your phone number, it kind ofgets interesting.
So I received a messagebasically saying we've got
compromise on you and wouldn'tit be a shame if we told these

(01:07:22):
people, to which they listed mymom, my dad by name, my wife and
my stepdaughter?
as well as listing some of thejobs I have had recently, as
well as listing some of the jobsI have recently.
Yeah, so I am lucky enough tobe in a position that there's

(01:07:47):
nothing that bad out there on me, right, like, even if you had
something that you, obviouslysomebody who knows me has been
hacked.
Yeah, because that's how thisworks.
So my advice to anyone on thisis block immediately, don't
respond.

(01:08:07):
And even if you've donesomething bad, well, dude,
that's on you.
You've got to own it, whateverif it comes out.
But I was looking this up theFBI statistics on these
extortion campaigns that getlaunched, even when there is
actual compromised material, theamount that gets released is

(01:08:29):
like 15%.
And when you think about it andyou go through this thought
process, I am not worriedbecause, again, there's nothing
out there on me that would bethat embarrassing, right?
Even if someone happened to geta hold of a nude photo of me
somehow.

Speaker 2 (01:08:47):
Oh, please, you should be proud of it.

Speaker 1 (01:08:51):
Exactly.
Oh, you know what?
Your stepdad, I don't, she's 22.
Sorry, I didn't send it to you,oh.

Speaker 2 (01:08:59):
God, please don't publicize that.
No, no.

Speaker 1 (01:09:02):
Yeah, exactly what will I do?

Speaker 2 (01:09:04):
But that's my point right.

Speaker 1 (01:09:05):
So, I'm just anyway the ability to step back.
Take a moment.

Speaker 2 (01:09:13):
Does your mother know you support Trump?

Speaker 1 (01:09:16):
Exactly, but anyway, okay, okay, a little bit of
embarrassment.

Speaker 2 (01:09:23):
Point is take a breath, think about what the
real thing is, and there'snothing that would be
embarrassing that your mom wouldsee that I haven't already
talked to her about.

Speaker 1 (01:09:31):
Right, but don't.
My point is don't deleteanything.
Keep things for forensicevidence block.
Don't communicate, because assoon as you communicate and go,
oh no.
Don't communicate, because assoon as you communicate and go,
oh no, don't do that, they'vegot you right, and the entire
game is to get you to pay, don'tpay and if you want to go like
I, haven't even opened a claimwith the fbi or anything.

(01:09:52):
They also sent me a messagefrom a proton email address, but
clearly they had done theirhomework.
Like that was the freaky partof this.
They had done enough homeworkon me to know enough details.

Speaker 2 (01:10:04):
It's like, oh yeah, so anyway, I've set up google
alerts on myself and everythingokay, okay verified my own
account integrities I don'tthink you need to have hacked
somebody to get the info thatyou mentioned, because it's
already available on the web.

Speaker 1 (01:10:23):
No but true.
But tying that to my Signalaccount is not that easy.

Speaker 2 (01:10:29):
Yes, I agree with that.

Speaker 1 (01:10:32):
That's where I think someone else's phone that had me
as a contact.

Speaker 2 (01:10:36):
Yeah, Signal contact Sure.

Speaker 1 (01:10:39):
Yeah.
Well, and this is why we havethe no reporters loud group, so
that no reporters can sneak inthere yeah, well, anyway, it uh
just a psa quick thing like thishappened while I was on my trip
and I was like because again.
It's annoying it's annoying andthere is that moment of oh wait,

(01:11:00):
what?
Oh wait?
Nah, you have to just make surethat hey don't do stupid shit
that can get you fired Because Ihaven't done anything.
That would be an ethicsviolation for my company.
So, okay, tell my company, sendthem.
Whatever you have on me, pleaseGo ahead right, send them
whatever you have on me.

(01:11:21):
Please go ahead.
Yeah, and just don't respond isthe best advice I can give
people.
Yeah, because when you thinkabout it, even if they have all
the contact information foreveryone they listed not just
associated names why would theysend that?
It's work for them and ifyou're not engaging and you are

(01:11:41):
clearly not going to pay them,they're not going to go through
and do that work, not unlessyou're high enough profile that
they can quote, unquote, make anexample out of you.

Speaker 2 (01:11:51):
And then they're never going to do that, because
it it.
Look, if somebody threatens youand you don't capitulate, for
them to then follow through ontheir threat exposes them more
than doing nothing.

Speaker 1 (01:12:11):
Exactly.

Speaker 2 (01:12:11):
And it increases the likelihood of them getting
caught.
Yeah, exactly, and they're notgoing to do something that nets
them zero money and exposes themfurther.
Potentially, that would be astupid thing for them to do, and
while they are somewhat stupid,they're not that stupid.

Speaker 1 (01:12:29):
Well, and attribution is bullshit.
I would say this six ways toSunday.

Speaker 2 (01:12:36):
So you're saying it wasn't the Russians?

Speaker 1 (01:12:38):
No, this six ways to sunday wiki.
You're saying it wasn't therussians.
No, I I would say that themajority of this come and with
all these indians going back toindia, we'll probably see an
increase in this.
Yeah, the majority of this sortof stuff comes out of india and
china yeah yeah, and india hasa whole industry built around
that, a multi-million dollarindustry multi-billion.
Yeah, you're probably right,probably the reason why is

(01:13:02):
because their success rate isfairly low, but what they do is
they troll linkedin.
They try and find things likemine that make a decent amount
of money and that's a lot ofboomers currently don't know how
to respond to stuff like this,and so if they get you know if
they have a low enough wageperson going through and doing

(01:13:23):
this research and then puttingthis together.
Also, the English was poor, sothat's another.

Speaker 2 (01:13:28):
Yeah, it's a good tell that way.
I remember a few years ago Igot a panic call from my ex-wife
asking for advice on what to doif someone's hacked her account
.
I said, well, well, what areyou talking about?
And she explained to me and shebasically got what you're
describing and I was justlaughing verbally on the phone

(01:13:48):
and she's like don't laugh atthis, this is serious.
I'm like, okay, I'm gonna, I'mgonna tell you what you should
do, but you have to tell me whatyou think you did that they
could expose.
Because now I'm curious.
Yeah, it's like what were youdoing that you're so afraid that
someone's gonna find out?

Speaker 1 (01:14:07):
because I want to know well, and again, it was
generic enough and everythingelse, you know.
Yeah, like I'll, I'll read themessage.
Hello there.
I was initially going to askyou what do you want us to do
about all this?
But you made, because I hadblocked their initial text you
made me try, you.
You made me regret trying to dothat.

(01:14:28):
I don't care if you block me ornot, it's your choice.
Anyway, I'll just go ahead andgo ahead for the option of
sending it to some people thatyou love instead of you seeing
it.
First, mrs Patricia blah blah,blah, right, right, you know,
listing out the names and thenlisting out three firms that

(01:14:51):
I've worked at.
Oh, and not to mention yourstep kid Right, and the naming
her.
Yeah, you know.
Maybe then you'll think ofattending to me Again.
So this was a series of threemessages.
First, one I blocked.

(01:15:11):
Then it came from anotherSignal account, blocked that one
, and then there was an emailfrom a Proton address and the
second message and the emailwere the same one, but that
happened.
I blocked it.
I've ignored it.
There's been no fallout orfollow-up since.

Speaker 2 (01:15:30):
No, of course not.
No, that language definitelysounds like it's in India.
Because they have certaindifferences in their English
usage that clearly indicate anon-US and likely Indian speaker
.

Speaker 1 (01:15:46):
Right, and the first message said oh, I found a phone
and there's information on youon that.
No, you didn't.
You got into somebody's account, you got into whatever you
found, probably my name and nowyou're trying to bluff your way
into something.
Yeah, you know, and there's.
There's been some great tools.
I forget the open source onethat is all about linking people

(01:16:10):
started with an m.
It's been around since theearly 2000s.
Yeah, basically scrape socialmedia accounts yeah exactly
someone's name and you find outthe links and everything else
and you know.
The other thing is, if anyone'sdumb enough to have facebook
lock it down now, can I controlwhat other people put on about

(01:16:30):
me on facebook?
No, like, my wife has afacebook account and I'm listed
as you allowed her to have aFacebook account.

Speaker 2 (01:16:38):
My God Ben.

Speaker 1 (01:16:39):
It predates me.
But, anyway, I don't personallyhave a Facebook account.
No Well, there is a Facebookaccount out there that I haven't
logged into in well over adecade, but I got Facebook back
in the day when I was runningfor student government at A&M,

(01:17:00):
back when you were a collegestudent.

Speaker 2 (01:17:01):
Yeah, that's great.

Speaker 1 (01:17:02):
But anyway, deep breaths, don't panic.
What is the worst they couldhave on you?
And just know that the worstcase scenario is you're going to
have to own what you've doneand as long as you live your
life like you're okay with that,then you're probably good dude
yeah, look, everybodymasturbates.

Speaker 2 (01:17:24):
Okay, it's just not that big a deal so unless
there's pictures of you fuckinga donkey yeah, yeah, I mean, if
you're masturbating to a donkey,they can't tell, so it's not a
big deal.
It's not jesus, it's not reallylike.
The worst thing you could do isyour your laptop camera was

(01:17:44):
turned on through a hack andrecorded you yeah, and this is
where shutters are.

Speaker 1 (01:17:50):
A physical shutter is important people.

Speaker 2 (01:17:51):
They can't do chat if you're physically shut down,
that's exactly right.

Speaker 1 (01:17:57):
Always check your shutters before you whip it out.
Gentlemen, yeah, and then Ijust checked mine and it is
close the implication of what Ijust whipped mine anyway, I I
just this happened to me andit's one of those things it's
like wow, this is the mostsophisticated one I have seen

(01:18:18):
yet that that sounds fairly.

Speaker 2 (01:18:19):
Usually they're very generic.
Yeah, the most sophisticatedone I have seen yet that that
sounds fairly.
Usually they're very genericyeah, the the other.

Speaker 1 (01:18:23):
When I was working at dragos, the industrial social
security firm, within a coupleweeks of me being there because
I had as many connections to thec-suite as I did there I got a
message text from a numbersaying hey, this is rob lee, the
ceo.
I need you to do this, oh right, that was the next most

(01:18:44):
sophisticated one, yeah right,and of course it's like well, I
have rob's actual number savedin my phone, so I know this
isn't him, yeah, and but yeah.
So again, we've all experienced.

Speaker 2 (01:18:58):
This is rob pleased to send me this message.

Speaker 1 (01:19:02):
Pleased to send me a gift card for this company that
we are meeting with.

Speaker 2 (01:19:06):
Yes, I left my wallet at office.

Speaker 1 (01:19:09):
Yeah, but my point is we've all seen the real generic
ones, but ones that obviouslyhave more context, like the two
examples I've given.

Speaker 2 (01:19:17):
And I hate to say it, but it's only going to get
worse, because the ai tools thatare available for everybody are
also available for the bad guyswell, and you and here's the
thing I poo-poo ai all the time.

Speaker 1 (01:19:30):
Sorry, csb, but data analysis of this type, like
linking in relationships, trivia, that, yeah, that that is a
legitimate, very.

Speaker 2 (01:19:40):
There's one of my friends, a guy that I've run
I've ran more than one of hiscompanies over the years.
His current one of his currentbusinesses has an AI suite that
you type in a name of a personand the company name basically
info that you got from businesscard and it scours everything,

(01:20:03):
starting with linkedin but downto you know shit that that they
might have said or done whenthey were in college, and then
puts together a profile.
It creates like here's a three,a three sentence greeting or
introduction you should use toapproach them that ties into one
of their interests.
This is the name of theirspouse and or significant other

(01:20:26):
and their kids, ages, birthdays,everything.
I mean it's basically like adoxing automation system, but
it's meant obviously forbusiness purposes and trying to
sell people shit, not somethingnefarious and just like getting
money from them, but it's theexact same tool that could be
used for both.

Speaker 1 (01:20:47):
By the way, the tool that I was thinking of, yeah.
That's the open source toolthat's been around for a long
time is Multigo, and it's beenaround for forever for doing
invasive.
It's basically a spearfishingtool.
Yeah, yeah, you know you.
You can find out a lot ofinformation about people with
that, so if anyone wants to gocheck it out, it can be useful.

Speaker 2 (01:21:10):
Yeah, so yeah, multi and this stuff is interesting
because when I get a messagefrom an unknown number to
something, I usually don'tignore it I start fucking with
the person oh, I have done thatso many times.

Speaker 1 (01:21:24):
Like I, I had some, so some of the pig butchering
stuff and things like that, likeI screw with them, bad and you
know, and talk about theirfathers and mothers and, yeah,
their bastard childhoods and Ijust tell them to go to a
location and I'm going to behappy to meet up with them.

Speaker 2 (01:21:45):
There's nothing like getting visual proof,
confirmation of the personthat's trying to fuck with you
back without them realizing it.

Speaker 1 (01:21:53):
Well, that's assuming it's a US-based person.

Speaker 2 (01:21:56):
Of course, of course.
But here's the thing a us basedperson, but of course of course
, but.
But here's the thing.
I don't know, if you watch markroper's video that he did on on
these indian call center scamplaces, they actually hire
temporary employees in the us asgophers to.
You know, like, leave your uh,leave a cashier's check or, you

(01:22:19):
know, cash cards or whatever thehell medium at this address,
right so?
And the person's thinking, aha,I'll just go tell the police.
Well, meanwhile, as soon as theyyou pull away after leaving
something there, they've got arunner that is the inverse of
your uber guy that runs there,snatches the thing from that

(01:22:40):
property and then mails it,usually to some address they've
been told to mail it to.
So it's a it.
It is foreign, but with thehelp of domestic people who
often don't realize that they'reactually breaking the law and
what they're doing.
People who often don't realizethat they're actually breaking

(01:23:02):
the law in what they're doing.
You know, these are people thatwere scammed into doing a
temporary high paying not even ahigh, but just, you know, more
than minimum wage job thatinvolves having your own car but
very little actual work Becauseyou're basically a bag man for
the bad guys.

Speaker 1 (01:23:17):
Right, and you don't even know.
You don't even know it becauseyou're getting paid hourly.

Speaker 2 (01:23:21):
Yeah, so it is nefarious, and that's why I love
these YouTube channels of guysthat specifically go after the
criminals out there in India andthey will, you know, hack them
back.

Speaker 1 (01:23:36):
They'll start telling them about their relatives and
their personal information yeah,I will say, offensive response
is not a legal thing, so becareful on doing that.

Speaker 2 (01:23:47):
But it depends.
I mean, it's like it's not ablanket thing, it's uh, when
you're dealing with law preventsyou from doing that.

Speaker 1 (01:23:57):
Doing what?
If you're doing open sourceintelligence research, fine.
But when you use the termhacking back, that to someone
like me is a very differentthing.
Like if you try and gain accessto some of their accounts or
something like that.
You can be prosecuted for that.
So limit yourself.
That's why I talked about thetool.
M maltigo is basically I wasinferring doing something

(01:24:20):
similar to that, but this ispulling open source information
and mapping relationships.
That is not illegal.
That is something that fuckingadvertisers do to us every day,
so that's fine.
But you use the term hackingback and you try to take control
of someone's account.
That's a very different thingthat has legal implications.

(01:24:43):
Which neither one of us isqualified to talk about, so just
leave it there, yeah, butanyway, I thought the audience
would enjoy hearing it.
Definitely hack them back.
What?
No legal advice is given onthis podcast.

Speaker 2 (01:24:55):
Never, never medical, never legal, exactly All right,
russia, or the senate, surerussia.

Speaker 1 (01:25:03):
okay, nato defense minister is calling to shoot
down russian war planes thatviolate territory okay, I'm what
happened with estonia yeah, I'mtotally on board with that.

Speaker 2 (01:25:16):
There's nothing wrong with that well, my question is
estonia.

Speaker 1 (01:25:21):
Fuck man, why didn't you just do it?

Speaker 2 (01:25:23):
Oh yeah, yeah.
Why didn't they do it?
Because Estonia has an army of12 people.
Fair enough Do you know howtiny that country is.
Right, but Literally acity-state.

Speaker 1 (01:25:34):
My point is okay, but why are we calling for this
instead of just doing it?
Because they want the US to doit Right.

Speaker 2 (01:25:44):
And I don't want the US to do it.
Fuck that.
Well, they want the US to do it, though, because, in their eyes
, that's the whole point ofbeing in NATO.
Is they get to go tell Big BadDaddy or, you know, good Daddy
or whatever, hey, wes thatsomebody's bullying us.
We need you to fix it what doyou think of the?

(01:26:05):
But I support territorialintegrity.

Speaker 1 (01:26:07):
I think every country had to shoot down planes of
every other country they don'tlike what do you think of the
the stuff coming out, that itlooks now more and more like
what happened in poland was.
So the story I'm hearing isthat ukraine refurbished and

(01:26:28):
repaired some downed russiandrones and that those were under
ukrainian control and polandknew about it I have not heard
that control and poland knewabout it.

Speaker 2 (01:26:43):
I have not heard that , but it's possible.
But I think it's equally likelythat that somebody in russia
fucked up too, or gps jammingand spoofing, yeah, yeah, I mean
like I think there's just asmany likely scenarios that that
on the surface would have Russiadoing something bad, just not
intentionally.
But also I think, if there's adrone flying over your border,

(01:27:06):
who the hell?

Speaker 1 (01:27:07):
wouldn't shoot it down.
Well, and Poland claims theyshot down two of them.
Well, there you go, Good good,but they claim they shot down
two out of several hundred.
Oh well, that's a lot.
So why?

Speaker 2 (01:27:18):
I don't know that Russia ever flies several
hundred drones at the same time.

Speaker 1 (01:27:21):
Well, so there was a major attack on Ukraine at the
same time, and my hypothesis issomewhere in between.
My hypothesis is there was alegitimate Russian drone fleet
that was flying probably alittle close to the polish
border.
Yeah, and these two drones, forwhatever reason whether it was
gps jamming against them orglasnost jamming, really, but

(01:27:44):
you get the point or they wereactually the refurbished
ukrainians we just talked aboutyeah, we're allowed to fly in,
to be shut down as quote unquoteevidence yeah, that could
totally be the case.

Speaker 2 (01:28:01):
I mean, this is not something you start a war for.
But I also have no problem withany country shooting down any
vehicles, including manned ones,but that's cross the border but
one of the things I should sayhere is russia, don't fucking
violate, fucking other people'sairspace.
Yeah, and I don't think that atthe high level that they ever

(01:28:24):
would.
So it's either fuck up, or alow-level decision was made
poorly or, like you said, thesignal is jammed, or they're
actually Ukrainian-operateddrones.

Speaker 1 (01:28:38):
Or or or, or, or, or or well, and let's not forget
that ukraine and several otherstates in the area have russian
aircraft yeah, absolutely so,unless there's a pilot that's
recovered and we can validatethat he's russian you can't
really like this and he can'thave disappeared from russia a
ago.
Right, this is the problem withattribution people.

(01:29:01):
This is the problem withattribution.
You can make it, and this goesfor physical and cyber, and
that's why, when people say, oh,we know that China and Iran are
doing da-da-da-da-da, no, youfucking don't, dude.
I've read WikiLeaks, vault 7.
We can make shit, look howeverwe want, and my entire point,

(01:29:22):
from my professional standpoint,is I don't care who it is, I
don't care if it's my owngovernment, I don't care.
I just want to defend thesystem.
Yeah, I build to defend thesystem.
I don't care who the threatactors are.
Yeah, don't.
I care their tactic, theirtactics, techniques and
procedures.
I don't care about theirpersonal identities or their
ethnicities.

Speaker 2 (01:29:41):
Oh, definitely not their ethnicities.
I do somewhat care who they'reworking for, but I don't care
about their ethnicities, becauseknowing who's paying for it
helps determine how best toprotect against it.

Speaker 1 (01:29:55):
Right, but my point is you can't determine that, so
focus on the techniques, tacticsand procedures.
Well, you can't determine that,so focus on the tactics and
procedures.

Speaker 2 (01:30:00):
Well, you can, if you hack them back, Ben, oh no you
can't, because it could be a.

Speaker 1 (01:30:06):
CIA computer in Langley that you're gaining
access to.

Speaker 2 (01:30:09):
That's usually what it is.
How did you know that that ispretty much the standard default
computer that everybody seemsto hack into, is pretty much the
standard default computer thateverybody seems to hack into.
So one other thing about Russiais they just have a new
directive I don't know, it mayhave been a law, maybe it was a

(01:30:33):
directive, but it was based on acourt ruling that effectively
said that satanic organizationsand pedophile promotion groups
are now considered terroristorganizations in the Russian law
, which allows the Russiangovernment to seize their assets
.
And my question is why is theUS always trying to fight groups

(01:30:59):
that are going after thepedophiles?
And that's something that Idon't know that we're ever going
to get an answer to.
Yeah, what do you think aboutthat, ben?

Speaker 1 (01:31:13):
well, we had a little technical issue, but I don't
know why the us opposescountries that are trying to
attack pedophilia.

Speaker 2 (01:31:21):
I think they or Satanism in general.
I mean, to me it's alwaysinteresting because while, on
the one hand, there's thiscontingent of people who want us
to say the US is nota Christiancountry, but clearly, based on
the number of Christianpractitioners in the US, it's
one of the highest in the worldof any country, if not the

(01:31:43):
highest, I think it is numberone.
But who?
The US?
The US is what?
The most Christian country inthe world?

Speaker 1 (01:31:53):
No, not by percentage or population, not by
percentage.
By the number total number ofpeople that are yeah, if you're
saying actual numbers, then yesyeah, by actual numbers yeah,
percentage of population no um,yeah, yeah but by a total yeah,
because I would say that italyis going to be higher by by

(01:32:14):
percent.

Speaker 2 (01:32:15):
Well, that's only if you can consider catholics,
christ, but yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:32:19):
Yes, I would even say Brazil.

Speaker 2 (01:32:21):
It's meant to be a joke, but okay.

Speaker 1 (01:32:22):
Yeah, yeah, there you go.

Speaker 2 (01:32:25):
Anyway, I thought Russia would be higher.
Russia is like eighth.

Speaker 1 (01:32:29):
Yeah, so Windows 11, the reason why there's a little
bit of a blip there, andapologies, windows 11 is a piece
of shit.
We all know that I hate Windows11.
It is like I should haverebooted before.

Speaker 2 (01:32:42):
Have you tried Linux Ben?
Fuck you, I can't get the Motuworking on it.

Speaker 1 (01:32:50):
And I'm convinced that if anyone in the world has
ever gotten a Motu AVB,ultralight AVB, working on any
variant of Linux, for the loveof God, please contact me.
I would love to know how to doit.
Because, my little desktop miniPC.
It's great.
It's got decent specs, it'splenty good.
But I swear to God, this son ofa bitch crashes at least once a

(01:33:16):
week, yeah, probably.
It's like you didn't reboot methis week.
I'm going to just die now, likewe were talking.
I wasn't doing anything else onthe computer, hadn't done
anything and it's just like done.

Speaker 2 (01:33:28):
And here I am talking on the Mac that hasn't been
rebooted in six months.

Speaker 1 (01:33:31):
Yeah, but the Mac OS sucks.

Speaker 2 (01:33:34):
Well, you say that, but it really doesn't the.

Speaker 1 (01:33:43):
Mac OS is more stable than windows, but its user
interface is garbage.

Speaker 2 (01:33:46):
No, no, it's not.
How dare you, how dare you makefun of park xerox it the mac os
.

Speaker 1 (01:33:54):
switching between windows, especially on multiple
monitors, is just annoying ashell.
Not having the bar bereplicated across all monitors,
it's only on one fucking monitor.
The Mac OS does not have agreat UI dude.

Speaker 2 (01:34:12):
I have my bar on one monitor, on the PC too.

Speaker 1 (01:34:15):
Why would you do that ?
I like it that way.
Why would you do that?
I like it that way.
Okay, well, I have itreplicated across all of my
monitors so that anywhere I wantto application switch, I can
without having to move my mouseall the way across all my
monitors.

Speaker 2 (01:34:27):
I guess that makes sense If you're somebody that
uses the mouse.
I tend to type.
I mean okay.

Speaker 1 (01:34:34):
Anyway, all right yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:34:37):
So Windows 11 sucks and it's funny, but it's like
they keep threatening to turnoff windows 10 or whatever but
at this point something like 87of all gamers still use windows
10 because it's more stablewindows 10 is way more stable,
and that that's the part thatpisses me off about this entire

(01:35:02):
thing Do we know anything aboutWindows 12 yet?

Speaker 1 (01:35:06):
I personally don't.
I haven't screwed with it.

Speaker 2 (01:35:09):
You talked about the next version after 11 of having
Xbox integration.
Like your, xbox will basicallybe built in as part of Windows
now.

Speaker 1 (01:35:18):
Yeah, I don't know, man, I am trying to.
The only Windows computer Ihave is literally to do this
podcast.
Right, Ironic, Seriously.
Everything else is Linux for me.
Yeah, Everything Except the Macyou use.
Yeah, Well, that's my but I useFor my corporate machine.

(01:35:39):
I choose the Mac over theWindows PC.
I have both, but I don't everuse the Windows PC.
Yeah, the like everything.
I don't have a Windows serverrunning on the network.
It's all Linux.
It's all Linux or BSD, yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:35:55):
Are you still running something on BSD?
Oh yeah, yeah.
Yeah yeah, my firewall is freeBSD.
Yeah Right, are you stillrunning something?

Speaker 1 (01:36:00):
on BSD.
Oh yeah, yeah, yeah yeah, myfirewall is, oh sure, sure Is,
is a free BSD, yeah that makessense.
Yeah, Dude packet filter isfucking awesome.
And you combine that with SarahCotta rules and snort and
everything else and you've got afourth gen firewall.

Speaker 2 (01:36:23):
So all so shit, I'll do it, yep, yep.
So I had an unfortunate gamingthing happen recently.

Speaker 1 (01:36:25):
If we're done with the other topic.
Okay, I've got two more topicsI want to cover okay so we'll
get back to it.

Speaker 2 (01:36:29):
So I was.
I've been playing this gamecalled gray zone that I
mentioned, I think, previouslywhich is a mil sim.
It's a sim because it's morerealistic than games like call
of duty or or, uh, battlefield.
You know, if you get hurt, itshows you a a full body model
showing you where the damage is,type of damage, and you have to

(01:36:52):
use the appropriate measures.
You want to put a tourniquet on, then you want to bandage it up
, then you may need to put asplint on if it's to hit the
bone and and then you'redegraded even after doing that.
Yeah and you got to replaceblood, so you got to carry blood
with you when you're runningaround the field and it's it's

(01:37:12):
quite possible that you end upin a coma if you get injured, in
which case you have fiveminutes to where other players
can administer you medicalassistance and get you out of a
coma by doing so.
Otherwise you end up dead, deadanyway.
So in this mil sim there are184 missions total so far at

(01:37:37):
least, that it will send you on,and I had arrived at the final
mission, which is, of course,the hardest one in the game, and
that mission entails goingthrough three different
locations, killing 10 people ateach location and picking up a
heavy weight that is meant tonot allow you to run with it.

(01:38:00):
So you have to walk and thelocation of this weight is
usually in, like the commander'soffice or something to where
you're going to have to.
Really, you know high chancethat you'll get killed while
you're getting there.
So I started doing this missionand I miraculously managed to
pull off doing the first one bymyself, solo, and it's really a

(01:38:21):
squad shooter.
It's meant to be played withpeople, but you know, I don't.
I have no friends, so I wasplaying it by myself.
I'm kidding there, I usuallyplay it with people, but I
couldn't wait for them, so Ijust said fuck it.
And I managed to do this andI'm thinking, oh, this is
awesome.
I managed to do the first ofthe three stages by myself.
So I'm waddling over with thisheavy weight to the safe zone

(01:38:46):
and all of a sudden I get anetwork error message in the
game trying to reconnect.
I'm like, oh, what the hell?
Reconnect, reconnect, click thebutton, nothing happens.
I look over my shoulder at my,my fiber router and there's only
one light on it, and it's notthe connection light, it's the
power light.
I'm like what the hell?

(01:39:08):
So I log into the thing.
It gives me an error message.
Oh, here's the error messageyou want to provide to at&t when
you call them.
I'm like this is not what Iwant you're in austin.

Speaker 1 (01:39:17):
Why aren't you on Google Fiber?

Speaker 2 (01:39:19):
I'm because Google good reasons for that, my friend
.
Because Google Fiber, as partof their TOS, looks at all your
packets and analyzes them forcontent.
At&t does not do this.

Speaker 1 (01:39:34):
Well, a couple things there.
You've got some ways aroundthat and this is where you could
VPN everythingn everything well, and I mean you can go a long
way just by doing, because somuch is over tls these days just
using encrypted dns.
So really, what they're lookingat there is your dns records,
especially if you're using theirdns well they, they look at

(01:39:55):
more than that.

Speaker 2 (01:39:56):
there was a whole series of videos on this topic
back when they first starteddoing Google Fiber.
But and look, there's reasonsto do Google Fiber too.
It's just the cost is absurdlycheap.
But I went with AT&T for tworeasons.
One was I didn't like theGoogle TOS.
The other one was it's Austinand everyone has Google Fiber.

(01:40:17):
It's Austin and everyone hasGoogle Fiber, and so they're
placing way more traffic on theGoogle Fiber side of the network
than they are on the AT&T sideof the network.
So I always have my full speedsand friends that are on Google
Fiber routinely have theirspeeds below their advertised
speeds.

Speaker 1 (01:40:36):
Yeah, and again, this is one of those PSA moments
moments and I'll let youcontinue with your story.
But everyone should be using arouter.
They own a firewall, they ownwireless that they own and you
should be making sure that all,because all asps mine your dns
queries and things like that foradvertising content.
Yeah, go in.

(01:40:57):
Use encrypted d DNS to aprovider that you have selected.
If anyone's interested, messageme.
I can help you out with this.
But have your DNS encrypted,because most communications
these days are encrypted in someform or fashion.

Speaker 2 (01:41:12):
So that gets you 98% of the way there without having
to do a VPN is my entire point,and that's a good point, because
really they're not getting thecontent except content, except,
of course, the stuff theyalready are on the other end of
the encryption.

Speaker 1 (01:41:24):
on but oh sure.

Speaker 2 (01:41:26):
But if you're using gmail, then yeah, it doesn't
matter like none of it mattersexactly, but I will say it is
tempting because I can get fivegigs for about what I'm paying
for one gig.
Right now with Google I can getfive gigs.
At&t is one gig.
A price is almost exactly thesame.

(01:41:47):
Okay, there is that anyway.
So my connection dropped by thetime I managed to get my my
router back online you log intothe game and I'm standing there
at the, the main base, withnothing, so I lost all my shit,
obviously failed the mission andI was not a happy camper at

(01:42:11):
that point, because this was notan easy mission to do.
But thankfully, after a couplemore unsuccessful tries the next
day, I managed to do it overagain and then did the whole
thing successfully.
Well, good for you.
All's good, and I think this isactually a game Ben would enjoy
, because it is a sim, not afast zippy click, fest, fest.

(01:42:36):
Gene just keeps trying to get meto play games again I just
think that you've talked aboutgames you used to play and I'm
like well, this is like an adultversion of that I played the
army game when it came out didyou america's army?
Yes, yeah, that was a greatgame.
I love that game you could.

Speaker 1 (01:42:56):
It was ahead of its time.
A lot of people got reallyfrustrated.
Yeah, totally, and not enoughmissions yes, that's true too.

Speaker 2 (01:43:04):
They were repetitive and you started realizing where
everybody sniped from and youcould snipe them back right, but
it was they.
You know snow traces effectswhen you walk.
They had very realistic.
You remember the like if youhad an explosion near you, you
couldn't hear a damn thing forlike five minutes after that.
That was great.

(01:43:25):
I love that.
So it was a.
It was a good.

Speaker 1 (01:43:29):
Well, and your vision would blur around the periphery
and everything else.

Speaker 2 (01:43:33):
And this game has a lot of the same type of effects
in it as well.
You know, if somebody dingsyour helmet you get tinnitus and
your vision is all like screwedup and, frankly, any time
you're low on blood you're kindof you're not steady, your

(01:43:53):
head's kind of weaving a littlebit, your vision goes in and out
of blurtum.
A lot of times I'm shooting theguy in the middle of the three
guys if I've lost some blood.
So they did a very good jobwith it.
The game's still not done, butthe guys I play with are all
military ex-mil combat guys andthey love this thing.

(01:44:16):
Yeah, All right.
Gene.
And the final bit that I toldyou about I might as well
mention here is in this game theweapons are all actual
brand-name weapons like I shoota Daniel Defense M4, which I
couldn't afford in real life tosave my ass and they are all

(01:44:37):
made of components and you canliterally strip your m4 down to
bare components or assemble itfrom scratch using purchase
components in the game andthey're all the same things,
even to the point of havingprices for your components in
the game that I checked onoptics, optics planet, and the

(01:45:03):
price is literally the correctprice.
Yeah, and that's like I loveshit like that in games, when
they model reality to the degreewhere you literally can go off
reality to decide things for thegame, like that's a chef's kiss
right there, okay cool.

Speaker 1 (01:45:24):
What else you got.

Speaker 2 (01:45:26):
It's an alpha and it's expensive which is a
perfect reason to buy it.
While it's cheap, this is goingto be a hundred100 game by the
time it's.
Oh fuck, it's on sale.
You might as well consider itto be on sale right now.

Speaker 1 (01:45:40):
Uh-huh.
Okay, so two more stories, butwe'll probably rush through them
because we're running late.
But so, Luigi Mangione.

Speaker 2 (01:45:53):
The guy that killed the United Health Gang.

Speaker 1 (01:45:56):
Yeah, ceo, yeah, the.
So, first of all, we've gotpeople just fucking worshipping
this guy still.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And his lawyers are pullingsome shit, mm-hmm.
His lawyers are pulling someshit.

(01:46:27):
So two of the top charges forterrorism has been thrown out by
the judge, which is bullshit,because what he did was for
terroristic reasons.
Yeah, I'd have to agree withthat.
And then now his lawyers arecalling the death penalty calls,
in this case, unconstitutionaland railing Ian Spondy.
It's incoherent to me, liketheir rationale makes no sense.
You know they're saying it'spolitically motivated, that the

(01:46:50):
reason why the JusticeDepartment is singing the death
penalty is because of politics.

Speaker 2 (01:46:56):
no, it's because he murdered someone wouldn't it be
the state's justice departmentrather than the federal?
No, no, no that's.

Speaker 1 (01:47:02):
The other thing is that he is currently facing
federal and state charges.
Okay, but and they're trying toget.
They're trying to get thefederal charges thrown out under
under fuck it double jeopardyyeah, that makes sense to me
well, but usually states willdrop their charges, so the feds
can prosecute, but new yorkbeing twats, yeah or not.

(01:47:24):
So you know who whose chargesshould be thrown out, the state
or the feds?

Speaker 2 (01:47:30):
that's neither here I don't see how it's a federal
crime unless you have some othermitigating circumstance here,
like racketeering or something.

Speaker 1 (01:47:39):
I believe he crossed state lines.

Speaker 2 (01:47:42):
Everybody crosses state lines.

Speaker 1 (01:47:44):
But he crossed state lines to commit this crime.

Speaker 2 (01:47:48):
We don't know that that may be an allegation.
Yeah, it may be.
Yeah, it's from New Jersey, butagain, I think this is up to
the state to decide.
That may be an allegation.
Yeah, it may be.
Yeah, yeah, it's from NewJersey, but again, I think this
is up to the state to decide.
I don't think that the federalgovernment so I get as much as
this guy clearly is guilty and Idon't see how he weasels out of
that.

Speaker 1 (01:48:07):
I don't know if he's clearly guilty.

Speaker 2 (01:48:10):
Well, he wasn't caught shooting the guy.

Speaker 1 (01:48:13):
We have video of a guy that looks vaguely like him.
I, if I were on a jury, I wouldnot consider that conclusive
proof I would say that he's, uhthe one that shot him he has not
okay there you go done guilty.
He doesn't have to deny it.
The state has to prove that hedid it the state does.

(01:48:33):
The evidence that we have seenso far still the case has not
been tried yet.
I want to see the trial, butthe state has not proved their
case yet.
To me, Right, yeah, butregardless.
I mean we've gotten to the placeof his lawyers are filing
motions to dismiss the murdercases entirely because of

(01:48:56):
politicization and poisoning ofthe well of jurors they should,
that's their job, they should,totally right.
But it you know, I'm right thisreminds me of the oj simpson
case yeah, and I was gonna bringthat up in the relative.

Speaker 2 (01:49:14):
this because if you remember the Saturday Night Live
skit, well, maybe you were tooyoung.

Speaker 1 (01:49:17):
No, I watched the OJ Simpson case Remember I was
homeschooled at this time andbasically all the news coverage
of the OJ Simpson case I wassitting there watching as part
of that.

Speaker 2 (01:49:29):
Well, what I'm going to reference is in relation to
that.
There was a skit on Saturdaynight live where well, I would
be too young for that.
Yeah, exactly, the black dude onthere at the time is a black
comedian guy, not Eddie Murphy.
The next one after him it wouldhave been Chris rock.
Chris rock did a thing about OJwhere he said look, they, they,

(01:49:53):
you know brothers did it.
But I understand, like you know, look, his wife was cheating on
him with this Jewish lawyer guyand or not, lawyer,
entertainment lawyer orsomething whatever he was, and

(01:50:14):
or not lawyer, entertainmentlawyer or something whatever he
was, and so like.
Even if you don't dismiss thefact that he did it, even if you
buy into the fact that oj didit like, I understand why he
would, and that's kind of how Ifeel about this man guy as well
is, I don't condone what he did,but I do understand why he did

(01:50:36):
it.
Okay, I don't you don'tunderstand why he did it.
No, the insurance companyrefused to pay his bills.
Okay, so it was a deathsentence.
I don't think it was a deathsentence.
Well, he thought it was a deathsentence.
I don't think it was a deathsentence.

(01:50:57):
Well, he thought it was a deathsentence.

Speaker 1 (01:51:01):
I don't know Again, I don't think we have clear
motives.

Speaker 2 (01:51:04):
Well, if we don't even know, if he was the one
that did it, I'm presuming he'sguilty.

Speaker 1 (01:51:11):
That's the opposite of what you're supposed to do,
gene.

Speaker 2 (01:51:15):
No, no, no, it's a presumption of innocence in this
country well, for if you're, ifyou're a judge, that's what
you're supposed to do judge,jury and the public well, I'm
neither of those I'm.
I'm just a guy watching fromthe sidelines, I'm just a guy
talking on the internet, and Iwould say he's clearly guilty.
But I understand why he shotthe son of a bitch.

(01:51:36):
How's that?
Yeah, okay.

Speaker 1 (01:51:44):
Well, regardless that continues, People are lionizing
him.
I don't think they should.
What's?

Speaker 2 (01:51:49):
the latest with the blonde dude out of New York that
helped somebody and then gotthrown in jail for it.

Speaker 1 (01:51:56):
Daniel Peck.
He's in jail.

Speaker 2 (01:51:58):
He's still in jail, motherfucker.
That's bullshit, man Totalbullshit.

Speaker 1 (01:52:05):
We live in a very fucked up society dude.

Speaker 2 (01:52:08):
I mean we're not as bad as the UK, but we're pretty
close.

Speaker 1 (01:52:12):
The only reason why we're not as bad as the UK is
because we have guns.
That is absolutely true and, bythe way we might get, we can
finish the podcast on a positivenote.
The Senate failed to advancethe bill to fund the government.
Good, that's a good.
So we are looking at a veryhigh likelihood of a government

(01:52:36):
shutdown and Schumer andJeffries are scrambling, sending
the president a letterrequesting a meeting before this
deadline.
The Dems overplayed their handon this because the Republicans
are totally willing to shut itdown, because most of the
Republican voter base goes shutdown.
Yes, please, I'll have another.
Hmm.

Speaker 2 (01:52:58):
So yeah, I guess apparently we're not up to speed
on Daniel Penny.
What do you mean?
Well, so he had a deadlock juryand he was acquitted of the
other charges and in the end theprosecution dropped the charge.
They were deadlocked on and hewas acquitted on the other

(01:53:19):
charges.

Speaker 1 (01:53:20):
So when did he get out?

Speaker 2 (01:53:22):
So he got out the beginning of this year, but
we're way behind.
And following his acquittal,Penny's life changed
significantly.
He landed a job at a SiliconValley venture capital firm,
Anderson Horowitz, the one thatAdam always mentions.

Speaker 1 (01:53:38):
Interesting.

Speaker 2 (01:53:39):
Uh-huh, and he in September 2025, so just this
month he made a publicappearance as a model in a
charity fashion show in New YorkCity, walking the runway in a
kilt.
Okay, cool, Glad he got out.
Yeah, so.

(01:53:59):
Didn't ruin his life.
Yeah, so apparently it allworked out.

Speaker 1 (01:54:05):
Just for you know, a couple of years.

Speaker 2 (01:54:07):
Just for a couple of years, but it all worked out.
Yeah, he's way younger than Ithought too.
Yeah, he's in his 20s he was 24when that happened, yep, so
he's way younger than I thoughttoo.
Yeah, he was 24 when thathappened, yep, so, yeah,
definitely a silly kid, to me atleast it's you.
Look at the conditioning thatpeople have to ignore and not

(01:54:31):
interact with violent behavior,at least in some parts of the
country.

Speaker 1 (01:54:37):
Well, and some people .

Speaker 2 (01:54:39):
And some people had.

Speaker 1 (01:54:41):
I seen what he saw.
I would have done the same damnthing.

Speaker 2 (01:54:48):
That's a good question.
I wonder if I would have,because I do tend to just kind
of mind my own business.

Speaker 1 (01:54:56):
But had it been in Texas, I would have you know.

Speaker 2 (01:54:59):
Oh yeah, yeah, you could have shot him in Texas
legally.
Yeah, it's an interesting one.
I will tell you this for sure,though, when the white chick was
getting stabbed.

Speaker 1 (01:55:09):
I would not have put up with that oh well, fuck dude,
I don't even, I'm not even geta hold that she's.

Speaker 2 (01:55:17):
Ukrainian against her .

Speaker 1 (01:55:19):
The fact that people fucking stood around and did not
render aid.
Yeah, Did not render aid.
And once they apparentlynoticed that she's sitting there
bleeding out, one dude'sstanding there on his phone
fucking recording it instead ofcalling 911.
Yep, that man needs to becharged with what is it

(01:55:41):
manslaughter?
Mm-hmm.
Except I, actually.
So here's the thing I believein good Samaritan laws, but what
a good Samaritan law reallyneeds to be is you have a duty
to render aid.
If, in rendering that aid, youdo something that damages them
further and you don't, you endup causing additional harm while

(01:56:03):
you're trying to help them,like somebody's got a broken
neck and you move them and youknow causes more issues.
No harm, no foul on you.

Speaker 2 (01:56:10):
Yeah, but you better fucking try and help them and
the libertarian part of me saysyou can't compel people to help
somebody else.
That's just wrong.
I think you can guilt them, youcan uh morally justify that
they should help, but I don'tthink you can legislatively for

(01:56:31):
somebody Because as you know,the speech of John Galt I shall
live my life for no man, andthat includes some stranger
that's getting harassed.
It's always it has to be anindividual choice.
You're right.

Speaker 1 (01:56:49):
It should not be the force of law, but let me say
this as a Christian and as a manA Christian man Go ahead.
No two separate statements.
If you're a Christian or youare male, you have a duty to
protect those around you.

(01:57:11):
If you see something happening,to protect those around you.
If you see something happening,whether it's seeing someone
about to lob something at aspeaker at an event Tackle that
person, take them out, stop it.
Don't allow it to happen.
If you can stop it, risk yourown life.

Speaker 2 (01:57:30):
Be a man, I would use a different word.
I don't think it's a duty.

Speaker 1 (01:57:34):
I would say it's an expectation, Synonyms.

Speaker 2 (01:57:37):
but okay, a little weaker.
A little weaker.
I would say that, like if youdon't do it and it's a duty, you
failed the duty.
If you don't do it and it's anexpectation, you simply didn't
meet expectations.
So you proved yourself to be alesser man.

(01:57:58):
But if you fail the duty, youproved yourself to be
dishonorable.
So I would go for a slightlyless.
You know, like I don't thinkchivalry is a mandate.
I think chivalry is somethingthat existed for a reason and it

(01:58:22):
was always recognized as apositive thing when, when you
were performing chivalrous deeds, but you don't really know
what's going on in the person'smind at the moment and you know
what you might be doing isjumping in front of a bullet
that would have taken out a massmurderer.

Speaker 1 (01:58:47):
Yeah, well, all I can say you don't know the full
story.

Speaker 2 (01:58:50):
Or the other thing is like well, you protect all
women.
No, I know better than that.
I know that most arguments thatlead to violence in men are
caused by women.

Speaker 1 (01:59:03):
If you see the white girl getting stabbed on the
train by the black you're gonnawonder if you didn't say your
pimp, absolutely no youimmediately tackle the black man
, take the knife away from himand subdue him, and then render
aid to her.
Yeah, yeah, I mean ifsomebody's stabbing somebody

(01:59:24):
there's not a good If, in thecourse of trying to subdue him
peacefully, you end up killinghim.
Fine, then go render aid fine,then go render aid.

Speaker 2 (01:59:40):
Yeah, I, I think you have to use a judgment at the
time.
If I see somebody having anargument and then the bitch does
something that deserves astabbing and then get stabbed,
I'm gonna go.
Well, she had that coming,jesus gene.
Well, it's true.
It's true, man, but ifsomebody's quietly sitting there
doing nothing and then all of asudden gets stabbed, yeah,
clearly there's a problem andyou, if you can render a aid in

(02:00:04):
that whether it's uh, assistancefor the wounds or whether it's
beating the crap out of theother guy then you should do
that.
But you have to take in as muchdata as you can before you go
to violence.
I've seen too many examples ofpeople making assumptions and
going to violence only to laterfind out that they're fighting

(02:00:28):
for the wrong team.
Not every woman's a victim.
Not every woman's a victim, youknow.
Not every guy is a pimp well onthat note, gene.

Speaker 1 (02:00:49):
Well, I tried, I tried to end on the Senate.
I tried.

Speaker 2 (02:00:54):
All right, fair enough, we can wrap it up.
I think we've had a gooddiscussion this show.
We covered a bunch of topics,we've hit all the bink card
notes and hopefully next timeyour computer is going to last
an entire episode.
I would love for that to happen.
Remind me, did you reboot?

(02:01:17):
Okay, I'll remind you now, ben,remember to reboot before the
next show.
Thanks, gene I'm doing thatbecause you literally did that
exact same thing to me when Itold you to remind me before.
So there you go.
I'm a big vindictive son of abitch.

Speaker 1 (02:01:31):
You should know that by now just a little bit, just a
little bit all right, guys,we'll catch you on the next one
later.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

24/7 News: The Latest

Dateline NBC

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}132 Blood and Circuits: Gaming in a World of Cyber Threats

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

24/7 News: The Latest

Dateline NBC

All Episodes

132 Blood and Circuits: Gaming in a World of Cyber Threats

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark