0095 Sir Gene Speaks - No guests!

Transcript

Gene: 0:15

Well, good morning. Or afternoon. We're evening or whichever it is right now when you're listening. Today. I don't have a guest, but it's been a little while since I put out an episode. So I wanted to get an episode out there. But also kind of fill you in on some thoughts that I have and some things that are coming up. I will be recording a couple of more interview episodes. Probably in about a week or so. And those should be interesting. These are not my sort of typical. Interviews of people with similar political thoughts. One is actually going to be an interview. With a Buzzsprout, which is a followup to interview I did over a year ago.

0:56

With the M the same person in that company. I don't think he's the CEO, but he is. I think one of the founders. And I wanted to kind of go through after a year of experience with a company. African for some questions, as well as get some more insight on what their plans are. I'm still very happy with bus sprout. It is definitely a full service company. Unlike some of the other podcast hosting solutions. and I'm, I think I'm paying 20 bucks or 25 bucks a month. Something like that for them, which is, I know more than some other hosting companies as well, but they really make things simple. And one click and the less work I have to do. Producing podcasts, the happier a person I'm going to be. The interview is going to be with a gen Z person who is a kid of a friend of mine. And what I wanted to do is just kind of ask a lot of the similar questions that we've been talking about. The old farts like me. That I've talked about with Darren and with Ben and other folks, and see what somebody from gen Z is thinking. I'm very curious, because my impression of gen Z from about six, seven years ago was I thought, okay, this generation feels like it's growing up way more conservative than the millennials. So things are probably going to be pretty good. But there's also been a lot of. Not so good stuff that I've seen about gen Z as well. And That has, I think more culturally to do with what's been going on in that generation and the fact that they're still young and impressionable during COVID. And the two years that that can have screwed up. I don't think that that many favors either. So looking forward to that interview, that'll be a fun one. Hopefully we have plenty of time so I can. Ask a multitude of questions and not to say that this person speaks for the whole generation by any means. People only speak for themselves journals really, but. But it will nonetheless be an opportunity to have somebody that that I'm recording of that age group, meaning somebody that's in, I think he's 20. Right now. So, still very much a kid, although when I was 20, I very much thought I was an adult. As I'm sure everybody else does. All right. So that's the stuff coming up. What's what's new. What are my thoughts? A few things. First of all. McCarthy. Having trouble becoming the speaker of the house. So I think this is a great thing. But it also is a bit of a predictive of potential negative outcomes thing. What I mean by that is. I hate the fact that every year for the entirety of the year, People that are libertarians. Conservatives are just populous in general. I keep complaining about the status out there, the unit party, the government that just seems to do things. For its own benefit and not for the benefit of the people that are electing people. And then as soon as elections come, everybody still votes for their guy. Who is generally more on the union party side. There are a fairly small percentage of people that are currently in office that don't align with the unit party. And that's a, that's a problem. I remember. And I've talked about this. I remember literally writing. An article in high school. That talked about the solution to the political issues. And this is way back in the eighties that the solution to political issues should include a limit on the number of terms that senators and congressmen can serve. And in my thoughts at the time were pretty similar to what they are today. Two terms for Senate three terms for Congress. That's it. You did not want to have lifelong politicians like Nancy Pelosi. Or Mitch McConnell. That have spent the entirety of their adult lives are Joe Biden for Christ sakes. He was the youngest Senator. Ever elected. At the time of his election. And So his entire job for his whole adult life has been. Politics. I don't think that's good. I don't think that's healthy because politics. Unlike most other jobs whose goal is to create the same product, but better and more efficiently. As time goes on. Politics should represent the views of the populace and the view of the populous. Both changes over time. And needs to have a connection to its past at all times. And I don't think politicians. Are financially incentivized. To actually carry out that requirement. Unfortunately. Because politicians can create their own insight intern in. Let me get this word out. Incentivization structure. They tend to incentivize things for themselves. That focus on them earning more money. I don't believe there's been a single Senator to have been elected who was not a millionaire. When they were elected, who hasn't become a millionaire. During their tenure and Senate I have read this. A number of years back. So it may be, it's not a true thing, but I, I have a hard time envisioning anyone who didn't do that. Even people that were one time, one term Senator is like Barack Obama. Ended up. Becoming millionaires over the course of six years. So I think that this idea that you go. To a national political office. In order to become rich, unfortunately. Is what's driving people to get elected. And it has a lot less to do with how good of a job they're going to do, representing the people that elected them now. I know. Well, one of my co-hosts Ben would argue that. That people shouldn't be lucking senators anyway. The senators are supposed to be elected by the local state congresses as a representative of the state political bodies. I don't think that's a good idea either because knowing how politicians actually work. You would effectively be creating a one level removed. From the populous form of government. I'll the government of the EU. Which no actual European votes for the entire government of the country of the European union. Which is made up of the states. Their government is not elected by the populace that government is elected. By the legislatures of the states, they, everybody sends representatives. And then of those representatives. They they vote and they liked a a president. So. Not really for that idea. I, the super simple solution that I was right. All those years ago and I'm still right on today. Is to simply impose arbitrary term limits. And what I mean by arbitrary is they're not tied to performance. Somebody could be a great Senator for two terms or somebody could be a shitty Senator for two terms. The point is they can't be a Senator for a third term. And this is a good thing. And people always point to people like Rand Paul or Ron Paul, before that I was like, well, what you want to lose? That guy's ability. Yes, I do. Yes, because. If we had term limits, there would be an opportunity for a lot more Rand Paul's to get into office because there is no incumbent. Race between multiple parties, even if it's two, but ideally three or four or more. But even if it's just two parties, a race between two parties. With knowing incumbent. Because the outgoing incumbent has maxed out their term. Would be a great thing. It would put both people on equal standing. And it would be a lot more about appealing to the. People in your district. And coming up with things that represent them as your platforms. Then it is to simply say, well, you vote for me. Or that evil party is going to get in that bad guy is going to get in. Like so many politicians right now. On both Republican and Democrat side. I literally run on the, you don't want the other guy platform. They're not running for anything they're running against the bad guys. And of course the bad guys or whoever the other party is, it depends on who's running. Right. So. It is a. It's a very problematic form of government that we have with unlimited terms. I think the idea that we're taught anyway, about George Washington being the person that created. This concept of a president should only serve two terms. Unfortunately, that was never extended to other offices. Like the Senate. And you think about it. The president serves three terms. That's eight years. The Senator to terms for a Senator would be 12 years. 12 years is a long time over a decade. Uh, In one job. The idea that we have people that have been in the same job for 30 or 40 years. Is ridiculous. Now you combine that with the special privileges that these people have, like giving themselves raises, making immunity for themselves. From prosecution for anything that is said on the chamber floor, it doesn't matter what said. You can't prosecute for it. Creating special exemptions for themselves. For being able to use non-public information. To buy stocks and to trade. And be able to make money. Effectively because they have insider knowledge that other people would actually go to prison for being doing trades. Have they had. Everybody else is not allowed to use insider knowledge to do trades. The politicians are talking about the federal branch here, obviously. So, If we can limit the duration, it solves so many other problems. And the fact that this is such a simple, straightforward thing. I think his Makes it a lot more practical, but it's also never, ever, ever talked about. In the media because the politicians are all very much in it for life. They don't want a different job when they get out. They want to have the same job forever. And so I've certainly heard Agron saying yes, that may be true, but you don't ever have politicians voting for their own terms. Well, guess what? You will. If that's one of their campaign promises and then all you need to do. It's to get to that magic number. Of a majority of politicians that had in their campaign prompts. Again, I don't care if they're liberals or conservatives or anything in between. That like this should just be a universal issue for everybody in every party. Is, will you pledge to vote for term limits? When the vote comes up and. Even if we, if we know that that vote is gonna be a losing vote because only 10 or 20 or 50. Of the people in Congress. Have agreed to make this pledge. It doesn't matter. You've got to start somewhere because that number will grow. If more people profession on it. Now the other way to do this, which is I think a more difficult way. Is to enforce term limits by not voting for the guy that you support for anything over the second term that they've run for senators or the fourth term for house members. And by the way, for four terms for house would be eight years as well. Just like the presidency. So. That's something most people are not willing to do because they assume the other guy, the guy that's running against their guy, isn't going to have people doing that. So it was like, well, why would I not vote for the guy that represents my views? And then I do vote. Or then the, the other side we'll have the guy that represents their views. That'll run for office. That's. You know, it's just a way to not get me in there. Well, that's blame I guess, blame the people voting in the primaries that that's the other person. I occasionally there are unchallenged primaries that certainly happens where. Everybody just assumes the guy that's in office is going to get in. So why bother running anybody against them. But quite often you actually do have primaries that have challenges and those challenges. Most of the time gets shut down. They don't really. End up winning. So. I guess that I think it's a harder way to do it than simply passing a law that says you can't run more than X number of terms. Now we did this for the president. After FDR basically became the dictator of the U S with four terms in a row. And that was a horrible precedent. And I think enough people recognize it that. The codafide that? No, you can't do that. That the original gentleman's agreement for two terms of president was the correct number of terms. And then no future president should serve more than two. But I just think they stopped short at not making that same exact. Amount of terms for the senators as well. So. Hopefully that kind of conveys my thoughts on. Part of the problem of inability to drain the swamp is. We could have a self draining swamp valve and it's called term limits. And too many people. Get scared by the muggy man of, Ooh, if we have term limits, then your guy's going to lose and the other guy's going to win. You don't want that. Do you? And she better off having the same guy represent you for 40 years, but he's your guy he's going to vote the way that you do. You likes the way that you're thinking. That's the problem. The swamp is the swamp, the swamp acts mainly in its own interest. And we see this. With the. The number of people, including Trump incidentally. And marginally Taylor green. That are perfectly willing to. Vote for McCarthy or? Well, Trump's not voting, but indoors, McCarthy. I think it's a drastic shift for both of those people. I think this is the nail on the head for Trump, frankly. I've said for a while that he ought not to be run because he carries too much baggage, not to mention his age. I am sick and tired of grandparents running for office for president. Fuck that shit. I'm almost that age, myself. And these people have just never let up. So, I don't, I don't really, I just don't need another person in there. Seventies or eighties ever running for office in my lifetime. And That may not be very long at this point. I'm getting up there, but. But it's just ridiculous. We need more people that are like John F Kennedy's age, like in their fifties, people that have lived in life long enough to be able to. See the impact of their decisions and the decisions of others. But young enough that. They're not. Thinking like an old person on the edge of death. Which is what I think both. Biden and Trump. Have a tendency to think. I think this was reflected in Trump by the absolutely piss poor. Staffing that he had in, when he was in the office, he literally hired and brought in all the wrong people.'cause he, you know, he's delegating. He was, he was making too many decisions. Via other people, whether it was Jared or whether it was a Ivanka or whether it was just other people that he brought in. I feel like an awful lot of the. The negative aspects of the Trump presidency. Had to do with bad hiring choices. And I don't think that he's always sucked at hiring for his whole life. I think he's progressively gotten worse at it as he's gotten older. I don't care if he doesn't sleep. If he feels energetic. He still has an awful lot of old grandpa characteristics about them. And I don't like that. We just don't need it. And this idea that, oh, well you can't be agents. Well, fuck that shit. You need to take the totality. Of the person for job as important as prednisone. And I think age matters. I don't know if I'd go so far as to put a law in that also limits presidency. With a pop age. So you can't be, what is it under 40, but I can't remember. I'd have to look it up, but I believe it's, you can't be under 40, but there's no upper limit. Well, maybe we need to say you can't be. Under 40 or over 65, like 65 is the oldest that you're allowed to run for office for presidency. I'd be totally okay with that. Again, you could call it arbitrary call you. You want. It's going to achieve a better end result to have more generational churn because the only president that we've had. That wasn't a baby boomer. At this point. Is Obama. That's it. Now he was happened to be a horrible president. For a number of other issues, but. There's a reason that he got elected. And it wasn't just his skin color, I think because the Republicans kept running geriatrics against him. And that is completely a losing formula. Unless the other party does the exact same thing. When he got each party running an 80 year old against each other. Something's wrong, man. They, these are not the parties that are making decisions in the, in the greatest interest of the country. That's for sure. These are people that feel entitled and rewarded. For what they've been able to accomplish to have that job? Well, fuck that shit. That's what I say. All right. Next topic. What have we got? So, I don't know if there's a whole lot to talk about Ukraine. I've been kind of weaning myself off, talking about it. Because frankly I think Ukraine fatigue is setting in, even on me. The progress that is happening in Ukraine. Here's the bottom line. The, the people benefiting the most. Out of what's going on in Ukraine. Are the arms dealers and manufacturers. From the entirety of the world. Everybody is using Ukraine as an opportunity to do real-world testing. Of a particular type of arm. What, what do you guys think that the us keeps changing? And updating what they're shipping over. It's not because there's a such a small, limited supply of these missiles and other weapons that we have. No it's because the manufacturers want all to get in on this. On testing their equipment and real-world scenarios. And it's exact same thing with Russia. Why do you think. That there's Chinese weapons. Why do you think there are Iranian weapons that are being utilized. The, this is not because, oh my God, Russia ran out of a weapons. Now. Russia has a very good stockpile. They will not be running out anytime soon, because part of what Russia has that other. Oh, well, the U S doesn't is At state ownership. Of the arms manufacturers. China has the same thing, incidentally. So. They can simply make an executive decision. And then shift more focus on meaning hire more people. Put change more factories over to production. Of any of these. Missiles and any of this equipment, the way it works in the us. And maybe it's not a worst way to do it in the us, but it's definitely different. Is the us government simply puts out money. Attached to a winning bid. They put an RFP out. And said, okay, we need a military equipment that fulfills this need. Here's the contract for each company that will take participate in the trials. We're going to pay X amount. I don't know. 25 million. So 25 million pays for the research development and production of test units. And then whoever wins the contract, we'll get like a$200 million contract to actually manufacturer. That process takes a lot longer. It may result in better quality weapons. I'm totally in agreement with that, but it absolutely is a much longer lasting process. And It. Benefits the company that did the best job in their prototype. But quite often the company doesn't have the capacity to actually fulfill the real contract that follows until many years later. Because it's all speculative. You're not going to have four different companies that are all billing, bidding. On the same contract. All have. Factories, just sitting there ready to start production of all this new equipment. In fact a lot of the production. Has to happen in the U S but normally they would just outsource everything to China and have Chinese factories that are standing by to me stuff. Make it, but when it comes to military equipment, there are certain regulations in place that require at least portions of the military equipment in the U S to be manufactured here. So in China, in Russia, they don't have to deal with any of that stuff. It's stayed on state controlled and the state can regulate the expansion or contraction. Now you can certainly say, well, without competition, you get worst equipment. Yeah, probably. I I'll agree with that. That's a very likely scenario, but you, what you do have is speed. Of production and change to production. And so Russia will be able to keep manufacturing. All the missiles. All the tanks and all equipment that they need. That they need to replace. For indefinitely. For years and years and years. And also remember unlike the U S Russia actually has all the raw materials in the country. This is something that us used to have. We have both factories and raw materials. But because of environmental regulations, because of cheaper labor for factories in China. Most of those have been shut down the U S so the U S actually imports an awful lot of material from China, from even Russia, as we found out that uranium that is in a us nuclear power plants. Actually comes from Russia. The uranium in most of Europe's power plants like France with all its nukes. Out. It's actually coming from Russia. They're all buying it from Russia because digging out a uranium is a dirty business. So get outsourced to a country that was willing to do it. And that was Russia. Same thing with like titanium, Russia produces the vast majority of titanium in the world. I think there's actually quite a bit also in Australia, but there's very, very little. In north America or south America. And very, very little in Europe. So they're kind of screwed. There. The manufacturing of equipment in Russia is much cheaper. Cheaper labor. Along with locally sourced, raw materials. So this, this whole notion that keeps popping up with these. Supposedly military experts in the U S they keep saying, Russia's almost run out of military equipment. They're almost out of missiles. They're almost out of tanks. They're almost out of all these things. It mostly demonstrates the lack of actual knowledge of the capabilities of Russia by these people. And this is not like secret knowledge. I'm not sharing something that is insider info. You can literally look this up in any kind of. I don't know, there's tons of manufacturing related statistics that you can gather for countries all over the world. This is, this is clearly available. And if you know that the state controls the production. Facilities, the manufacturing facilities for military equipment. Then. It doesn't really take a genius here to see why Russia isn't going to run out of anything. Ukraine ran out of everything long time ago, the only equipment being used in Ukraine. Is it grip? Coming from the U S and Europe. That's it. There is nothing that is locally manufactured that they might have. In fact, I think they do have, if I'm remember seeing it, they do have a small arms factories, like they can produce. Small arms ammo. You know, people in this country in the U S have been buying. Ammo. Coming from Ukraine as the cheap Russian shit. That that is made with Steelcase. Instead of brass because steel is cheaper than brass. It's also, I mean, arguably if you're not going to reuse it, which is brasses main benefit is you can reuse it because it's malleable. You can stretch it and crimp it. But if you're not going to reuse a, you could put much higher pressure loads and steel rounds. Then you can brass rounds. So there's actually more conformity of the steel rounds. To a wider set of loads than you would from brass, but that's kind of going off on a tangent, but I don't need to go off on there. People that know way more. About the manufacturer of small arms than I do. That was never a big interest of mine, but I know enough to say that. So while they can do that, they, they don't have a tank factory. They don't have missile factories. They did have a whole bunch of drug factories that were conveniently swept under the rug very, very quickly somehow. All these research facilities that we saw the documents authorizing by Congress of grants and the spending of two fond that all of these viral risks, research facilities, AKA. You know, the same kind of funding that went to Han lab. Funding where the us government takes. Things off shore that it is forbidden to do within the continental United States. Which is a testing, biological weapons. Everybody knows being done. It's, it's not a surprise, but everybody's so damn hush about it. Well, you notice. There was about two weeks of conversation about that topic in the media. And then it all just conveniently disappeared. It was first said, oh, Russian misinformation until some of the reporters started showing actual congressional documents with funding authorizations for these facilities and copies of checks being cashed at those facilities. So it's like, ah, no, these all existed and yes, the us government was paying for them. You, I guess you can argue about what the purpose was and right away, they said, no, these were just research facility. Well, there was like 12 of them. In a fairly small country like Ukraine. Yeah. Ukraine's about the size of Texas. Yes, it's Texas is a big state. But Ukraine's a fricking country and it's, so it's about the same size Texas. So. Having that many. Research facilities that are experimenting with Either level two or level three contaminants. Biologicals is very, very, very suspicious. Now the interesting thing to me was the Russians very quickly shut up about it as well. Which kinda leads me to think that the Russians actually obtain the research information themselves. Because if they didn't, then they should have made a much bigger deal about it and kept on using that as a, a prod against the west, doing illegal research. But because they didn't do that. It definitely makes me suspicious of the Russians and what, wait, wait a minute. If you guys stopped talking about it. Maybe you've got all the data you needed and it's no longer. Beneficial for you to keep bringing up the idea that both the U S and. Russia now have all this data about biological agents. Not a pleasant thought because a. While biological agents are probably the most efficient means of exterminating your enemy. It's also the scariest and most gruesome. And it's one that typically will justify a very strong response. So if there's a like either, if you end up using chemical weapons, you have to use them on the entirety of your enemy all at the same time. If you don't do that. You are likely to get nuclear retaliation back. So, if you manage to get biologicals to wipe out a whole country, Then you're probably okay. If you just do it in a city. You're, you're gonna win in that city. You gonna take out the city. But you're probably going to end up getting a nuclear response back as a result of that. So. The use of biologicals by the U S is a very risky procedure because I think. Even the idiots that we currently have on. They they realize that. The dates that we have running the country right now realize that Any. Any use of special weapons in escalation, in Ukraine. Will trigger a nuclear response. As it should. There's. Nuclear. Only works as it turns. If the other side believes that. You're capable of using it. And saying that nuclear response is only going to happen. As a second strike, meaning the other guys have to do a first nuclear strike and then we will retaliate for nuclear. Well, yeah, that's kind of given, like, you don't even need to specify that because if you have nukes and you literally don't use them after you've been nuked. Then you might as well, not bother having nukes and all the expense associated with them. But I think the bigger threat is the escalation to the use of nukes. For non nuclear use. And this, this would be like, I'll give you a couple of examples here. For example. The use of biological agents by the U S. In the guise of its allies, the us number, it takes credit for any of this stuff. But it certainly. It condones the use of biological weapons. And it certainly pays for a lot of research of that count. And if you're listening to this and you go, oh, that's bullshit. That's only not true. Just Google what I'm asking. Google the topics that I'm talking about, you. You will very quickly. Without even needing to get ahold of me. I find articles that you can Google that. Talk about this. The us has absolutely covertly. Supporting biological weapon research. Now. So as everybody else. And I'm not pointing the finger at the U S saying, these are, this is the major bad guy. Every country is doing it. China's doing it. Russia is doing it. Basically every country that can afford to is doing this covertly. And they're doing an all covertly. Because no country wants to have the finger pointing. Saying, oh, well you guys clearly were the ones planning to use it. We're all innocent. Look, we're all abiding by a non-proliferation of biological weapons. Agreements here. Yeah, no everybody's doing it because it's all an outgrowth of other research in medicine. When you do something that ends up having. A mortality, a high mortality result. Instead of a cure. Result. Guess what? You just created a biological weapon that your government would like to know. How to make use of. So it is definitely happening everywhere. And is to be expected. But anyway, my point is. And use of biologicals would trigger a nuclear response a, an attack. By a third party. On Moscow. Or St. Petersburg on the two major cities. With probably trigger a nuclear attack. Nuclear. Response from Russia is predicated on a. Really what would be a perceived. Existential threat. An existential threat. I know everybody's heard the term by now. Is a threat to the existence. So if there is a threat to the existence of Moscow, Not even the whole country of Russia, but just that city or a threat to the existence of St. Petersburg. Which is the cultural political center of Russia. This is where for the majority of Russian history. Well, I shouldn't even say that that's technically not true. So Moscow actually has a longer timeframe than St. Petersburg St. Petersburg. Is only 300 years old, which is a drop in the bucket for a country. That's about a thousand years old, a little less than that right now. But the, which again is a drop in the bucket for a lot of Chinese cities that like That most people have only heard of in this country. As a result of the initial outbreak of the virus there. But woo Han. Dan is literally a 3000 year old city. It is changed an awful lot in those 3000 years. But it is a city that people have been living around that area permanently. For over 3000 years. And how has the U S right now 250. Roughly. Give or take. It'll be 250 and 2026, I think. So. Yeah. That's the real drop in the bucket is just how short of a time the U S has been around and how. How. Much work. We all have to do to make sure that the sticks around longer. Because those original thoughts of the framers of the United States. Our fast being replaced with a. Really what I would call the culture. That existed. During the collapse of the Roman empire. It's the culture of excess. The culture of sexual depravity, the culture of really focusing in on things that only rich people can focus on. People that are trying to survive. Don't have time. To worry about. Whether they hurt somebody's feelings or not. The priority is not starving to death and not getting killed by your neighbor. The priority is not. Being careful of mis-gendering somebody. These are not just first world problems. These are literally problems that were already happening at the collapse of the Roman empire. This is late stage empire. And the U S is going through it. In a very short time after the Formation like country. I mean, honestly the us. Only been around for 250 years. Not even that. And it's already going through those late stage empire stages. But I was talking about. He's a nuclear weapon. So. Attack on Lindo cities would probably trigger a nuclear response. I think that's I don't think that like political meddling or spy craft, would it ever trigger a nuclear response because the whole point of doing it that way, doing it through subversion and. Y in fact, the us has historically preferred the method of subversion to the method of direct Military conflict. Is because the subversion, even if it doesn't work, generally doesn't result in much cost to the United States. So you can see the total cost of the U S going into Afghanistan. Staying there for 20 years and then pulling out. As a. I can't remember how many billions it was, but it was an insane amount of billions of dollars. It was a very, very high cost. Now you compare that. So the cost. Of the United States. To create a revolution in Ukraine or any of the color revolutions revolution in Egypt. And then they get example. That cost was minimal. We're talking nowhere near a billion that was probably in the twenties of millions range, maybe 50 million at tops. To achieve those because they were done through subversion and spycraft rather than through direct frontal military assault. So from a purely financial consideration, If you want to. Invade a country or change a regime. To one that is favorable towards you. It is much, much, much more preferable to do it through subversion than it is through direct military assault. This is also why. The us is right now, really. In a, a bad spot because. It's on the verge of having to. Have direct military intervention in Ukraine. Like I, and I'm going to. Just off the cuff here, I'm going to predict it. I think there will be us boots on the ground. Officially not as volunteers, not as. As mercenaries. And I think we're going to have actual us brigades. Ukrainian territory. Before the end of the year. That's the path we've been going down. That's the path we're likely to end up in because the alternative and the one that very few people currently in office want. Is to just let Ukraine fall and. And even with the supply of American weaponry. There are literally. Getting to be there. I mean, there's still some right now, but they're getting to be almost no soldiers on the Ukrainian side left to fight. The majority of the people currently fighting. We're not actually Ukrainians. They are P and that we know is by identifying the death. So, by looking at the people that have been killed and when their bodies are recovered from the Russian side. Over half of the people killed are not actually Ukrainians. Now you can say, wow. That's a huge outpouring of mercenaries. Yeah. Could very well be, or it could be that what we're calling a mercenary is actually a state. Sponsored mercenary. Now, what what is a state sponsored? Mercery. Well, it's somebody that's from the, the British SAS. Getting paid a salary in the UK. That is taking off their SAS uniform. And then putting on a Ukrainian uniform. But isn't that detachment of all British soldiers. Operating British equipment. So that's how we ended up with over half the dead in Ukraine. Actually being non Ukrainians as because I'm. A lot of countries are doing this and us is doing it, but I think a little more carefully than other countries. When we ship them new equipment. It comes. With a a whole slew of personnel for training purposes. And if you think that none of those people will actually be involved in targeting solutions, you're drinking. Hopium here. Because there absolutely are. The biggest thing I think the U S has done up to this point is just to have a, a directive out there that said no frontline troop action. Like us troops. That are part of these training squadrons. They are not allowed by Ukraine to be pushed out into the front lines. And I think there's two reasons for that. One is visibility. It's optics. The us doesn't want to get caught. By having a bunch of dead American soldiers being shown on the RT, which are then certainly a great reason that RT was instantly banned in the U S. This idea that some. Some news channel and I don't care where it comes from. It could be Iran could be China, it could be Russia. Can be banned by the U S is preposterous. It literally is just spitting on the first amendment. It's spinning on the idea that the populous shouldn't have access. To all including bad information, including information paid for by other state actors. It doesn't matter. It's not about, well, you've got all the truth information here, but we're going to prevent you from accessing false information. The us is not our parents. That there it is not within the rights of the government. To restrict the access of information. Books should not be banned. And they usually are only by Nazis. And that's the way the current us administration has been acting in an awful lot of things. And thankfully now the courts. Who have been pussies on anything related to politics? They're not willing to. They're they're basically getting out of having to handle any kind of political questions, which is a total pussy move. If you ask me. But at least they're standing up on some of these Biden. Executive orders and saying, well, no, like Biden can't force. Every company. With over a hundred employees to mandate COVID testing. He's not, that's not part of his power to do that. They're, they're reigning that in. Same thing. Should be happening on the ability to. Lock down certain information channels, whether it's the COVID. Resistance channels out there. The fact that you had the, the The head of doctors, was it called the. Doctors I can't remember the name of the other group, but it's the guys that were on TV standing up for I remember when. And how the government shouldn't be allowed to prevent them from prescribing anything they want. To their patients. It is none of the government's business. What kind of medicines are prescribed it's between the doctor and the patient. And You know, they were totally de platformed. And the way as we've seen with the Twitter files, all this de platforming happens. I shouldn't say all. A chunk, a large chunk of those de platforming happened. Because of government intervention and also Democrat party intervention. So even outside of the government, just Democrats. Intervening on behalf of the party itself. This is ridiculous, like using private companies to enforce government policies. The government is not allowed to actually impose. Is not a workaround. This is not legitimate. This is not. Something that is okay. This was not the intent of the founders of the constitution and the people that created this country. Nor have the people that predominantly for the last 200 years I've been running this country. Using work arounds. You know, it's kinda like what same thing happened with Bush with torture? During he has an administration. The us is officially not allowed to use storage or we have policies against utilizing torture for any purpose, including together information. Now some countries. Use torture, not for gaining information, but purely as a means of. Of enjoyment and relaxation for their military. Because when you've been fighting in somebody and you win. There's a certain benefit that historically goes along with victory. He gets a rape and pillage. You, you get to take the town that you just conquered. Plunder it steal all its bounty. Rape it's women and kill it's men. And Honestly, if that all sounds barbaric. Well, you got to remember. This only became barbaric. In the last hundred years. Prior to that. Going back thousands of years, it was the human norm. This is what we did. Now the. The percentage of rape happening and the percentage of plunder may have changed. Some people. We're more vicious and known for their rape. I think gang is con. Is related to about one seventh of the globe because they took that side of it very actively. And whenever the the horde. Conquered new territory. The the best looking women were shipped over for a genius genius to however you pronounce that. Two. Personally. Do with what he wanted to. And as a result, there's a lot of pregnancies and a lot of babies are related to Genghis Khan. But Nonetheless that was happening. You know, the Victor gets the spoils. It is a very recent phenomenon that this doesn't happen. So anyway, going back to the topic of, of the U S. Not allowing to use of torture. What did the us do during. Bush. With all the the high value capture targets. While some people would say, well, we send them to get Mo no, no, no, no. Get Mo only gods a select few. And mostly people that we have prior identifiable knowledge of. And those didn't get Moe were the lucky ones. Because they just got waterboarding. The rest of the folks that were captured and interrogated were sent off to black ops sites all over the middle east and in Eastern Europe. Because guess what boys and girls, when you joined NATO, the us gets to use your country to house political prisoners. People that. It doesn't want to bring back to the us because that would give them human rights. But. It's much more convenient to bring them to countries of the NATO block or our partners at least. For now. Although who knows for how long, like Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia. How's the number of these. And what happened was the U S efficiently handed over. These prisoners of war. To the local authorities, thereby cleansing its hands of what happens after that. And those countries don't have these regulations on non-use of torture whatsoever. And so people were literally tortured to death. And some instances to gain certain pieces of information, which may or may not have been true. There is some good stats saying that majority of the information that you gain as a result of torture is actually false. And that falls because people are lying, trying to cover up but falls because they will literally tell you. Anything you want to hear to make the pain stop? Or sometimes for you to just kill them. Because that's another way of making the pain stop. Of the people that were delivered to these black sites, we have no idea on the statistics of how many of them. Ever made it out alive. The presumption is they all, they were all killed. So when the U S black bag Jew. And ship you from Afghanistan or Iraq. Or a number of other countries that have less popular conflicts. And you were shipped off site Arabia. That was a death sentence, but it was worse than the death sentence because your death wasn't going to be fast. It wasn't going to be something that happens on the battlefield. It's going to be slow. By having your teeth extracted your nails pulled out. Electricity. Applied to your genitals and every other place in your body. By having hot scorching metal Pearcey or skin and cauterize you. So you don't die as fast. The, the amount of creativity that goes into torture. Is tremendous. It's huge and countries where torture is not banned. They, this is a profession. This is something you can go to school for. So you really learn how to keep a person alive the longest. And suffering the most pain, the longest. The U S doesn't have schools for that. Because we don't do that. We're an enlightened country. But. We get around things just like we get around everything else. We find a partner that has no problem with torture. And we use them. You S is not allowed to do a research on biological weapons. Okay. So we just pay other research institutions, like the one who hon. To do the research on our behalf. And again, what is a biological weapon? It's essentially anything that is the opposite. Of a cure. Any, any drug that you work on, any kind of procedure process you work on? That. And when I say work on, by the time he gets to the stage of using rats to test it on. If the net result is a higher rate of mortality. Then no use of the drug. You're creating a biological weapon. Well, where you can call it anything you want, but that's what it is. Any drug that is in the process of being tested that. Determines to actually have a, a high mortality rate. Is a potential drug that could be utilized. As a A weapon. A biological weapon. And the beauty of it is, is that. Biological weapons that are coming out of drug farm companies out of farmers, farm pharmacological companies. They are generally. Close biologically to other similar drugs because everybody starts off with a known thing. And then. Tries tinkering with it. That if you would say you want it to just assassinate somebody. Like say a president of another country. You would probably want to do it as the U S in a way that doesn't point the finger directly back at you. And so. An easy way to do that is by having that person to have a heart attack. Which is the result of natural causes. There's a, a number of different drugs that will not appear as anything unusual. In a person's body and when they do their autopsy, That can absolutely lead to a heart attack. That'll make that person's heart stop. Is that a biological weapon? I think it is by the traditional definition, but. You know, not what most people think of. I would think biological weapons, most people think of like, you know, Or was that thing that was used in Anthrax. Yeah. That's what most people think of. Eh, anthrax is by no means the only category of biological weapons. There, there are plenty of other ones. So. I know I've kind of went round the boat, a variety of topics here, but these are all things that just hadn't made it to conversations. Any of the other podcasts I've been doing and also update for what's coming up in here. So I appreciate you guys subscribing. As usual, the best thing you can do to help me grow the podcast. Is to do a review in either Google or apple. I think that's the two big ones in their podcasting sites. And just mentioned that you enjoy the show and the types of topics that covers. That helps other people find out about it, learn about it. Yada, yada, yada. No illusions that I'm ever going to be like a huge podcast, or I'm doing this for fun guys. And that's another reason I don't really collect money. I don't. Ask for money. Is because I'm digging this because I enjoy it. I like putting out content like this. I like having the conversation, keep going. Even if you guys hear this, not in real time after I said it, but eventually later If you still respond, you still have thoughts. You still maybe do something or think differently as a result of it. These are all awesome things. And I certainly think it's well worth doing the podcast, even though I'm I'm. Technically losing money on every episode, but it's not really a lost money. It's, it's an it's money. I'm paying to enjoy myself. It's money. I'm paying to have fun. So a few hundred bucks a year is a fine for me for doing that. Hopefully you enjoyed this episode. And like I said, we've got some interviews coming up. So stay tuned for those. And have a good evening. Afternoon or morning whenever you're listening to this.