Speaker 1: Good evening, everybody, and welcome to another edition of The
Speaker 1: Cajun Knight Live. I am your host, the Cajun Knight,
Speaker 1: Jacob Mook, and I want to thank everybody for coming
Speaker 1: out to join me on this conversation this evening. Now,
Speaker 1: there has been a lot of things happened this past week,
Speaker 1: and we're not gonna spend an incredible amount of time
Speaker 1: talking about the Iran Israel conversation. Everybody is talking about it.
Speaker 1: I wasn't one hundred percent accurate on what I thought
Speaker 1: was going to take place, but I also wasn't one
Speaker 1: hundred percent inaccurate either. I didn't think that America was
Speaker 1: going to actually send any thing, and he planes and
Speaker 1: he jets and he bombs anything. However, I do feel
Speaker 1: like Net and Yahoo strong armed Trump into the position
Speaker 1: where he felt like he had to. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't think that's a very good thing to do,
Speaker 1: and I believe that's why Donnie t is on the
Speaker 1: outs of the old BB Net and Yahoo right now.
Speaker 1: I'm not upset set that we bombed Iran. I'm not
Speaker 1: particularly a fan of the Ayatola or his regime. For
Speaker 1: the record, neither is eighty five percent of the country
Speaker 1: that he leads, So like, okay, fine, whatever. I've heard
Speaker 1: so many people bring up the fact that they sent
Speaker 1: rockets at an American bas in Qatar, and it's like, yeah,
Speaker 1: we weren't concerned with that. We have patriot missile systems
Speaker 1: that took down all of them except for one. And
Speaker 1: the one that didn't get taken down was because it
Speaker 1: was so far out of like not out of range,
Speaker 1: but it was so far away from hitting a target
Speaker 1: that why would we waste the money on sending up
Speaker 1: a rocket to intercept something that wasn't gonna hurt anything anyway,
Speaker 1: Because that's that's how I Ran does business. So fine,
Speaker 1: As of this moment, as a time of recording there,
Speaker 1: he's a very uneasy cease fire that is kind of
Speaker 1: quote unquote being had. Israel is claiming that Iran fired
Speaker 1: after the ceasefire. Iran is claiming that Israel fired after
Speaker 1: the ceasefire. They both seem to just kind of be
Speaker 1: having the last little inklings of a pissing contest. They're
Speaker 1: in the process of shaking their dicks, you know what
Speaker 1: I mean, putting it back in their pants. Allegedly. So
Speaker 1: many things can happen in a twenty four hour period.
Speaker 1: That's just what it looks like as of this moment.
Speaker 1: We shall see what happens as a result of that.
Speaker 1: We're gonna be talking about the Indian stock market. We're
Speaker 1: gonna talk about our own stock market. We're gonna be
Speaker 1: talking about gas prices. We're gonna be talking about a
Speaker 1: couple of different things. But that's pretty much all I
Speaker 1: wanted to say as far as the actual conflict itself,
Speaker 1: quote unquote, that's pretty much all we got. That was
Speaker 1: America's entire involvement in it. So fine things have happened,
Speaker 1: shots were fired, certain people have been deceased. All right,
Speaker 1: We are not putting boots on the ground. Nobody that
Speaker 1: I've talked to in the military of the upper echelon
Speaker 1: or the lower enlisted, are in any kind of way,
Speaker 1: shape or form gearing up to invade Iran. They were hopeful.
Speaker 1: They were hopeful because that's what the American military does.
Speaker 1: We do war, and apparently that's a bad thing. People
Speaker 1: don't like that. I'm not trying to say that I
Speaker 1: am four or against it. I'm not a fan of it.
Speaker 1: I'm not a fan of the fact that we like
Speaker 1: to create our own boogeyman so that in ten years
Speaker 1: we can go over there and fight and do this
Speaker 1: whole thing. And yeah, sure, sure, but you know what
Speaker 1: that being said Candace Owens, I was a fan of her.
Speaker 1: I liked her a lot actually until today. So I
Speaker 1: don't have any clips pulled up because I don't believe
Speaker 1: in using TikTok for things. It's gross. But that being said,
Speaker 1: Candace Owens has made a comment that if you are
Speaker 1: in the military, you should opt to go into the
Speaker 1: process of getting a dishonorable discharge rather than go fight
Speaker 1: in some foreign war and all these things. It's like
Speaker 1: she's gone that detached people that join the military to
Speaker 1: get involved in foreign wars. No one should join the
Speaker 1: military hoping to stay stationed at home. Otherwise, why are
Speaker 1: you joining the military. That's silly, that's retarded. If you're
Speaker 1: gonna do that, join the coast guard like that's fine,
Speaker 1: but there's a reason why the other branch is shit
Speaker 1: on the coast guard like that. This is a part
Speaker 1: of it. If you're joining the Army or the Navy
Speaker 1: or the Marine Corps, you should be joining in the
Speaker 1: hopes of deploying. Otherwise, why would you join the military,
Speaker 1: So why we get involved in a foreign war? Because
Speaker 1: that's what the American military does. It's kind of our
Speaker 1: whole shtick. I mean, you may not like it, but
Speaker 1: you do sleep well at night under the umbrella of
Speaker 1: the war machine that it has been created. So you know,
Speaker 1: just gonna throw that out. I'm not a fan of
Speaker 1: us kicking a horneous ness and creating a war in
Speaker 1: another land. You know, I don't want us to be
Speaker 1: the bullies. But at the same time, that's kind of
Speaker 1: what America does. We do foreign war really well. So yeah, anyway, anyway,
Speaker 1: end of rant on that front, Candie Owens has gone
Speaker 1: off the deep end. So many people are washing their
Speaker 1: hands of her. Not just because the one comment about
Speaker 1: how people in the military should go for a dishonorable
Speaker 1: discharge in favor instead of rather going to a foreign war.
Speaker 1: That's just dumb. Okay, If you're gonna join the military,
Speaker 1: you should understand that you will be getting sent to
Speaker 1: a foreign land and hopefully with the intention of seeing combat.
Speaker 1: That's that's the goal. But anyway, whatever, So Candistons is
Speaker 1: falling off, and apparently so are the Hodge Twins because
Speaker 1: they put up a post on x and a post
Speaker 1: on Facebook. One of them was, you know, blasting the
Speaker 1: Iranian situation as something that we shouldn't get involved with,
Speaker 1: and the other was basely sucking off Donnie t for
Speaker 1: his actions in getting involved in the conflict. And the
Speaker 1: Internet is having a field day with these two, but
Speaker 1: not nearly as much as Candace Owen's. So, you know,
Speaker 1: and I like Candace I did anyway. I like the
Speaker 1: style of investigative journalism that she does. I like that
Speaker 1: she's unapologetic in her beliefs and all these things. But
Speaker 1: then I see this thing where she's wearing a hajab
Speaker 1: and she's saying that we should be supporting Iran, we
Speaker 1: need to throw Israel off to the side, and it's
Speaker 1: just a it's a whole thing. It's a whole thing.
Speaker 1: It's ridiculous. Yeah, let's see this here, let's check the
Speaker 1: chat here. We should just barricade quote unquote the Middle
Speaker 1: East and let them duke it out until a winner
Speaker 1: is declared one way or another. These folks have been
Speaker 1: in fights since before that one guy from Nazareth. Yeah, no,
Speaker 1: I agree. I would love that, And honestly, I I'm
Speaker 1: of the belief that a single, very small country about
Speaker 1: the size of New Jersey would wreck shop if the
Speaker 1: rest of the world, all the rest of the world
Speaker 1: would just leave the Middle East alone and let them
Speaker 1: fight it out to the bitter end, one of these
Speaker 1: countries will come out on top. Just my personal opinion.
Speaker 1: And no it's not because of some sort of prophetic
Speaker 1: message that says they would. That's just looking at military
Speaker 1: might alone. But you know that can't happen. See Tony says,
Speaker 1: I am still with Canvas on this, but I see
Speaker 1: your point. All comments like xxx is toast tend to
Speaker 1: be greatly exaggerated. How many times has that been said
Speaker 1: about Thomas Massey. Yeah, No, I'm not saying that Kandas's
Speaker 1: career is over, nothing like that. I am saying that
Speaker 1: she's lost two million followers in twelve hours. That's a
Speaker 1: true statement. So I mean, all right, she'll probably be
Speaker 1: able to bounce back from this. She'll probably continue doing
Speaker 1: her thing, which is fine. I'm just saying, if you're
Speaker 1: gonna go ahead and marginalized most of your listener base,
Speaker 1: knowing that most of your listener base are like true
Speaker 1: blooded Americans that do not like Iran and are supportive
Speaker 1: of the military. Maybe you just don't talk about that
Speaker 1: thing and you just talk about Brigitte Macrome being a tranny, right,
Speaker 1: that's that's the thing that most people could even if
Speaker 1: they don't believe it, they could laugh at. This seems
Speaker 1: to be a safer choice. I just I don't understand here.
Speaker 1: Let's see the yoked Yids says what caused her to
Speaker 1: go off her rocker like this? From trying to fight
Speaker 1: lib tuards to defending others. This seems to go contrary
Speaker 1: to what she stood for. I agree, But let's also
Speaker 1: keep in mind that Candice Owens is a flip flopper
Speaker 1: like that. This be real here. If we're gonna look
Speaker 1: at her track record, she at one time was bringing
Speaker 1: this much faya when she was campaigning for Obama. Right
Speaker 1: then she all of a sudden flip flopped and became
Speaker 1: like one of the most biggest conservative talking heads ever.
Speaker 1: I feel like she is in a transitional period where
Speaker 1: she is now flip flopping again and she's going to
Speaker 1: start going anti Donnie t What's her reason for this?
Speaker 1: Who knows? Who actually knows. Maybe it's the money going
Speaker 1: one way, maybe her personal opinions have shifted in the
Speaker 1: past few months. I don't honestly know, to be honest
Speaker 1: with you, but Candae Owens is doing candas owns things.
Speaker 1: I don't want her as an enemy. I'll say that
Speaker 1: the culture conspiracy and the cage, and I do not
Speaker 1: want Candis Owans as an enemy. However, I personally disagree
Speaker 1: with the standpoint that she is taking as of the
Speaker 1: current situation. But everybody's intied to their opinion. That's how
Speaker 1: this goes. Tony Sais, I'm glad and didn't join the military,
Speaker 1: but there are fights I would desert over. But that's
Speaker 1: the thing. If you joined the military, and I know
Speaker 1: you didn't, so like, fine, if you join the military,
Speaker 1: you join understanding that you're going to follow the orders
Speaker 1: that have been given to you, whether you have some
Speaker 1: sort of moral conundrum about them or not. Like you
Speaker 1: joined the military and then we're going to war in Korea. Well,
Speaker 1: I have no problem with the Koreans. That's that's super cool.
Speaker 1: No one asked you, No one asked you about if
Speaker 1: you what your feelings are about it. You have a
Speaker 1: job to do, and that's all point, you know. I mean,
Speaker 1: you're supposed to be able to separate your your beliefs
Speaker 1: from the job at hand, and if you can't, then
Speaker 1: you probably shouldn't have joined the military, which, like you said,
Speaker 1: there's a reason you didn't, and I respect that. I
Speaker 1: respect people that I'm not of the belief that everybody
Speaker 1: should join. I've heard certain people bring that up, like, man,
Speaker 1: if we did force conscription for one or two years,
Speaker 1: that would change this, and they would give people insights
Speaker 1: to this, and like, okay, and I understand the talking
Speaker 1: point on that, But at the same time, we couldn't
Speaker 1: do that even if we wanted to. Seventy percent of
Speaker 1: the military aged men in this country are unfit for service,
Speaker 1: like they couldn't actually join if they wanted to for
Speaker 1: one of a long laundry list of reasons. So now,
Speaker 1: I don't believe that we should be lowering the standards
Speaker 1: to make sure that everybody can be a part of
Speaker 1: it by any means. I think that everybody should do something,
Speaker 1: or join an organization, or join a cause that is
Speaker 1: greater than themselves for a common cause that they believe
Speaker 1: in for an extended period of time. I would agree
Speaker 1: with that. You know, it doesn't have to be the military,
Speaker 1: It doesn't have to be cops. It doesn't have to
Speaker 1: be first responders, nothing like that. If you were to realistically,
Speaker 1: if you volunteer at your local house of worship to
Speaker 1: whatever type of worship that that might be for you,
Speaker 1: and you're actually doing charity work, giving time and energy
Speaker 1: and money out of yourself for a common cause that
Speaker 1: you believe in. I support that, And if you were
Speaker 1: to do that for a year, I feel like you
Speaker 1: would have an appreciation for a whole hell of a
Speaker 1: lot of the lifestyle that you live, you know what
Speaker 1: I mean. There's different ways to serve. Maybe it's not
Speaker 1: your country, maybe it's not your state, maybe it's your
Speaker 1: local community, maybe it's some sort of other level like that.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I can at least appreciate when people say, oh,
Speaker 1: I couldn't join the military because dot dot dot. Fine,
Speaker 1: like respect, you knew that about yourself. You never did this,
Speaker 1: and it's all good things. It's the same kind of
Speaker 1: thing as a people saying, oh, I could have never
Speaker 1: had kids. That's why I got fixed very young because
Speaker 1: bupah bap hey. Respect. You know that you didn't want
Speaker 1: to raise children, so you went through the process of
Speaker 1: making sure that you would never raise children. I can
Speaker 1: respect that. I could appreciate that, you know what I mean,
Speaker 1: rather than having to raise children that you never wanted
Speaker 1: in the first place, and then we got more problems
Speaker 1: down the road and all these things. Like I can
Speaker 1: at least give to respect where it's due on that,
Speaker 1: for sure. He's just theoretically, yeah, no, theoretically you should
Speaker 1: be able to remove your morals, I don't want to
Speaker 1: say morals, but your little feelings away from the situation
Speaker 1: unless it is something super egregious, right, unless you're getting
Speaker 1: a order to break the law of war or go
Speaker 1: against the Geneva Convention, like you have to obey all
Speaker 1: lawful orders. There has to be something to be said
Speaker 1: for that. But going and being deployed to a war
Speaker 1: zone is considered a lawful order. And if you try
Speaker 1: to do the whole conscieness is objection thing like yo,
Speaker 1: that's also right out. We are not in a time
Speaker 1: of war. Anybody who's active duty right now and is
Speaker 1: in the infantry or some sort of line unit that's
Speaker 1: trying the conscientious objector thing. Why'd you join if you
Speaker 1: were going to try to do the objective thing? If
Speaker 1: we were doing a draft. I get this I understand
Speaker 1: why somebody would be listed as that if there was
Speaker 1: a nationwide draft going on and you want to be
Speaker 1: listed as a certain thing, maybe a non combatant, but
Speaker 1: you still want to serve in some way. Old boy
Speaker 1: from Hacksaw Ridge being one of them, Okay, I can
Speaker 1: respect that he didn't, you know what I'm saying. There
Speaker 1: was a lot of things going on. That's not the
Speaker 1: situation right now, you know, anyone, anyone that also killed
Speaker 1: me with Muhammad Ali tried to say that he was
Speaker 1: a Muslim and that's a religion of peace and that's
Speaker 1: why he couldn't join the military. It's like, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: in what country is Islam considered a religion of peace?
Speaker 1: Half the Kuran is a war lord's manifesto. But okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: I know, all right, whatever, anyway, all right, getting off
Speaker 1: the topic here, Moving on here, the Yogi had said,
Speaker 1: I joined the Chair Force for a reason, loll deployments aside.
Speaker 1: I love the lifestyle of being a Gucci boy. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'll bet you did. I'll bet you did all honestly,
Speaker 1: as much shit as I talk like, Yeah, I should
Speaker 1: have joined the Air Force of the Coast Guard. Honestly
Speaker 1: joined the Marine Corps was probably not the smartest decision
Speaker 1: I ever did, but it's also all I ever wanted.
Speaker 1: From the time I was three, I wanted to be deployed.
Speaker 1: I wanted to go to war. I wanted to not
Speaker 1: just serve my country. No, No, I wanted combat like
Speaker 1: I wanted to kick indoors and be a pipe hitter.
Speaker 1: That was all I ever wanted. But you know, the
Speaker 1: Lord's got a plan and all of that. Let's see,
Speaker 1: all I'm going to say about joining the military or
Speaker 1: serving the country is for the greater good. Has been
Speaker 1: a motto for committing the worst acts of human of
Speaker 1: human and kind can think of. I get this. I
Speaker 1: get it. And when I say for the greater good,
Speaker 1: I mean like for the betterment of your community. I'm
Speaker 1: not even saying that going to war in Afghanistan was
Speaker 1: for the betterment of your community or anything along those lines.
Speaker 1: I understand there's nuances to it. At the same time,
Speaker 1: if you join the military in an active duty component,
Speaker 1: you should understand that you probably will get deployed, probably
Speaker 1: to a place that sucks, and you're gonna be asked
Speaker 1: to do things that you probably don't want to do.
Speaker 1: And if you have an issue with that, then you
Speaker 1: probably shouldn't have joined in the first place. That's that's
Speaker 1: all I'm saying on that front, you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: And to the people that didn't join and because that
Speaker 1: was an issue for them, again respect words, due. I
Speaker 1: have no shade or judgment from me for somebody who
Speaker 1: didn't join because they couldn't do X, Y or Z
Speaker 1: if it was asked to them. I get it, totally
Speaker 1: get it. Anyway, all right, let's move on. I got
Speaker 1: a couple of articles pulled up here. I'm gonna go
Speaker 1: ahead and share the screen for anybody who would like
Speaker 1: to be a part of this conver station on Wednesday
Speaker 1: nights and come join us at the Cajun Night Live
Speaker 1: on Patreon. Link is in the description below. We do
Speaker 1: this every Wednesday night at nine pm Central. And uh yeah,
Speaker 1: that's where you get the video to show what the
Speaker 1: hell I'm talking about. Now, as we are talking about
Speaker 1: military things and stuff, let's take a little side tangent.
Speaker 1: I was gonna say a complete side step. That's not
Speaker 1: true either, because we're talking DARPA. DARPA has apparently successfully
Speaker 1: done the experiment that Tesla said that he could do
Speaker 1: when he would make electricity jump for miles with no wires.
Speaker 1: They have done it to make popcorn. Okay. I may
Speaker 1: not be a fan of the fact that they were
Speaker 1: doing this incredible technological feat for the sole purpose of
Speaker 1: popping some oval red and bocker, but at the same time,
Speaker 1: this is really cool. Okay. So this is from Live
Speaker 1: Science here darpush smashes wireless power record beaming energy more
Speaker 1: than five miles away and uses it to make popcorn.
Speaker 1: All right, this is supposed to just a few minutes
Speaker 1: or a few days ago. Rather when you buy through
Speaker 1: links in our articles other one, I'm sorry. The US
Speaker 1: military has set a new record for wireless power transmission,
Speaker 1: beaming a laser carrying more than eight hundred watts of
Speaker 1: power across the distance of five point three miles eight
Speaker 1: point six kilometers for all of our metric users. The
Speaker 1: test performed by the US Military's Defense Advanced Research Projects
Speaker 1: Agency or DARPA. You may have heard of them as
Speaker 1: part of its persistent Optical Wireless Energy Relay program. Power
Speaker 1: is the acronym is a key step towards unlocking the
Speaker 1: near instant beaming of power. It also smashes previous records
Speaker 1: set by Power Program, which previously beamed two hundred and
Speaker 1: thirty watts across one mile for twenty five seconds, and
Speaker 1: a smaller, undisclosed amount of power as far as two
Speaker 1: point three miles. So they're getting better and getting stronger.
Speaker 1: At this man, this is wild here. It is beyond
Speaker 1: a doubt that we absolutely obliterated all previously reported optical
Speaker 1: power beaming demonstrations for power and distance, Paul Jaffi, I think,
Speaker 1: the Power Program manager, said in a statement. The concept
Speaker 1: of wireless power transmission has been a popular goal since
Speaker 1: the days of Nokia Tesla. Oh Nikolai Tesla. God, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna take these glasses off, help me read better? Who
Speaker 1: won who? In nineteen oh one, began construction at the
Speaker 1: Wardencliffe Tower on Long Island, New York, a one hundred
Speaker 1: and eighty seven foot structure intended to be the first
Speaker 1: node in a world wireless system that would beam power
Speaker 1: around the globe. Yes, globe, not flat plane. Sorry, deal
Speaker 1: with it. Yet, technical challenges meant that funding for the project,
Speaker 1: initially provided by the financier JP Morgan, dried up, leaving
Speaker 1: Tesla's vision unrealized. Nonetheless, interest in the concept has recently increased,
Speaker 1: both for military applications and space based solar power, a
Speaker 1: nascent technology that would collect and transmit energy from sunlight
Speaker 1: in space, where it is ten miles or ten times
Speaker 1: more intense than at Earth's surface. Energy is essentially for
Speaker 1: military operations, and getting that energy to the battlefields and
Speaker 1: disaster areas where it's needed is slow, risky, and resource intensive,
Speaker 1: often using up a lot of fuel. Darber representatives rote
Speaker 1: in a statement these tests, referred to as PRAD or
Speaker 1: the Power Receiver Arrayed Demo, mark an important step towards
Speaker 1: Power program's long term goal of being able to instantly
Speaker 1: beam power from a location where it can be easily
Speaker 1: generated to wherever it's needed, the agency added. In the
Speaker 1: latest experiment, conducted at the US Army's White Sands Missile
Speaker 1: Range in New Mexico, y'all may have heard of that one.
Speaker 1: The power was beamed over five point three mile distance
Speaker 1: in a thirty second pulse. The laser beam arrived at
Speaker 1: the receiver before passing through a small aperture, bouncing off
Speaker 1: a parabolic mirror onto solar cells within. The pulse was
Speaker 1: transmitted with an approximate twenty percent efficiency and some of
Speaker 1: the power is transmitted was used to make popcorn. Again,
Speaker 1: they could have done something cooler, But also that's a
Speaker 1: pretty sick test. I mean, we got to give the
Speaker 1: props for they do here. The researchers have bigger ambitions
Speaker 1: for the systems use in the field, however, suggesting that
Speaker 1: it could be used to power unmanned aerial vehicles. They
Speaker 1: will now move on to testing power beinging both across
Speaker 1: multiple connected relays and vertically, where the atmosphere is thinner
Speaker 1: and transmission more efficient. I thought that was just cool
Speaker 1: as hell. You know, I understand that most people have
Speaker 1: a healthy distrust of DARPA. I get it. I'm not
Speaker 1: exactly like their biggest fan ever. But at the same time,
Speaker 1: you're telling me that they successfully did Tesla's experiment. Fine
Speaker 1: to cut popcorn. Fine, there was cooler things they could
Speaker 1: have done with that technology. But at the same time,
Speaker 1: five point three mile jump, no wires. I'm taking this
Speaker 1: as a win for humanity as of this moment. Now. Yes,
Speaker 1: of course DARPA is going to use this for some
Speaker 1: sort of military means, fine, but also give it a
Speaker 1: few years and that will make its way to the
Speaker 1: civilian sector and I'm excited about it. I thought that
Speaker 1: was cool as hell. Anyway, let's get back to the
Speaker 1: chat real quick before we go to the next talking
Speaker 1: point here. I agree, if you signed on the line,
Speaker 1: do your duty. Yeah, basically, Anthony, That's that's why I'm
Speaker 1: getting it here, and I agree completely, Tony, says Cannice.
Speaker 1: Someone says about six point nine million followers, and I
Speaker 1: can't confirm how many she gained her loss recently or
Speaker 1: find anyone who has. I was sent a couple of
Speaker 1: TikTok videos and again, y'all know how I feel about
Speaker 1: old tiki talk. But there was somewhere between one point
Speaker 1: five and two million followers as she lost within twenty
Speaker 1: four hours of her saying because of the Iran situation
Speaker 1: that military members should take dishonorable discharge over a potential deployment,
Speaker 1: which once again, no one's getting deployed. It's not happening,
Speaker 1: wasn't even suggested to happen. Candace is just kind of
Speaker 1: going off a bit, and I don't I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know why she thought that would be a
Speaker 1: good thing to say to her vast majority military supporting audience.
Speaker 1: I that's her that's hurt it the yoke Didad said
Speaker 1: that was going to mean my question if this wireless
Speaker 1: energy would be for the public. I mean, it's the
Speaker 1: same as anything else. Right. Drones are being used by
Speaker 1: the military. And when I say drones, yeah, the predator drones,
Speaker 1: the big ones that are about the size of a
Speaker 1: small Cessna plane cool those are being used by the
Speaker 1: mill military. Before we ever had the civilian market version
Speaker 1: of drones. But slowly but surely they made their way
Speaker 1: to civilian market. At first they were extremely expensive, then
Speaker 1: they got cheaper, then they got cheaper. Now we got
Speaker 1: the little ones that can fit in your hand that
Speaker 1: you can buy from the Discovery store at the mall.
Speaker 1: It's gonna make its way to the civilian population eventually,
Speaker 1: but it's gonna have to be used in a military
Speaker 1: capacity first. I'm not even saying like five years. If
Speaker 1: they're able to make enough electricity jump from miles like that,
Speaker 1: it would make sense to me that possibly this would
Speaker 1: be ten, fifteen, twenty years into the future where we
Speaker 1: might see a very expensive version of this electrical jumping
Speaker 1: capability being used in our homes. But that's the other
Speaker 1: thing too. They're talking about using this for war fighters
Speaker 1: and disaster relief areas. So instead of having a hall,
Speaker 1: generators and light plants and all these things up a
Speaker 1: mountain cliff to get it to these areas that were
Speaker 1: smacked by the hurricane in the Carolinas and stuff, if
Speaker 1: you're able to make electricity jump up the mountain without
Speaker 1: wires or fuel or any of these things, this makes
Speaker 1: more sense to me. I don't know what the civilian
Speaker 1: application would be or how that would be scaled to
Speaker 1: a civilian market, but I know for sure that it
Speaker 1: will be. Hey, Ravenlee ad joining in the chat, I
Speaker 1: realized that I did not send you the link that
Speaker 1: I usually do, and that is on me, and I apologize.
Speaker 1: Thank you for joining. You missed our rant about military
Speaker 1: and war fighting and how people that signed the dotted
Speaker 1: line should you know, do their job rather than have
Speaker 1: their morals get in the way of them doing it.
Speaker 1: Talked a little bit about Candice Owens. I will say
Speaker 1: this again for everybody who is here. Yeah, that is
Speaker 1: the going consensus on the internet right now. I will
Speaker 1: say this. If anybody has anything that they would like
Speaker 1: to drop into the check at, please do so, and
Speaker 1: I will pull it up as we go through the
Speaker 1: through the episode. So if y'all have anything y'all think
Speaker 1: is interesting news, science, whatever the case is, let's go
Speaker 1: ahead and do that now. Speaking on the science and
Speaker 1: technology conversation, this is also a pretty interesting here one.
Speaker 1: So scientists confirm the impossible time reflections are real, shattering
Speaker 1: the boundaries of physics and human understanding. So this is
Speaker 1: from Glass Almanac, and I'm not saying that this proves
Speaker 1: time travel is real. I am saying that time, apparently,
Speaker 1: like light, can be reflected and observed and studied through
Speaker 1: a certain lens and through mirrors. It's very fascinating. So
Speaker 1: let's go ahead and check this out here in an
Speaker 1: extraordinary revelation that challenges the very fabric of physics as
Speaker 1: we know it, scientists at the Cooney Advance Science Research Center, Boy,
Speaker 1: I'm hoping that that's how you pronounce it, have confirmed
Speaker 1: the existence of time reflections. Once dismissed as a theoretical curiosity,
Speaker 1: this phenomenon is now validated through groundbreaking experiments, offering a
Speaker 1: mind blowing twist on how we understand the relationship between
Speaker 1: space and time. What could this discovery mean for the
Speaker 1: future of technology, communication, and our grasp on the universe itself. Oh,
Speaker 1: there is a little YouTube video. Let's check it out.
Speaker 1: Hopefully it's not too long.
Speaker 2: Scientists just confirmed something that was once thought impossible. Time
Speaker 2: reflections are real, and no, this isn't science fiction. This
Speaker 2: breakthrough doesn't just change a few pages in a textbook.
Speaker 2: It rewrites the rules of reality as we know it.
Speaker 2: For decades, time was seen as a strict one way
Speaker 2: flow past to future, never.
Speaker 3: The other way around.
Speaker 2: But now physicists have observed a phenomenon where waves of
Speaker 2: light reflect not in space, but in time. Yes, you
Speaker 2: heard that right. Time is no longer untouchable, and this
Speaker 2: new discovery could pave the way for technology and understanding
Speaker 2: we once thought belonged only in movies. Time reflections happen
Speaker 2: when the properties of a material suddenly change so rapidly
Speaker 2: the wave doesn't bounce off a surface, it bounces through time.
Speaker 2: This bends our entire understanding of cause and effect, bending science.
Speaker 2: What's so powerful about this finding is not just the concept,
Speaker 2: it's the proof. Scientists have now seen lights scatter and
Speaker 2: reverse as if time itself hiccupped. This isn't just theoretical,
Speaker 2: it's experimental and it's real. And here's where it gets
Speaker 2: even crazier. If we can manipulate time reflections, we could
Speaker 2: one day design materials that alter how information moves, how
Speaker 2: communication happens, or even how we understand the future itself.
Speaker 1: This might be that's pretty insane. Let's keep reading about it. Here.
Speaker 1: To grasp the concept of time reflection, it helps to
Speaker 1: start with something familiar, spatial reflection. We've all seen how
Speaker 1: a ball bounces off a wall, changing directions but continuing
Speaker 1: forward in time. Similarly, when light or sound waves hit
Speaker 1: a surface like a mirror or a wall, they bounce back,
Speaker 1: allowing us to see our reflections or hear an echo.
Speaker 1: This is spatial reflection, and it's something we encounter every day.
Speaker 1: Time reflections, however, operates on a whole different level. Instead
Speaker 1: of bouncing back in space and electromagnetic waves, progression in
Speaker 1: time is altered. Imagine an electromagnetic wave traveling through a
Speaker 1: material whose properties suddenly and uniformly change. This abrupt shift
Speaker 1: acts like a magic switch, causing the wave to reverse
Speaker 1: itself in time. It's like hitting the rewind button on
Speaker 1: a video. Suddenly the motion goes in reverse, the sound distorts,
Speaker 1: and everything unfolds in reverse order. Moreover, this phenomenon also
Speaker 1: changes the wave's frequency. For instance, red light could shift
Speaker 1: to blue, or a low pitch sound could transform into
Speaker 1: a high one. It's akin to the reversed sped up
Speaker 1: audio on a cassette tape when you rewind it. God,
Speaker 1: you know, it's said this next generation have never seen
Speaker 1: nor heard a cassette tape and have no idea what
Speaker 1: we're talking about. Whenever you hit the rewind and it
Speaker 1: goes high pitched like that. But anyway, time reflection sounds surreal,
Speaker 1: but until recently it had never been directly observed. Wow,
Speaker 1: so this is a theory confirmed after fifty years. The
Speaker 1: concept of time reflection has been around since the nineteen seventies,
Speaker 1: but his experimental verification was elusive due to the technological
Speaker 1: challenges it presented. Observing the phenomenon requires altering and materials
Speaker 1: properties quickly and uniformly enough to interact with a fast
Speaker 1: moving wave. This demands precision, energy and a high level
Speaker 1: of sophistication. Researchers at the Cooney a ASRC sure overcame
Speaker 1: these hurdles with a novel approach. They used a metallic
Speaker 1: strip equipped with highly responsive electro electronic switches connected to
Speaker 1: capacitors that could store and release energy rapidly. By synchronizing
Speaker 1: these switches, they were able to double the electrical impedance
Speaker 1: of the strip almost instantaneously. By the way, impedance is
Speaker 1: the overall resistance of a circuit. Just everybody's clear, the
Speaker 1: sudden transformation created the ideal conditions for time reflection. During
Speaker 1: this process, part of the electromagnetic wave was reflected not
Speaker 1: in space, but in time. For the first time, instruments
Speaker 1: captured a reverse signal, a time inverted copy of the
Speaker 1: original wave. This marked the first experimental validation of a
Speaker 1: phenomenon that had remained a theoretical concept for more than
Speaker 1: half a century. So now let's talk about some of
Speaker 1: the applications of this new discovery. Well confirmed discovery. It
Speaker 1: was a theory, now it's confirmed. The breakthrough isn't just
Speaker 1: an academic triumph. It's a potential game changer for technology.
Speaker 1: By manipulating electromagnetic waves with time reflection, scientists foresee major
Speaker 1: advancements in wireless communication, radar systems, and advanced imaging technology.
Speaker 1: Time reflected signals could offer faster and more efficient transmission
Speaker 1: with near impossible interception. I hope that's a true statement.
Speaker 1: It seems like everything is hackable. I don't know how
Speaker 1: time could be hackable, but give them a few more years,
Speaker 1: I'm sure they'll figure it out. Another promising area is
Speaker 1: meta materials, engineered materials that can manipulate waves in entirely
Speaker 1: new waves. These materials could lead to futuristic devices like
Speaker 1: invisibility cloaks or ultra sensitive sensors. The possibilities are vast
Speaker 1: and exciting, and we are just scratching the surface on
Speaker 1: a more fundamental level, these discover This discovery offers a
Speaker 1: fresh perspective on the symmetry between time and space. It
Speaker 1: could have far reaching implications for areas like dermodynamics and
Speaker 1: quantum mechanics. By exploring these new avenue, scientists could push
Speaker 1: the boundaries of our understanding of physical walls, so a
Speaker 1: future full of promise. The confirmation of time reflection marks
Speaker 1: a pivotal moment in scientific research. What was once views
Speaker 1: as an abstract concept has now become a practical tool
Speaker 1: with revolutionary potential. This is insane, So I thought this
Speaker 1: was cool as hell. It was brought to me, or
Speaker 1: brought to my attention by a cult members and a
Speaker 1: matter of fact, who messaged me on Patreon. Not a
Speaker 1: shameless plug, but for anybody who wants to reach out
Speaker 1: on Patreon and you want to slide into the DMS,
Speaker 1: I'm the one that answers them. So whenever you send
Speaker 1: me articles like this or new theories, conspiratorial technological, whatever
Speaker 1: the case, I'm the one that gets them, and I
Speaker 1: do love receiving them. So Time Reflection did not know
Speaker 1: that this was going to be a thing ever in
Speaker 1: our lives. But that is really, really really cool. All right,
Speaker 1: Let's see here, Raven Lee has sent two articles. I
Speaker 1: am going to pull them up in just a second.
Speaker 1: Let's see what are these about? Oh lord, what are
Speaker 1: they about?
Speaker 4: Guys?
Speaker 5: Craeberger hanging from an asteroid. It's a last year's article,
Speaker 5: but like it showed up on my feet and I
Speaker 5: was like, no, is is real. It is one hundred
Speaker 5: percent like a real thing that they're discussing.
Speaker 1: And there's like.
Speaker 5: Tons of sources. It's not just these two, but I
Speaker 5: put two just in case.
Speaker 1: Yeah, for some reason, the article from the New York Post,
Speaker 1: it will open up on my computer and then it
Speaker 1: goes on to shut down. So that sucks. All right,
Speaker 1: Let's go to the other article that you posted. Um, hey,
Speaker 1: there we go, and then it opened up on the Independent.
Speaker 1: All right, let me get back to the chat real
Speaker 1: quick and just catch up here. Some physicists believe in determinism. Okay,
Speaker 1: So physicists believe in this determinationism because of theories like this.
Speaker 1: Just stort simultaneously is another reason for determinism. But I
Speaker 1: don't believe indeterminism. All right, So break this down for me.
Speaker 1: What do you mean you don't believe in determinism. Faster
Speaker 1: than light travel may also imply a deterministic universe. What
Speaker 1: do you mean?
Speaker 3: It's the word is distorted simultaneity. It's the idea that
Speaker 3: when you travel to or from a distant point in
Speaker 3: the universe, the current moment will actually change a lot
Speaker 3: for you relative to that other point. And it means
Speaker 3: that the future needs to be predetermined in order to
Speaker 3: I don't know, in order for the universe to work.
Speaker 3: That's distorted simultaneity. And the other thing is if you
Speaker 3: can travel faster than light, well, first of all, when
Speaker 3: you look at distant stars, you're looking at the light
Speaker 3: that came off of them. Maybe you know a billion
Speaker 3: years ago, for example. But if you can go faster
Speaker 3: than light and you can get there right now, then
Speaker 3: you know, the information that's elapsed in the meantime can't
Speaker 3: work out unless the universe follows a predetermined path of history.
Speaker 3: I'm doing a terrible job of explaining this, but most physicists,
Speaker 3: like Einstein, for example, we're determinists, and I'm more of
Speaker 3: a believer in free will. I feel like free will
Speaker 3: has to be real, and I think there has to
Speaker 3: be room for randomness and unpredictability in the universe. But
Speaker 3: I can't really prove it. Nobody can really prove any
Speaker 3: of this stuff for sure. But yeah, that wave thing,
Speaker 3: it reminds me of metal detectors and actually something I
Speaker 3: work on. If you put you know, an object in
Speaker 3: one side of a metal detector, you'll get one hundred
Speaker 3: and eighty degree phase shift from if you put it
Speaker 3: in the other side. And I know this is I'm
Speaker 3: not explaining this very well either, but I've always thought, well,
Speaker 3: on one side, is it like responding before the radio
Speaker 3: wave gets to it. But yeah, sorry, I'll just time in.
Speaker 1: No, No, I appreciate you you chiming in like this,
Speaker 1: and I'm with you as far as determinism versus free will.
Speaker 1: I'm still the belief that both are happening at the
Speaker 1: same time, and I also believe that they kind of
Speaker 1: have to happen at the same time. But the randomness
Speaker 1: of the universe, I believe is predetermined. But that doesn't
Speaker 1: make it any less random to our human construct. It would,
Speaker 1: but I believe that existence far exceeds whatever our human
Speaker 1: minds can really perceive. And I'm not trying to go
Speaker 1: necessarily spiritual or biblical or anything like that. Honestly, even
Speaker 1: if you look at it from a scientific standpoint, there's
Speaker 1: way too much randomness in nature. But also nature has
Speaker 1: a lot of order to it. Both are happening at
Speaker 1: the exact same time. I feel like that's a microcosm
Speaker 1: for the entirety of existence, honestly, So I'm with you
Speaker 1: on that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there's one other thing. A lot of physicists, even
Speaker 3: if they are deterministic, they believe in a multiverse. So
Speaker 3: they believe in a very vast number in an increasing
Speaker 3: number of different universes because every random event or quantum
Speaker 3: event can go one of two or several ways, and
Speaker 3: that the universe actually splits into several copies of itself.
Speaker 3: I don't believe this because there's just no freaking evidence
Speaker 3: for it. But it's one of those theories that's not
Speaker 3: really falsifiable. So some people believe in that, and personally
Speaker 3: I don't. I think we got one universe and there
Speaker 3: are random, unpredictable things that happen, and I think God
Speaker 3: set it up that way. And people think God has
Speaker 3: to be omniscient, but I think God actually leaves some
Speaker 3: things out of his control on purpose. And I can't
Speaker 3: prove it, but that's just how the universe makes most
Speaker 3: sense to me.
Speaker 1: It's a theory. It's a theory of being proposed. Brother,
Speaker 1: I hear you one hundred percent, and yes, people will
Speaker 1: agree and disagree with that, but who's to say one
Speaker 1: theory is more or less valid than the other. I
Speaker 1: feel you in this ravenly. I saw your hand was raised,
Speaker 1: and also I wanted to ask you about this other
Speaker 1: one random but liver King challenged Rogan. Liver King has
Speaker 1: been under fire ever since it came out that he's
Speaker 1: not all natural. I know, shocker for anybody who knows
Speaker 1: who liver King is. This guy has been claiming that
Speaker 1: he's all naturally. He just eats liver and that's why
Speaker 1: he's so huge. Anybody that views him with their eyeballs
Speaker 1: will tell you that that would be steroids. Obviously he's
Speaker 1: not all natural. So what did he challenge Rogan on?
Speaker 6: Pretty much?
Speaker 5: So he's getting sued by challenging I think Alex Jones
Speaker 5: or somebody as well. And yeah, so he challenged somebody
Speaker 5: to a fight, and then he apparently went after Rogan
Speaker 5: saying that like he could take him. I'm trying to
Speaker 5: find the article right now. Well, he's arrested.
Speaker 1: Challenged him in a to a physical altercation.
Speaker 5: Yeah heym Let me read it for you.
Speaker 1: It says liver King.
Speaker 5: Okay, so disgrace influence or the liver King known for
Speaker 5: lying about his insane muscular physique being down by the
Speaker 5: gobbling of raw organs and testicles, let me see. Arrested
Speaker 5: in Texas for challenging Joe Rogan to a fight in
Speaker 5: bizarre social media footage. You tuber real name is Brian
Speaker 5: Johnson was charged Tuesday with making a terroristic threat soon
Speaker 5: after traveling to Rogan's home state home state and posting
Speaker 5: alarming videos about picking a fight with a podcaster at
Speaker 5: one point, holding what appears to be two guns. Man,
Speaker 5: there's a lot, there's a whole. There's actually like photos
Speaker 5: of it and stuff. Johnson, who was forced to admit
Speaker 5: in twenty twenty two that his ripped physique was really
Speaker 5: down to eleven thousand dollars of eleven thousands of adults
Speaker 5: thousand dollars a month in steroids, was booked in Travis
Speaker 5: and Jail, Austin at eight thirty one pm on Tuesday.
Speaker 5: So apparently he challenged him and got arrested for it,
Speaker 5: challenging him to an honorable fight while wearing a fur
Speaker 5: headdress and holding what appears to be a gun in
Speaker 5: each hand. Joe Rogan, I'm calling you out. My name
Speaker 5: is Liver king Man demand I'm picking a fight with you.
Speaker 5: I have no training in jesuits. You you're a black belt.
Speaker 5: You should dismantle me. But I'm picking a.
Speaker 6: Fight with you.
Speaker 5: But I'm picking a fight with you. Your rules, I'll
Speaker 5: come with I'll come to you whether you're not you're ready, Okay, Yeah,
Speaker 5: So apparently he got arrested for uh for picking a
Speaker 5: fight with Rogan.
Speaker 1: On the list of things that would be considered really stupid,
Speaker 1: like We're so understand Rogan was trained by the Gracie.
Speaker 1: Actually like the Graces. He is a traditional martial artist.
Speaker 1: He has competed in taekwondo, He's competed in Brazilian jiu jitsu.
Speaker 1: I think he's actually a purple belt, if I'm not mistaken,
Speaker 1: not a black belt. He's like top tier, a master
Speaker 1: of it. Even aside from jiu jitsu. Even if it
Speaker 1: was just like all standing game, like liver King would
Speaker 1: get pieced up so fast it's not even funny. Yeah. Wow,
Speaker 1: So he's like the article said a discret influencer who
Speaker 1: was caught in multiple lies, and Rogan even brought that
Speaker 1: up on his show. She was probably a year or
Speaker 1: two ago, honestly when somebody had asked him about liver King,
Speaker 1: and he's like, it's steroids, like obviously, and it's not
Speaker 1: like Rogan's anti steroids. He is on them. He is
Speaker 1: very open about the fact that he takes steroids. He
Speaker 1: also didn't start taking them until after he was thirty five,
Speaker 1: and he does them very healthily and all of these things.
Speaker 1: But yeah, so I think this is the liver King
Speaker 1: trying to reclaim some sort of fame and this was
Speaker 1: a big swing in a miss go ahead, Raven.
Speaker 5: So I was reading comments from a lot of people
Speaker 5: in different posts, and apparently the liver King is on trend,
Speaker 5: which trend to men is like it's pretty much like
Speaker 5: making mango like psychotic, like it makes. I've witnessed it
Speaker 5: firsthand what it does to people there. You become hyper aggressive,
Speaker 5: they become pretty irrational in their viewpoints. They also become
Speaker 5: like pretty erratic and how they handle any type of emotions.
Speaker 5: And from what I've seen, and I can't obviously confirm,
Speaker 5: but from what I've read from tons of different people,
Speaker 5: is that he's like downing trend and that he's pretty
Speaker 5: much like lost his actual mind. And so that's why
Speaker 5: he traveled to the state to like a fight Rogan
Speaker 5: is because he has like no standing. He's losing followers
Speaker 5: by the day, and so his whole life is pretty
Speaker 5: much ruined and now he's actually arrested for it.
Speaker 1: I don't even have like a response for this. You
Speaker 1: threaten one of the most famous people in America publicly,
Speaker 1: you know, like maybe maybe if you weren't holding weapons
Speaker 1: whenever you made this claim and you said you're coming
Speaker 1: for him, Whether he's ready or not. Perhaps it might
Speaker 1: have gone somewhere right. Maybe y'all could have on some
Speaker 1: sort of a charity boxing event or something like that,
Speaker 1: and that would have been That would have been a
Speaker 1: thing that happened. But man, that that is a play.
Speaker 1: It's a bold, strategic cotton and I did not work
Speaker 1: out for him. So okay, liver King losing his goddamn mind.
Speaker 1: All right, cool, moving on, Let's see checking out the
Speaker 1: rest of the chat before we get back to the articles. Here, Yo,
Speaker 1: we can be like Harry, I don't know exactly what
Speaker 1: you meant by that one, but okay, welcome to the party.
Speaker 1: Thank you someone forgot this in the link. Glad you
Speaker 1: got here. Same. I like it a lot. We talk
Speaker 1: about a lot of stuff that's interesting. I agree. I
Speaker 1: enjoy this as much as I love the Cult live.
Speaker 1: I like this space and people that and right now
Speaker 1: it's smaller. We're trying to grow it. We're trying to
Speaker 1: grow it. Okay, we are growing slowly but surely.
Speaker 7: But hell yeah, Jacob, I'm not saying there's anything wrong
Speaker 7: with having a large amount of people, but it's kind
Speaker 7: of nice getting getting on this on the ground floor,
Speaker 7: as opposed to you know, twenty thirty people in and
Speaker 7: everybody's everybody already mess messes.
Speaker 6: With people, and everybody gets along and this like, it's
Speaker 6: just nice to come on the ground bar of it.
Speaker 1: No, no, I know what you meant. I didn't take
Speaker 1: offense to it. I'm just giving you a hard time.
Speaker 1: But uh but yeah, no, I agree. I Actually there's
Speaker 1: something to be said for having the small intimate group
Speaker 1: of people who are like minded. And I mean of
Speaker 1: the group here. Not all of us agree with a
Speaker 1: lot of things with each other, but at the same time,
Speaker 1: we can all get on the same page and have
Speaker 1: a respectful dialogue. And that's why I like this honestly.
Speaker 1: So I'm with you on a hundred percent. Okay, that being
Speaker 1: all out of the way, we are caught up on
Speaker 1: the chat. Let's get back to this. I want to
Speaker 1: hear about this. New York City's most ambitious skyscraper could
Speaker 1: be hanging from an asteroid. I have never heard of
Speaker 1: this before. This is wild, and apparently it's from last year,
Speaker 1: but let's look into it here. A New York City
Speaker 1: architecture firm has plans to construct a massive hanging skyscraper
Speaker 1: tethered to an asteroid. Okay, this sounds like sci fi,
Speaker 1: but I mean, let's keep going here. The Clouds Architecture
Speaker 1: Office announced the concept of the Analemma Tower Analemma, Analmma,
Speaker 1: anal Emma Tower Sure, in a statement accompanied by a
Speaker 1: video presentation of the structure hanging from the space object
Speaker 1: through extension cords. All right, the building will be made
Speaker 1: accessible by drones, the company laid out in its designs.
Speaker 1: The anal Emma Tower would be constructed in Dubai. Oh,
Speaker 1: of course, it would be for one fifth of the
Speaker 1: cost of building the structure in New York City before
Speaker 1: the company proposes to launch it above Manhattan. Going back
Speaker 1: to the earliest known structures, we can see a clear
Speaker 1: pattern emerging, the firm said in a statement. We are
Speaker 1: in the process of dislodging ourselves from the planet's surface. Again,
Speaker 1: this sounds like some jetsons things happening right here. Using
Speaker 1: the Earth's orbit, the company said, the structure would be
Speaker 1: able to return to the same place in the sky
Speaker 1: each day after traveling between the northern and southern hemispheres.
Speaker 1: The slowest part of the trajectory would occur over in
Speaker 1: New York City. The firm intends to power the building
Speaker 1: using solar panels, which would be based in space. I mean,
Speaker 1: I was gonna say, like, solar panels are not that efficient,
Speaker 1: but if they're in space, and from the article we
Speaker 1: just read a moment ago, the solar rays are ten
Speaker 1: times stronger in space than they are here, Okay, there
Speaker 1: might be something to be said for this. Still, questions
Speaker 1: remain about whether the project would be attractive to everyday consumers.
Speaker 1: While there may be a benefit to having forty five
Speaker 1: extra minutes of daylight at an elevation of thirty two
Speaker 1: thousand meters, the near vacuum and negative forty degrees celsius
Speaker 1: temperatures would prevent people from going outside without a protective suit,
Speaker 1: the company noted. Then again, astronauts have continually occupied the
Speaker 1: space station for decades, so perhaps it's not so bad. Okay.
Speaker 1: Even so, the company expects the residential complex residential. They're
Speaker 1: talking about people living here. Oh I thought this was
Speaker 1: going to be some sort of a business place, all right,
Speaker 1: that's it's jets and time cool. The residential complex will
Speaker 1: command record prices based off of the current trend that
Speaker 1: sales price per square foot rises with floor elevation. Once completed,
Speaker 1: the structure would be considered the world's tallest building. I
Speaker 1: mean tallest by definition. But if it's hanging from an asteroid,
Speaker 1: then maybe it's not. Okay. Maybe longest building, not tallest building,
Speaker 1: but okay. This article is as talking about the same thing.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, it is arc Daily, like
Speaker 1: Architecture Daily, the real deal behind the dangling asteroid skyscraper proposal.
Speaker 1: There's a decent chance that in the last few days
Speaker 1: you've seen images of the anal emma, the futuristic proposed
Speaker 1: proposal from Cloud's AO to hang a skyscraper or should
Speaker 1: that be an earth scraper, I like it, from an
Speaker 1: asteroid in orbit of the Earth. The project has been
Speaker 1: difficult to avoid, having been picked up not only by
Speaker 1: much of the architectural media, but also by NBC, CNN, Forbes,
Speaker 1: The Telegraph, The Daily Mail, mashableifl Science. The list goes
Speaker 1: on almost as long as the building itself. It's a
Speaker 1: bit of a this number. The design. Is the design realistic?
Speaker 1: Obviously not, and it's obviously not intended to be. It's
Speaker 1: intended as a utopian thought experiment. Cloud's AO has something
Speaker 1: of a pedigree in this field. As winners of a
Speaker 1: NASA backed competition to design a Mars base with their
Speaker 1: idea for building a building made of ice. Okay, that's
Speaker 1: not like there's no precedent for that. I mean it
Speaker 1: in an Arctica every year they build a resort out
Speaker 1: of ice that you can go stay in, and I
Speaker 1: mean at the end of the season, it melts and
Speaker 1: they redo it the next year, and it's like a
Speaker 1: whole thing. So okay, sure, as a result, it would
Speaker 1: be uh, it would be fascile to join the Internet's
Speaker 1: collective bottom of the page comment mob to point out
Speaker 1: that it would be prohibitively expensive obviously, or that it
Speaker 1: might be more enjoyable to live on the ground anyway. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, everything else is on the ground, but
Speaker 1: that's not the point. Uh, But is the design a
Speaker 1: useful utopian thought experiment? There are some design failures that
Speaker 1: better technology or a lot of money or the changed
Speaker 1: mindset of a futuristic society just won't fix. So, without
Speaker 1: further ado, here's a list of problems that is out
Speaker 1: of this world design would face, in chronological order, with
Speaker 1: the issues that make it impractical in our current marked
Speaker 1: as our current world marked as a mirror A minor, Yeah,
Speaker 1: a minor, guys. You know, I'm a zooming on this
Speaker 1: page where I could read it better. Ah, that's better,
Speaker 1: and the ones that would undermine the proposal in any
Speaker 1: universe marked as major. All right, let's do this here.
Speaker 1: Step one, go fetch an asteroid and bring it into
Speaker 1: orbit around the Earth. That kind of sounds rather difficult,
Speaker 1: but okay. As surprising as some may find this idea,
Speaker 1: it's actually becoming increasingly feasible, with NASA hoping to place
Speaker 1: a small piece of an asteroid in orbit of the
Speaker 1: Moon by twenty twenty one. Uh, I don't think that happened,
Speaker 1: all right. The much larger asteroid needed for anal Emma
Speaker 1: would cost a lot more to capture. But as clouds
Speaker 1: AO argues in their project description, if the recent boom
Speaker 1: in residential towers proves that scale price per square foot
Speaker 1: rises with floor elevation, then anal Emma tower will command
Speaker 1: record prices, justifying its high cost of construction. All right, Oh,
Speaker 1: there's a video, you know. Let's check out this video
Speaker 1: before we continue. It's only three minutes long. Let's look
Speaker 1: at and see what's up. I'm gonna go ahead and
Speaker 1: lower that volume. It says buildings have gotten larger over time?
Speaker 1: Is there a limit in building height? A suspended tower? Wow,
Speaker 1: the world's tallest building requires a foundation in space? Okay,
Speaker 1: we got a little asteroid orbiting the Earth. Number one,
Speaker 1: an asteroid is placed into Earth orbit because what could
Speaker 1: go wrong there? Right? Okay? Cool? Number two, A cable
Speaker 1: is hung from the asteroid. Well, all right. Then number three,
Speaker 1: the tower is constructed onto the cable, and what happens
Speaker 1: at that cable just happens to snap? Like all right?
Speaker 1: Elevation over fifty thousand kilometers is the asteroid? Wow? Forty
Speaker 1: thousand kilometers gso orbit? Okay, they're talking about the amount
Speaker 1: of daylight it would get per place in the atmosphere. Okay,
Speaker 1: And as you go down, we're at the top of
Speaker 1: the tropic sphere troposphere excuse me, I mean the design
Speaker 1: is cool. Elevation over nine thousand meters migrating birds, okay,
Speaker 1: elevation over thirty four hundred meters bottom of the tower. Wow? Okay?
Speaker 1: Is it weird that I could already see the terrorist
Speaker 1: plots trying to blow up the cable? Yeah? I mean,
Speaker 1: I that's that's wild. I understand what they're trying to
Speaker 1: get at here. But okay, step number two, build a
Speaker 1: twenty seven kilometer tall skyscraper in Dubai. Yeah, I feel
Speaker 1: like that's another reason why it's not feasible, But all right,
Speaker 1: minor problem. The image below clearly shows that the intention
Speaker 1: is to build a skyscraper on the ground first for
Speaker 1: loading it onto the asteroid. However, the final building is
Speaker 1: proposed to extend from thirty two kilometers in the air
Speaker 1: down to just above the height of the tallest obstruction.
Speaker 1: Under Ao's plan, a safe height is likely to be
Speaker 1: around five kilometers more onless later, requiring a tower of
Speaker 1: twenty seven kilometers. Where there are all sorts of reasons
Speaker 1: that are building a twenty seven that building's a twenty
Speaker 1: seven kilometer tall structure isn't currently possible, especially one as
Speaker 1: slender as it is shown in these images, ranging from
Speaker 1: wind loading problems to a material strength problem. Yeah for now,
Speaker 1: let's assume that this will one day be possible. Yeah, this,
Speaker 1: this would be the crane that is helping them build. Like, yeah, no,
Speaker 1: that's out of question, But all right. Number three, attach
Speaker 1: a thirty five thousand, seven hundred and fifty four kilometer
Speaker 1: long cable to the asteroid thirty over thirty five thousand
Speaker 1: kilometer long cable. Yep, all right, minor problem. If you
Speaker 1: thought material strength was an issue in the previous step,
Speaker 1: this is a whole other level. Currently, the strongest material
Speaker 1: known to us is carbon nanotubes. If we could, hypothetically speaking,
Speaker 1: make those longer than just six thousand kilometers, they would
Speaker 1: snap under their own weight. A cable strong enough to
Speaker 1: support this design would likely need to be at least
Speaker 1: six times stronger. Let's imagine that at some point in
Speaker 1: the future this material exists, which incidentally would also likely
Speaker 1: mean space elevators are not far from a reality. Okay,
Speaker 1: Step number four lifting the building off the ground minor problem.
Speaker 1: Y that's true. If you were even able to build
Speaker 1: a building, able to get the asteroid in Earth orbit
Speaker 1: and able to attach you with these cables, what kind
Speaker 1: of winch system are you gonna need to pick it
Speaker 1: up off the ground?
Speaker 6: Right?
Speaker 1: Minor problem. Lifting such a structure off the ground would
Speaker 1: be incredibly tricky, assuming it is lifted from the base,
Speaker 1: Even a minor deviation from the vertical would cause it
Speaker 1: to topple over uncontrollably. Also, all the comfortable settled structural
Speaker 1: members would have sudden, unpredictable loads added to them as
Speaker 1: the building begins to move, and as discussed above, the
Speaker 1: structure is precarious to begin with. Yeah, look look at
Speaker 1: the image there of what this could quote unquote look
Speaker 1: like like it's a it's a really cool idea, but
Speaker 1: no step five attached the building to the cable hanging
Speaker 1: from the asteroid. Minor problem, more structural problems for the building.
Speaker 1: Structures that are efficient in compression i e. Those built
Speaker 1: on the ground are not necessarily efficient intension i e.
Speaker 1: Those hanging from an orbiting asteroid. Let's hope for future
Speaker 1: engineers are talented enough to build a structure that, even
Speaker 1: at twenty seven kilometers long, can do both efficiently. Wow. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so it's just pretty much breaking down all of the
Speaker 1: problems of a minor and major regard with this whole idea.
Speaker 1: It's a very cool idea. It is a very cool idea.
Speaker 1: Oh wow, look at this diagram. Okay, I gotta zoom
Speaker 1: out for this when I give it the proper scope.
Speaker 1: So this asteroid that they would have to find in
Speaker 1: space and then set into orbit around the Earth, then
Speaker 1: find a way to attach cables to it, then find
Speaker 1: a cable strong enough to not crumble under its own weight,
Speaker 1: then find a rigging system to attach it to this
Speaker 1: twenty seven kilometer tall building, and then find a way
Speaker 1: to pick the building up off the ground without throwing
Speaker 1: off the asteroid from the orbit that it's currently in.
Speaker 1: That Yep, this is absolutely within the realm of sci fi.
Speaker 1: But I like it. I like it. I think it's
Speaker 1: I think it's a really cool idea. But we are
Speaker 1: we are a little ways off from making that happen
Speaker 1: in real life. I think it's a really cool idea.
Speaker 1: I don't know why they think it's a utopian. Why
Speaker 1: does every engineer or anything always go immediately to well,
Speaker 1: it's a utopian design. It's gonna make the world better.
Speaker 1: Everything that ever gets designed is said to have some
Speaker 1: sort of a utopian influence behind it. Why are we
Speaker 1: assuming that terrorists wouldn't find a way to attach explosives
Speaker 1: to the cable so they could ransom it. What are
Speaker 1: we talking about here? Why do we think that somebody
Speaker 1: wouldn't try to take over the asteroid tower in some
Speaker 1: sort of a warlord capacity. That's kind of human nature,
Speaker 1: I thought, But okay, all right, it is a really
Speaker 1: cool idea, raven Lee, thank you for sharing that with
Speaker 1: the class. Let's see here, enough said stef said. You
Speaker 1: gotta balance early. Love you, Steph. Thank you for joining
Speaker 1: us this evening. Let's see here. Ravingly has sent another article,
Speaker 1: alligator alcatraz. Oh for the love of God. All right,
Speaker 1: we're gonna talk about that one in a second. Hold on,
Speaker 1: hold on. I got a couple more articles that I
Speaker 1: did bring that I wanted to kind of get to,
Speaker 1: but that that simply must be talked about here. By
Speaker 1: the way, this whole asteroid thing is very reminiscent of
Speaker 1: uq holder. I don't know what that means, Royce. Is
Speaker 1: that a is it a Jewish.
Speaker 6: Thing that's an anime slash manga? Ah where basically there
Speaker 6: is something that's just like that, where essentially a big
Speaker 6: towers in space and the way you get through it
Speaker 6: is an elevator.
Speaker 1: So got you. I didn't know you were an anime nerd.
Speaker 6: I am one hell of a nerd in general.
Speaker 1: So fair enough, Okay. Let's also is the Jewish community
Speaker 1: big with manga in anime or is that? Like I'm
Speaker 1: just curious. I'm just curious.
Speaker 6: So the religious community applely zero percent. Like most there
Speaker 6: are people in the Orthodox world that a don't have
Speaker 6: television in their houses or that the like if it's
Speaker 6: secular like the and Karate, which is the very religious communities,
Speaker 6: they don't have TVs in their houses. They won't like
Speaker 6: there's no such thing as going to watch a movie,
Speaker 6: like your time is either dedicated to family tara shoal
Speaker 6: something like, there's there's like there is fun like you
Speaker 6: go out, you can go to parks, you can go
Speaker 6: to you know, music parks and things like that, but
Speaker 6: things to just waste time. In the religious community, there
Speaker 6: is no such thing. So like you you can you
Speaker 6: can you can't read for pleasure, like I have one
Speaker 6: of my good friends from New York who you know,
Speaker 6: she reads her own fun stuff. But it's that she
Speaker 6: would be in the minor. So I would be for
Speaker 6: sure majorly in the minority. I mean most Jews also
Speaker 6: don't work out.
Speaker 1: Very true, very true. Yeah, no, I I I just
Speaker 1: have never thought about that because like like you say,
Speaker 1: most Jews don't work out. Most Jewish people would be
Speaker 1: classified as quote unquote nerdy in some way, shape or form.
Speaker 1: So I didn't know if they were into anime like
Speaker 1: as a systemic thing. So okay, not so much, fair enough.
Speaker 6: And by the way, there's a big difference between a
Speaker 6: nerd and a dork. I am a nerd. I am
Speaker 6: not a dork.
Speaker 1: So you're you're into weird ship, but you're not intelligent
Speaker 1: like that? What do you mean?
Speaker 8: So, like, think about like a Poindexter, someone who uh
Speaker 8: like pants up up to their belly buttons and like
Speaker 8: just studying it.
Speaker 6: Hi, my name is like think think of like that.
Speaker 6: That would be like a dork, but like nerd just
Speaker 6: can do like either D and D or Mungo or
Speaker 6: anime or all this other fun shit that it might
Speaker 6: be obscure, but you're not, like you're not dorky about it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I feel that, all right, good things, good things. Alright,
Speaker 1: let's get back into chat here. Tony says, like the
Speaker 1: space elevator, which also needs to have power beam to it,
Speaker 1: like in your first story. I don't think we will
Speaker 1: have this for a long time. Tensil strength. Yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: with you, one hundred percent. Anal Emma is a cool
Speaker 1: name but has nothing to do with the towers. It
Speaker 1: means the difference between actual solar time and solar meantime.
Speaker 1: All right, am I pronouncing it right? Analoma or anal emma?
Speaker 3: I'm pretty sure it's an alemma an alemma.
Speaker 1: Okay, that there you go. I'm gonna continue to call
Speaker 1: it anal emma, but yeah, I'm sure there's a scientific
Speaker 1: term for it. Fair enough. Ravenly says it reminds me
Speaker 1: of a space bridge that is featured in so many movies. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I feel that what happened to the wall that was
Speaker 1: supposed to be in Dubai also, Yeah, so the city
Speaker 1: situation with the wall currently. It was supposed to be
Speaker 1: I'm trying to correct me if I'm wrong here. It
Speaker 1: was supposed to be like seven miles long or something
Speaker 1: like that. They got a few hundred yards of it
Speaker 1: built and then ran out of funding or ran out
Speaker 1: of the desire to continue it essentially, is what I
Speaker 1: got from it. It was a predecessor, some might say,
Speaker 1: to the fifteen Minute City. I don't necessarily agree with
Speaker 1: that statement, but I've seen a few articles call it
Speaker 1: that because there was going to be high speed monorails
Speaker 1: going across the entirety of it, so you'd be able
Speaker 1: to get anywhere on it, and it was going to
Speaker 1: be pretty much a self contained civilization. Realistically, Dubai might
Speaker 1: have a lot of the funding, they don't have enough
Speaker 1: funding to complete that project as of this moment. Maybe
Speaker 1: they'll put more interest into it into the future, but
Speaker 1: right now they got bigger fish to fry. So yeah,
Speaker 1: that the Dubai Wall. It was a cool concept, but
Speaker 1: as of this moment, it's been put on, it's been shelved.
Speaker 1: Let's put it like that, all right, Hold on, before
Speaker 1: we get into the Florida Alligator conversation, let's go over
Speaker 1: here real quick. All right, DARPO, we talked about that one. Now,
Speaker 1: let's talk about some North Korea. North Korea fired multiple
Speaker 1: rounds with rocket launchers into the Yellow Sea after South
Speaker 1: Korea holds air drills with US and Japan. So for
Speaker 1: anybody who missed this one, right, the US with South
Speaker 1: Korea and Japan, we're all allies. We're all homies in
Speaker 1: that regard. We were doing some naval training missions in
Speaker 1: the Yellow Sea or around that area, I should say,
Speaker 1: and North Korea in response, I guess, just wanted to
Speaker 1: flex and show that it could totally hit US if
Speaker 1: it wanted. To That would be a really dumb move
Speaker 1: for it. I mean, I know that the joke gets
Speaker 1: made about don't touch America's boats, but like, seriously, Homie,
Speaker 1: that would be the worst decision you ever made. But
Speaker 1: let's read into it now. This is from MSM, a
Speaker 1: day after South Korea conducted joint air drills at the
Speaker 1: US in Japan. North Korea fired over ten rounds of
Speaker 1: rockets into the LLC on Thursday morning from the Sunnan
Speaker 1: near Pyongyang in a northwesterly direction, according to South Korea's military.
Speaker 1: South Korea typically classifies the weapons used by North Korea's
Speaker 1: military as short range ballistic missiles because they are. I
Speaker 1: don't know, if y'all have seen their rocket program. It's
Speaker 1: embarrassing then. Anyway, Under the UN Security Council resolutions, North
Speaker 1: Korea is prohibited from using ballistic missiles. Reuters reported the
Speaker 1: missiles were launched from Pyongyang's upgraded two hundred and forty
Speaker 1: millimeter multiple shot rocket launcher, which was unveiled last year
Speaker 1: and is believed to be capable of striking South Korea's
Speaker 1: population centers comprising the Soul metropolitan area. New York Post
Speaker 1: reporter reports said South Korea military official informed local media
Speaker 1: the projectiles, believed to be multiple launched rockets, flew tens
Speaker 1: of kalaws tens of kilometers before following into the Yellow
Speaker 1: Sea tens of kilometers. Y'all, The official mentioned, South Korean
Speaker 1: and US intelligence are closely monitoring details. Yeah, South Korea,
Speaker 1: the US and Japan held their first trilateral military air
Speaker 1: exercise on Wednesday under the administration of Lee J Mung,
Speaker 1: probably mispronouncing that who was elected earlier this month. Tensions
Speaker 1: on the Korean peninsula have escalated in recent months after
Speaker 1: North Korean leader Kim Jong UN's growing alignment with the
Speaker 1: Russian president Vladimir Putin. North Korea has reportedly supplied weapons
Speaker 1: and up to fifteen thousand troops in support of Russia's
Speaker 1: war in Ukraine. South Korean officials fear Pyongyang might receive
Speaker 1: economic assistance and advanced military technology in return, potentially boosting
Speaker 1: its weapon development programs. I mean, okay, yeah, they'll probably
Speaker 1: receive advanced military into Yeah, what's advanced? Like, what are
Speaker 1: we using to classify that term? Advanced to North Korea
Speaker 1: would be something made from nineteen sixty nine upward would
Speaker 1: be considered advance to what they're fielding currently. Let's not
Speaker 1: forget they can't even put a ship into the water
Speaker 1: without screwing that up. Kim has also continued to advance
Speaker 1: his nuclear and missile capabilities. This article is a little misleading.
Speaker 1: He has attempted to advance his nuclear missile capabilities. This year,
Speaker 1: North Korea successfully constructed two five thousand ton naval destroyers,
Speaker 1: with Kim describing new warships as convincing proof of the
Speaker 1: rapid transformation of our navy. Yeah, how did that go?
Speaker 1: How did that go with the destroyers? Whenever you actually
Speaker 1: tried to put them to see anyway? North Korea's flag hinder.
Speaker 1: South Korean church live stream in hacking incident. One of
Speaker 1: South Korea's largest megachurches on Friday stated that its live
Speaker 1: streamed worship service on YouTube was briefly hacked, during which
Speaker 1: the North Korean flag was displayed. A government agency stated
Speaker 1: that it currently is intigating the incident. AFP reported the
Speaker 1: incident took place on early Wednesday morning, when the live
Speaker 1: stream of the service by the Honery Ownery Yep Church
Speaker 1: was suddenly filled with the North Korean flag, accompanied by
Speaker 1: what seemed to be Pyongyang music. The report added, The
Speaker 1: flag was shown for nearly twenty seconds, a church official said,
Speaker 1: adding that the incident had been informed to the police. Yeah, okay, anyway,
Speaker 1: so there was a joint operation going on a training exercise.
Speaker 1: North Korea felt some type of way about it and
Speaker 1: fired some rockets into the water, just as like an
Speaker 1: attempt at a flex that no one sees as much
Speaker 1: of a flex. That's that's a real cool rocket she
Speaker 1: got there, North Korea. Anyway, Liver King be wilding out.
Speaker 5: He just got out of jail, and I'm on his
Speaker 5: Instagram right now and he's like shown himself taken taking
Speaker 5: like different drugs or whatever. He has one pupil that's
Speaker 5: one size, and one pupil that's the other. And like
Speaker 5: Freeman that knows us in medical Like old boy is
Speaker 5: going to die if he doesn't get medical attention soon.
Speaker 5: Like he's going crazy. There's like fifteen videos he posted
Speaker 5: within like a thirty five minute spanned. So that's what
Speaker 5: I'm watching right now.
Speaker 1: I could believe it. I mean, the guy's been with
Speaker 1: the way he's been going. I'm surprised he hadn't been
Speaker 1: knocking on death's door long before this. Uh, I mean, listen,
Speaker 1: I may think that liver tastes nasty unless it's cooked
Speaker 1: a certain way. He will eat chunks of raw liver
Speaker 1: and he's been doing that for years. Like I, you know,
Speaker 1: that's I'm all about like cleanliness of my food. That's
Speaker 1: insane to me, Like that's that's absolutely asinine. But sure,
Speaker 1: so he's he's out of jail and he's taking drugs,
Speaker 1: probably because he's trying to have one last hurrah before
Speaker 1: he gets his ass whooped. You know, Yeah, that's insane
Speaker 1: to me. You're going, you're trying to publicly call out
Speaker 1: Rogan for what. That's not even how you chase clout Like,
Speaker 1: that's not that's not productive, Royce, go ahead, brother.
Speaker 6: So fun fact, Jews don't eat blood, so in order
Speaker 6: to have liver, it must needs to be broiled completely.
Speaker 6: That's the only way the early Jew will have liver,
Speaker 6: which actually is really really good and oil.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean it's good for you for sure, but like, yeah,
Speaker 1: I can't. I can't get down with it. Bro I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: I need mistakes bloody, like bloody, and uh, I eat
Speaker 1: a well done steak. If I'm gonna do that, why
Speaker 1: wouldn't I just eat a giant slab of jerky personally side.
Speaker 6: Yeah, different kinds of meat though, Like there so steak,
Speaker 6: I love medium, medium, rare, but liver is one of
Speaker 6: those things that actually tastes pretty good the way I've
Speaker 6: had it broiled. But for sure.
Speaker 1: I've never had liver broiled. Maybe it is legit as hell,
Speaker 1: I don't know, rave and go for it.
Speaker 5: So I'm confused. So could you elaborate more? So you
Speaker 5: can't have blood, Like what do you mean by that?
Speaker 5: Like you can't have like there's all sorts of dishes
Speaker 5: where like blood is like used in dishes, So you
Speaker 5: can't have anything with any type of blood, or you
Speaker 5: can't have bloody meat.
Speaker 6: So there's a difference between so bloody meat or a
Speaker 6: piece of steak that's on the raw end that's juice
Speaker 6: like more but not necessarily the blood like the people
Speaker 6: that make blood sausage, that for sure one percent is prohibited.
Speaker 6: So yes, why is that?
Speaker 5: Like why can't you have I'm very ignorant to the juice. No,
Speaker 5: I don't really quite understand.
Speaker 6: Honestly, just because the torus says so the tourist says
Speaker 6: that the blood is the life force. Therefore we're not
Speaker 6: allowed to eat it. And even whenever an animal is
Speaker 6: watered in the in the way that it's supposed to be,
Speaker 6: that blood is drained, and if it was a wild animal,
Speaker 6: you put it just generally in the dirt. But yeah,
Speaker 6: it's collected and just completely not used.
Speaker 5: So what is the religious belief about women on their
Speaker 5: periods or like that kind of.
Speaker 6: Very very I'm curious.
Speaker 1: Eating blood and their next question is about women on
Speaker 1: their period I'm like, oh, man, go ahead.
Speaker 9: No, no, that's what when well that's what one one
Speaker 9: female vampire said, the other I'll see the next month.
Speaker 6: No, but so please specify your question because that's like
Speaker 6: that's wide.
Speaker 5: So there's a lot of there's a lot of talk about,
Speaker 5: like there's a lot of women that are in different
Speaker 5: religions where they feel unclean and dirty or they can't
Speaker 5: be touched because of during their cycle they are not
Speaker 5: seen as clean. I've watched some videos of different types
Speaker 5: of Judaism that are like really extreme and like they
Speaker 5: talked about like different things that they like couldn't like
Speaker 5: do because of their periods. I'm just curious how that
Speaker 5: kind of plays in, Like if it's a blood thing,
Speaker 5: like you know, if you're giving birth. I watched the
Speaker 5: video of because I have been a dula for many
Speaker 5: years and I am in the birth community, and I've
Speaker 5: watched videos of different religions where like they can't be
Speaker 5: participating because of the blood or because of this. I'm
Speaker 5: just curious how that ties in and why that ties
Speaker 5: in specifically when you're give life or you're having these
Speaker 5: specific things like why is blood an issue?
Speaker 6: So the whole thing, as far as women on their period,
Speaker 6: it is a ritual purity thing. Not necessarily.
Speaker 10: Maybe it is a blood theme, but the whole idea
Speaker 10: about purity to word that came from is when it
Speaker 10: came to temple observances and being able to go in
Speaker 10: the temple and being able to eat meat.
Speaker 6: That was specifically a smart for that. When it comes
Speaker 6: to women in the modern day society, we're talking about
Speaker 6: Orthodox nudism, because if we're speaking about reform or conservative
Speaker 6: they really don't hold any of those kind of beliefs.
Speaker 6: So we'll go with that most Orthodox families. Most Orthodox
Speaker 6: families that when it comes to that, they will not
Speaker 6: touch at all during the time of the period while
Speaker 6: while a woman is bleeding, and then seven days afterwards
Speaker 6: extends to that.
Speaker 11: So there's no uh, there's no physical intimiency, there's no sex,
Speaker 11: there's no uh, there's no there's no touching, there's there's.
Speaker 6: No there's no kissing, there's no even handing things to
Speaker 6: a from one spouse to the other. It's recovering, like
Speaker 6: you need to put something down before you do it.
Speaker 6: So it's ritual purity and that's what we've basically been
Speaker 6: taught through our traditions.
Speaker 4: Has nothing to do with a woman being bad, a
Speaker 4: woman being wrong, obviously, especially after she has given a birth.
Speaker 6: Like it's a very hard process, right, So to not
Speaker 6: be able to touch your spouse after the do you
Speaker 6: give birth for a certain amount of time, is it
Speaker 6: not easy? But it's done out of tradition and because
Speaker 6: that's what we believe.
Speaker 5: I guess I just have a really hard understanding about that.
Speaker 5: Like I really don't quite grasp I mean, I get
Speaker 5: that it's is it in the Torah itself or like
Speaker 5: I mean, I understand like religious beliefs and stuff. I
Speaker 5: just personally I don't quite understand that as a whole
Speaker 5: considering without us we are the life givers, Like yes,
Speaker 5: men carry the sperm and everything else, but like, inherently
Speaker 5: women are the life givers, and I find it to
Speaker 5: be really interesting that in that specific regard, like why
Speaker 5: can't you touch your spouse like this? There is in
Speaker 5: my eyes nothing wrong in nothing more pure than birth itself,
Speaker 5: or more pure than purely because these things are what
Speaker 5: give life to all of us. So I don't quite
Speaker 5: I guess that's my biggest hang up is I don't
Speaker 5: quite understand because it's almost like a shameful thing towards women,
Speaker 5: which inherently I cannot agree with.
Speaker 6: Overall, I agree with you. I have a tremendous amount
Speaker 6: of respect for women. I have a girlfriend I have
Speaker 6: tremendous respect for, so I'm probably also not doing this justice.
Speaker 6: I'm not a buckie. I'm not an expert on laws
Speaker 6: of nida or ritual purity or family purity. I have
Speaker 6: not done nearly enough research to give you the explanations
Speaker 6: as to why. I can tell you that everywhere that
Speaker 6: I've gone, when it comes to any religious man dealing
Speaker 6: with his wife, there is nothing but absolute respect and
Speaker 6: love for her. So I do understand that on the
Speaker 6: outside it does seem that men don't like it, or
Speaker 6: thinking that's disgusting or that it has to do with
Speaker 6: demeaning woman, and that's definitely not the case at all.
Speaker 6: Because even so taking a step back for a moment
Speaker 6: between the ritual purity for for that and during the
Speaker 6: time of the temple, if a man had a seminal emission,
Speaker 6: he was impure for the day.
Speaker 1: It didn't matter if seminali, if you had.
Speaker 5: A wet dream, excuse me, if you eat.
Speaker 1: Even if you involuntarily came, or.
Speaker 9: Even if you if you had sex and came inside
Speaker 9: of your wife. So you you so the moment that
Speaker 9: that semen comes out, you were officially impure until the
Speaker 9: following evening.
Speaker 6: So that that was in general. So this is how
Speaker 6: much spiritual purity really played effect with temple worship. Like
Speaker 6: you couldn't you couldn't step into the temple being impure.
Speaker 6: So even if you touched a carcass, you were impure.
Speaker 6: Like there are a number of.
Speaker 8: Things that one could do, whether inadvertently or have.
Speaker 6: Been stand or or whatever that like you would you
Speaker 6: would be ritually impure, either for the day or for
Speaker 6: the week. Like so if someone had like gone a
Speaker 6: rear the clop or whatever, like if you had a discharge. Right,
Speaker 6: you would be impure for a certain amount of days
Speaker 6: if you had saras, which is kind of like leprosy
Speaker 6: but not you would so like the the priest would
Speaker 6: come to your house and can and see you and say, okay,
Speaker 6: well this is this mark and you're you're going to
Speaker 6: be impure and they will be se created for the
Speaker 6: week and then you know, so on and so forth.
Speaker 6: So it's not just women right now, since there is
Speaker 6: no temple, and really we don't have the ashes of
Speaker 6: the red bull mixed with the hissip and other things
Speaker 6: to be sprinkled like we're all in a state of
Speaker 6: ritual impurity. It just so happens that the torres. Basically,
Speaker 6: as far as the whole touching, that's the safeguard, right,
Speaker 6: the whole The actual prohibition is you're not supposed to
Speaker 6: have sex with your wife while she's on her period.
Speaker 6: So to make sure that you don't lead into sex,
Speaker 6: the rabbi is basically instituted fences, as it were, to
Speaker 6: keep somebody from getting to that point. Right, if I
Speaker 6: hold my wife's hand, I might want to kiss, or
Speaker 6: if I want a kiss, or I might want to
Speaker 6: I might want I might get horny or aroused or
Speaker 6: whatever and then want to be with her. So that
Speaker 6: is the whole idea, is that the torus that you're
Speaker 6: not supposed to be intimate during that period of time,
Speaker 6: so to keep one from getting to that point, that
Speaker 6: are just fences to get And that's because that we
Speaker 6: as men are weak, right, So like if we become aroused,
Speaker 6: like we just want we want to have zac o'clock.
Speaker 12: Right, So this is more to safeguard ourselves because we
Speaker 12: hopefully we should we should luft lust after and want
Speaker 12: to be with our wives, right, because we even.
Speaker 6: Have a specific mitzvah to please our spouses, right, that's
Speaker 6: that's actually a mitsvah in the in the Torah at
Speaker 6: least our rabbi. So definitely not having to do with
Speaker 6: any kind of disparaging towards women at all, like nothing
Speaker 6: but love and respect. Just we're where we are trying
Speaker 6: to keep ourselves from breaking a biblical commandment.
Speaker 1: So another question kind of a off of that, like
Speaker 1: let's say you said you're sick in some way, shape
Speaker 1: or form, and the priest would come in and see
Speaker 1: you see you had these markings and would call you
Speaker 1: you know you were impure or unclean with the case
Speaker 1: would be for x amount of days? Would the priests
Speaker 1: at that time be considered impure because he came in
Speaker 1: and checked you out?
Speaker 6: No, for whatever, For for whatever reason, I don't know.
Speaker 1: There's saying time means.
Speaker 6: Talia beyond my ProView, Sir, I don't know.
Speaker 1: Okay, go ahead, Raven, I know you got another one
Speaker 1: in the chamber.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 5: Well, I'm trying to just I'm trying to like wrap
Speaker 5: my head around this a little bit. But then I
Speaker 5: just read Tony's comment about being strict generals, especially for clergy,
Speaker 5: and I hope it never changes. Yeah, I was curious
Speaker 5: if you was gonna expand upon that, like.
Speaker 1: The first one I was talking about. Yeah, so real quick.
Speaker 1: The blood thing is also the reason why Jehovah's witness
Speaker 1: can't get blood transfusions and Royce real quick, do.
Speaker 6: As what's your question? I didn't hear you.
Speaker 1: Can can Jews get blood transfusions and like a life
Speaker 1: saving operation?
Speaker 6: Absolutely, because we have a mensa and the tour that
Speaker 6: we should live the same reason why if I if
Speaker 6: I was stringed on an island and all I had
Speaker 6: to eat.
Speaker 8: Was was peg baking it up baby.
Speaker 1: Okay. So it's if it's for survival, then certain things
Speaker 1: are allowed to go forth. But if you have the
Speaker 1: means to live this way, then you should live this way. Okay,
Speaker 1: I get that. Uh. Tony also wrote that for them,
Speaker 1: it really stems from an anti eucharistic belief. I've heard
Speaker 1: that about the JW's they are. They are an interesting
Speaker 1: cult of people that claim that they're Christian, and I
Speaker 1: don't necessarily believe that they are. They're like, they're kind
Speaker 1: of like the Mountain Jews aka the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witness,
Speaker 1: kind of operating on their own on their own platform. Here,
Speaker 1: meat from strangled animals is prohibitive because if the animal
Speaker 1: dies that way, it's heart will not pump blood out
Speaker 1: while it is dying. I personally, I don't know if
Speaker 1: anybody's ever eaten the meat from a strangled animal. It's gross.
Speaker 1: It is the gamiest tasting meat you could have. It
Speaker 1: is disgusting. There's a tribe in Africa, I think it
Speaker 1: was the hell What's the tribe that wears the red
Speaker 1: cloaks and they're known for being like the highest jumpers
Speaker 1: and all these things. They strangle goats because the blood
Speaker 1: is like the best part to them, and they don't
Speaker 1: want to waste any of the blood, so they will
Speaker 1: strangle a goat to death before they eat it. It
Speaker 1: ruins the meat. That's nasty. So yeah, if you're not
Speaker 1: trying to eat strangled animals, I agree with that. I
Speaker 1: don't believe in torturing an animal to death. I believe
Speaker 1: in being, you know, as generous as you can be, right,
Speaker 1: have a little bit of empathy and compassion for your
Speaker 1: animal and for your meal. That's just me personally. I
Speaker 1: think it tastes better than But yeah, So now going
Speaker 1: on to what Tony said about how the Catholics have
Speaker 1: strict gender roles, especially into the clergy, and I hope
Speaker 1: it never changes. Yeah, I agree with you. It would
Speaker 1: cause a schism. And for a crazy minute there, I
Speaker 1: thought that Pope Francis was about to make it to
Speaker 1: where women could be priests like the Methodists have done
Speaker 1: and the Lutherans have done all these things. I thought
Speaker 1: he was about to go that route, and then he died.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I agree. If women get to attain the
Speaker 1: role of priest in the Catholic Church, I have a
Speaker 1: hard time seeing it going over well with the rest
Speaker 1: of the congregation.
Speaker 3: Right, there's a pretty big split on this, and there
Speaker 3: is a pretty large minority that favors women's ordination. And
Speaker 3: there's even been a couple of schismatic groups that have
Speaker 3: started their own version of the Catholic Church where they
Speaker 3: will have women priests, but that's like less than one
Speaker 3: percent of them. And yeah, I guess having men only
Speaker 3: basically is sexists. I'm not going to try to pretend
Speaker 3: it isn't. That's just the world that we came from
Speaker 3: and the way things were for the first ninety five
Speaker 3: percent of the last two thousand years pretty much. And
Speaker 3: women have roles like deaconus and abbess and they can
Speaker 3: be nuns and teachers of children and stuff like that.
Speaker 3: And Islam is also kind of sexist like this too.
Speaker 1: Most religions are for the rest, not all. Not all
Speaker 1: priestesses in a lot of pagan cultures had their own
Speaker 1: highly exalted positions, and I get that, but for most
Speaker 1: of Western civilization, what you're saying is accurate.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And Judaism, I think is divided on this. There
Speaker 3: are I don't know how many sects of Judaism, and
Speaker 3: some of them will have women rabbis, and some of
Speaker 3: them won't if I'm not mistaken.
Speaker 6: Yeah, conservatives reforms and maybe reconstruction, but definitely all definitely
Speaker 6: left center. I know that they're There's a sect kind
Speaker 6: of called Modern Orthodox, which apparently is what conservative Judaism
Speaker 6: was fifty years ago, that might have some rabbis, but
Speaker 6: in any mainstream Orthodox sual there is hopefully not a
Speaker 6: female rabbi or or I don't understand how they can
Speaker 6: even be ordained to tell you the truth.
Speaker 1: Go ahead, raven, I see your hand raised.
Speaker 5: So I got three men in this chat that all
Speaker 5: feel that women should not be in any of these positions.
Speaker 1: So wait, wait, wait, hold on, hold on. I didn't
Speaker 1: say that I believe women shouldn't be in these rules.
Speaker 1: I'm saying that the Catholics have operated with very old
Speaker 1: rules and if they were going to start changing those rules,
Speaker 1: it would cause a great schism. That's that's what I said.
Speaker 5: I guess, Okay, So my I'm trying to understand how
Speaker 5: females in any of these roles is going to cause
Speaker 5: such a schism, except for the male population that like
Speaker 5: feel some type of way that they feel entitled to
Speaker 5: being more superior than females. So like, yes, it's been
Speaker 5: some type of way for some while, but men inherently
Speaker 5: don't have any greater a role in.
Speaker 1: Life than women do.
Speaker 5: In fact, I would wager to argue that women have
Speaker 5: more inherent role than men do in the sense that
Speaker 5: we bring life into this world. But there we are
Speaker 5: an equal balance here and there. But I do think
Speaker 5: that times should change in that. Yes, there are lots
Speaker 5: of religions that did believe that females were inherently what
Speaker 5: should be honored as the more superior race or you know, sex,
Speaker 5: and then it shifted to the patriarchal way, and then
Speaker 5: women were abused and killed and tortured and murdered and
Speaker 5: everything else for thousands of years because men felt entitled
Speaker 5: to women. It still is this, Yeah, So I'm trying
Speaker 5: to understand, like, how is this such a bad thing
Speaker 5: if women are in these rules specifically?
Speaker 1: Okay, so, going off of the historical precedents, when it
Speaker 1: comes to the Abrahamic religions, in the Old Testament, or
Speaker 1: at least in the traditional Judaic law, women weren't known
Speaker 1: to be educated, and I think in certain regards they
Speaker 1: weren't allowed to go to school or anything like that.
Speaker 1: Some learned how to read and write, fine, but if
Speaker 1: you are going to be teaching from a book, you
Speaker 1: should be able to read the book from what you're
Speaker 1: teaching from. So it was understood that most women wouldn't
Speaker 1: be able to be in that position because they weren't
Speaker 1: educated enough to even understand the liturgy that they were
Speaker 1: preaching from. Now cut to the New Testament, and there
Speaker 1: is a quote from the apostle Paul that and it's
Speaker 1: been misquoted a lot and misunderstood a lot to say
Speaker 1: that a woman should never hold a position over a
Speaker 1: man and these types of things. Okay, women are supposed
Speaker 1: to be silent and submissive, all of these things. A
Speaker 1: lot of the early church took that and said, oh,
Speaker 1: this is a rule for all churches period, not taking
Speaker 1: into account who that letter was being written to, who
Speaker 1: the intended audience was for. Because in that same letter
Speaker 1: he named like twelve women that he highly exalted, and
Speaker 1: these women's were leaders of that specific church. He was
Speaker 1: speaking to the women in the Church of Ephesus, who
Speaker 1: at that time were not acting in the best ways.
Speaker 1: He wasn't speaking about all of womankind and people took
Speaker 1: that quote and mistranslated it and misunderstood it to mean
Speaker 1: that women should not be in any kind of clergy
Speaker 1: position period. Now we go further into the early Church
Speaker 1: and then into the Middle Ages, most people could not read,
Speaker 1: but especially women couldn't read right. And some of that
Speaker 1: was because of the patriarchy and whatever else, but that
Speaker 1: was just kind of the gender roles that was assigned
Speaker 1: to the vast majority of European powers. So in the
Speaker 1: same regard that you wouldn't want a teacher to be
Speaker 1: a woman to be, you know, throw away the gender
Speaker 1: roles for two seconds. If I have an illiterate human
Speaker 1: being trying to teach my child from a textbook, I
Speaker 1: would say that they are unfit for that role, And
Speaker 1: that kind of translated further down. I think, as far
Speaker 1: as the world today goes, I believe that women should
Speaker 1: have their place in some sort of a clergy role
Speaker 1: within the churches. But I also how could I put this?
Speaker 1: I believe that women A woman could more or less
Speaker 1: preach to a group of women with a little more
Speaker 1: empathy and with a little more understanding to the plights
Speaker 1: and issues that women face, way more than a man could.
Speaker 1: I have no problem with women in clerical positions, especially
Speaker 1: if that is what they are. Clergy have not clerical
Speaker 1: excuse me, clergy positions, especially if they're doing something for women,
Speaker 1: like women's ministries and things like that. These big megachurches
Speaker 1: put on women's conferences every few months or whatever the
Speaker 1: case is. In my humble personal opinion, that is no
Speaker 1: place for a man to be. There shouldn't be some
Speaker 1: head pastor who's a dude preaching to an entire auditorium
Speaker 1: of women on how they should be better women. That
Speaker 1: is not your place, homie. In my opinion, that's like
Speaker 1: having a male be a gynecologist, Like that is not
Speaker 1: your place, homie. I know people disagree with that point,
Speaker 1: that is fine. It's just Jacob's opinion on this. But yeah,
Speaker 1: there's a historical precedence to this because basically women weren't
Speaker 1: educated on the texts, so it was seen as improper
Speaker 1: for them to be teaching the texts. Tony, I see
Speaker 1: your hand brother going it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think I agree with what you're saying. And
Speaker 3: like I said earlier, I think that the Catholic Church's
Speaker 3: position basically is a sexist position, and I know that's
Speaker 3: very politically incorrect, And the same goes for i've ever
Speaker 3: met brother. Yeah maybe, but I mean I think women
Speaker 3: are educated enough now to be able to do you know,
Speaker 3: any of these roles. So the education argument or illiteracy
Speaker 3: argument is, you know that that might have sufficed a
Speaker 3: long time ago, but not anymore. But I still think
Speaker 3: that there's been a lot of costs and benefits to
Speaker 3: enfranchising women throughout society. For example, we've we were talking
Speaker 3: a week or two ago about and suffrage, which really
Speaker 3: took off right after World War One, and the idea
Speaker 3: was that there were all these women's can all over
Speaker 3: the world trying to advocate for peace during World War One,
Speaker 3: and hey, if we give them all the right to vote,
Speaker 3: then there shouldn't be another war, right. Well, somehow that
Speaker 3: didn't manage to prevent World War Two, and all these
Speaker 3: women's committees were non existent in that one. Pretty much.
Speaker 3: I think, you know, I probably would have given women
Speaker 3: the right to vote in nineteen twenty also because oh yeah,
Speaker 3: that seems like a great idea, and maybe it was
Speaker 3: a good idea.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're the reason was a prohibition women voting
Speaker 1: are the reason why the temperance movement which was a
Speaker 1: women's movement, is why we couldn't have liquor and why
Speaker 1: moonshine became a thing. So I mean pros and cons.
Speaker 3: I'm saying women in academia too pros and cons to
Speaker 3: that there would be pros and cons to having women priests. Personally,
Speaker 3: I'm just kind of against it, and maybe I'm just
Speaker 3: a bit too much of a sexist, but I'm trying
Speaker 3: to be honest about it.
Speaker 1: No, No, I get that though, especially Catholicism is a
Speaker 1: very t tradition oriented religion and traditionally women don't hold
Speaker 1: clergical roles. So and yeah, I absolutely believe that even
Speaker 1: in today's world, if the Catholic Church was to ordain
Speaker 1: women to a priest role, I mean, keep in mind,
Speaker 1: they took away the Latin Mass and a third of
Speaker 1: the church fell off, like real talk, that happened. That
Speaker 1: was that heart of a schism. And there was a
Speaker 1: few other things, don't get me wrong, but like that
Speaker 1: was a big one. They had a whole subreddit of
Speaker 1: Catholics start their own denomination of Catholicism because of this.
Speaker 1: If they were to allow women to be priests, I
Speaker 1: see over half of the Catholic Church just going by
Speaker 1: the wayside. To be completely honest, I could be wrong.
Speaker 1: I know quite a few Catholics. I was raised Catholic
Speaker 1: up until I was twelve or thirteen. I don't see
Speaker 1: it going well, it's all I'm gonna say. I could
Speaker 1: be so wrong. I just I don't see that playing
Speaker 1: out positively for the denomination, honestly. Right.
Speaker 3: You know, in Europe, they're pretty liberal in Europe, but
Speaker 3: in Africa they're pretty conservative. And the Catholic Church is
Speaker 3: mostly dead in Europe. So if there were women's ordination
Speaker 3: to the priesthood, I bet Europe would go along with it.
Speaker 3: But they got like single digit you know, observance of
Speaker 3: Sunday Mass over there, and yeah, there would be a
Speaker 3: worldwide schism. The church is basically split in two. It's
Speaker 3: like a Bitcoin fork or something. To borrow an analogy,
Speaker 3: they were just split into two big organizations and it'd
Speaker 3: be like, well, which half are you in? Yeah, it
Speaker 3: would probably be about half and half.
Speaker 1: And I agree with what you were saying. Also, I
Speaker 1: believe that women, especially in today's realm, dude, they are
Speaker 1: as educated, as capable as everything as a man is.
Speaker 1: So I believe that women can do a phenomenal job
Speaker 1: at whatever task they are set to, or they can
Speaker 1: be just as shit at that job as a man can.
Speaker 1: I don't think that actually plays a role here, but
Speaker 1: traditionally speaking it there is a precedence to it. And Royce,
Speaker 1: you were saying that.
Speaker 3: By the way, and that's happened before too, a long
Speaker 3: time ago. Say it again, there would be there would
Speaker 3: be two popes too if that happened. And that happened
Speaker 3: a long time ago, there was one in France and
Speaker 3: one in Italy. Yeah, six hundred years ago.
Speaker 1: Which led to a whole other type of schism. Well
Speaker 1: it was more like a loyalty battle, but yeah, that
Speaker 1: was that was the thing. If anybody's ever curious about
Speaker 1: controversy within the Christian faith, look no further than the
Speaker 1: Catholic Church. From its inception to now. It's been riddle
Speaker 1: with controversy, but you know they have made it through
Speaker 1: for a lot of it. Royce, you also brought up
Speaker 1: that women are There are certain sects of Judaism where
Speaker 1: women are rabbis. Now is that Judaism wide or is
Speaker 1: that only in specific like denominations.
Speaker 6: I would say that's more left leading conservative rabbis I've
Speaker 6: heard of. Reform rabbis are not uncommon.
Speaker 1: So if a san Hadrian was to be re established,
Speaker 1: I hope I said that, right, would it be possible
Speaker 1: to have women in the temple?
Speaker 6: Negative? Okay, whether whether whether it's sexist or not. And
Speaker 6: I first of all, I apologize definitely not trying to
Speaker 6: infind anybody. That's just the way that Judaism is. For example,
Speaker 6: there are some there are missas that can only be
Speaker 6: fulfilled through certain people. So for example, every single year
Speaker 6: on Perim, we have a commandment to listen to the
Speaker 6: magilla being read. Women can fulfill the obligation for other women.
Speaker 6: Like you can have a woman that's competent and she
Speaker 6: can read, and she can fill the obligation for her
Speaker 6: children and for other women. She would not be able
Speaker 6: to fulfill her up a man's obligation to do it.
Speaker 6: There are certain obligations that just can't work in certain
Speaker 6: certain directions.
Speaker 1: So even if the temple was erected, they women, even
Speaker 1: if they were rabbis, would not be able to come
Speaker 1: into that middle court on they would have to stay
Speaker 1: outside in the women's section.
Speaker 6: Yes, God, Also I think that also even Besides the
Speaker 6: literacy aspects which you brought up, I think another is
Speaker 6: that for the most part, women, as ravenly as said,
Speaker 6: are are the lifegivers, right. I think women for the
Speaker 6: most part have been homemakers and they had been in
Speaker 6: the home. So I don't think there should be anything
Speaker 6: wrong with separate but equal, right, Like my my role
Speaker 6: as a man, I don't. I don't find that I'm
Speaker 6: any more or less important than a woman. But we
Speaker 6: we each have different obligations. So for example, when our
Speaker 6: women are not obligated in Judaism with anything that's time found,
Speaker 6: so prayer women are encouraged to they don't have to
Speaker 6: wearing the filling they are they are not. They are
Speaker 6: not required to wear it to fill in because that's
Speaker 6: something that's specifically time down and women have usually been
Speaker 6: using that time to raise children, keep the family, be
Speaker 6: in the home, et cetera.
Speaker 1: I don't know I've ever seen a woman wear a
Speaker 1: teling to fill in.
Speaker 6: The women do not wear.
Speaker 1: Killing Okay, interesting, that's true.
Speaker 6: I mean I mean the same thing like so women
Speaker 6: women don't wear yama goes, but they keep their heads fully.
Speaker 1: Covered right right, Okay.
Speaker 6: Modesty, men wear pants women wear skirts, dresses, etc. Because
Speaker 6: there's an idea. First of all, there's an idea of modesty.
Speaker 6: Second of all, there's idea that men should not wear
Speaker 6: women's garb, and that's specifically in the toy itself.
Speaker 1: That's that's fair, Okay. Tony says, thanks for the challenging questions.
Speaker 1: I love women. I think men should respect areas that
Speaker 1: are for women only and vice versa. Yeah. I could
Speaker 1: agree with that, and people will not always agree what
Speaker 1: those areas are. Also agree with that statement. I cannot
Speaker 1: prove the Catholic Church position on this, it's just an
Speaker 1: article of faith. But Mary is the most exalted human
Speaker 1: who is not also God in Catholicism. Yeah, that's true.
Speaker 1: I hear you called the Mother of God a lot,
Speaker 1: so that's fair enough. And it says that she is
Speaker 1: above all other saints, so fair enough, fair enough. All right. Wow,
Speaker 1: we got onto a different type of religious conversation tonight,
Speaker 1: but I'm here for it. I enjoy this. And again,
Speaker 1: there are tons of examples of women that are highly
Speaker 1: exalted in the Torah and in the Bible, women who
Speaker 1: did have the capabilities of reading and were actually preaching
Speaker 1: in that regard and were exalted to these higher level
Speaker 1: positions of teaching other Christians or a new converts, if
Speaker 1: you will, about what to do. There's a reason why
Speaker 1: Christianity took off very, very heavily in the women community
Speaker 1: in Greece and in Rome. It wasn't because they were
Speaker 1: seen as second class citizens, to the chagrin of everybody
Speaker 1: who claims otherwise today. If you actually look at the
Speaker 1: historicity of it, it preached equality between women and men,
Speaker 1: which at that time in the Roman Empire was not
Speaker 1: exactly so cut and dry. Yeah, there were examples of
Speaker 1: wealthy and influential women in Roman society, not as much
Speaker 1: as you would actually think. So when you had this
Speaker 1: new christ cult that was making its way around and
Speaker 1: all these newly freed slaves and women were clinging to
Speaker 1: it because it preached equality for all genders and all
Speaker 1: races and all citizens and all of the things, people
Speaker 1: clung to it. Somewhere along the way it lost its
Speaker 1: intent and it started going more towards making women lesser
Speaker 1: than which I vehemently disagree with. Go ahead, Royce.
Speaker 6: So one thing that I forgot to mention is that
Speaker 6: actually in the Toora and Ecu, in the prophets in general,
Speaker 6: there were five profit tesses, so and also a judged,
Speaker 6: like Deborah was a prophetess and she was a judge.
Speaker 6: So there's definitely room for women to.
Speaker 13: Have the ability, the spiritual acuity to have been close
Speaker 13: enough with with God to have been in.
Speaker 6: Some great levels. So it's not all too shit.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I agree with that. There's, like I said,
Speaker 1: there's multiple examples. There's books of the Bible named after women.
Speaker 1: It's it's they're not supposed to be viewed as second
Speaker 1: class citizens or subservient or under a men's like.
Speaker 3: I don't.
Speaker 1: I don't agree with that personally. Now that being said,
Speaker 1: there are people that will take that to the extreme
Speaker 1: and say, well, why isn't God a woman? Then well,
Speaker 1: it's it's that's not exactly how that one also shakes out.
Speaker 1: I mean that that, but also saying that God is
Speaker 1: male doesn't mean that women are less than males, because
Speaker 1: we just happen to be the same thing. He told
Speaker 1: us to call him the father. He didn't. I don't
Speaker 1: think that God necessarily has a gender role like what
Speaker 1: humans perceive it to be. I think that's us trying
Speaker 1: to put God in a box. But he told us
Speaker 1: to call him this that we could try to understand
Speaker 1: him and his ways, if that makes sense. All right,
Speaker 1: So let's see here, uh, getting off of this topic
Speaker 1: and onto another one and kind of think the last
Speaker 1: one we will talk about today. I understand the source
Speaker 1: is a very liberal publication, but also let's talk about
Speaker 1: it the CNBC. It says world leaders react after Trump
Speaker 1: says US has bombed three nuclear sites, including four to ho.
Speaker 1: World leaders react to the news of the US strikes
Speaker 1: on Iran. Trump calls it a historic moment. Net Yahoo
Speaker 1: praised this show of strength, while the UN chief Gudieirez
Speaker 1: warned of dangerous escalation and urged diplomacy. Keep in mind,
Speaker 1: Trump was pushing diplomacy the entire time. Net and Yahoo
Speaker 1: kind of forced the situation, but Trump was trying to
Speaker 1: make a deal happen here, But anyway. Trump hailed the
Speaker 1: attack as a turning point, saying Iran must now agree
Speaker 1: to end the conflict following a very successful strike on
Speaker 1: three nuclear sites. I don't know why very successful is
Speaker 1: in quotes. The three nuclear sites are no longer able
Speaker 1: to function. Now, this doesn't mean that Iran's gonna stop
Speaker 1: their nuclear program. This just prolonged. It probably a few
Speaker 1: a few months to a few years. It just kicked
Speaker 1: the can down the road a little bit. Let's be honest,
Speaker 1: but all right, Global leaders are starting to weigh impact,
Speaker 1: with countries like South Korea convening emergency meetings to assess
Speaker 1: the broader implications. Let's dive in here. World leaders reacted
Speaker 1: to Trump's announcement Saturday that the US carried out a
Speaker 1: very successful attack on three nuclear sites and Iran, including
Speaker 1: Fourdeh already talked about the historic moment conversation. Now Here's
Speaker 1: how the world reacted after the attack. Iranian Foreign Minister
Speaker 1: Abbos Argachi are Aragchi Sure said in a statement on
Speaker 1: x that his nation reserves all options in response to
Speaker 1: the attack. Yeah, okay, the event this morning are the
Speaker 1: events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences,
Speaker 1: he said. Each and every member of the UN must
Speaker 1: be alarmed over this extremely dangerous, lawless and criminal behavior.
Speaker 1: In accordance with the UN Charter and its provisions allowing
Speaker 1: a legitimate response and self defense. Iran brass all options
Speaker 1: to defend its sovereignty, sovereignty, interests, and people. Okay, I'm
Speaker 1: not going to disagree with you having the right to
Speaker 1: defend yourself absolutely, but you also don't have the capabilities
Speaker 1: to do anything. In response, Araghchi said that the attacks
Speaker 1: on Iran's peaceful nuclear installations, I'm glad that at least
Speaker 1: they put that portion in quote by the US were
Speaker 1: a grave violation of the UN Charter, international law and
Speaker 1: the NPT. Israeli Prime Minister net and Yahoo said Trump's
Speaker 1: bold decision will change history. It might have prolonged the inevitable.
Speaker 1: Know if changed history is a correct terminology, but all right,
Speaker 1: Speaking minutes after the attack, net and Yah who said
Speaker 1: President Trump and I often say peace through strength. First
Speaker 1: comes strength, then comes peace, and tonight Donald Trump of
Speaker 1: the United States acted with a lot of strength. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's kind of like the speak softly and carry a
Speaker 1: big stick conversation. The UN Secretary General Antonio Guierrez warned
Speaker 1: that the US strikes on Iran represent a dangerous escalation
Speaker 1: in an already volatile region, posing a serious threat to
Speaker 1: global peace and security. There is a growing risk that
Speaker 1: this conflict could rapidly get out of control, with catastrophic
Speaker 1: or catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world. Yeah,
Speaker 1: except that no civilians were harmed with the US bombing.
Speaker 1: I can't speak on behalf of the Israeli bombings that
Speaker 1: took place in Iran. I don't know the death tolls.
Speaker 1: Not I'm speaking on behalf of the United States. They
Speaker 1: were extremely well targeted strikes that took place and happened
Speaker 1: without any kind of issues. The only people I think
Speaker 1: that died were the science that we're working in these labs,
Speaker 1: which at that point that's just kind of collateral damage.
Speaker 1: Like I'm sorry, it is what it is. There is
Speaker 1: a growing risk that this okay, at this perilous hour,
Speaker 1: it is critical to avoid a spiral of chaos. There
Speaker 1: is no military solution. The only path forward is diplomacyed
Speaker 1: the only hope is peace. He said, yeah, I agree
Speaker 1: with that. I agree with that. Now here we go,
Speaker 1: China singles out Israel shocker. Meanwhile, China strongly condemned the
Speaker 1: US attack When Iran and on nuclear facilities supervised by
Speaker 1: the International Atomic Energy Agencies, they were they were supervised
Speaker 1: by these groups, even though they lied to them a lot,
Speaker 1: and that was also like disclosed and understood. But all right,
Speaker 1: China's UN ambassador Fu Kong said at a UN Security
Speaker 1: Council meeting on Sunday, singling out Israel, FU said that
Speaker 1: China is deeply concerned about the risk of the situation
Speaker 1: getting out of control and call for the immediate ceasefire
Speaker 1: and an into hostilities. Yeah. Again, we can all agree
Speaker 1: on this. The party's concern should abide by international laws,
Speaker 1: curve the impulse to use force and avoid exacerbating conflicts
Speaker 1: and adding fuel to the fire. Other Asia Pacific leaders
Speaker 1: also called for restraint. New Zealand's Foreign Minister Winston Peters
Speaker 1: said Sunday urged all parties to return to talks. Again,
Speaker 1: we can agree on this. Our concern is that the
Speaker 1: further military action is not going to deliver a sustainable
Speaker 1: solution to the problem. Yeah, no doubt. During a press
Speaker 1: conference Monday, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the government
Speaker 1: supported the US strikes and that Iran should not quote
Speaker 1: take any further action that could destabilize the region. Okay,
Speaker 1: So New Zealand's just the one piece. Overall, Australia is
Speaker 1: siding with the US, which makes sense. South Korea National
Speaker 1: Security Council convened on Sunday with Ambassador we Sung lack,
Speaker 1: all Right urging relevant minute to minimize the impact of
Speaker 1: the recent series of development in the Middle East. According
Speaker 1: to the comments of a presidential spokesperson carried by South
Speaker 1: Korean news agency Yonhab, Japan's Prime Minister Shingirueshiba on Sunday
Speaker 1: tell reporters it is paramount to calm the situation down soon.
Speaker 1: According to Japanese news outlets Jigi all Right, Iran's nuclear
Speaker 1: development must be blocked, he added, while falling short of
Speaker 1: endorsing the US's actions and nothing his government will fully
Speaker 1: discuss the development. That sentence didn makes sense, but okay.
Speaker 1: Iran reacts to the UK and e used negotiation call.
Speaker 1: In Europe, the UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the
Speaker 1: situation in the Middle East remains volatile and stability in
Speaker 1: the region is a priority, calling on Tehran to resume
Speaker 1: negotiations and reach a diplomatic solution. The UK, France and
Speaker 1: Germany have been attempting to de escalate tensions through reproachment
Speaker 1: with Tehran in recent days. The European Union Chief Diplomat
Speaker 1: Kaja Kallis urged all sides to step back, return to
Speaker 1: the negotiating table and prevent further escalation while stressing Iran
Speaker 1: must not be permitted to develop nuclear weapons. You a
Speaker 1: EU foreign ministers will discuss developments in Iran on Monday,
Speaker 1: she said, in apparent response. Iran's Argachi later said the
Speaker 1: Britain and EU High rep is it is Iran which
Speaker 1: must return to the table. But how can Iran return
Speaker 1: to something it never left, let alone blew up again.
Speaker 1: That's not a true statement, because while Trump was trying
Speaker 1: to get them to come to the negotiation table, they
Speaker 1: silenced themselves and went basically off grid with the whole
Speaker 1: conversation to be had. That's not accurate either, and that's
Speaker 1: also documented within the Middle East. The Ministry of Foreign
Speaker 1: Affairs of Saudi Arabia, a regional ally of the US
Speaker 1: which only revived relations with Iran in March of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty three, said after a seven year dipotmat Grift said
Speaker 1: it is following developments in a sisterly Iran with great concern,
Speaker 1: so all right fair. Similarly, Qatar's four minister said it
Speaker 1: was following developments in sisterly Iran and regretted the deterioration
Speaker 1: of the situation with the strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.
Speaker 1: The country underscored the urgent need for a ceasefire and
Speaker 1: return to dialogue. Now, let's talk about some condemnations, and
Speaker 1: I bet we could already guess just before I even
Speaker 1: read anything, certain groups and countries that condemned the attacks.
Speaker 1: Just you know, if anybody wants to make any guesses,
Speaker 1: let's go for it. Yemen's hoot, the military group historically
Speaker 1: backed by Tehran denounced the US as the US blatant aggression. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you would get that. The president of Lebanon, whose influential
Speaker 1: hes below group also receives Iranian support and has been
Speaker 1: trading fire with Israel, said in a Google translated statement
Speaker 1: that the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities raises fears of
Speaker 1: an escalation of tension that could threaten security instability in
Speaker 1: more than one region and country. Of course, Lebanon, Hezbola,
Speaker 1: backed by Iran would have something to say about this.
Speaker 1: Dmitri Mezvetev. Yeah, you could imagine that Russia had something
Speaker 1: to say on this. A senior security officer and former
Speaker 1: president of Russia on Sunday questioned Trump's odds of clinching
Speaker 1: a Nobel Peace Prize despite his recent nomination saying the
Speaker 1: White House leader who came as a peacemaker president started
Speaker 1: a new war for the United States. He didn't know,
Speaker 1: We're not at war with Iran, so all right, cool.
Speaker 1: And he did what he did to stop a nation
Speaker 1: led by a psychopath from developing a nuclear weapon. If anything,
Speaker 1: I think that would put him more in line with
Speaker 1: possibly getting a Nobel Peace Prize. But if you look
Speaker 1: at the Nobel organization, it is it's not what it
Speaker 1: once was. I'll leave it at that. I mean, hell,
Speaker 1: they gave a Ima a Nobel Peace Prize two weeks
Speaker 1: into his presidential reign for nothing, so it's not as
Speaker 1: is not as big of a deal as it once was.
Speaker 1: Venezuelan Minister of Foreign Affairs. Of course, Venezuela is gonna
Speaker 1: condemn it, condemn the attacks, and a message on telegram
Speaker 1: Venezuelan Venezuela condemns US military aggression against Iran and demands
Speaker 1: an immediate ceasefire immediate secession of hostilities. The Bolivarian Republic
Speaker 1: of Venezuela firmly and categorically condemns the bombings carried out
Speaker 1: by the United States military at the request of the
Speaker 1: State of Israel against nuclear facilities. Yeah, okay, of course
Speaker 1: Venezuela is gonna have something to say about it. Cbe
Speaker 1: was president. Also, Shocker condemned the attacks on social media
Speaker 1: platform x saying we strongly condemned the US bombings of
Speaker 1: Forans nuclear facilities. All right, cool. Pope Leo said the
Speaker 1: international community must strive to avoid war that risks opening
Speaker 1: an unrepairable abyss, and that diplomacy should take the place
Speaker 1: of conflict. That's not necessarily condemning it. But I mean also,
Speaker 1: even the countries that are siding with the decision to
Speaker 1: bomb them is saying that it's time to go back
Speaker 1: to diplomacy and making conversation happen before war breaks out.
Speaker 1: So all right, I mean again, I don't disagree with
Speaker 1: what Popleo said. He says every member of the international
Speaker 1: community has a moral responsibility to stop the tragedy of
Speaker 1: war before it becomes an irreparable abyss. Uh, he said
Speaker 1: during his weekly prayer with pilgrims. No armed victory can
Speaker 1: compensate for the pain of mothers, the fear of children,
Speaker 1: the stolen future. Let diplomacy silence the weapons. Let nations
Speaker 1: chart their future with peace efforts, not with violence and
Speaker 1: bloody conflict. He added, Okay, again, I don't don't inherently
Speaker 1: disagree with the things that pop Leo just said. But
Speaker 1: also they're talking about peace through strength. They're talking about
Speaker 1: you know, the speak softly and carry a big stick. I,
Speaker 1: along with MO of the world, thinks that Iran should
Speaker 1: never have the ability to have a nuclear weapon. Now,
Speaker 1: the conversation was that they can't enrich uranium to a
Speaker 1: quote unquote weaponized level, even though in depending on who
Speaker 1: you ask, anything over twenty percent is considered a weaponize
Speaker 1: or a weaponizational amount. Apparently, you only need three to
Speaker 1: five percent to run a nuclear power plant, which is
Speaker 1: what they claimed they were doing. You don't need yellow
Speaker 1: cake to make a nuclear power plant operate. So anything
Speaker 1: above ten percent is you're getting into questionable territory. And
Speaker 1: allegedly they were getting it to where they could get
Speaker 1: to sixty percent. So it's one of those things. It's
Speaker 1: one of those things, Tony, I see you. I muted yourself, brother.
Speaker 1: I know you're going to weigh in. Yeah, you know me,
Speaker 1: I do well.
Speaker 3: First of all, starting at the top of the article,
Speaker 3: it was saying that the bombing off fourd oh definitely
Speaker 3: did lots of damage. I don't think anybody really knows
Speaker 3: that for sure. I've seen lots of strong opinions going
Speaker 3: both way on this. Weighs on this on telegram, Twitter
Speaker 3: and everywhere else, and they're rather predictable. So the biggest
Speaker 3: Trump supporters all believe that it wiped out fouridoh, and
Speaker 3: all the people on the pullar opposite side of the
Speaker 3: spectrum say that, oh, it was all moved out of
Speaker 3: there before, you know, like a month ago, and Fourdoh's
Speaker 3: like two hundred meters deep, and the bunker busters couldn't
Speaker 3: get in and two of them failed to detonate. But
Speaker 3: everyone is proceeding based on a few satellite photos. Nobody
Speaker 3: really knows. I think the Iranian government really knows, but
Speaker 3: they're going to be very secretive and tight lipped about this.
Speaker 3: And I don't know, but I kind of doubt both
Speaker 3: extremes of the spectrum on this. You're talking about, yeah,
Speaker 3: uranium enrichment, you only need to get about three percent
Speaker 3: uranium thirty five. The natural abundance of that isotope is
Speaker 3: about zero point seven percent. And I think we've discussed
Speaker 3: this before actually, but yeah, yeah, you get it. Up
Speaker 3: to about three percent. You can use it for nuclear power,
Speaker 3: you can use it to heat up water and make steam.
Speaker 3: Medical isotopes for treating cancer is largely above my head,
Speaker 3: but that needs to be about twenty percent U two
Speaker 3: thirty five, and weapons grade is something like ninety percent,
Speaker 3: so I've heard, and they've gotten it up to about
Speaker 3: sixty percent U two thirty five with their centerfuges and
Speaker 3: the JCPOA from twenty fifteen captive at three point sixty
Speaker 3: seven percent, but since the US withdrew from that, the
Speaker 3: JCPOA had a condition built into it that if the
Speaker 3: US withdraws, then Iran can continue to enrich to a
Speaker 3: higher level. And that's also allowed by the Non Proliferation
Speaker 3: Treaty the NPT, which was created in the early seventies,
Speaker 3: I think, and there are many other countries like Japan, Brazil,
Speaker 3: South Korea, Germany, Spain who have nuclear power without having
Speaker 3: a nuclear weapons program, because as we just discussed, the
Speaker 3: difference between power grade and weapons grade is a huge
Speaker 3: difference in percentage, and the IAEA was created to enforce
Speaker 3: the Non Proliferation Treaty. I'm surprised the article didn't mention this,
Speaker 3: but the Iran is strongly considering withdrawing from the IAEA
Speaker 3: now and the Non Proliferation Treaty, and maybe it was
Speaker 3: in there, maybe I missed it. But a big part
Speaker 3: of the reason for that is they may not be
Speaker 3: honest about this, but they accuse Israel of either using
Speaker 3: IAEA inspectors as spies or of spying on IAEA inspectors
Speaker 3: to learn the addresses of their nuclear scientists who were
Speaker 3: targeted and killed. Israel's first attack back on June twelfth
Speaker 3: killed about eighty people, injured about two hundred, if you
Speaker 3: can believe the reports. I just looked that up earlier today.
Speaker 3: So yeah, Iran and Israel are definitely pissed off at
Speaker 3: each other. I think this nuclear thing is kind of
Speaker 3: a red herring. What really comes down to is support
Speaker 3: for Hesbalah and Hamas and stuff like that. That's the
Speaker 3: real source of the fight, just like for Saddam Hussein.
Speaker 3: Saddam Hussein was paying the Palestinian authority to give money
Speaker 3: to the families and suicide bombers and other martyrs. They
Speaker 3: were labeled martyrs, but the suicide bombers back in the
Speaker 3: late nineties were the most controversial aspect of who gets
Speaker 3: labeled to martyr and who gets money. So that's why
Speaker 3: Saddam Hussein was Israel's main enemy at that time, and
Speaker 3: Israel didn't and Iran didn't really become bitter enemies until
Speaker 3: after Saddam was out of the picture. Because Saddam Hussein
Speaker 3: was their main enemy until two thousand and three. It's
Speaker 3: Akrabein in nineteen ninety five was the first major Israeli
Speaker 3: politician who tried to pivot away from having the Arabs
Speaker 3: as the main enemy to having Iran as the main enemy,
Speaker 3: and he was assassinated in nineteen ninety five. I don't
Speaker 3: want to be like too boring about this, but it
Speaker 3: is kind of important. So now it runs the main
Speaker 3: enemy and the nuclear issue is just one issue of many. Anyway,
Speaker 3: Let's see, was there anything else in that article I
Speaker 3: was going to talk about it, I just can't remember anymore, but.
Speaker 1: About which countries supported in which ones condemned the attacks overall?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I also thought Pope Leo's comments didn't really belong
Speaker 3: in the condemned category. They were really trying to be
Speaker 3: as even and not alienate anyone as much as possible.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I agree, and I mean That's that's what the
Speaker 1: pope should be doing. As far as that's concerned. The
Speaker 1: Pope shouldn't be politicizing things. He should be calling for
Speaker 1: peace and unity worldwide. That's his job. So I, like
Speaker 1: I said, I didn't find anything incorrect with what he said.
Speaker 1: He is saying that he wishes that diplomacy would rain
Speaker 1: out over conflict. I agree with this, you know, But
Speaker 1: that being said, if the Iyatola has been screaming, and
Speaker 1: not just the Iatola, even in their whatever the Iranian
Speaker 1: version of the House of Parliament is called, they have
Speaker 1: been screaming death to Israel and death to America for years.
Speaker 1: So as they're making heavily or more heavily enriched uranium,
Speaker 1: it would make sense that Israel and America, would you know,
Speaker 1: stop them from enriching it further This this checks out
Speaker 1: to me.
Speaker 3: Uh huh, Well, what do you think of the JCPOA
Speaker 3: In hindsight, it's been about ten years now, and you know,
Speaker 3: I think the US should have stayed in it. But
Speaker 3: do you think the US should have stayed in it?
Speaker 3: And I just I'm just curious.
Speaker 1: Remind me again the jpcas for.
Speaker 3: That was the Iron Nuclear Deal that's twenty fifteen that
Speaker 3: limited them to three point six seven percent enrichment, and
Speaker 3: the US withdrew from it in twenty seventeen.
Speaker 1: I think, I mean, for us to stay in it
Speaker 1: means that we would have had our own agencies that
Speaker 1: would go and investigate their nuclear programs to see what
Speaker 1: they were doing. Correct.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we would have had that, and the IAEA also
Speaker 3: would have been doing much the same thing. In addition
Speaker 3: to that, I.
Speaker 1: Mean, I don't understand why they pulled out of it
Speaker 1: unless they wanted to give them enough slack to hang
Speaker 1: themselves with it, you know. I mean that that would
Speaker 1: make sense. And I'm America has had done this thing
Speaker 1: where we create our own boogeyman so that we can
Speaker 1: go and do stuff about it later on, where a
Speaker 1: war tribe that's traditionally what we are just the best at.
Speaker 1: So for us to pull out of that agreement, it's
Speaker 1: not because we started trusting the Iyatola to be a
Speaker 1: man of his word. I can't imagine that it's more
Speaker 1: than likely possible that we pulled out of that so
Speaker 1: that they would do things under radar and enrich uranium
Speaker 1: further so that we could send military assets or aid
Speaker 1: in that area. I mean, that makes sense to me
Speaker 1: on paper what should have happened. Yet, we shouldn't have
Speaker 1: pulled out of that. We absolutely shouldn't pulled out of that.
Speaker 1: As far as from what I understand about it, I
Speaker 1: don't know why we did, other than to allow Iran
Speaker 1: enough slack on the leash for them to hang themselves
Speaker 1: with it.
Speaker 3: Right, it seems like this wasn't bringing us closer to war,
Speaker 3: and a lot of people wanted us to get at
Speaker 3: least closer, and they wanted to ratchet up tensions. And Yeah,
Speaker 3: it was very mysterious to me when Trump was pulling
Speaker 3: out of it, because he was getting questions like, why
Speaker 3: are you doing this? And he just said, they violated
Speaker 3: the deal, we're terminating the deal, And then can you elaborate,
Speaker 3: mister president, No, No, they violated the deal. They violated
Speaker 3: and it was you know, some BS technicality perhaps.
Speaker 1: Nviihlate of the deal. Then wouldn't that mean that we
Speaker 1: could take actions against them in twenty seventeen, not pull
Speaker 1: away from it?
Speaker 3: Yeah, the only violation I'm aware of that I heard
Speaker 3: anything about were right after the deal was signed, Iran
Speaker 3: had too much heavy water. If you know what that is.
Speaker 3: It's waterworth deuterium instead of hydrogen, and they were struggling
Speaker 3: to ship it out of their country fast enough to
Speaker 3: meet some deadline, and they didn't quite meet the deadline,
Speaker 3: but they did ship it all out of their country
Speaker 3: because a deuterium slows down neutrons and this is important
Speaker 3: for some reason. But they did as much as they
Speaker 3: could to abide by it. And Iran's also had fought
Speaker 3: was against nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and biological weapons since
Speaker 3: the nineteen eighties, and Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Iran,
Speaker 3: and Iran did not respond in kind in the nineteen
Speaker 3: eighties to their great disadvantage in that war, and they continued.
Speaker 3: They seemed very about it. I fear that Iran probably
Speaker 3: actually will start trying to develop a nuclear bomb right now.
Speaker 3: And I've never been afraid of that before because we've
Speaker 3: heard that they're months away from a nuclear weapon forever.
Speaker 3: But they just repeatedly, repeatedly demonstrate that they have not
Speaker 3: been working on one. If they wanted one, they could
Speaker 3: have gotten one by now. If North Korea could have
Speaker 3: made one, Iran definitely could have made one.
Speaker 1: I don't believe the North Korea has one either. I
Speaker 1: think they I don't believe they have rockets. Even if
Speaker 1: they have the ability to create a nuclear warhead, it
Speaker 1: has the range to maybe hit Japan, and that's not
Speaker 1: good either. But with all of their rocket program being
Speaker 1: shown to be amateur at best, I can't imagine that
Speaker 1: their nuclear capabilities are anywhere near something that we need
Speaker 1: to be concerned about.
Speaker 3: Well, they detonated something and made big enough of an
Speaker 3: earthquake that the world was convinced that they did have
Speaker 3: one in twenty eleven. And I think there's other signatures
Speaker 3: that let you know if a country has one, because
Speaker 3: it'll release strontium ninety and xenon ninety one or something
Speaker 3: like that, and you can actually see. And this brings
Speaker 3: up a thing I saw in the WI Files. Have
Speaker 3: you seen that there's so much xenon ninety one on Mars?
Speaker 3: People think that maybe Mars perished in a nuclear war.
Speaker 3: I know this is a complete tangent and maybe no.
Speaker 1: I love the Y Files, dude, I haven't seen that
Speaker 1: episode yet, but I'm going to check it out now.
Speaker 1: Yeah you can.
Speaker 3: And xeno on ninety one is also how the US
Speaker 3: observed Russia's nuclear weapons program. During the Cold War, because
Speaker 3: you could just you know, tell how many parts per
Speaker 3: billion there are in the atmosphere and where they're coming from,
Speaker 3: and if it run we're making a nuclear weapon, it
Speaker 3: would be blasting so much of this xenon out in
Speaker 3: the atmosphere and it can be read remotely from a
Speaker 3: distance that we'd definitely no.
Speaker 1: Okay, I mean, I forgot about the whole earthquake situation
Speaker 1: in twenty eleven. Honestly, I'll have to re look into
Speaker 1: that and see. As of this moment, I'm not convinced
Speaker 1: that North Korea has nuclear capabilities. I could very well
Speaker 1: be wrong. I don't know. It's been quite a minute
Speaker 1: since I looked into what old Kim Jong has done.
Speaker 1: As far as that's concerned. I'm looking at their capabilities,
Speaker 1: and I've been clowning them for the ship conversation, and
Speaker 1: I will continue to do so. I have clowned them
Speaker 1: for the rockets that they just release into the water.
Speaker 1: Is some sort of a flex. It's some might consider
Speaker 1: that a flex. I don't really consider it that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And whenever we're bringing that kind of competency to the table,
Speaker 1: I have a really hard time believing that they are
Speaker 1: nuclear capable, but I could be so wrong on this.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 3: Yeah, another thing I've heard is it's possible to put
Speaker 3: a plutonium warhead on a missile, but uranium warheads are
Speaker 3: too heavy, and the Hiroshima bomb was a uranium warhead.
Speaker 3: It's also called the gun type nuke. But the Nagasaki
Speaker 3: bomb was plutonium, and the plutonium was smaller, and it's
Speaker 3: about equally powerful, and that's the type that would be
Speaker 3: going into a missile. But getting plutonium requires you to
Speaker 3: have uranium first, and it's a whole additional process. So
Speaker 3: basically Iran has no way to deliver a nuclear bomb
Speaker 3: at all. Anyway, they do have lots of ballistic missiles
Speaker 3: and they're never going to give those up because they've
Speaker 3: needed those for defense and deterned since the eighties. They
Speaker 3: were launching missiles back and forth between Iraq and Iran,
Speaker 3: and Iran's never going to give up ballistic missiles, just
Speaker 3: like the US and Israel are never going to give
Speaker 3: them up. And I don't think it's a reasonable request,
Speaker 3: But that was one of the requests that kind of
Speaker 3: terminated the negotiations with Iran because the US originally was
Speaker 3: demanded to come back down to three point six to
Speaker 3: seven percent, and I think Iran's government said yeah, But
Speaker 3: then there were additional demands that, oh, we actually want
Speaker 3: you to have zero percent no nuclear power, and we
Speaker 3: want you to give up your ballistic missile program. And yeah,
Speaker 3: depending on how you view that, I think the US
Speaker 3: kind of deliberately asked for too much and torpedo the negotiation.
Speaker 3: But that's just me. You can find different opinions on that,
Speaker 3: for sure.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I mean that's very fair points. So I
Speaker 1: don't know. I'm gonna have to do more digging into
Speaker 1: the North Korean capabilities. I forgot about twenty eleven. I
Speaker 1: don't believe any of these countries are going to be
Speaker 1: giving up their ballistic missiles, if for nothing else, just
Speaker 1: for their own personal defense, which I don't have an
Speaker 1: issue with the nation defending themselves. I really don't. And
Speaker 1: to be completely honest with you, if I Ran wasn't
Speaker 1: funding and supporting all of these terrorist organizations and calling
Speaker 1: for death to America and debt to Israel, I probably
Speaker 1: wouldn't have a problem with them holding nukes. I don't
Speaker 1: have a problem with a lot of countries having nuclear capabilities.
Speaker 1: I'm still the belief that no one's ever going to
Speaker 1: fire one, and if they did, they'd be committing suicide
Speaker 1: to their entire country because the mutually assured agreement mutually
Speaker 1: assured destruction agreement basically means as soon as the first
Speaker 1: person breaks it, everybody attacks them. So it's more like
Speaker 1: it's another way to beat your chest and fine, whatever.
Speaker 1: But it's a country whose government regime has gone out
Speaker 1: of its way to support known terrorist organizations. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: don't think they should have a nuke. That's just me.
Speaker 1: I know, maybe that's an unpopular opinion. Maybe people think
Speaker 1: that I'm wrong for that. It's fine, I've been wrong before.
Speaker 3: But has anyone has anyone said on record outside Iran
Speaker 3: that they do think Iran should have a nuke, because
Speaker 3: I'm not aware of.
Speaker 1: Anybody Russia has said that they don't mind Iran having
Speaker 1: a nuke. As a matter of fact, one of Putin's
Speaker 1: deputies claimed that Russia would give them a nuke just
Speaker 1: last week. It's more like the pariah nations. And I'm
Speaker 1: not calling Russian para well maybe they are these days,
Speaker 1: but North Korea has claimed that they want Iran to
Speaker 1: have a nuke. I think Brazil weighed in and said
Speaker 1: something about it, which I mean, who cares a Brazil things, honestly,
Speaker 1: but yeah, it's.
Speaker 3: They don't want nukes either. But yeah, oh okay, that's
Speaker 3: a good point because well, just I was thinking more
Speaker 3: in like the Twitter universe, where you know, somebody makes
Speaker 3: a more anti Israel or pro Iranian statement and then
Speaker 3: the comments against them are always why do you want
Speaker 3: Iran to have a nuke? And you know, personally, I
Speaker 3: do not want Iran to have a nuke. I don't
Speaker 3: think they even want one. Really well, opinion is divided
Speaker 3: over there, and you know, maybe a significant number of
Speaker 3: them feel like having a nuclear weapon is the only
Speaker 3: effective deterrent because it works for North Korea and not
Speaker 3: having one didn't work out for Momar Kadaffi or Saddam Hussein.
Speaker 3: So I think they are airing in that direction slowly,
Speaker 3: and I don't want them to have a nuke, but
Speaker 3: I think, you know, they're motivated enough that they might
Speaker 3: actually get one like North Korea did.
Speaker 1: I don't think most of the population wants most of
Speaker 1: the Iranian population does not want a nuke. Most all
Speaker 1: of the reports that I've seen somewhere around eighty to
Speaker 1: eighty five percent of the Iranian population hate the regime
Speaker 1: and they view it as if they were to have
Speaker 1: a nuke, it puts more of a target on the
Speaker 1: country as a whole, and they don't want that problem either.
Speaker 1: So I don't think that it's a widely viewed positive
Speaker 1: thing for the Ayatola to have nuclear capabilities.
Speaker 3: But yeah, I would definitely believe that a majority doesn't
Speaker 3: want nuclear weapons, But I don't believe that a majority
Speaker 3: actually hates their government.
Speaker 1: The regime and the government are operating on two completely
Speaker 1: separate conversations, man, and they are brutal to their people.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't believe that eighty percent of them hate
Speaker 3: their regime or government, whatever we want to call it.
Speaker 3: And why Well, because I've heard too much propaganda from
Speaker 3: I've heard that line of argument for well over a decade,
Speaker 3: and I think it's just propaganda because it's coming from
Speaker 3: very predictable sources. It's coming from the monarchists and the
Speaker 3: Mujahidina kalk who are socialists revolutionaries who were kicked out
Speaker 3: of Iran because they sided with Saddam Hussein during the
Speaker 3: Iran Iraq War. I've also heard similar things about just
Speaker 3: every country you can think of, like China and Russia.
Speaker 3: But then when you see polls other poles from inside
Speaker 3: the country, it'll show pretty high support for the government.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but you got a question where those poles come
Speaker 1: from as well, right, Because I mean both of the
Speaker 1: countries you just named have state run media as well
Speaker 1: as Iran, So of course the state run media are
Speaker 1: going to show polls that show very positive reviews of
Speaker 1: the government, and of course the people that are not
Speaker 1: fans of the country as a whole are going to
Speaker 1: show polls that are quite damning of the government. And
Speaker 1: I get that too. The only thing I know for
Speaker 1: sure is that I have seen dozens and I don't
Speaker 1: mean like just twelve, I mean like close to sixty
Speaker 1: or seventy different videos of Iranians who were filming the
Speaker 1: bombs being dropped, and they were cheering that bombs are
Speaker 1: being dropped on their country by these people because they
Speaker 1: don't like the government and they know that this is
Speaker 1: not going to be a civilian problem. They know what's
Speaker 1: happening here. So I don't know, I don't know what
Speaker 1: to make of it.
Speaker 3: So I will say I've known a lot of Iranians
Speaker 3: when I lived in California, and most of them really
Speaker 3: hated the Iranian government. But we're getting a sample of
Speaker 3: people who left that country, and within that country, I'm
Speaker 3: pretty sure the numbers are very way more supportive of
Speaker 3: the government. And if they weren't, the government would have
Speaker 3: been overthrown by now.
Speaker 1: They can't be overthrown at this moment. They rule with
Speaker 1: an iron fist. It's like saying, well, the people that
Speaker 1: hated Saddam and yeah, that's true. The civilian population in
Speaker 1: Iraq were not fans of him. But also it's not
Speaker 1: like they could do anything about it because he ruled
Speaker 1: the one that iron fist and a I'm not going
Speaker 1: to say a military huntera but basically if you went
Speaker 1: against him, you would be slaughtered. The torture rooms were
Speaker 1: real like that didn't That's that's a case with a
Speaker 1: lot of leaders around the world. They are very cruel
Speaker 1: to their people. But it's not like we got involved
Speaker 1: with Iraq for some sort of a moral reason. We're
Speaker 1: trying to save the Iraqi people. No, no, it's not
Speaker 1: true at all. But we all remember how when his
Speaker 1: statue was torn down, the civilians were like dancing in
Speaker 1: the street and beating his face with the sandals in
Speaker 1: the whole nine with the statue because they did not
Speaker 1: like Saddam. I would venture to say most of the
Speaker 1: people in Iran also do not like the Ayatola, but
Speaker 1: it's not like they can do anything in uprise. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Well, I think that when a government gets overthrown or
Speaker 3: an invading army takes over city, it draws out a
Speaker 3: pretty selected special group of people into the streets to celebrate,
Speaker 3: and they celebrate to express to the new powers that hey, look,
Speaker 3: we like you and we're your friends. But you know,
Speaker 3: the people who don't support the revolution or the new
Speaker 3: army coming through town are just not going to go outside.
Speaker 1: You saw.
Speaker 3: This reminds me of World War II news reels. You
Speaker 3: can find newsreels from both sides of the war of
Speaker 3: when they invade a city and then there's a big
Speaker 3: parade and the inhabitants of the city throw flowers at
Speaker 3: the army, and they'll do that whether the army coming
Speaker 3: through as Axis or Allies, because they're trying to say, look,
Speaker 3: we want to make you feel welcome. We want to
Speaker 3: discourage any terrorism against you, because we don't want you
Speaker 3: to flatten our city. So there's that, and yeah, that's
Speaker 3: probably not the same thing going on with Iran right now.
Speaker 3: I'm sure that if the Iran regime collapsed, you would
Speaker 3: see celebration in the streets, but it would just be
Speaker 3: a selective, probably minority the population. It's hard to say.
Speaker 3: There's another thing. Yeah, I see a lot of people
Speaker 3: commenting all over the place that, oh, in Iran they execute,
Speaker 3: you know, hundreds of women just for failing to wear
Speaker 3: the hijab.
Speaker 1: There was that incense that happened in twenty twenty one
Speaker 1: for that exact reason.
Speaker 3: Did they execute anybody? I have been looking for evidence.
Speaker 1: Hundreds of women were arrested and then went into the jail,
Speaker 1: never seen again. And then there was mass graves, and.
Speaker 3: There were mass graves. I've been looking for this. I
Speaker 3: guess I'll look again. I'm kind of dubious to this
Speaker 3: whole thing because there was another woman who now there
Speaker 3: were lots of videos posted this woman. She was walking
Speaker 3: around a college campus in Iran in her underwear, and
Speaker 3: it was reported that, oh, she's been abducted and she's
Speaker 3: been executed.
Speaker 1: I mean, at that point, you're under a sharia law, extremist,
Speaker 1: fundamentalist country, you doing that is asking for issue. Let's
Speaker 1: be real.
Speaker 3: She did get arrested and she got put in a
Speaker 3: mental hospital, so to my knowledge, she did not get
Speaker 3: executed unless that story was a lie. The most controversial
Speaker 3: story I could find was of a sixteen year old
Speaker 3: girl who I think she was raped, but she was
Speaker 3: convicted of adultery and executed in two thousand and four.
Speaker 3: That's about the most embarrassing story for the Iranian regime
Speaker 3: that I could find and actually confirm.
Speaker 1: I've heard of very similar stories from a lot of
Speaker 1: countries that operate under Sharia law. That's not a sadly,
Speaker 1: that is not an unprecedented situation because obviously she was
Speaker 1: asking for it and all the disgusting things that these
Speaker 1: people believe.
Speaker 3: So yeah, it's horrible and disgusting, but it was one
Speaker 3: thing from like twenty years ago. So you know, I
Speaker 3: I am very skeptical of most anti Iranian things that
Speaker 3: I see, maybe more skeptical than I should be. It's
Speaker 3: just hard to know what the truth is here. And
Speaker 3: thanks for letting me give you my opinion.
Speaker 1: Oh brother, I appreciate your opinion. I always do every week.
Speaker 1: With that being said, everybody, I think we are going
Speaker 1: to wrap up this episode of The Cajun Night Live.
Speaker 1: Sorry for all the crazy tangents that we went on tonight,
Speaker 1: but at the same time, I thoroughly enjoyed them. I
Speaker 1: love these conversations. I love the depths that we go
Speaker 1: into when these things come up. For any of the
Speaker 1: good listeners that would like to be a part of
Speaker 1: the Cajun Night Live every Wednesday night at nine pm Central,
Speaker 1: go to the link in the description below. We only
Speaker 1: have one tier for jury on the Patreon and this
Speaker 1: is what we do every Wednesday night. We get together,
Speaker 1: we talk about some news things, some geopolitics things, some
Speaker 1: science things, some religious things. We're all over the place
Speaker 1: and I deeply enjoy this. Once again, everybody, thank you
Speaker 1: for joining me on this evening and as always, God
Speaker 1: bless