Speaker 1: Good evening, everyone, and welcome to another edition of The
Speaker 1: Cajun Night Live. I am your host, Jacob Mook, the
Speaker 1: Cajun Knight, And as always, we do have a few
Speaker 1: things that I would like to talk about on this evening.
Speaker 1: Some geopolitical, some American kerfuffling going on here. I don't
Speaker 1: know if anybody's heard about this, but Northrop Grumming just
Speaker 1: had an explosion at one of their munitions manufacturing facilities
Speaker 1: in Utah. We'll be discussing it. Also, a Facebook whistleblower.
Speaker 1: I guess I don't want to just say Facebook, right,
Speaker 1: it's the metaverse and all of that has come forward
Speaker 1: before US representatives to explain how Zuckerberg completely sold us
Speaker 1: out to the CCP, knowingly, belligerently, all the things alongside that.
Speaker 1: Apparently the tariff war that's going on. China just blinked
Speaker 1: and has agreed to come to the negotiation table after
Speaker 1: Trump hit them with a collective two hundred and forty
Speaker 1: five percent tariff rate. We're gonna talk about that too. Also,
Speaker 1: Chernobyl might be healing itself. Apparently there is a new
Speaker 1: black fungus that is actually drinking in it's feeding itself
Speaker 1: off of toxic radiation, and I don't know how this
Speaker 1: has happened. Nature finds a way, you know, I have
Speaker 1: my religious beliefs as to how nature finds away. Some
Speaker 1: people will say that it's science and evolution fixing itself.
Speaker 1: Either way you want to slice it, that's good shit.
Speaker 1: We have a lot of good things to discuss on
Speaker 1: this evening. So as we move on, I'm going to
Speaker 1: take a little gander over here at the chat. Royce
Speaker 1: Sen sends something in here, what is this dead woman
Speaker 1: turning up in New England? Beach Town's police denial way, whoa, whoa?
Speaker 1: We got a serial killer in New England eventually, potentially allegedly. Okay,
Speaker 1: all right, well hey why not. I'm gonna pull that
Speaker 1: one up too. We'll see what the time looks like
Speaker 1: if we get to the end of it it. Oh man,
Speaker 1: oh wow, okay, yeah, this is from people, so yes,
Speaker 1: I know it's a tabloid. Me me me, you know,
Speaker 1: I A if we have a new serial killer on
Speaker 1: the lose, I think we should discuss it, so, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, to start, let's go ahead and get in
Speaker 1: on the Facebook conversation. I'm gonna go ahead and share
Speaker 1: the screen at this time. And for anybody that is
Speaker 1: listening to this on Thursday who would like to be
Speaker 1: a part of this conversation or see what we are
Speaker 1: talking about, then please come check out the Cajun Night
Speaker 1: on Patreon. It is the only place, Okay, it's the
Speaker 1: only place to see what we're doing here. It's the
Speaker 1: only place to be able to join in on the conversation.
Speaker 1: And there's only one tier for injury. Not trying to
Speaker 1: have no kind of other whole side hustle here. It's
Speaker 1: just a way to uh get this collective group, all
Speaker 1: of the same mindset to be a part of this conversation.
Speaker 1: This is a ten minute long video. I'm not gonna
Speaker 1: play all of it. I want to play maybe like
Speaker 1: six minutes of it, but I do want to stop
Speaker 1: and talk about a few things along the way. So
Speaker 1: just off the title here. This is from Forbes Breaking News.
Speaker 1: Facebook whistleblower makes shot claim about Mark Zuckerberg during senate testimony.
Speaker 1: Y'all get ready for this one, because Zuckerberg has had
Speaker 1: this weird character arc, if you will, right under the
Speaker 1: Biden administration, he was that weird alien dude that was
Speaker 1: sitting on top of two separate couch cushions when he
Speaker 1: was testifying, right, and he had like this whole thing
Speaker 1: where he was drinking water like some sort of animatronic thing.
Speaker 1: All of a sudden he starts doing BJJ. He lets
Speaker 1: his hair grow out a little bit, and then he
Speaker 1: goes on Rogan like six months ago, and he seems
Speaker 1: like a normal, almost bro, like an almost normal guy.
Speaker 1: Then we find out these things about him and it's like, ooh, man,
Speaker 1: that character arc age like milk. But let's listen in.
Speaker 2: They all turn it over to you, Thanks very much,
Speaker 2: missus chairman. In order to operate in China, the Kindis
Speaker 2: Party requires American companies to register with authorities and host
Speaker 2: servers inside the country. And I think it's pretty well
Speaker 2: known that Chinese law requires that security services are allowed
Speaker 2: access to any data hosted within the country. Did any
Speaker 2: of Facebook's security team or its engineers raise concerns to
Speaker 2: management about American's private information being exposed to Chinese.
Speaker 3: Spye, Yes, Senata, they did.
Speaker 2: How did they do that?
Speaker 3: They documented their concern in a number of ways. They
Speaker 3: noted that this would happen, that the Chinese would get
Speaker 3: access to the data, and they also noted that they're
Speaker 3: concerned in other discussions and other documentations saying, you know,
Speaker 3: my red line as a security engineer is to not
Speaker 3: be comfortable with us, But my red line is not
Speaker 3: Mark Zuckerberg's red line.
Speaker 2: Maybe you can explain what you mean by that.
Speaker 3: The engineer was saying that they were not comfortable with
Speaker 3: the way the China Project was structured that would allow
Speaker 3: the Chinese Communist Party to potentially access American citizens data.
Speaker 3: But in saying that, they noted that, you know, that's
Speaker 3: a red line for me as a security engineer. That's
Speaker 3: not Mark Zuckerbog's red line.
Speaker 2: Did you sense he had any red line?
Speaker 3: I did not.
Speaker 2: If he did, you don't know what it was.
Speaker 1: I don't right off the rip here just gonna say.
Speaker 1: And they talk about this as like a backdated conversation
Speaker 1: like this was you know, a few years back or whatever.
Speaker 1: Then they kind of go into that this is more modern,
Speaker 1: as in within the last twelve months. This is not good.
Speaker 1: This is not a good look for us. And yes,
Speaker 1: I understand everybody I harp on West Taiwan aka China
Speaker 1: being America's biggest threat at this time, and that is
Speaker 1: a very true statement. And That's why a lot of
Speaker 1: the people in DC, namely Trump is coming at them
Speaker 1: in the way that they are, although he's doing it
Speaker 1: for tariff and trade reasons. The data situation is something
Speaker 1: that we've talked about it at length as far as
Speaker 1: why that's so dangerous for them to get American data
Speaker 1: in that way. And that's a very good point. For
Speaker 1: anything of the metaverse to operate inside of China, they
Speaker 1: have to operate off of Chinese servers that are owned
Speaker 1: in part by the CCP, and they have to have
Speaker 1: access to all of that. Those servers can go backwards, right,
Speaker 1: It's like hacking a system. There's always a backdoor. If
Speaker 1: you're able to hack in to the servers located in China,
Speaker 1: then you're able to hack into the entire metaverse through
Speaker 1: the servers in China. And apparently Zuckerberg knew about this
Speaker 1: and said, yeah, run it, but let's continue.
Speaker 2: If you have more information related to these spying risks,
Speaker 2: would you be willing to share it with a committee?
Speaker 2: I would, Senator, And Mark Zuckerberg was knowledgeable about the planning,
Speaker 2: and do you know whether he was knowledgeable about the
Speaker 2: risks as well.
Speaker 3: My understanding is that the risk is the hardest part
Speaker 3: of the plan, so it's unthinkable that he was not
Speaker 3: aware of the risk.
Speaker 2: Nothing happened here without his approval and knowledge.
Speaker 3: This was a project unlike any other project I worked
Speaker 3: on during my time. It matter and that it was
Speaker 3: so centrally led by Mark Zuckerberg, and he was so
Speaker 3: personally invested in this project. He learned Mandarin, he traveled
Speaker 3: to China more than any other country, He had weakly
Speaker 3: Mandarin sessions with employees, and this was It's hard to
Speaker 3: overstate how different this project was to any other project
Speaker 3: I experienced in my many years of the company.
Speaker 2: So there would be no credibility to his denying that
Speaker 2: he knew about the risks. He knew about the concerns
Speaker 2: raised by his engineers and his China team, and he
Speaker 2: was intimately involved in not only the planning and the engineering,
Speaker 2: but also in taking those risks Sanator.
Speaker 3: He was traveling to Beijing.
Speaker 2: In the documents submitted to.
Speaker 1: The Okay, real quick, real quick, Yeah, that's some pretty
Speaker 1: damning evidence like Okay, your boy picking up a second
Speaker 1: language or I don't know how many languages Marcus Zuckerberg speaks,
Speaker 1: but fine, learning Mandarin. That is a red flag, but
Speaker 1: only if you're looking for it to be a red flag.
Speaker 1: I understand that, right, Fine, giving the credit where it's due,
Speaker 1: going and having weekly meetings with representatives in China that
Speaker 1: over of course are of the CCP, and then going
Speaker 1: to Beijing to have these kinds of formal face to
Speaker 1: face meetings about all of this, knowing full well the
Speaker 1: security risks and saying yeah, run it. It's just it's
Speaker 1: part of this business. Yeah, massive red flag. And again
Speaker 1: I would personally say, arguably treason is but we're going.
Speaker 2: To continue subcommittee. Facebook appears to have been willing to
Speaker 2: provide the data of users in Hong Kong to the
Speaker 2: Chinese government at a time when pro democracy protesters were
Speaker 2: opposing Beijing's crackdown. Is that impression correct and how did
Speaker 2: Facebook treat Taiwan or Hong Kong?
Speaker 3: That impression is correct. And one of the more surprising
Speaker 3: things is that as part of the censorship tool that
Speaker 3: was developed, there were virality counters, So anytime a piece
Speaker 3: of content got over ten thousand views, that would automatically
Speaker 3: trigger it being reviewed by what they called the chief editor.
Speaker 3: And what was particularly surprising is that the virality counters
Speaker 3: were not just installed, but activated in Hong Kong and
Speaker 3: also in Taiwan.
Speaker 1: All right, let's just make sure we heard that one right. Okay.
Speaker 1: So they literally had a filter on this to where
Speaker 1: any post, any thread, anything that was going on in
Speaker 1: metaverse that got over ten thousand views or shares or anything. Okay.
Speaker 1: Ten thousand is not a big number as far as
Speaker 1: the world of content creation goes, right, as far as
Speaker 1: the world of social media goes, if something got ten
Speaker 1: thousand hits of any type, it would immediately get viewed
Speaker 1: by the chief editor again, a representative from the CCP
Speaker 1: for review to make sure that it wasn't putting anything
Speaker 1: in a negative light quote unquote, specifically in Hong Kong
Speaker 1: and Taiwan. And Zuckerberg said, yeah, run that shit, all right,
Speaker 1: all right, let.
Speaker 2: Me ask you. I raised in my remarks, and I
Speaker 2: know that a number of other colleagues did as well,
Speaker 2: the record of misrepresentation and to see one of our
Speaker 2: former colleagues. Senator Lahy asked Mark Zuckerberg in twenty eighteen
Speaker 2: whether Facebook would comply with Chinese censorship and surveillance demand.
Speaker 2: Even asked if Facebook had built censorship tools to enter
Speaker 2: the Chinese market, and Zuckerberg responded, I'm quoting because Facebook
Speaker 2: has been blocked in China since two thousand and nine.
Speaker 2: We are not in a position to know exactly how
Speaker 2: the government would seek to apply its laws and regulations
Speaker 2: on content were we permitted to offer our service to
Speaker 2: Chinese users. Ms Williams, was that accurate?
Speaker 4: That is not accurate.
Speaker 3: You know, hundreds of decisions had been made, and by
Speaker 3: twenty eighteen, they'd been in dialogue directly with the Chinese
Speaker 3: Communist Party for four years.
Speaker 2: The fact is, by twenty eighteen, Facebook built, it even
Speaker 2: turned on censorship and surveillance tools that it developed. It
Speaker 2: developed for Chinese security officials.
Speaker 3: Correct, it developed, and those Chinese Communist Party officials tested
Speaker 3: the censorship tool, and we'll give feedback and say this
Speaker 3: needs to change, or we need this, or we need
Speaker 3: confidence that you can capture images and filter images we
Speaker 3: don't want seeing it.
Speaker 2: You know, we talk a lot about nineteen eighty four,
Speaker 2: Facebook developed a Varrylity counter tool that directed any posts
Speaker 2: of over ten thousand views to be reviewed by an
Speaker 2: Orwellian named quote unquote chief editor. Is that correct?
Speaker 4: That's correct?
Speaker 2: And was the chief editor's geographic reach limited to mainland
Speaker 2: China or did they plan to cover other locations.
Speaker 3: They planned to cover Hong Kong and Taiwan, as.
Speaker 2: My understanding, so their surveillance operation was directed at Taiwan
Speaker 2: on that's my understanding.
Speaker 5: Session.
Speaker 1: And now that also, yeah, I understand that makes sense,
Speaker 1: right because China is of the belief that Taiwan is
Speaker 1: theirs or something, and they were also of the belief
Speaker 1: that Hong Kong should be a part of China. That
Speaker 1: was the whole reason for the uh, for the the
Speaker 1: riots and all of that that happened not too terribly
Speaker 1: long ago. But yeah, so I know what they're trying
Speaker 1: to get at here, and they don't expressly say it,
Speaker 1: but essentially they are getting at the point to where
Speaker 1: they're saying that China is just going to do that
Speaker 1: only on Chinese territory. Right, Obviously they're not. They're not
Speaker 1: gonna do that to any other country. However, they had
Speaker 1: the ability to because the metaverse is in fact one
Speaker 1: cohesive metaverse. Yes, I'm sure it differs country to country
Speaker 1: and region or region, it's only a hack away any
Speaker 1: of it's only a hack away. So if they were
Speaker 1: putting a virility counter on Taiwanese and Kong posts at
Speaker 1: that time, for the principle of trying to make sure
Speaker 1: that everything was in line and following in with you
Speaker 1: know what the CCP deemed to be appropriate. Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: not that's not positive, y'all. This is not a good
Speaker 1: thing for anybody, especially not America, and the fact that
Speaker 1: Zuck lied overtly lied about all of it is a
Speaker 1: reason for concern, if nothing else. So once again, I'm
Speaker 1: not saying fully treason this, but I'm also saying that
Speaker 1: I trust Zuck even less than I already did. Merlin,
Speaker 1: I see your hand raise, Please go ahead.
Speaker 5: Well, I was just reading the article on the tech spot,
Speaker 5: and it also says that since this happened, her book
Speaker 5: sales have gone through the root. I could believe that,
Speaker 5: but also that let me find out.
Speaker 6: Part of the art.
Speaker 1: There was an article.
Speaker 5: Meta has denied allegations, with spokesman Andy Stone calling her
Speaker 5: claims divorced from reality. He acknowledged that the company explored
Speaker 5: entering the Chinese market more than a decade ago, but
Speaker 5: emphasize that Meta does not coop does not operate services
Speaker 5: in JHN also accused when Williams of reviving outdated and
Speaker 5: false accusations for the best selling memoir Careless People, A
Speaker 5: Cautionary Tale of power greed. Yeah, but that's what they're
Speaker 5: saying about it crazy.
Speaker 1: It makes sense that they would also take an oppositional
Speaker 1: stance to this and for the oh yeah God to
Speaker 1: be able to show her sipts. That's all I'm saying,
Speaker 1: because she is making some very very bold claims. And
Speaker 1: I'm not even saying bold isn't like hard to believe.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying overall that is, uh, that's damning uh accusations.
Speaker 1: So let's hope, let's hope and pray that that is
Speaker 1: not what happened. Zuck seriously didn't sell out the metaverse
Speaker 1: to the CCP, But you know, I honestly don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't trust him anyway. I didn't trust him before
Speaker 1: I heard any of these things, especially with China being
Speaker 1: what they are. I'm gonna let my favorite Taiwanese man
Speaker 1: speak on this at this moment, Donald Trump, don't trust China.
Speaker 1: China is ass ho. I fucking love that guy, like
Speaker 1: I think he's done my actual spirit animal. I wish
Speaker 1: I knew his name. I wish I can get him
Speaker 1: on the show. He's just great. Donal Trump, don't trust China.
Speaker 1: China is ass ho. Yes, I know I'm not mature
Speaker 1: enough to have certain conversations this guy. I have a
Speaker 1: feel I'm gonna be playing more from him in a pit.
Speaker 1: But anyway, all right, all right, so let's shift off
Speaker 1: of China for a moment, and then we're gonna talk
Speaker 1: back about China here in a minute. All right. I
Speaker 1: did want to shift gears, though, towards this black fungus
Speaker 1: that might be healing Chernobyl by drinking the radiation. All right,
Speaker 1: this is this is insane. It's through a process very
Speaker 1: similar to photosynthesis, but photo radiation synthesis. But I'm probably
Speaker 1: butchering how that's pronounced. That's right, Let's read in on this.
Speaker 1: This is from a Forbes article. The explosion of the
Speaker 1: Number four reactor in Chernobyl Nuclear power Plant near pre Piat,
Speaker 1: probably mispronouncing that in Ukraine on April twenty six, nineteen
Speaker 1: eighty six, remains the worst nuclear disaster in human history.
Speaker 1: It left a thirty kilometer exclusion zone, a deserted landscape
Speaker 1: where high radiation levels remained even now, decades after the incident,
Speaker 1: where human settlement and habitations are restricted within this zone. However,
Speaker 1: scientists have discovered an unlikely survivor, a resilient black fungus
Speaker 1: called yeah, I'm not even gonna try to pronounce that ladin, sorry, y'all.
Speaker 1: After the Chernobyl disaster, scientists observe patches of blackened growths
Speaker 1: on the walls of the Number four reactor fung guy
Speaker 1: that seemed to thrive where radiation was highest. This is
Speaker 1: actually a picture of it, and it kind of looks
Speaker 1: like a black sand dollar almost. I'm sure I don't
Speaker 1: know the actual size of that. I don't know that's
Speaker 1: like the size of a quarter or the size of like,
Speaker 1: you know, a doablloon or whatever, but like, yeah, I
Speaker 1: could kind of see that the fungus has adapted to
Speaker 1: a level of radiation that would like that would be
Speaker 1: lethal for most life forms. Even more fascinating is its
Speaker 1: ability to feed on this radiation, using it as a
Speaker 1: source of energy, similar to how plants use sunlight for photosynthesis.
Speaker 1: Further research discovered that spoor and some other black fungi
Speaker 1: species like geez, there's so many of these big words,
Speaker 1: all right, other types of black fung guy species possess melanin,
Speaker 1: the pigment responsible for human skin color. However, in these fungui,
Speaker 1: the melanin serves a different purpose. It absorbed radiation, which
Speaker 1: was then converted into usable energy, allowing it to grow
Speaker 1: in areas with intense radioactive exposure. Now, the fungus itself
Speaker 1: belongs to a group of fung guid known as radiotropic fungui.
Speaker 1: Radiotropic organisms can capture and utilize ionizing radiation to drive
Speaker 1: metabolic metabolic processes. In the case of this particular black
Speaker 1: fung god, its high melanin content allows it to absorb radiation,
Speaker 1: similar to how plants absorb sunlight through chlorophyll. According to
Speaker 1: an October two thousand and eight article published in the
Speaker 1: National Library of Medicine, while this process is not identical
Speaker 1: to photosynthesis, it serves as a comparable purpose and converts
Speaker 1: energy from the environment to sustained growth. This phenomenon, called radiosynthesis,
Speaker 1: has opened up exciting avenues in biochemistry and radiation research,
Speaker 1: which I personally just on my own little two cents here,
Speaker 1: that is amazing. Literally, nature finds a way to fix
Speaker 1: itself even when humans do shit to destroy it. It's beautiful,
Speaker 1: but anyway, melanin, found in many living organisms, acts as
Speaker 1: a natural shield against UV radiation. However, in this black
Speaker 1: fung guy, it does more than shield. It facilitates energy
Speaker 1: production by converting gamma radiation into chemical energy. An article
Speaker 1: published in the journal plus one in two thousand and
Speaker 1: seven confirmed this unusual energy production mechanism, showing that fung gui,
Speaker 1: like the black fung guy here, grown in high radiation
Speaker 1: environments tends to grow faster than those in non radioactive conditions.
Speaker 1: It is a discovery that is reshaping scientists understanding of
Speaker 1: the survival strategies of extremophiles, organisms that can withstand extreme
Speaker 1: environmental conditions. I think also i've heard that term be used.
Speaker 1: What's that volcanic snail that has like an iron shell
Speaker 1: and it lives like near the lava. I think they
Speaker 1: also consider that an extremophile. Anyway, radiotropic fung guy may
Speaker 1: be an ally in battling radiation. The discovery of this
Speaker 1: new fung guy in the Chernobyl exclusion zone has brought
Speaker 1: renewed attention to the radiotropic fung guy, particularly for their
Speaker 1: potential role in bioremediation, the process of using living organisms
Speaker 1: to remove pollutants from the environment. In radioactive sites like Chernobyl,
Speaker 1: where conventional cleanup methods are challenging and hazardous, radiotropic fung
Speaker 1: guy can provide a safer, natural alternative, according to an
Speaker 1: April two thousand and eight article published in Film's Microbiology Letter,
Speaker 1: Since this fung guy can absorb radiation and use it
Speaker 1: as fuel, scientists are exploring the feasibility of deploying these
Speaker 1: fung gui to contain and potentially reduce radiation levels in
Speaker 1: contaminated areas Beyond the borders of the exclusion zones. Scientists
Speaker 1: are investigating other applications, especially in the field of space exploration. Okay,
Speaker 1: the harsh, radiation heavy environment of space is one of
Speaker 1: the most significant challenges facing long term missions to Mars
Speaker 1: and beyond. This fun guy has already been seen, has
Speaker 1: already been sent rather to the International Space Station for
Speaker 1: experiments to determine whether its unique radiation tolerance could protect
Speaker 1: astronauts from cosmic radiation. Early results have been promising, suggesting
Speaker 1: that this fung guy could potentially be used to develop
Speaker 1: radiation resistant habitats or even provide radiation shielding shielded food sources.
Speaker 1: For space travelers. All right, so I see two hands
Speaker 1: raised Merlin, go ahead.
Speaker 5: Oh shit, my bad, I forgot to unraise my hand.
Speaker 1: Oh all good things, all right, go ahead.
Speaker 7: Raven I dropped in the chat two different links. One
Speaker 7: link the last the link that I just did. Is
Speaker 7: it actually a scientific if people wanted.
Speaker 4: To read it.
Speaker 7: It's like really scientific about the black fungi and like
Speaker 7: all the different ways that they are using it in
Speaker 7: the black yeast, and how they've like pretty much they've
Speaker 7: been stressing it. They stress test it to see what
Speaker 7: it can survive. Stress simulation experiments demonstrated that the organism
Speaker 7: can withstand physiochemical stress factors even far beyond those of
Speaker 7: natural habitats. And it was I read the other article
Speaker 7: was talking about the capacity of this organism is consense
Speaker 7: radioactivity and.
Speaker 4: Directly grows towards it.
Speaker 7: And it's not only growing in spite of the radiation,
Speaker 7: it's changing and manipulating itself because of it. There's actually
Speaker 7: this is actually really fascinating. I've read like four articles
Speaker 7: since you brought it up.
Speaker 1: Wow, And I mean that's the thing. I had never
Speaker 1: even heard of this. You're actually the one that sent
Speaker 1: me this article. Was it yesterday, Yeah.
Speaker 7: It's it actually was discovered in nineteen ninety nineteen ninety one,
Speaker 7: five years after the disaster, they piloted a robot and
Speaker 7: they discovered the jet black fungus growing on the inside
Speaker 7: of the reactors. After that, a team of microbiologists and
Speaker 7: virologists went into the site regularly. Their first impressions were
Speaker 7: like they were talking about that it was really sad,
Speaker 7: but they could tell that this organism was growing a
Speaker 7: whole bunch And then through the nineties they went a
Speaker 7: whole bunch of times and found that over two hundred
Speaker 7: fungal species are growing at the site, including the jet
Speaker 7: black fungi with the melanin pigment in it pigment in it.
Speaker 7: And then that's when they hypothesized, like why is it
Speaker 7: there and what is it doing? And they found that
Speaker 7: its ionizing radiation altered the structure of the melon in
Speaker 7: molecules in a way that it encouraged this fungi to
Speaker 7: grow faster than identical samples that were not exposed radiation,
Speaker 7: and the closer the fungui was to the source of radiation,
Speaker 7: the more melanin was expressed. In short, the black fung
Speaker 7: guy were not only growing in spite of the radiation,
Speaker 7: they were changing and growing because of it.
Speaker 1: So now I'm wondering, and I don't know if the
Speaker 1: article you're reading has said anything about it. So is
Speaker 1: this a new species? Jesus, I can't speak? Is this
Speaker 1: a new species altogether? Like did this just one hundred
Speaker 1: years ago? Or did this grow because the conditions were
Speaker 1: right inside of that burned out reactor for it to
Speaker 1: form on its own?
Speaker 7: It looks like so that the really scientific species like
Speaker 7: a species. The scientific one that I'm reading is talking
Speaker 7: that it has like multiple types in this group of family,
Speaker 7: and that this one in particular is they haven't seen
Speaker 7: it grow before because it didn't have the extreme environments
Speaker 7: to grow in. But this is a part of this
Speaker 7: species that has been found all over the place in
Speaker 7: harsh climates, and so it looks like it says Additionally,
Speaker 7: the substantial parts of isolates from stressing environments is represented
Speaker 7: by microcolonies of fungi and black yeast. So it's a
Speaker 7: yes and no, Like this is a new it's it's
Speaker 7: changing how it's the melanin is reacting, so it technically
Speaker 7: is a new species.
Speaker 1: Okay, so it's been around, but it's also because the
Speaker 1: conditions are right, it was able to thrive rather than
Speaker 1: just kind of growing a lab somewhere.
Speaker 7: Uh yeah, well, like like they said that it's changing
Speaker 7: the actual molecular level on how it interacts because it's
Speaker 7: growing to the radiation and it's changing how it's absorbing
Speaker 7: the melanin, and it's increasing instead of decreasing. So I
Speaker 7: was trying to read the entire art because I was
Speaker 7: trying to get to this space part about it because
Speaker 7: I wanted to see what it said about that part.
Speaker 1: Yeah, see what you can find on that, because I'm
Speaker 1: going to read this next part here, the power of
Speaker 1: adaptation to drive innovation. Here, it says, in addition to
Speaker 1: its unique feeding habits, this fungus is also renowned for
Speaker 1: its hard hardenedness excuse me. It can withstand low temperatures,
Speaker 1: high salt concentrations, and extreme acidity, making one of the
Speaker 1: most resilient fungi ever discovered. Its ability to adapt to
Speaker 1: hostile environments has given researchers hope that it may hold
Speaker 1: clues to further studies into stress tolerance mechanisms, which could
Speaker 1: lead to advancements in biotechnology and agriculture. For example, genes
Speaker 1: responsible for this hardiness and resilience might one day be
Speaker 1: used to develop radiation resistant materials or be adapted to
Speaker 1: help crop survive harsh climates. This fungus also hopes to
Speaker 1: offers hope in addressing some pressing environmental challenges. It could
Speaker 1: possibly play a role in cleaning up radioactive waste. Sure
Speaker 1: as results excuse me as research continues. The lessons we
Speaker 1: learn from this amazing fun guy could inspire innovation in
Speaker 1: a wide range of fields and in the process, understanding
Speaker 1: the boundaries of life itself. Now that I'm gonna try
Speaker 1: my damnedest to pronounce this clautosporium spharospurmum clatosporium spa of
Speaker 1: firnumps yup boy. One day one I would love to
Speaker 1: learn how to speak Latin and Greek and Hebrew, but
Speaker 1: like I have a you know, some would argue a
Speaker 1: horrible working understanding of the American English dialect. But yeah,
Speaker 1: that it sounds. It sounds just like a mouthful here.
Speaker 1: But okay, Now, as far as the space stuff goes,
Speaker 1: sending it to the ISS for UH testing to see
Speaker 1: how it would do again, solar radiation out in space. Okay,
Speaker 1: I hear that that's good things. I don't necessarily know
Speaker 1: how they plan on using that to yield crops unless
Speaker 1: they are this would be what would lead to possibly
Speaker 1: like the terraforming of Mars. Right, if they were to
Speaker 1: build some sort of a dome structure, and if Elon
Speaker 1: actually is able to put people on Mars and this
Speaker 1: whole thing, you would need some sort of plant life
Speaker 1: that could take solar radiation to that level and feed
Speaker 1: off of it and protect against in all these things.
Speaker 1: I'm not wise enough in the world of agriculture to
Speaker 1: understand how a fungus that white thrive in that environment
Speaker 1: could help other plants do the same, unless they're talking
Speaker 1: about doing some sort of a crazy gene splicing situation,
Speaker 1: which maybe quite possibly. We keep hearing things about these
Speaker 1: dire wolves that they brought out, which are not actually
Speaker 1: dire wolves, but they keep acting like they are. But
Speaker 1: if they were able to do some sort of a
Speaker 1: cross breed or gene splice with the black fungui that
Speaker 1: can eat radiation and a plant that could thrive and
Speaker 1: possibly feed humans, Okay, that's say viable option here. I
Speaker 1: don't know if you've found anything as far as the
Speaker 1: space side of things go. But that's that is pretty remarkable.
Speaker 4: I'm still reading on it.
Speaker 7: It's the it's actually really interesting that they're talking about
Speaker 7: all sorts of different stuff that they've put this through.
Speaker 7: And I dropped it in the chat, like where it's
Speaker 7: actually been found before because I was I misspoke. I mean,
Speaker 7: from what I understood, it hadn't been found. But it
Speaker 7: says the high diversity of black funk Guy has however,
Speaker 7: been observed in rocky environments in sub arid areas of
Speaker 7: the Mediterranean, in the Arizona Desert, high Alpine regions, and
Speaker 7: the Arctic and dry Antarctica valleys, where micro colony species
Speaker 7: also known as rock inhibiting fungi, colonized exposed rock surfaces,
Speaker 7: or living associations with.
Speaker 6: Yep.
Speaker 7: Big words that like you know, they're they're hard time.
Speaker 1: If you can't pronounce them, then I got no chance.
Speaker 4: But you can't pronounce some of the stuff. I'm like, yep,
Speaker 4: I got you.
Speaker 7: I'm currently it's it's a huge sign, aentific article and
Speaker 7: it actually shows tons of photos and it breaks down.
Speaker 7: I'm trying to get it to show drop it in
Speaker 7: the chat. The mechanism stress tolerance that the fung guy
Speaker 7: was put under.
Speaker 4: It's actually a really cool.
Speaker 7: Like it's this is a really interesting fungus because it
Speaker 7: seems to be able to withstand pretty much everything. But
Speaker 7: I wonder what they would use it for. That's what
Speaker 7: I'm trying to get to. Like, it reminds me though
Speaker 7: of that weird like movie where they had that weird
Speaker 7: black fungus on board and then it was like came
Speaker 7: back and like attacked everybody.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I know, I know the movie you're talking about.
Speaker 1: Cannot remember the name of it, but yeah, one hundred percent.
Speaker 1: And that's that was the other thing I was going
Speaker 1: to say, like, all right, is there any potential dangers
Speaker 1: with this? It seems on the onset like it's a
Speaker 1: miracle fungus, right, And I see you in the chat there, Anthony.
Speaker 1: If that mushroom is of the magic variety, it would
Speaker 1: be an interesting trip. Dude. I don't know if i'd
Speaker 1: even want to play with that. You're talking about a
Speaker 1: mushroom that eats nuclear fall out to thrive. I don't
Speaker 1: think I want that problem. I don't want to know
Speaker 1: what that other side of the spirituality is with the
Speaker 1: radiation fungus that I don't know. I guess you'll like
Speaker 1: see the matrix of how nukes work that. Yeah, Merlin,
Speaker 1: I see your hand raised brother, Go ahead.
Speaker 6: Uh.
Speaker 5: Some of the uses I've seen for it, or that
Speaker 5: they're speculating is cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy, creating safer
Speaker 5: environments when those working in nuclear power plants, and potentially
Speaker 5: helping us to avoid the next nuclear related detachment. Scientists
Speaker 5: also hope that the black Funk Guy could be used
Speaker 5: to develop a biological source of energy via radiation conversion,
Speaker 5: but there are also more part fetched possibilities. Scientists wonder
Speaker 5: if the process and radiosynthesis performed by the melon in
Speaker 5: so of the fungu I could be applied to the
Speaker 5: melonin and human skin cells, making our skin cells able
Speaker 5: to turn radiation into food.
Speaker 1: So now they're trying to see if humans could do
Speaker 1: their own version of photosynthesis.
Speaker 5: Yes, wow, which would help E where to live on Mars.
Speaker 1: That would be dope. That would be really cool, except
Speaker 1: I'm irish as hell. I don't have melanin in my skin,
Speaker 1: some hasty white boy. I will say that certain demographics
Speaker 1: would benefit greatly from that, and like that would be dope.
Speaker 1: But yeah, for anybody of Northern European descent it, you know,
Speaker 1: I don't know, maybe they could make some sort I
Speaker 1: don't even know if this would be safe to ingest.
Speaker 1: Like I was gonna say, maybe they could make some
Speaker 1: food out of it. I heard Raven earlier say they
Speaker 1: were doing some sort of yeast with it. If there's
Speaker 1: so much, I.
Speaker 5: Wonder how much you would need to put on the
Speaker 5: Space Shuttle note to protect people from radiation.
Speaker 1: Right, it's not like you're gonna get a living fungus
Speaker 1: like that's not gonna make it through launch or through
Speaker 1: the atmosphere any of that stuff. So it's yeah, you
Speaker 1: would think I have no idea, But man, I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm happy to hear that nature has provided a way
Speaker 1: for us to clean up human made mess, you know
Speaker 1: what I mean. But oh yeah, and there's nothing but
Speaker 1: airon opportunities as far as what the scientific advancements can
Speaker 1: show for this and other treatments and all these things,
Speaker 1: like you said, like cancer patients, I don't know if
Speaker 1: they mean they're gonna implant some fungus near a spot
Speaker 1: that was getting heavy radiation treatment to kill a tumor
Speaker 1: or if they're talking about making some sort of ingestible
Speaker 1: uh medication treatment option. But there's a lot of potential
Speaker 1: for good things here.
Speaker 5: So what happens if you're here with too much radiation?
Speaker 5: Does it turn to the blob? Like that old ass movie?
Speaker 1: See that's that's the other thing, Just like Raven was saying,
Speaker 1: there's a movie where like a satellite had this black
Speaker 1: mold that kind of took over and did all this
Speaker 1: so like, and that's the thing inside of the burned
Speaker 1: out reactor in Chernobyl that's gotten no out thing but
Speaker 1: radioactive ways for it to just drink in and grow
Speaker 1: as big as it won. So it hasn't taken over
Speaker 1: Chernobyl as of yet, So I guess that's kind of
Speaker 1: a good litmus test. But at the same time, if
Speaker 1: it was in the vacuum of space and had nothing
Speaker 1: but solar radiation to eat, like, would it take over
Speaker 1: the craft? I mean, as of now, the ISS hasn't
Speaker 1: been taken over. Maybe it's a very controlled environment. I
Speaker 1: don't know. I don't know. Again, this was this was
Speaker 1: a wild one to bring up. Thank you Raven for
Speaker 1: sharing this one with me. Zach I could bring it
Speaker 1: up on this show. This is a weird thing I found.
Speaker 7: I found their astrobiology study section. It was like, they're
Speaker 7: talking about life outside the planet, beyond the planet of Earth,
Speaker 7: and they're talking about practical applications and considering.
Speaker 4: How biological organisms.
Speaker 7: May travel in space and view a space exploration, the
Speaker 7: impact on how space agencies design missions, as well as
Speaker 7: implications of planetary protection policies aiming to prevent the introduction
Speaker 7: of Earth origin or the originated life that may mislead
Speaker 7: future life detection missions. So it's like talking about potentially
Speaker 7: like bringing them to other planets, like bringing it to
Speaker 7: other planets and seeing like yep Mars and icy icy
Speaker 7: moons I eat.
Speaker 4: Antarctica is a part of it.
Speaker 7: To date, the studies have focused on testing the black
Speaker 7: fungi survival to space conditions throughout different stimulations, and so
Speaker 7: pretty much they want to take it to space.
Speaker 4: They want to see what happens.
Speaker 1: I mean, so do I gonna be honest with you,
Speaker 1: but yeah, I there's none but are an opportunity here
Speaker 1: and I don't know, maybe there are some like serious
Speaker 1: dangers and risks that are associated here that we just
Speaker 1: don't know about and we don't see I'll be very
Speaker 1: interested to see what the studies show and what their
Speaker 1: tests show as as far as this goes with the
Speaker 1: with the new studies that they're doing towards us new
Speaker 1: I would say, evolutionarily new fung guy. That is incredible.
Speaker 1: That's interesting stuff, y'all. Interesting stuff, all right. So now
Speaker 1: let's shift over to a little bit of a kaboom
Speaker 1: that happened in Utah with Northrop Grumman. Now, for anybody
Speaker 1: who doesn't know who Northrop Grumman is, highly recommend you
Speaker 1: go and check it out. They make a lot of
Speaker 1: things that go boom for the United States government. Right,
Speaker 1: they're one of our big military industrial contractors. And you know,
Speaker 1: we're gonna listen to the little news article about it,
Speaker 1: then we'll read a little bit more about it. It says here,
Speaker 1: Northern Utah news crews respond to a fire after Utah
Speaker 1: Northrop Grumman facility explodes.
Speaker 7: Tony, please say, a Northrop Grumman building is a total
Speaker 7: loss after it exploded.
Speaker 2: It happened in the remote town of Promontory.
Speaker 1: That's where we find ABC fors Nate Larson.
Speaker 2: Hey, do we know what may have caused us?
Speaker 8: You know, they're still speculating at this point, we haven't
Speaker 8: had an update on what the actual explosion was caused from.
Speaker 8: You can see the building though, just over my shoulder,
Speaker 8: and all the walls have been blown out, so definitely
Speaker 8: a total loss. We are told that the explosion was
Speaker 8: reported around seven thirty eight this morning, so it was
Speaker 8: a very early explosion. There weren't any initial reports of
Speaker 8: injuries or accidents to anybody. Now, just to give you
Speaker 8: a better idea of where we're at, so this is
Speaker 8: in very rural Box Elder County, about six miles south
Speaker 8: of Howell, and it's about halfway between the Golden Spike
Speaker 8: National Monument and Interstate eighty four. So all that's around
Speaker 8: us is industrial buildings and no homes are really close by. Now,
Speaker 8: with of course the emergency services on scene, they are
Speaker 8: currently managing the situation. Initial reports, as I mentioned, no
Speaker 8: injuries or fatalities have been reported by the Box Elder
Speaker 8: County Sheriff's office.
Speaker 1: We've reached out to.
Speaker 8: Any kind of PIO or response from Northrop Gremmen. We
Speaker 8: haven't heard back and they say there's no further information
Speaker 8: to release it this time. They want the public to try.
Speaker 9: To avoid the area.
Speaker 8: We're going to stay on site. We're gonna see if
Speaker 8: we can find some people that maybe heard the explosion
Speaker 8: or maybe know more about what happened. We'll bring you
Speaker 8: more updates later in our newscast at ABC four News
Speaker 8: at Fort Okay.
Speaker 1: So I doubt that we'll actually get any kind of
Speaker 1: explanation as to what happened. Like I said, they are
Speaker 1: one of our big military industrial contractors, so they're not
Speaker 1: going to talk. Even if it wasn't like some new
Speaker 1: experimental you know, bomb or or you know, armament. Maybe
Speaker 1: it was something that we mass produce and somebody crossed
Speaker 1: some wires that shouldn't have been crossed, or throw something
Speaker 1: flammable on something that shouldn't have had something flammable thrown
Speaker 1: on it. Who knows. It may have been a freak
Speaker 1: industrial accident, and the fact that it was at a
Speaker 1: North of Grumming facility is just really bad timing and planning. Like, okay, fine,
Speaker 1: that being said, we also we need to acknowledge the
Speaker 1: fact that it very well could have been some sort
Speaker 1: of new experimental armament that went kaboom when they tried
Speaker 1: to make it. But let's read it in here. It
Speaker 1: says a Promontory. Promontory, Utah emergency crews respond to a
Speaker 1: rural North Grumman facility in Box Elder County. God, they're
Speaker 1: very original with these names. After an explosion decimated the
Speaker 1: building early Wednesday morning, leaving what remains burning in a fire.
Speaker 1: I will say that I've seen videos of this. There
Speaker 1: wasn't like a mushroom cloud of any type. There's no
Speaker 1: as we were just talking about radiation. It's nothing like nuclear.
Speaker 1: It's nothing of that variety. It was a really big
Speaker 1: kaboom and it completely destroyed the building. You can see
Speaker 1: these pictures, it says. However, with as with all ongoing investigations,
Speaker 1: details may change. There is no further information available at
Speaker 1: this time. One family member of a North of Grumman
Speaker 1: employee spoke with ABC four, saying she received a text
Speaker 1: right away after a brother in law saying he was safe,
Speaker 1: even before she heard the news. Another said he reached
Speaker 1: out to his dad as soon as he saw the smoke.
Speaker 1: I've seen some smoke and then I sent a text
Speaker 1: to my dad because he works out there. But by
Speaker 1: the time the text went through, I heard the explosion.
Speaker 1: Local resident Tyler Free said it actually felt like the
Speaker 1: motor blew up in the truck. I don't exactly know
Speaker 1: what he's implying on that one, but yeah, he could
Speaker 1: feel a kaboom. The explosion came after several complaints about
Speaker 1: the facility were filed with the US Occupational Safety and
Speaker 1: Health Administration aka OSHA aka the bane of my existence
Speaker 1: over the past several years. The reports included health violations, accidents,
Speaker 1: and safety complaints. It is currently unclear what caused the explosion,
Speaker 1: but the building appears to be a complete loss. In
Speaker 1: one incident, two employees died after they were found unconscious
Speaker 1: at the facility in early twenty twenty three. The death
Speaker 1: was caused by ar gone gas, which officials said suffocated them.
Speaker 1: While their deaths were ruled as accidents, OSHA filed thirteen
Speaker 1: citations related to the incident, finding the company more than
Speaker 1: one hundred and seventy two thousand dollars. All right, that actually,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna read that one again because that actually kind
Speaker 1: of upsets me. So two dudes died, OSHA found and
Speaker 1: filed thirteen citations related to this incident and only find
Speaker 1: them one hundred and seventy two thousand dollars. That's not
Speaker 1: even like a decent life insurance policy's worth that they
Speaker 1: find North Grumming one of the biggest weapons manufacturers on Earth.
Speaker 1: But okay, sure that's worth two deaths. The citations were
Speaker 1: deemed serious quote unquote in nature and related to respiratory
Speaker 1: protections and permits required for confined spaces. So, being somebody
Speaker 1: who has worked in confined spaces before, I will say
Speaker 1: working under air sucks. There's no two ways about it.
Speaker 1: Same time, like, yeah, certain environments you really need to
Speaker 1: go under air for you need to have ventilation, or
Speaker 1: you need to get a confined space permit. You need
Speaker 1: to get the little snow if we're out there, and
Speaker 1: monitor and make sure what the oxygen level is before
Speaker 1: you step inside of it. I hate Osha. God, I
Speaker 1: hate Osha so much, But I will say that safety
Speaker 1: requirements and safety policies are quite literally written in blood,
Speaker 1: and there's no two ways about that either. But this explosion,
Speaker 1: as of this very moment, no injuries, no fatalities. I
Speaker 1: don't know the extent of what happened. I don't know
Speaker 1: the extent of you know, if Osha is even going
Speaker 1: to weigh in on this one, if this was a
Speaker 1: freak accident. Was this dealing with some sort of explosive materials,
Speaker 1: some sort of armament. Nothing is known, but something happened
Speaker 1: with Northrop Grumman. I felt like it was our duty
Speaker 1: to kind of talk about it. So moving on, here
Speaker 1: go ahead, Tony.
Speaker 9: Hey, this reminded me of something I heard of from
Speaker 9: about one hundred years ago called the Black Tom explosion.
Speaker 9: Have you ever heard of it?
Speaker 1: I feel like I have, but refresh my memory, sir.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 9: During World War One, it was producing loads of ammunition
Speaker 9: in New York State near the Statue of Liberty, and
Speaker 9: a couple of German spies blew up something like hundreds
Speaker 9: of thousands of pounds worth of explosives and it actually
Speaker 9: damaged the Statue of Liberty, killed seven people, and a
Speaker 9: couple of German spies were caught and one of them
Speaker 9: was executed. There's a whole Wikipedia article on it. But
Speaker 9: you can understand why somebody would have an incentive to
Speaker 9: do that at that time, you know, for the war effort.
Speaker 1: Yeah, now, I mean, and that's the thing. It's very
Speaker 1: possible that this was some sort of like nefarious actor.
Speaker 1: I could absolutely believe that we don't know anything at
Speaker 1: this time, And honestly, even if it was, if they
Speaker 1: have some sort of like video evidence that like they
Speaker 1: saw a guy sneak on site and like causes, we
Speaker 1: are never going to hear about that. This is going
Speaker 1: to be locked so deep under rat well at least
Speaker 1: maybe maybe ten, fifteen, twenty years in the future, we'd
Speaker 1: hear about it. But if that was true and something,
Speaker 1: and I know I could already hear the people talking
Speaker 1: about being that close to the border and how we
Speaker 1: know that terrorists are already in this country that made
Speaker 1: their way through the sieve that was our southern border
Speaker 1: for the last few years. It's very possible this some
Speaker 1: sort of nefarious actor made their way to this site
Speaker 1: and caused this explosion. It, yes, it's possible. I can't
Speaker 1: negate that that is a real potential now, But that's
Speaker 1: the thing. If that was the case, the building is
Speaker 1: a total loss. But it's not like that was north
Speaker 1: of Grumman's only spot, right, and it's not like it
Speaker 1: killed a bunch of people. It didn't leave some massive
Speaker 1: crater in the ground. I see it being very equally
Speaker 1: possible that this was from some sort of a foreign actor.
Speaker 1: It could also be something as far as some sort
Speaker 1: of espionage goes, I get that it could equally be
Speaker 1: just a freak industrial accident. As of this moment, thankfully,
Speaker 1: nobody has been reported as injured or killed. But as
Speaker 1: the story progresses, I will keep tabs on this and
Speaker 1: we will talk about it. Hopefully we won't have to
Speaker 1: talk about it. Hopefully that just is what it is,
Speaker 1: the freak accent. We never bring it up again, but
Speaker 1: if more information comes out about it, I'll bring it
Speaker 1: up on the next Cajun Night Live. Let me see
Speaker 1: me before we go into the Arctic Circle, and how
Speaker 1: and why that's becoming more important. Let me check out
Speaker 1: the chat here, Roy says Jacob. I told you I'd
Speaker 1: help teach you Hebrew. Yo, I do want to learn it.
Speaker 1: I do want to learn it one of these days,
Speaker 1: specifically so I can learn a lot of the Old
Speaker 1: Testament and read it in the proper language and like
Speaker 1: understand the entire meaning of it. It's a part of
Speaker 1: my book, dude, one of these days, but not to day.
Speaker 6: You know what I mean, No, for sure. But one
Speaker 6: thing I'll tell you is that there's an interesting in iteration.
Speaker 6: But like so with Hebrew, there's the modern Hebrew, and
Speaker 6: there's Hebrew. A lot of the words are very close,
Speaker 6: if not identical. Some of the grammar is what'stiff And
Speaker 6: because I spent a couple of years really kind of
Speaker 6: getting into Hebrew. And there's a book that I was
Speaker 6: learning from that it was specifically a modern Hebrew book.
Speaker 6: But after I finished learning through that book, I was
Speaker 6: actually able to understand so much more of the tour
Speaker 6: itself because also you go through these seven wonderful verb
Speaker 6: verb categories, which is fun, too active, too passive, and
Speaker 6: a reflexive. So but if you're if you're a pattern
Speaker 6: oriented like you said you were, it's it's actually not
Speaker 6: so bad.
Speaker 1: Oh not bad. One of these days, bro oh, let
Speaker 1: me ask you this, Do you know any Aramaic.
Speaker 6: Some phrases only because I'm studying the timeloid. But besides that,
Speaker 6: like I can't speak it, there are people that I
Speaker 6: know that can and they understand Gamara Aramic as far
Speaker 6: as spoken, like it's not so it's a that language
Speaker 6: as far as it's not actively spoken, but at least
Speaker 6: by thousands of Jews around the world, it is actively
Speaker 6: taught and.
Speaker 5: Learned.
Speaker 1: Okay, So Aramic, I thought my knowledge base is very
Speaker 1: low here. The language they speak in Israel right now,
Speaker 1: that's Hebrew correct, Okay, So that's the same language that
Speaker 1: they've been speaking for like three thousand years or four thousand,
Speaker 1: order the cases. Okay, So Aramaic was like a dialect
Speaker 1: of it. I've asked before. I think how closely related
Speaker 1: they are as far as the conversion, is it kind
Speaker 1: of like uh, Spanish and Italian. They're both Latin based,
Speaker 1: and some of the words kind of sound alike, but
Speaker 1: they're very very different. Or is it more akin to
Speaker 1: like a like a.
Speaker 6: It's a different language. It's it's definitely definitely a Semitic
Speaker 6: language that they used to speak for a very very
Speaker 6: long time that has that has gone died out. But
Speaker 6: like it's it's hard like so you can spell the
Speaker 6: letters out in the Hebrew letters. But as far as
Speaker 6: how that was actually spelled back in the day from
Speaker 6: other places, I can tell you probably not.
Speaker 1: Got you okay, Tony, I saw your hand was raised, brother,
Speaker 1: what's up?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 9: About the language, I learned a bit about this studying
Speaker 9: for our episode on Islam. But Aramic was the main
Speaker 9: language of the Middle East north of the Arabian Peninsula.
Speaker 9: Including Syria, Iraq, Jordan until the reign of Abdal Malik,
Speaker 9: who reigned in about six ninety eight, which would be
Speaker 9: about thirty years after Mohammad died. Right, Okay, but you
Speaker 9: know that was what brought Arabic from the Arabian Peninsula.
Speaker 9: Actually they were speaking it in Jordan too, but it
Speaker 9: brought it way up north and it kind of drove
Speaker 9: Aramaic to extinction, virtual extinction. And Hebrew was also mostly extinct,
Speaker 9: but they they've been revived, at least Hebrew has. It's
Speaker 9: kind of like I guess Gaelic similar story, or even
Speaker 9: even Latin. It mostly died out. It's actually still dying
Speaker 9: because the Catholic Church was keeping it alive until the sixties,
Speaker 9: and now they don't really have an incentive to keep
Speaker 9: doing that anymore either.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's such as life fuddle a Latin mass. I
Speaker 1: want to go to one just to see what that's about.
Speaker 1: I feel like the vibe will be completely different.
Speaker 9: Oh yeah, I've been to a couple. They're hard to find.
Speaker 9: The Novus Ordo people have been very effective and trying
Speaker 9: to squash it, and they loathe it for some reason. Yeah,
Speaker 9: I've spent too much time, you know, in different Catholic churches,
Speaker 9: and especially the boomers, like they really hate Latin in
Speaker 9: general and they try to squash it. And I've never
Speaker 9: understood it. I really liked learning, and when I was
Speaker 9: about ten to fifteen years old.
Speaker 1: I think it was because they were forced to learn it.
Speaker 1: It's like their own version of rebelling against Like the
Speaker 1: nuns used to slap their wrists with the rulers and
Speaker 1: shit when they were like, you know, coming of age.
Speaker 1: Now they're like, no, actually Latin.
Speaker 10: Now.
Speaker 1: Cut to a couple of decades later and we're like, hey,
Speaker 1: Latin's kind of cool, like I want to learn. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that might be the boomer version of rebelling. I could
Speaker 1: see it also real quick, while we're on the version
Speaker 1: of the conversation of languages Royce Yiddish. How close is
Speaker 1: that to Hebrew? Or is it very similar to the
Speaker 1: whole Aramic conversation that's like a completely separate language.
Speaker 6: So Yiddish is actually a German dialect that is spelled
Speaker 6: out in Hebrew.
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, so it's a German language, but they use
Speaker 1: Hebrew lettering.
Speaker 6: Right, So obviously Germans aren't gonna necessarily speak Yiddish, but
Speaker 6: it is a it is a Jewish dialect of German,
Speaker 6: to where there is something called Ladino, which is basically
Speaker 6: a mix of I think Spanish and Hebrew and other phrases.
Speaker 9: Yeah, it's mostly German. If I see it written out
Speaker 9: and transliterated into Roman characters, I can actually understand a
Speaker 9: good chunk of it. And when most Jews were living
Speaker 9: in the pale of Settlement, which was east of Germany
Speaker 9: and west of what is now Russia, most of them
Speaker 9: spoke Yiddish. They didn't speak Slavic languages, so they didn't
Speaker 9: intermingle much with the Slavs until you know, mid to
Speaker 9: late nineteenth century from what I've read, and maybe hard
Speaker 9: g can confirm that or deny that.
Speaker 6: For me, I don't know enough about it to be honest,
Speaker 6: but that that makes sense to me. I know that
Speaker 6: for a very long time, Yiddish was the spoke luggage
Speaker 6: because it was the when I say profane tongue like
Speaker 6: leslie means profanity, but just like the normal everyday language,
Speaker 6: as opposed to Hebrew, which was used specifically for prayer
Speaker 6: and tara.
Speaker 1: And that makes sense all so there's like you could
Speaker 1: look at even the Greek dialect or the Latin dialect.
Speaker 1: It's like you have the Latin proper, and then you
Speaker 1: had the Latin vulgate. Now they don't mean vulgar Latin
Speaker 1: as in like it's bad words, but also it's more
Speaker 1: of the common tongue, So I get what you mean
Speaker 1: by that, right.
Speaker 6: And then also one then other thing that you guys
Speaker 6: were to talk about as far as the Latin and churches,
Speaker 6: and so I don't know at what point it was
Speaker 6: didn't really happen so so long ago when it was there,
Speaker 6: when there was the Reform movement, because so basically this
Speaker 6: entire time you had religious dutism, which is now considered
Speaker 6: work box. And then there are people that wanted to
Speaker 6: offshoot from there, and they actually became the Reform movement,
Speaker 6: which is like so far to the left. And then
Speaker 6: and then a short time later you had these guys like,
Speaker 6: all right, well, you guys are too far right, you
Speaker 6: guys are too far left. We're gonna try to go
Speaker 6: to the middle road, which is how the conservatives are
Speaker 6: basically came into me. But so when it comes to
Speaker 6: all Orthodox synagogues, they are all parading Hebrew, doesn't matter
Speaker 6: who can or cannot understand the language. Like if you're
Speaker 6: coming here, you will either pick up a language or
Speaker 6: you will try to follow along. But I think that
Speaker 6: was enacted to keep the religion as it is, because
Speaker 6: when you start watering things down, as you know, things
Speaker 6: just keep getting less and less and less and less
Speaker 6: and less. So I think they made it because when
Speaker 6: they came to America, and you know, assimilation was such
Speaker 6: a big thing. Like my great grandfather who emigrated from Poland,
Speaker 6: I know he knew Hebrew, he knew Polish, he probably
Speaker 6: knew Russian Yiddish like, but he didn't pass it down
Speaker 6: because they wanted to assimilate with the US. And also
Speaker 6: during that period of time, it wasn't so great to
Speaker 6: be Jews. Yeah, but just in order to keep the
Speaker 6: religion as it is, they the rabbi has basically decided, look,
Speaker 6: we are not going to take Hebrew out of the
Speaker 6: synagogues because even one of the things that we're taught
Speaker 6: is that one of the things that made the Jews
Speaker 6: specific special in Egypt whenever we were and we were slaves,
Speaker 6: is that we kept our clothing, style, our names, and
Speaker 6: our language. So those are the three big things that
Speaker 6: we used to keep so having our own specific language
Speaker 6: at least as far as prayer has always been a
Speaker 6: huge Oh.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, And I mean you could look at that through
Speaker 1: cultures that have been taken over in conquested throughout history.
Speaker 1: One of the first things that they try to do
Speaker 1: is make it to where they can only speak the
Speaker 1: language of their conqueror. Right, if a culture is able
Speaker 1: to keep their language, they're able to maintain their culture,
Speaker 1: or at least it stems from there. And I think
Speaker 1: even a raven You've talked about this with me a
Speaker 1: few times. How on an anthropological standpoint, religion and language
Speaker 1: are kind of hand in hand as far as what
Speaker 1: gives a civilization their cultural identity. Now, I know there's
Speaker 1: nuances to that, tons of it based off of where
Speaker 1: they live on the earth and all these things, but
Speaker 1: you can't separate a culture from their language necessarily unless
Speaker 1: you're trying to dissolve the entire culture.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 7: They What's interesting about language is that every culture and
Speaker 7: even every village tribe has a slight variation difference in
Speaker 7: dialect from each each other, just like in Louisiana, like
Speaker 7: if you're from across the river, you can tell without
Speaker 7: a doubt the different sections where people are from by
Speaker 7: how they speak, and that goes from for religion too.
Speaker 7: It seems like the religious, depending on which group they
Speaker 7: have specific words that gets translated, but they also end
Speaker 7: up having slang terms depending on which section they're in
Speaker 7: and which little cultural group that they vibe with.
Speaker 4: Anthropologists that study language, they.
Speaker 7: Talk a lot about like how language is passed, Like
Speaker 7: language is one of the biggest things that anthropologists study
Speaker 7: is because it has evolved and changed so much every
Speaker 7: hundred years.
Speaker 4: It's it's challenging.
Speaker 7: Like you guys are talking about aramic, but no one
Speaker 7: here alive knows what it actually sounded like originally, and
Speaker 7: so what everyone's reading it or speaking it, it has
Speaker 7: evolved and changed to what it is what people perceive
Speaker 7: it to be originally. There is no actual origination because
Speaker 7: we didn't have audio recordings, so it's all kind of
Speaker 7: a guessing game of like this is what I think
Speaker 7: this would sound like, and then it kind.
Speaker 4: Of just changes.
Speaker 7: Each person here's a different sound, and a lot of
Speaker 7: times they tweak it just to their own, so I
Speaker 7: would sound.
Speaker 1: I would agree with you on ninety nine percent of that,
Speaker 1: And like, for instance, the ancient Egyptian language. We think
Speaker 1: we know what it sounds like because of the Egyptian
Speaker 1: coptics and like the way that they transcribe the language,
Speaker 1: but we don't actually know like the language that Tut
Speaker 1: was speaking like, we don't exactly know what that sounds like.
Speaker 1: We can guesstimate, right, but through certain writings we can
Speaker 1: at least see how the language like traversed time and
Speaker 1: changed over time, but as far as how it actually
Speaker 1: sounded and speaking it with the proper accents and the
Speaker 1: proper inflections and stuff, one hundred percent agreed. The only
Speaker 1: that I know of anyway, and there may very possibly
Speaker 1: be a few outliers on this one. The only language
Speaker 1: that I can think of that might stand out as
Speaker 1: being truly passed down orally that long would be Hebrew,
Speaker 1: because they've been able to keep it through everything that
Speaker 1: they went through for religious reasons, and it was passed
Speaker 1: down orally person to person a person. The only other
Speaker 1: ones that I could think that might possibly get away
Speaker 1: with that kind of statement would be like uncontacted tribes
Speaker 1: in the Amazon or something like that, But then they're
Speaker 1: also out of the conversation because we don't actually know
Speaker 1: their language anyway, But yeah, one hundred percent. And I
Speaker 1: also go ahead, Royce.
Speaker 6: Oh, I'm gonna say, is as far as the error
Speaker 6: make we've been study We've had the Babylonian kamud literally
Speaker 6: for the past two thousand years at least, probably it
Speaker 6: started to be compiled about seventy AD. So it's been
Speaker 6: taught and verbal, like what the way you study gamara
Speaker 6: is verbally like there's actually kind of a canter and
Speaker 6: melody that you are supposed to learn to. So like
Speaker 6: these words have been spoken out loud in a certain
Speaker 6: melody for a thousand years, So how is it how
Speaker 6: it originally sounded? I would say there is a ninety
Speaker 6: nine percent chance. So it also just a phrase I
Speaker 6: know in Ara makers like what's the like the nav
Speaker 6: camina or the havamina? So enough, Gamena is like what's
Speaker 6: the practical application of something? As opposed to manischma, which
Speaker 6: is Hebrew for like what's up? So just the difference
Speaker 6: in how languages are.
Speaker 1: Uh said, Yeah, and that's what I was saying. There's
Speaker 1: there's only a few culture outliers that the language had
Speaker 1: to be passed down orally. And if it has been
Speaker 1: passed down orally then like we can at least assert
Speaker 1: that it was passed down to the traditional and correct
Speaker 1: translation and correct pronunciation. But still there's outliers, you know,
Speaker 1: culture to culture, Like I don't know for a fact
Speaker 1: that the using Hebrew as an example, I don't know
Speaker 1: for a fact that the Polish dudes in a synagogue
Speaker 1: are speaking it in the exact perfect way that the
Speaker 1: dudes in Jerusalem are that the dudes in New York
Speaker 1: City are, Like I can, I can assume this, but
Speaker 1: I'm sure that there is some sort of a difference
Speaker 1: in some way shape or as far as like.
Speaker 6: Sure, sure, and also there's a difference between like someone
Speaker 6: who speaks like with an Ashkenazi sure pronunciation or a
Speaker 6: spartic so like the difference would be like I mean,
Speaker 6: just in general like uh, sheer shallon to tova, but
Speaker 6: it's definitely gonna sound different, like the there's a letter
Speaker 6: called soft are tough, and depending on whether or not
Speaker 6: there is a dot in the center will actually determine
Speaker 6: what it is as far as the most however, somebody
Speaker 6: who is as far as they you know, they don't
Speaker 6: do anything either way, but just so just to know
Speaker 6: the difference between how Hebrew sounds as opposed to Aramaic.
Speaker 6: So there's a phrase, don't ask for me to translate it,
Speaker 6: I just know how to how to speak it that
Speaker 6: he's So that's an example of Aramaic as opposed to
Speaker 6: zahor about lid show so difference. So there's a clear
Speaker 6: difference in how for for sure, sometimes it's like such
Speaker 6: a crazy tongue twister.
Speaker 1: No doubt, Raven, I saw your hand raise Go ahead, Oh,
Speaker 1: I was.
Speaker 7: Just gonna comment that, Like, I'm not saying that there
Speaker 7: isn't specific groups that have had a verbal passed down.
Speaker 4: The thing about it is is that you.
Speaker 7: Have to that how just like how you were speaking it, Royce,
Speaker 7: you were influenced the way that you've learned and you've
Speaker 7: listened and spoken regular words in that dialect about being
Speaker 7: just an American, you will have a nuance that is
Speaker 7: not the same as somebody else that has spoken it
Speaker 7: in a different place, and so on and so forth,
Speaker 7: and so for thousands of years, yes, the language has
Speaker 7: been pronunciated and passed down, but every single person has
Speaker 7: an environmental and a social impact and a cultural impact
Speaker 7: on how they perceive and listen and speak.
Speaker 4: All languages, and so to say.
Speaker 7: It is one hundred percent or ninety nine percent correct
Speaker 7: to true to form from a thousand years ago, I'm
Speaker 7: going to disagree, because that is it's there is, it's
Speaker 7: a multifaceted thing to be a human. And so in
Speaker 7: every culture, sure you will continuously have changes, even if
Speaker 7: there's slight nuances over time they will change.
Speaker 1: A word, Yeah, the telephone, but like that two hundred years,
Speaker 1: let alone a thousand years, what does it actually sound like.
Speaker 1: I see what you mean for sure, for sure.
Speaker 6: And then that was coming from someone who doesn't who
Speaker 6: isn't an anthropologist, So I for sure bat on my head,
Speaker 6: and I have no problem to be corrected. So thank
Speaker 6: you very much.
Speaker 1: And also, as we're talking about languages, so I just
Speaker 1: learned this one today. Actually, so Native American tribes, native
Speaker 1: American languages, like the linguistic families thereof haven't been studied
Speaker 1: improper to the level that they should have been for
Speaker 1: the past few hundred years. Four reasons. Not saying that's
Speaker 1: a good thing, either of these reasons, but there's reasons, right,
Speaker 1: So just found out that, all right, So when we
Speaker 1: talk about New York area, the Iroquois nation, then you
Speaker 1: go just below that and you're talking about like the
Speaker 1: Cherokee linguistic family. Below that the uh I think it
Speaker 1: might be Muskogee language nation, and then the Seminole nation. Okay,
Speaker 1: these four linguistic groups all come from completely unrelated families, right,
Speaker 1: So to give everybody a context of how crazy that is,
Speaker 1: this would be Spain, Italy, Greece, and Portugal all speaking
Speaker 1: languages that come from completely different linguistic families. Like we
Speaker 1: think of that and we hear, all, yeah, they all
Speaker 1: have their different languages, but they're all basically Romance languages
Speaker 1: with the exception of Greek. I get that. But to
Speaker 1: say that all of the these Native American tribes who
Speaker 1: were neighboring to each other couldn't understand each other. And
Speaker 1: this is just per the current study goes, because they
Speaker 1: came from completely separate areas of the world, and then
Speaker 1: out of nowhere you had this little section in Louisiana
Speaker 1: that had no connection to anything other than just themselves linguistically,
Speaker 1: and they were like isolated that in that language. It
Speaker 1: is crazy to watch how languages traverse and to see
Speaker 1: the linguistic families and how that goes into different cultures.
Speaker 1: And I mean, I'm happy that the Native American talking
Speaker 1: point is getting more credibility these days and getting looked
Speaker 1: at for the for the historical precedents that they are.
Speaker 1: But see, that's another one too. We know this now
Speaker 1: based off of like written sources, and we could kind
Speaker 1: of tell based off of some linguistic things, but how
Speaker 1: many of those languages were snuffed out with the trail
Speaker 1: of tears, right, and with the westward expansion and all
Speaker 1: these things. It's there's assumptions that could be made to
Speaker 1: say that the true Choctaw language and the true Navajo
Speaker 1: language like the one the wind talkers were using, right,
Speaker 1: that we can assume that that is the true language
Speaker 1: that was being spoken by these tribes a thousand years ago.
Speaker 1: But the same thing happens, right, game of telephone and
Speaker 1: the westward expansion and the trying to snuff out all
Speaker 1: cultural relevance of each of these tribes. How can we
Speaker 1: really know that for sure? But again, I'm happy that
Speaker 1: experts and historians and anthropologists are looking at it for
Speaker 1: what it is these days.
Speaker 9: Tony, go ahead, Yeah, have you ever heard of the
Speaker 9: Lone Woman of San Nicolas or have you ever had
Speaker 9: to read Island the Blue Dolphin in elementary school.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 9: This is a real woman who was stranded on an
Speaker 9: island off the coast of la for like twenty years,
Speaker 9: and when they finally found her in about eighteen seventy,
Speaker 9: she spoke a language that nobody could understand, not even
Speaker 9: any of the other Native Americans or people who spoke
Speaker 9: any native languages in that area. And when they brought
Speaker 9: her to the mainland, she died after about three weeks
Speaker 9: because her immune system wasn't prepared to be around other people.
Speaker 9: But yeah, she must. She spoke some language, and something
Speaker 9: happened to all her people, like all her people left
Speaker 9: and she was the only only one left. And she
Speaker 9: still remembered the language and could speak it, but nobody
Speaker 9: else could understand it because the diversity of the native
Speaker 9: languages was just so much. And I've seen this guy
Speaker 9: on YouTube called Chiama. He tries to learn languages just
Speaker 9: for fun, and he tried to learn Navajo and he
Speaker 9: said that was the most complicated because the cases for
Speaker 9: all the nouns and the verbs just overlap way more
Speaker 9: than anything. He said, it's like a Rubik's cube in
Speaker 9: terms of grammar.
Speaker 1: So yeah, that's the kind of heavier set, white guy
Speaker 1: that goes to all these different countries and like blows
Speaker 1: people's minds when he's able to speak it.
Speaker 9: Yeah, he's that guy prop to like one hundred languages
Speaker 9: by now. But yeah, that would also explain why those
Speaker 9: Navajo they were code talkers. And World War Two, and
Speaker 9: I think world War one as well.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure I know for sure world War two.
Speaker 1: I don't know about World War One, but yeah, they
Speaker 1: knew for sure that there's no Japanese or German expert
Speaker 1: of anything that's going to be able to decipher the
Speaker 1: novel language like at all. So I thought that was
Speaker 1: brilliant as far as the Americans go at that time.
Speaker 1: Oh and speaking of dead languages, and now we're talking
Speaker 1: about these things. So I only know of one other
Speaker 1: situation kind of similar to this. So there's two guys
Speaker 1: on Earth that speak this dialect of like it's not Spanish.
Speaker 1: Some are saying that it's like a dialect of the
Speaker 1: traditional Aztec language. There's only two guys that still speak
Speaker 1: it to this day, and they refuse to speak to
Speaker 1: each other because of some long standing blood feud. They're
Speaker 1: both in their eighties, and once they died, the language
Speaker 1: dies with them. And I thought that was so crazy,
Speaker 1: Like y'all could communicate in a langua that no one
Speaker 1: else knows. But y'all don't want to talk to each
Speaker 1: other because there's beef. That's the pettiness of humanity, honestly.
Speaker 1: But yeah, fascinating stuff, y'all. Fascinating stuff. All right. So
Speaker 1: now we've gone into this whole conversation about languages and stuff,
Speaker 1: Let's talk about the Arctic. Because I didn't realize that
Speaker 1: the Arctic was such a count intended hotbed of conversation.
Speaker 1: But wait a minute, Oh, this is about the dead
Speaker 1: women in New England. My bad. Apparently the Arctic is
Speaker 1: becoming like a hot topic, especially in the twenty first century, right,
Speaker 1: so let's talk about it here. The Arctic is one
Speaker 1: of the coldest and least populated regions on Earth. Most
Speaker 1: much of it is covered by ice, but in recent
Speaker 1: years it has become one of the most important sites
Speaker 1: of geopolitical tension and a key focus of American policy. Yes,
Speaker 1: we are going to talk about the Greenland situation. Yes,
Speaker 1: Russia's gonna get brought up here. I get it, I
Speaker 1: get it. Hold your allegiances to whatever you want. But
Speaker 1: the North Pole hasn't been a real situation to be
Speaker 1: discussed at all in quite some time, and now it
Speaker 1: is really becoming that all right. So despite its inhospility,
Speaker 1: in hospitality, people can't live there. Land north of the
Speaker 1: Arctic Circle has long been inhabited by indigenous people like
Speaker 1: the Inuit sami Yukagar and today includes territories belonging to
Speaker 1: the eight countries Canada, Russia, Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark,
Speaker 1: and the United States. In nineteen ninety six, these countries
Speaker 1: formed the Arctic Council, a forum that includes all eight
Speaker 1: countries as member states, along with representatives from indigenous groups.
Speaker 1: But while the Arctic was once envisioned as a neutral
Speaker 1: zone where research and conservation could promote deeper international cooperation,
Speaker 1: multiple developments since then have turned into a site of competition.
Speaker 1: The number one issue facing in the Arctic is climate change. Yes,
Speaker 1: here we go with that. Since the nineteen nineties, the
Speaker 1: Arctic Sea has declined by seven point six trillion metric tons,
Speaker 1: with the rate of loss increasing fifty seven percent. Besides
Speaker 1: contributing to rising sea levels, the loss of ice also
Speaker 1: reduces global solar reflection. This creates feedback loop as the
Speaker 1: darker ocean water absorbs more heat, causing more ice to melt,
Speaker 1: adversely affecting global weather patterns. The meltic Arctic ice. Melting
Speaker 1: Arctic ice also directly affects local wildlife, with polar bear
Speaker 1: populations projected to decline by two thirds in the next
Speaker 1: quarter century as they lose their hunting grounds. Okay, I'm
Speaker 1: personally not upset about that. They're the only animal on
Speaker 1: Earth that actually goes out of their way to hunt
Speaker 1: human beings as a food source. So, like, you know,
Speaker 1: I don't care what Coca Cola tells you. Polar bears
Speaker 1: are not cute, and like they're the only they are
Speaker 1: probably the most dangerous predator to human life. But neither
Speaker 1: here nor there, but where some sea environmental disaster other
Speaker 1: sea opportunity. The melting ice is making Arctic trade routes
Speaker 1: more navigable, providing shorter distances for transoceanic shipping and current
Speaker 1: lanes using the Suez and Panama Canals. Furthermore, increased navigability
Speaker 1: is expanding potent for exploration and extraction of natural resources.
Speaker 1: The Arctic region is estimated to hold over twenty percent
Speaker 1: of the world's remaining fossil fuel reserves, with over four
Speaker 1: hundred oil and gas fields already discovered. Both the seabed
Speaker 1: and offshore areas also hold vast quantities of minerals, ranging
Speaker 1: from staple commodities like iron, gold, nickel, and zinc to
Speaker 1: rare earth metals such as neodymium and dysporesium, which are
Speaker 1: used in electronics, batteries and technology. Even traditional sub subsistence
Speaker 1: activity may be greatly altered and expanded as global warming
Speaker 1: leads fish stocks to migrate north and more coastal land
Speaker 1: becomes available for agriculture. Okay, so aside from the global
Speaker 1: warming conversation, although that would be why it's more navigable
Speaker 1: now than it's ever been. That's kind of the biggie here,
Speaker 1: right It holds allegedly over twenty percent of the remaining
Speaker 1: fossil fuels on Earth, and it has rare earths, and
Speaker 1: as of right now, China is making a massive push
Speaker 1: for all the rare earths because they process them in
Speaker 1: plants that produce a lot of toxins that we don't
Speaker 1: like to produce in America. China really doesn't have like
Speaker 1: an Osha to speak of. So the fact that we
Speaker 1: have rare or at least access to rare earths that
Speaker 1: don't have to go through China, that's kind of a
Speaker 1: biggie here, right. Yet, economic opportunities in the Arctic are
Speaker 1: emerging at a time of increased geopolitical tensions, as countries
Speaker 1: scrambled to secure resources, state territorial claims, and develop facilities.
Speaker 1: With fifty three percent of the Arctic coastline under its control,
Speaker 1: Russia has the largest presence in the region in terms
Speaker 1: of civil ports like Murmansk and Argengelsk YEP, as well
Speaker 1: as multiple airfields and military bases along its northern border.
Speaker 1: More recently, Russia has moved to expand its claims in
Speaker 1: the Arctic Sea bed, at the same time that the
Speaker 1: invasion of Ukraine in twenty twenty two has led to
Speaker 1: other members of the Arctic Council to suspend cooperation with Moscow.
Speaker 1: I could believe that while land jurisdiction in the Arctic
Speaker 1: is largely settled aside from a few disputes, maritime claims
Speaker 1: are much more complex. Control over Arctic waters is generally
Speaker 1: governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of
Speaker 1: the Sea, which defines multiple types of territorial waters where
Speaker 1: a nation may have the right to restrict activity of
Speaker 1: foreign vessels. The range from internal waters that are considered
Speaker 1: part of the nation's sovereign territory to exclusive economic zones
Speaker 1: where foreign ships may travel freely but cannot extract resources.
Speaker 1: Although the United States played a formative role in the
Speaker 1: negotiating the treaty and abides by most of its provisions,
Speaker 1: it remains one of the few countries that has not
Speaker 1: formally acceded to it because of concerns about limitations in
Speaker 1: places on seabed mining. Even among the UN's Group signatories. However,
Speaker 1: boundaries definitions can vary. Boundary definitions excuse me. While Canada
Speaker 1: considers part of the Northwest Passage to lie within its
Speaker 1: territorial waters, for example, most other nations, including the United States,
Speaker 1: consider it to be an international rate where foreign ships
Speaker 1: may transit. Similarly, Russia has claimed part of the Northeast
Speaker 1: Passage along its northern coastline as internal waters, moving to
Speaker 1: restrict right of passage in areas where it was previously allowed.
Speaker 1: Given these disputes, the Transpolar Sea route through the Center
Speaker 1: of the Arctic Ocean, which lies fully in internal waters.
Speaker 1: International waters rather, will become more attractive as polar ice
Speaker 1: continues to thaw. Okay, so all that it says here,
Speaker 1: Now we're going to go into China here. The increasing
Speaker 1: importance of the Arctic has attracted the attention of other
Speaker 1: powers without Arctic territory. Several of these states have been
Speaker 1: omitted as observers in the Arctic Council, including Germany, the
Speaker 1: United Kingdom, Japan, and South Korea. China, which is also
Speaker 1: an observer, has unilaterally declared itself a near Arctic state.
Speaker 1: In what realm is China a near Arctic state? But
Speaker 1: that's how she sees things and draws maps, and has
Speaker 1: expanded both research and commercial activity in the regent by
Speaker 1: partnering with Russia, as well as investing in infrastructure in Norway,
Speaker 1: Iceland and Greenland. I'm sure they found a way to
Speaker 1: rope that into the Belton Road initiative. Anyway, China's increased
Speaker 1: present in the Arctic along Russia. Alongside russia more aggressive
Speaker 1: posture has been among the reason side of for the
Speaker 1: US President Donald Trump's insistence on nnexing or buying Greenland,
Speaker 1: a territory of NATO allied to Denmark. While Greenland already
Speaker 1: contains a US military base on its northwest coast, the
Speaker 1: discussion is likely to result in further militarization of the
Speaker 1: territory even under Denmark. Satellites are also expected to play
Speaker 1: a major role in exerting control within the Arctic, given
Speaker 1: the importance of the observation and monitoring in remote areas
Speaker 1: of poor communication and infrastructure. So now as we're talking
Speaker 1: about this the Arctic Circle, it's just been an ice
Speaker 1: block for quite a while here, right, and now all
Speaker 1: these countries that are now not so allied with each
Speaker 1: other as of the past few years are going to
Speaker 1: start vuying for the resources in the Arctic Circle. And
Speaker 1: of course who's got the most coastline will have a
Speaker 1: say in what goes down there. I get this. For
Speaker 1: China to start weighing in on the Arctic Circle conversation,
Speaker 1: that's a bit of a concern for me personally. Go ahead, Raven, So.
Speaker 7: I remember this hearing about this before. So Norway's actually
Speaker 7: been like Russia's been already digging in the Arctics like
Speaker 7: the last decade or two, But Norway actually has been stopped.
Speaker 7: In twenty sixteen, they were granted a number of licenses
Speaker 7: to explore the oil and gas of the Arctics in
Speaker 7: like inside the Arctic Circle.
Speaker 4: And then in twenty.
Speaker 7: Twenty one, six Norwegians and environmental groups got together and
Speaker 7: pretty much for like, this is an absolute disaster.
Speaker 4: And so what they.
Speaker 7: Did is is they I did articles it's Article two
Speaker 7: and article eight. It's human rights pretty much in the
Speaker 7: right to life, saying that if the if Norway continues
Speaker 7: to dig and try to drill in the Arctic, that
Speaker 7: it's going to it's going to cause like mass chaos
Speaker 7: pretty much for humans, and it's going to increase climate
Speaker 7: change and stuff.
Speaker 4: And then with like who actually owns the Arctic?
Speaker 7: They the US is letting companies drill in Alaska again,
Speaker 7: but they actually everybody that owns a piece of the
Speaker 7: Arctic owns two hundred nautical miles of it. And right
Speaker 7: now they're kind of like debating about who owns what.
Speaker 7: And they have like a territory map of like who
Speaker 7: actually is allowed to dig where, and Russia is nowhere
Speaker 7: on that map right now, I'm not Russia, excuse me, China,
Speaker 7: like Denmark, Russia Canada and the US and Norway are
Speaker 7: mostly the ones that are allowed to do stuff there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but China being like homeboys with Russia to the
Speaker 1: furthest extent that they're allowed to be anyway, I could
Speaker 1: understand why they are gonna try to not push their
Speaker 1: way in by any means, but they're gonna get even
Speaker 1: closer if it means more of a monopoly on the
Speaker 1: rare earths, for sure. And yeah, you're right, China's nowhere
Speaker 1: even near the conversation of two hundred odd miles of
Speaker 1: their claimed sea in the Arctic Circle. That blows my
Speaker 1: mind that g has the balls to actually make such
Speaker 1: a claim that China is a near Arctic country, like
Speaker 1: in what map are you looking at? Bro? But okay, sure, totally.
Speaker 1: And I understand that some people are gonna say, well,
Speaker 1: America doesn't have that either, but we do because of
Speaker 1: Alaska and also because we run the world's seas, so
Speaker 1: that's kind of how America flexes. So good things there.
Speaker 1: But as we are talking about the Russia and the
Speaker 1: China situation, I found a little YouTube short and I
Speaker 1: do know that this is going to ruffle a few feathers, Tony.
Speaker 1: I do want you to weigh in on this one. Actually,
Speaker 1: so this short here was brought up by former Russian
Speaker 1: president of what certain people, former Russian president anyway and
Speaker 1: others are saying Ukraine might look like if and when
Speaker 1: Ukraine loses this war. And I don't know if he's
Speaker 1: not speaking on behalf of Putin. I know that he's
Speaker 1: not speaking on behalf of the Russian military. Fully understand
Speaker 1: that too. But if we were talking about Russia only
Speaker 1: invading just the easternmost sections, right, the sections that wanted
Speaker 1: to be Russian allegedly and all these things, this map
Speaker 1: kind of paints a different picture. Let me know what
Speaker 1: you think about this one.
Speaker 11: If Ukraine were to lose the current war against Russia,
Speaker 11: what might happen well. Former Russian President Dmitri Medvedev recently
Speaker 11: shared a map outlining what he believes the future borders
Speaker 11: of the region will look like. Medvedev's map shows Russia
Speaker 11: controlling all of eastern Ukraine, including the economically important don
Speaker 11: Bas region. What's more, Russia would control all territory east
Speaker 11: of the Nipa River, along with southern Ukraine's Black Sea coast. Interestingly,
Speaker 11: Poland would be in control of much of western Ukraine,
Speaker 11: including the country's sixth largest city, Leviv. Hungary would get
Speaker 11: this Zakharpatiya ablast, while Romania would receive Chernivzi and Vinizia.
Speaker 11: Ukraine itself, meanwhile, would become a much smaller, landlocked country
Speaker 11: based around the capital city of Kiev.
Speaker 1: This okay, so Tony, please weigh in on this. Is
Speaker 1: there any validity to the Ukrainian map looking like this
Speaker 1: in the next few years.
Speaker 9: Personally, I think there is not, and I think Midvidyev
Speaker 9: he is way more aggressive than he used to be,
Speaker 9: and he's been like this for the last few years.
Speaker 9: I think he felt really burned by Hillary Clinton over
Speaker 9: Libya in twenty eleven, back when he was the president
Speaker 9: at that time. I have not seen any Russian mapss
Speaker 9: going this far. But this also illustrates how much of
Speaker 9: Hungarian and Romanian minority there are. The Polish area used
Speaker 9: to be Poland way back a long time ago, but
Speaker 9: the Ukrainians took it over and there aren't too many
Speaker 9: Poles left there. Although the main Catholic bishop in western
Speaker 9: Ukraine is Polish and that the tiny little Ukrainian spot.
Speaker 9: I think that's where Kiev is or slightly west of it.
Speaker 9: But yeah, I don't think Russia will get this much.
Speaker 9: There's still enough hostility to Russia in the central part
Speaker 9: of the country in my opinion that Russia is gonna
Speaker 9: mostly just settle for what they got now. If they
Speaker 9: wanted any other territory, it would probably be Kharkov and Odessa.
Speaker 9: Odessa's in the southwest and Kharkoff is kind of in
Speaker 9: the more northern east part. But I don't think they'll
Speaker 9: get either of those. Personally, I think that the line
Speaker 9: where it is right now is where it's gonna stay.
Speaker 1: Okay, and I don't disagree. I would see possibly Transnistria
Speaker 1: like pledging allegiance to Russia and being like roped into
Speaker 1: that one as well, and maybe like some sort of
Speaker 1: a connective land bridge between the two areas that are
Speaker 1: currently occupied in Transnistria. I could see a world with
Speaker 1: that happens. Yeah. When I saw this map, I was like, oh,
Speaker 1: I have to talk about it on the Live tonight
Speaker 1: because I Hungary. I didn't see them making an appearance
Speaker 1: into this Romania, didn't see them taking a section of
Speaker 1: this map. Poland. I didn't even know that that area had,
Speaker 1: Like you said, I didn't know that there was any Poles,
Speaker 1: or at least a majority of Poles still living in
Speaker 1: Western Ukraine. I mean, yeah, there's pockets of them for sure,
Speaker 1: but nothing to this scale. And then yeah, I, like
Speaker 1: you said, I don't know how aggressive the former Russian
Speaker 1: president is or is this kind of the ramblings of
Speaker 1: an old guy who's just kind of out of his box,
Speaker 1: or was there any kind of real validity to this.
Speaker 1: I definitely knew you would have more of a knowledge
Speaker 1: based on this one than I would.
Speaker 9: Yeah, well, I'm interested. I want to look up whether
Speaker 9: that's what said, But I do know for sure Hungarian
Speaker 9: and Romanian are spoken in these parts of Ukraine. Polish
Speaker 9: is not anymore. But if you look up the boundaries
Speaker 9: of the Second Polish Republic, it included all of that area.
Speaker 9: There aren't too many Poles left. There was a lot
Speaker 9: of ethnic cleansing that went on during World War Two
Speaker 9: in both directions, frankly, but the Ukrainians really won. Their
Speaker 9: Ukrainian nationalists were more aligned with the Germans for sure. Yeah,
Speaker 9: and that's part of their history that they're simultaneously proud
Speaker 9: and ashamed of. And the Russians. They used that for
Speaker 9: propaganda for sure, the fact that there were so many
Speaker 9: Ukrainian nationalists on the German side, that's whyfying Ukraine. He's
Speaker 9: not completely wrong.
Speaker 1: I understand the talking point for the propaganda aspect, but
Speaker 1: also like Zelenski's a Jew, so like talking about the
Speaker 1: denotification of a country that's currently led by a Jewish
Speaker 1: guys like hmm, all right.
Speaker 9: Well, well there's plenty of photo evidence of the social
Speaker 9: acceptability of Nazi regalia in western Ukraine up until very
Speaker 9: recent years, and there's telegram channels about it. One's called
Speaker 9: highly Ukraine nineteen fifty nine. Another one's called Bandy after
Speaker 9: step On Bondera. Maybe this is a slight tangent, but
Speaker 9: Austria used to own a big chunk of this western
Speaker 9: part of Ukraine. It used to be called Galicia, and
Speaker 9: some of my wife's ancestry is from there, And well
Speaker 9: there was a lot of transition in World War One
Speaker 9: and World War Two and basically the Germans lost a lot.
Speaker 9: So yeah, my wife's ancestry is part German from that area,
Speaker 9: but it then it became Polish, and then it became Ukrainian,
Speaker 9: and that's where we are today.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Okay, So I mean, all right, so at least
Speaker 1: you are of the belief that this map is a
Speaker 1: bit extra presumptuous ondelic part.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I think that's unrealistic. Okay, yeah, yeah, I want
Speaker 9: to look it up and confirm too.
Speaker 1: Yeah, please do, because when I saw this, I'm like, bro,
Speaker 1: there's no way not even saying about how much of
Speaker 1: that territory Russia is going to claim, sectioning off Western
Speaker 1: Ukraine into four different principalities, Like Poland is not on
Speaker 1: an expansionist kick right now, neither is Romania, neither is Hungary.
Speaker 1: So it's like, why was that even being brought up
Speaker 1: on the map that your guy was talking about.
Speaker 9: But you know, well, I am seeing similar maps to this.
Speaker 9: But I would chime in that Poland actually does have
Speaker 9: some expansionist streak in it. So I have seen the
Speaker 9: Polish proposed annexation going back all the way to twenty
Speaker 9: twenty two. On Polish television, Poland was talking about how
Speaker 9: the might act look like this at least with regards
Speaker 9: to Poland. Someday some of them are thinking about taking
Speaker 9: that territory back, and they're talking about how the people
Speaker 9: of Levov Poland calls it Levov. That's the biggest city there.
Speaker 9: Russian calls it Levov, Ukrainian language calls it Lviv.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and.
Speaker 9: They actually teach Polish as a second language at most
Speaker 9: of the schools there, so there is some memory in
Speaker 9: the area that they used to be Polish. And the
Speaker 9: languages are close enough that whenever I go to Ukrainian
Speaker 9: websites and they want to post something in Polish, they
Speaker 9: won't even bother translating it. It's a different alphabet, but
Speaker 9: they're almost mutually intelligible. That's kind of how close they are.
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, as things continue to progress with the war
Speaker 1: in Ukraine, we are going to definitely keep all of
Speaker 1: the people listening in on the loop here and we
Speaker 1: will see if this map does play out this way.
Speaker 1: That is wild to me that they could get sectioned
Speaker 1: off into this many pieces, but I guess the future
Speaker 1: is very, very unknown. But speaking of unknown futures, let's
Speaker 1: talk about what's going on with China right now? Now,
Speaker 1: all right. Last week we talked a little bit about
Speaker 1: the tariff situation, and I did give the preface before
Speaker 1: I even spoke on it. I am not an economist.
Speaker 1: I don't know everything there is to know about tariffs
Speaker 1: and money and things and stuff. Yes, Trump did the
Speaker 1: example that I gave as far as how the US
Speaker 1: Treasury will get money for basically an extortion fee, a
Speaker 1: street tax, whatever you want to call it, for any
Speaker 1: country to sell things on American soil. Right, Yes, this
Speaker 1: is very accurate. And as you learned about on the
Speaker 1: Cult of Conspiracy Live Tuesday night last night, actually we
Speaker 1: heard from a Chinese high school dropout who is probably
Speaker 1: in a hard prison or hard labor jail as we speak,
Speaker 1: for making that post on social media about how America's
Speaker 1: spending power is three or is a third of the
Speaker 1: entire world's spending power. And that's a big deal. So basically, China, Gie,
Speaker 1: I should say, not just China. Jijaping and Trump had
Speaker 1: been in this stare down contest, right, and this has
Speaker 1: been a big thing. Uh, China raise the tariffs. Trump
Speaker 1: raised the tariffs. China raised it more. Trump raised it
Speaker 1: to one hundred and forty five percent. Basically, he doubled
Speaker 1: down and just raised it to two hundred and forty
Speaker 1: five percent. Today, whenever this made headlines, Jijiping finally decided,
Speaker 1: all right, bro, let's let's have a conversation, but we
Speaker 1: won't respect that. That's his big thing. Now. He's willing
Speaker 1: to come to the negotiation tables, but he wants America
Speaker 1: media to stop talking shit on China and Jijuping. So
Speaker 1: that's not gonna happen. But let's hear a little bit
Speaker 1: about the situation because as everybody is so worried about
Speaker 1: prices of everything in America going up, and yes, I
Speaker 1: understand it's probably going to go up in some way
Speaker 1: shapes your form, and things are going to trickle down,
Speaker 1: things are going to go a certain way. Currently things
Speaker 1: are kind of looking up. Let's learn a little bit,
Speaker 1: shall we.
Speaker 12: But we are able to report today that China is
Speaker 12: open to talks with a little more specific conditions attached
Speaker 12: to it. First of all, as I said, China is
Speaker 12: demanding some respect and specifically, it basically wants the Trump
Speaker 12: administrations to rainey in some of the cabinet members who
Speaker 12: makes the disparaging remarks about China. And then the other
Speaker 12: more specific conditions is that China wants the USI to
Speaker 12: appoint a person that it could have those talks with,
Speaker 12: which is understandable because we've seen how different members of
Speaker 12: the administration have said different things over the course of
Speaker 12: the last couple of months, and China is frustrated that
Speaker 12: it doesn't really know what the US wants from.
Speaker 1: So all right, they're willing to come to the negotiation,
Speaker 1: to the negotiation table. Good things. Finally, a little bit
Speaker 1: of some sound reasoning comes through here, because I don't
Speaker 1: know if this is going to be a hot take
Speaker 1: or people are going to disagree with this or not.
Speaker 1: China can't really survive without buyers. They make a lot.
Speaker 1: They make a lot of things, products, goods, electronics, name
Speaker 1: your thing, they make it. A lot of things are
Speaker 1: made in China. America is the world's largest consumer where
Speaker 1: the world's largest buyer of things and stuff. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying China can't survive without America. I'm saying that they
Speaker 1: would have an extremely tough go of it if they
Speaker 1: were to try to make that happen, right, But I'm
Speaker 1: sure it's possible. It's not probable. It's possible, but not probable.
Speaker 1: Right that being said, g is finally willing to come
Speaker 1: to the negotiation table with Trump. But they want China
Speaker 1: to have a guy because apparently the current administration says
Speaker 1: a lot of disparaging things about China. They're superman, super
Speaker 1: mean to she, and she wants there to be a
Speaker 1: guy in the administration, right, so they lost their guy.
Speaker 1: They had one on Sleepy Joe aka China Joe, and
Speaker 1: he was their guy. Since like ninety two, he's been
Speaker 1: in bed with China. There's very famous speeches that were
Speaker 1: given from him in ninety two when he was a
Speaker 1: younger man that had a cognizant brain, where he was
Speaker 1: telling Americans that or to I think it was Congress
Speaker 1: or Senate. I forget what he was in his earlier days,
Speaker 1: but either way, he was basically saying that we need
Speaker 1: to strengthen relationships with China rather than see them as
Speaker 1: an adversary. And in the nineties not exactly a bad take.
Speaker 1: But then we cut to Obama putting harsher restrictions on
Speaker 1: Chinese trade. And that's whenever they took the pandas away
Speaker 1: from the DC zoo because panda diploma. Right, if you're
Speaker 1: cool with China, you'll get a panda in your zoo.
Speaker 1: If you don't, if you upset the CCP, they take
Speaker 1: their pandas back. And that's a whole anybody wants to
Speaker 1: look up panda diplomacy. It's kind of ridiculous, but it's
Speaker 1: a real thing. It's a real thing. Now they're saying
Speaker 1: that they're willing to come to talk, but they want
Speaker 1: somebody in the White House or in the Cabinet or
Speaker 1: somebody somebody in the US government that's not going to
Speaker 1: just skull drag them for being themselves. And that's like
Speaker 1: an actual talking point they're trying to make that they
Speaker 1: want respect. Now. With all that being said, economically America
Speaker 1: is not doing bad. Everybody was super worried about prices skyrocketing, however.
Speaker 12: From this negotiation.
Speaker 10: So it's been eleven days since Trump's Liberation Day, eleven
Speaker 10: days since April fifth, and the world hasn't ended. Prices
Speaker 10: haven't soared. If anything, prices have fallen, energy prices, grocery prices,
Speaker 10: mortgage rates all down since Liberation Day. Also, the housing
Speaker 10: mar finally beginning to reset after years of record breaking
Speaker 10: sky high prices. New housing inventory in this country hitting
Speaker 10: a fifteen year high, the highest level since two thousand
Speaker 10: and seven. Over half a million new homes now on
Speaker 10: the market. Multiple regions of the country seeing home prices tumbling.
Speaker 10: Parts of Florida specifically, huge movement and home prices falling sharply.
Speaker 10: And we're just getting started. Trump writing on true Social
Speaker 10: this morning, the United States taking in record numbers and tariffs,
Speaker 10: with the cost of almost all products going down, including gasoline, groceries,
Speaker 10: and just about everything else. Likewise, inflation is also down.
Speaker 10: Promises made, promises kept.
Speaker 1: Shout out to RJ talks for bringing all these things,
Speaker 1: you know. With that being said, I'm I'm kind of
Speaker 1: happy to hear these things. I myself was kind of
Speaker 1: worried about prices going up. Look, it's tough out here.
Speaker 1: It's tough out everywhere. Everybody's got thrown struggles they're dealing with,
Speaker 1: and everybody wants the groceries to be cheaper. Everybody wants
Speaker 1: gas price to be cheaper. Everybody wants everything to be cheaper.
Speaker 1: Of course, the tariff conversation, I saw it as a
Speaker 1: necessary evil, and I still do. Even if the prices
Speaker 1: were to hike up for a year or two, this
Speaker 1: would establish American domination on an economic scale like we
Speaker 1: have never experienced in any of our lifetimes. I'm here
Speaker 1: for that smoke. But yeah, it was gonna be a
Speaker 1: tough transition. And I'm not saying that we still don't
Speaker 1: have a tough road ahead of us. It's very early,
Speaker 1: like you said, it's only been two weeks. But this
Speaker 1: is a lot of good things as far as Hope
Speaker 1: is concerned. So I do want to read this article.
Speaker 1: I think it's from the Toronto Stars, so I'm gonna
Speaker 1: check it out for what it's worth. China open to
Speaker 1: talks if US shows respect and names a point person. Again,
Speaker 1: China wants to have a boil on the inside. Shocker.
Speaker 1: I know how many Chinese spies have we found that
Speaker 1: were inside of different political cabinets? Neither here nor there.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about it, shall we. China wants to see
Speaker 1: a number of steps from President Trump's administration before will
Speaker 1: agree to trade talks, including showing more respect by reigning
Speaker 1: in dispara during remarks by members of his cabinet. Highly unlikely,
Speaker 1: according to a person familiar with the Chinese government's thinking.
Speaker 1: Other conditions include a more consistent US position and a
Speaker 1: willingness to address China's concerns around American sanctions and Taiwan.
Speaker 1: Again not likely, said the person, who asked not to
Speaker 1: be identified to discuss internal thinking. Beijing also wants the
Speaker 1: US to appoint a person a point person for talks
Speaker 1: who has the President's support and can help prepare a
Speaker 1: deal that Trump and Chinese leaders Ji Japan can sign
Speaker 1: when they meet, the person said. The fate of the
Speaker 1: global economy and the financial markets hinges on in large
Speaker 1: part on whether the US and China can find a
Speaker 1: way to avoid a practical trade war. Trump is at
Speaker 1: China with a with tariffs of one hundred and forty
Speaker 1: five percent on most goods since taking office, prompting Beijing
Speaker 1: to retaliate and threaten to wipe out most trade between
Speaker 1: the world's biggest economies. The offshore one gained zero point
Speaker 1: two percent against the dollar in the wake of the report.
Speaker 1: The Australian dollar, a China proxy currency, is also advanced
Speaker 1: zero point five percent. The S and P five hundred
Speaker 1: index futures paired losses from as much as one point
Speaker 1: six percent early in or earlier in the session. The
Speaker 1: rapid onslaught of the US tariffs has in uh in
Speaker 1: engineered red. I think that's I don't know what that
Speaker 1: word's supposed to be, Honestly, I think it's supposed to
Speaker 1: be engineered, engendered, engender okay. The rapid onslaught of US
Speaker 1: tariffs has engendered broad public support in China for retaliation,
Speaker 1: giving G a political incentive to rebuff Trump's repeated demands
Speaker 1: for a phone call. The US leader on Tuesday again
Speaker 1: called on China to reach out to him in order
Speaker 1: to kick off negotiations to resolve the trade fight. It's
Speaker 1: unclear what will be uh produce a breakthrough to get
Speaker 1: talks moving. While both sides have indicated their open to negotiations,
Speaker 1: Trump appeared determined to get G on the phone straight away,
Speaker 1: while China wants any conversation between the leaders to produce
Speaker 1: a clear outcome. Even then, if they agreed to on process,
Speaker 1: fundamental questions persist on what any arrangement would look like.
Speaker 1: Trump's demand remains unclear, and tariff levels on China would
Speaker 1: need to remain high to achieve his goal of balancing
Speaker 1: trade and attracting manufacturers to the US. They go into
Speaker 1: the difficult road ahead here. However, let's read about what
Speaker 1: jd Vance had to comment on this. And I know
Speaker 1: some people hate him, some people love him. I'm kind
Speaker 1: of in the middle on him personally, but anyway, while
Speaker 1: the person didn't identify any specific comments by administration officials.
Speaker 1: Beijing has recently expressed notable displeasure with comments Vice President
Speaker 1: JD Vance made about Chinese peasants. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Linging,
Speaker 1: I hope I'm pronouncing that right. Last week called the
Speaker 1: remarks ignorant and disrespectful in what was a rare direct
Speaker 1: rebuke of a US senior leader. In addition to wanting
Speaker 1: a consistent message from the US administration, officials in Beijing
Speaker 1: also want to know that Washington is ready to address
Speaker 1: some of China's concerns, the person said. Chief among those
Speaker 1: is the prevailing perception among Chinese officials that the US
Speaker 1: has enacted policies designed to contain and suppress China's modernization.
Speaker 1: I don't think that's yeah, okay, the point person here.
Speaker 1: China also wants the US to address its national security concerns,
Speaker 1: particularly over Taiwan. Beijing claims the self governing island as
Speaker 1: part of its territory and has pledged to take steps,
Speaker 1: including military action, if necessary, to protect those claims. China
Speaker 1: will not undertake any provocative actions on Taiwan, but it
Speaker 1: will respond if provoked. Again, no one's provoking them, No
Speaker 1: one's going to provoke them. But okay. Finally, Beijing also
Speaker 1: wants the US to donate a point person to oversee talks.
Speaker 1: The person said, China has no preference on who this is,
Speaker 1: but they want the person to clearly be speaking and
Speaker 1: acting with Trump's authority. I don't this sit in like
Speaker 1: Game of Thrones, hand of the king kind of stuff.
Speaker 1: You want Trump's authority, You got to talk to Trump.
Speaker 1: I don't know why they have the need to go
Speaker 1: through a middleman. Like Trump has told them, Yo, pick
Speaker 1: up the phone, call me. Like that was the big thing.
Speaker 1: Whenever you put all these tariffs down and you put
Speaker 1: that ninety day hold on all the tariffs. He told them, listen,
Speaker 1: if you're willing to come and negotiate, we don't have
Speaker 1: to go this route. If you take retaliatory measures towards us,
Speaker 1: things will get worse. He made it was like an
Speaker 1: eighty something percent tariff, China took retaliatory measures one hundred
Speaker 1: and forty five percent. China took more retaliatory measures two
Speaker 1: hundred and forty five percent tariffs. Now China's willing to
Speaker 1: come to the negotiation. It's like, why, why did we
Speaker 1: have to do this like if you're trying to flex
Speaker 1: on which one of us has got the longer stroke
Speaker 1: game here, I promise you the answer is clear. But like,
Speaker 1: we can go this route if you want to go
Speaker 1: this route. But all the things concerning here. The Trump
Speaker 1: administration confirmed Wednesday morning the baseline tariff rate on Chinese
Speaker 1: imports to the US remains one hundred and forty five percent,
Speaker 1: after a White House fact sheet released Tuesday afternoon, Washington
Speaker 1: Times said that China now faces up to a two
Speaker 1: hundred and forty five percent tariff on imports to the
Speaker 1: United States as a result of the retaliatory action. So
Speaker 1: I hope that everybody can get together and be adults
Speaker 1: about it and figure things out here. However, that being said,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump don't trust China. China is assh I like him.
Speaker 1: I like him a lot. Uh, you know, I don't
Speaker 1: trust him. I still don't and probably never will, to
Speaker 1: be honest with you, as long as she is in
Speaker 1: charge or as long as China is a communist country,
Speaker 1: I'm never going to really trust them. But if they
Speaker 1: wanted to really go down the road here to see
Speaker 1: which one of the people will blink first, say what
Speaker 1: you want about Trump. Like him, hate him, Think he's incompetent,
Speaker 1: think he's an evil genius, whatever, whatever. You're not going
Speaker 1: to out trump him. You're not going to out audacity
Speaker 1: the man. This is the environment to which he thrives,
Speaker 1: and we're getting into an economic war. The man speaks
Speaker 1: the economic language. That's, if anything, that's the one language
Speaker 1: he speaks very well. So I don't know why she
Speaker 1: thought that this was going to play out in a
Speaker 1: different way, And who knows. It's still very early. It
Speaker 1: said as of Wednesday morning, so as a time of
Speaker 1: recording that was like fourteen hours ago that that dropped.
Speaker 1: It's very possible that later this week they go back
Speaker 1: on it and Trump hits him with some sort of
Speaker 1: five hundred percent terror for some wild shit. It is
Speaker 1: so possible. But that would be so bad for the
Speaker 1: Chinese economy. But I don't understand a world in which
Speaker 1: that's gonna play out positively or even neutrally for them.
Speaker 1: It's not like they can go and beat the streets
Speaker 1: and find more buyers for their goods in other places.
Speaker 1: Most countries don't have the buying power to sustain maybe
Speaker 1: a yeah, I don't know, I don't know. If anybody
Speaker 1: wants to weigh in on that one, please feel free.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna check over here on the chat real quick.
Speaker 1: Hold on here, what is this? Ravenlee shared a map? Oh,
Speaker 1: that's the North Pole and all the land that's claimed
Speaker 1: by different people. That's legit. Let's see here, h everyone's
Speaker 1: favorite tranny. What a fucking fuzzy Yeah, I agree, I agree,
Speaker 1: but yeah I get it. Yeah. Look, I don't know
Speaker 1: what's to really be expected from the tariff war. I
Speaker 1: know that Trump's gonna win it regardless, because that's just
Speaker 1: what he does as far as economic wars go. That
Speaker 1: being said, that's kind of a massive flex. I feel
Speaker 1: like they're at the poker table right now. Anybody who
Speaker 1: ever watched like the World Series of Poker or anything
Speaker 1: like that. These two guys, and one of them thinks
Speaker 1: he's got the strongest hand at the table. The other
Speaker 1: one knows he's got the strongest hand at the table,
Speaker 1: and they keep like upping the bet on each other,
Speaker 1: and then finally one of them makes the signal like
Speaker 1: he's about to go all in. And I don't mean
Speaker 1: on a military standpoint, nothing, nothing about actual armaments or
Speaker 1: weapons or anything like that. Strictly money and flexing on
Speaker 1: each other. It's the gamble. It's the game here. Right
Speaker 1: Trump is making the signal like he's willing to go
Speaker 1: all in against everybody right now, everybody else at the
Speaker 1: table is gonna have to match his bet. Nobody sitting
Speaker 1: at the table has the ability or the want to
Speaker 1: match this bet. There's a few that are gonna try
Speaker 1: to save face, and they're gonna try to make it
Speaker 1: seem like they got it figured out. It's it's not
Speaker 1: gonna play out well unless the American economy absolutely collapses
Speaker 1: under its own weight, which it was at risk of
Speaker 1: for a good while there. Everybody was saying that we
Speaker 1: were practically in a recession, whether they were willing to
Speaker 1: admit it or not. And we are now on the
Speaker 1: other side of that, or beginning to get to the
Speaker 1: other side of that, and it seems like the crisis averted,
Speaker 1: but new crisis might have been spawned up as a
Speaker 1: result of that. Right that being said, Yeah, yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: glad that China's finally, hopefully potentially seeing the light at
Speaker 1: the end of this tunnel and being like, hey, hey man,
Speaker 1: we don't want that smoke. Let's talk about it. You know,
Speaker 1: but we shall see, we shall see how everything goes.
Speaker 1: Let's see, let's go back to another article that I
Speaker 1: had pulled up here. Uh, we talked about Dinah, talked
Speaker 1: about China. You know what. Hey, let's go ahead and
Speaker 1: talk about what Royce had brought up here. Apparently we
Speaker 1: got a potential serial killer. What the hell? Okay, I
Speaker 1: don't really see much of a common thread between the
Speaker 1: three victims. Usually a serial killer has like a type
Speaker 1: they hunt for. But okay, let's get after it. Here.
Speaker 1: Dead women are turning up a New England beach towns.
Speaker 1: Police deny a pattern, but locals fear a serial killer. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's all I was saying. I don't see much of
Speaker 1: a pattern here in age and race and any of that,
Speaker 1: except for the fact that they were all women. Like,
Speaker 1: all right, let's dive in a little bit here. Since March,
Speaker 1: bodies of six people have been discovered in Connecticut, Massachusetts,
Speaker 1: and Rhode Island. Three of the remains were identified as
Speaker 1: belonging to women aging thirty five, fifty six, and fifty nine.
Speaker 1: News of the disturbing discoveries is fueling speculation about a
Speaker 1: serial killer or killers preying on New England residents. The
Speaker 1: rumbling start on social media in early April. Posts about
Speaker 1: bodies seriously turning up in sleepy towns in the coastal
Speaker 1: New England states of Connecticut, Rhode Island Massachusetts began hitting
Speaker 1: for you pages on TikTok and newsfeed on x Since
Speaker 1: early March, the remains of six people have been found
Speaker 1: in towns close to one another in three states, ramping
Speaker 1: up speculation about a serial killer in the area social media.
Speaker 1: Social media users claim the disturbing discoveries are connected, but
Speaker 1: police say they haven't yet found any links between the cases.
Speaker 1: Police are also cautioning the public not to jump to
Speaker 1: any conclusions. Yeah, I bet they are. I would tell
Speaker 1: people don't rush to judgment, Groton Police Chief Lewis Fosso
Speaker 1: told the News on April eleventh. Given the relative proximity
Speaker 1: of the towns where the remains are found, people are
Speaker 1: telling each other to stay away from their surroundings and
Speaker 1: report any suspicious behavior. On March nineteenth, human remains are
Speaker 1: found near Colonel Ledyard Cemetery in the seaside Connecticut town
Speaker 1: of Groton. The remains belong to a female between the
Speaker 1: ages of forty and sixty. God, that's a wide age gap,
Speaker 1: all right, between the ages of forty and sixty, and
Speaker 1: we're left near the cemetery. In mid February, investigators said
Speaker 1: per NBC Connecticut, the woman may have been missing before that.
Speaker 1: They said, well, no, shit, sherlock all right. Anyway, her
Speaker 1: remains found in a suitcase. Okay, that's a bit of
Speaker 1: a nuance here. Residents concerned about the new discovery became
Speaker 1: spooked when they learned that the bodies of two other
Speaker 1: women had recently been found in two other Connecticut towns, Norwalk, Norwalk,
Speaker 1: Sure and New Haven. On March six, remains of a
Speaker 1: woman identified as Page fan in thirty five of West Islip,
Speaker 1: New York, were found in the Norwalk River near the
Speaker 1: abandoned Gritztmill Road bridge in Norwalk near the Wilton border. Okay.
Speaker 1: The same day, March six, a human skull was found
Speaker 1: in the woods off Route three in Plymouth on the
Speaker 1: Massachusetts Coast. Authorities have not yet determined age or gender.
Speaker 1: Weeks later, on March twenty first, the body of a
Speaker 1: third Connecticut woman, identified as Denise Leary fifty nine, was
Speaker 1: found in New Haven, about forty minutes away from Norwalk.
Speaker 1: According to New Haven Police, Leria, a mother of two
Speaker 1: for New Haven, was reported missing in August. People who
Speaker 1: were cleany or clearing brush behind their house in Rock
Speaker 1: Creek found her remains. Five days later, the body of
Speaker 1: a woman was found in the woods in Foster, Rhode Island.
Speaker 1: Michelle Romano, fifty six, was reported missing from the coastal
Speaker 1: town of Warwick in August. Police say her death has
Speaker 1: been determined to be as suspicious in nature. Authorities have
Speaker 1: not yet said how she died. Most recently, on Wednesday,
Speaker 1: April ninth, human remains are found in woodwards in killing Lye.
Speaker 1: The Connecticut State Police told the people in an email
Speaker 1: they have not yet been identified. This investigation is in
Speaker 1: the early stages, remains active and ongoing, and there is
Speaker 1: no information about the time suggesting any connection to similar
Speaker 1: remains discoveries actively under investigation by the CSP or the
Speaker 1: CT law enforcement agencies. The statement also said there is
Speaker 1: no known threat to the public at this time. Officials
Speaker 1: are still trying to determine the cause and manner of
Speaker 1: all of their deaths. Okay, well, that's just a depressing
Speaker 1: way to wrap this one up, isn't it. But okay,
Speaker 1: and it's possible social media is going to be social
Speaker 1: media and is going to be TikTok. But I you know,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that there's obviously some sort of a
Speaker 1: serial killer on the luce here. It's horrible that there's
Speaker 1: bodies being discovered and and that's horrible. But also, I
Speaker 1: you know, I'm why don't people just carry weapons? It'd
Speaker 1: be so much easier to just go buy a gun
Speaker 1: and carry it with you at all times. I don't know, Okay,
Speaker 1: let's see here, anything else going on in the chat here.
Speaker 1: Raven Lee has shared an article the Daily Express archaeology
Speaker 1: breakthrough at the church standing where Jesus was crucified, Oh,
Speaker 1: the Sepulcher Ooh, well, you know, actually I've just recently
Speaker 1: heard a different belief as far as where they believe
Speaker 1: Jesus was crucified. There's two mounds. Yes, they're both. It
Speaker 1: could be referred to as Golgotha or Place of the Skull, right,
Speaker 1: they are next to each other. But there is a
Speaker 1: conversation now whether the Holy Church of the Sepulcher is
Speaker 1: actually built on the correct site or not. So actually,
Speaker 1: I am very interested to see what you have brought
Speaker 1: to the table here, Raven, let's check it out. The
Speaker 1: Church of the Holy Sepulcher Sepulcher in Jerusalem is believed
Speaker 1: to be the site where Jesus crucifixion, burial, and resurrection,
Speaker 1: and recent archaeological digs have revealed a huge amount of
Speaker 1: history about the site. Yeah, so the things that I
Speaker 1: had researched here recently showed that back in the day
Speaker 1: before it was the land was taken back by the
Speaker 1: Israelites and the Hebrews, way back when. Apparently gold Gotha
Speaker 1: is the place where they sacrificed their children to Moloch,
Speaker 1: the Canaanite god. And that's also why that place is
Speaker 1: known as the Mound of the Skull. That and also
Speaker 1: the side of the mound looks like it has a
Speaker 1: skull etched into the side of it. So I've heard
Speaker 1: both being true. But let's check it out here. Recent
Speaker 1: excavations traditionally held by the at the Holy Church of
Speaker 1: the Sepulchurt traditionally hailed to be the cation of Jesus Crucifixion,
Speaker 1: have un earth fascinating historical artifacts. The latest discoveries indicate
Speaker 1: that the site, which dates back to the fourth century
Speaker 1: were initially an ancient quarry. Signs of extensive stone attraction,
Speaker 1: including deep saw marks in the rocks, suggest that the
Speaker 1: area was deserted during the Iron Age before being repurposed
Speaker 1: for farming activities in the Roman Era. Following the AD
Speaker 1: seventy siege, Emperor Hadrian erected a pagan temple on the site.
Speaker 1: The temple stood into the fourth century, where Emperor Constantine
Speaker 1: commanded its destruction to make way for the Christian Church.
Speaker 9: Can I interrupt real quick? I'm sorry, but Hadrian was
Speaker 9: not emperor until one seventeen AD, so that would have
Speaker 9: been the Spacian So continue. The article's wrong.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm trying to read here. It says, yeah, following
Speaker 1: the siege, Emperor Hadrian erected a pagan temple. Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: not correct at all. I'll be damn good. Call tony
Speaker 1: good call Okay. So let's see here stood until the
Speaker 1: fourth century, when Emperor Constantine commanded its destruction to make
Speaker 1: way for the Christian Church. Excavation spearheaded by Marcarius, the
Speaker 1: first Bishop of Jerusalem, revealed a rock hewn tomb identified
Speaker 1: as Jesus burial place. Among the recent findings are remain
Speaker 1: or remnants of Roman cultic structures, underscoring the sites shifting
Speaker 1: religious significance over time. Currently, archaeologists are concentrating their efforts
Speaker 1: on further probing the northern aisle of the church, scrutinizing
Speaker 1: the Roman foundations, and delving into the historical strata that
Speaker 1: contributed to the site's religious prominence. Now that's Fascinatingway is
Speaker 1: there more here?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 1: Yeah, here we go. These discoveries play a crucial role
Speaker 1: in comprehending the evolution of early Christian sanctuaries, which were
Speaker 1: constructed to cater two pilgrims. The excavation offers vital insights
Speaker 1: into the site's evolution into a significant hub of Christian worship,
Speaker 1: as well as its relevance relevance in the wider religion
Speaker 1: context of Jerusalem. The continuous effort aims to record the
Speaker 1: church's complete architectural development and its significance in the spiritual
Speaker 1: and cultural tapestry of the city. You know, I've heard
Speaker 1: a lot of things as far as like what's going
Speaker 1: on with Jerusalem in an archaeological standpoint here recently, like,
Speaker 1: for instance, Herod's Palace, the Palate of Herod the Great,
Speaker 1: not who was the one. It wasn't Herod the Great
Speaker 1: that had Jesus crucified. It was his son Herod. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna butcher the second part Argustia something. There was another
Speaker 1: part of that name. His palace wasn't at Herod's palace
Speaker 1: in the city of Jerusalem. As a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: conscious pilot was staying at the actual palace of Herod
Speaker 1: the Great at the time. So there's a lot of
Speaker 1: the story of the final day of jesus life right
Speaker 1: well before the cruise fixion. He came back from the
Speaker 1: dead to all this stuff. But they believed for the
Speaker 1: longest time that when he was put on trial, right
Speaker 1: he went right next door to where the temple stood,
Speaker 1: to where the Roman barracks were housed. They are now
Speaker 1: starting to believe that he might have been brought to
Speaker 1: a different place as far as his prison and beating
Speaker 1: and all that goes, because there was another barracks for
Speaker 1: Roman soldiers close to the palace of Haret the Great,
Speaker 1: which is a parking lot today, I might add, But
Speaker 1: they believe that that barracks is where he might have
Speaker 1: been tortured and scored. Right then, as far as where
Speaker 1: everything is played out here. They thought for the longest
Speaker 1: time that he was, you know, carried his cross through
Speaker 1: the entirety of Jerusalem to go to that spot. But
Speaker 1: on the backside of where Harrod's Palace once stood, which
Speaker 1: was at one time the wall surrounding Jerusalem. That backside
Speaker 1: there they now have found a spot where there was stairs,
Speaker 1: there was a stage, if you will, and it seems
Speaker 1: like that might have been a place for judgment that
Speaker 1: was literally just through the door. Oh, I wish I
Speaker 1: had the thing pulled up. There's a whole there's a whole, uh,
Speaker 1: like three D model showing where Herod's Palace was, which
Speaker 1: was being occupied by Pontius Pilot, third governor of Judea,
Speaker 1: all of these things, and on the other side of
Speaker 1: the wall, Harrod's Palace like butted up to that wall.
Speaker 1: On the other side of that wall. It's been destroyed
Speaker 1: since then, but there was at one time like a doorway, stairs,
Speaker 1: a whole platform where basically he just had to step
Speaker 1: out and he'd be, you know, presenting to the crowd
Speaker 1: in this way. So they actually think that Jesus didn't
Speaker 1: walk through the city of Jerusalem. He walked around the
Speaker 1: outskirts as he was carrying his cross. And also as
Speaker 1: far as what I said earlier is the barracks that
Speaker 1: was right next to the temple. They think that the
Speaker 1: whaling wall is like the last remaining wall of the
Speaker 1: original temple. But that doesn't make sense per the written traditions,
Speaker 1: because they said that the Roman guards were able to
Speaker 1: peer down into what's it called the the woman's not
Speaker 1: the women's section, the women's section, thank you. It was
Speaker 1: like the outer on where even women were allowed to go,
Speaker 1: and they were able to peer into that from their
Speaker 1: vantage point. The problem is their vantage point is the
Speaker 1: whaling wall. So we actually believe that that whaling wall
Speaker 1: might be the dividing line between the former Roman barracks
Speaker 1: and the women's section of the temple. I see your
Speaker 1: hand raised, Royce. I know you're gonna want to weigh
Speaker 1: it as well.
Speaker 6: Funny enough, it wasn't entirely regardless relating to the what
Speaker 6: you're talking about right now. But as far as the wall,
Speaker 6: so do you know that that's not a part of
Speaker 6: the wall of the temple so as a retaining wall
Speaker 6: for the temple mount.
Speaker 13: So like that doesn't it hit is holy because it's
Speaker 13: abudded next to but like so like on top of
Speaker 13: the temple mount, where the dome on the rock currently is,
Speaker 13: is where the temple is, where our temple it used
Speaker 13: to be, right, So that's that's for sure.
Speaker 14: Abe, here's a quick question that I have.
Speaker 6: So the san Hedrin was still operating in the time
Speaker 6: of Jesus. The san Hedrin, the Jewish court system put
Speaker 6: people to death before, for sure.
Speaker 14: So like, I don't understand.
Speaker 6: Why they wouldn't have done it themselves, why they needed
Speaker 6: to go through a Roman emissary, because like, we have
Speaker 6: our own court system, we have our own like ways
Speaker 6: to sentence people.
Speaker 14: So something that does that doesn't does not.
Speaker 6: Make sense to my logical slash Jewish brain. I feel
Speaker 6: where like, if we already have a court system that's
Speaker 6: already established that we've put people to death before, why
Speaker 6: go through the Romans?
Speaker 1: Be all right? So uh, long story, short political reasons
Speaker 1: because the Sanhedron at this time, yeah, they were operating
Speaker 1: completely under the thumb of Rome, right, Like, hold.
Speaker 14: But who cares if we? If we?
Speaker 6: If so, if Roman wants to kill this guy anyway,
Speaker 6: why does it matter who kills him?
Speaker 14: That doesn't make sense if if it's.
Speaker 1: Political Rome didn't want him dead. Rome didn't care. They
Speaker 1: put him under trial and Pont just said he was
Speaker 1: he was an innocent guy, like they found nothing wrong
Speaker 1: with him. The Sanhedron wanted him dead, Sam Hedron, excuse me,
Speaker 1: because he was claiming things that they called heretical. He
Speaker 1: was things that they saw as completely against their ways.
Speaker 1: And yeah, they tried stoning him once, not too far
Speaker 1: back from when he was crucified. That didn't go well,
Speaker 1: but they attempted.
Speaker 6: I thought, I thought, I thought the stony wash the prostitute.
Speaker 1: That separate, separate conversation. Although they were trying to stone
Speaker 1: the prostitute. But Jesus came to the temple and preached
Speaker 1: on the steps outside of the temple, and the Pharisees
Speaker 1: tried stoning him for that, and they hit a couple
Speaker 1: of his apostles, but neither here nor there. They wanted
Speaker 1: him dead for their own political reasons and their own
Speaker 1: religious reasons, for sure. But the reason why they chose
Speaker 1: to use the Roman sword figuratively not actually as the
Speaker 1: mechanism for death was because it would have put them
Speaker 1: in a better grace as far as their oppressors of
Speaker 1: the day and age, right they were trying to play
Speaker 1: the political game to get Shade thrown off of them
Speaker 1: because at that time, and Tony helped me out here,
Speaker 1: there was a bit of I mean, there's always been
Speaker 1: upheaval as far as like if you look at the
Speaker 1: historicity of Rome in Judea, but at that particular point
Speaker 1: in time, there was a lot of upheaval and they
Speaker 1: saw this as kind of like a bargaining chip, if
Speaker 1: you will.
Speaker 9: So my understanding is that just from watching the passion
Speaker 9: of the Christ, conscious pilot wasn't sure if he should
Speaker 9: kill Jesus or not. He didn't really want to, but
Speaker 9: he said, if I kill him, his supporters might revolt
Speaker 9: against me, and if I don't kill him, Jesus' enemies
Speaker 9: might revolt against me. So he was caught in a
Speaker 9: tough spot right there. And of course the Caiaphas and
Speaker 9: the Pharisee authorities wanted to get the Romans to do
Speaker 9: this or at least sign off on it as much
Speaker 9: as possible, so that if they're killing him, for example,
Speaker 9: assuming they did it, if that provoked a revolt, then
Speaker 9: the Romans might have the Pharisees back a little more. So, Yeah,
Speaker 9: it was politics and I'm doing a bad job explaining it.
Speaker 9: I want to come back to a brief thing I
Speaker 9: said earlier about Yeah, it was Vespasian Flavius who was
Speaker 9: emperor in seventy eighty and his son Titus conquered Jerusalem
Speaker 9: killed a lot of people. Titus is mentioned in the Talmud,
Speaker 9: and Titus later became emperor. That was there's one major war.
Speaker 9: There was another major Roman Jewish war, and one seventeen
Speaker 9: AD at the beginning of Hadrian's reign, and then there
Speaker 9: was a third one called the Barkokpa revolt in one
Speaker 9: thirty five or so ap toward the end of Adrian's reign.
Speaker 9: And Hadrian did build that temple, the Aalia Capitalina in Jerusalem,
Speaker 9: but it wasn't at seventy a D. So that's what
Speaker 9: tripped me up. When I was reading that and I
Speaker 9: saw seventy a D. I thought that's way too early.
Speaker 1: Yeah, seven eight is when they destroyed the temple because
Speaker 1: of the Jewish revolt. And if we really want to
Speaker 1: call as the first of three, yeah, who was the
Speaker 1: who fired the first shot on that one? So to speak.
Speaker 1: That's that's a whole conversation. But so all right, Pontus
Speaker 1: Pilot himself was a younger guy, and I don't mean
Speaker 1: youngers and like he was a teenager, no, no, But
Speaker 1: he only got that position because of his father's influence
Speaker 1: in Rome at that time, right, and the Pharisees, specifically Caiaphas,
Speaker 1: knew that if they were to kill Jesus, he had
Speaker 1: an insane following, right, And at that time during Passover,
Speaker 1: when Jesus came to Jerusalem, they knew that if they
Speaker 1: killed him they themselves that would have made him a
Speaker 1: martyr and they would have been an even bigger uproar,
Speaker 1: and they were not afraid of but they didn't want
Speaker 1: to lose any of their sway over their people, so
Speaker 1: they wanted to make it seem like it was the
Speaker 1: evil Romans that did it, not us. We were justified
Speaker 1: in all of our actions, and it was like a
Speaker 1: very political exchange, if you will. Now, on the other
Speaker 1: side of that, poncious Pilot, he didn't want to kill Jesus.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, he washed his hands of
Speaker 1: it and said, I find no fault with this man.
Speaker 1: And apparently y'all find fault in him because of some
Speaker 1: things that he said. That's not my problem. Why are
Speaker 1: you making it my problem. That's when he brought out
Speaker 1: Jesus Christ and Jesus Barrabas, which, by the way, Barabbas
Speaker 1: the guy released. His first name was Jesus too. It's
Speaker 1: the whole thing, which Jesus should I release, right, And
Speaker 1: they wanted Barrabas release, and they wanted to kill Jesus.
Speaker 1: If he would have said, no, I'm not going to
Speaker 1: kill this senicent guy, he was afraid of an uproar,
Speaker 1: like an actual revolt to happen, and he was already
Speaker 1: almost on his third strike as far as the Romans
Speaker 1: were concerned. If Pontus had one more thing go wrong,
Speaker 1: he would have lost his position, if not lost his life,
Speaker 1: and he knew that regardless of his father's influence. So
Speaker 1: he killed Jesus to appease the crowd. Kaiaphas wanted Jesus killed,
Speaker 1: said he could maintain his influence and power. And yeah,
Speaker 1: it was a whole it was a whole, messy, messy,
Speaker 1: messy situation. But all of those prophesied in Psalms twenty two,
Speaker 1: like all the way down to them, like gambling over
Speaker 1: his clothes as he was being crucified, and the nails
Speaker 1: going through his hands and feet. All that was prophesies
Speaker 1: and psalms, So like it's a whole thing.
Speaker 14: But I don't know if I would agree with that one.
Speaker 14: But I hear, I hear what you're saying.
Speaker 1: Have you checked Psalms twenty two? Brother?
Speaker 6: So besides, it's been a little bit. However, there are
Speaker 6: commentaries that have been written for a long time that
Speaker 6: have probably explained things.
Speaker 14: And okay, so here's my.
Speaker 6: Can point a contention with when people take Hebrew scriptures,
Speaker 6: not necessarily out of context, but don't translate or understand
Speaker 6: them how the Jews have for the past couple thousand years.
Speaker 6: For example, I'm sure you're familiar with Isaiah fifty three.
Speaker 6: We're talking about the suffering servant. Yeah, who is the
Speaker 6: suffering servant? Your answer to me is gonna be a Jesus? Right?
Speaker 1: Could be?
Speaker 6: However, earlier in Isaiah, Isaiah says specifically, the suffering servant
Speaker 6: is the children of Israel. Right, So, like, it's not
Speaker 6: understood how Christians mean it.
Speaker 1: No, No, I hear what you're saying. Would that not
Speaker 1: make sense that Jesus would be the suffering servant for
Speaker 1: all of Israel?
Speaker 6: No?
Speaker 1: Why not.
Speaker 6: Because we don't need a different method of atonement because
Speaker 6: God already gave it to us. Every well, so we're
Speaker 6: so sorry. So the sacrifices, then, I'm saying, even even now,
Speaker 6: like eventually Jews do help that the temple will be reinstituted,
Speaker 6: the sacrifices will be had, but even but these are
Speaker 6: the things that that God instituted. So it's not like.
Speaker 14: You or I just said, all right, well, we're going
Speaker 14: to do this.
Speaker 6: And because the the Hebrew word for sacrifice is carbon,
Speaker 6: which comes from the word kirub is to bring close,
Speaker 6: So like these are these are things that God's made
Speaker 6: and even every single year on the day of Atonement,
Speaker 6: like A said that every single year, this is this
Speaker 6: is what it's going to be. Right, So in a
Speaker 6: Jewish person's opinion, there didn't need to be any kind
Speaker 6: of Messiah figure as far as a like how how
Speaker 6: the Christians think of him, because that's not how how
Speaker 6: we do because he needs to be human from a
Speaker 6: Jewish woman, from from the line of David. So there's
Speaker 6: so no supernatural like yours. Your soul needs are record
Speaker 6: deemed because nowhere in the Torah or honestly anywhere in
Speaker 6: the Old Testament anyway, it talks about an internal damnation
Speaker 6: from God.
Speaker 1: So even like let's just.
Speaker 6: Say Shale or Ghem or a place where your soul
Speaker 6: potentially gets purified for the sins you've done in this life,
Speaker 6: never once have I mean, I could be talking out
Speaker 6: of ignorance, and I'll do more studies as.
Speaker 14: As we go.
Speaker 6: But Judaism doesn't talk about an internal damnation from Hell, right,
Speaker 6: So what so if in our literature and understanding we
Speaker 6: don't believe that there's going to be an internal separation
Speaker 6: from God, why would do we need Jesus?
Speaker 1: Why did everybody believe that Jesus or the Messiah, I
Speaker 1: don't want to say just Jesus. Why did everybody believe
Speaker 1: that the Messiah is going to be some sort of
Speaker 1: a military figure. It said that he would lead to
Speaker 1: a new.
Speaker 6: Because you know, part of it is that, like the
Speaker 6: whole uh the wars, I think of God and magog
Speaker 6: and that he he will usher in world peace through
Speaker 6: I guess strength of that evil will be eradicated.
Speaker 14: I think that's really where it comes from, is that.
Speaker 6: Since we believe that evil will will eventually be no
Speaker 6: more than by necessity, the leader must fight God's battles.
Speaker 1: I at least understand the line of thinking, for sure,
Speaker 1: But even still, when it's talking about the Messiah itself, right,
Speaker 1: they describe in grave detail all of the boxes that
Speaker 1: must be checked, right, And and you and I have
Speaker 1: talked about this offline before, and we you know, respectfully disagree.
Speaker 14: On which sure, absolutely.
Speaker 1: We're not checked and everything, but yeah, it's still very
Speaker 1: interesting to look at for sure.
Speaker 14: Sure, that's absolutely yeah, for sure.
Speaker 1: Yeah, anyway, all right, so yeah, I just realized we
Speaker 1: me and you could probably have this conversation for another
Speaker 1: two hours. Tony, I see you unmuted. I'm sure you
Speaker 1: want to weigh in.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I wanted to chime in. I'm a little in
Speaker 9: between you two on some of this prophecy stuff. In general,
Speaker 9: I don't really believe super huge in prophecies. I hope
Speaker 9: I don't get too heretically here, but part of me,
Speaker 9: I'm not one hundred percent sure Jesus was actually born
Speaker 9: in Bethlehem, because he's from Nazareth. He's a Northerner. Bethlehem's
Speaker 9: way south. But there was this need to put his
Speaker 9: birthplace in Bethlehem because there was a prophecy about it,
Speaker 9: and oh, how convenient he fulfills that prophecy if we
Speaker 9: just make him born in Bethlehem. Oh and he's also
Speaker 9: got to be descended from the line of David, so
Speaker 9: we got to work that in there. Because the tribe
Speaker 9: of Judah is south of Jerusalem. It includes Jerusalem, but
Speaker 9: those northern tribes were already mostly lost before the time
Speaker 9: of Jesus, and he was born way up there. So
Speaker 9: what exactly is he Well, I feel like there's this
Speaker 9: tendency to try to force him to fulfill a lot
Speaker 9: of prophecies. And in Catholicism this means that, Okay, Mary's
Speaker 9: got to be a virgin, and she must be always
Speaker 9: a virgin, and to other people that particular belief is
Speaker 9: not that important. And you know, you just start lining
Speaker 9: up all these boxes that have to be checked, for example,
Speaker 9: and at a point I go, okay, okay, I'm supposed
Speaker 9: to have faith in this, but do I really have
Speaker 9: faith in it? I'm going to plead the fifth I
Speaker 9: guess I don't want to be too much of a heretic.
Speaker 9: I am a Knight of Columbus, and yeah, I don't
Speaker 9: want to scandalize anyone no, no, no.
Speaker 1: Something why they had to move or at least leave
Speaker 1: Nazareth was because Herod the Great quote unquote the Great
Speaker 1: put out a proclamation that everybody in Nazareth that was
Speaker 1: too or under had to be put to death because
Speaker 1: some guys approached him and said they were coming to
Speaker 1: meet the new king that was being born, and they
Speaker 1: said that he was going to be from Nazareth. So
Speaker 1: he put that proclamation out, and allegedly that's when Jesus
Speaker 1: had to go to Egypt. And while some people believe
Speaker 1: that's where he spent his early years and that's why
Speaker 1: he's some sort of ascended master type. And I know
Speaker 1: I'm sounding a lot like Jonathan at this one. That
Speaker 1: is at least the trail of thinking that would lead
Speaker 1: to why they had to go to Bethlehem rather than
Speaker 1: stay in Nazareth. But then cut too, when he comes
Speaker 1: back to Nazareth, everybody knows him as the carpenter's kid,
Speaker 1: you know. And Mary, we know for sure had four
Speaker 1: other sons, not Jesus, and up to two daughters, maybe more.
Speaker 1: But yeah, certain people believe that that takes away from
Speaker 1: her significance. I am not of that, but yeah, I
Speaker 1: feel you on that it's a lot of people try
Speaker 1: to force a circle into a square hole.
Speaker 11: Huh.
Speaker 1: And I'm with you on that there's a lot of
Speaker 1: people that will like go to the extremes to make
Speaker 1: it do that. I would like to not be one
Speaker 1: of those people. I would like to be somebody who
Speaker 1: looks at the confirmed, indisputable facts and go from there.
Speaker 1: And at least in my studies, the indisputable facts have
Speaker 1: put me onto the trajectory and the thought process that
Speaker 1: I'm on. But I know a lot of Christians really
Speaker 1: do not like my stance on a lot of things.
Speaker 1: And that's okay.
Speaker 9: It's really hard to know much of anything that's going on.
Speaker 1: Back it out on a sair Tony.
Speaker 9: The Holy Innocence. If there were, you know, all these
Speaker 9: babies being killed on the order of a king, and
Speaker 9: wouldn't that king get really unpopular for doing that and
Speaker 9: maybe even be overthrown or close to it. Wouldn't it
Speaker 9: have at least been written down? Well, if it was,
Speaker 9: it hasn't survived, neither has anything else about his childhood.
Speaker 9: It just kind of feels like a story that people
Speaker 9: would make up to make it as interesting as possible,
Speaker 9: and it would be really nice if there were more
Speaker 9: information that survived, like the census records or something. Do
Speaker 9: we have any Roman censuses?
Speaker 1: We do? We do. Indeed, there are Roman censuses from
Speaker 1: Nazareth that show a serious population dip around that time.
Speaker 1: And the argument as far as Harod not being overthrown
Speaker 1: was because the Herod senior was really tight with Rome
Speaker 1: and like he if they would have tried to overthrow him,
Speaker 1: the Romans would have had his back and quelled the resistance.
Speaker 1: So he kind of had carte blanche ability to do
Speaker 1: what he wanted with his people as long as he
Speaker 1: didn't make it a problem for the Romans, they let
Speaker 1: him do what they wanted. And that's that was like
Speaker 1: the gentle balancing act. And it's not like that was
Speaker 1: just indicative of Herod. I mean, there was a lot
Speaker 1: of Roman conquested areas that had local leadership that they
Speaker 1: tried to let remain in place. And yeah, they put
Speaker 1: Roman governors over them, but as long as they could
Speaker 1: have a decent working relationship with the people, then they
Speaker 1: would try to do that as best they could. Rather
Speaker 1: than force their beliefs on them, they would allow these
Speaker 1: people to maintain their own religion in a lot of
Speaker 1: cases and things like that. But the second it became
Speaker 1: a Roman problem, they ended that problem. That was a
Speaker 1: reoccurring theme for them for sure. But anyway, so yeah, again,
Speaker 1: we could talk about this literally all night, and I
Speaker 1: do have to edit this so we can get out
Speaker 1: the next day. So I do want to thank everybody
Speaker 1: for coming in and chiming in on this episode. Anybody
Speaker 1: listening to this on Thursday, if you would like to
Speaker 1: be a part of the conversation, then please come check
Speaker 1: out The Cajun Night on Patreon. I will put the
Speaker 1: linklin description below as I do every episode, and this
Speaker 1: is what we do. We talk about all the geopolitics,
Speaker 1: we talk about some religion, we talk about some history,
Speaker 1: we talk about some anthropology, some languages all over the
Speaker 1: place with this and I really look forward to our
Speaker 1: Wednesday night conversations. Again, I want to thank everybody for
Speaker 1: joining joining in on this one and until next time,
Speaker 1: as always, God bless