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 Night. A lot of things going on around the
Speaker 1: world right now. Yes, in America where we're from, well
Speaker 1: most of the people listening and where are from. But
Speaker 1: I mean they're all over the world. And I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna spend a whole lot of time talking about the
Speaker 1: Israel Iran conversation. We're gonna bring it up a couple
Speaker 1: of little things about it, but that seems to be
Speaker 1: the big talking point that everybody is on right now.
Speaker 1: We don't know if we are going to go to
Speaker 1: war by we, I mean America. Trump just yesterday was
Speaker 1: saying that he was still trying to keep America out
Speaker 1: of war. Today he said that he's not sure. I
Speaker 1: heard a interview with him, and in the same conversation
Speaker 1: he was saying it's never too late to broke or
Speaker 1: a deal, thirty seconds later says it's kind of late.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know. I mean, that's the thing.
Speaker 1: If Trump doesn't know what he's gonna do, there's no.
Speaker 2: Way the enemy can know what he's gonna do. So
Speaker 2: I get the tactic of it. That being said, just
Speaker 2: to our south, we had some buffoonery go down in Columbia.
Speaker 2: We're gonna talk about that. We're gonna talk about some
Speaker 2: things that the Bricks Nations are doing. We're gonna talk
Speaker 2: about some things that NATO is doing. We're gonna talk
Speaker 2: about some just all encumbassing things. AI is gonna be
Speaker 2: brought up on this episode. China is Iran is Russia
Speaker 2: is that, It's all.
Speaker 1: The things and all the stuff. So right off the rip,
Speaker 1: I want to thank everybody for joining us for this conversation.
Speaker 1: To anybody listen to this episode on Thursday or whatever
Speaker 1: day you're listening to is It's released on Thursday on
Speaker 1: the Cult of Conspiracy. But for anybody that would like
Speaker 1: to be a part of the conversation, please come check
Speaker 1: out the Cage and Night on Patreon. The link is
Speaker 1: in the description below, one tier for entry.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 1: You know, we're just trying to grow this little community
Speaker 1: to be something of an educational conversation at least once
Speaker 1: a week. We all have are being bombarded by propaganda
Speaker 1: and news media and things and stuff. This is the
Speaker 1: time and place where we can kind of vent some
Speaker 1: of the grievances, talk out some of the frustrations and
Speaker 1: some of the other things going on here. So that's
Speaker 1: what we do here, all right now, I'm gonna go
Speaker 1: ahead and share the screen and let's just get started
Speaker 1: right off the rip. So, Colombian president candidate recovering from
Speaker 1: surgery after assassination attempt. I understand that Colombia is not
Speaker 1: exactly new to the whole political assassination conversation, but still
Speaker 1: I didn't really hear anything about this until just now,
Speaker 1: So let's get into it. Colombian Senator Miguel Uribe Turbe.
Speaker 1: Sorry if I'm mispronounced it. I speak American English, A
Speaker 1: possible right wing candidate in the country's presidential election next year,
Speaker 1: is recovering after successfully undergoing surgery following an assassination attempt
Speaker 1: during a campaign rally in Bogada, Bogata Sure, thirty nine
Speaker 1: year old RIBAe was speaking two supporters in the capital
Speaker 1: city when a gunman shot him twice in the head
Speaker 1: and once in the knee. It's very weird marksmanship, gonna
Speaker 1: be honest, But however, twice in the head and he
Speaker 1: got out of surgery and it was successful. Let's get
Speaker 1: props for the due either A this guy just got
Speaker 1: kind of glanced a couple of times, or B he's
Speaker 1: he doesn't quit. Gotta get the props with they do.
Speaker 1: He was airlifted to a hospital in critical condition and
Speaker 1: underwent a neurosurgical and peripheral vascular procedure in Santa Fe
Speaker 1: Clinic in Boga, Bogata. Told AFP he overcame the first
Speaker 1: surgical procedure. The mayor, Carlos Fernando Galon told local media.
Speaker 1: Eribe's wife, in an audio recording share with the media,
Speaker 1: said her husband came out well from the surgery. He
Speaker 1: fought the first battle and fought it well. He is
Speaker 1: fighting for his life. She is heard saying, So, I guess, yeah,
Speaker 1: this is the guy in question. The attack took place
Speaker 1: in a park in the Fontain font Tabond neighborhood, when
Speaker 1: armed assailant shot him from behind, said the right wing
Speaker 1: Democratic Leader or Center, which was the party of former
Speaker 1: president Alvaro Ribe. The men are not related, okay, I
Speaker 1: guess Aribe is a common name in Columbia, fair enough.
Speaker 1: The Attorney General's Office, which is investigating the shooting, said
Speaker 1: a fifteen year old boy was arrested at the scene
Speaker 1: with a firearm. Two others, a man and a woman,
Speaker 1: were also wounded in the shooting. Our hearts are broken
Speaker 1: Columbia's hurt, Carolina Gomez, a forty one year old businesswoman
Speaker 1: told AFP. After the shooting, a Reba's Conservative Democratic Center
Speaker 1: party released a statement calling it an unacceptable act of violence. Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: no doubt. Columbia's government said it was offering a reward
Speaker 1: for the capture of all those responsible. Respect life. That's
Speaker 1: the red line, the president said in a message posted
Speaker 1: on his ex account. Shortly after making the post. Petro
Speaker 1: canceled a planned trip to France due to the seriousness
Speaker 1: of the events, according to a presidential statement. In a
Speaker 1: statement Saturday night, the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio
Speaker 1: said the US condemned in the strongest possible terms, the
Speaker 1: attempted assassination of Senator Miguel Ribe. Rubio called the shooting
Speaker 1: a direct threat to democracy and the result of violent
Speaker 1: leftist rhetoric coming from the highest levels of the Colombian government.
Speaker 1: Having seen firsthand Columbia's progress over the past few decades
Speaker 1: to consolidate security and democracy, it can't afford to go
Speaker 1: back to dark days. Of political violence. President Petro needs
Speaker 1: to dial back the inflammatory rhetoric and protect Columbia's officials
Speaker 1: or Colombian officials, excuse me. Ribe Turbe is the son
Speaker 1: of a journalist who was kidnapped and killed in nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety one, during the country's most violent periods. Colombia will
Speaker 1: hold a presidential election on May thirty first, in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty six, marking the end of the current term of Petro,
Speaker 1: Columbia's first leftist president. The senator announced his presidential bid
Speaker 1: in March. So apparently the left, or at least the
Speaker 1: left centric type of people, do not want a conservative
Speaker 1: who is relatively likable from what I could read, to
Speaker 1: take the presidency. They are liking the first leftist president
Speaker 1: in a good long while. They want to see that continue,
Speaker 1: I suppose. Columbian Police Chief General Carlos Triana said that
Speaker 1: at the time of the attack, Rebate Turbe was accompanied
Speaker 1: by councilman Andreas Barrios A and twenty other people. A
Speaker 1: miner who allegedly participated in the attack was apprehended at
Speaker 1: the scene and was being treated for a leg injury.
Speaker 1: He said, I have ordered the Columbia military and police
Speaker 1: forces and intelligence agencies to deploy all their capabilities to
Speaker 1: urgently clarify the facts, said Defense Minister Pedro Sanchez. Sanchez
Speaker 1: Sanchez again, I speak the Americans English. I don't you know,
Speaker 1: it is what it is. Reactions poured in from around
Speaker 1: Latin America, with Chilean President Gabriel Borick saying there is
Speaker 1: no room or justification for violence in a democracy. So
Speaker 1: long story short, everybody just says this is a horrible act.
Speaker 1: But as we're talking about just the global news and
Speaker 1: things going on around the world, thought we at least
Speaker 1: need to bring up something a little closer to our doorstep. Next,
Speaker 1: let's talk about Germany and what they are currently doing. Ryle,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I'm jumping ahead of myself here. Let's before
Speaker 1: we get to Germany and how they have just stacked
Speaker 1: tanks and the forty fifth tank Brigade or Panzer brigade
Speaker 1: or division excuse me, in Lithuania and this is the
Speaker 1: first foreign permanently stationed German force since the nazis interesting,
Speaker 1: not saying I don't support it. I like this a lot,
Speaker 1: but also it's worth noting Germany hasn't done anything outside
Speaker 1: of their borders. Militarily since then, I think it's dope.
Speaker 1: But why why would they be doing this and in
Speaker 1: this way? Well, NATO is in a transformation period right now,
Speaker 1: not just for a good long while. There it was
Speaker 1: two percent two percent GDP to be a part of NATO.
Speaker 1: Then they up to three point five. The Americans are
Speaker 1: trying to push it to five percent GDP. Just so
Speaker 1: everyone's cleared. That would bankrupt half of Europe to do
Speaker 1: it to that level. I think they should step up game.
Speaker 1: It sounds like a skill issue to me, But hey,
Speaker 1: what do I know, I'm just an American. Let's read
Speaker 1: in here. This is from European Union Institute for Security
Speaker 1: Studies Fit for Purpose, Reforming NATO in the Age of
Speaker 1: Trump two point zero. Yeah, because it's always Trump's fault.
Speaker 1: But you know, I guess he's the one that's been
Speaker 1: pushing for the increase, and then you could see why
Speaker 1: it's needed. So to take that with a grain of salt,
Speaker 1: NATO is in an inflection point, caused by a growing
Speaker 1: Russian threat to Europe and shifting American strategic priorities, with
Speaker 1: President Trump demanding steep increases in defense spending and threatening
Speaker 1: to abandon the alliance, which, speaking on behalf of myself,
Speaker 1: Perhaps we should, I don't know. European countries are preparing
Speaker 1: to shoulder a significantly higher share of the Transatlantic burden.
Speaker 1: Beyond the headlines, the real test will lie in how
Speaker 1: NATO translates political commitments into credible military capabilities, chiefly through
Speaker 1: the NATO Defense planning process the brief. This brief explores
Speaker 1: how the alliance can be adapted to strengthen the European
Speaker 1: pa of NATO, address the uncertainty over US commitments and
Speaker 1: ensure deterrence. Now spending more is not enough. According to
Speaker 1: the article, the NATO summit in the Hague is the
Speaker 1: first attempt Trump since Trump's return to the White House,
Speaker 1: will have two main objectives. First, allies aim to agree
Speaker 1: on a new baseline spending figure. Many argue that two
Speaker 1: percent defense investment pledged agreed at the Whales Summit in
Speaker 1: twenty fourteen is insufficient to meet the needs of European deterrence.
Speaker 1: In addition, Trump sees a new spending agreement as a
Speaker 1: key component in his transatlantic policy. Hence, the main headline
Speaker 1: of the Hague summit will be adoption of a new
Speaker 1: spending goal. The target will likely be above three percent
Speaker 1: of GDP four defense items, with an additional one point
Speaker 1: five for a broader security related matter such as infrastructure
Speaker 1: and resilience. The some of these two items will likely
Speaker 1: be approximate the five percent figure that Trump has flowed
Speaker 1: in the beginning of the second term. So before I
Speaker 1: can continue reading, just a breakdown of this, and if
Speaker 1: anybody would like to interject, please, by all means feel
Speaker 1: free to just unmute yourselves and just dive in here.
Speaker 1: Two percent is the minimum to be a part of NATO,
Speaker 1: and there were a few countries that were trying to
Speaker 1: be a part of NATO and they had to make
Speaker 1: some things happen in order to reach a two percent
Speaker 1: GDP defense budget. That's not so easily accomplished. That being said,
Speaker 1: this new proposition, they're talking about one point five percent
Speaker 1: not just going to NATO as a whole, but being
Speaker 1: designated to increase infrastructure. And that's something that I think
Speaker 1: all of Europe could benefit from. There are certain countries
Speaker 1: that are doing better than others as far as that goes.
Speaker 1: I'm not throwing shade at anybody in particular here. However,
Speaker 1: I'm pretty sure everybody can agree that the trains need
Speaker 1: to be more modified. The electrical grid needs to be updated,
Speaker 1: Internet security needs to be updated. Highway systems need to
Speaker 1: be updated and modified. Like it's not to say anything.
Speaker 1: America has the same issues. Infrastructure needs to be updated
Speaker 1: and modify for the vast majority of our country. So again,
Speaker 1: there's enough, there's enough fingers being pointed in all directions here.
Speaker 1: That being said, three point five percent or three even
Speaker 1: just around the three number, that's basically a fifty percent,
Speaker 1: if not more, increase than what the NATO countries are
Speaker 1: already paying. Most of them can't even make that happen
Speaker 1: right now. So for them to do this and be
Speaker 1: in what's the word I'm looking for in compliance with
Speaker 1: the new NATO mandates. If this passes realistically, facts and
Speaker 1: figures on paper would bankrupt half the continent. That you know,
Speaker 1: it is what it is, right, So let's continue here.
Speaker 1: More importantly, need NATO needs to decide what to spend
Speaker 1: the additional funding on. That is, what forces and what
Speaker 1: forces and capabilities to raise. That is the purpose of
Speaker 1: the NATO Defense Planning process. This four year cycle is
Speaker 1: the central framework to develop the military means that are
Speaker 1: needed to defund Europe. In line with the political guidance
Speaker 1: issued in twenty twenty three, NATO strategic commands identify the
Speaker 1: minimum capability requirements, that is, the pool of forces and
Speaker 1: capabilities that are necessary to fulfill operations and missions. The
Speaker 1: capability targets are then appropriate, approportioned, apportioned. I'm sure that's
Speaker 1: a word in some other English speaking country. To allies,
Speaker 1: the allocation of capability targets is the second deliverance are
Speaker 1: deliverable of the summit, albeit one that remains largely out
Speaker 1: of the public eye due to its classified nature. Allies
Speaker 1: are expected to agree on a thirty percent increase in
Speaker 1: overall targets necessary to fulfill the requirements of the new
Speaker 1: regional Plans for euro Atlantic defense. However, this increase is
Speaker 1: not going to be equally distributed across the Alliance, since
Speaker 1: the US has signaled its intention to reduce its commitment
Speaker 1: to the European Conventional Deterrence, European allies in Canada will
Speaker 1: carry the bulk of this increase. We've kind of footed
Speaker 1: the bill for a lot of these things for a
Speaker 1: long time. Maybe an unpopular opinion, but as far as
Speaker 1: who has been pushing the lion's share of the NATO budget.
Speaker 1: I think it's kind of goes without saying that America's
Speaker 1: footed the bill for a good long while. I remember
Speaker 1: just recently Trump threatened to leave and that made at
Speaker 1: least one country that I can think of, but I
Speaker 1: think also too up there spending to cover the cost.
Speaker 1: And then they decided, Okay, we're back in action, we're
Speaker 1: back in the conversation. But yeah, I could see it
Speaker 1: going a couple of ways here, Raven, please.
Speaker 4: So they're actually Poland is spending the most. They're doing
Speaker 4: four point one two Yeah, four point twelve percent. We're
Speaker 4: at three point three eight percent, Estonia that three point
Speaker 4: four or five three point four to three percent so
Speaker 4: far of the GDP. It looks like they're like the
Speaker 4: expectancy I dropped one in the chat from last year,
Speaker 4: But it looks like it depends on what you're looking at,
Speaker 4: because overall, the United States has core contributed to paying
Speaker 4: for a lot of what's happening globally. But actually Poland's
Speaker 4: been pulling their weight more than US over all. In
Speaker 4: the last few years.
Speaker 1: Poland aka Little European Texas, since the Russia Ukraine conflict started,
Speaker 1: has been buying every single piece of equipment and tech
Speaker 1: that people will sell them. If I'm not mistaken, both Lockhey,
Speaker 1: Martin and Boeing have one hundred back ordered items that
Speaker 1: as soon as they're created, are set to ship to Poland.
Speaker 1: They are they are on a on a whole thing
Speaker 1: right now. Poland's on their defense vibes, and I'm here
Speaker 1: for it. I like Poland. I know that they get
Speaker 1: shit on a lot by the European countries because they're
Speaker 1: seen as the dumb ones. You know what. I disagree.
Speaker 1: The Polish people I've met are always been pretty cool,
Speaker 1: and I am here for having more weapons and defense
Speaker 1: in Europe, and not just for the whole Russia thing,
Speaker 1: although there's a lot of people that believe that that's
Speaker 1: what they're gonna do next in Russia's totally gonna invade
Speaker 1: Poland as soon as they get done with Ukraine, and
Speaker 1: I don't personally believe that. That being said, more European
Speaker 1: countries having more defense means that America could use more
Speaker 1: of its resources for our problems. I like this a lot,
Speaker 1: So yeah, to your point, you said it was Poland's
Speaker 1: at four point twelve percent four point one two or
Speaker 1: something like this. America was the Lion's shareholder up until
Speaker 1: recently when Trump started pulling back more support from it.
Speaker 1: I like it. I like it a lot, honestly. And
Speaker 1: he's been on this whole kick since he got elected
Speaker 1: that he will keep America out of new wars again
Speaker 1: with the whole Iran conversation. We will see how that
Speaker 1: shakes out. As of time of recording, he is still
Speaker 1: saying these things. I don't know if they're going to
Speaker 1: try to strong arm him into this conflict. But I
Speaker 1: just still hold the opinion that Trump doesn't get strong
Speaker 1: armed into things. I could be so wrong, and he
Speaker 1: is about to be a puppet for somebody. It's very possible.
Speaker 1: I just have a hard time seeing it, you know.
Speaker 1: But all things considered, now, let's talk about this here.
Speaker 1: Standing on weak legs, the function of the Alliance relies
Speaker 1: on two key assumptions that may no longer be valid.
Speaker 1: Not addressing them will make it harder to maintain a
Speaker 1: strong and credible deterrence posture. The first assumption is that
Speaker 1: the United States will maintain a key role in the
Speaker 1: deterrence and defense of Europe. Native's defense mod model relies
Speaker 1: on the US to provide large numbers of troops and firepower,
Speaker 1: including eighty four thousand US service members who are stationed
Speaker 1: across the United States. European Command EUCOM excuse me, responsibility.
Speaker 1: NATO's command and control structure two relies on a US backbone.
Speaker 1: For instance, its highest military authority is also the Yukon Commander. Finally,
Speaker 1: the US provides some key strategic enablers intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance,
Speaker 1: air to air refueling and strategic airlift, ballistic missile defense,
Speaker 1: and airborne electromagnetic warfare. So this is all contingent upon
Speaker 1: America doing more or having the majority of the backbone
Speaker 1: to it. Don't know how it's gonna look if America
Speaker 1: is trying to take a step back from the NATO
Speaker 1: in europe conversation. So who's to say what the future
Speaker 1: will hold? Right here, it says a collective dependency capability
Speaker 1: areas in which NATO is most dependent on the US
Speaker 1: for strategic airlift. Yeah, I mean, okay, I'm not going
Speaker 1: to give the whole list here. There's an entire diagram
Speaker 1: for anybody who would like to see this. It will
Speaker 1: be on the Cajun Night Ptreon. It's a diagram basically
Speaker 1: showing every asset that America brings to the table that
Speaker 1: helps the entirety of the of the NATO conversation. Here,
Speaker 1: strategic enablers are akin to collective goods for NATO. While
Speaker 1: they are provided by one country, their presence significantly enhances
Speaker 1: the combat effectiveness of all allied forces or of specific
Speaker 1: regional coalitions. European countries have relied on American enablers for decades,
Speaker 1: even in non NATO operations, As the continued availability of
Speaker 1: these assets was largely taken for granted, they had little
Speaker 1: incentive to invest in alternatives. Well, again, that's kind of
Speaker 1: what the current administration has been saying. We've been getting
Speaker 1: taken advantage of for a while. How that was the
Speaker 1: entire platform of his tariff conversation, saying that American economy
Speaker 1: has getten taken advantage of by pretty much everybody. We
Speaker 1: want to sell in other countries, we have to pay
Speaker 1: tariffs they want to sell here. No tariffs conversation with
Speaker 1: the NATO com You know, I see it as well. Well,
Speaker 1: we've been footing the bill, and they they NATO, the
Speaker 1: European countries that are part of it have been benefiting
Speaker 1: from US having way more of the military tech. Everybody
Speaker 1: wants to talk shit on America for being the global police.
Speaker 1: Why do you spend so much on your military bup
Speaker 1: bup bop. Except they're all living very comfortably on the umbrella,
Speaker 1: under the umbrella of the American defensive posture. It's very
Speaker 1: crazy to me that they would complain while hiding behind
Speaker 1: our shield. I know might be an unpopular opinion, but hey,
Speaker 1: it is what it is. However, the new Trump administration
Speaker 1: has signaled its intentions to significantly reduce its contributions, calling
Speaker 1: this long long standing assumption into question. As Secretary head
Speaker 1: Seth said in February of twenty twenty five, strategic realities
Speaker 1: prevent the US from taking primary responsibility for European conventional deterrence.
Speaker 1: The European Command is expected to suffer cuts as part
Speaker 1: of the Department of Defense's budget reallocation process, which may
Speaker 1: result in the reduction of American forces in Europe. Even
Speaker 1: the US provided enablers could be removed from the Euroatlantic theater.
Speaker 1: According to the twenty twenty five National Defense Policy Guideline,
Speaker 1: the Pentagon will shift resources into the Indo Pacific and
Speaker 1: assume risk in other theaters, and you know it's as China.
Speaker 1: It's a fine name your reason why we would be
Speaker 1: putting more of our assets into the Pacific region rather
Speaker 1: than the Atlantic region, whatever you want to say. That
Speaker 1: means that Europe is going to be even more on
Speaker 1: high alert. Could this possibly all be a play to
Speaker 1: incentivize them to pay their fair share as far as
Speaker 1: their own defense is concerned. Possibly also, the way the
Speaker 1: US coerced Ukraine in early twenty twenty five set's a
Speaker 1: dangerous precedent. It suggests that Washington could decide to withdraw
Speaker 1: or withhold certain capabilities from European allies for negotiating purposes.
Speaker 1: In this context, it is unclear whether the US can
Speaker 1: be counted upon to maintain its commitments to Europe, the
Speaker 1: Europe's conventional deterrence, or even that any transition can be
Speaker 1: managed gradually. While the current NDPP that's the group that
Speaker 1: we were talking about here earlier, could deal with a
Speaker 1: gradual reduction in the US presence, it is unequipped to
Speaker 1: deal with an unexpected withdrawal. Again, this sounds like a
Speaker 1: scale issue and a skill issue. If you can't stand
Speaker 1: on your own, Yeah, now I'm gonna go there right now.
Speaker 1: The second assumption is that individual countries can make up
Speaker 1: for the capability shortfalls. While targets in the NDPP can
Speaker 1: be appointed individually, multinationally or collectively, in practice the vast
Speaker 1: majority are allocated to individual countries. This national focus is
Speaker 1: reflected in the consensus minus one rule. A country cannot
Speaker 1: veto a capability package assigned to itself. According to this format,
Speaker 1: the reduction of the US commitments could be offset by
Speaker 1: setting higher targets for the other thirty one allies. This
Speaker 1: solution makes sense for certain forces and capabilities. For example,
Speaker 1: European countries will need to individually provide the personnel to
Speaker 1: fulfill the new NATO Force model, which now requires up
Speaker 1: to five hundred thousand forces at different levels of readiness.
Speaker 1: Single countries can also provide specific assets. For instance, the
Speaker 1: UK and Canada possess significant intelligence capabilities as member of
Speaker 1: the Five Eyes Alliance. However, even the most militarily advanced
Speaker 1: European countries will struggle to replace most US provided assets.
Speaker 1: This is particularly too true for these strategic enablers, which
Speaker 1: require long term, costly investments for acquisition and procurement. Many
Speaker 1: go beyond the means of individual countries. For example, most
Speaker 1: experts believe that Europe will need five to ten years
Speaker 1: to have sufficient capacity to stop relying on the US
Speaker 1: for space based ISR. That also makes sense to me.
Speaker 1: I don't know if, as someone knows which country has
Speaker 1: the most satellites in space, I would love to know.
Speaker 1: I want to say it's US, but I can't. I
Speaker 1: can't confirm that. I know a bunch of other countries
Speaker 1: have their own space assets out there for their own
Speaker 1: reconnaissance and things. But yeah, they're talking just to stop
Speaker 1: relying on the US for our satellite reconnaissance five to
Speaker 1: ten years. I think that is an underestimation or an
Speaker 1: over whichever one makes it seem like that's ridiculous. It
Speaker 1: might take twenty maybe twenty five years for them to
Speaker 1: have enough eyes in the sky of their own to
Speaker 1: not rely on America. I don't know. Real quick, before
Speaker 1: I continue, let me go check out the chat. See
Speaker 1: what all the people have been saying. I'm going to do.
Speaker 1: Let's see. I kind of like Petro, but my Colombian
Speaker 1: friend's dad doesn't. Says he tried to take on Petro
Speaker 1: once in an airport and the guy was not in
Speaker 1: the mood to be talked, to take him on like
Speaker 1: in fisticuffs, or like take him on as in having
Speaker 1: an impromptu debate in the middle of an era.
Speaker 3: Just talk to him. So I've spelled talk wrong somehow, So.
Speaker 1: Don't you history called him out in an airport like dude,
Speaker 1: I like him. Boy's got some stones on him. But yeah, okay,
Speaker 1: that makes sense. Uh let's see here here, ravenly ba
Speaker 1: ba bap. I hope everyone has had and is having
Speaker 1: a wonderful day. Much love to all of you, y'all.
Speaker 1: Be good for those of you working right now. Be
Speaker 1: careful getting home. Same to you, brother, Raven. I see
Speaker 1: the article that you sent. I'm gonna pull that one
Speaker 1: up right after this one. As a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: Tony says military spending and they don't even know what
Speaker 1: to spend it on yet. NATO sucks and should have
Speaker 1: been ended after nineteen ninety one. NATO has been aggressive
Speaker 1: to Yugoslavia and Libya. I can't find any fault in
Speaker 1: your logic here. NATO's entire purpose of being still up
Speaker 1: in the first place was to go against the USSR.
Speaker 1: Once the USSR collapsed, NATO should have gone by the
Speaker 1: wayside or if if that was the case in these
Speaker 1: countries that were allied for this long wanted to maintain
Speaker 1: those strong alliances. Fine, let it be under a new doctrine,
Speaker 1: under a new alliance, something that is not completely systemically
Speaker 1: anti Russia. And once Russia was, now what they are
Speaker 1: and they're not the USSR anymore. They're a new country,
Speaker 1: and they tried to get into NATO and could meet
Speaker 1: all the requirements. Why wouldn't you let them in as
Speaker 1: a show of good faith? I me and you have
Speaker 1: had this conversation before.
Speaker 3: I agree, Yeah, absolutely. And Eisenhower once said that if
Speaker 3: NATO lasts for more than ten years, it will have
Speaker 3: been a failure. I don't know exactly what he meant
Speaker 3: by that, but anyway, it's still here, like seventy years later.
Speaker 3: And originally it was just the Atlantic countries. There was
Speaker 3: no idea, there was no proposal that it should go
Speaker 3: all the way to eastern Europe like Poland, the Baltic
Speaker 3: States and everywhere else like that. But some people are
Speaker 3: talking about bringing Georgia in and Ukraine. Ukraine is definitely
Speaker 3: off the table for now, but Georgia, that's nowhere even
Speaker 3: near the Atlantic and Turkey got in somehow, actually pretty early,
Speaker 3: because I think they sent some troops to the Korean
Speaker 3: War and they were just begging the US to be
Speaker 3: let in, and the US said, okay, we'll let you in. Basically,
Speaker 3: Turkey has always been hostile to Russia until kind of recently, not.
Speaker 1: Always here recently they've been kind of cozy enough.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but they fought wars with Russia for hundreds of years.
Speaker 3: They used to own Crimea a long time ago, so
Speaker 3: they were enemies for hundreds of years and it's only
Speaker 3: recently kind of mellowed out. And nobody knows who signed
Speaker 3: Arawan is ever on anyway, I don't.
Speaker 1: Think he knows what side he's on. I mean, it
Speaker 1: goes day to day Turkey is and I've heard it
Speaker 1: be called this by multiple sources, NATO's resident bad boy,
Speaker 1: Like we don't like them, but we're glad they're a
Speaker 1: part of the click. But we don't like that they're
Speaker 1: a part of the click. Yeah, I'm I've always wondered
Speaker 1: how Turkey was able to sneak their way into NATO
Speaker 1: that early on. Like you said, it's blown my mind
Speaker 1: for forever. I don't know if it was traditionally, because
Speaker 1: that's the Automan Empire, the last remnants thereof, some would suggest,
Speaker 1: and so maybe they wanted to have that kind of
Speaker 1: an ally in that section of the world, being a
Speaker 1: corridor to there are Arabic countries, but like, Turkey's not
Speaker 1: going to be your homeboy against Arabic countries in the
Speaker 1: manner at which NATO thinks it would be maybe out loud,
Speaker 1: face to face talking to them. They would say one thing,
Speaker 1: but they'll do another. That's Turkey's got their own problems
Speaker 1: that they've been dealing with for ever. So yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: agree with you on that. Let's see here the Pew
Speaker 1: Research Center twenty twenty three, eighty three percent of Poles
Speaker 1: express confidence in Joe Biden's leadership in world affairs, which
Speaker 1: was the highest recorded confidence level for any US president
Speaker 1: in Poland by Pew Research the Pole of Poles. How
Speaker 1: but I don't trust polling with opinions. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: I was just talking them up. I know that people
Speaker 1: say that there are a bunch of dummies or whatever.
Speaker 1: I like the Poles, but hmm, eighty three percent of
Speaker 1: them were liking what Biden was about. That's kind of
Speaker 1: concerning it's kind of concerning. I do like as I
Speaker 1: was saying, I love that they are buying so much
Speaker 1: of the American made weapons. Hell, not just American, any
Speaker 1: weapons that any country is willing to sell them. Right now,
Speaker 1: they are just buying up like it's going out of style.
Speaker 1: I don't know where exactly they're getting the budget for that,
Speaker 1: but that is not my problem. That is their economy's problem.
Speaker 1: Hope it doesn't lead to their collapse. That's all I'm saying.
Speaker 1: Let's get here, Cody Bob, welcome, Cody Bob. Just want
Speaker 1: to step in for a sec to say hello and
Speaker 1: good night. Four OFM comes early, see y'all Tuesday slash Wednesday, Yo.
Speaker 1: I feel that my boy had absolutely comes early. Thank
Speaker 1: you for stopping in. The US has thirty four hundre
Speaker 1: hundred sets, with China having five hundred and thirty five.
Speaker 1: And that's what Google says in twenty twenty three, out
Speaker 1: of the fifty five hundred satellites, only four hundred and
Speaker 1: twenty four satellites are used for military. Very interesting, Raven.
Speaker 1: I saw your hand was raised earlier. Was that what
Speaker 1: you were going to say? Or you got something else
Speaker 1: as well?
Speaker 4: I was deep dive.
Speaker 5: Well, I'm currently deep diving into who owns Planet Labs Inc.
Speaker 5: Right now because I was looking at the top three
Speaker 5: people that have satellites and I was.
Speaker 4: Found interesting this woman, Ashley F.
Speaker 5: Johnson, and I'm wondering if she's related to the other Johnson's,
Speaker 5: And so now I'm in a deep dive trying to
Speaker 5: pick a part who belongs to who?
Speaker 1: So when you say the other Johnson's, do you mean
Speaker 1: like the Pharma Johnson's or like President Lyndon B. Johnsonson.
Speaker 5: Well, that's what I'm trying to figure out, is who
Speaker 5: she belongs to because it's she owns a ton of
Speaker 5: stock in it, and she's one of the wealthiest people
Speaker 5: and she's running that specific group and they're number three
Speaker 5: having the most satellites.
Speaker 4: FACEX is number one, and I didn't. I just clicked
Speaker 4: off of who owns number two?
Speaker 5: Number two is one web satellite out of the UK Okay, Okay.
Speaker 1: To be fair, though, Johnson's a pretty common name, so
Speaker 1: it may have no connection whatsoever, it may have all
Speaker 1: of the connections. Let us know what you find absolutely
Speaker 1: continuing here, Tony, no ball Earth propaganda in this chat, please,
Speaker 1: I did of course, No, No, I'm pretty sure that
Speaker 1: everybody affiliated with the Cajun Night Live is living very
Speaker 1: comfortably in the knowledge that we are living on a ball,
Speaker 1: not a flat plane. Although if there are any flat
Speaker 1: earthers that are part of the Cajun Night community, I
Speaker 1: would like to know. We are not going to have
Speaker 1: a flat Earth debate on this pod. However, I would
Speaker 1: just kind of like to know. Just throw it in
Speaker 1: the chat. We'll get back to that in a bit.
Speaker 1: Let's see breaking up out. Though self fulfilling prophecy, European
Speaker 1: allies in NATO may fear that they could set emotion
Speaker 1: the very outcome they seek to avoid. The more they
Speaker 1: plan to replace the US presence, the more excuses they
Speaker 1: will give to DC policymakers to leave. This fear is
Speaker 1: likely holding back the attempts at openly reforming the alliance.
Speaker 1: After all, maintaining a strong bond between Europe and North
Speaker 1: America is existential of excuse me is of existential importance
Speaker 1: to NATO. Yeah, that would make sense. However, it is
Speaker 1: unlikely that the US will make its disengagement decisions based
Speaker 1: on which allies are providing specific capabilities. If anything, defense
Speaker 1: planners in the Pentagon may view such contributions as a
Speaker 1: positive step towards fair or burden sharing. Even those who
Speaker 1: advocate a more restrained US role in Europe and favor
Speaker 1: a refocus towards the Indo Pacific argue that deterring China
Speaker 1: would be easier if Europeans possessed alternatives to US capabilities,
Speaker 1: making them more valuable allies. I can't disagree with that.
Speaker 1: It is more likely that other policies, such as restrictions
Speaker 1: on US companies access to the European defense market, will
Speaker 1: rattle Trump, but it is unlikely that reforming NATO structures
Speaker 1: would make him more eager to leave. You know, who's
Speaker 1: to say, Like Trump said, he didn't know what he's
Speaker 1: going to do yet, it's pretty much his decision on
Speaker 1: everything he's ever asked. Overcoming this fear is a necessary
Speaker 1: step for reform to the Alliance and make it truly
Speaker 1: fit for purpose. The alternative is maintaining the current dependency
Speaker 1: on American assets without any guarantees that Washington will continue
Speaker 1: to provide them. NATO's planners would need to make some
Speaker 1: significant changes to the way the Alliance yep, to the
Speaker 1: way the Alliance decides, and allocates targets. First, they need
Speaker 1: to analyze which assets the US is most likely to
Speaker 1: withdraw from the euro Atlantic theater. US planners should also
Speaker 1: be more forthcoming and explain their likely plans for redeployment.
Speaker 1: On that basis, NATO define a prioritiy list of assets
Speaker 1: and assess how early or excuse me, how easily individual
Speaker 1: allies can replace them. Second, in allocating capabilities, NATO's planners
Speaker 1: should shift the balance away from national target allocations, encouraging
Speaker 1: European countries to develop, acquire, or procure common assets. NATO
Speaker 1: commands could directly own some assets, like with the a
Speaker 1: Wax aircraft or the Alliance Ground surveillance fleet of five
Speaker 1: RQ four D Phoenix remotely piloted aircraft, but this might
Speaker 1: not work for all platforms. Allies could also form groupings
Speaker 1: where higher trust facilities and development of common assets, perhaps
Speaker 1: following the model and capabilities of the coalitions for Ukraine,
Speaker 1: regional groups or other flexible formats. This plan should allow
Speaker 1: Europeans to provide at least half of the enablers to
Speaker 1: accomplish NATO's mission, rebalancing the dependency on America. Broader changes
Speaker 1: in NATO's force structures should also take place the priority
Speaker 1: to strengthen the European component of the force. One possible
Speaker 1: solution could be to group NATO's deployment forces in Europe
Speaker 1: into larger sized units, from brigrade brigades to divisions. While
Speaker 1: many countries cannot immediately feel larger forces, merging them with
Speaker 1: those of other countries will make it easier, will make
Speaker 1: each command stronger and larger. NATO civilian and military leadership
Speaker 1: roles can also be restructured to reflect the greater share
Speaker 1: of the burden that Europeans are expected to bear, gradually
Speaker 1: moving responsibilities away from the US backbone without completely delinking it.
Speaker 1: This could ultimately result in the appointment of a European
Speaker 1: figure as a Secretary in charge of the European Forces.
Speaker 1: So that being said, America did just do something with
Speaker 1: Norway that I just found out about, and it was
Speaker 1: it was just for a brief moment, I know, but
Speaker 1: the overarching breakdown of it, we have unmanned and aerial craft,
Speaker 1: and I don't mean just the drones that you're thinking
Speaker 1: of with the trench warfare that's going on in Ukraine
Speaker 1: right now. It was more like a more modern Predator drone,
Speaker 1: and we were doing some training over Europe over allies, right,
Speaker 1: and we all and by we I mean the Royal
Speaker 1: we I mean the United States Forces allowed Norwegian fighter
Speaker 1: pilots or drone operators to actually link in and then
Speaker 1: take control of these crafts for a period of time,
Speaker 1: and then they delink themselves and we took back control
Speaker 1: over it. It's kind of like whenever you're training a
Speaker 1: new pilot in the sky and you get them up there,
Speaker 1: and then once you take off, you kind of like
Speaker 1: let them take over the stick for a little bit
Speaker 1: and they do some little moves and they test things
Speaker 1: out and all good things. When it comes time to land,
Speaker 1: you take over control again. We just did that. I
Speaker 1: forget what the name of the operation was, Jorgan Johan,
Speaker 1: something like this, Norwegian and Viking sounding. I don't speak
Speaker 1: the language. But this was done in an attempt to
Speaker 1: show how transferable a lot of these assets could be.
Speaker 1: And I'm not saying that Norway is really great militarily
Speaker 1: or really weak, but it was the first step of
Speaker 1: letting another country pilot our materials and craft like that.
Speaker 1: This kind of was a big deal, honestly. Now for
Speaker 1: insurance reasons, And I don't mean insurance like Geico, I
Speaker 1: mean like big picture insurance. If that would have crashed
Speaker 1: while Norwegians were piloting it, who would have been hailed responsible?
Speaker 6: Right?
Speaker 1: That would have been a huge point of contention. And
Speaker 1: I understand this, But as far as the first steps
Speaker 1: go of having like they're talking about europe Centric assets,
Speaker 1: things that could be transferred from one country to another
Speaker 1: to another depending on the region at which they're needed,
Speaker 1: that sounds like a good idea to me. Everybody who
Speaker 1: has used a certain weapons platform, whether it be a rifle,
Speaker 1: whether it be a javelin with a clue, or whether
Speaker 1: it be a predator drone, whatever the case would be,
Speaker 1: if our allies are using the same tech and equipment
Speaker 1: that we're using, it would only make sense to me
Speaker 1: that they be adequately trained on the material those on
Speaker 1: the equipment. It's just me speaking on behalf of myself here,
Speaker 1: so I don't know. I like the way it's sounding
Speaker 1: though thus far.
Speaker 3: So.
Speaker 1: While the EU cannot be directly involved in NATO structures,
Speaker 1: it has tools at its disposal that can help with
Speaker 1: the efforts outlined above. The Europeans Commissions proposal to activate
Speaker 1: the National Escape clause of the Stability and Growth Pact
Speaker 1: will enable EU member states in NATO to achieve higher
Speaker 1: defense spending requirements. Safe loans will finance joint procurement projects
Speaker 1: they are well suited to acquire. A key capability and
Speaker 1: enablers such as those mentioned in the White Paper on
Speaker 1: the Future of European Defense. The EU and NATO agencies
Speaker 1: can also cooperate to develop joint asset buildings on past
Speaker 1: successful examples, such as the multinational Multi Role Tanker Transport
Speaker 1: the MRTT aircraft fleet for air to air refueling. I'm
Speaker 1: not mistaken there's not many countries that can actually field
Speaker 1: that kind of capability. But if multiple European nations got
Speaker 1: together to buy a fleet of these air to air
Speaker 1: refuel tankers and they're just used in a NATO centric way,
Speaker 1: I see that as a good asset that can go
Speaker 1: in so many directions. Makes perfect sense to me. Anyway,
Speaker 1: Let's see we could wrap this one up here. It
Speaker 1: says a full reckoning. The two architects of the current
Speaker 1: INDPP cycle, Ambassador Angus Lapsi and Admiral Pierre Vandal van Dell,
Speaker 1: I don't know, argue that it will make the Alliance
Speaker 1: battle ready in a way that has not been the
Speaker 1: case since the end of the Cold War. To be
Speaker 1: truly transformational, the Alliance should take into account all aspects
Speaker 1: of the new strategic scenario, including the risk of the
Speaker 1: US disengagement. Only that will ensure that the necessary ambition
Speaker 1: changes or ambitious changes take place, such as the development
Speaker 1: of a genuine European pillar within NATO. Failure to act
Speaker 1: risks opening gaps into terns, making future aggression more likely. Okay,
Speaker 1: so I know that was kind of long winded here,
Speaker 1: but all of that to say here we go all
Speaker 1: that to say that not just NATO in and of itself,
Speaker 1: but even the countries and then within it, some of
Speaker 1: them are actually stepping up. Let's talk about Germany deploying
Speaker 1: these two Leopard tanks to reinforce NATO's eastern flank. On
Speaker 1: May twenty second of this year, Germany officially inaugurated its
Speaker 1: forty fifth armored Brigade to Lithuania, marking the first long
Speaker 1: term deployment of German troops on foreign soil since the
Speaker 1: end of World War II. As reported by the German
Speaker 1: Armed Forces, this historical deployment of a mechanized brigade falls
Speaker 1: under NATO's deterrence and for defense posture specifically within the
Speaker 1: heavy armor category of land based conventional warfare. The initiative
Speaker 1: reflects Germany's renewed defense concepts of permanent forward presence in
Speaker 1: response to involving evolving threats to NATO's eastern flank. Yes,
Speaker 1: I understand that inherently they mean Russia, but I mean again,
Speaker 1: Germany has been on one here recently, and not just
Speaker 1: in the past couple of weeks. The past few years,
Speaker 1: they've been trying to build back their military to be
Speaker 1: a real world class fighting force. This will probably be
Speaker 1: the first of what I would propose would be many.
Speaker 1: I feel like there's gonna be a lot more permanently
Speaker 1: stationed German troops at multiple bases around the world, very
Speaker 1: similarly to how America has multiple all over the world.
Speaker 1: Germany is trying to become a part of that conversation,
Speaker 1: and honestly, as of this moment, I support it. So
Speaker 1: this is one of those Panzer divisions right here, the
Speaker 1: forty fifth coming into Lithuania. The presence of German soldiers
Speaker 1: in Lithuania has long been symbolic since Berlin first reinforced
Speaker 1: NATO's enhanced forward presence mission in the Baltic States following
Speaker 1: Russia's annexation of Crimea in twenty fourteen. However, this new
Speaker 1: deployment takes a strategic leap. It is not rotational, temporary,
Speaker 1: or reactive. It is a permanent, structured brigade designed to
Speaker 1: stay with three maneuver battalions along with comprehensive combat support
Speaker 1: and logistics elements. The brigade is set to reach full
Speaker 1: operational capacity by twenty twenty seven, hosting up to five
Speaker 1: thousand German personnel and civilians for Lithuania and its neighbors.
Speaker 1: This development provides a tangible layer of protection against the
Speaker 1: possibility of Russia Russian incursions beyond Ukraine. The German forty
Speaker 1: fifth Armored Brigade permanently de Floyd and Lithuania features some
Speaker 1: of Bundenwers Bundeswars. Tony help me out here.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Bundesvere it's uptake to the Wehrmacht. They had to
Speaker 3: rename it Vere just means weapons and Bunds has to
Speaker 3: do with the Republic.
Speaker 1: Got you. I know, I only know of the bundest
Speaker 1: part because of like the bundes League, which is the
Speaker 1: German soccer league. So Bundesver.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's any kind of any kind of bonded group
Speaker 3: of people bonded together. That's what the root is. So
Speaker 3: you got the bundes Republic and Bunds everything.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you gotta sink your teeth into those wobble
Speaker 1: ues so bundsviars hell yeah. Uh. Some of the Bundesver's
Speaker 1: most modern systems forming a high readiness, full spectrum combat
Speaker 1: force on NATO's eastern flank at its core are Lepper
Speaker 1: two A six main battle tanks known for their superior firepower,
Speaker 1: protection and mobility in armored warf These are supported by
Speaker 1: Puma infantry fighting vehicles equipped with advanced sensors and a
Speaker 1: thirty millimeters auto cannon, which is pretty sick. I don't
Speaker 1: know if anybody's ever seen one of those go off,
Speaker 1: but it's a fully automatic cannon that shoots red bull
Speaker 1: can sized ammunition. It's beautiful in my opinion. Offering protected
Speaker 1: mobility and digital battlefield integration. For artillery support, the brigade
Speaker 1: relies on PZH two thousand, self propelled howitzers capable of
Speaker 1: delivering accurate, long range fire, Finnic reconnaissance vehicles enhanced situational awareness,
Speaker 1: while Boxer armored personnel carriers provide versatile troop transport to
Speaker 1: support and support functions. The brigade is further protected by
Speaker 1: integrated air defense systems, ensuring resilience against aerial threats. Germany's
Speaker 1: defense posture has undergone a significant transformation since Russia launched
Speaker 1: its full scale invasion of Ukraine in twenty twenty two.
Speaker 1: The shift is evident in increasing increased defense spending and
Speaker 1: Chancellor Friedrich Mayers's re recent state positioning the German Army
Speaker 1: to become the quote strongest conventional force in Europe end quote.
Speaker 1: I'm liking it. I'm liking the gaul of the Germans
Speaker 1: right now. Honestly, against this backdrop, the brigade in Lithuania
Speaker 1: is not just a symbol of commitment. It is a
Speaker 1: message to Moscow, as highlighted by army recognition. Russia is
Speaker 1: currently reactivating Soviet era military infrastructure near Finland's border, such
Speaker 1: as the Alakurti Alacurti Alacrity Sure Airbase, reinforcing concerns that
Speaker 1: future aggression could extend beyond Ukraine and into the Baltic region.
Speaker 1: This militarization echoes Cold War air attentions and elevates the
Speaker 1: strategic importance of forward NATO deployments like Germany's forty fifth Brigade. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I got a little bit left to read on this.
Speaker 1: The German Armed Force of Forces presence in Lithuania underscores
Speaker 1: a recalibration of European security dynamics. It reinforces NATO's Eastern
Speaker 1: front at a critical time when a military deterrence and
Speaker 1: infrastructure readiness are being tested by Russian maneuvers and hybrid threats. Lithuania,
Speaker 1: bordering both Kaliningrad and Belarus, represents a frontline state in
Speaker 1: NATO security architecture. Its Defense Minister Dovile Sakalini sure describe
Speaker 1: Germany's decision as a historic example of leadership, emphasizing the
Speaker 1: deployment significance not just for the national defense, but for
Speaker 1: the entire alliance. She affirmed her country's commitment to building
Speaker 1: the necessary infrastructure and ensuring German troops feel at home,
Speaker 1: reflecting a shared strategic vision between Berlin and Villinius. Okay,
Speaker 1: so again, this is a permanent deployment in Lithuania. I
Speaker 1: like it. I like it a lot, and I thought
Speaker 1: that while they absolutely there was a talk that they
Speaker 1: would eventually be having troops go to Lithuania full time,
Speaker 1: it is now a reality, and they're saying that it's
Speaker 1: going to be until twenty twenty six. I think whenever
Speaker 1: they're gonna have full capabilities. But I don't know exactly
Speaker 1: what's classified as full capabilities. But yeah, they've got they've
Speaker 1: got a base, a real brick and mortar base going
Speaker 1: on here. Let's see. I put up a Yahoo article
Speaker 1: that kind of goes back over the things we already
Speaker 1: discussed as far as NATO set to agree on a
Speaker 1: five percent GDP defense spending. That's what Marco Rubio said.
Speaker 1: The Allies are set together for an annual summit at
Speaker 1: the Hague June twenty four to twenty fifth, amid growing
Speaker 1: uncertainties of the US's commitment to NATO under President Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: There's a direct quote, we are headed for a summit
Speaker 1: in six weeks, as an older quote, in which virtually
Speaker 1: every member of NATO will be at or above two percent,
Speaker 1: but more importantly, many of them will be over four percent,
Speaker 1: and all will have agreed on a goal of reaching
Speaker 1: five percent. Over the next decade. It's a bold claim.
Speaker 1: It's a very very bold claim, and one that I
Speaker 1: don't know how many European countries will actually be able
Speaker 1: to field. I hope that that becomes a reality, I
Speaker 1: really do, But boy, oh boy, I just have a
Speaker 1: hard time seeing with some of the country sure, right,
Speaker 1: with some of the countries in Europe, I have no
Speaker 1: disbelief in my mind that they will absolutely be able
Speaker 1: to meet a five percent GDP push. With others, I
Speaker 1: sincerely doubt that they'll even be able to meet the
Speaker 1: requirements that are set forth for this year, let alone
Speaker 1: future commitments. If y'all have anything y'all would like to add,
Speaker 1: go for it. At this time, I'm gonna check the
Speaker 1: chat to see if anybody has dropped anything crazy. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: ravenly dropped an article. Let's see this. Yeah, speaking of Yes, indeed,
Speaker 1: as we're talking about this exact topic, go ahead and
Speaker 1: share the screen again. So let's talk about this. This
Speaker 1: is from forcenews dot com Which countries in the NATO
Speaker 1: Alliance are paying their fair share on defense? Now, this
Speaker 1: is from July of last year, but at the same time,
Speaker 1: as we're talking about all of the advancements and the
Speaker 1: increases in funding and spending. I don't see going one
Speaker 1: year back in time as being really outdated information. A
Speaker 1: record number of NATO nations have met or exceeded the
Speaker 1: alliance's spending target, but other members are still falling short.
Speaker 1: Out of the thirty one NATO members, twenty three are
Speaker 1: expected to meet NATO's guidelines of spending two percent of
Speaker 1: their gross domestic product on defense. So real quick, one
Speaker 1: more time. Thirty one countries are a part of NATO,
Speaker 1: and twenty three were expected to meet their requirement of
Speaker 1: two percent. So we're already looking at a little more
Speaker 1: than two thirds of the countries being able to do
Speaker 1: what they said they would do at two percent. Now
Speaker 1: we're talking about increasing that to five How many of
Speaker 1: these countries barely met too? Right, let's talk about it here.
Speaker 1: This is a huge increase from twenty fourteen when only
Speaker 1: three NATO allies hit the spending target. Wow, ten years ago,
Speaker 1: well at fifteen has of time of recording, but ten
Speaker 1: years or excuse me eleven? Wow, my math is not mathing.
Speaker 1: A little over ten years ago, only three NATO allies
Speaker 1: could hit a two percent target. Now I'm glad that
Speaker 1: everybody is doing better economically or at least, you know,
Speaker 1: able to pay their bills, so to speak, or meet
Speaker 1: their commitments, whatever you want to however you want to
Speaker 1: phrase that, but okay, let's talk about it here. The
Speaker 1: increase in defense spending means European NATO allies as a
Speaker 1: whole are collectively spending two percent of their combined GDP
Speaker 1: worth three hundred and eighty billion dollars US on defense
Speaker 1: for the first time. This year's estimates are set to
Speaker 1: exceed NATO Secretary General Jens Strollenberg's projections in twenty twenty three.
Speaker 1: He said eighteen nations were expected to spend two percent
Speaker 1: of the GDP on defense in twenty twenty four eighteen,
Speaker 1: So we went from eighteen to twenty three, but again
Speaker 1: that was at a two percent margin. We're talking about
Speaker 1: overly doubling that. How many of these countries do you
Speaker 1: actually think are going to be able to make that happen.
Speaker 1: So we're looking at the cour at the chart now.
Speaker 1: In twenty fourteen, only three nations could meet their commitments.
Speaker 1: Twenty fifteen and sixteen, only five, twenty seventeen, four nations,
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen, six twenty nineteen seven, twenty twenty the COVID year.
Speaker 1: Oh my god, world economies are collapsing, all the craziness.
Speaker 1: Nine countries could meet the actual two percent GDP commitments
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one. Again, that's like the next year of
Speaker 1: the COVID ridiculous shit. Only six countries could meet the
Speaker 1: requirements twenty twenty two, seven twenty and that twenty twenty
Speaker 1: two kind of a big year when Russia started their
Speaker 1: quote unquote three week military special operation twenty twenty three, ten,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four, twenty three. Now I have no idea
Speaker 1: what the current guestimations are. They're meeting at this summit
Speaker 1: and they're talking about increasing it to five percent. I
Speaker 1: have a hard time believing that most of these twenty
Speaker 1: three countries most will be able to actually do that,
Speaker 1: But I guess we're gonna see how it goes down.
Speaker 1: This is a direct quote from mister Strollenberg. He says
Speaker 1: we are making real progress. European allies are spending more. However,
Speaker 1: some allies still have a way to go. The latest
Speaker 1: increases followed the trend of a gradual rise in defense
Speaker 1: spending across the Alliance over the last decade. NATO allies
Speaker 1: in Europe invest only one point four to seven of
Speaker 1: their collective GDP in defense in twenty fourteen, and Germany's
Speaker 1: commitment to NATO's target to spend two percent of the
Speaker 1: GDP on defense marks the first time it has done
Speaker 1: so since the early nineties. So as I'm boosting and
Speaker 1: stroking Germany here and talking about how great I think
Speaker 1: it is, they're finally stepping up in this way. This
Speaker 1: is a really new thing for them as far as
Speaker 1: that's concerned. I mean, within the last three decades, this
Speaker 1: is the first time they've actually taken this type of
Speaker 1: a stance. So which nations are not spending two percent
Speaker 1: on defense? Eight NATO nations are not estimated to reach
Speaker 1: the target of twenty twenty four Croatia one point eight one,
Speaker 1: Portugal one point five to five, Italy one point four
Speaker 1: to nine. Canada. Just in another article we just read,
Speaker 1: they were talking about how with America stepping away and
Speaker 1: not being the backbone of NATO, Canada would have to
Speaker 1: step up and be the backbone, and all these things
Speaker 1: that would be a lie. In twenty twenty four, Canada
Speaker 1: only spent one point three to seven of their GDP
Speaker 1: on their military. That's I heard a joke. This is
Speaker 1: a long time ago. I think it was on a
Speaker 1: Boy Meets World episode. As a matter of fact, they
Speaker 1: were installing a new Jacuzie tub in their house and
Speaker 1: he was like, oh wow, Jacuzzi. He's like, yeh, this
Speaker 1: baby's got more jets than the Canadian Air Force. That
Speaker 1: was a joke, but at the same time, not exactly
Speaker 1: as hilarious as what you might think Canada's military. I've
Speaker 1: worked with them, as a matter of fact, and a
Speaker 1: couple of different joint force training missions and things like that.
Speaker 1: The last time I hung with them was in Yuma, Arizona,
Speaker 1: at the air station there. They crashed a helicopter in
Speaker 1: the middle of the desert. Now, thankfully nobody died or
Speaker 1: got hurt, but also it's a big desert, bro, what
Speaker 1: even happened? None of them could give me a straight answer.
Speaker 1: We had a drinking contest with them and we won, obviously,
Speaker 1: But yeah, that was They seemed like cool dudes and chicks.
Speaker 1: I should say that too. The females in the Canadian
Speaker 1: military seemed like solid, you know, solid soldiers. That being said,
Speaker 1: you know nothing. They I did like their speed reloaders
Speaker 1: to load a mag for an M sixteen or M
Speaker 1: four there's feed reloaders were way better than ours, so
Speaker 1: they gave us a few because we won the drinking contest.
Speaker 1: But anyway, neither here nor there.
Speaker 6: Uh.
Speaker 1: Belgium one point three seven percent, Luxembourg one point three.
Speaker 1: I didn't know Luxembourg was a part of NATO, the
Speaker 1: only Grand Duchy left on Earth, and somehow they for
Speaker 1: the record, they don't have a big population or a
Speaker 1: big land area or a big industry or it's like
Speaker 1: it's one of those tax haven countries. So I I'm
Speaker 1: kind of shocked that Luxembourg is a part of NATO.
Speaker 1: But okay, one point three. Slovenia, Uh, I'm sorry, Luxembourg
Speaker 1: was one point twenty nine. Excuse me, uh, Slovenia one
Speaker 1: point twenty nine and Spain one point two eight. Gotta say,
Speaker 1: I would think that Spain and Portugal would be a
Speaker 1: lot heavier with the military spending, but it also makes sense.
Speaker 1: I can't the only time I've ever seen Italy in
Speaker 1: the same regard. The only time I've ever seen Italian
Speaker 1: or Spanish military members was when they would send one
Speaker 1: to two of them to a schoolhouse in America to
Speaker 1: get some training. But that was like super specialized training,
Speaker 1: and it was you know, it could have been a pilot,
Speaker 1: It could have been one. I'm getting sent to jump
Speaker 1: school one. I'm getting sent for a number of reasons.
Speaker 1: A lot of NATO countries cross training with each other,
Speaker 1: and I get that, but come to think of it,
Speaker 1: they didn't realize they had such a small military arm
Speaker 1: I figured they'd be a little more, a little stronger
Speaker 1: in that regard. Anyway, However, all the above listed countries,
Speaker 1: apart from Croatia, are spending more on defense than last year,
Speaker 1: bring them closer to the target. There's been a gradual
Speaker 1: increase in defense spending from NATO members across the board,
Speaker 1: and in twenty twenty three, eleven nations reached the NATO guideline,
Speaker 1: up from seven in twenty twenty two. Twenty twenty three,
Speaker 1: Poland was the alliance's biggest spender as the share of
Speaker 1: the GDP, contributing three point nine percent spending wow, even
Speaker 1: more as a share of GDP than the United States
Speaker 1: at three point four to nine in second, and Greece
Speaker 1: at three point zero one the next closest. I did
Speaker 1: not know that Greece was upping their military spending in
Speaker 1: this way. That also makes me happy. Okay, I wish
Speaker 1: they would change their extradition laws, but I do like
Speaker 1: that they're taking a stronger defensive posture. This year, Poland
Speaker 1: has retained its place as the biggest spender, contributing four
Speaker 1: point one two percent. That is impressive. The US, on
Speaker 1: the other hand, is spending less this year than the
Speaker 1: previous year, contributing three point three to eight percent, which
Speaker 1: is putting it behind Estonia, which is estimated to spend
Speaker 1: three point four to three. Wow. Estonia is stepping up.
Speaker 1: One trend scene is that country bordering Ukraine, Russia or
Speaker 1: its neighbor and ally Belarus, are spending increasingly more following
Speaker 1: Russia's full scale invasion in February twenty twenty two. In
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three, Estonia spent two point seven to three,
Speaker 1: Lithuania two point five to four, Finland two point four
Speaker 1: to five, Romania two point four to four, Hungary two
Speaker 1: point four to three, and Latvia two point two seven
Speaker 1: all exceeded the Alliance's guidelines for defense expenditure. Okay, look
Speaker 1: at that. Now we talk about the UK's contribution. Uh
Speaker 1: UK did not make the two percent list. The percentage
Speaker 1: spent by Britain on defense rose from two point one
Speaker 1: four in twenty twenty four to an estimated two point
Speaker 1: three three in twenty twenty three. This is an increase
Speaker 1: from last year, which saw the UK spin two point
Speaker 1: zero seven of its GDP on defense. In twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: the UK was the fourth highest proportional spender within NATO,
Speaker 1: but it dropped down to tenth in twenty twenty three,
Speaker 1: just ahead of Slovakia, the nation's falling short of the
Speaker 1: alliance's target in twenty thirty three. Where France, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Albania,
Speaker 1: the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Czech Republic, Portugal, Canada, Italy, Slovenia, Turkey, Spain,
Speaker 1: Belgium and Luxembourg. Iceland, which does not have any armed forces,
Speaker 1: was not featured on this list. Fair enough, Iceland doesn't
Speaker 1: have any armed forces. I think they have a national police,
Speaker 1: but nobody, nobody really messes with Iceland. Fair enough anyway.
Speaker 1: Thank you Raven Lee for sharing this article with everybody,
Speaker 1: So get back to the chat here if anybody would
Speaker 1: like to chime in on the NATO spending conversation. I
Speaker 1: think that was all I had to bring to the
Speaker 1: table on that one this episode. All right, here we go,
Speaker 1: Tony chimed in here. Based on Google AI Asian country
Speaker 1: spend one to three percent of GDP on military. Japan
Speaker 1: and China are both around one point five. South Korea
Speaker 1: at two point eight. In North Korea unknown but probably high.
Speaker 1: Unknown for sure, I would like to think that North
Speaker 1: Korea is spending the majority of their money on their military.
Speaker 1: I could be so wrong here. We know they ain't
Speaker 1: using it to feed their people, that's for sure. But yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm with you on that. Russia is spending seven percent.
Speaker 1: Ukraine is spending thirty four percent. Given the current climate
Speaker 1: that checks out in Israel spends nine percent. In World
Speaker 1: War two, I think the US was forty percent. Yeah,
Speaker 1: countries that are in active conflict, that would make sense
Speaker 1: they're spending way more for their military strength. Anthony, good evening.
Speaker 1: Everyone sawry. I'm late. Hey brother, I'm just glad you
Speaker 1: were able to stop it. My boy. Hell yeah, welcome.
Speaker 1: Let's see. Okay, Tony, stop it, stop it with the
Speaker 1: flat earth conversations. We have a whole cult live for
Speaker 1: these things. Let's see, I'm like that on a lot
Speaker 1: of stuff, the moon landing, JFK assassination. I don't want
Speaker 1: to spend any time to really understand it. Yeah, fair enough.
Speaker 1: Let's see. I just did my own episode on simulation theory.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, that's true. Anthony has launched a podcast, Anthony
Speaker 1: and matter of fact, if you want to unmute yourself
Speaker 1: and tell everybody listening to this who's going to be
Speaker 1: listening to it in the following days, shameless plug your
Speaker 1: pod brother, please.
Speaker 7: Hey man. So, first off, good evening to everybody. I did. Look,
Speaker 7: I missed a good bit of the chat. I don't
Speaker 7: know if I send it on the religious spiel, but they.
Speaker 8: Asked me about flat Earth and it kind of ties
Speaker 8: it in a little bit. But uh no, So yeah,
Speaker 8: I just I kind of started my own thing. It's
Speaker 8: I'm calling it Arcane Adversary. It's on YouTube and Spotify
Speaker 8: essentially because I'm doing it by myself. I'm just trying
Speaker 8: to do like little ten twenty minute one oh one videos.
Speaker 8: So the first one I did is on sim theory,
Speaker 8: and it's just a basic overview, so it's kind of
Speaker 8: meant for two people.
Speaker 1: One is the people.
Speaker 8: That are just like brand new into it or they
Speaker 8: just need something to listen to while they're driving to work.
Speaker 8: And then two, it's also kind of meant for if
Speaker 8: you've got somebody that just kind of thinks you're batshit crazy,
Speaker 8: just give them the basic overview and they can listen
Speaker 8: to it.
Speaker 7: Because I listened to.
Speaker 8: A lot of podcasts, not just you guys, you know,
Speaker 8: and sometimes there's just too much depth and too much
Speaker 8: information in a two hour episode. Yeah, so I just
Speaker 8: kind of noticed as a short form, a quality short
Speaker 8: form void in my opinion, so I'm just.
Speaker 7: Giving a shot at trying to fill it.
Speaker 1: Well, thirty minutes is not short form, honestly, anything over
Speaker 1: seven minutes is considered long form content. But I see
Speaker 1: it to me as far as like bite size manageable
Speaker 1: because in the realm of pods, yeah, thirty minutes is
Speaker 1: like what would be considered a short show. So I
Speaker 1: feel you on that, Yeah, absolutely, man, I gotta tell you,
Speaker 1: simulation theory is a fun one. It is one of
Speaker 1: the only ones that really really messed me up. And
Speaker 1: I mean, y'all know my beliefs. I'm a Christian, I
Speaker 1: believe all these things. I'm a man of science, and
Speaker 1: I believe in a lot of history all these things
Speaker 1: with you know, a bit of skepticism and a healthy
Speaker 1: dose of salt on top of all of it, for sure.
Speaker 1: But simulation theory is one of those that when this
Speaker 1: was early, early, early when me and Jonathan just get
Speaker 1: when we first joined up to do the cult talking
Speaker 1: about simulation theory, not just matrix theory, but just overarching
Speaker 1: what all of this could be would be essentially like
Speaker 1: some alien kid or some interdimensional being straight up, honey,
Speaker 1: quit playing with your universe and come to dinner, okay, mom,
Speaker 1: And we call that being God right. And it was
Speaker 1: a mind blow because essentially all of us could be
Speaker 1: in PCs on the grand scale, that is, like a
Speaker 1: grand theft auto whatever infinity that is our reality, and
Speaker 1: we would not know any different because we weren't programmed
Speaker 1: to know any different. Uh yeah. And the more the
Speaker 1: more you let your brain cook on that one, the
Speaker 1: more it could really really jack you up. So it's
Speaker 1: a very fun one to dive into. Go ahead, Anthony, Well, no.
Speaker 8: So what I was gonna say is, like me, personally,
Speaker 8: I don't know if I'm buying it, Like the technological
Speaker 8: like matrix of the simulation theory, but like a lot
Speaker 8: of mythologies talk about, like in Hinduism they talk about,
Speaker 8: you know, Maya the illusion and all that. I was
Speaker 8: just talking to my mom because she kind of listened
Speaker 8: to it and she's not too sure about it. And
Speaker 8: again I'm not a Christian, so I'm gonna like speak
Speaker 8: from a basic understanding.
Speaker 7: Sure, I believe somewhere it.
Speaker 8: Said that God, God knew us from before this life
Speaker 8: and then we were sent here like he created this
Speaker 8: for us. So if we existed somewhere else before and
Speaker 8: we're coming here for a period of time and then
Speaker 8: when we die we go somewhere else, I mean that
Speaker 8: that could be considered an illusion, a simulation. And then
Speaker 8: one one thing that in the in the research I
Speaker 8: did that I thought was super interesting is I believe
Speaker 8: that Nick Bostrom, he's a physicist, and he essentially posited
Speaker 8: a trilemma which is either one human civilization or civilization
Speaker 8: at all, has either a never reached the point of
Speaker 8: simulation technology, that we destroyed ourselves before we got to
Speaker 8: that point, or B that an advanced civilization like that
Speaker 8: would have no interest in having a virtual simulation of
Speaker 8: their ancestors, which with the amount of history buffs out there,
Speaker 8: I find very hard to believe. Like how many guys
Speaker 8: right now would want to go back and live a
Speaker 8: simulation of Viking, a Roman gladiator or whatever.
Speaker 1: Oh dude, even if you're not going to live as
Speaker 1: a part of the simulation, let me just watch it
Speaker 1: like a fly on the wall for the Battle of Oker,
Speaker 1: or Alexander the greats big cavalry sweeps or Shaka Zulu
Speaker 1: creating the bullhorn pattern that led to him being the
Speaker 1: military dynasty of the Southern African region. Like, dude, I'm
Speaker 1: with you one hundred percent, Like they would have no
Speaker 1: interest in going back and checking it, No way, no.
Speaker 8: And then so the third position of that is if
Speaker 8: you don't believe, if you don't believe that civilization has
Speaker 8: destroyed itself before reaching a point of being able to
Speaker 8: create a simulation, and if you don't believe that an
Speaker 8: advanced civilization would not have any interest in recreating the
Speaker 8: lives of their ancestors, then we most definitely live in
Speaker 8: a simulation. And what I didn't tie in there because
Speaker 8: I would have had to go on a whole Another
Speaker 8: bit is if you think about a simulation is then
Speaker 8: that also ties in the whole NPC theory, you know,
Speaker 8: and the fact that more than likely upwards of ninety
Speaker 8: percent of the people in this world are copies of
Speaker 8: an original mind and not an original mind themselves.
Speaker 1: I agree, But also I don't like that. I agree
Speaker 1: with that with the majority of people being like the
Speaker 1: NPC folk that we talk about, because I believe that
Speaker 1: every individual is a very fascinating and intricate person with
Speaker 1: detail and levels and layers to what makes them them.
Speaker 1: I want to believe that, But I cannot tell you
Speaker 1: how many people I've met that I have worked with
Speaker 1: in the years, throughout even the military construction to whatever,
Speaker 1: who like there's no dreams, there's no aspirations, there's no
Speaker 1: drive to achieve something more, there's no ambition there. It's
Speaker 1: just kind of they're just kind of there, man, and like, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's just there's my life and there's what I do,
Speaker 1: and it's like they're satisfied with the mundane and that
Speaker 1: I personally cannot put those pieces together in my head
Speaker 1: of like wait, why why is that? Like that's all
Speaker 1: you want out of life is just to be one
Speaker 1: of the herd that sounds like a revolving hell to me.
Speaker 1: But if you get any of those people one on
Speaker 1: one and you ask them about who they are, about
Speaker 1: their life, about how they got to this point and
Speaker 1: all this, you find a real person with character arcs
Speaker 1: and flaws and all the stuff. But it's like that,
Speaker 1: it gets to like a stopping point. And I don't
Speaker 1: know where that point comes from or what kind of
Speaker 1: traumas or past makes a person not want to strive
Speaker 1: for more, be better, or make their mark on this world.
Speaker 1: I don't I don't understand it. I would like to
Speaker 1: believe that most of the people that listen to our
Speaker 1: show and to this by default are not among that group,
Speaker 1: right at least the people that tune into these types
Speaker 1: of programs are at least thinking a little more critically
Speaker 1: than those types. So, I mean, I know me saying
Speaker 1: that it's not offending anybody that might be listening to
Speaker 1: this days or weeks after the fact, But no, I'm
Speaker 1: with you. That kind of bodes well to play into
Speaker 1: the simulation theory for sure. Yeah. Interesting stuff, man. So
Speaker 1: that was the episode you just released on I haven't
Speaker 1: listened to it yet, I will, but yeah, so one
Speaker 1: more time, shameless plug. Tell everybody where they can find it.
Speaker 8: Okay, so it's arcane adversary adversary as an enemy, and
Speaker 8: you can find it on YouTube and Spotify.
Speaker 7: Essentially, I guess you could call it.
Speaker 8: My gimmick is I'm challenging everything, like kind of my
Speaker 8: you know, Colt has got open up your third eye.
Speaker 8: Mine is, don't just question everything, challenge everything.
Speaker 1: I like that. I like that a lot. Dude. Let's
Speaker 1: see Tony sent a link. What is this one? Wikipedia?
Speaker 1: Maria or Maria Jesus Christ Maria? I got. That's not
Speaker 1: Mary Candle, that's a Virgin of Guadalupe Candle. But yeah,
Speaker 1: tell me about Maria Monk.
Speaker 3: Maria Monk was a famous woman in the early eighteen hundreds.
Speaker 3: And the reason I brought this up is because we
Speaker 3: were talking quite a lot about this recent Irish nun
Speaker 3: scandal yesterday where allegedly eight hundred bodies of babies were
Speaker 3: found in a septic tank. I got a headline here
Speaker 3: that says eight hundred infant remains found in septic tank
Speaker 3: at none run Irish unwed mother and baby home from
Speaker 3: Fox nine and Minnesota. Then if you read the actual article,
Speaker 3: it says oh yeah, seven hundred and ninety six died
Speaker 3: between the nineteen twenties and nineteen sixty one, and I
Speaker 3: kind of doubt that all eight hundred of them would
Speaker 3: end up in a septic tank. But I can see
Speaker 3: how they just want the headline to look that way.
Speaker 3: And who knows what happened to them. It sounds like
Speaker 3: records were lost or there was records of them at
Speaker 3: some point and the record stopped, so they must have died.
Speaker 3: But this Maria character, this is not from recently. If
Speaker 3: I can just read from the Wikipedia article real quick,
Speaker 3: it does a good job summing this up. She lived
Speaker 3: from eighteen sixteen to eighteen forty nine. Maria Monk was
Speaker 3: a Canadian woman whose book Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk,
Speaker 3: or the Hidden Secrets of a Nun's Life and a
Speaker 3: Convent Exposed, published in eighteen thirty six when she was
Speaker 3: twenty years old, claimed to exposed systematic sexual abuse of
Speaker 3: nuns and infanticide of the resulting children by Catholic priests
Speaker 3: in her convent in Montreal. This was a hoax. She
Speaker 3: was never in a convent. She was in a mental
Speaker 3: institution that was run by nuns and picking and choosing
Speaker 3: from throughout the Wikipedia article. This was a very influential book.
Speaker 3: According to the American Protestant Vindicator. By July eighteen thirty six,
Speaker 3: the book had sold twenty six thousand copies, and it's
Speaker 3: been described also as probably the mostly widely read contemporary
Speaker 3: book in the United States before Uncle Tom's Cabin. So
Speaker 3: that's a book everyone's heard of, and this one was
Speaker 3: second place. Wow, but everybody believed it. But investigations, not
Speaker 3: only by Catholic sources but also a Protestant minister from
Speaker 3: New York visited the convent and concluded, Okay, it doesn't
Speaker 3: match her description. She was saying that there were tunnels
Speaker 3: for people to run through underground. There weren't tunnels. She
Speaker 3: basically never been there. But it struck a nerve and
Speaker 3: it sold tons of copies and a lot of people
Speaker 3: believed it. So this kind of thing happens. It also
Speaker 3: reminds me of the whole blood libel thing. And you know,
Speaker 3: some people, if they hear about Jews murdering kids, they'll
Speaker 3: automatically believe it, and other people should. You know, people
Speaker 3: should be skeptical of that kind of thing. And as
Speaker 3: I was saying, yesterday. There have been people who've murdered babies,
Speaker 3: for example, the Japanese in Nanjing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean it.
Speaker 3: Has happened, but I'd say like seventy five percent of
Speaker 3: the time. These things are made up for sensationalism. And
Speaker 3: as you can hear, I gotta go and meet myself
Speaker 3: very much.
Speaker 1: Heard that. Heard that. So I've never heard of this
Speaker 1: book or Maria Monk, So thank you for bringing this
Speaker 1: to our attention. And yeah, as you read into the Wikipedia,
Speaker 1: it shows that it was a hoake. It is known
Speaker 1: that Monk lived in an asylum in her early years,
Speaker 1: and that one of the nuns mentioned in her story
Speaker 1: was actually a fellow patient in the asylum. There is
Speaker 1: some evidence that Monks had suffered a brain injury as
Speaker 1: a child one. A possible result of the alleged injury
Speaker 1: could be that Monk might have been manipulated and might
Speaker 1: not be able to distinguish between fact and fantasy. Another
Speaker 1: possible result of the alleged injury could be that Monk
Speaker 1: had little understanding of the devastating results of her claim.
Speaker 1: It has been suggested, though not proven, that Monk was
Speaker 1: manipulated into playing a role for profit by her publisher
Speaker 1: or her ghostwriters, scholars and consider the book a hoax.
Speaker 1: So that being said, I have never heard of this one,
Speaker 1: But yes, there's all kinds of stories that get sensationalized
Speaker 1: to Tony's with things like this, especially with anti Catholic sentiments,
Speaker 1: and the same way that he brought up with anti
Speaker 1: Jewish sentiments. One story happens where Jewish soldiers are in
Speaker 1: Gaza and they're just ripping babies apart, and it's like that,
Speaker 1: I would like to see the source on that. And
Speaker 1: you have half of the readers that will believe it
Speaker 1: instantly with no other reasons in or context, and you
Speaker 1: have half of the readers that are gonna say that's
Speaker 1: probably farcical. Right, So all that to be said, I
Speaker 1: understand why the Irish Nun situation with the babies in
Speaker 1: the septic tank seems like it could be a hoax.
Speaker 1: And I'm not saying that it's one hundred percent of fact.
Speaker 1: I did a little more digging into it today. Doesn't
Speaker 1: look fake as of this moment. I I God, for
Speaker 1: the love of Jesus, I hope it is. I hope
Speaker 1: that it is an attempt to smear the Catholic Church.
Speaker 1: And that it is not something that actually took place.
Speaker 1: As of this moment, it really does look like it's
Speaker 1: got some some validity to it, but I guess time
Speaker 1: will tell. We shall see, all right. Now back to
Speaker 1: the articles that I have prepared. Let's get off the
Speaker 1: Maria Monk one. So this is interesting. Let's talk a
Speaker 1: little bit about bricks and AI. I don't know if
Speaker 1: anybody has heard about this, but Bricks, for anybody who
Speaker 1: doesn't know, is a group of countries that are trying
Speaker 1: to break away from using the USD as the international currency.
Speaker 1: Right it's comprised the majority of them anyway. The first
Speaker 1: five were Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa. Bricks that's
Speaker 1: the acronym. There's more countries that have joined SINS, but
Speaker 1: not many, and not many like that you would necessarily
Speaker 1: worry about. But now Bricks is making the first declaration
Speaker 1: on AI governance to be adopted organically within the organization.
Speaker 1: Long story short, Bricks and specifically Russia and specifically India
Speaker 1: are trying to become the dominant superpower in the AI conversation.
Speaker 1: Let's dive into it. This is a quick article and
Speaker 1: then I've got another one about Russia itself. So BRICKS
Speaker 1: countries will adopt the world's first joint declaration on principles
Speaker 1: for the governance of AI during the upcoming summit in
Speaker 1: Rio de jan Naro in July. The Brick Summit will
Speaker 1: adopt a declaration on AI governance. It must serve all
Speaker 1: countries at Brazilian President Louise and Nasio Louise Anasio Lula
Speaker 1: da Silva. Sorry, that's a lot of names. During a
Speaker 1: speech broadcast on the government's YouTube channel, the Brazilian leader
Speaker 1: added that the lack of uniform rules for regulating AI
Speaker 1: only benefits large corporations. Artificial intelligence is revolutionizing the foundation
Speaker 1: of production and education. The opportunities that are opening up
Speaker 1: are limitless, but the risks are no less, he emphasized.
Speaker 1: Earlier member of the Federal Senate of Brazil, Omberto Costa
Speaker 1: A Costa, I'm not sure how they pronounce it with Portuguese,
Speaker 1: spoke in favor of developing common rules for the governance
Speaker 1: of AI. He also pointed to the need to reduce
Speaker 1: the technological dependence of BRICKS members on Western countries. That's
Speaker 1: their whole stick, that's their whole thing. Is they're trying
Speaker 1: to break away from the need of the West and
Speaker 1: just be something completely independent and free. Even though of
Speaker 1: those countries just listed, the big dogs of it would
Speaker 1: be India, China, Russia. Those three couldn't exist without the West.
Speaker 1: But that's a talk for another day, I suppose. Now
Speaker 1: that was kind of short sweetened to the point. Now
Speaker 1: let's talk a little deeper about it. Yeah, So Russia
Speaker 1: aims to ride the bricks to AI victory. The United
Speaker 1: States must firm up its own coalition of AI collaborators.
Speaker 1: As the AI competition between the United States and China
Speaker 1: heats up, Vladimir Putin is desperate to have a horse
Speaker 1: in the race. The Russian president views AI as a
Speaker 1: core pillar of Moscow's long term plan to challenge Western dominance.
Speaker 1: After three years of Western sanctions devastating Russia's economy, spurring
Speaker 1: a massive brain drain and hindering the country's innovative capacity. Again,
Speaker 1: there's a reason for that, but neither here nor there.
Speaker 1: Moscow has turned to the bricks Block, whose founding members
Speaker 1: include Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, to build
Speaker 1: a parallel AI ecosystem. Washington must stop viewing bricks as
Speaker 1: a politically benign organization and recognize that it is a
Speaker 1: powerful vehicle for Moscow to expand its international influence and
Speaker 1: strengthen Russia's AI capabilities. Is a direct quote here. Those
Speaker 1: who will secure leadership in this domain will become a
Speaker 1: global master, Putin proclaimed in twenty seventeen. Since then, he
Speaker 1: has implemented a series of strategic directives intended to catalyze
Speaker 1: Russia's AI sector. Putin's twenty twenty one National Security Strategy
Speaker 1: stresses the integration of advanced technologies, including AI to bolster
Speaker 1: national defense and economic resilience. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty three's concept of the Foreign Policy emphasizes
Speaker 1: the importance of AI industry growth and strategic cooperation within BRICKS,
Speaker 1: and last year, Russia updated its National Strategy for the
Speaker 1: Development of Artificial Intelligence through twenty thirty, which outlines the
Speaker 1: formation of research and development programs to prepare quote Russian
Speaker 1: artificial intelligence technologies to occupy a significant share of the
Speaker 1: global market. For Putin. BRICKS constitutes the ideal route for
Speaker 1: international collaboration. Over the past year, the group has doubled
Speaker 1: from five to ten members, adding Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran,
Speaker 1: and the UAE. Again, like I said, none of the
Speaker 1: countries that you would necessarily be concerned with Iran only
Speaker 1: as of the past week, But we are about to
Speaker 1: get to Iran in a whole other conversation. Trust Me
Speaker 1: now comprises thirty five percent of the global economy, with
Speaker 1: an additional dozen nations it has designated as partner countries.
Speaker 1: These would be the middlemen, all right, not trying to
Speaker 1: take this opportunity to shit on bricks. But also why
Speaker 1: not so whenever all these sanctions went out against these countries,
Speaker 1: and it wasn't specifically bricks countries, but they were the
Speaker 1: countries that suffered some of the heaviest tariffs and things
Speaker 1: in the sanctions, not just from America but from the
Speaker 1: European powers as well. These countries just started using third
Speaker 1: party countries to move their material. That's all it was.
Speaker 1: They just used these other countries as like a fence,
Speaker 1: like out of nowhere. Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan were like their
Speaker 1: economy was booming, and it's like, well, where where did
Speaker 1: all this new things come from? Because Russia was using
Speaker 1: them as a middleman to fence their oil because no
Speaker 1: country could buy Russian oil, but you could take a
Speaker 1: barrel of Russian oil and slap a Uzbek sticker on
Speaker 1: it and you could sell Uzbeki oil as much as
Speaker 1: you want. Uzbek. Yeah, yeah, you could do that. And
Speaker 1: there was other countries that did the exact same thing.
Speaker 1: So again with these fifteen countries that they're having as
Speaker 1: or sorry a dozen nations that are designated as partner countries,
Speaker 1: it's their fences. That's about it. But moving on Bricks
Speaker 1: is involve evolving into a strategic hub for AI development
Speaker 1: and governance. Bricks has placed AI governance at the top
Speaker 1: of its agenda, establishing an AI study group to quote
Speaker 1: develop AI governance frameworks and standards. Yes, that's what they're
Speaker 1: wanting to do. It's for industry. It's super not for
Speaker 1: espionage and military means whatsoever. They would never use super
Speaker 1: advanced AI for that, of course not. Oh, let's get
Speaker 1: back to it. A recent analysis from Moscow based consultants
Speaker 1: Yakov and Partners indicates this prarioritiz of AI innovation is
Speaker 1: yielding results. One hundred of the largest companies in bricks
Speaker 1: nations are shifting away from Western models like open AI
Speaker 1: toward emerging Chinese, Russian and Immoradi models. Yakov and partners
Speaker 1: projects AI could generate three hundred and fifty billion to
Speaker 1: six hundred billion dollars of value for bricks economies by
Speaker 1: twenty thirty. Putin is positioning Russia to be the leader
Speaker 1: of the organization's AI push. At a summit in October,
Speaker 1: Bricks Countries discuss implementing Russian and Chinese AI infrastructure in
Speaker 1: quote unquote global South nations to yield a more balanced
Speaker 1: multipolar world order. A more balanced multipolar world order. Y'all
Speaker 1: let that one marinate as long as you need. Russia
Speaker 1: has since led the formation of a Bricks AI Alliance Network,
Speaker 1: a strategic initiative promoting collaborative, joint research and regulation. SCO
Speaker 1: has also encouraged Bricks to adopt Russia's Code of AI Ethics,
Speaker 1: signaling Putin's intent on taking leadership on international AI governance.
Speaker 1: The Code has already attracted interest from a large scale
Speaker 1: professional community, with over two hundred signators of from organizations
Speaker 1: and countries around the world. After meeting with Putin at
Speaker 1: the October Bricks summit, Delma Russev, president of Bricks, main
Speaker 1: financial leader New Development Bank, Yes, they even started their
Speaker 1: own bank to do this. Also announced support for bricks,
Speaker 1: new stages of maturation, maturation, maturation, there you go, and
Speaker 1: new areas of cooperation. In May, Russeph announced that the
Speaker 1: bank's plans to fully embrace AI and called Chinese AI
Speaker 1: company Deep Seek an inspiring case for the global South.
Speaker 1: Never mind the fact that deep Seek was literally chat
Speaker 1: GPT that they stole from us, and we know that
Speaker 1: because we caught them red hand, and they the file
Speaker 1: that they were using had a digital footprint that could
Speaker 1: be traced back to I'm not mistaken was the Pentagon
Speaker 1: And for like a month when you would talk to
Speaker 1: deep Seek, it would answer you as chat GPT. So again,
Speaker 1: it's not like they're super advanced. They're just stealing and
Speaker 1: jumping ahead of the competition because there's too many people
Speaker 1: in this country that are just using AI like it
Speaker 1: is the next greatest things since sliced bread and don't
Speaker 1: really pay attention to if it's a secure network or not.
Speaker 1: And they're also using it on phones that have certain
Speaker 1: apps of the shopping and the social variety that are
Speaker 1: all linked to CCP servers. But you know, hey, what
Speaker 1: do I know? Meanwhile, outside of the bricks structure, Russia
Speaker 1: is expanding its partnership with other US adversaries. In December,
Speaker 1: Putin tasked Spurbank spur Bank that is an unfortunate name
Speaker 1: Russia with EXPANDINGAI cooperation with China. The following month, the
Speaker 1: two countries formalize their Joint Declarational Cooperation in AI, which
Speaker 1: identifies avenues for collaboration, including establishing a working group for
Speaker 1: AI regulation and application, integrating China's Digital silk Road with
Speaker 1: Russia's Eurasian Economic Union digital projects, the developing joint AI models. Likewise,
Speaker 1: after friendly and constructive discussions at the October summit, Moscow
Speaker 1: and Tehran unveiled a comprehensive strategic partnership agreement to developed
Speaker 1: direct contacts between interested educational and scientific institutions for technical
Speaker 1: and research programs and projects. Iranian President Mussad Possesskin probably
Speaker 1: butchered that don't care, asserted that the agreement will help
Speaker 1: neutralize all the sanctions that the US has imposed against US. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that whole as breaks for you. It's just going against
Speaker 1: the West, and by the West they mean just the US.
Speaker 1: But whatever, bricks is becoming a refuge for all malicious
Speaker 1: actors to collaborate and rally against Western sanctions. It is
Speaker 1: no longer a fledgling organization, but rather a growing coalition
Speaker 1: standing against US interests. So far, America has relied on
Speaker 1: export controls on advanced semiconductors to hinder the ability of
Speaker 1: its main rival China to innovate. Washington must up the
Speaker 1: ante and apply such expert or export controls to all
Speaker 1: countries in the Bricks AI Alliance. This could stifle innovations
Speaker 1: among US adversaries, while also incentivizing more neutrally oriented BRICKS
Speaker 1: members to partner and partner countries to distance themselves from
Speaker 1: the organization. Russia is gaining traction in the AI race
Speaker 1: because of its AI alliance with Bricks. The United States
Speaker 1: needs to own AI alliance or it needs its own
Speaker 1: AI alliance, a global network of like minded democracies if
Speaker 1: Washington hopes to stay in the lead. In addition to
Speaker 1: both during R and D capacities, such a coalition can
Speaker 1: establish comprehensive norms and laws around AI security. Determining a
Speaker 1: framework for international AI governance is the next frontier in
Speaker 1: the AI race. Okay, A lot of things to unpack
Speaker 1: on that one. I understand. But yeah, before we get
Speaker 1: into the Iran conversation. Although this kind of bled into
Speaker 1: that a little bit here. If anybody has any things
Speaker 1: they would like to join in and add in on
Speaker 1: this one, please, by all means unmute yourself and let
Speaker 1: it be heard.
Speaker 7: Sounds like Briggs needs some democracy America.
Speaker 1: Hey, I like where your head's at. I do, and I.
Speaker 7: Mean although yeah, but.
Speaker 8: Also on the other side of that, like I kind
Speaker 8: of gotta agree with Jacob at this point with how
Speaker 8: dirty our government is. I'm not saying China or Russia
Speaker 8: is any better, but I'm hoping to hear what the
Speaker 8: I don't know how to say.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I hear you. I So when bricks started, it
Speaker 1: was strictly an economic thing. They were trying to get
Speaker 1: off the USD for global trade. They were trying to
Speaker 1: lean very heavily into crypto anything, anything and everything they
Speaker 1: could do to break off of the West and quote
Speaker 1: unquote by West they mean jump off of America's tid. Okay,
Speaker 1: I at least understand on paper what their goal was.
Speaker 1: Easier said than done, because America does kind of run
Speaker 1: shit as far as the world is concerned, and we
Speaker 1: have for quite some time, and as long as we
Speaker 1: continue what we're doing, we may in d continue to
Speaker 1: do so. But with the advancements in AI that's going
Speaker 1: on right now, and knowing that so much of America's
Speaker 1: AI infrastructure has been stolen and you know, back engineered
Speaker 1: by these countries that are doing it for their own purposes,
Speaker 1: I know, I know that I have all of the
Speaker 1: distrust when it comes to AI, and I'm very comfortable
Speaker 1: dying on that hill. I get it. That being said,
Speaker 1: all of the countries that were listed, with the exception
Speaker 1: of India and the UAE, are not necessarily our allies
Speaker 1: by any stretch of the imagination. So and I mean
Speaker 1: India really depends on depends on the day. Right, half
Speaker 1: the time they hate China, the other half they're getting
Speaker 1: in real tight with China. Half the time they cannot
Speaker 1: stand Russia. The other half the time they're trying to
Speaker 1: make a new trade deal with Russia. So I understand
Speaker 1: right India is doing what they believe is best for India.
Speaker 1: No judgment or shade throne from me on that one.
Speaker 1: This being said, I don't believe that they are going
Speaker 1: to be making these AI advancements to better although on paper,
Speaker 1: like we just read it's for their economy, it's for
Speaker 1: the new AI industries that are going to be opening
Speaker 1: up and all these things, and yeah that there will
Speaker 1: be a fair amount of that. I don't see that
Speaker 1: going strictly that way because business and military industrial complex
Speaker 1: go hand in hand, and most of the countries that
Speaker 1: were just listed would like to get their slice of
Speaker 1: the pie as far as a global military industrial complex
Speaker 1: is concerned. That's just what I see from my angle. Anthony,
Speaker 1: go ahead, So I'm just I'm.
Speaker 9: Just curious, from your perspective, how would it be any
Speaker 9: different under America, Like if we're being like it's granted
Speaker 9: it's not communism, you know, but really the only difference
Speaker 9: is like over there, like over here, the the iron
Speaker 9: fist has the velvet glove, you.
Speaker 6: Know what I mean.
Speaker 7: So it's it's it's almost.
Speaker 8: To the lay person, right, why does this actually matter?
Speaker 1: So it matters as far as just from my perspective here,
Speaker 1: we are not in open conflict with any of the
Speaker 1: countries that were listed, but all the countries that were
Speaker 1: listed are at We're not all most of the countries
Speaker 1: listed are adversaries of ours. I don't want our adversaries
Speaker 1: to have any kind of upper hand or leverage over us.
Speaker 1: It's not necessarily saying that it would be better or
Speaker 1: worse in the hands of our government. They're just as
Speaker 1: dirty as any other government across the world. I'm with
Speaker 1: you one hundred percent on that. But as far as
Speaker 1: me laying my head on my pillow at night in
Speaker 1: my country, I want our country to remain at the
Speaker 1: top of the pecking order in any and all things
Speaker 1: in this regard, not just defense, not just economy, not
Speaker 1: just all of it, all of it. I know our
Speaker 1: government's lying to us, we all do. I'm with you
Speaker 1: one hundred percent, But again, I also know what to
Speaker 1: expect from my government. I don't know what to expect
Speaker 1: from Putin. I don't know what to expect from Mody
Speaker 1: or g or any of these other ones. I do
Speaker 1: know that they don't have good intentions with us, and
Speaker 1: if they are trying to not only break away from
Speaker 1: being under our umbrella, if you want to call it that,
Speaker 1: and they're trying to formulate their own I don't believe
Speaker 1: that it's doing it. I don't believe any of these
Speaker 1: countries are doing it just for their own interests. I
Speaker 1: believe that they are probably doing it with ill intent
Speaker 1: towards us. That's just my own skepticism towards it all.
Speaker 1: If that makes sense.
Speaker 7: I don't disagree with you. I just wanted to ask
Speaker 7: the question.
Speaker 1: No doubt, no doubt.
Speaker 7: I feel that I'm Henri as well. But I'm with you.
Speaker 7: I'm just.
Speaker 1: I feel that, No, there's no dumb questions out here.
Speaker 1: Let's get it all out there. And if I am wrong,
Speaker 1: I hope i'm wrong. I hope that if Jizjaping creates
Speaker 1: a way better ai model than America could ever produce,
Speaker 1: then he would use it strictly to better China. But
Speaker 1: I can't envision a world where doing better for China
Speaker 1: doesn't also unilaterally screw America. If there is a version
Speaker 1: of that that is possible, then I will happily eat
Speaker 1: my words. I just don't envision that as of this moment.
Speaker 1: And it's not just because the whole China Taiwan conversation
Speaker 1: and the same thing with Russia. It's not just because
Speaker 1: of the Russia Ukraine situation. It is the overarching theme
Speaker 1: of this is a win loose situation. The entirety of
Speaker 1: history is written by the winners. I for one, would
Speaker 1: like to stay within the lines of the winning side.
Speaker 1: That's just it. Maybe I'm just showing all of my
Speaker 1: American biases, but that's kind of the point. All these
Speaker 1: countries are biased in their own regards, and I don't
Speaker 1: see what's good for China isn't neutral to America. I
Speaker 1: see certain things as far as what's good for China
Speaker 1: being mutually beneficial for America. Sure, certain things, But I
Speaker 1: also don't want us to have to come to China
Speaker 1: to make any kind of new advancements in AI happen,
Speaker 1: because they're the first wants to start making real big
Speaker 1: changes in restrictions on AI as a whole. That's I
Speaker 1: would like for us to have our own say in
Speaker 1: that conversation. That's all. But anyway, good question. By the way,
Speaker 1: enough said Steph says she had to bounce early. Good night, Stephanie,
Speaker 1: glad you could join us for this evening. All right.
Speaker 1: So while we were talking about Iran, who is by
Speaker 1: and large an enemy of the United States, I did
Speaker 1: want to talk about this, the exiled Crown Prince of Iran, who, yeah,
Speaker 1: he hadn't lived there ever since the revolution, Islamic Republic
Speaker 1: collapsing in Iran. Okay, this was released today. As a
Speaker 1: matter of fact, Reza paul LEVI, I'm probably butchering the
Speaker 1: name again. I apologize. I speak the American English. The
Speaker 1: exiled Crown Prince of Iran and Iran and son of
Speaker 1: the last Persian sa Shah, Yeah, the last Persian sha
Speaker 1: urged Iranians on Tuesday TI to prepare for the impending
Speaker 1: fall of the Supreme Leader Ayatola Khamani and the Islamic
Speaker 1: Republic as the country struggles to fight off attacks from Israel.
Speaker 1: Is a direct quote. The Islamic Republic has reached its
Speaker 1: in and is in the process of collapsing. Kamane, like
Speaker 1: a frightened rat, has gone into hiding underground and has
Speaker 1: lost control of the situation. What has begun is irreversible.
Speaker 1: The future is bright and together we will pass through
Speaker 1: this sharp turn in history. Now pause two seconds, everybody.
Speaker 1: This is an exile crown prince who the people have seen.
Speaker 1: As you know, he's not in the conversation and he
Speaker 1: hasn't been in the conversation for a good long while.
Speaker 1: He's considered irrelevant by most Iranians. Iranians whatever, however, the
Speaker 1: Ayatola has been slowly but surely losing favor with the
Speaker 1: people in the past few years, not just it's the
Speaker 1: Israel Gaza conversation. It's been a slow death by a
Speaker 1: thousand paper cuts. And I'm not saying that what's happening
Speaker 1: right now is going to be the final thing that
Speaker 1: ends it all for him. But from all the reports
Speaker 1: that I am reading, the Ayatola is not seen as
Speaker 1: the answer to all the problems like he once was.
Speaker 1: The Crown Prince, although he has been exiled for quite
Speaker 1: some time, he has more of the people's ear now
Speaker 1: than he has in the last few decades. And I'm
Speaker 1: not saying it's a majority, like any means, but it
Speaker 1: only takes eleven percent of a population for a revolution
Speaker 1: to happen. So keeping that in mind, as he is
Speaker 1: making these posts, it's very possible that the Crown Prince
Speaker 1: is making these posts happen and it will just go
Speaker 1: off into the ether and it will fall short and
Speaker 1: he will never return to Iran. It's very possible. But
Speaker 1: if there was ever a time to dethrone the Ayahtola
Speaker 1: and retake control of Iran, I would argue that that
Speaker 1: time is rapidly approaching, so let's continue here. The military
Speaker 1: conflict between Iran and Israel stretched into its fifth day Tuesday,
Speaker 1: so this is written on Tuesday, with little signs of
Speaker 1: slowing as Israel hammers its Middle East rival over Tehran's
Speaker 1: nuclear pursuits. President Trump departed the Group of Seventh summit
Speaker 1: of World leaders in Canada last Monday, a day earlier
Speaker 1: than expected, to return to Washington to monitor the ongoing conflict.
Speaker 1: He met with top security officials in the Situation Room
Speaker 1: on Tuesday to assess the developments. He has not ruled
Speaker 1: out the possibility of US military involvement. Paulavi, the Pallavi
Speaker 1: dynasty ruled Iran from nineteen twenty five to nineteen seventy nine,
Speaker 1: when it was overthrown in the Islamic Revolution. Polavi, pinning
Speaker 1: his social media posts in English and Farsi, directed the
Speaker 1: message to his fellow countrymen and encouraged and uprising. He
Speaker 1: goes on to say, now is the time to rise,
Speaker 1: the time to reclaim Iran, he wrote, let us all
Speaker 1: come forward and bring about the end of this regime.
Speaker 1: He advised that there is a plan to establish a
Speaker 1: democratic government in Iran within one hundred days of the
Speaker 1: collapse of the Islamic Republic. Also hard pause. I find
Speaker 1: it interesting that a crown prince says that there is
Speaker 1: a plan to establish a democratic government. I don't know.
Speaker 1: Maybe it's going to be something akin to how we
Speaker 1: have like British royalty and then also the parliament or
Speaker 1: something along those lines. I don't know what his goals are,
Speaker 1: but all right. He also urged military, law enforcement, security forces,
Speaker 1: and state employees to join the effort to topple the
Speaker 1: government under Kamani. Do not stand against the Iranian people
Speaker 1: for the sake of a regime whose fail has begun
Speaker 1: and is inevitable, he wrote. Do not sacrifice yourselves for
Speaker 1: a decaying regime. By standing with the people, you can
Speaker 1: save your lives, play a historic role in the transition
Speaker 1: from the Islamic Republic, and take part in building the
Speaker 1: future of Iran. He added, So again, I don't know
Speaker 1: if this is just gonna fall on deaf fears and
Speaker 1: just be one of those Internet posts from a jaded
Speaker 1: exiled royal family member, or if this may have some
Speaker 1: legs to it and gain some traction. I think it's
Speaker 1: going to be very interesting to see and as of
Speaker 1: this moment, I still don't believe that America is about
Speaker 1: to actually get involved with this conflict. Israel is more
Speaker 1: than capable of handling Iran. They're more than capable of
Speaker 1: doing so. I actually recently today I reached out to
Speaker 1: a couple of my buddies that I served with that
Speaker 1: are still in, just like, hey, have you heard anything
Speaker 1: about a potential movement into Iran or whatever the case is.
Speaker 1: None of them have heard anything of the sort. And
Speaker 1: granted it's not like these are high level, upper fed
Speaker 1: type guys there. There are ground pounders like most of
Speaker 1: the guys I served with that are still in. Some
Speaker 1: of them went Mustang and they're like captains now. Most
Speaker 1: of them are in the staff n COO ranked. But
Speaker 1: still they would at least kind of hear some murmurs
Speaker 1: being said about possible things. Nothing, nothing to insinuate that
Speaker 1: America is about to make a move into Iran. So
Speaker 1: we shall see how it plays out, Tony, go ahead, brother,
Speaker 1: that's all your hand raised.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, I've heard of this Pilavi family for sure,
Speaker 3: and I think they have overall pretty good intentions, but
Speaker 3: they don't have any real support with any Ran. Neither
Speaker 3: does the Mujahideena khalk who is another group that's referenced.
Speaker 3: Sometimes there's really nobody waiting in the wings with more
Speaker 3: than single digit support. It's a similar thing with Russia.
Speaker 3: A lot of people want regime change in Russia, but
Speaker 3: there is nobody else waiting in the wings with enough
Speaker 3: support that it could really happen. But this brings up
Speaker 3: another more philosophical point that democracy is just a word
Speaker 3: that's used all the time, but there's no country on
Speaker 3: earth that is perfectly democratic, and there's no country on
Speaker 3: earth that is completely undemocratic. I think all countries are
Speaker 3: somewhere in the middle of that spectrum, and every country
Speaker 3: and every society, whether it's a government or not, has
Speaker 3: a different way of deciding. What kinds of decisions get
Speaker 3: made in a democratic way, and what decisions get made
Speaker 3: by somebody who's appointed or inherited the role or some
Speaker 3: other way. And honestly, whenever I have to vote for
Speaker 3: judges and local elections, I kind of find it annoying.
Speaker 3: I don't know who these people are, and it's the
Speaker 3: democratic process, but I don't really trust myself even to
Speaker 3: make a lot of these decisions. And most people COVID
Speaker 3: should have shown us that most people just want to
Speaker 3: be told what to do. And yeah, democracy, I think
Speaker 3: is an admirable thing in some ways, and that the
Speaker 3: population should have some say over how their countries run.
Speaker 3: But most people don't actually really want that much of
Speaker 3: a say or know what to do with it if
Speaker 3: they have it. So that's why you know, countries that
Speaker 3: are very democratic tend to swing away from it eventually
Speaker 3: like a pendulum.
Speaker 1: Sadly, I am forced to agree with you.
Speaker 3: On yeah, yeah, I think Plai he wants Iran to
Speaker 3: be somewhat democratic. He doesn't want it to be optocracy,
Speaker 3: but he doesn't want full democracy either. And where every
Speaker 3: individual and every society draws that line at what decisions
Speaker 3: get made by referendum and what's not up for a vote,
Speaker 3: for example, the first amendments not really up for a vote,
Speaker 3: second amendments not up for a vote, every society's going
Speaker 3: to draw that line a little differently. And another thing,
Speaker 3: dictatorships they aren't really that unaccountable to the people. Would
Speaker 3: if they spend a lot on propaganda. They care a
Speaker 3: lot about what the people think if they didn't sure
Speaker 3: what the people think if they didn't have to act
Speaker 3: on what the people think at all. They wouldn't spend
Speaker 3: any money on propaganda, but they do because their population
Speaker 3: opinion does matter and everything. You know, the power structure
Speaker 3: is a pyramid. You may have one at the top,
Speaker 3: but he depends on the people right beneath him, and
Speaker 3: they depend on the people right beneath them, and keeping
Speaker 3: everybody happy is part of the game. And even even
Speaker 3: North Korea they stayed democratic, and we we know that.
Speaker 3: Yeah it's not perfect, far for perfect. It's maybe one
Speaker 3: of the most autocratic places in the world, but it
Speaker 3: still has some democracy, and you know, everyone's somewhere in
Speaker 3: the middle of that spectrum.
Speaker 1: I'll give you. For most of what you just said,
Speaker 1: I agree with you. There are a few examples historically
Speaker 1: speaking of, but most of these would be like within
Speaker 1: the realm of monarchy, where the countries that were doing
Speaker 1: the best had a benevolent despot in charge, and yeah,
Speaker 1: he had he had his network of people under him
Speaker 1: that actually did things. It wasn't like he was the
Speaker 1: guy who was out there making all of the changes.
Speaker 1: But the problem with that is it only lasts for
Speaker 1: that generation or until that guy dies, and typically the
Speaker 1: person that takes over under him was the spoiled, rotten
Speaker 1: son who undoes everything that his dad did, or something
Speaker 1: along these lines. So, yeah, dictators, and ye know, we
Speaker 1: hear the Duram dictator. And because we living in the
Speaker 1: year twenty twenty five in America, we think instant evil.
Speaker 1: That's got to happen because and I'm not disagreeing with
Speaker 1: the fact that absolute power corrupts absolutely, I'm with that
Speaker 1: one hundred percent. But there are examples of a benevolent
Speaker 1: dictator who truly was a man of his people and
Speaker 1: did what he needed to do for the betterment of
Speaker 1: his country and had nobody standing in his way because
Speaker 1: that's what their government basically said was the way. Whatever
Speaker 1: he says is the word, and we go with that.
Speaker 1: And he happened to be a guy who truly gave
Speaker 1: a shit about his country. But again, it's usually only
Speaker 1: one maybe two generations deep if you're lucky, you know.
Speaker 1: So I'm with you on that most people. And like
Speaker 1: you said, with the whole voting thing, I wish we
Speaker 1: had more barriers to entry to vote. I know it's
Speaker 1: a very unpopular opinion on this, but like, for instance,
Speaker 1: I used to be an electrician, albeit not a very
Speaker 1: good one. I electrocue to myself a lot, but neither
Speaker 1: here nor there. Okay, if I wanted to pick up
Speaker 1: some side work and wire up somebody's house, I am
Speaker 1: not a licensed and bonded electrician. Now I could go
Speaker 1: and get those those credentials done and pay the extortion
Speaker 1: fee and take a test and all this stuff. I
Speaker 1: think I'm more than capable of doing so. But my
Speaker 1: point is I believe that that should there's a barrier
Speaker 1: to entry to do even handyman work. So why don't
Speaker 1: we have a barrier to entry to vote on the
Speaker 1: future of the direction our country, or our state, or
Speaker 1: even your local community will be going in When you're
Speaker 1: voting for a judge, perfect example, do you know where
Speaker 1: that judge studied law, how long they were a lawyer,
Speaker 1: what's some of the bigger cases they worked, what's their
Speaker 1: leanings in certain cases? Are they somebody who goes off
Speaker 1: of jurisprudence or is there somebody who makes it up
Speaker 1: as they go and they're more of a loose cannon.
Speaker 1: We have no clue when we actually vote on one
Speaker 1: of these judges. So I'm with you one hundred percent
Speaker 1: and it's yeah, that's a microcuism, but look at it
Speaker 1: on the big picture political scale. The only reason we
Speaker 1: know anything about the president elect of our next election
Speaker 1: is because all of the news anchors have told us
Speaker 1: their entire life story. But it's a complete farce, right
Speaker 1: The governor who will be in charge of Louisiana in
Speaker 1: twenty thirty is probably a person that I couldn't tell
Speaker 1: you their name right now, and all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: all of the Louisiana population is going to become quote
Speaker 1: unquote experts on this person's life in a matter of
Speaker 1: six months because it's going to be the story that
Speaker 1: gets perpetuated. So I'm with you one hundred percent on that.
Speaker 1: I wish people would do more research before they go vote,
Speaker 1: But I also believe that the right to vote is
Speaker 1: something that we really should put more restrictions on in
Speaker 1: this country. Like even baseline, like just answer five questions.
Speaker 1: It didn't even have to be political. I'll even take
Speaker 1: this very bare minimum of baseline restrictions. Answer five random questions.
Speaker 1: It could be very simple second grade math questions before
Speaker 1: you go vote. And if you can't do this, you
Speaker 1: obviously do not have the cognizant brain power to make
Speaker 1: an informed decision on anything else from this point forward,
Speaker 1: and you would have watched.
Speaker 3: The drop because the voting ballot is basically a scantron anyway,
Speaker 3: just put those on there. But that reminds me. We
Speaker 3: all are pretty aware that the voting franchise used to
Speaker 3: be a lot more restricted to male property owners in
Speaker 3: the United States, for example, but that was already extremely
Speaker 3: broad compared to what it was in England. So in
Speaker 3: England they've been voting on stuff, not exactly since the
Speaker 3: Magna Carta, but there was there were a couple of revolutions.
Speaker 3: There was an English Civil War in that sixteen hundreds,
Speaker 3: and some people did get the right to vote. But
Speaker 3: you know, I think population was something like fifty forty
Speaker 3: million at the end of the Napoleonic Wars. But you
Speaker 3: know how many people had the franchise to vote at
Speaker 3: that time in eighteen fifteen. I just learned this recently.
Speaker 3: It was about five hundred thousand, So you know, we're
Speaker 3: talking maybe three, four or five percent of the British
Speaker 3: population had the right to vote. And then they extended
Speaker 3: it to about four million people in about eighteen sixty
Speaker 3: or eighteen seventy. Yeah, so still it was only like
Speaker 3: ten percent of the population. If you were a land
Speaker 3: owning mail, there was still no guarantee you had a
Speaker 3: right to vote.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I was gonna say it was more towards like
Speaker 1: the lower levels of nobility, Like I could see them
Speaker 1: having the right to vote, and maybe a few people
Speaker 1: who are of a certain socioeconomic status that could vote.
Speaker 1: But like you, just because you owned a parcel of
Speaker 1: land didn't mean that your voice was going to count
Speaker 1: by any means.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 3: But then in late eighteenth hundreds and early twentieth century,
Speaker 3: there came this idea that you may need to democratize everything.
Speaker 3: That's why we got the seventeenth Amendment nineteenth Amendment. Of course,
Speaker 3: the seventeenth was about direct election of senators for anyone
Speaker 3: who doesn't know, and especially with World War One, there
Speaker 3: was this widespread idea that if we just have more
Speaker 3: democracy in Europe, there won't be another war, and if
Speaker 3: only we give the women the right to vote, there
Speaker 3: won't be any more war. Because there were these women's
Speaker 3: committees all over the world in World War One who
Speaker 3: were opposing the war, and for some reason that just
Speaker 3: didn't happen in World War Two. So even though women
Speaker 3: did have the right to vote, we still had a
Speaker 3: World War two. Anyway, you would think, you know, it
Speaker 3: would be nice to go back and repeat the experiment. Yeah,
Speaker 3: we didn't give women the right to vote. What would
Speaker 3: have happened. We just don't know. Maybe it would have
Speaker 3: still happened anyway, But given women the right to vote
Speaker 3: didn't seem to actually prevent it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So the concept of well, what mother would vote
Speaker 1: to send the sons to war and all that, I
Speaker 1: understand where that's coming from. Cut to we have Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi ranting and raving that we need to invade I
Speaker 1: Ran or a chillery in the whole Benghazi situations. It's
Speaker 1: laughable that they think that a woman would be so
Speaker 1: opposed to war more so than a man. You know,
Speaker 1: that kind of goes against the entire conversation of equality.
Speaker 1: To say that a woman couldn't see the benefit of
Speaker 1: armed conflict or the inherent doom of armed conflict and
Speaker 1: make a logical, rational decision just as much as a
Speaker 1: man can. That flies in the face of traditional feminism.
Speaker 1: But sure that was a thought that was proposed at
Speaker 1: one point. Meanwhile, of the people right now on this podcast.
Speaker 1: One of them is a female veteran. I know it's
Speaker 1: mind blowing here, but yeah, I agree. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I feel like most people have said this before, and
Speaker 1: I am comfortable dying on the hill. Most people in
Speaker 1: America they think they want freedom. In reality, they just
Speaker 1: want the freedom to be comfortable. You know, I don't
Speaker 1: think they necessarily like being told what to do. But
Speaker 1: then you also look at the statistics that eighty percent
Speaker 1: of Americans got vaccinated when there was no evidence that
Speaker 1: that was a good idea. So it kind of as
Speaker 1: much as I think it's just me being a hopeful
Speaker 1: person being a bit of an optimist, that no American
Speaker 1: people they if you gave them the chance, they would
Speaker 1: exceed or succeed. And it's like, but then all evidence
Speaker 1: to the contrary, because we're no longer in the Greatest
Speaker 1: Generation time frame. They were hungry for it. They wanted
Speaker 1: better for themselves and for their children. The Boomer generation
Speaker 1: screwed us, and now we're to such a point to
Speaker 1: where most Americans, I honestly don't believe even know which
Speaker 1: direction is up anymore. And that's not just to say
Speaker 1: Republican versus democrat. I'm putting both of them equally on
Speaker 1: the platform of being ranting retards. But you know, it
Speaker 1: is what it is for them. I'm talking about for
Speaker 1: the extremes, not the just left of center or just
Speaker 1: right of center. At least more often than not, you
Speaker 1: can have a decent conversation these people, and they are
Speaker 1: typically a little more informed than the extremists. But anyway,
Speaker 1: all right, so we shall see what happens with the
Speaker 1: whole possible collapse of the Ayahtola. I don't know if
Speaker 1: that's actually gonna happen as of this moment. I am
Speaker 1: not keen on believing that that's really within the cards,
Speaker 1: but one can only hope, one can only be optimistic.
Speaker 1: But as we're doing this, and as we're having this conversation,
Speaker 1: I did want to bring this video up for anybody
Speaker 1: who doesn't know. This is Colonel Richard Kemp. Okay, now
Speaker 1: he was giving if anybody doesn't know, Oxford University does
Speaker 1: this debate on name the topic. I absolutely love tuning
Speaker 1: in and watching these debates happen. They're always very respectful.
Speaker 1: It is a black tie affair, and this is true debate.
Speaker 1: There was an Islamic side of the conversation that are
Speaker 1: saying that Palestine is being you know, they need, they need,
Speaker 1: why they need z Israel is so evil and all
Speaker 1: these things. Colonel Richard Kemp steps up and essentially shows
Speaker 1: how the whole Arabian world doesn't actually care about Palestine.
Speaker 1: It has nothing to do with that. As a matter
Speaker 1: of fact, they're using Palestine as cannon fodder and have
Speaker 1: for decades to further the Islamic overall goals. He name
Speaker 1: drops a couple of examples, he cites his sources, and
Speaker 1: I think it is an excellent standpoint. So y'all listening,
Speaker 1: y'all tell me what y'all think about.
Speaker 6: It, Ladies and gentlemen. The motion.
Speaker 10: That the Arab world has betrayed has failed the Palestinian people,
Speaker 10: I fundamentally disagree with. I'm not sure if it's usual
Speaker 10: for a speaker for all the motion to disagree with
Speaker 10: it in this house, but I do.
Speaker 6: And the reason I disagree with.
Speaker 10: It is because it's just to say that the Arab
Speaker 10: world has failed the Palestinian people is like saying the
Speaker 10: Nazis failed the Jews in the Second World War, thank you.
Speaker 10: It's not it's not. It's not a matter of failure.
Speaker 10: What subject do you study law?
Speaker 6: Law?
Speaker 10: To say that the law professor, a law professor at
Speaker 10: Oxford failed KD because maybe he neglected to look after
Speaker 10: his studies, he neglected to identify what kind of topics
Speaker 10: should be studied and so on to get to get
Speaker 10: his degree, that that's failing somebody.
Speaker 6: But what the Arabs have.
Speaker 10: Done, what at the Arab countries collectively have done, and
Speaker 10: what the Palestinian leadership have done, is far worse than failure.
Speaker 10: It is betrayal. It's betrayal, its abuse. It's using them
Speaker 10: as cannon fodder. It's turning them from being decent, ordinary
Speaker 10: human beings, wanting to prosper, wanting to have freedom, wanting
Speaker 10: to live in peace in their territory, into being simply
Speaker 10: weapons of war in a century long a century long
Speaker 10: war between the Arab world and the Jewish national homeland.
Speaker 10: And they have been, these benighted Palestinian people.
Speaker 6: And I know many of them.
Speaker 10: I've seen their suffering, I've spoken to them, I have
Speaker 10: witnessed their suffering firsthand. They have been cast off and abused.
Speaker 10: They are simply bullets to be fired from an Arab gun.
Speaker 10: How have the Arabs abused the Palestinians well since the
Speaker 10: the creation of the State of Israel, and before going
Speaker 10: right the way back to really to the Balfour Declaration,
Speaker 10: the Arabs and then subsequently the Palestinian leadership when Palestine
Speaker 10: was invented as a people, as a potential country, the
Speaker 10: Palestinian leaders have rejected every single opportunity to create a
Speaker 10: self governing homeland for the Palestinian people within the former
Speaker 10: Mandate of Palestine. And that goes right back to their
Speaker 10: rejection in nineteen seventeen of the Balfour Declaration, and it
Speaker 10: includes coming right up to date. It includes the not
Speaker 10: they didn't even reject President Obama's initiative, they simply walked
Speaker 10: away from it before it got anywhere. And they haven't
Speaker 10: only rejected the current US administration's initiative, they've rejected it
Speaker 10: without even hearing what it is. And this has been
Speaker 10: the pattern all the way through, a pattern of rejection
Speaker 10: and denial of any possibility of rights for the Palestinian
Speaker 10: people beyond what they have now. I want to to
Speaker 10: illustrate that. I want to just make a read from
Speaker 10: a couple of quotes really from the Horse's mouth and
Speaker 10: the first one. This is from Emil Gouri, the secretary
Speaker 10: of the Arab Higher Committee, who said, I do not
Speaker 10: want to impugne anyone, but only to help the refugees.
Speaker 10: The fact that there are these refugees is the direct
Speaker 10: consequences of the action of the Arab states in opposing
Speaker 10: partition and the Jewish state.
Speaker 6: The Arab states agreed.
Speaker 10: Upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the
Speaker 10: solution of the problem. Ralph Galloway, the former director of ANDRA, said,
Speaker 10: the Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem.
Speaker 10: They want to keep it as an open sore, as
Speaker 10: an affront to the United Nations, and as a weapon
Speaker 10: against Israel. Arab leaders don't give a damn whether the
Speaker 10: refugees live or die. This has been the pattern of rejection,
Speaker 10: and the Arab countries are now The Palestinian authority and
Speaker 10: Hamas do not want a two state solution. They're not
Speaker 10: interested in the two state solution. They're interested in one
Speaker 10: thing only, and that is the destruction of the Jewish state,
Speaker 10: the dismantling and the destruction of the Jewish state.
Speaker 6: And again, the.
Speaker 10: Lack of support for a Palestinian state well back in
Speaker 10: history and today can be seen from these two quote.
Speaker 6: First of all, the.
Speaker 10: Secretary General of the Arab League, Abdul Rachman Asam said
Speaker 10: Transjordan was to swallow up the central hill regions of
Speaker 10: Palestine with access to the Mediterranean. At going the Egyptians
Speaker 10: would get the Negev, the Galilee would go to Syria,
Speaker 10: except that the coastal part as far as Akka would
Speaker 10: be added to Lebanon. So they were talking about carving
Speaker 10: this precious Palestinian national homeland up. It was never a
Speaker 10: consideration that they would actually establish a Palestinian national homeland.
Speaker 10: And President Nasa of Egypt said, the Palestinians are useful
Speaker 10: to the Arab states as they are, we will always
Speaker 10: see that they do not become too powerful. Can you
Speaker 10: imagine yet another nation on the shores of the eastern Mediterranean.
Speaker 10: It has been the pattern, no two states, no liberational freedom.
Speaker 10: From the current situation that the Palestinians face at any stage,
Speaker 10: they have forced conflicts upon the Palestinians. The Arab nations
Speaker 10: since nineteen forty eight have sent armies into the land
Speaker 10: to attempt to annihilate the Jewish state, and that of
Speaker 10: course has brought death and destruction and suffering upon the
Speaker 10: Palestinians as well. And since then they have imposed and
Speaker 10: inflicted and supported and funded and directed terrorism against the Jews.
Speaker 6: By the Palestinians.
Speaker 10: And that has been going on for a long time
Speaker 10: and continues today. It continues today in Gaza, from the
Speaker 10: Gaza border, and in the West Bank and in other
Speaker 10: parts of Israel. And where is this funded from? From
Speaker 10: the greatest state supporter of terrorism in the world, Iran,
Speaker 10: and from Qatar of course, the Arab country. So this
Speaker 10: has been this is a continuing problem. I have been
Speaker 10: there on the Gaza border. I've watched the suffering and
Speaker 10: the violence which has been attracted to the area by
Speaker 10: the Palestinian people by Hamas. In effect, guest has a
Speaker 10: role in this. The West, with its greed and its
Speaker 10: lust for oil, has appeased the Arab countries and encouraged them.
Speaker 10: And by supporting this motion today, even though I don't
Speaker 10: agree with it, I think we are making a statement,
Speaker 10: and that statement is we will no longer appease and
Speaker 10: support your retribution against the Palestinians. If this situation continues
Speaker 10: any further, then as has happened in the past. The
Speaker 10: only people to suffer Israel is not going to suffer
Speaker 10: as well as this. The only people that will suffer
Speaker 10: are the Palestinians. They will continue to suffer. And I
Speaker 10: urge you, ladies and gentlemen to get behind this motion
Speaker 10: and make your voice heard against the continued suffering of
Speaker 10: the Palestinian people.
Speaker 6: Thank you very much. Indeed.
Speaker 1: Okay, So that was six years ago, for the record,
Speaker 1: That was not in light of the current situation with
Speaker 1: the Palestine and Israel conversation. That was not within the
Speaker 1: wing of the attacks that are happening with Iran right now.
Speaker 1: That was six years ago, and he was quoting things
Speaker 1: from nineteen forty eight with other Arab leaders saying that
Speaker 1: if and when the time ever came, they were just
Speaker 1: gonna section off this area and envelop it into their
Speaker 1: own countries. There was never a conversation with any other
Speaker 1: Arab nations of having a free Palestine. Ever, they have
Speaker 1: used these people, like he said, as an open sore
Speaker 1: to continue the conflict. And I also agree with what
Speaker 1: he said about the West perpetuating the cycle and propagating
Speaker 1: it even further through greed and oil and all these things.
Speaker 1: It's a continuous problem. There's a reason why the Middle
Speaker 1: East will never have peace. They haven't had peace since
Speaker 1: long before Israel became a nation, and they're not going
Speaker 1: to have peace anytime soon. So as we were talking
Speaker 1: about everything that's going on with the bricks, with the
Speaker 1: Ai conversation, with Iran, with everything, I felt like it
Speaker 1: was kind of cool to have that one brought up.
Speaker 1: I just found that one this afternoon. I was like, ooh, yeah,
Speaker 1: we're gonna have to play that one on here. But
Speaker 1: if anybody has anything to add in, please do.
Speaker 3: Well. I guess the thing I would add is the
Speaker 3: reason a lot of Arabs pro Palestinian Arabs will also
Speaker 3: say that Arabs have failed the Palestinians is from the
Speaker 3: other end of the spectrum. They would say that Arab
Speaker 3: states haven't fought hard enough for Palestine, for example, Egypt
Speaker 3: and Syria and everyone else. I was wondering if that
Speaker 3: was where he was going. I was pretty sure it wasn't,
Speaker 3: But that is true. That was the other way to
Speaker 3: view it.
Speaker 1: That's a very good point. Egypt has not stepped in
Speaker 1: to help their Gossen brothers. Lebanon has not stepped in
Speaker 1: to help their West Bank brothers, like, not even a
Speaker 1: little bit Jordan they have, none of them do because
Speaker 1: none of them care about Palestine.
Speaker 3: Well, I think the argument Israel always makes is that
Speaker 3: one of these Arab countries just absorb the Palestinian populations
Speaker 3: by letting them immigrate, and they don't because they I
Speaker 3: think the guy has a point. They want to keep
Speaker 3: the Palestinians there as the front line against the Jewish state.
Speaker 3: But by the way, Jewish state, you know, what does
Speaker 3: that even refer to the adjective Jewish? Is that religion
Speaker 3: or ethnicity. It's a little bit of both, but either
Speaker 3: one is problematic because if you're saying it's a Jewish state,
Speaker 3: you're either saying it's an ethno state or a theocracy
Speaker 3: or a little bit of both.
Speaker 1: I see that. But at the same time, nobody else
Speaker 1: could have that. I mean, not necessarily. There are Muslim
Speaker 1: states and that's.
Speaker 3: A really Islamic republic, but I mean I.
Speaker 1: Would say Afghanistan is a Islamic state. I would say
Speaker 1: Egypt is an Islamic state, right and Morocco there's tons
Speaker 1: of them. But we only have one Jewish state on Earth.
Speaker 3: I don't think we have any Christian ones. Anymore. And
Speaker 3: in the Democratic West, it would be considered wrong to
Speaker 3: have a white state or a Christian state. And I'm
Speaker 3: not advocating for that anyway, but for some reason, Jewish
Speaker 3: state is. It's not only acceptable, but people get asked
Speaker 3: the questions like the New York mayor's race a couple
Speaker 3: of weeks ago, do you support the the do you
Speaker 3: support Israel and its right to exist? And he said,
Speaker 3: I support its right to exist with equal rights for
Speaker 3: all its citizens, and he got jumped on for not
Speaker 3: specifying it has a right to exist as a Jewish state,
Speaker 3: and RFK Junior has made similar statements. He says, you
Speaker 3: need to just say that it has a right to
Speaker 3: exist as a Jewish state. And what do you mean
Speaker 3: by that, ethno state, theocracy, or a little bit of
Speaker 3: both both. The US doesn't have the right to exist
Speaker 3: that way. Western Europe doesn't apparently.
Speaker 1: But America used to be classified as a Christian nation
Speaker 1: until Obama said that we are not a Christian nation.
Speaker 1: Everybody changed the narrative at that point. We I mean,
Speaker 1: it wasn't even like whether it was on paper or
Speaker 1: whether it was just by population density. No one questioned
Speaker 1: Erica being a Christian nation until they said it wasn't.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's been a little controversial because well, in eighteen
Speaker 3: ninety two, I think there was a Supreme Court decision
Speaker 3: that said it was a Christian our institutions are emphatically Christian.
Speaker 3: I think that was the exact words. But from the
Speaker 3: very beginning there were a lot of dists and people
Speaker 3: like Thomas Paine who said he didn't believe in the
Speaker 3: Bible at all, and he was very unpopular for that
Speaker 3: at the time.
Speaker 6: Actually, and the.
Speaker 3: US has always North America, British North America was full
Speaker 3: of all the religious misfits who were not welcome in
Speaker 3: England or Europe, and that included people like Thomas Paine,
Speaker 3: you know, dists and people who didn't like didn't like
Speaker 3: the Bible. Jefferson tried to write a Bible that took
Speaker 3: out all the miracles, for example. So there was weird
Speaker 3: religious crap going on back then that we would not
Speaker 3: recognize as Christian. And I know I'm gonna derailing this
Speaker 3: a whole bunch.
Speaker 1: Here, not really, I agree with you, Thomas Jefferson Bible,
Speaker 1: which if anybody is curious, if you've ever heard of
Speaker 1: the Lost Gospel of Q. It's the exact same thing
Speaker 1: as the Thomas Jefferson Bible. It's just direct quotes from Jesus.
Speaker 1: There's it took out the miracles, it took out the context,
Speaker 1: it took out every It's just a entire book of
Speaker 1: only read writing, which is cool. It's cool, but at
Speaker 1: that point it's more like a Confucian say dot dot
Speaker 1: dot kind of thing. It kind of takes away the
Speaker 1: importance of it all. But it's, you know, in its
Speaker 1: own regarded. Yeah, I'm with you on that. Uh huh.
Speaker 3: So with regard to Palestine, he didn't go so far
Speaker 3: as I've seen some people go to say that, oh,
Speaker 3: it never existed or Palestine didn't mean anything. Palestine is
Speaker 3: actually a really old word. It goes back at least
Speaker 3: as far as Herodotus in about four to sixty BC.
Speaker 3: It was also called the land of Canaan. It's had
Speaker 3: a lot of different names in fact, in the Bible.
Speaker 3: I'm pretty sure that if somebody correct me on this,
Speaker 3: I'd love to be corrected. Israel only refers to the people,
Speaker 3: it doesn't refer to the land. And now you know,
Speaker 3: it kind of does refer to the land. What do
Speaker 3: you think Jacob.
Speaker 1: I mean, I yes, so the israel Lights were landing
Speaker 1: in the Land of Judah, which was taken from the Canaanites.
Speaker 1: But it depends on which section of the Bible you're
Speaker 1: talking about, depending on Old Testament for all of our
Speaker 1: Jewish listeners in here as well, because it depends on
Speaker 1: which section they At one point the Jewish kingdom was
Speaker 1: massive and then it got whittled down to what it was.
Speaker 1: But when it got they listed as Palestine from Herodotus,
Speaker 1: correct me if from Rolling Royce. That was whenever the
Speaker 1: Jews got put into slavery in Babylon and they relisted
Speaker 1: the land and said they never wanted to hear the
Speaker 1: term Israel again, and they made it Palestine. That was
Speaker 1: like a word that he made up on the spot
Speaker 1: for that purpose. But yeah, I mean, we're talking about
Speaker 1: one of the most ancient areas on the map. And
Speaker 1: I don't mean just Israel. I mean the entirety of
Speaker 1: the Middle East, very ancient land. So to say that
Speaker 1: this land was one time called this and then it
Speaker 1: was this. Let's not forget that Iran was at one
Speaker 1: time Persia, and everybody there was Zoroastrian. If we're gonna
Speaker 1: get real, real technical. The true religion of the dirt
Speaker 1: of Iran is to be following Zoraaster, not the Ayatolahs.
Speaker 1: So like, where are we really drawing that line from
Speaker 1: the land in question is considered the land of milk
Speaker 1: and honey. Right, you'll hear that term get thrown out
Speaker 1: about a bunch. And they do give very clear distinct
Speaker 1: places of where it is supposed to be, even in
Speaker 1: the Quran. And I know this is gonna be unpopular,
Speaker 1: but Muslims listening, you tell me, you explain this to me.
Speaker 1: They literally list by, like from here to here, and
Speaker 1: from here to here is the area reserved for the Israelites,
Speaker 1: for the Jews. Even in the Quran they say that
Speaker 1: that area would be what we would now call Israel.
Speaker 1: That's not Jacob's words, that's the Quran's world words. So
Speaker 1: even within their own religious text, they acknowledge that that
Speaker 1: land is meant for them, not Palestinians, not Arabs, not Armenians,
Speaker 1: not or anything close to these conversations. So, yes, do
Speaker 1: I believe Israel should exist as a state, Yes, as
Speaker 1: a Jewish state, both ethno and religious. Yes, I believe
Speaker 1: they should both. But keep in mind, Jewish by race
Speaker 1: does not necessarily mean everybody that looks like net and Yahoo.
Speaker 1: There was a tribe in Nigeria that was found that
Speaker 1: half of that tribe is from direct Levi descent bloodline.
Speaker 6: Shit.
Speaker 1: So if they want to make their way back to
Speaker 1: Israel and they are dark like sub Saharan dark, if
Speaker 1: they want to make their way back to Israel, because
Speaker 1: it is by birthright, their blood promised land, they should
Speaker 1: be able to do so. And if you're not mistaken,
Speaker 1: the Nation of Israel has extended an olive branch to them.
Speaker 1: If they would like to move to Israel, they're welcomed there.
Speaker 1: But so I don't see the race conversations. It's not
Speaker 1: everybody looks like Ari Shafir or or the Ashkenazis or
Speaker 1: the Spartas. It's the land for all of the Jews.
Speaker 1: Now is it being ran that way? Do I like
Speaker 1: net and Yahoo?
Speaker 7: No?
Speaker 1: I personally don't. I think that he's a strong leader,
Speaker 1: but I think he is also extremely what's the word
Speaker 1: I'm looking for. I don't want to say biased. I'm
Speaker 1: saying he's going out of his way to kick hornets
Speaker 1: nests when there was better solutions available But in that
Speaker 1: same breath, I could also understand how when you get
Speaker 1: backed into a corner and you give and give and give,
Speaker 1: finally you have to do something to get the hornets
Speaker 1: off of you. And I'm not saying that I don't
Speaker 1: think they did.
Speaker 3: Kicker.
Speaker 1: Wasn't it just twenty twelve when they gave back a
Speaker 1: bunch of land to Palestine.
Speaker 3: Now you might be thinking of in two thousand and
Speaker 3: five there were a few Israeli settlements in Gaza and
Speaker 3: they pulled them out. So Gazi used to be under
Speaker 3: a military occupation where soldiers could just go everywhere in it,
Speaker 3: and they basically withdrew the soldiers to the perimeter of Goza,
Speaker 3: which is not that much better. And you mentioned birthright,
Speaker 3: but you know when that would apply to people who
Speaker 3: are actually born in Palestine, if they're Arab, I think
Speaker 3: they have more of a right to live there than
Speaker 3: somebody Jewish who's born in New York City, for example.
Speaker 3: And yet according to the State of Israel, the guy
Speaker 3: born in New York City has more of a right
Speaker 3: to move into somebody's home in Palestine than the guy
Speaker 3: who's descended from you know, great grandparents who lived there.
Speaker 3: Israel needs permanent borders with its neighbors, but it doesn't
Speaker 3: have them, and it doesn't want them. It wants to
Speaker 3: keep the situation fluid. I think it would be best
Speaker 3: for both countries to establish permanent borders, and then Israel
Speaker 3: will exist. It's not going to go out of existence.
Speaker 3: I think something like the nineteen forty seven or sixty
Speaker 3: seven borders would have been good, but the Arabs rejected
Speaker 3: that at the time. In retrospect, it looks like a
Speaker 3: great idea. It would have been a great idea for
Speaker 3: them to accept those boundaries. But the Israel they eight
Speaker 3: perceived Israel it is driving too heard of a bargain
Speaker 3: at that time, and that's what Israel does on purpose
Speaker 3: all the time. They drive a really hard bargain. Nettan
Speaker 3: Yaho was saying in the nineties that we just want
Speaker 3: area Sea of Palestine and Area C was like ninety
Speaker 3: percent of what was left if you take the map
Speaker 3: of Israel plus West Bank plus Gaza all put together.
Speaker 3: Israel already has seventy eight percent of that after nineteen
Speaker 3: sixty eight, and they were going to get about ninety
Speaker 3: percent of what was left of the land area after
Speaker 3: that under net and Yaho's proposal, and the way natan
Speaker 3: Yah who spun it was to say, well, we just
Speaker 3: want area sea. It sounds small, but it was actually
Speaker 3: maybe not ninety percent of what was left, but it
Speaker 3: was a huge percent of what was left. So at
Speaker 3: each step the Israelis drive a really hard bargain, the
Speaker 3: Palestinians don't accept it, and then the conflict continues in
Speaker 3: the Palestinians lose more and more and they are just
Speaker 3: gonna get murdered or shoved off the land. And that's
Speaker 3: how it's gonna be. I bet you know in twenty years,
Speaker 3: Israel is going to own Gaza for sure, based on
Speaker 3: the way things are going right now, because Gaza is
Speaker 3: so small and it's the focus of so much attention
Speaker 3: and there are only two million people there instead of
Speaker 3: six But they are going to force those people out somehow.
Speaker 6: They want it.
Speaker 3: Its beachfront property. It doesn't even appear on the maps
Speaker 3: in seven hundred BC if you look that up in Wikipedia,
Speaker 3: Gaza anyway, west bank does. In fact, even part of
Speaker 3: the east bank of the Jordan River does appear as
Speaker 3: Israel or the tribe Isakar or something. I'm probably getting
Speaker 3: that wrong, but Israel and they feel like they want
Speaker 3: this land, they're entitled to it because they think they're great, great, great,
Speaker 3: great great great great you know, grandparents two thousand years
Speaker 3: ago lived there. And maybe that's true, but I don't
Speaker 3: think that's a good territorial claim. They need permanent borders,
Speaker 3: but they're not going to establish them. Maybe I'm top
Speaker 3: bucking in circles. They just want to keep this going.
Speaker 3: One last thing, the Qatar supports Hamas, or they supported
Speaker 3: Hamas for years and years because Israel asked them to,
Speaker 3: and Israel actually helped them procure Treasury Department waivers in
Speaker 3: order to give money to Hamas as much as ten
Speaker 3: years ago in twenty fifteen. And the reason for that
Speaker 3: is that they the Israeli government did not want a
Speaker 3: partner for peace in Gaza. They wanted Hamas to have power,
Speaker 3: precisely so that they would have an excuse to keep
Speaker 3: blockading them. And that's what happened.
Speaker 1: I thought that was because they didn't want to fork
Speaker 1: over the money to help the infrastructure of Palestine, so
Speaker 1: they were looking for outside financiers to actually make the
Speaker 1: betterment happen for Palestine.
Speaker 3: The Katari's yeah, the Qataris. They were willing to give
Speaker 3: money to any other political party like Fatah. Fatah is
Speaker 3: the other big Palestinian national party or nationalist party, but
Speaker 3: Fatas is like, you know, yeah, as bad as a
Speaker 3: mus Fata used to be the majority back when we
Speaker 3: were kids in like the nineties or something. And I
Speaker 3: think the alternative to Fatah at that time was the PLO,
Speaker 3: which was the militia led by air Fat.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the PLO I think doesn't exist anymore. And well, anyway,
Speaker 3: I'm a big piece snick. I think Israel should establish
Speaker 3: permanent borders, but they're not going to cause reasons, too
Speaker 3: many reasons, none of them good fair. That's how it is.
Speaker 3: I'm going to shut up.
Speaker 1: No, no, no, man. I appreciate your input. I always do.
Speaker 1: So with that being said, I think we are going
Speaker 1: to wrap this episode up a lot of things going
Speaker 1: on around the world right now, a lot of things,
Speaker 1: not just in the Middle East, not just in uh
Speaker 1: this side of the globe on our hemisphere. But we're
Speaker 1: talking about bricks trying to become a global superpower in
Speaker 1: the AI conversation. That's an interesting thing as well. We'll
Speaker 1: see if Putin actually puts real gas on that fire,
Speaker 1: or if it's gonna be one of those things that
Speaker 1: just kind of gets talked about a good bit and
Speaker 1: echoes off into nothingness. Who knows, but uh, either way,
Speaker 1: I want to thank everybody for coming out and joining
Speaker 1: me on this edition of The Cajun Night Live once
Speaker 1: again for anybody who would like to join in this
Speaker 1: conversation next week. We do this every Wednesday night at
Speaker 1: nine pm Central. Come check it out at the Cajun
Speaker 1: Night on Patreon. The link is in the description below.
Speaker 1: Only one tier for entry. We are just trying to
Speaker 1: get this to grow into its own crazy snowball of
Speaker 1: education and information and exchanging of real ideas. And uh yeah,
Speaker 1: I have thoroughly enjoyed this episode as I do every
Speaker 1: Wednesday Night. Once again, I am the Cajun Night Jacob
Speaker 1: Mook and I thank all of you for joining me
Speaker 1: on this evening To everybody listening. As always, God bless