Speaker 1: Good evening everybody, and welcome to another edition of The
Speaker 1: Cage and Night Live. I am your host the Cage
Speaker 1: Night Jacob Uk and I want to thank everybody for
Speaker 1: jumping in on this one. You know, the the grouping
Speaker 1: sometimes go up, sometimes go down, It depends on the night.
Speaker 1: I understand everybody's got lives that they live, but I
Speaker 1: really do appreciate everybody jumping in on this one. And
Speaker 1: for anybody listening to this on Thursday, if you would
Speaker 1: like to be a part of The Cajun Night Live
Speaker 1: and be a part of this conversation, come check out
Speaker 1: The Cajun Night on Patreon. And I cannot thank everybody
Speaker 1: that is here tonight enough for helping me in this
Speaker 1: regard and jumping in this to make this what it
Speaker 1: is becoming. So thank you. Okay, So lots of things
Speaker 1: to discuss as far as just what is going on
Speaker 1: with the world right now. This isn't going to be
Speaker 1: a necessarily Trump centric episode. It's also not going to
Speaker 1: be a Trump centric episode. A lot of things going on,
Speaker 1: a lot of things. I actually wanted to share this, uh,
Speaker 1: this one clip before we really get rocking and rolling here.
Speaker 1: I couldn't believe that they were being as loud and
Speaker 1: proud as they were about this, So everybody knows that
Speaker 1: does is coming after usaid. That's not an unknown fact.
Speaker 1: It's very big. We talked about in the media space.
Speaker 1: All right. Now, if y'all heard that they were told
Speaker 1: to start shredding things and getting the burners ready for
Speaker 1: when the bags got full. Now, I understand that whenever
Speaker 1: people are being indicted, that's the typical status quo. And
Speaker 1: if Trump would have said they're shredding all the files,
Speaker 1: they're burning all the proof, people would have immediately wrote
Speaker 1: it off like it was a lie. It was just
Speaker 1: Trump talking that noise as he does. Except the fact
Speaker 1: that this is coming from NBC, who is historically a
Speaker 1: very liberal media outlet, a very anti Trump media outlet,
Speaker 1: and they are reporting from their insight sources that that
Speaker 1: is exactly what has been done. Yeah, we're going to
Speaker 1: go ahead and just play that now, So y'all, uh,
Speaker 1: what do you Yeah, Well, let's go ahead and play that,
Speaker 1: and y'all tell me what y'all think about this.
Speaker 2: My vantage point is a former White House employee about
Speaker 2: shredding and destroying documents, This was not only unethical, but
Speaker 2: I think illegal, But NBC News is reporting this USAID
Speaker 2: staff is being told to shred and burn while they're
Speaker 2: classified documents.
Speaker 3: Quote.
Speaker 2: The US Agency for International Development is instructing its staff
Speaker 2: in Washington to shred and burn documents, according to an
Speaker 2: email obtained by NBC News. The document destruction was set
Speaker 2: to take place Tuesday. According to an email from Erica Carr,
Speaker 2: the agency's acting executive secretary, quote, shred as many documents first,
Speaker 2: and reserve the burn bags for when the shredder becomes
Speaker 2: unavailable or needs a break. Car wrote, I worked in
Speaker 2: government for most a decade. I've never heard of so
Speaker 2: much shredding being required that you would know ahead of
Speaker 2: time that quote the shredder would become unavailable or need
Speaker 2: a break.
Speaker 3: What is that about, right?
Speaker 4: I actually this morning got a message from somebody who
Speaker 4: left USAID earlier this year and passed along this email
Speaker 4: to me. And my response is, naturally is a standard
Speaker 4: operating procedure. And this individuals had known that they had
Speaker 4: never heard about burning or shredding of federal records at USAID.
Speaker 4: But then again, this individual told me they've never heard
Speaker 4: of the entire agency being gutted in their headquarters at
Speaker 4: the Ronald Reagan Building being shut down. When are documents
Speaker 4: burned by the State Department or USAID, typically at an
Speaker 4: embassy when it is about to be overtaken. Marines have
Speaker 4: the authorization as a means of ensuring the classified records
Speaker 4: and personnel data do not get in the hands of
Speaker 4: individuals of who are seen as threats. They do go
Speaker 4: and burn documents, but that's not what this situation is here.
Speaker 4: And I was talking to a national security records lawyer
Speaker 4: here who is already sent to the National Archives a
Speaker 4: demand to have the records stop from being destroyed. We
Speaker 4: should note that this was all taking place today here,
Speaker 4: and the way that this lawyer put it to me
Speaker 4: was that this is number one of violation of the
Speaker 4: Federal Records Act, but number two that there is a
Speaker 4: standard operating procedure when it comes to processing records. And
Speaker 4: unless all of these records were digitized or there was
Speaker 4: a clarity that, for example, records older than ten years
Speaker 4: old that had been appropriately deemed by necessary officials is
Speaker 4: no longer having to be archived maybe terminated, those can
Speaker 4: then be ultimately destroyed.
Speaker 5: But this email is very.
Speaker 4: Explicit to these individuals who received it quote, shreds many
Speaker 4: documents first and reserve the burn bags for when the
Speaker 4: shredder becomes unavailable or needs a break. They were directed
Speaker 4: to go and clear out these classified safes and personnel
Speaker 4: documents from what usould be us USAID headquarters and Marco Rubio,
Speaker 4: the state department that is now overseeing USAID. They just
Speaker 4: earlier this week said that eighty three percent of the
Speaker 4: contracts that USID oversaw have been eliminated. And the way
Speaker 4: that USAID official suggested to me is that if they're
Speaker 4: truly trying to get rid of waste, fraud, and abuse,
Speaker 4: many of these documents would have records as to exactly
Speaker 4: where payments have gone and how contracts have ultimately been
Speaker 4: executed across the across the world.
Speaker 3: And so if you are.
Speaker 4: Shredding and burning these documents, you are effectively removing a
Speaker 4: paper trail that could be paramount to actually understanding how
Speaker 4: USAID has executed and used its capacities overseas, and so
Speaker 4: much of that could be understood by these archived documents
Speaker 4: that were clearly been ordered today to be burned and destroyed.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so this isn't just some little group in the
Speaker 1: all building that's just trying to cover their own ass
Speaker 1: because they themselves and that wing were associated the entire
Speaker 1: building got sent that memo from the tippy top, Miss
Speaker 1: car If I'm not mistaken, feel free to chime in
Speaker 1: on this when any of you this is absurd. Now.
Speaker 1: Granted again, we know that like Wolf of Wall Street,
Speaker 1: when the Feds were coming in get rid of everything, right,
Speaker 1: that's understood, But that's also understood to be illegal as hell.
Speaker 1: So for an actual government entity to be doing that
Speaker 1: right now, I think this is just wild.
Speaker 6: Yeah, this ispoliation of evidence. It's definitely a violation of
Speaker 6: Federal Records Act and probably FOYA two. And it reminds
Speaker 6: me of the scene in the movie Downfall, if you've
Speaker 6: ever seen that, where at the end of World War Two,
Speaker 6: the Nazis are just throwing as many documents as they
Speaker 6: can on the fire yep. And in my opinion, US
Speaker 6: eight is mostly just a soft power projection intelligence organization
Speaker 6: and they don't want any of this stuff public, so
Speaker 6: it's it's kind of obvious what's going on. In my opinion,
Speaker 6: that's that's true in my hyper reality.
Speaker 1: Oh one hundred percent. And I like that you said
Speaker 1: it that way to a soft power projection agency, which
Speaker 1: I mean, if we were really going to split hairs here,
Speaker 1: I don't know what else you can call them. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they they we Trump made a big display of the
Speaker 1: Iraqi Sesame street right and the bearded circus ladies on
Speaker 1: ice teaching us about global warming in Ireland, and like, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: there were some some wild things that were funded. Fair fine,
Speaker 1: but when you look at what USAID was actually founded
Speaker 1: before and what principle that was, like, what their goal was,
Speaker 1: what their mission was understood, it was completely soft power projection.
Speaker 1: I mean you could say it was used to sway
Speaker 1: elections in certain countries, which I mean, to be fair, yeah,
Speaker 1: you could say it was to shift cultural influences in
Speaker 1: certain areas of the world. Again, that's another form of
Speaker 1: self power projection one hundred percent, and there's more agencies
Speaker 1: that do it. It's not just u USI Jesus I
Speaker 1: can't speak. It's not just us AI D And I
Speaker 1: know the name leads credence to thinking that it is
Speaker 1: a uh an AID giving organization to third world countries.
Speaker 1: That's not exactly the case. There was some of that,
Speaker 1: but not not as much as the name would lead
Speaker 1: us to believe. Yeah, and there they are now going
Speaker 1: through the process of trying to cover their own tracks here.
Speaker 1: And it's that's the thing again. If Trump would have
Speaker 1: said that on the mic, people would have immediately been, Oh,
Speaker 1: there's Trump just talking that noise, just doing whatever. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: this is insider information. And even the liberal media has
Speaker 1: to acknowledge that that's real. And I think that the
Speaker 1: liberals as a whole are terrified of it because this
Speaker 1: is only the beginning and they know that. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: it's wild things, y'all.
Speaker 6: Yeah. The other thought I have is I remember here
Speaker 6: in years ago that corporations figured out that lobbyists in Washington,
Speaker 6: d C. Was one of the biggest returns on investment
Speaker 6: that they could make in terms of one dollar in
Speaker 6: yielding like two thousand dollars back in additional revenue. And
Speaker 6: I'm not surprised at all if us AID sees a
Speaker 6: similar potential in lobbying foreign governments this way. For example,
Speaker 6: Barisma with Ukraine and Hunter Biden getting a million dollars
Speaker 6: a year. Yeah, just a little bit of whispering like hey,
Speaker 6: can you get me a job? And yeah, it's a
Speaker 6: huge return on investment. You get a million dollars a
Speaker 6: year from Barisma, for example, just as one example, and
Speaker 6: there's probably a million more.
Speaker 1: One hundred percent. And then we could only look just
Speaker 1: yester year ago when Joe Biden was talking about he
Speaker 1: threatened to fire the the was it attorney general or
Speaker 1: district attorney?
Speaker 6: Was it was some prosecutor. I don't think it was
Speaker 6: attorney general. His name was Shoken, but he was going
Speaker 6: to pross acute hunter Biden for the whole Barisma deal
Speaker 6: in Ukraine. It's been cropt for a long time. I
Speaker 6: don't mean to just slam on Ukraine all the time.
Speaker 1: I get it.
Speaker 6: I think that those people deserve a place to live
Speaker 6: on earth. But their government, like so many governments throughout
Speaker 6: the world, is it's like they're incapable of running themselves.
Speaker 6: And maybe that's not even a fair characterization. But the
Speaker 6: worst people rise to the top there and it's gotten unlucky.
Speaker 1: Perhaps is that an unfair characterization, though? I mean, let's
Speaker 1: if we're gonna really just boil it all down here
Speaker 1: and put the bullshit aside. It's like Romania, same thing.
Speaker 1: There's tons, tons of nations out there that I mean, honestly,
Speaker 1: Central America most of their elections have been swayed by
Speaker 1: We could say America, we could say China, we could
Speaker 1: say Russia, we could name name the foreign actor depending
Speaker 1: on the election year, depends on which one threw the
Speaker 1: most money in on the pot, but either way it goes.
Speaker 1: A lot of these countries are honestly just swaying whatever
Speaker 1: way the actual powers that be want them too, and
Speaker 1: that's that solve power projection. Ukraine is a prime example
Speaker 1: of it that I don't even think that's an unfair characterization,
Speaker 1: to be honest with you.
Speaker 6: Yeah, it's kind of mysterious to me, in my opinion,
Speaker 6: what causes a government to be functional or not, or
Speaker 6: to corrupt or not. It seems like societies just get
Speaker 6: lucky or unlucky. I don't know why. Sometimes the government
Speaker 6: gets taken over by the worst people in some countries,
Speaker 6: and then in other countries it doesn't. I don't know
Speaker 6: if it's fundamentally related to the culture, or if they
Speaker 6: just get lucky or unlucky with a certain group of
Speaker 6: people that get in power.
Speaker 1: I could see culture having something to do with it,
Speaker 1: but then not always necessarily the case. It's very much
Speaker 1: case by case, right, And I think it also has
Speaker 1: to do a lot with the And this is going
Speaker 1: to be kind of a ridiculous thing to say, but
Speaker 1: at the same time, if I'm wrong, please somebody tell
Speaker 1: me so. But I think there is a ratio to
Speaker 1: what their natural resources are versus their military capabilities, and
Speaker 1: if they have a decent balance of both, and they're
Speaker 1: friends with other people that have a good balance of both,
Speaker 1: then maybe they'll be okay. If they have a lot
Speaker 1: of resources, and manpower is a resource, right, water can
Speaker 1: be a resource, wood minerals, oil, gold, name doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: There's tons of them out there. It's all about what
Speaker 1: is most valuable at that time. And if they are
Speaker 1: really high on natural resources but have a dogship military,
Speaker 1: they just all of a sudden have revolutions and uprisings
Speaker 1: and coups and all of these things happen every so often. Now,
Speaker 1: flip that script. If you have a country that's super
Speaker 1: high militarily but has almost no natural resources or not
Speaker 1: a lot, or it's hard to ship them, or whatever
Speaker 1: the case, then we have a situation like North Korea.
Speaker 1: They are a military culture through and through, but they
Speaker 1: don't have a lot to offer the outside world except
Speaker 1: for a few resources, so they're kind of left alone
Speaker 1: in that regard. Nobody messed with them. So it's I
Speaker 1: think there's a balance to be had there. And it's
Speaker 1: also about how well the leaders of that nation can
Speaker 1: play the game with other leaders. It's it's a it's
Speaker 1: a real it's a poker game, if you will. As
Speaker 1: far as the geopolitics of this kind of thing goes,
Speaker 1: I see it.
Speaker 6: Yeah, And what you're describing also sounds like Japan before
Speaker 6: World War Two, having not evy resources but having a
Speaker 6: strong military. And uh, well, in Japan in particular, I
Speaker 6: feel like that's a society that a lot of other
Speaker 6: people throughout the world envy because they have such a
Speaker 6: low crime rate, they seem to have a very high
Speaker 6: trust society, and then their government seems to be less
Speaker 6: corrupt than normal, maybe much less.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and they have, but it's a lot less for sure.
Speaker 7: Uh huh.
Speaker 6: Yeah. What's the secret sauce that allowed them to have that?
Speaker 6: And some people say they don't have enough, they have
Speaker 6: few enough immigrants. I don't know, Maybe that's part of it.
Speaker 6: Maybe there's a blend of that in other factors.
Speaker 1: That could be it. That may have something to do
Speaker 1: with it for sure. I mean, but that also depends.
Speaker 1: So America, for instance, has a culture of immigration, right,
Speaker 1: we are a nation of immigrants. The whole melting pot
Speaker 1: theology has been indicative of America since the beginning. Japan
Speaker 1: not so much. Hell, they were in isolest nation for centuries.
Speaker 1: I actually just watched a little thing today on the
Speaker 1: longest standing monarchies on Earth. I did not know that
Speaker 1: Japan is the longest standing monarchist nation on Earth. Their
Speaker 1: monarchy goes back to arguably either six point thirty BC
Speaker 1: or ninety one a D. And there's a direct line
Speaker 1: from them to the current emperor. Now it's more of
Speaker 1: a figurehead type of situation still, but it doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: He's still has some sort of a quote unquote say
Speaker 1: in certain things there. But they have a very unique
Speaker 1: culture to them because they were left alone for so long.
Speaker 1: So I think that, like you said, culture plays a
Speaker 1: little bit to do with it. The resource game, they
Speaker 1: didn't have a lot of them, so they created them
Speaker 1: with their tech industry. Right now, everybody wants to have
Speaker 1: some sort of a business situation going down in Japan,
Speaker 1: right in Tokyo and all these things, not they're not
Speaker 1: the leaders of it that they once were, but they
Speaker 1: also got a massive leg up and a massive economy
Speaker 1: boost when they went that direction after World War Two.
Speaker 1: So it's it was kind of like betting on that
Speaker 1: particular horse was a really good move for them too.
Speaker 1: So it's like I said, there's a game being played here.
Speaker 1: But then let's flip over to anywhere in Sub Saharan Africa.
Speaker 1: There's very few exceptions of countries that are doing even
Speaker 1: decently at this time that have really good resources and
Speaker 1: not much military or some kind of version or you know,
Speaker 1: mixture thereof. And they, like South America for instance, same thing.
Speaker 1: They just get raped by whoever the current superpower that
Speaker 1: happens to be knocking at their door once. And sometimes
Speaker 1: that's soft power projection, sometimes that's through actual boots on
Speaker 1: the ground intervention. It's it's messy, you know. But if
Speaker 1: one of these African nations were to out of nowhere,
Speaker 1: establish a strong military and rebuild their country, rebuild their culture,
Speaker 1: rebuild of their economy, all of these things, I could
Speaker 1: see them potentially being a real world player. Maybe not
Speaker 1: a superpower by any means, but that's the thing you'd
Speaker 1: have to that'd be too hard, honestly, because there's so
Speaker 1: many warlords that are vying for that position at the
Speaker 1: first sign of somebody trying to encroach on their power,
Speaker 1: on their slice of the pie. And it's that's kind
Speaker 1: of what has led Africa to be what it has
Speaker 1: been since well since the transatlantic slave trade went away.
Speaker 1: It's pretty much picked up on that front.
Speaker 6: Yeah, and getting back to what I was saying earlier,
Speaker 6: it's everyone's got ideas for how society should be optimally organized,
Speaker 6: and a lot of it's just speculation. And I should
Speaker 6: say that my own ideas are just as speculative as
Speaker 6: anyone else's. But everyone's been trying to find whatever secret
Speaker 6: sauce it is that makes the high trust society and
Speaker 6: it makes the government work with as little corruption as possible,
Speaker 6: and nobody, I would argue, nobody has actually really found
Speaker 6: an answer yet to that question. It's kind of like
Speaker 6: the ultimate Holy Grail question, how should we organize society?
Speaker 6: And people have strong ideas about it. I have strong
Speaker 6: ideas about it, but I don't know anything for sure.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I get it. Anybody else want chimement on this
Speaker 1: feel free?
Speaker 8: So the only thing that I was thinking while you
Speaker 8: were talking about. This is specifically the culture. But with
Speaker 8: Japan is it seems like a lot of that culture
Speaker 8: has been based on Honor's where if you look at
Speaker 8: the shogunate, if you look at a lot of the
Speaker 8: samuraized like there is a specific culture of honor.
Speaker 3: That's why whenever they see each other, you know, you
Speaker 3: now out of respect.
Speaker 8: You know, obviously as Americans and coming from English, we have.
Speaker 3: Our own.
Speaker 8: Reasons why we have a handshake as opposed to you know,
Speaker 8: why they did about But as far as the honor system,
Speaker 8: seems like that's one of the reasons why that might
Speaker 8: have something to do with it to where that's kind
Speaker 8: of been bred into the culture. So I mean, at
Speaker 8: least as far as a very service level explanation.
Speaker 3: But you know, if if.
Speaker 8: In other countries everything is based on power, then you
Speaker 8: have all these warlords that are just trying to you know,
Speaker 8: power hungry and trying to get to the top dog.
Speaker 8: And then even in America, but you know, the last
Speaker 8: election we have we know basically that the election was stolen, right,
Speaker 8: so since we had that, there were enough people in
Speaker 8: the shadow realm whatever to change the dynamic because they
Speaker 8: didn't like the direction that we were going as far
Speaker 8: as being more US centric and global global centric. So
Speaker 8: maybe something like like that. But obviously things can get
Speaker 8: swayed depending on who really is in charge, you know,
Speaker 8: and if people aren't wise to what's going on, it
Speaker 8: seems like there is a much greater chance of seeings
Speaker 8: happening like that. You know, this election didn't go like
Speaker 8: the last one because you know, most of everybody else
Speaker 8: were wise to it, you know, because what whether it's
Speaker 8: because of conspiracy theory podcasts, whether it's because you know,
Speaker 8: they took a look at.
Speaker 3: The economy of like how the hell did this happen?
Speaker 8: How of the go from you know, someone who was
Speaker 8: doing amazing for the country to someone who literally basically
Speaker 8: sold out the United States within the first nine days
Speaker 8: in the office. So it's so funny to see the
Speaker 8: difference between the first hundred days in office this time
Speaker 8: for this presidency as opposed to the first hundred days
Speaker 8: of office when Biden got in. He canceled every you
Speaker 8: know a lot of things that were going on. So
Speaker 8: you know, it all depends on who's who's in control,
Speaker 8: who is power hungry, and what their intents potentially are.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Oh, as far as that goes with the first
Speaker 1: hundred days in office. And I know that relatively speaking,
Speaker 1: we're young, right, we weren't alive during the or at
Speaker 1: least not alive enough to understand what was going on
Speaker 1: in the Carter administration, right, and the Reagan administration and
Speaker 1: Clinton and all these things. Fine, fine, but dude, the
Speaker 1: only other time that I can think of anyone doing
Speaker 1: stuff this drastic in the first hundred days was Trump
Speaker 1: the first go round, when he came in and repealed
Speaker 1: a bunch of executive orders that Obama had put down.
Speaker 1: You have, you have a track record of the new
Speaker 1: guy taking out some of the old you know, rules
Speaker 1: that the past administration had done nothing to the level
Speaker 1: that Trump did in twenty sixteen. So with that being said,
Speaker 1: he came in this time with a whole different ethos,
Speaker 1: a whole different mindset. And yeah, it's and I've said
Speaker 1: it before, I felt like it was maybe too much,
Speaker 1: too fast, But now, bro, seeing the uh, the moves
Speaker 1: that have been made, I think it's not enough. To
Speaker 1: be honest like he I'll tell you what. The dude
Speaker 1: wakes up every day and has not wasted a second.
Speaker 1: Has he even gone to the golf course one time
Speaker 1: since he's taken office this go round, so I don't think.
Speaker 3: So much like it.
Speaker 6: But now it's his best time to do it, because
Speaker 6: when you take office as president, that's what they call
Speaker 6: the honeymoon period, and that's your big opportunity to run
Speaker 6: as far as you can, as quick as you can.
Speaker 6: I had two other thoughts about you know, corruption and stuff,
Speaker 6: and countries can uh performed pretty well in multitude of
Speaker 6: ways even with a lot of corruption, and I would
Speaker 6: say that China is a pretty good example of that
Speaker 6: when you consider how much high speed rail they've built
Speaker 6: since two thousand and eight, whereas California can't seem to
Speaker 6: build any right And I was living in California when
Speaker 6: they passed the ballot proposition in two thousand and eight
Speaker 6: to create a high speed rail line from the Bay
Speaker 6: Area to Los Angeles, and they got like one mile
Speaker 6: of it built right now, it's pathetic. And the United
Speaker 6: States also went through a period where it had a
Speaker 6: reputation of very high corruption in the immediate post Civil
Speaker 6: War period, and yet we built a massive rail network
Speaker 6: in our country at that time too, So it is
Speaker 6: possible to have a fairly high amount of corruption and
Speaker 6: still be very functional. At the same time, my other
Speaker 6: thought was that I used to be an anarchist. Some
Speaker 6: other listeners may have used to be an anarchist too,
Speaker 6: but I'm not really anymore just because reasons. But I
Speaker 6: think that any high trust society can function with any
Speaker 6: kind of government, and no government is probably ideal, and
Speaker 6: a high trust society confunction with no government, and I
Speaker 6: think I used to believe that if we get rid
Speaker 6: of the government, we can create the conditions for a
Speaker 6: better high trust society, and now I don't exactly believe
Speaker 6: that anymore. But it goes back to what I was
Speaker 6: saying earlier. Whatever's the secret that makes a society functional,
Speaker 6: It may not be a particular kind of government. If
Speaker 6: you have a bad situation with a low trust society,
Speaker 6: no kind of government, it's going to work that well
Speaker 6: for you. But if you have a high trust society,
Speaker 6: any kind of government or no government would work.
Speaker 1: In my opinion, it absolutely could. Right and not to
Speaker 1: just continue to harp on Japan here, but as a
Speaker 1: perfect example, right in Japan, they teach their children for
Speaker 1: the first like I think it's first through third grade,
Speaker 1: how to maintain the school grounds and do things a
Speaker 1: certain way and to take care of everything that you have. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: in America, you can't get people to put their shopping
Speaker 1: carts back where they go when they go to Walmart.
Speaker 1: And I've used that example before, but that's a pretty
Speaker 1: good litmus test for a society. Look at their local
Speaker 1: shopping center. Are the buggies all pushed back in the
Speaker 1: area when people leave or do they just leave them
Speaker 1: strung about the parking lot? Right, that's a clear indication
Speaker 1: that some people will do the quote unquote right thing,
Speaker 1: even when no one's watching. And those types of people,
Speaker 1: if you had an entire society of that, like they
Speaker 1: do in Japan, then it would be no big deal. Right.
Speaker 1: That's why the yakuza, who are just outlaws like they're
Speaker 1: they're not like, oh my god, they're so scary. In Japan,
Speaker 1: they're deemed so scary because they are stepping outside of
Speaker 1: those laws, and that is so taboo there that they
Speaker 1: are seen as these ultimate bad guys. From what I've
Speaker 1: read about yakuza reports and stuff like that, they're not
Speaker 1: any more quote unquote scary than like the Italian or
Speaker 1: the Jewish, or the Irish or the Russian mafia by
Speaker 1: any means, they're just the Japanese mafia, and they have
Speaker 1: a slightly different cultural way about them by all any meats,
Speaker 1: But it's like they're not doing anything more than you know,
Speaker 1: drug dealing, prostitution, rings, extortion, the same kind of gambit
Speaker 1: that any other type of organized crime really runs. But
Speaker 1: because it's in a land where everybody just follows the
Speaker 1: rules because that's their way, it's it's deemed to be
Speaker 1: so much worse if a mayor, and I've used that before,
Speaker 1: as far as the shopping carts go, too, there's people
Speaker 1: that are gonna do what they're gonna do regardless. And
Speaker 1: if we can't trust people to even do something as
Speaker 1: minimal as putting a shopping cart back, how can we
Speaker 1: trust an entire society to do what they're supposed to
Speaker 1: do free from any type of overwatch. Now there's limits
Speaker 1: to that. I believe that the government shouldn't be overwatching.
Speaker 1: I believe they need to keep to their own business
Speaker 1: and let people have their own freedoms. I agree with
Speaker 1: this one hundred percent. But that kind of goes in
Speaker 1: line with your point. Right, If people were to take
Speaker 1: responsibility for their actions, and they were to do what
Speaker 1: was right. We wouldn't need the government. We wouldn't need cops,
Speaker 1: we wouldn't need detectives, we wouldn't need the crime justice
Speaker 1: system or jails or any of that. Unfortunately, we got
Speaker 1: people that are just peopling out here, you know. So
Speaker 1: I'm with you. I think anarchy is a it's a
Speaker 1: fun idea, but it's not practical, at least not in America.
Speaker 1: It's not. There's no way that that would go anywhere
Speaker 1: other than the purge, honestly. But yeah, you said you
Speaker 1: had two points. Actually, oh, I.
Speaker 6: Think those were the two. So the number one society
Speaker 6: confunction with a lot of corruption, and yeah, number two
Speaker 6: high trust society is more important than a specific kind
Speaker 6: of government, and the government can't get you there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And to your point about the society functioning with
Speaker 1: the high level of corruption, China is a prime example
Speaker 1: of that. Don't get me wrong, But honestly, how many
Speaker 1: sovereign nations are there right now that are somehow still
Speaker 1: standing even though they are fraught with corruption? And I
Speaker 1: mean I'm not saying America is the outlier by any
Speaker 1: stretch of the imagination, or even any Western power, but
Speaker 1: there's there's levels to the corruption for sure. Again, look
Speaker 1: at South America, look at Africa, these these tons of
Speaker 1: these nations in these continents are somehow running and yes,
Speaker 1: some better than others. Some have starvation issues, some not
Speaker 1: so much, some just have infrastructure issues. And it depends
Speaker 1: on the location. But yeah, society can run in spite
Speaker 1: of and sometimes with the help of overarching corruption. It
Speaker 1: that kind of goes back to culture as well in
Speaker 1: a lot of cases. All right, oh, let me see here,
Speaker 1: we got some things in the chat. Anthony was here
Speaker 1: for a minute, but he had to dip out, it seems. Uh, evening, folks, Anthony,
Speaker 1: if you're listening to this later, if you jump back in,
Speaker 1: what's up, homieh Alex, glad to have you with us
Speaker 1: this evening, Yo, yo U in the warehouse straight up
Speaker 1: forking hit him by it.
Speaker 3: Ha ha.
Speaker 1: Well let's just say it's mister Palace or yeah, you're
Speaker 1: on the you're on the fork cliff right now, probably Alex.
Speaker 1: Good things, good things. Uh, I got a dip y'all,
Speaker 1: have a good night. Oh well, we appreciate Anthony, appreciate
Speaker 1: you for stopping him for the time that you could.
Speaker 1: All right, so got another thing I wanted to share here,
Speaker 1: and this is I'm I'm gonna play a video from
Speaker 1: the Quartering, which is a YouTube channel that I am
Speaker 1: personally a fan of. I love this guy on what
Speaker 1: he says. Everybody heard about Alex Jones's one of his staff, right,
Speaker 1: one of the reporters getting brutally murdered the other day. Well,
Speaker 1: come to find out he was shot in the neck.
Speaker 1: I didn't know if it was a stabbing, a mauling,
Speaker 1: car wreck, or what the case was. All we kept
Speaker 1: hearing was that it was brutally murdered, brutally murdered, all
Speaker 1: these things. So now got this little quick clip of
Speaker 1: Alex Jones speaking on it. And there's a little more
Speaker 1: to the story because apparently he is on a hit
Speaker 1: list allegedly from Ukraine. Now, before that goes anywhere, it's
Speaker 1: very easy to reroute an IP address to pinging you
Speaker 1: or France or Russia or America for that matter. So
Speaker 1: I don't know for a fact that this is the case,
Speaker 1: but there's other members of his staff that have recently
Speaker 1: been swatted. And if anybody doesn't know what that means,
Speaker 1: it's essentially when somebody on the Internet finds out a
Speaker 1: person's address, calls the local police, pretends to be them
Speaker 1: and says, I've got my wife and kids tied up
Speaker 1: and I'm about to murder all of us and commit suicide.
Speaker 1: So the swat team comes in and kicks in your door,
Speaker 1: thinking that you're about to do something crazy, and in reality,
Speaker 1: you and your family are just like sitting down having dinner,
Speaker 1: and it's like, what the hell? Right, So there's a
Speaker 1: lot of things going on towards Alex Jones right now,
Speaker 1: and now he's getting reports from a general that he
Speaker 1: is on a hit list. So y'all listen and tell
Speaker 1: me what y'all think about it.
Speaker 9: Out of which we're going to talk about in a second.
Speaker 6: Two therapy has always.
Speaker 1: Been there, of course, y'all. I hate YouTube ads so much,
Speaker 1: so much. And for anybody listening to this, by the way, yo,
Speaker 1: I have ads on all the listening platforms that I have.
Speaker 1: You don't want to hear the ads, come check it
Speaker 1: out on Patreon, whether that called the Conspiracy Patreon or
Speaker 1: the Cajun Night Patreon. That will be the only way
Speaker 1: to get ad free listeners. Uh, here we go.
Speaker 10: All right, General Flynn and tried to call me this
Speaker 10: morning when I was working out and I missed. I
Speaker 10: missed his call, but he called my producer and said
Speaker 10: the same thing.
Speaker 11: Former Edifis tell SAX.
Speaker 10: He said, from his high level intel sources, Uh, there
Speaker 10: is a contract out on me, and of course it's
Speaker 10: tied to the Ukrainians. But this is just emblematic of
Speaker 10: how desperate they are. That's NATO through the Ukrainians. Don't
Speaker 10: forget that it was a NATO operative from America CIA
Speaker 10: recruiting for the Ukrainian war. With the six cell phones
Speaker 10: that Trump talked about last week and all the passports
Speaker 10: that tried to kill Trump and mar Lago.
Speaker 9: Yeah, whatever happened to that guy?
Speaker 6: Right?
Speaker 9: You know multiple uh you know, you know, multiple cell phones?
Speaker 9: You know kid his brother had, you know, a family
Speaker 9: member had a computer full of those types of images
Speaker 9: that you see I NFBA and know one to put
Speaker 9: on people's computers, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 1: He's on a pedophilia, by the way. They they one
Speaker 1: of his brothers had a computer that apparently was riddled
Speaker 1: with this type of imagery and video content that up
Speaker 1: from everybody that knew this guy and whatever. I know,
Speaker 1: it's like, who you never really know about people. No,
Speaker 1: they they actually went after this guy and planted that
Speaker 1: on his computer as a way to ruin him. But
Speaker 1: I digress.
Speaker 10: So that's their base of operations. So it's m I
Speaker 10: six running NATO, join this and anything happens to me,
Speaker 10: Karri Starmer, Barack Obama, the runing operations out of there NATO,
Speaker 10: and we know it's not just the Ukrainians.
Speaker 11: It's looking worse and worse that they've hired a group
Speaker 11: or something.
Speaker 10: That's what they do to send a message everybody with
Speaker 10: Jamie and so secure to Nations is terrorism and it's
Speaker 10: all they got left.
Speaker 11: So it's a fight for America in the future. And
Speaker 11: like I said, I.
Speaker 10: Knew this week's ago, but it was asking the same
Speaker 10: thing about it. When I mentioned a little on the air,
Speaker 10: I got contact and saying, hey, man, you know, did
Speaker 10: you did you say that because you heard that from
Speaker 10: mysel I said, no, I got a father's sources about
Speaker 10: people come into town in the last three weeks trying
Speaker 10: to kill Elon.
Speaker 3: And you know.
Speaker 11: That's why I was on rogue talking about, yeah, I might.
Speaker 10: Get killed because of that, that the teams were here
Speaker 10: for sure for him. I mean, they stopped him twice
Speaker 10: that we know of, and they got other crazies they've
Speaker 10: wound up. And if I told you what happened last
Speaker 10: night at m for Wars, not just the swatting in
Speaker 10: the middle of the night of Chase guys or his family,
Speaker 10: but the stuff coming in, I'm probably gonna go ahead
Speaker 10: and cover at the eleven am to day.
Speaker 1: But the left is disgusting and all right, so actually,
Speaker 1: let's play the video of the swatting that took place
Speaker 1: of this guy at his home for anybody who doesn't
Speaker 1: know exactly what that looks like. And I should have
Speaker 1: pulled up the X itself rather than this guy's video,
Speaker 1: although I will give him all of the shout out. Everybody,
Speaker 1: go check out the quartering on YouTube. I absolutely love
Speaker 1: this gentleman and his content. But all right, so this
Speaker 1: is the video right here. His security cameras are not
Speaker 1: facing the best angle. This one over here is him
Speaker 1: and cuffs and this is the cops telling him to
Speaker 1: come out with his hands up and all this. Keep
Speaker 1: in mind, like nothing about this was real. It was
Speaker 1: like ten thirty at night and he and his family,
Speaker 1: his kids were in bed and all this and the
Speaker 1: cops got a call once at noon that day saying,
Speaker 1: you know, I am so and so and I'm about
Speaker 1: to chase geyser I think his name is. I'm about
Speaker 1: to kill my family and all of this. So the
Speaker 1: cops came by at noon, but nobody was home. They
Speaker 1: received twelve phone calls between then and ten thirty when
Speaker 1: they came back and took put him in cuffs and
Speaker 1: all of these things. Searched the home and said, oh,
Speaker 1: so this is not true, and he's like, no, this
Speaker 1: is absolutely not true. I'm not doing this. But y'all
Speaker 1: check this out.
Speaker 12: Are you inside knowledge? Can you step out with your
Speaker 12: hands up? Step out of your house now with your
Speaker 12: hands home? Come the house with your hands up.
Speaker 9: That's exactly what they did at my house, by the way,
Speaker 9: So every neighbor came out to you.
Speaker 1: There's two cops of flashlights over here.
Speaker 9: They're like, Comet, got to fix your security cameras, chase
Speaker 9: AM and pm A wrong.
Speaker 6: There he is right there.
Speaker 1: Hi, I'm ja Oh my god, I freaking ads. So
Speaker 1: this going down like this? They are actually being swatted, right,
Speaker 1: and then the apparently the info Wars office was also
Speaker 1: swatted in a very similar fashion for you know, just
Speaker 1: just because they they did not like what info Wars
Speaker 1: has to say. And apparently they are saying, quote unquote
Speaker 1: at this time that it is Ukrainian sources that are
Speaker 1: leading to these swattings and in these cops trying to
Speaker 1: kick down the doors and all of these things. And
Speaker 1: Alex Jones is gonna probably do a report on that
Speaker 1: here soon. This only dropped eight hours ago as a
Speaker 1: time of recording. Now this is if the video about
Speaker 1: Alex Jones when he was driving a minute ago drop
Speaker 1: this morning. This was last night, So listen in on
Speaker 1: this one.
Speaker 11: All right.
Speaker 10: I've got some very critical news to everyone out there,
Speaker 10: not just info Wars, but to the people of America
Speaker 10: and the world, because my operation is a major canary
Speaker 10: in the coal mine indicating where humanity is in their
Speaker 10: fight against the globalist extinctionist death cult.
Speaker 11: As you know, our.
Speaker 10: Reporter Jamie White was murdered late Sunday night and we
Speaker 10: shot executions doll through the neck a few miles from
Speaker 10: our offices outside his home. Then yesterday in case guyser
Speaker 10: got swatted during the day, no one was home, and
Speaker 10: then last night someone impersonating him called the Austin Police
Speaker 10: Department and said that he had basically tied up his
Speaker 10: wife and children and was going to kill him.
Speaker 6: Yep.
Speaker 10: And they came to the house with loud speakers, told
Speaker 10: him amount his hands up, guns pointed at him, and
Speaker 10: put him in handcuffs. Went into the house and found
Speaker 10: his wife and two young daughters sleeping, and they said, no,
Speaker 10: someone called in impersonating you. They had literally dozens of
Speaker 10: swats that they didn't respond to after the daytime.
Speaker 1: When now, that's just the backdrop of what's going on.
Speaker 10: I've had some high level folks in Army Special Operations
Speaker 10: call me two days ago saying that they're getting major
Speaker 10: intel that there are hit teams.
Speaker 11: Out with the high priority to kill me and others.
Speaker 10: Then I got a call last night about seven o'clock
Speaker 10: from a extremely respected journalist. They don't want their name
Speaker 10: us at this point, just leave.
Speaker 11: It at that.
Speaker 10: Who got a call from a very trusted source in
Speaker 10: high level intelligence that said they've never seen the three
Speaker 10: hits in the NSA system with anybody but President Trump
Speaker 10: or his family at this level.
Speaker 6: So this is the I mean again.
Speaker 13: So.
Speaker 1: What does everybody's take on this? Now? I'm not exactly
Speaker 1: Alex Trump or Alex Jesus Christ, Alex Jones, Dick Ryder.
Speaker 1: I think that he gets it right a lot more
Speaker 1: off then he gets it wrong, And I think that
Speaker 1: he is a I would consider him a version of
Speaker 1: a trusted source. You may not be able to trust
Speaker 1: one hundred percent of what he says, but I feel
Speaker 1: very confident in trusting about ninety five percent of what
Speaker 1: he says on on average. Right, So for quote unquote,
Speaker 1: and we could say the elites, NATO, I, six, whatever,
Speaker 1: name the actor on this one. For them to be
Speaker 1: coming at him and his organization right now, that's beyond
Speaker 1: a massive red flag. What is y'all's takes?
Speaker 3: What's he talking?
Speaker 8: My question is what's he talking about now as opposed
Speaker 8: to before that's gotten their flash, So.
Speaker 3: Like, so what's going on?
Speaker 8: Whether it's the news or so, that's my question. Do
Speaker 8: you know is he talking about he talking about politics?
Speaker 8: He talking about Trump? Like, what's because that would be
Speaker 8: the biggest question and potentially indication where it's coming from.
Speaker 8: So like, if you're talking about Ukraine or hey, these
Speaker 8: guys are doing this, then it makes sense that it
Speaker 8: comes from Ukraine. If they're saying all right, well I'm
Speaker 8: gonna let out all the information that I.
Speaker 3: Have on Iran, Israel whatever.
Speaker 8: So like as you guys always say, like follow the money,
Speaker 8: So where where does that come from?
Speaker 1: Right? And you're right? For instance, the two gentlemen that
Speaker 1: we're trying to kill Trump around the time when all
Speaker 1: of the Democrats were saying we need to go to
Speaker 1: war with Iran. Next thing, you know, we have two
Speaker 1: Iranian actors that are trying to take out Trump. And
Speaker 1: that just kind of got talked about for I think
Speaker 1: an afternoon on mainstream media, and then it got moved
Speaker 1: on to the next topic. No big deal. The shooter
Speaker 1: that actually did put a bullet into Trump, No one
Speaker 1: actually quote unquote knows his motives. Two weeks of contact,
Speaker 1: two weeks of media coverage on that, onto the next story.
Speaker 1: Oh oh my god, we're still talking about that. He
Speaker 1: didn't even die, it was just his ear. And right
Speaker 1: then we had the guy who tried to shoot him
Speaker 1: on the golf course. Who I mean, this guy was
Speaker 1: obviously a Ukrainian actor. That's not even a hypothetical. This
Speaker 1: guy was he bled blue and yellow, right, and then
Speaker 1: he they talked about that for I believe it was
Speaker 1: like three days max, and dependent on the media itself.
Speaker 1: I think CNN talked about it for two days. Fox
Speaker 1: probably talked about it for three. MSNBC I think it
Speaker 1: was like a day and a half and then on
Speaker 1: to the next story. So I'm with you. It really
Speaker 1: depends on what he was talking about beforehand. I don't
Speaker 1: know off top what exactly he did or said to
Speaker 1: kick the hornet's nest this hard, but you would think
Speaker 1: that they would have been trying to take out Info
Speaker 1: Wars while Biden was still in office. Or maybe that
Speaker 1: was because the they, the quote unquote globalists, the powers
Speaker 1: that be, the elites name the bad guy added you like,
Speaker 1: maybe they thought that the American people had regarded Alex
Speaker 1: Jones as kind of a kook, so they really didn't
Speaker 1: take him that serious. But I mean, yeah, I mean, Tony,
Speaker 1: what are your thoughts on this?
Speaker 6: I wish I had more. I heard that Alex Jones
Speaker 6: got back on YouTube finally, so maybe, yeah, he can't
Speaker 6: be written off as a kook so much anymore. So.
Speaker 6: Anyone who might have had an incentive to kill him
Speaker 6: a while ago has even more incentive now because he
Speaker 6: has more reach now. I totally agree with you that
Speaker 6: he's right, maybe like ninety something percent of the time.
Speaker 6: But yeah, I don't watch him that much, and I
Speaker 6: don't have a super strong opinion about him. And part
Speaker 6: of me even wonders, could he be fabricating all this?
Speaker 6: And I think probably not, but there's a small chance
Speaker 6: he might be exaggerating. But then again, his researcher guy
Speaker 6: really did get killed, so yeah, yeah, it seems it
Speaker 6: seems true. So I really wish I'm the best, and
Speaker 6: you know, their whole team, and I hope I think
Speaker 6: they're on the right side of things in general, but
Speaker 6: I don't watch them.
Speaker 1: I don't watch him religiously by any means. I catch
Speaker 1: clips from time to time whenever he like says something
Speaker 1: that later comes to be true, and then that gets
Speaker 1: blasted everywhere. But and again, he's got his biases, you know, clearly,
Speaker 1: he's got his his own take on things that some
Speaker 1: people may disagree with. I have not agreed with every
Speaker 1: single thing he said. The Sandy Hook situation fried him alive,
Speaker 1: which I think there was a lot more going on
Speaker 1: behind the scenes on that one than what they told
Speaker 1: us initially, especially with how they treated him in the
Speaker 1: fallout of that. But I mean, there was tons of
Speaker 1: conspiracy shows that were saying the exact same thing, but
Speaker 1: they needed to make an example out of whoever was
Speaker 1: speaking at the loudest, and I think that's what happened there. Now,
Speaker 1: I am not of the belief that Sandy Hook was fake.
Speaker 1: Don't nobody come after me on that shit. Okay, I'm
Speaker 1: not here to say that there's fake kids that didn't
Speaker 1: die or whatever, like, yeah, it's not what I'm gonna do.
Speaker 1: But at the same time, there are tons of school
Speaker 1: shootings that do happen that there are way more questions.
Speaker 1: What was that one in Florida that David Hogg or
Speaker 1: whatever his name was, who he graduated from that school
Speaker 1: four years prior to the shooting, but somehow on the
Speaker 1: day of the shooting he was at the school and
Speaker 1: then he started making the rounds and being a speaker
Speaker 1: on these circuits about anti gun rhetoric, and he was
Speaker 1: like college age instead of being like a junior like
Speaker 1: he claimed to be. That was a whole other talking point. So,
Speaker 1: like the Sandy Hook thing was kind of in that
Speaker 1: mix of when everybody was worried about school shooters. That
Speaker 1: was the whole thing. We got to get the guns
Speaker 1: off the streets because these school shootings happening every day
Speaker 1: in America, And it was like, yeah, just because of
Speaker 1: who's in charge right now, and just because they're trying
Speaker 1: to put it to a vote about what weapons are
Speaker 1: and are not allowed. Soon as that vote went away, y'all,
Speaker 1: notice they all and heard shit about school shootings anymore.
Speaker 6: Well, it also reminds me of how serial killers used
Speaker 6: to be a big phenomenon for decades, and if anyone's
Speaker 6: been following that Program to Kill series from a little
Speaker 6: while back, it seems like school shooter school shooters replaced
Speaker 6: serial killers basically, if you look at the trend overtime,
Speaker 6: serial killer went down, but then school shooters started.
Speaker 11: Yeah.
Speaker 6: Now, I think luckily, school shootings might be getting less common.
Speaker 6: It seems like there's just one every couple of years,
Speaker 6: one big one and maybe a few really minor ones.
Speaker 6: But yeah, Jim Fetzer, he was the guy who Alex
Speaker 6: Jones platformed like one time. And I don't think Alex
Speaker 6: Jones really went all in on that whole theory that
Speaker 6: no one died Sandy Hook, but he platformed Jim Fetzer
Speaker 6: one time, and they've really, I don't know, Attorney General
Speaker 6: of Connecticut or something just used that to skewer him,
Speaker 6: and they didn't they give him like a thirty trillion
Speaker 6: dollars fine or something insane, something ridiculous. Hey, but it's
Speaker 6: it's ridiculous. It's just words.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 6: Yeah, maybe he's wrong, and that should damn of just credibility.
Speaker 6: But yeah, I'm but I'm doing whatever.
Speaker 1: Grand children's inheritance by any means. I mean shit, I
Speaker 1: co host a conspiracy show. If we're wrong about something,
Speaker 1: I hope nobody comes after me for one point nine
Speaker 1: billion dollars in reparations for the heartache of those people
Speaker 1: that I talk shit on. Good God.
Speaker 6: Yeah, a sense of proportionality, that's a pretty core concept
Speaker 6: to law. Right, it's just words. Yeah, so what's the
Speaker 6: damage and proportionality or I don't know, punitive damage.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't know the legal jargon, to be honest with you,
Speaker 1: But there's no way that this guy offended people to
Speaker 1: the tune of over a billion dollars, Like for real, bro,
Speaker 1: and I I fully understand the grieving families of these
Speaker 1: children wanting this guy to shut the fuck up about it.
Speaker 1: Get that even wanting a little bit of money for
Speaker 1: their pain and suffering for people who because the Internet
Speaker 1: is the Internet, right, and people are crazy, so it
Speaker 1: can't just be a guy talking shit into a mic
Speaker 1: and the Internet listens to it as content and moves
Speaker 1: on with their day. You have people finding these family
Speaker 1: members and doxing them, harassing them, coming to their workplaces
Speaker 1: and calling them liars. And like you know, as a parent,
Speaker 1: if I just lost a child in some brutal way
Speaker 1: like that, then to have people come up to me
Speaker 1: and call me a piece of shit for lying about it, Yeah, no,
Speaker 1: that would that would be received very negatively from me.
Speaker 11: That would that.
Speaker 1: Would probably in that regard, blood would be get more blood.
Speaker 1: I'm speaking on behalf of all myself here. I have
Speaker 1: a temper like a motherfucker, So that wouldn't go well.
Speaker 1: But my point is I get it. As far as
Speaker 1: getting at least something from him, bro a billion, The
Speaker 1: man isn't even worth that, Like do you where you
Speaker 1: think this money's gonna just magically proof out of but
Speaker 1: it Yeah, yeah, that was a whole thing.
Speaker 6: Yeah, just to punish him and send a message and
Speaker 6: chill everybody else and make it clear you can't just
Speaker 6: say what you want even if you're wrong. That's the thing.
Speaker 6: Being wrong should be its own punishment. Losing credibility ought
Speaker 6: to be the punishment.
Speaker 1: We say that, but CNN is still a channel somehow,
Speaker 1: so I mean, really and truly being wrong is not
Speaker 1: you help people make a whole career out of being wrong. Shit.
Speaker 1: Look at Bill Maher, that dude.
Speaker 11: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Actually, I've been listening to him more and more recently
Speaker 1: with his little comedy pot or what he considers a
Speaker 1: comedy podcast. It is really great whenever he gets somebody
Speaker 1: on there that knows what the hell they're talking about
Speaker 1: and shuts him down very hard because he thinks that
Speaker 1: he is so well versed in the ways of the world.
Speaker 1: In reality, he's like, he's an old liberal that can't
Speaker 1: even identify with the liberals anymore. But he's too left
Speaker 1: to be considered a centrist or even a left of
Speaker 1: center anymore. And so it's his pretentious nature just kind
Speaker 1: of fucks him more often than it helps him. And
Speaker 1: it's great. You know, I know, Irony that I am
Speaker 1: the one saying that. I get it's everybody listening. I
Speaker 1: get called a pretentious press a lot because of my views,
Speaker 1: it'd be like that. I get it anyway. Anyway. So
Speaker 1: aside from that, Alex Jones being put on a hit
Speaker 1: list to a level that's equal to the President of
Speaker 1: the United States very fascinating. I definitely want people to
Speaker 1: keep an extra eye on the prize when it comes
Speaker 1: to our boy Alex and the Info War staff, because
Speaker 1: apparently it's not just him. They're coming after the rest
Speaker 1: of his staff with the swattings. He said his guy
Speaker 1: died through the neck execution style. Now, I'm not an
Speaker 1: expert in executions or anything like that. That doesn't I
Speaker 1: would have to look at how like if they ever
Speaker 1: actually release autopsies or something about this guy. Is it
Speaker 1: like through the spine or like through the I don't
Speaker 1: know of many executions that take place through the neck,
Speaker 1: through the head maybe, and the chest maybe. All Right,
Speaker 1: the next thing one.
Speaker 6: Yeah, that stood out to me a little bit too.
Speaker 6: I'm glad you brought it back up. That didn't seem
Speaker 6: one hundred percent right. But then again, I'm not an
Speaker 6: expert on executions either. Well a little, I do know,
Speaker 6: as it tends to be in the head and through
Speaker 6: the temple because it's weaker bone than the parietal and
Speaker 6: in the Program to Kill book, apparently a small twenty
Speaker 6: two caliber is better than a big giant, you know,
Speaker 6: forty five or something because there's no exit wound and
Speaker 6: the bullet gets destroyed and the ballistics evidence gets a
Speaker 6: lot harder to sort out, right, it bounces around inside.
Speaker 1: I mean maybe if you put it like on the
Speaker 1: juggular itself and pull the trigger, then like, okay, maybe
Speaker 1: I could see that. But again, I've never heard of
Speaker 1: somebody getting a shot in the neck being considered execution
Speaker 1: style unless there is a new way that executions are
Speaker 1: being done this way, like by these these you know,
Speaker 1: what's the word I'm looking for here Tier one super
Speaker 1: secret squirrel type situations, and maybe they've gone this route
Speaker 1: in the execution game. I could be wrong, I don't know,
Speaker 1: But either way, that goes outside of his house, and
Speaker 1: I heard some reports saying that he was trying to
Speaker 1: stop a robbery and got shot. I don't know if
Speaker 1: that's just a story that's spun up to try to
Speaker 1: give some sort of narrative to it, or if there's
Speaker 1: actual proof to back that claim, or whatever the case is.
Speaker 1: Even if it is just a random killing and there
Speaker 1: wasn't any kind of nefarious you know, foreign or domestic
Speaker 1: actors trying to come at info Wars itself. The fact
Speaker 1: that that happens the same week that this guy gets swatted,
Speaker 1: Alex Jones gets told by the government and by non
Speaker 1: government reporters that he is on an international hit list.
Speaker 1: The fact that all that's culminating at the same time
Speaker 1: leads me to believe that the shooting, the killing was
Speaker 1: not so random. Yeah that's again, maybe that's just my
Speaker 1: conspiratorial mind here, but it just it screams that there's
Speaker 1: more going on here. I don't know. But speaking of
Speaker 1: more going on, I'm gonna share the screen again because
Speaker 1: we heard I heard a lot of reports about what
Speaker 1: is going on with this black Rock port deal.
Speaker 6: Now.
Speaker 1: I know some people are going to feel some type
Speaker 1: of way that this was a move against China. Some
Speaker 1: people are going to feel some type of way saying
Speaker 1: that this was not necessarily against China, this was for America.
Speaker 1: But the fact that it was Blackrock themselves that made
Speaker 1: this purchase happen, that didn't give anybody a warm and
Speaker 1: fuzzy feeling. And I think we can all acknowledge that, right,
Speaker 1: I just you know. So with that in mind, we're
Speaker 1: gonna go ahead and read a little bit of this
Speaker 1: Reuter's article. And yes, I know it's Reuter's, and I
Speaker 1: understand people are gonna throw whatever shade they want about it,
Speaker 1: but just let's hear it out and see what because
Speaker 1: of course they're going to put this in whatever light
Speaker 1: they can.
Speaker 8: Royce, go ahead, Sorry, this is something different than what
Speaker 8: we're talking about now. Tonally, you know that there are
Speaker 8: chats going on in Zombie wanted me to mention that
Speaker 8: she cannot use her mic, so to mention that's this,
Speaker 8: to mention what sorry to I'll read the chats every
Speaker 8: once in a while since there are things going on there.
Speaker 1: Okay, all right, matter of fact, I will read the
Speaker 1: chats now, just in case I don't want to move
Speaker 1: on and then go back to something here. She says,
Speaker 1: I love japan culture. They were very kind, clean and respectful. Yes,
Speaker 1: very true, very true. Everybody I've ever talked to that
Speaker 1: ever was in Japan has said that unanimously. She also
Speaker 1: went on and said, I wouldn't be surprised if most
Speaker 1: of the large whistleblowers of calling out all of what
Speaker 1: is happening are on a list, they will run their
Speaker 1: course then kill them. It could be all for show
Speaker 1: distraction and keeping keep playing games. I could see that
Speaker 1: one hundred percent. But that's the thing. Alex Jones has
Speaker 1: pissed off so many people in the past like this,
Speaker 1: and even before Sandy Hook, he was calling out nine
Speaker 1: to eleven, before it happened, he was calling out COVID,
Speaker 1: he was calling out Obama for things. I think he
Speaker 1: was one of the first to actually acknowledge that Michelle
Speaker 1: Obama's a dude. So like, I mean, it's as far
Speaker 1: as pissing in people's cheerios and getting the quote unquote
Speaker 1: right guy to set out a hit on him, Like, yeah,
Speaker 1: he's he's been doing that gang for a while, so
Speaker 1: why now is it going that way? God, Alex says.
Speaker 1: I like Alex Jones, but I just remember him beating
Speaker 1: it to beating it to tranny porn a few years ago.
Speaker 1: I mean, okay, hey, I'm not gonna judge a man
Speaker 1: based off of what he does to get his rocks off,
Speaker 1: as long as it's not children. You know, I'm not
Speaker 1: a big proponent for pornography in any regard. I think
Speaker 1: that rot your brain. But I also found out tranny
Speaker 1: porn is overarchingly watched by straight men. And I mean
Speaker 1: in theory, I understand that. Right, there's two sets of
Speaker 1: boobs to look at and it's technically straight porn, so like,
Speaker 1: I get it. Yeah, I'm just I guess that's the thing.
Speaker 1: Alex Jones, I didn't know he was into the training
Speaker 1: point though. That's pretty funny. Actually, that's that's pretty good.
Speaker 1: David David foul. Yeah, yeah, it's that that same David
Speaker 1: hog slash fog slash, change that vowel with another tone.
Speaker 1: Let's see here. Zombie says the head is execution or
Speaker 1: the back of the next spine. But that's a knife.
Speaker 1: Even if it was a gunshot to like the base
Speaker 1: of the spine, I could see that being considered execution
Speaker 1: style if it's through the neck. Again, unless I six
Speaker 1: has started changing up how they do executions, and they're
Speaker 1: going through the juggular now, and by through I mean
Speaker 1: like not from a distance, point blank range, putting the
Speaker 1: barrel up to the juggular and pulling the trigger like okay,
Speaker 1: that will get the desired effects. There's no fixing that,
Speaker 1: and the man's gonna bleed out in like eight seconds.
Speaker 1: I think it's like potentially ten seconds max. So, like
Speaker 1: I could see that being a style of execution by bullet.
Speaker 1: I just it's kind of a new one on me.
Speaker 1: If that's a new trend in the executioner world, I
Speaker 1: don't know. Uh, they can't flat out kill Trump or
Speaker 1: Alex because they would be turned into martyrs. It's a
Speaker 1: strategy game. Yeah, you're absolutely right about that. They they tried,
Speaker 1: they tried turning Trump into a martyr. And I've said
Speaker 1: that before too, Like people keep downplaying the fact that
Speaker 1: we were like two centimeters away from having a civil
Speaker 1: war because that would have been the fall out if
Speaker 1: Trump would have been actually killed on a live TV
Speaker 1: in Butler, Pennsylvania. I don't think we would be having
Speaker 1: this conversation right now. Maybe I'm just crazy, right, Maybe
Speaker 1: I've been sipping the conspiracy kool aid for a little
Speaker 1: too long and I've detached from reality. Okay, fine, Fine,
Speaker 1: I just have a hard time believing it because there
Speaker 1: are so many crazies out there that support Trump and
Speaker 1: see him as a messiah figure, and there are so
Speaker 1: many crazies out there that hate Trump and see him
Speaker 1: as a Satan figure. And if he would have died.
Speaker 1: I just had this crazy strong feeling that the two
Speaker 1: would have clashed and it would have been an actual battle,
Speaker 1: like physical bloodshed battle.
Speaker 3: Do you think the same would have been done if
Speaker 3: Troe hadn't have won the election, if he would if
Speaker 3: he would have let's just say rallied.
Speaker 8: And said, all right, look now that we know the
Speaker 8: elections have been.
Speaker 3: Rigged, let's go actually do something.
Speaker 8: Do you think then instead of being a mark, he
Speaker 8: would have been the head figure.
Speaker 1: I could see that happening. Potentially for sure, he would
Speaker 1: have been the like trying to lead a coup or
Speaker 1: something like that. That's very possible that may have And
Speaker 1: I'll even give you that there's probably a sixty five
Speaker 1: in my own personal opinion, probably like a sixty five
Speaker 1: percent probability that if Trump would have lost the election
Speaker 1: like he did in twenty twenty where it was clearly stolen,
Speaker 1: if this one would have been clearly stolen from him
Speaker 1: to that level again to Camala, Yeah, yeah, there would
Speaker 1: have been a little bit of some uprising. There'd have
Speaker 1: been some upheople if he would have been murdered on
Speaker 1: national television, though, Yeah, I only see bloodshed coming from
Speaker 1: that like people have no chill within them anymore. I
Speaker 1: think that we lost that around the time somewhere in
Speaker 1: Biden's term. Think that society in America lost their chill.
Speaker 1: And I don't even see because when Trump lost it
Speaker 1: the first time and had it or the first time
Speaker 1: the time that he had the election stolen from him.
Speaker 1: The side that would have had something to say about that,
Speaker 1: the right, the Republicans, the Conservatives, the ultra conservatives, even
Speaker 1: they typically are conservative people, and now I mean just
Speaker 1: politically conservative. I mean they're typically you know, they got jobs,
Speaker 1: they got families. They're not trying to gear up for
Speaker 1: war because an election didn't go their way. They're trying
Speaker 1: to make it back to work Monday more. And they're
Speaker 1: going to be mad about it. But they got responsibilities
Speaker 1: and things to have it done twice after we saw
Speaker 1: what the Biden administration did for four years and all
Speaker 1: the corruption and all the things, to have that robbed again.
Speaker 1: I have a hard time believing that they would have
Speaker 1: just taken that one sitting down, and I have a
Speaker 1: hard time believing that it just would have been tea
Speaker 1: party gatherings this time. I yeah, I don't know. I'm
Speaker 1: very happy that that didn't happen. And I've also heard
Speaker 1: reports from certain conspiratorial people that that is exactly why
Speaker 1: they allowed quote unquote Trump to get elected, is because
Speaker 1: they knew that if he didn't get elected, it would
Speaker 1: have gone to physical violence in all over the country.
Speaker 1: So as a way to appease the people and give
Speaker 1: them what they want, right, feed them bread and send
Speaker 1: them to the circus, they allowed Trump to win this
Speaker 1: past election. Now, I am personally not of that belief.
Speaker 1: He won every single swing state that could be won
Speaker 1: in record breaking time and all of these things. But
Speaker 1: that's also not because they loved Trump so much. I
Speaker 1: believe there was no way they were going to allow
Speaker 1: Kamala to get in charge. That was ridiculous. So it
Speaker 1: could have been anybody running against Kamala and they probably
Speaker 1: would have had the election go the same way. But
Speaker 1: maybe that's just my own biases showing. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I definitely think martyring him would have been, oh the worst,
Speaker 1: the worst thing that they could do. And then that's
Speaker 1: the thing Alex Jones is not some people see him
Speaker 1: at the same level as Trump, right and if he
Speaker 1: was to get killed right now, they would see him
Speaker 1: as a martyr, and they'd be pissed about it. Alex
Speaker 1: Jones getting murdered would not get the same response as
Speaker 1: Trump getting murdered. I think we can all acknowledge that. However,
Speaker 1: it is a sign of the times that this is
Speaker 1: what they are doing to those with mouthpieces large enough
Speaker 1: and loud enough to get the message heard. And he
Speaker 1: has been doing it for so long and touching on
Speaker 1: so many topics and pissing off so many of the elites. It. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm kind of shocked that this as long as he's
Speaker 1: been able to run without people around him getting suicided
Speaker 1: or something like that. Right, I figured this would have
Speaker 1: happened years ago, but he's kind of been relegated to
Speaker 1: the kook farm for a good while. He's definitely getting
Speaker 1: taken more serious now, And now that this is happening,
Speaker 1: people can't not take him seriously. So you know, all right,
Speaker 1: let's keep breeding here. But what if he said it's true.
Speaker 1: It seems like he's enough of a threat that he
Speaker 1: might get killed anyway. Yeah, it's very possible, Zombie says.
Speaker 1: I think if the elites wanted him dead, he would be.
Speaker 1: You can't tell me that Blackrock for example, with a
Speaker 1: net worth of eleven billion, couldn't murder this man. I
Speaker 1: feel like BlackRock's got a higher net worth than eleven billion.
Speaker 1: I could be wrong, because this deal they just made
Speaker 1: wasn't like twenty seven billion for this. We'll talk more
Speaker 1: about it here in a moment anyway, But yes, Blackrock
Speaker 1: absolutely has the deep pockets to take out whoever they
Speaker 1: want taken out. That's beyond question. He is serving a purpose,
Speaker 1: whether it be to stir up discontentment or shift perspectives,
Speaker 1: help move the narrative. Maybe doesn't even know he's a puppet.
Speaker 1: But all of the millionaires up millionaires run in different
Speaker 1: circles than us normal people do. It's very true, and
Speaker 1: Royce agrees with that for sure, she says, especially, lah
Speaker 1: I can't speak, especially if the world elites decide they
Speaker 1: have had enough plane crashes, bombing, shooting, poison, a million
Speaker 1: ways to kill someone. Yeah, that's one hundred percent, and
Speaker 1: that's no. I'm glad you brought up plane crashes. Okay,
Speaker 1: y'all remember last month when they were talking about all
Speaker 1: these planes crashing. It's so bad. It's more than ever before.
Speaker 1: Even though in the month of February we had less
Speaker 1: plane crashes than we did the year prior. In the
Speaker 1: month of February, well, we never heard about those. Why
Speaker 1: because it just wasn't the narrative that they were running
Speaker 1: at that time. If you look at the statistics on
Speaker 1: plane crashes per plane flights, it's really really, really really low.
Speaker 1: Some get more optics than other's. The one in DC,
Speaker 1: there was no way that that couldn't get optics put
Speaker 1: on that. The Delta flight that flipped on its roof, okay,
Speaker 1: that's that's next level wild. There was no way that
Speaker 1: couldn't go without getting cameras put on it. Most of
Speaker 1: the plane crashes, though, even even for Capita, are bush
Speaker 1: planes and small prop planes and things like that. It's
Speaker 1: very rare that a commercial plane goes down, but when
Speaker 1: it does, it's definitely more critical because there's more lives lost,
Speaker 1: and depending on if it lands in a city like
Speaker 1: in Philly, or if it lands in the ocean or
Speaker 1: even a river and the people were able to evacuate,
Speaker 1: whatever the case, it happens, but it is substantially less
Speaker 1: than what the media would have had us believe last month.
Speaker 1: But of course, because Trump is coming after DEI and
Speaker 1: the FAA just did a DEI thing, and it was
Speaker 1: a whole Trump's making. These planes crashed. They found like
Speaker 1: they had their own corkboard with pictures and threads all
Speaker 1: over it. Right, the left has one, the right has one.
Speaker 1: The people in the center are trying to combine them
Speaker 1: to see what's actually going on here, and so they
Speaker 1: found like a single thread that could be connected. Trump
Speaker 1: taking out all these DEI mandates has led to planes crashing.
Speaker 1: Never mind the fact that these people were in that
Speaker 1: job before he took office and that had nothing to
Speaker 1: do with anything, but it was a talking point that
Speaker 1: they wanted to run on because the liberal media had
Speaker 1: to find something to come at Trump, and it's clearly
Speaker 1: his fault that everything's going like this. It's like, y'all,
Speaker 1: y'all are reaching at this point. But the worst part
Speaker 1: is that people believed the propaganda. A lot of people did,
Speaker 1: and it's not something that people need to be ashamed about.
Speaker 1: We're only going off with the narratives that we are
Speaker 1: getting told, right. Not many people look into it any deeper,
Speaker 1: and they're just saying, like, God, planes are going down
Speaker 1: left and right, why is this? Well, I'm not flying, Well,
Speaker 1: I'm not flying this month, but Bue, you were safer
Speaker 1: to fly this year than you were last year. And
Speaker 1: believe it or not, you were safer to fly last
Speaker 1: year then you were the year before that. So it's
Speaker 1: actually playing. Crashes are decreasing on mass. But you wouldn't
Speaker 1: have known that if you watch the news, because that's
Speaker 1: how the narrative gets spun. But I agree with you,
Speaker 1: though there's a million ways to kill somebody, there's tons
Speaker 1: of plane crashes that happen. As matter of fact, what
Speaker 1: uh JFK Junior killed in a plane crash as a
Speaker 1: matter of fact, I think that was also a part
Speaker 1: of the whole Kennedy assassination plot, but or one of
Speaker 1: the Kennedy assassination plots. Anyway. RFK still holding down strong,
Speaker 1: but we'll see how that goes. I'm hoping that they don't.
Speaker 1: He doesn't piss in the wrong people's cheerios and they
Speaker 1: take him out in some sort of way because he's
Speaker 1: going against vaccines and trying to make America healthier. I
Speaker 1: feel like a lot of people with a lot of
Speaker 1: money have a vested interest in keeping Americans sick and
Speaker 1: feeding them junk. So him coming at it with this way.
Speaker 1: I'm hoping that he has a really good protection detail.
Speaker 1: But yeah, yeah, let's see. Yeah, that's true. A trillion
Speaker 1: I think it's trillion, eleven trillion dollars at Blackrock is
Speaker 1: on the hook for I could see that for sure.
Speaker 1: Let's see your goth Alex actually shared a thing independent
Speaker 1: Alex Jones spot. Oh no, is this the thing? Oh god, okay,
Speaker 1: give me a second. I'm gonna I'm gonna share the screen. Alex.
Speaker 1: Of course you would come with this ship gypsies, yo, Royce,
Speaker 1: you right, is the gypsies? Clearly it's the Gypsy.
Speaker 3: I was waiting for you to see my new name.
Speaker 3: I was like, I find that funny.
Speaker 1: It was, and that's the thing. It's meant to be
Speaker 1: funny whenever I say that. But dude, I didn't realize
Speaker 1: that I actually would piss off real gypsies with that,
Speaker 1: I you know, to any of the good rolling people
Speaker 1: out there. It was completely a joke. But I'm going
Speaker 1: to continue making the joke like that's not going there.
Speaker 3: Yeah where now the g and Gypsy?
Speaker 1: I love it. I mean, Dode, the Mormons get caught
Speaker 1: pissed off when we call them the Mountain Jews. I
Speaker 1: mean probably, but do we stop? No, No, we don't care.
Speaker 1: It's funny anyway. All right, here we go. This is
Speaker 1: the Independent of goth Alex you use asshole, Here we go.
Speaker 1: This is from August of twenty eighteen. Alex Jones spotted
Speaker 1: with transgender pornography on his phone despite transphobic rants. Oh shit,
Speaker 1: right when conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, whose transphobic rants have
Speaker 1: seen his broadcasts removed from YouTube, unwittlingly revealed transgender pornography
Speaker 1: on his phone. Video appears to show the radio show
Speaker 1: host behind the controversial info war brand was filming a
Speaker 1: segment promoting personal wellness products on an affiliate site when
Speaker 1: he clicked away from the page on his mobile phone
Speaker 1: for a split second. The camera is still trained on
Speaker 1: his screen, revealed an array of open tabs, including a
Speaker 1: page titled naughty t Babe Marissa bro bro all right,
Speaker 1: content creator, one oh one. You don't use your work
Speaker 1: phone for your goon activities. You just don't like I
Speaker 1: oh man, Oh that's bad and I was in twenty eighteen.
Speaker 1: Holy shit, that's great.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 1: T babe is a term yeah yeah. Marissa Minks described
Speaker 1: as Australia's number one trans companion, Triple X adult model.
Speaker 1: The actor later tweeted her support, writing that it was
Speaker 1: fantastic he is watching seeds, but she also retweeted several
Speaker 1: posts criticizing mister Jones for his hypocritical and blatantly anti
Speaker 1: trans views. It is not clear if the phone belongs
Speaker 1: to mister Jones, who made no comment about the page
Speaker 1: at the time of the video and has yet to
Speaker 1: respond publicly. Wow. I honestly had no idea that that
Speaker 1: was the thing. I had heard rumors about it. I
Speaker 1: didn't know this was something. I didn't know this was
Speaker 1: real life, Alex. So thank you, thank you for bringing
Speaker 1: that to our attention. Holy shit, you know again, tea
Speaker 1: girl porn apparently is predominantly watched by straight conservative men.
Speaker 1: I should make that statement as well. Uh there, I
Speaker 1: forget where I saw this. There was a like it's
Speaker 1: a map of the continental US, and it was like
Speaker 1: which state searches for what type of porn? More than
Speaker 1: anything else. Oddly enough, I want to say it was
Speaker 1: either Louisiana or Mississippi. No, no, no, no, no Louisiana.
Speaker 1: It was ebony porn Mississippi and Alabama were trans porn,
Speaker 1: uh Texas. I think it was cock porn. It's been
Speaker 1: a hot minute since I looked at the list, but yeah,
Speaker 1: it was like certain things that you wouldn't think you
Speaker 1: would see in certain areas. But then like, that's kind
Speaker 1: of how that works, right, Porn is to get your
Speaker 1: rocks off on like sometimes the most taboo topics and
Speaker 1: it goes that way. But yeah, I don't know, I am.
Speaker 1: I'm definitely on this belief these days that porn is
Speaker 1: a uh an addiction, or at least it can become
Speaker 1: an addiction. And I believe it can definitely rot your mind,
Speaker 1: regardless if it is quote unquote regular or something obscure.
Speaker 1: I feel like it detracts from your partner. I feel
Speaker 1: like it gives you an unrealistic expectation of what this
Speaker 1: act is supposed to be. And I'm not going on
Speaker 1: to this whole talk sex is supposed to be sacred
Speaker 1: between a married cup but look, fine, fine, fine, obviously okay,
Speaker 1: but I also feel like culturally it has gone to
Speaker 1: such a level that like it's never gonna be able
Speaker 1: to come back from. It's not what it was in
Speaker 1: the eighties and nineties. It is it's so far out
Speaker 1: there these days that it's Yeah, at this point, I
Speaker 1: believe it's actually geared to rot your brain, and there's
Speaker 1: there's a lot of studies on that. As a matter
Speaker 1: of fact, it's not like I'm just speaking into the
Speaker 1: ether about this shit. But either way, either way, getting
Speaker 1: off of the tea girl, porn Alex you beautiful bastard. Anyway. Okay,
Speaker 1: so here we have Blackrock. This is the Reuters article
Speaker 1: Blackrock to buy Hong Kong's firms Panama Canal port steak
Speaker 1: amid Trump's pressure. Now again, the fact that Blackrock bought
Speaker 1: this does not exactly give anybody a warm and fuzzy feeling. Oh,
Speaker 1: there's a little video about it. Let's check out the
Speaker 1: video and see if there's anything good here.
Speaker 6: You'd be surprised.
Speaker 1: Oh my god, it's an ad. I thought that was
Speaker 1: gonna be a video about Blackrock. Of course there's an ad. Well, okay,
Speaker 1: we on even watch the ad. The summer here, Trump
Speaker 1: vowed to rest control rest yeah, rest control of the
Speaker 1: Strategic Canal. Over seventy five percent of vessels in the
Speaker 1: canal have US origins or destinations, and Blackrock has briefed
Speaker 1: the White House on the deal March fourth. Here Reuters,
Speaker 1: an investigator group backed by black Rock agreed to buy
Speaker 1: a majority stake in the Hong Kong based company that
Speaker 1: runs ports along either side of the Panama Canal, giving
Speaker 1: the US firm control of key docs amid pressure from
Speaker 1: the White House to take them from China. A twenty
Speaker 1: two point eight billion dollars sale by Hong Kong's c
Speaker 1: K Hutchins to the US and Swiss investors also includes
Speaker 1: dozens of ports in other countries, the company announced Tuesday.
Speaker 1: The move appears to be a win for the US
Speaker 1: president's aggressive diplomacy, just hours before he is due to
Speaker 1: tout the success of his first six tumultuous weeks of
Speaker 1: his second term in the address to the US Congress.
Speaker 1: So that's another thing that I think people are also
Speaker 1: missing here. They bought like over forty different ports when
Speaker 1: they did this buyout of the c K. Hutchins group.
Speaker 1: Now that I think it's like forty different ports in
Speaker 1: twelve different countries or something like that. But of course,
Speaker 1: the crown jewel of this deal was the ports on
Speaker 1: either side of the Panama Canal. For obvious reasons. Now
Speaker 1: let's keep going here. He says. He vowed to rest
Speaker 1: control from the strategic canal connecting the Atlantic to the
Speaker 1: Pacific Oceans during his January twentieth inauguration speech, falsely claiming
Speaker 1: China is operating it. Okay, that's not necessarily false. It's
Speaker 1: it's kind of like a white lie. So China has
Speaker 1: had controlling interest over five different quote unquote ports along
Speaker 1: the canal. Now, when I say quote unquote, they're not
Speaker 1: exactly ports, because they're along the canal. It's not like
Speaker 1: you're getting any kind of thing other than through traffic.
Speaker 1: That being said, it has been understood that China was
Speaker 1: getting a slice of that pie, and has been for
Speaker 1: the past few years. Panameians are the ones that really
Speaker 1: benefit the most from this canal being there one but
Speaker 1: the CCP has absolutely been wetting their beak on this
Speaker 1: for a good while here. So now America will be
Speaker 1: the only ones wedding their beak on this other than
Speaker 1: the locals, which was kind of the entire point of this.
Speaker 1: It says. The transaction appears to hand command of the
Speaker 1: vital docs to both entrances of the canal to US interests.
Speaker 1: Trump refused to rule out military action to assert US
Speaker 1: control over the canal, which is operated by the Panama
Speaker 1: Canal Authority or an autonomous agency overseen by the Panamanian
Speaker 1: government and surrounded by several ports. The US President has
Speaker 1: complained about the presidence of Chinese and Hong Kong based
Speaker 1: companies in Panama, and American officials and politicians have said C. K.
Speaker 1: Hutchins control of the ports represents a security risk for
Speaker 1: the operation. Last year, about twelve thousand ships use the canal,
Speaker 1: which connects nineteen A, one nine and twenty ports across
Speaker 1: one hundred and seventy countries, but its position is strategic
Speaker 1: for Washington, as over three quarters of all vessels passing
Speaker 1: through the canal originate in or are bound for the US.
Speaker 1: The sale of licenses will result in the consortium gaining
Speaker 1: a ninety percent stake in Panama Ports Company. WHOA, I
Speaker 1: didn't know it was going to be a ninety percent stake.
Speaker 1: That's massive, which has been the operator of the Balboa
Speaker 1: and crystaball ports in the Central American country for more
Speaker 1: than two decades. C. K. Hutchins said in a statement. Blackrock,
Speaker 1: the world's largest asset management firm based in New York,
Speaker 1: has briefed the White House and congressional leadership on the deal.
Speaker 1: A person familiar with the transaction said this would be
Speaker 1: BlackRock's largest infrastructure investment to date. The person said, in theory,
Speaker 1: the deal, by showing the firm to be acting in
Speaker 1: Trump's favor, could ease Republican pressure on Black Rock and
Speaker 1: its CEO, Larry Fink, over its past embrace of the
Speaker 1: use of environmental society or social and governance factors the
Speaker 1: ESG factors in investing, which, to be fair, they really
Speaker 1: have gone hard left in a lot of their business model,
Speaker 1: So this could be a strategic move for them to
Speaker 1: kind of get Republicans off of their back. That being said,
Speaker 1: this is one of those that's kind of a victory
Speaker 1: for the American economy anyway you slice it. Whether it
Speaker 1: was a liberal at the head of it or conservative
Speaker 1: at the head of it, it's kind of a big
Speaker 1: w But the company and Fink have remained under attacked
Speaker 1: by Republicans and supporters of Trump's MAGA movement on climate
Speaker 1: and diversity issues. The US State Department, White House, National
Speaker 1: Security Council, and Panama's government did not respond to requests
Speaker 1: for comment. A huge victory here. Ryan Berg, director of
Speaker 1: the Americans Program at Washington Center for Strategic and International Studies,
Speaker 1: called the sale a win for the US and said
Speaker 1: he hoped it put the debate over the Canal security
Speaker 1: to rest. He says, in strategic competition with China in
Speaker 1: the Americas, this is a huge victory. C K Hutchins
Speaker 1: is a publicly listic company not financially chied to the
Speaker 1: Chinese government, though Hong Kong firms are subject to state oversight. Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna say that one again. So apparently this Hong
Speaker 1: Kong company is not directly linked or tied to the CCP,
Speaker 1: even though they are subject to state oversight. That's just
Speaker 1: CCP ran with extra steps. But all right, especially since
Speaker 1: Hong Kong has now become a part of Mainland, I
Speaker 1: know that people are gonna argue about that. I am
Speaker 1: not here to argue semantics. It's understood that the CCP
Speaker 1: runs Hong Kong. Now, that's why they had a whole uprising.
Speaker 1: Then you had these college kids making crossbows out of
Speaker 1: tech trash to try to fight the soldiers that were
Speaker 1: trying to take over the town. But I digress. Other
Speaker 1: reports in Panama operations are operated by companies from the US, Taiwan,
Speaker 1: and Singapore, which is another big thing that the CCP
Speaker 1: would want to try to put a stop to us
Speaker 1: if Taiwan has anything to do with it. Panama's authorities
Speaker 1: have announced to an audit of c K Hutchins contract,
Speaker 1: saying they're investigating its compliance with concessions agreements. Panama's Attorney
Speaker 1: General determined earlier this month the c K Hutchins Port
Speaker 1: contract was unconstitutional. Yeah, I'll bet. The Panamanian ag said
Speaker 1: that the Supreme Court in Panama was set to make
Speaker 1: the final ruling on it legal on its legal status.
Speaker 1: The US Secretary of State Marco Rubio made his first
Speaker 1: overseas trip as top of US diplomat to Latin America
Speaker 1: last month, including the Panama, where he pressured the country
Speaker 1: over China's presence along the canal. After his departure, Rubio
Speaker 1: hailed Panama's decision to exit China's Belton wrote in Infrastructure
Speaker 1: Plan good Shit. He expressed optimism and media interviews that
Speaker 1: Hutchinson would not own the concessions in the future. The
Speaker 1: sale of the Panama Ports license held by the unit
Speaker 1: of billionaires Lee Ka Shings By the way, if there's
Speaker 1: any Asian names in this, forgive me, I'm going to
Speaker 1: butcher them. I only speak American English and barely at
Speaker 1: that conglomerate to a consortium that includes black Rock Global
Speaker 1: Infrastructure Partners in Terminal Investment will give it to control
Speaker 1: of an eighty percent interest in Hutchinson Ports for an
Speaker 1: equity value of fourteen point two to one billion US dollars.
Speaker 1: It will get control of forty three ports comprising of
Speaker 1: one hundred and ninety nine berths in twenty three countries,
Speaker 1: while delivering cash proceeds in excess of nineteen billion dollars
Speaker 1: for the Hong Kong based consortium. Okay, so I was
Speaker 1: a little off earlier when I said that, so forty
Speaker 1: three ports, one hundred nine berths and what that means
Speaker 1: is like docks, essentially glorified docs in twenty three countries.
Speaker 1: Everybody's only focused on these two on either side of
Speaker 1: the Panama Canal, because again that's kind of the crown jewel,
Speaker 1: the whole ordeal. But this was way more of a
Speaker 1: move than what people are initially talking about right now.
Speaker 1: But America will feel the effects of this in a
Speaker 1: very positive way here soon and the CCP will absolutely
Speaker 1: feel the negative effects of this in a very big
Speaker 1: way here soon. But I digress, because keep in mind
Speaker 1: all of those terrorists that are being done to China,
Speaker 1: they now have to pay a toll, so to speak,
Speaker 1: to go from the Atlantic to the Pacific and or
Speaker 1: go all the way around South America. That's that's money, money, money, money,
Speaker 1: money money. But anyway, the sale does not involve any
Speaker 1: interest in the Hutchinson Port Holdings Trust, which operates ports
Speaker 1: in Hong Kong and Sheezan shes Han Sure as well
Speaker 1: as so China or any ports in mainland China.
Speaker 3: C K.
Speaker 1: Hutchins said the consortium has agreed that negotiations will be
Speaker 1: on an exclusive basis for one hundred and forty five days.
Speaker 1: The company said. Blackrock completed the acquisition of Global Infrastructure
Speaker 1: Partners for approximately twelve point five billion in cash and
Speaker 1: stock last October the last. At the time, CEO Fink
Speaker 1: described infrastructure as quote a generational investment opportunity. Okay, so
Speaker 1: that is the short and dirty of it. Blackrock is
Speaker 1: making very big moves and very big plays as far
Speaker 1: as that's concerned. Everybody, What is y'all's take on this
Speaker 1: business venture by our boy Larry Fink here. Now, I'm
Speaker 1: not exactly a fan of him. I'm not a fan
Speaker 1: of the things that Larry Fink has done or been
Speaker 1: a part of in the past. And I'm not a
Speaker 1: fan of Blackrock at all. Hell, we've done episodes against
Speaker 1: them on the Cult of Conspiracy as a matter of fact.
Speaker 1: But the fact that the Panama Canal is about to
Speaker 1: be back in US control, that does, in fact give
Speaker 1: me a warm and fuzzy feeling. But am I alone
Speaker 1: in this? What are your thoughts?
Speaker 3: Unfortunately, I'm very service level with most of the stuff.
Speaker 8: Obviously, it is good that Panama is back in the
Speaker 8: United States' control, for sure, that's a great thing.
Speaker 3: As far as their investments, who knows.
Speaker 8: We also don't know what ties they have with a
Speaker 8: Trump in general. You know, we don't know if he
Speaker 8: was the one that prompted them to try to do.
Speaker 3: Something, or if they asked it.
Speaker 8: You know, we don't know. There's a lot that we
Speaker 8: probably don't know about the whole acquisition.
Speaker 1: Mm hmm. That's fair, Yeah, that's fair. I mean, And
Speaker 1: that's the thing we're talking about so many different ports
Speaker 1: and in so many different ways. Here. It's ah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I feel like the effects of this, like I said,
Speaker 1: are going to be felt for a good long while.
Speaker 1: I hope it goes I hope this all goes through
Speaker 1: and that the left will even have to acknowledge the
Speaker 1: benefits of this deal and the tariff situation as well.
Speaker 1: I brought up something here and I'm trying to see
Speaker 1: if it pulled up or not. The Canadian economic indicators comparison. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean we could pretty much just talk about this.
Speaker 1: So Canada has a very US reliant economy, like all
Speaker 1: all jokes aside everything else. And no, this is not
Speaker 1: me shitting on Canada or Canadians. I will shoot on
Speaker 1: the Canadian government one hundred percent. They really can't survive
Speaker 1: without us. And I'm not saying that to boost America's
Speaker 1: ego here or beat our chest by any means. But
Speaker 1: that's just the status of it. That's the brass tacks.
Speaker 1: They were talking about putting on more tariffs on us,
Speaker 1: and we were talking about putting more tariffs on them.
Speaker 1: I'm hearing reports that Alberta is now trying to they
Speaker 1: have a little bit of a what's it called not
Speaker 1: a poll? What is it when you get a bunch
Speaker 1: of people to sign a list a petition, thank you.
Speaker 1: They have a legal petition going on right now in Alberta,
Speaker 1: Canada to see if they want to relinquish their Canadian
Speaker 1: citizenship and become the fifty first state. Now, I'll say
Speaker 1: that if that happens, I would be very happy to
Speaker 1: welcome Alberta into America. They're pretty much the Texas of Canada.
Speaker 1: They have do you look at the way they have
Speaker 1: voted in pretty much every talking point of note in
Speaker 1: the past few decades. Very conservative, they have a booming
Speaker 1: beef industry, they have a booming farm industry. They're very
Speaker 1: agriculturally minded. They they're Yeah, I would not mind at
Speaker 1: all if Alberta became a part of America. I don't
Speaker 1: really have much love for most of the rest of
Speaker 1: the nation. I don't really know a lot of people
Speaker 1: outside of Alberta, to be honest with you, them and
Speaker 1: I know a couple of people in British Columbia depending
Speaker 1: they can be okay Quebec. They pretty much all suck,
Speaker 1: except for George Saint Pierre. He's like the one exception.
Speaker 1: Uh yeah, it's just yeah, I don't know. But as
Speaker 1: we're talking about these tariff wars and all of these
Speaker 1: things going through the Panama Canal with these tariffs involved
Speaker 1: as they are, is it crazy to think that they
Speaker 1: would have to pay an extra high toll in order
Speaker 1: to use the canal? Mean that we'd be able to
Speaker 1: wet our beak even deeper? I like that.
Speaker 6: I don't know, I guess so. Does Alberta also have
Speaker 6: tons of oil?
Speaker 1: I want to say they do?
Speaker 6: Yeah, me too. I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere.
Speaker 1: I feeling. And I don't know if it's a pipeline
Speaker 1: that runs through Alberta or if it's actually oil rigs
Speaker 1: that are in Alberta. But either way, hey, again, what
Speaker 1: are we even talking about here?
Speaker 7: You know?
Speaker 1: And then I've heard other things about Greenland. People are
Speaker 1: worried that we're about to have some sort of special
Speaker 1: military operation to take over Greenland. They don't have a
Speaker 1: military like I mean, I'm sure they some sort of
Speaker 1: like a National Guard force or something like that, but
Speaker 1: they're under Denmark. That's not going to be a occupation
Speaker 1: or anything like that. People are taking a lot of
Speaker 1: what is being said right now and running with it
Speaker 1: like it's going to be absolute fact, I think that
Speaker 1: there is uh. I think there's a game being played,
Speaker 1: you know, there's a war of words to de escalate
Speaker 1: things before it has to get to a certain point.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 6: The population of Greenland is only about fifty thousand people.
Speaker 6: It's not much to be worried about. Iceland is three
Speaker 6: hundred thousand. I had a professor from Iceland once. But anyway,
Speaker 6: Greenland is negligible. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I heard there's a conspiracy out there to say that
Speaker 1: Finland's not real. Have you heard this one?
Speaker 6: Finland? I have not heard that one yet.
Speaker 1: The same could be said for Greenland or Iceland, although
Speaker 1: your professor kind of put a well maybe so basically,
Speaker 1: any nation out there that's got a super small population,
Speaker 1: they're not even real. Bro. Anybody you've ever heard of
Speaker 1: that says they're from there, they're a fed. Anybody on
Speaker 1: the internet that' says as they're from there, it's a bot.
Speaker 3: Like.
Speaker 1: Finland's not even a real place. It's not even a
Speaker 1: place you can go. It's like Antarctica, it's all. There's
Speaker 1: so many crazy things on the internet, dude.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I heard of the dead Internet theory. That's a
Speaker 6: pretty similar thing. There's also the theory that there's as
Speaker 6: many black people as white people in the US, and
Speaker 6: the theory that population statistics are all vastly inflated. But
Speaker 6: I don't believe any of those. I think it seems
Speaker 6: true that there's three hundred million Americans. There's seven or
Speaker 6: eight billion people in the world, and there are people
Speaker 6: from Iceland. They have a pretty crazy language. I know
Speaker 6: he wasn't German because he can pronounce the sound, which
Speaker 6: most Germanic languages can't.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they just think their teeth into those of these
Speaker 1: and all that. Yeah, No, but Finland's definitely a real place,
Speaker 1: like obviously the Finish are a very very fun people.
Speaker 1: I might add I've met some of them, but of course,
Speaker 1: per the conspiracy theory, they were just FEDS that were
Speaker 1: playing the role. And it's it's it's ridiculous how some
Speaker 1: of these theories get a little bit of traction behind
Speaker 1: them with the Internet being the Internet, but neither here
Speaker 1: nor there.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I think Finland's got four million people, and they
Speaker 6: also have a very interesting language. It's related to Hungarian
Speaker 6: and pretty much nothing else is related to those languages.
Speaker 1: That's pretty wild. I didn't know that. Why in the
Speaker 1: world would Hungarians and Finish have a similar language. Well,
Speaker 1: I'm sure historically somebody conquested this area versus that area,
Speaker 1: and they just kind of adapted to it and kind
Speaker 1: of never changed it or something along those lines.
Speaker 6: Yeah, they're from Central Asia around the time of Attila
Speaker 6: the Hun and they brought whatever that language was. And
Speaker 6: also a lot of the northern people of Russia who
Speaker 6: are not Slavic speak that. It's called an Ugric language,
Speaker 6: the Ugric language family. If we want to really nerd
Speaker 6: out on.
Speaker 1: This, that's that's pretty legit. Okay, let me see you here.
Speaker 1: Hold on, Uh, I'm gonna share the screen because Zombie
Speaker 1: shared a video and go ahead and play that. It's
Speaker 1: all about this black Rock deal. Let's see what we
Speaker 1: got here. This is from the Hill. By the way,
Speaker 1: the Hill.
Speaker 7: If you follow the news, you've probably heard of a
Speaker 7: company called Blackrock.
Speaker 5: I know we've discussed it on Rising.
Speaker 7: It is the world's largest asset manager, controlling eleven point
Speaker 7: five trillion dollars in assets last year. Many on the
Speaker 7: right have grown to dislike the investment firm for partaking
Speaker 7: in what's called ESG, or environmental social governance initiatives, put simply,
Speaker 7: Blackrock was prioritizing investment in companies that meet certain ESG
Speaker 7: standards on things like climate change and diversity. Now that
Speaker 7: appears to be over.
Speaker 13: Per the Wall Street Journal, Blackrock backed out of net
Speaker 13: Zero Asset Managers in January. Net Zero Asset Managers is
Speaker 13: an initiative dedicated to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by
Speaker 13: twenty fifty.
Speaker 7: In BlackRock's most recent annual report, they dropped references to DEI.
Speaker 7: For instance, The Wall Street Journal pointed out a stark difference.
Speaker 7: Reporter Jack Pitcher writes Blackrock CEO Larry Fink, and a
Speaker 7: twenty twenty one letter to shareholders said quote, we have
Speaker 7: a long term strategy aimed at improving diversity.
Speaker 5: Equity, and inclusion at Blackrock.
Speaker 7: To truly drive change, we must embed DEI into everything
Speaker 7: that we do. Compare to that's their most recent report,
Speaker 7: which says, quote, delivering for the firm's clients requires attracting
Speaker 7: the best people from across the world. Blackrock is committed
Speaker 7: to creating an environment that supports top talent and fosters
Speaker 7: diverse perspectives to avoid group thing.
Speaker 5: Oh, that's much better.
Speaker 13: There's been a lot of pressure since twenty twenty two
Speaker 13: from Red State Attorney's General House Republicans and oil and
Speaker 13: gas lobbyists to stifle ESG efforts.
Speaker 11: I want to tell you a story.
Speaker 1: Acts to this commercial, Roy, since that Jewish dude is
Speaker 1: actually talking about Jesus. I wanted to talk to you
Speaker 1: about that later on as a matter of fact, But
Speaker 1: neither here nor there anyway exactly.
Speaker 6: Those commercials too, I've given to them before.
Speaker 1: Have you really who are the organization?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Uh, well, the commercial itself shows a group of people
Speaker 1: of varying backgrounds, not all just Jewish, but varying people
Speaker 1: of varying backgrounds who all some believe that the story
Speaker 1: of Jesus was basically just a Sunday school story. One
Speaker 1: dude says that he thought that Jesus was Italian. I
Speaker 1: don't know why that was a grown up that actually
Speaker 1: said that out loud, but like it's a thing, he said.
Speaker 1: One of them is a Jewish dude who looked at
Speaker 1: the story of Jesus and said that it was in
Speaker 1: fact the Second Coming, or not the second Coming, the
Speaker 1: coming of the Savior as prophesied in the Book of Jeremiah,
Speaker 1: and all these things. But yeah, I we'll talk about
Speaker 1: that one offline. I don't want to make this episode
Speaker 1: of a religious debate, but for sure of all the people, Yeah,
Speaker 1: me and you definitely need to discuss those later on.
Speaker 1: But anyway, Yeah, that's Blackrock and the.
Speaker 7: Things good ending workforce representation goals, not requiring managers to
Speaker 7: interview a diverse set of candidates, and their credit facility
Speaker 7: is not lending money based on whether the borrowers meet
Speaker 7: diversity targets. Blackrock also made another major move. They stuck
Speaker 7: twenty three billion dollar deal with C. K. Hutchison, a
Speaker 7: Hong Kong based conglomerate that gives Blackrock control or key
Speaker 7: parts of the Panama Canal. Here's Trump touting that move
Speaker 7: last night.
Speaker 14: Further enhance our national security. My administration will be reclaiming
Speaker 14: the Panama Canal.
Speaker 1: And we've already started doing it.
Speaker 14: Just today, a large American company announced they are buying
Speaker 14: both parts around the Panama Canal and lots of other
Speaker 14: things having to do with the Panama Canal and a
Speaker 14: couple of other canals. The Panama Canal was built by
Speaker 14: Americans for Americans, not for others, but others could use it,
Speaker 14: but it was built a tremendous course of American blood
Speaker 14: and treasure. Thirty eight thousand workers died building the Panama Canal.
Speaker 1: I didn't mean to do that. I don't know what
Speaker 1: the hell just happened, but okay, I do wish that
Speaker 1: he would have I wish he would have mentioned the
Speaker 1: fact that it was Blackrock that had bought out, he said,
Speaker 1: a very large company. I wonder what the room would
Speaker 1: have done if he would have said that it was
Speaker 1: Blackrock that did it, because Blackrock was so bolstered by
Speaker 1: the left for so long, and seeing as how half
Speaker 1: of the room stayed seated every time Trump said something
Speaker 1: at all, I'm wondering if he would have said that
Speaker 1: Blackrock was buying it, if they would have felt some
Speaker 1: type of way. But you know, I digress.
Speaker 7: Conservative filmmaker Robbie Starbuck wrote on x Blackrock was one
Speaker 7: of the largest entities forcing DEI into corporations. Their leadership
Speaker 7: declared that they must embed DEI into everything. Larry Think
Speaker 7: even admitted Blackrock was forcing behaviors the companies to change.
Speaker 7: Today they're exiting DEI were winning musician Chris lash meanwhile,
Speaker 7: in reference to Blackrock acquiring Panama the Canal, Ports wrote this,
Speaker 7: MAGA has been against Blackrock.
Speaker 5: How is this a victory?
Speaker 7: Chris Rassini, a senior fellow at the Ron Paul Institute,
Speaker 7: posted when they said the US will take the Panama Canal,
Speaker 7: it turned out to be Blackrock. When they say the
Speaker 7: US will get Ukraine's minerals, it will turn out to
Speaker 7: be who Now. All the while, the American people are
Speaker 7: led to believe that they're winning a prize that actually
Speaker 7: cost them three hundred billion dollars. So this is a
Speaker 7: very interesting topic. I think we'll have plenty of disagreement,
Speaker 7: although maybe some areas of disagreement. The way Blackrock, in
Speaker 7: my view, has operated to force businesses to comply with
Speaker 7: ESG and DEI mind set is I think very bad.
Speaker 7: As they are now admitting. I think they mostly did
Speaker 7: those things as a form of pr And this is
Speaker 7: where you might actually agree from your probably their sinister
Speaker 7: and bad kind of global capitalist ta jenemy.
Speaker 5: They're making you overlook.
Speaker 7: That by saying, but look at our good DEI stuff,
Speaker 7: look at our diverse look at how many black people
Speaker 7: we're employing.
Speaker 5: You can't yell at us mouth. I thought that was
Speaker 5: what you were going to say.
Speaker 13: You're project on. To me, there are separate issues for
Speaker 13: me here. First of all, the fact that Fink had
Speaker 13: been previously such a champion for the environment. To see
Speaker 13: him surrender, that is very sad to me. I don't
Speaker 13: see why we're making social investment wrong, social responsibility like
Speaker 13: it's a bad thing. And I think that if we
Speaker 13: ask this is a basic issue.
Speaker 5: Does it makes everything more expensive for us?
Speaker 12: Oh?
Speaker 13: More expensive? Well?
Speaker 11: What about?
Speaker 5: See?
Speaker 13: This is how I feel as an individual. I believe
Speaker 13: on the earth, God would have me try to do
Speaker 13: the right thing, not make money more important than doing
Speaker 13: the right thing. I think it's a perversion of the
Speaker 13: principles that should underlie our economy and our politics to
Speaker 13: make corporate profits always the bottom line, as opposed to
Speaker 13: humanitarian and democratic principles. So I think there is such
Speaker 13: a thing as righteous profits. And I don't think we're
Speaker 13: going to make less money in the long run if
Speaker 13: we also steward well the earth on which we live.
Speaker 13: It's not going to be good for anybody economically when
Speaker 13: this economy, when this environment, if the environment implodes the economy, well, but.
Speaker 7: It's not just a trade off between the environment being cleaner, healthier, whatever,
Speaker 7: and profits it's off a trade off between helping the
Speaker 7: environment and our material living standards and asking people I'm
Speaker 7: not talking about rich CEO type people find they could
Speaker 7: sacrifice more whatever, But for people to sacrifice, for people
Speaker 7: to live more difficult lives now to save the environment
Speaker 7: in the future, it's just never gonna be a winning message.
Speaker 7: So we need and now I'm for protecting the environment.
Speaker 7: I'm for moving to cleaner sources of energy as it
Speaker 7: makes sense to do so, as you can still make
Speaker 7: those technologies as they become more profitable over time, ending
Speaker 7: like Europe should and its dependency on Russian gas and oil,
Speaker 7: that would be great move from oil to gain I
Speaker 7: would say mood to nuclear, which is very clean and
Speaker 7: very safe, which I know people on the left don't like,
Speaker 7: and we moved away from and I think that's been
Speaker 7: very actually disastrous for both the environment and profits and
Speaker 7: having a more environmentally safe standards. But look, you can't
Speaker 7: just say like, oh, yeah, you're gonna we're gonna take
Speaker 7: away your access to really high functioning washing machines, or
Speaker 7: we're gonna take your way your access to gas stews,
Speaker 7: like normal ordinary working people are actually the ones who
Speaker 7: are the most annoyed by that because rich people can
Speaker 7: just can buy fancier things that cost more and it
Speaker 7: doesn't matter to them. The higher environmental ESG standards are
Speaker 7: felt by people who don't have money to spare.
Speaker 13: This is why being a business leader is an art
Speaker 13: and not just a science.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 13: A first principle of the United States for the government itself,
Speaker 13: is to be a broker between individual liberty, which includes
Speaker 13: financial liberty, economic liberty, and a concern for the common good.
Speaker 13: And I think a righteous CEO. I think a responsible
Speaker 13: business leader is one who is obviously seeking to make
Speaker 13: a profit, obviously to increase value for your stockholders, but
Speaker 13: realizes that there are other stakeholders as well, and that
Speaker 13: includes the people who breathe the era on this planet,
Speaker 13: that includes our grandchildren. So I don't think it has
Speaker 13: to be an either or, And I think America is
Speaker 13: righteous when we're at a big both. And can we
Speaker 13: move on to Panama? Now?
Speaker 6: I bought it here?
Speaker 1: My God, the ads right, and yes, yes, everybody listening,
Speaker 1: I have regular listenership on things like this. Ads annoy
Speaker 1: me too. Come to Patreon that's where we have the
Speaker 1: ad free listening. It's a I'm gonna say on that.
Speaker 6: Moving on, thank go.
Speaker 3: Ahead, thank god that takes your three hour videos to hut. Sorry,
Speaker 3: I was gonna say, because that takes your three hour
Speaker 3: episodes and it makes it that much longer.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I know. It's dude. We get so much
Speaker 1: hatred in comment section for the amount of ads. First
Speaker 1: of all, we have no control over the amount of
Speaker 1: ads that get put onto our episodes. We don't. Okay,
Speaker 1: we can either have ads or no ads. One of
Speaker 1: those is the way that we can have this be
Speaker 1: our full time job, and the other makes this completely
Speaker 1: a hobby. I'm not a fan of them. But at
Speaker 1: the same time, it's not like I myself, this is
Speaker 1: my personal account. I don't have some sort of like
Speaker 1: paid membership to YouTube where I have the ad free shit.
Speaker 1: I don't have that on Spotify either or Apple or
Speaker 1: any of that. I am just a regular dude, and
Speaker 1: it annoys the shit out of me too. For anybody listening,
Speaker 1: come to Patreon, I'm telling you, I hate the ads too. Anyway,
Speaker 1: let's do this night.
Speaker 13: The President says, it's like he's going around threatening countries,
Speaker 13: not just Canada, he says about Panama. He says, we're
Speaker 13: going to take the Panama Canal one way or the other.
Speaker 5: We're going to take it.
Speaker 13: Excuse me because right now, whether you agree with what
Speaker 13: happened before in the seventies I think it was or not,
Speaker 13: it doesn't belong to us right now now. One of
Speaker 13: the problems that the president has with all this has
Speaker 13: to do with China. So you think the head of
Speaker 13: Panama wasn't on the phone with the Chinese this morning.
Speaker 13: We are not thinking at all about the repercussions of
Speaker 13: some of this. He's like a bull in the China shop.
Speaker 7: And oh, but I think this move was aimed very
Speaker 7: directly at curbing the Chinese influence.
Speaker 5: I agree with you a.
Speaker 7: We should not seek to conquer Panama or Greenland, or
Speaker 7: it's ridiculous. I don't actually think it's being contemplated. We
Speaker 7: don't want to have more military engagement anywhere.
Speaker 13: What about his wine.
Speaker 5: Influence, I don't know what that means.
Speaker 7: I hope that means greater economic engagement with the relevant
Speaker 7: stakeholders in Greenland, Panama, et cetera, to have a better
Speaker 7: and more prosperous trade and economic relationship on our terms.
Speaker 5: This is an important.
Speaker 13: Issue for those of us who see things a little differently.
Speaker 13: I'm told all the time by conservative friends, by Trump
Speaker 13: voter friends, and so forth. Oh, Mariannie doesn't mean that.
Speaker 13: He doesn't mean that. The more time goes on, the
Speaker 13: more some of these crazy things he says. Oh, he
Speaker 13: does mean. So when the President stood up last night
Speaker 13: and he said we're going to get it one way
Speaker 13: or the other, We're going to get it. The President's
Speaker 13: behavior at this point.
Speaker 5: I don't think that seeds the deal that he wants.
Speaker 5: He's going to get lie he's getting with Zelenski after
Speaker 5: all the.
Speaker 13: Fact that he's a tough negotiator at times, I think
Speaker 13: all of us are like, Yeah, if we are being
Speaker 13: treated unfairly by Panama in terms of Chinese ships, et cetera,
Speaker 13: I'm okay with that. That's very different than saying we're
Speaker 13: going to get it back one way or the other.
Speaker 13: And I think that we have every reason as Americans
Speaker 13: who expect far more sobriety, far more responsibility, and far
Speaker 13: less ineptitude on the part of our presence.
Speaker 5: One last thought on the Black Rock story.
Speaker 7: You know, when he says we're not going to do DEI,
Speaker 7: we want to just hire the best and brightest people
Speaker 7: and have diverse perspectives. I think sixty seventy percent of
Speaker 7: Americans agree with that.
Speaker 13: What's wrong with that, Well, you know, on the I
Speaker 13: think on the deif if they feel that there's coming
Speaker 13: back to the center. In terms of the way companies operate,
Speaker 13: it's not for me to say, because it's a private company.
Speaker 13: In terms of saying to anybody who who values diversity inclusion,
Speaker 13: who values the idea that we must include people who
Speaker 13: have been historically wronged in the way we function as
Speaker 13: a society, number one, I'm all for that. Number Two,
Speaker 13: I don't like the idea of the government saying this
Speaker 13: is what I this is not how I should see things,
Speaker 13: even like this, even as woke stuff. All right, some
Speaker 13: of it makes me roll my eyes as well, But.
Speaker 5: That's not the point.
Speaker 13: The government. People, if they want to look at it
Speaker 13: that way, they get to look at it that way.
Speaker 13: I get to look at things my way. You get
Speaker 13: to look at things your way. And I would never
Speaker 13: say to you, even though I think you're wrong most
Speaker 13: of the time and you think I'm wrong most of
Speaker 13: the time, I would never say to you. And I
Speaker 13: sure as hell don't think the government should be telling
Speaker 13: you that your way of thinking should die.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 5: I don't think you're wrong about that at all.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 13: Okay, we agree on that one.
Speaker 1: Okay, so let's discuss everybody as far as the Black
Speaker 1: Rock Group doing it. Well, Okay, let's back up to
Speaker 1: what you said about Trump saying one way or another,
Speaker 1: we're gonna get it. I understand why they think that
Speaker 1: that initiation that clearly means military action. I don't believe
Speaker 1: that that's gonna happen. Trump the DOS organization just cut
Speaker 1: DoD funding. They're not trying to get us involved in
Speaker 1: another war. If anything, he's trying to prevent us from
Speaker 1: going into some sort of war. From what I could
Speaker 1: tell anyway, He's a guy that makes deals. He wrote
Speaker 1: a book on the art of the deal, as a
Speaker 1: matter of fact, and I think that this is how
Speaker 1: that happens. This is very similar to how I think
Speaker 1: the Ukrainian mineral deal is gonna take place. It's not
Speaker 1: gonna be by United States military action, regardless of what
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson says. Thinking that America's done everything shy of
Speaker 1: launching nukes at Russia and that we are fully at
Speaker 1: war with Russia right now, I think that that's a
Speaker 1: preposterous claim. But this is how that happens. If, for instance,
Speaker 1: if an American business on the Panama Canal was to
Speaker 1: get bombed by some foreign government, foreign military, the American
Speaker 1: military will now step in. But this is how you
Speaker 1: do it on the business end, to where you don't
Speaker 1: have to come at it from a military end. I mean,
Speaker 1: what are your thoughts on this whole SHEBANKI.
Speaker 6: Yeah, well I got one, which is what's going on
Speaker 6: with the Panama Canal reminds me of all the people
Speaker 6: arguing over what's been going on in the South China
Speaker 6: Sea for the last five plus years, except it's in
Speaker 6: our hemisphere instead of theirs. As far as I'm concerned, Yeah,
Speaker 6: maybe Panama should control the canal, but it's more in
Speaker 6: the US sphere of influence. It's in our hemisphere, and
Speaker 6: I see how our country has a lot of interest
Speaker 6: in controlling it too, And Trump even mentioned that it
Speaker 6: was a lot of Americans who died building it. And
Speaker 6: I would also agree that China has more interest in
Speaker 6: their local water ways than we do either. So hopefully
Speaker 6: we can both just stick to our spheres of influence.
Speaker 6: That would be ideal, but I guess that never happens,
Speaker 6: because there's a dollar to be made if control can
Speaker 6: be shifted anywhere in the world. Maryann Williamson, she seemed
Speaker 6: a lot more annoying than I remembered her during the
Speaker 6: Democrat primaries back in twenty twenty. I was like, Oh,
Speaker 6: come on, you're just the twentieth central century socialist. I mean,
Speaker 6: I think it's like, oh, shut up.
Speaker 1: Most liberals are, from what I can tell most and
Speaker 1: I'm not saying those that happen to be registered Democrat,
Speaker 1: most liberals these days, or not even just left of center,
Speaker 1: like true liberals are twentieth century central socialists. It's or
Speaker 1: at least it's like socialism light right. That's that's essentially
Speaker 1: what they want. More government interference, even though she is
Speaker 1: at this moment saying the government shouldn't tell you how
Speaker 1: to feel, even though it's exactly what the government has
Speaker 1: been doing for the past entirety of the administration. I yeah,
Speaker 1: by an administration, that's all they did was tell the
Speaker 1: American people what they should feel about things, rather than
Speaker 1: telling them what the situation was.
Speaker 6: Or in terms of how to high people and you know,
Speaker 6: qualifying it based on race and other protected characteristics. That's
Speaker 6: exactly what the Civil Rights does. That's exactly what the
Speaker 6: EEOC does. And those requirements only get stricter and more
Speaker 6: strictly enforced when Democrats are in power. And this may
Speaker 6: be an unpopular opinion, but I'm against the Civil Rights
Speaker 6: Act as we currently have it. That's kind of an
Speaker 6: LPNH position too. It's done too far. We got to
Speaker 6: just peel it back to just outlawing Jim Crow laws
Speaker 6: and not trying to control whether the breakdown of the
Speaker 6: workforce at a particular company matches particular demographics, because it's
Speaker 6: never gonna no.
Speaker 1: Just like you said earlier, there are certain people that
Speaker 1: believe that there is an equal number of black and
Speaker 1: white people in America. That is mathematically inaccurate. Now, depending
Speaker 1: on what state and what city you live in, it
Speaker 1: may appear to be so. But the last statistic that
Speaker 1: I saw was two to one white to black right,
Speaker 1: and that's nation wide new way, And I mean, I'm
Speaker 1: that's generalizing. I'm sure it's a little bit more or
Speaker 1: less in that regard. And I remember the last time
Speaker 1: I looked up that statistic as a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: was whenever the it wasn't was it out in Sterling
Speaker 1: when that killing happened, and everybody was going on and
Speaker 1: on about how the whole BLM movement and all this stuff.
Speaker 1: I was having this conversation with some guys I worked with.
Speaker 1: I was at a shell in guys from Louisiana at
Speaker 1: that time as a matter of fact, and the statistics
Speaker 1: on this was something that they, even the people in
Speaker 1: the smoke pin of black and white, they both couldn't
Speaker 1: believe this when I said it. So we had a
Speaker 1: couple of guys start googling things and come to find
Speaker 1: out I was right here. So two to one white people, men,
Speaker 1: women didn't matter. White people are shot and killed by
Speaker 1: police every year than black people. That's a two to
Speaker 1: one ratio. Okay, And two to one white people are
Speaker 1: arrested by police officers than black people every year without fail.
Speaker 1: Now what does that tell you, right? It says that
Speaker 1: the ones that are breaking the law are going to
Speaker 1: break the law regardless of their skin color. There's about
Speaker 1: an equal number of outlaws regardless of racial background. Now,
Speaker 1: now where the potential systemic racism comes into play is
Speaker 1: whenever you look at in the judicial system, in a
Speaker 1: court of law a black man first offense, first offense
Speaker 1: for a black man and a white man, the black
Speaker 1: man is three times more likely to get a harsher
Speaker 1: prison sentence than the white man. And that is also
Speaker 1: a fact. That's a statistical fact. Now, that is not
Speaker 1: racism with police officers. If anything, that's racism with judges.
Speaker 1: And if we want to address that as a nation
Speaker 1: and say that that's where we need to start putting
Speaker 1: more pressure, I'm here for it. Three to one. That's absurd.
Speaker 1: But it's not the cop killings and all this shit
Speaker 1: that they were trying to boost and blast throughout the
Speaker 1: narratives and on the media escapes for the past ten years, right. No,
Speaker 1: it's I want this country to get back to being
Speaker 1: a meritocracy. And there's gonna be some that will say
Speaker 1: it never was a meritocracy. It's always been about uh,
Speaker 1: you know, nepotism and who you know and all these things.
Speaker 1: I get it, and I also understand the and I
Speaker 1: have empathy for those that may not have had the
Speaker 1: opportunities to get the good jobs, right, people that were
Speaker 1: born into bad situations and never had the opportunity to
Speaker 1: go for a higher education or a higher trade school
Speaker 1: for people who wanted that opportunity, but because of just X,
Speaker 1: Y or Z reasons, that was never afforded to them.
Speaker 1: I get it, and yes, I believe we should have
Speaker 1: something in place to help these people get the opportunity
Speaker 1: that everybody deserves. I'm with this, okay, in it out loud,
Speaker 1: in theory, that sounds great, But to do it to
Speaker 1: such a way to where the government will start, uh
Speaker 1: what's the word.
Speaker 6: When they disparate impact.
Speaker 15: Right punishes when the businesses for not having thirty percent
Speaker 15: of the workforce be women or thirty percent of the
Speaker 15: workforce being X type of minority or whatever.
Speaker 1: No, that's we got to quit that shit. The government
Speaker 1: should have no place in business, the same way the
Speaker 1: government should have no place in religion.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I think our country is still sixty five percent
Speaker 6: white and falling. It's something like fourteen percent black and
Speaker 6: that's kind of steady. And then the rest is Hispanic,
Speaker 6: Asian and multiple races.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the Hispanic community was on the rise. Anyway, We'll
Speaker 1: see what happens in the next four years.
Speaker 6: Have a weird field, at least in Texas, it seems
Speaker 6: like there's a ton of them. Well yeah, and in Louisiana.
Speaker 6: There's probably probably a disproportionately higher number of black people too,
Speaker 6: as compared to maybe Oklahoma or California, Oregon and stuff
Speaker 6: like that.
Speaker 1: Sure, and I mean in Montana, I just have a
Speaker 1: weird feeling there's not that many Hispanics, Like I'm sure
Speaker 1: there is. I'm sure there is, probably not as much
Speaker 1: as there is, you know, white people just throwing it out.
Speaker 1: I know that I might be completely off base here,
Speaker 1: but yeah, it depends on location in the nation. For sure.
Speaker 1: The closer you get to the border, the more Hispanish Gonacy.
Speaker 1: But then you look at a Oregon and Washington, they
Speaker 1: have a booming Hispanic population there, which is crazy. Alaska,
Speaker 1: crazy high number of Hispanics there. I didn't know that, honestly.
Speaker 1: That kind of shocked me. But yeah, man, when they
Speaker 1: decided to go north, they wanted to go to the
Speaker 1: far North. And I mean, all right, no one's gonna
Speaker 1: be Ice is not looking for them in Alaska, you
Speaker 1: know what I mean? Like, if anything, that might have
Speaker 1: been a wide strategy move on their part. I get it.
Speaker 3: But anyway that Jacob Ice.
Speaker 1: Ice didn't go into Alaska, it's already there. I like
Speaker 1: it oh Man. Now, all right, as we're talking about
Speaker 1: black Rock and all these things, I did want to
Speaker 1: bring up this one last little article before we wrap
Speaker 1: it up for the evening here talking about why Ukrainians
Speaker 1: are skeptical of a ceasefire deal even after three years
Speaker 1: of war. Now this is from NPR, so take that
Speaker 1: with a grain assault. It's going to be very left leaning,
Speaker 1: and because it's left leaning, I have a weird feeling
Speaker 1: it's going to be very pro Ukrainian. I don't know,
Speaker 1: but Ukrainians being skeptical of the seasfire even after three
Speaker 1: years of this and Trump making these deals and the
Speaker 1: mineral deals and all of these things, it's interesting. This
Speaker 1: is from February. By the way, it has been three
Speaker 1: years since Russia laws his full scale invasion of Ukraine.
Speaker 1: MPR's i'm not gonna pronounce that name speaks with the
Speaker 1: Ukrainian journalists. I'm not going to pronounce that name either.
Speaker 1: About how Ukrainians feel about the ceasefire discussions that don't
Speaker 1: include them, she says. We now want to focus on
Speaker 1: how negotiations over ceasefire are being received by Ukrainians, especially
Speaker 1: as it appears a deal would make them code or
Speaker 1: seed territory and influence to Russia. Natalia is a Ukrainian
Speaker 1: journalist based in Kiev and the co founder of the
Speaker 1: Reckoning Project, which has been documenting human rights abuses during
Speaker 1: the war. She says, tomorrow is the what the hell?
Speaker 1: Tomorrow is the third anniversary of the Russian invasion. You
Speaker 1: write in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs magazine that
Speaker 1: considering the human cost of the war and Russia's massive firepower,
Speaker 1: you might think Ukrainians would be eager to end the war.
Speaker 1: But you say that's not true. How do Ukrainians feel
Speaker 1: about the ceasefire discussions between the US and Russia. Natalia says, so,
Speaker 1: Ukrainians are eager to end the war, but with some
Speaker 1: level of security guarantees. For instance, the ceasefire which at
Speaker 1: current position will benefit Russia because Russia needs the post
Speaker 1: to rearm itself to decrease the Western support of Ukraine.
Speaker 1: And the concern is very serious that the ceasefire might
Speaker 1: give time for Russia for bigger war when Ukraine would
Speaker 1: be let's say, demobilized and occupy more territories. What I'm
Speaker 1: also claiming in the article is that we not speaking
Speaker 1: about just the human rights abuses, But how Russia you
Speaker 1: use the occupied territories to militarize them to create a
Speaker 1: larger launch path for even future invasions. And that's what
Speaker 1: Ukrainians tried to explain, that it's currently better to go
Speaker 1: on fighting rather than give it more time for Russia
Speaker 1: to wage an even bigger war in some time. And
Speaker 1: that part is missing in these talks because they are
Speaker 1: not all about that. Okay, so we're not going to
Speaker 1: read the entire conversation between the two, but I also
Speaker 1: find that to be an interesting thought here the ceasefire
Speaker 1: and this is that was in February. I think it's
Speaker 1: at twenty third, so it was a couple of weeks
Speaker 1: ago before the current ceasefire deals are talked about. But
Speaker 1: as a hypothetical here, a lot of people are of
Speaker 1: the belief and Tony, I actually want to get your
Speaker 1: two cents on this in specific here. So a lot
Speaker 1: of people are of the belief that Russia is Let's
Speaker 1: say that the ceasefire does take in Ukraine, and Russia
Speaker 1: takes the lands that they've already accomplished and grabbed, and
Speaker 1: they're satisfied, right, And let's say hypothetically they do not
Speaker 1: wait for the next administration to come in. Let's say
Speaker 1: hypothetically a Democrat wins and they know that they could
Speaker 1: get away with it again and go for even more
Speaker 1: land in Ukraine. Let's just say that that's not Putin's intent,
Speaker 1: all right. I've also heard that they are talking about
Speaker 1: invading Estonia. I've heard that they're talking about Poland. I've
Speaker 1: heard they're talking about a couple of different nations. Are
Speaker 1: truly worried that Russia's going to set their sights on
Speaker 1: them next. From what you have seen and from what
Speaker 1: you have researched, because I know you have a particular
Speaker 1: side of this aisle that you stand on, is there
Speaker 1: any basis of credence to this.
Speaker 6: I'm glad you asked, because personally I give zero freedence
Speaker 6: to the idea that Putin wants to gain any territory
Speaker 6: with a hostile population, including Poland or Estonia. The Estonian
Speaker 6: president or high rank and I don't know exactly what
Speaker 6: she is, but her name is Kara Kalis. She's always
Speaker 6: saying that Estonia is being threatened by being taken over
Speaker 6: by Russia. And they do have a history of that.
Speaker 6: Those Baltic states were owned by the Soviet Union. Many
Speaker 6: of those Baltic people welcomed the Germans as liberators in
Speaker 6: nineteen forty one. That's a true story. Also, Poland is
Speaker 6: very hostile to Germany and Russia throughout all its history,
Speaker 6: and they would be very hostile to Russia. Putin, for
Speaker 6: at least his public statements has been to say he
Speaker 6: has no interest in conquering anything other than these these
Speaker 6: four or five territories. Their names are the Ganska, Donetsk, Zapparogia,
Speaker 6: kirsn and Crimea because those places have a very Russian
Speaker 6: friendly population. Central and Western Ukraine do not have a
Speaker 6: Russian friendly population. Poland does not have a Russian friendly population.
Speaker 6: Putin is not a big time expansionist like Napoleon Hitler
Speaker 6: or Joseph Stalin. So I think I understand why the
Speaker 6: Ukrainians are afraid because let me give you a small
Speaker 6: perspective on just my own family history. I mentioned last
Speaker 6: night that my grandfather was almost recruited into those Werewolf
Speaker 6: brigades at the end of World War Two in nineteen
Speaker 6: forty five, and he burned his uniform and deserted. But
Speaker 6: many Germans were really afraid that they were going to
Speaker 6: be wiped out, they were going to be sterilized in mass.
Speaker 6: There were books to this effect. There was one called
Speaker 6: German He Must Perish, which was reviewed by the New
Speaker 6: York Times, and they were very, very very scared that
Speaker 6: something like that had a high probability of happening. I
Speaker 6: completely understand if many Ukrainians feel the same way. They
Speaker 6: don't want to give up fighting. They're afraid to give
Speaker 6: up fighting because what if somebody just marches in and
Speaker 6: kills all of us, even if the chance seems kind
Speaker 6: of low, Why risk it? And when you're already in
Speaker 6: your sunk cost fallacy of fiveighting and losing and fighting
Speaker 6: and losing. I think I understand the motivation to keep
Speaker 6: going and the belief that maybe we'll pull something good
Speaker 6: out of this, and I think they're stuck in that mindset. Also,
Speaker 6: there's only one politically acceptable opinion to have about the
Speaker 6: war in Ukraine right now, which is the same political,
Speaker 6: only politically acceptable opinion that it was allowed to have
Speaker 6: in Germany in nineteen forty five, which you've got to
Speaker 6: keep fighting because they're going to kill all of us,
Speaker 6: and after this is all over, you're going to have
Speaker 6: a bunch of people going, man, what the hell were
Speaker 6: we thinking? That was a big mistake. If there's a
Speaker 6: big disillusionment that comes at the end of pretty much
Speaker 6: every war, especially if you lose it like the South
Speaker 6: in the world in the Civil War or just wherever.
Speaker 6: So yeah, I think the Ukrainian opinion is I trust
Speaker 6: it's there, and I trust that there's also a diversity
Speaker 6: of opinion. But you're not going to hear the anti
Speaker 6: war opinions coming out of Ukraine right now. And it's
Speaker 6: reaching a natural end. Russia has won pretty much everything
Speaker 6: it ever wanted to, so I think it's going to end.
Speaker 6: It's reaching a natural end, and uh, we're just nothing
Speaker 6: I say is going to make a difference.
Speaker 1: But we're strictly talking in the hypothetical realm here, of course.
Speaker 1: I mean there's yeah, I don't I'm yeah, same very much.
Speaker 1: Same the whole thing about uh Moldova. I've also heard
Speaker 1: in North Macedonia. I've heard Estonia be mentioned. I mean,
Speaker 1: Poland has been getting ready for some type of military
Speaker 1: action against them for since Russia's even started this. As
Speaker 1: soon as Russia started moving blood bags to the Russian border,
Speaker 1: Poland started buying up every weapon that America would sell them,
Speaker 1: So I mean they're ready for it. I don't think
Speaker 1: that Russia wants that smoke with Poland. They are they're
Speaker 1: waiting for it. They're they're waiting on the bell to
Speaker 1: ring Estonia. I don't see what the strategic value of
Speaker 1: that would be. North Macedonia the same way, Moldova the
Speaker 1: same way. I don't. Putin didn't strike me as an
Speaker 1: expansionist until this situation. And yes, there's gonna be a
Speaker 1: lot of people that will say that, well, he wasn't
Speaker 1: trying to expand until they kept leaning more towards NATO.
Speaker 1: But because of this, two other nations have now joined NATO.
Speaker 1: So I'm hoping that he has seen that to be
Speaker 1: what it is and he doesn't want to continue pushing. Right,
Speaker 1: the ceasefire would hold, but they already have a track
Speaker 1: record of showing how the ceasefires haven't held in the past. Now,
Speaker 1: do you believe that's more because Ukraine kept making moves
Speaker 1: towards NATO or do you believe that's because that was
Speaker 1: never Putin's intent in the first place.
Speaker 6: Well, were these ceasefires part of the Minska agreements, because
Speaker 6: that would all be before this war. And I have
Speaker 6: not looked deep enough into this, but I've heard the
Speaker 6: allegation there have been twenty four seasfires and Putin's violated
Speaker 6: all of them. I don't remember any since twenty twenty two,
Speaker 6: so I think they're talking about the pre twenty twenty
Speaker 6: two period. And I would allege that the West was
Speaker 6: just as bad about violating the Minsk agreements, not giving
Speaker 6: the don Bass it's semi autonomous state that it should
Speaker 6: have had, which I'm sure gets really detailed if you
Speaker 6: look into the nitty gritty details. Miracle was never interested
Speaker 6: in forcing Ukraine to abide by the Minsk agreements, so
Speaker 6: I would not primarily blame Russia for violating the Ceasfire.
Speaker 6: Back then, there was a low key civil war going
Speaker 6: on for eight straight years, and yeah, Ceasfire, It's just
Speaker 6: I'd say it was violated by both sides. So Russia's
Speaker 6: taken something like eighty or one hundred miles of territory.
Speaker 6: They've pushed the border. I don't think fighting over, you know,
Speaker 6: pushing that border another mile east or west is really
Speaker 6: worth it to anybody. Let's just draw the line where
Speaker 6: it is, and Putin may insist on a buffer zone
Speaker 6: of an additional couple of miles or something. But at
Speaker 6: this point, I think we're arguing over minutia and the
Speaker 6: front lines aren't moving that much, and it's really worth
Speaker 6: it to just stop it. I think a great analogy
Speaker 6: of this would be the Mexican American War, which ended
Speaker 6: in eighteen forty six. I want to say forty five
Speaker 6: forty six. The US basically stole Texas from Mexico. And
Speaker 6: some people would argue against me on that, but for
Speaker 6: the sake of argument, let's just say US stole Texas
Speaker 6: from Mexico. Would it be worth it for Mexico to
Speaker 6: keep fighting to try to move the border back. No,
Speaker 6: they would just get slaughtered and the US Army would
Speaker 6: lose folks too. It's not worth it. It's better to
Speaker 6: just move the line and be done with it and
Speaker 6: stop the killing and stop the dying.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 6: So that's what Germany had to do too. Germany had
Speaker 6: to see lots of territory that had been German for
Speaker 6: eight hundred years. But it's better to just do that
Speaker 6: and stop to kill and stop the dying. It's a
Speaker 6: bitter pill to swallow, but you just have to do it.
Speaker 1: Sometimes I guess my only retort to what you've said,
Speaker 1: and I don't necessarily disagree with a lot of it,
Speaker 1: is you're saying that Russia has got the lands that
Speaker 1: they set out to get, right, or at least the
Speaker 1: majority of them, or the majority of those oblasty and
Speaker 1: all of that when they made their initial push. If
Speaker 1: those are the areas that they were trying to get
Speaker 1: at initially, why did they have a line going to Kiev.
Speaker 6: Okay, that's a good question. Yeah, that was over expansionist
Speaker 6: of them, and they basically got kicked out. It could
Speaker 6: not keep the areas around Kiev. They could not keep Butcha.
Speaker 6: There's a big controversy over a massacre that happened in Butcha,
Speaker 6: and both sides point the finger at each other. I
Speaker 6: do not know who's actually responsible for that the massacre.
Speaker 1: I mean, at that point, who even knows. But they
Speaker 1: had a seventy mile truck pile up because they, again,
Speaker 1: they overestimated themselves, and that was very clear very early
Speaker 1: on as far as like what the Russian military might
Speaker 1: actually had to bring to the table. But yeah, I
Speaker 1: just I've heard some theories to say that, well, they
Speaker 1: were going to just take Kiev. And use that as
Speaker 1: a bargaining chip to take the lands they wanted, and
Speaker 1: then they were going to go back home, only with
Speaker 1: these oblasti that they were after. I don't I personally
Speaker 1: don't see how and why that would have been their move.
Speaker 6: But you know, Putin's speech at the very beginning would
Speaker 6: have justified taking the whole country. That's kind of what
Speaker 6: he sounded like, and that would have been overly expansionist.
Speaker 6: I don't know if he would have taken it and
Speaker 6: then pulled back or tried to hold all of it.
Speaker 6: I don't think he would have tried to hold all
Speaker 6: of it personally, but I can understand the idea of,
Speaker 6: you know, trying to occupy it and neutralize whatever threats
Speaker 6: are there first, instead of letting them stit there and
Speaker 6: regroup and a more long term war effort. It's kind
Speaker 6: of like when you go into Germany. It's obviously hostile
Speaker 6: territory to the Soviets and the Americans and everyone else,
Speaker 6: but you just got to go in and stomp out
Speaker 6: every last square foot you can find, and then you
Speaker 6: can think about withdrawing later. Maybe it's a similar line
Speaker 6: of thinking.
Speaker 1: I hope that the ceasefire holds. I hope that the
Speaker 1: American mineral deal will set up shop for American businesses
Speaker 1: in Ukraine, and that Putin would be wise enough to
Speaker 1: not try to get in the way of American business
Speaker 1: because that's not going to be a wise move. I
Speaker 1: think that that is actually a very smart thing for
Speaker 1: Trump to do. As a matter of fact, it set
Speaker 1: up American businesses in such a way to where if
Speaker 1: anybody was to attack that, it would be a declaration
Speaker 1: of war on America itself. I think that's a brilliant idea.
Speaker 1: And I've heard people say that that's not exactly the
Speaker 1: case because America had those biolabs along the Russian Ukrainian border,
Speaker 1: and when Russia took over, they took off those bio labs.
Speaker 1: Where was the American upheaval for that? And it's like,
Speaker 1: you understand, those biolabs were being operated off the books,
Speaker 1: like they were owned by American companies, but through shell
Speaker 1: corporations they were making like saran gas and shit like
Speaker 1: we couldn't, Yeah, we couldn't clearly say that that was
Speaker 1: American owned. That would have been a really bad move
Speaker 1: for us because then we would have had to acknowledge
Speaker 1: that we're the ones that sold Saddam Hussein the saran
Speaker 1: gas bombs he used on his Kurdish population and nobody
Speaker 1: wanted to.
Speaker 6: Just saw a video, yeah, yeah, of a Russian general
Speaker 6: saying they identified for two hundred and forty compounds linked
Speaker 6: to Boston University in Ukraine, primarily anthrax and cholera. There
Speaker 6: were probably others too. Yeah, the video wasn't Russian. It
Speaker 6: was subtitled luckily.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 6: Also, this week or just over the last few days,
Speaker 6: Russia has taken most of kurse region back. The last
Speaker 6: big city to go is called Suja, and they're fighting
Speaker 6: for it right now. So Kursk is about to be
Speaker 6: Russian again. They are. They've invaded the Sumi region, which
Speaker 6: is right across from Kersk. So most of these disputed territories,
Speaker 6: the five I mentioned earlier, they're all in the south
Speaker 6: and east of the country. But Kursk is kind of
Speaker 6: center north. Yeah, Sumi is kind of centered north. It's
Speaker 6: near Kiev. I think it's a little east to Kia.
Speaker 1: So you know, while since I looked at the maps
Speaker 1: of the front lines, so I don't know, but I'll
Speaker 1: I believe it, Okay, uh huh.
Speaker 6: So that's going on there. I'm trying to remember what
Speaker 6: else is going on. The front lines are not moving
Speaker 6: that much. It's just a stalemate like World War One.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, I'm hoping that ceasefires will hold, American businesses
Speaker 1: will get set up there, and this can be a
Speaker 1: long lasting piece and ceasefire and that everybody can go
Speaker 1: home feeling like they took some sort of a w
Speaker 1: from it. And I guess we'll have to see if
Speaker 1: Putin is in fact on an expansion his kick right now,
Speaker 1: and we'll see if he does try to invade Estonia
Speaker 1: and then all these places. I don't know. God, I
Speaker 1: hope he doesn't. I really hope he doesn't.
Speaker 6: But I'd give you one hundred dollars if he does.
Speaker 6: Y'all heard, pretty sure.
Speaker 1: Y'all heard on the mic Tony is on the hook
Speaker 1: for a hundred bucks. If Putin goes into another country?
Speaker 6: Wait, should I qualify that as Estonia or Poland?
Speaker 1: Oh, now we're gonna get specific.
Speaker 6: Now, I guess Georgia. I don't know. There was the
Speaker 6: thing with Georgia in two thousand and eight, and there's
Speaker 6: always a chance something like that can happen again. But
Speaker 6: let's see Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania or Poland, let's see where else,
Speaker 6: or Finland. I would say, yeah, no chance, I'll give
Speaker 6: you a hundred bucks if he if he steps a
Speaker 6: foot into any of those.
Speaker 1: Well, Finland is part of NATO now, aren't they?
Speaker 6: Yeah they are now?
Speaker 1: Yeah? No, he would never, good God, he would never.
Speaker 6: Although I also was Estonia. I'm pretty sure I think
Speaker 6: all the Baltic states are since two thousand.
Speaker 1: And four, it was Estonia. I remember Estonia and Finland
Speaker 1: were the two that jumped in since Ukraine got invaded.
Speaker 1: I forgot about Estonia.
Speaker 6: Waitit no, it's just Sweden and Finland since twenty twenty two.
Speaker 6: We think all the Baltic states in Poland were two
Speaker 6: thousand and four.
Speaker 1: Okay, damn well, yeah that makes sense. And the Baltics
Speaker 1: wanted to make sure they would never go back into
Speaker 1: the Russian grouping. Okay, I guess we'll find out. I hope,
Speaker 1: I hope. I'm I'm talking completely out of my ass here.
Speaker 1: I'm hoping that it was the it was the absolute
Speaker 1: you know, kicking the pants that Putin hoped it would be,
Speaker 1: and that they got all the resources and that he
Speaker 1: stopped the NATO expansion in the way that he hoped
Speaker 1: he would, and like, it's all gonna work out. I
Speaker 1: really hope so, because dude, we don't need another forever war,
Speaker 1: and this was getting ready to become a forever war.
Speaker 1: It just it's time to bring it in. It's time
Speaker 1: to bring it in for a good closing. But uh yeah, wow.
Speaker 1: All right, With all this being said, everybody, I want
Speaker 1: to thank you all for joining me on another live
Speaker 1: edition of The Cajun Night again. For anybody who would
Speaker 1: like to join in the conversation next week, come to
Speaker 1: Patreon link is in the description below. There's only one
Speaker 1: tier from membership. Nobody's trying to get rich off of
Speaker 1: this ship. I'm just trying to get a little community
Speaker 1: built that likes having these types of conversations. And uh yeah,
Speaker 1: as always, thank you all for joining me. God bless