Speaker 1: The Chilly Effect is sponsored by Wallstreet, Window dot com
Speaker 1: and this missus liking yeah, nostivated in.
Speaker 2: A media.
Speaker 3: February twenty seven, twenty twenty six, allegedly according to that
Speaker 3: thing we call a calendar and know I'm not having
Speaker 3: a stroke. That's the date anyway, how you doing. It's
Speaker 3: Friday night and we are live just about five minutes
Speaker 3: after eight pm Eastern here in what we used to
Speaker 3: call America. So I did really manage to release a
Speaker 3: couple of podcasts this week, and one of them was
Speaker 3: with Larry Hancock, and unfortunately, you know, part of the
Speaker 3: discussion with Larry didn't go well. But upgrades are a coming,
Speaker 3: so sometime in April we should be on a completely
Speaker 3: different platform. Also still on the existing platforms as per usual,
Speaker 3: just expanding and we're gonna see what happens when the
Speaker 3: Ocell Effect goes live on Rumble, because I'm not gonna
Speaker 3: bother with YouTube, which is an unfortunate thing, but uh look,
Speaker 3: uh Google told me I'm unwanted, so therefore we're not
Speaker 3: going there anyway. It's gonna be an interesting test, not
Speaker 3: only for my dwindling audience, but for the people I
Speaker 3: partner with and we're going to see who puts in
Speaker 3: some skin into the game because that's the only way
Speaker 3: the game is going to get played, uh from now on.
Speaker 3: And uh oh. In that regard, we do have Aaron
Speaker 3: comeing live at ten pm Eastern tonight, so the Age
Speaker 3: of Transitions will happen, and then Uncle the podcast will
Speaker 3: be live also at eleven pm Eastern, So you know,
Speaker 3: stick around and keep listening to the Ocelli dot com
Speaker 3: radio feed if you're hearing us live, and if not,
Speaker 3: you're hearing a podcast, and that stuff is likely on
Speaker 3: the feed or soon to be there. Anyway, There it is, there,
Speaker 3: it was, and that's what it is. You can join
Speaker 3: in with this if you like. You me, my co
Speaker 3: host b Pete is with me, and uh you can
Speaker 3: do that too. Three one nine five two seven five
Speaker 3: zero one six. That's the number to call. And you know,
Speaker 3: when we go over to the video thing, I was
Speaker 3: just telling Bpte, we're gonna have to figure out a
Speaker 3: way to kind of like, you know, put one of
Speaker 3: those banners that keeps running by, that keeps telling you
Speaker 3: the number to call in which I think Aaron does
Speaker 3: on the stream for Uncle already on the various platforms,
Speaker 3: and we'll see how many things we can plug into,
Speaker 3: uh maybe with riverside as, are as, our you know,
Speaker 3: off off site software, and we'll see if that's the
Speaker 3: conduit for us, you know, but a whole year that's
Speaker 3: going to be paid for by an anonymous benefactor, So
Speaker 3: we shall see how that goes and see if I
Speaker 3: get rejected over there. I have a feeling not so much.
Speaker 3: I think we're gonna actually rebuild the audience that has
Speaker 3: slowly been destroyed over the past couple of years, because
Speaker 3: you know, we're down to just a couple thousand people
Speaker 3: really and at one point, oh, it's more like one
Speaker 3: hundred thousand people listening to what it is I was doing.
Speaker 3: But now audio not in vogue. You got to be
Speaker 3: out there with a YouTube channel, you know, that's the
Speaker 3: only way to be somebody, apparently that and have an
Speaker 3: interesting Twitter account excuse me x account, you know, and
Speaker 3: and put on douchebags like Bart Sebrel to tell you
Speaker 3: that the moon landing was faked. You know, That's that's
Speaker 3: the key to success, Joe Rogan. Well, that and also
Speaker 3: to declare yourself the king of comedy even though you're
Speaker 3: not funny, but anyway, you know, it is a thing,
Speaker 3: and podcasting is now not just a joke, it is
Speaker 3: something else. And is there alternative media? Maybe we'll get
Speaker 3: into that discussion tonight. And my annoyance with a whole
Speaker 3: bunch of emails from people who seem to think that
Speaker 3: it's a surprise to me that I was correct again
Speaker 3: about what's happening to the mainstream corporate media. But you know,
Speaker 3: I'm getting bored with this. You hate me because I
Speaker 3: tell you something you don't want to hear. Six months later,
Speaker 3: you figure out what's happening. Then you email me and
Speaker 3: tell me you're sorry. You didn't support me for six months,
Speaker 3: and guess what the punchline is. You still don't support me,
Speaker 3: so you know you're not getting your emails red on air.
Speaker 3: I do read all the crap in the box, though
Speaker 3: it's that simple. If you actually supported me, I might
Speaker 3: read or reference your emails. Just ask my friends who
Speaker 3: do that. Anyway, enough of the personal stuff, let's try
Speaker 3: to have some fun because I don't want to discuss
Speaker 3: the state of the union. I already made my statement
Speaker 3: about that. I gave you guys a snap who news
Speaker 3: with as little commentary for me as possible. You got
Speaker 3: Larry Hancock this week and now be Pete. So you
Speaker 3: know my co host who is going to carry over
Speaker 3: to the new platform, and hopefully we'll bring Aaron and
Speaker 3: Uncle over there as well. But who knows who else
Speaker 3: might join the network in the transitional period, which I
Speaker 3: hope to begin in April. So stick around and listen,
Speaker 3: pay attention and watch for the media spheres for that. Anyways,
Speaker 3: that I put in a nice long plug for about
Speaker 3: what four minutes almost Pete, Pete, How are you doing
Speaker 3: this week before we get to any callers or anything,
Speaker 3: because God knows what they might have to say this week.
Speaker 4: Oh, I'm doing well, but it's been a regular monsoon
Speaker 4: here all. We haven't been able to get much done
Speaker 4: outside has been raining off and on every damn day
Speaker 4: for five days. But other than that, we're doing well.
Speaker 4: Spring is getting ready to kick in, so should be
Speaker 4: getting busy with a lot of stuff, a lot of
Speaker 4: projects that got lined up and.
Speaker 3: Other than that.
Speaker 4: I just got a list of five things that I
Speaker 4: picked up during the week that maybe we can discuss
Speaker 4: tonight if somebody wants to call in and discuss any
Speaker 4: of them, and so I'll start my list real quick.
Speaker 4: Number One, Sure, the team USA hockey Team one gold,
Speaker 4: forty six years after we beat the last communist country
Speaker 4: that we played, Canada, is you know, trying to be
Speaker 4: the bigger sport. But niner, niner, we don't give a
Speaker 4: damn well. One, I'll leave it at that. Two the
Speaker 4: State of the Union. I didn't watch it. I don't care.
Speaker 4: All I know is my pizza index is telling us
Speaker 4: we're getting screwed royally. You used to can get three
Speaker 4: tombstone pizzas for ten bucks. Now you're lucky if you
Speaker 4: can find two for ten bucks. It's getting ridiculous. Number
Speaker 4: Three in the UK turmoil. They just had an election.
Speaker 4: They've got their great gangs going on. You know, if
Speaker 4: you know what I mean, Tommy Robinson had to flee.
Speaker 4: And to tell you the power of suggestion, I was
Speaker 4: listening to the Red Hot Chili Peppers when I wrote
Speaker 4: that down and spelled flee fla no figure.
Speaker 3: Okay, let's see what else we got. Oh.
Speaker 4: The two thousand and three Bohemian Grove attendance list has
Speaker 4: been released by a journalist named Daniel bogus Law. So
Speaker 4: I downloaded that and I'm will peruse that sometime in
Speaker 4: the next few days just to figure out who was
Speaker 4: buddying up with who and number five and this one
Speaker 4: may be the most important the Rock and Roll Hall
Speaker 4: of Fame. Now, they've only been around since eighty six
Speaker 4: receiving inductees, and I think they started out on a
Speaker 4: good note. But there's been some questionable picks over years,
Speaker 4: and that is they have nominated Shakira for a position.
Speaker 4: I believe Luther Vandross was also one of the people
Speaker 4: that they're nominating for induction, and controversies aside. For years
Speaker 4: has been said that a bunch of non music people
Speaker 4: are showing favoritism when they make these selections. But I
Speaker 4: found out some things about Shakira. I didn't know that
Speaker 4: woman is fifty years old. Now, anybody the feminine skin
Speaker 4: care beauty products business is a multi billion dollar business.
Speaker 4: All you've got to do is go ask Shakira whatever
Speaker 4: the hell she's been doing and do that. I have
Speaker 4: never seen a more well preserved fifty year old anything
Speaker 4: than her. She had to look a day over her
Speaker 4: late twenties. She's awesome. But on top of that, you know,
Speaker 4: to be considered you have to go twenty five years
Speaker 4: since your first commercial release, and she had I think
Speaker 4: four albums. She had four albums out before she even
Speaker 4: hit the English market. She was predominantly on the Latin market.
Speaker 4: In fact, she's probably more influential than a lot of
Speaker 4: people you would think for bringing Latin music into the mainstream.
Speaker 3: She's had.
Speaker 4: Had four Grammys, She's had fifteen, I believe Latin Grammys.
Speaker 4: She started in nineteen ninety one at fourteen years old.
Speaker 4: Does she Kira count as rock and roll? And that's
Speaker 4: my big question?
Speaker 3: Okay, So shall I go front to back or back
Speaker 3: to front on your list and explain to you how
Speaker 3: it is that we are so different, which is going
Speaker 3: to make this partnership really really interesting as we go forward,
Speaker 3: because you know, for many years I tried to change
Speaker 3: your mind, and I've now decided that instead, what I'm
Speaker 3: going to do is my very best effort to weaponize
Speaker 3: what it is that you are insistent on. So but
Speaker 3: but in the meantime, I want to demonstrate the difference
Speaker 3: in our thinking really quickly. Here. So shall I go
Speaker 3: with your your toplet of your list or the bottom
Speaker 3: of your list? First? Oh?
Speaker 4: I don't care. You can mix it, mix them up
Speaker 4: if you want a little from column, a little Collin b.
Speaker 3: Okay, well just keep me on track here. Let let's
Speaker 3: start with the first thing you mentioned, which I believe
Speaker 3: was the Olympic hockey team and the victory of the men.
Speaker 3: And I think you mentioned the men, but I don't
Speaker 3: know if you mentioned the women's hockey. But either way,
Speaker 3: hockey teams last week okay, they yeah, they had already
Speaker 3: gotten their medal by last Friday.
Speaker 4: We didn't win our goal until Sunday.
Speaker 3: Well, because this has never been anything other than a
Speaker 3: weapon of propaganda and an encouragement of tribalism, I see
Speaker 3: almost no relevance in this. I mean, do people actually
Speaker 3: still like swell? Oh? Yes, Team USA one? Yeah? USA.
Speaker 3: I mean, I know we saw that performatively on Capitol Hill,
Speaker 3: but I mean I don't believe most of the performances
Speaker 3: I see there. I mean literally, we just watched, you know,
Speaker 3: the Epstein hearings go sideways with Hillary Clinton come out
Speaker 3: with a straight face saying a dude, nothing, So you know,
Speaker 3: what do you what are we supposed to believe here?
Speaker 3: Is that a real relevance to you, to anybody in reality?
Speaker 3: Or is that just one of those like remnants of
Speaker 3: a time when we still had an idea about a
Speaker 3: national idea entity that didn't put us at each other's
Speaker 3: throats necessarily. I mean, what are your thoughts on that?
Speaker 3: Is it relevant even? And why is it relevant to you?
Speaker 3: That's my question.
Speaker 4: Well, damn, I they're gonna know. I'm going to get
Speaker 4: the third degree. Go ahead and get a rubber hose
Speaker 4: out and cut the lamp on.
Speaker 3: It's sports.
Speaker 4: You're not a sports fan, so.
Speaker 3: But I am. Don't get it, But I am not
Speaker 3: a hockey fan.
Speaker 4: No. We just took a gold medal from the one
Speaker 4: country who does nothing twenty four to seven three sixty
Speaker 4: five but play hockey, and we just whooped their ass. Okay,
Speaker 4: So it was a hard fought battle and we won.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but that's not about the game. I'm asking about
Speaker 3: this whole we thing. Why is it a wee?
Speaker 4: It's not about the game?
Speaker 3: Okay, what do you mean we? Oh? I understand.
Speaker 4: Oh I never slapped a puck in the game, So
Speaker 4: how can I consider being a part of a US
Speaker 4: national team support.
Speaker 3: I'm accepting. I'm accepting that.
Speaker 4: Pant No, we went through this over the Panthers when
Speaker 4: I pitched about our draft picks and what we did
Speaker 4: with them and how we didn't capitalize on having a
Speaker 4: quarterback that just played in the Super Bowl, thank you
Speaker 4: very much. So I don't want to hear it. If
Speaker 4: you can't, if that's if that's a tribe that you
Speaker 4: don't want to be a part of and you don't understand,
Speaker 4: then culturally you are missing out. It's a good thing. Okay,
Speaker 4: So don't understand it. I can't explain it.
Speaker 3: No. See, I like certain sports. I appreciate the performance.
Speaker 3: I appreciate the skill level. I find it remarkable that
Speaker 3: we are actually alive in the time of sho Heyo Tani,
Speaker 3: you know, just saying. And I used to love the
Speaker 3: New York Rangers, even though they didn't win. I loved
Speaker 3: them because of their character, the way they played the
Speaker 3: fact that they were kind of dirty and nasty and
Speaker 3: they still couldn't pull it off even when they tried
Speaker 3: to bring Gretzky in there and they had Mario and
Speaker 3: it was amazing. It was, you know, Gretzky.
Speaker 4: Now there's a source spot the Canadians for the whole
Speaker 4: time during the Olympics when they show to pick sure
Speaker 4: Gretzky while he was watching games or around the site,
Speaker 4: he was getting food left and right by Canadians. Why
Speaker 4: he played roughly half of his career for Canadian teams.
Speaker 4: He was on the Edwinson Oilers, but when he decided
Speaker 4: to retire, he retired to the US. And that's got
Speaker 4: them all pissed off. They can't stand it. So Gretzky
Speaker 4: is really a bad word in Canada right now.
Speaker 3: Yeah. But just because he moved where the money was
Speaker 3: and capitalized on his talent, I mean, is that not
Speaker 3: what you do is if you have a talent to
Speaker 3: sell and you can market it, is that not you know,
Speaker 3: a worldwide something that should be celebrated. If you have
Speaker 3: a talent that doesn't harm anyone, that happens to entertain people,
Speaker 3: and it is marketing, Who the hell has anybody else
Speaker 3: to tell him not to take it somewhere else where?
Speaker 3: Automatically the exchange gets you better paid. I mean, you know,
Speaker 3: and and Gretzky argue with it. You know. It's like
Speaker 3: Michael Jordan. You might not like him, but damn you
Speaker 3: got to say he was an incredible player, right, I mean,
Speaker 3: Mike Tyson despicable human being, awesome to watch fight. I mean,
Speaker 3: I'm just saying there is something too.
Speaker 4: Side a side note on Michael Jordan. His NASCAR team
Speaker 4: last weekend just won their first race.
Speaker 3: Cool, but you know, and that's a weird mix right there.
Speaker 3: And there's this whole weird meme thing that went on
Speaker 3: recently about you know, white people in NASCAR. But I'm
Speaker 3: not even going to get into that. But here's the thing.
Speaker 3: I appreciate the business of sports. I appreciate the the
Speaker 3: the actual sport itself, without the money and all that.
Speaker 3: I'm just asking about the tribalism and why it is
Speaker 3: that you've just kind of gone into that. I mean,
Speaker 3: let's just look at your your your heritage, per say, right,
Speaker 3: you know before you were Americans. I was going to
Speaker 3: ask a new once question. Okay, let me cancel my question.
Speaker 4: Let me explain something. Sure, all right, the US versus
Speaker 4: Canada in hockey at the Olympics is nothing more than
Speaker 4: basically the NHL North playing the NHL South. Okay, right,
Speaker 4: so you can look at it from that point of
Speaker 4: rivalry too. I Mean, the half of the teams are
Speaker 4: made up Canadians, nothing wrong with that, But we had
Speaker 4: a bunch of homegrown guys that put it on the ice.
Speaker 4: They left it on the ice, and they played the extraordinary.
Speaker 4: There was some excellent hockey in that whole series.
Speaker 3: Okay, that no arguments there. I did not, you know,
Speaker 3: I was not invested in the tribalism. It didn't motivate
Speaker 3: me to find a way to watch the stream. It
Speaker 3: was complicated, to be honest with you. So you know,
Speaker 3: I didn't see it. But I've watched hockey just to
Speaker 3: watch hockey, you know, because it's going on, and it's
Speaker 3: fascinating when people are skilled, that's for sure. It's just
Speaker 3: the investment of tribalism. And that's another interesting point, by
Speaker 3: the way, is the Team USA thing. You know, for
Speaker 3: a long long time, it used to be if you
Speaker 3: were a professional athlete, you couldn't be in the Olympics, right.
Speaker 3: You had to be an amateur. You had to be
Speaker 3: somebody who relied on other people to support you in
Speaker 3: a weird, sort of convoluted way as opposed to being
Speaker 3: a directly paid professional. That's how you got disqualified from
Speaker 3: being in the Olympics at one point. And then that
Speaker 3: sort of switched, right, and we have Team USA basketball.
Speaker 3: We had the major league players, you know, famously honest. Yeah, good,
Speaker 3: I'll be honest.
Speaker 4: I think they should go back to amateur status. I
Speaker 4: don't think they should allow pros. But the problem is,
Speaker 4: and this started the whole argument. You've got countries like
Speaker 4: China or Russia who were paying their Olympic athletes. That's
Speaker 4: all they did, that their job, and people were saying,
Speaker 4: well that how come they're not considered professional. They're being
Speaker 4: covered by their country, right, you know, all their expenses,
Speaker 4: they live a good life, and so that's what brought
Speaker 4: the argument out, and they said, okay, well we'll open
Speaker 4: it up to pros. I mean, look what has done
Speaker 4: to the Summer Olympics in basketball now that you got
Speaker 4: the Dream team every year that they call it, although
Speaker 4: sometimes it's a nightmare of a dream, but still, I mean,
Speaker 4: I think they should go back to amateur status.
Speaker 3: Well, and it's hard.
Speaker 4: It's hard for an athlete to compete around the world
Speaker 4: to get the recognition, to be able to get on
Speaker 4: these teams to win the you know, the Nationals and
Speaker 4: this and that. It's hard for them, and it's very
Speaker 4: expensive with travel and everything else. So I can see
Speaker 4: both sides of it, but to me, the Olympics should
Speaker 4: be all amateur. That was the whole setup to begin.
Speaker 3: With, because the problem is they've gotten away from the
Speaker 3: sport and more into the propaganda because of the tribal pride.
Speaker 3: And therefore, you know, there are some people not only
Speaker 3: are they, you know, Olympic athletes, but there are people
Speaker 3: that are part of their professional teams in their region
Speaker 3: of the world. We're allowed to compete when we weren't
Speaker 3: allowing ours. And I remember this whole argument going on
Speaker 3: when I was much younger because of the Team USA baseball,
Speaker 3: and we assembled a hell of a team, the Team USA,
Speaker 3: if you remember anything, it was like what eighty six
Speaker 3: or eighty seven. They blasted like every pro we had
Speaker 3: pretty much they asked to play in the Olympics, didn't they. So,
Speaker 3: I mean it was crazy. But here's the thing. When
Speaker 3: you don't have a level playing field, right and they say, well,
Speaker 3: we're going to send our young people to play your
Speaker 3: young people, and their young people are in their twenties
Speaker 3: and our young people are in their teens, it usually
Speaker 3: is not a good matchup or vice versa, right, Or
Speaker 3: they say, look, we have a pro team. You have
Speaker 3: a pro team, and our girls show up and their
Speaker 3: guys show up. This is not a level playing field.
Speaker 3: I don't care what anybody says, liberal or conservative about this.
Speaker 3: Guys versus girls in any sport is uneven at best,
Speaker 3: if not dangerous. So the thing is, you know, at
Speaker 3: the end of the day, it is more about the
Speaker 3: tribalism than the sport. So I always find it interesting
Speaker 3: when people take a secondary or a voyeuristic pride into
Speaker 3: it and it's like it's part of them now, even
Speaker 3: though you had nothing to do with the corporate sponsorships,
Speaker 3: You had nothing to do with the people that actually
Speaker 3: slaved away in order to achieve amateur status, to get
Speaker 3: into the Olympics, to qualify, who dedicated their lives to stuff,
Speaker 3: you know, and all that, and you weren't invested. But
Speaker 3: now that they slapped the right colors on these people's chests,
Speaker 3: which by the way, not all of our players might
Speaker 3: even necessarily have been born in the USA or whatever else,
Speaker 3: that's okay because that's the way the America works, right.
Speaker 3: We import a lot of people. This is how almost
Speaker 3: all of us got here anyway, you know, And and
Speaker 3: importation could take on many different terms. I don't want
Speaker 3: to hear about it. The point is, this is not
Speaker 3: something that I feel personally vested in, and I'm just
Speaker 3: always fascinated by somebody who does. So anyway, let's move
Speaker 3: on to the next. What was the next thing you
Speaker 3: brought up in order after the Olympics was a.
Speaker 4: State of the Union. I didn't watch.
Speaker 3: I don't care.
Speaker 4: I don't give a damn.
Speaker 3: Now you might find this interesting, but to me, I
Speaker 3: thought it was perfectly appropriate. And why because it matches
Speaker 3: all of the mainstream rhetoric and it's just another advertisement
Speaker 3: and another opportunity for Trump to have an hour and
Speaker 3: forty seven minute commercial on television, which he has had
Speaker 3: now for a decade, where he's you know, constantly on
Speaker 3: the networks. And oh, by the way, the liberal media
Speaker 3: is clearly no longer owned by the liberals. But okay,
Speaker 3: it's cool. But I say, I don't object anything you
Speaker 3: have to say. Good. I'm just saying I'm just trying
Speaker 3: to fit is my personal view on it. But okay,
Speaker 3: go ahead.
Speaker 4: Well, the reason the reason I didn't watch is because,
Speaker 4: for one, I cannot stand to hear Donald Trump go
Speaker 4: on about anything. I just it's it's just he puts
Speaker 4: me off. His expressions, the way and the things that
Speaker 4: he says.
Speaker 3: Half of what he says.
Speaker 4: Is complete cleave Faxel. I'll be glad when he's gone.
Speaker 4: But I don't understand almost the state of the union.
Speaker 4: People know the state of the Union every day when
Speaker 4: they have to go buy groceries or when they have
Speaker 4: to fill up their car, when their insurance premium shoot
Speaker 4: the roof. And we've got people up there in Washington
Speaker 4: that are supposed to be doing ship for us, and
Speaker 4: they clearly aren't. They clearly don't give a damn about us.
Speaker 4: So to I'm not going to give an hour and
Speaker 4: forty seven minutes to the upa loompa that wants to
Speaker 4: sit there and show the world what a flaming narcissist
Speaker 4: he is. See, I just can't do it.
Speaker 3: Okay, I've seen clips. Okay, you know, but it's it's
Speaker 3: the circus.
Speaker 4: I can't afford the bread anymore to sit there and
Speaker 4: watch it.
Speaker 3: Oh, I hear you. But at the same time, it's
Speaker 3: the same blind tribalisms USA. Those chants broke out and oh,
Speaker 3: by the way, the guys hockey team participated in this.
Speaker 3: After somebody gifted Trump one of the gold medals by
Speaker 3: the way. I don't know if he kept it for
Speaker 3: real or if it was just for the photo op,
Speaker 3: but I mean he actually brought those guys out as
Speaker 3: a special announcement in the midst of the State of
Speaker 3: the Union address while telling us that we are the
Speaker 3: hottest country ever, We are in the Golden Age of America.
Speaker 3: Everything is great, USA USA, and that he has fixed
Speaker 3: the economy. Everything is, you know, so much cheaper since
Speaker 3: he's been in office and all that stuff. And it
Speaker 3: sounds to me like that's exactly the kind of cheerleading
Speaker 3: that you would want to do if you're into the
Speaker 3: tribal just slap on the official coat of USA USA
Speaker 3: for the moment. But you disagree with him. Is it
Speaker 3: because of his narcissism or is it because of the
Speaker 3: delusional rambling? Or is it because of the length? What
Speaker 3: is the big turn off for you personally?
Speaker 4: It's a combinat well. The first thing is just having
Speaker 4: to listen to him. I'm sorry, I don't see how
Speaker 4: Milania has stayed with him. She must stay in another
Speaker 4: room because if you have to listen to that MF
Speaker 4: twenty four to seven, I'd be slapping him so hard
Speaker 4: that hairspray would not straighten out his damn hairdo when
Speaker 4: I got done. He's just for a rich man. I mean,
Speaker 4: if you're going to get up there, he doesn't have
Speaker 4: to sell anything because he's in office. He knows he
Speaker 4: can't run again. You know, he's going to make the
Speaker 4: best of it and make it all about Donald One.
Speaker 4: I can't stand a narcissist at all. I mean, if
Speaker 4: you want to get up there and tell the state
Speaker 4: of the union, tell the state of the union. But
Speaker 4: if you employ a bunch of people and you're paying
Speaker 4: them a bunch of damn tax dollars to do what
Speaker 4: they're supposed to do, you would think they could fact
Speaker 4: check a few things before you get up there and
Speaker 4: start making comments. What was it he said something like
Speaker 4: three or was it three hundred million or something people?
Speaker 4: And I'm sitting there thinking, there's only three hundred and
Speaker 4: fifty million people in the damn country. Where do you
Speaker 4: get this three hundred million?
Speaker 3: At stuff?
Speaker 4: Just little stuff that makes him look so damn stupid
Speaker 4: world stage. They can't get straight for a simple I
Speaker 4: hate that we have a brain trust. They're supposed to
Speaker 4: be running this country. On either side of the aisle,
Speaker 4: and they're all just a bunch of corrupt politicians who
Speaker 4: you could I don't trust them as far as I
Speaker 4: could throw them.
Speaker 3: Well, that almost sounds like a liberal complaint, because you know,
Speaker 3: I was called a liberal for pointing out the fact
Speaker 3: that he was talking about one thousand percent decreases in price,
Speaker 3: which mathematically causes an issue, even if it is run
Speaker 3: through the new Trump RX website, which I didn't name it.
Speaker 3: I didn't name it. I didn't want to call it.
Speaker 3: Trump the guy who slaps his name on everything, said that.
Speaker 3: I found that to be the most remarkable funny thing.
Speaker 3: And don't you think fact checkers are a little exhausted
Speaker 3: from getting yelled at that they have trumped arrangement syndrome.
Speaker 3: I mean, I would not bother if that was my business.
Speaker 3: I would be, you know, working at a drive through somewhere,
Speaker 3: because at least i'd be serving people something they wanted.
Speaker 3: Nobody wants the fact checking and the people that know
Speaker 3: that facts need to be checked here, and the facts
Speaker 3: are not in existence in most of the speech, guess what,
Speaker 3: they know it automatically, So the fact checkers serve no purpose.
Speaker 3: And it seems to me like it's perfectly appropriate for
Speaker 3: what the majority seems to have decided in this country
Speaker 3: is reality. And I got to say, there is a
Speaker 3: scientific basis for the observer changing the reality itself by perception.
Speaker 3: There's a whole quantum physics argument about this, where the
Speaker 3: physical reality can literally change based on the way people
Speaker 3: are observing it. And I'm starting to understand the twisted
Speaker 3: rationalizations of the world around me. But you can look
Speaker 3: at the last snap who news for the formula on
Speaker 3: that hint. It does involve agreeing with being in agreeance
Speaker 3: with one another about certain things or not. But anyway,
Speaker 3: so I just find it interesting because I think it
Speaker 3: was perfectly appropriate and not even really worthy of commentary
Speaker 3: for the most part, because did you expect anything different.
Speaker 3: I'm not surprised by any of it, and the fact
Speaker 3: that he was at least able to set yet another
Speaker 3: record by making it the longest state of the Union
Speaker 3: I think in history, or at least in modern history
Speaker 3: for sure. Time wise, I don't know. It just seems
Speaker 3: to track. So, you know, the objection and the demonizing
Speaker 3: the Democrats and pulling out you know, Team USA as
Speaker 3: if there were his own personal action figures and all
Speaker 3: of that and trying to point to hey, listen, I've
Speaker 3: got the mother of a murdered person, and that's who
Speaker 3: we're doing the ice thing for over here on the side.
Speaker 3: And yeah, it all tracks, plus even pointing at the
Speaker 3: you know, the the Supreme Court, which he says, hey, listen,
Speaker 3: Supreme Court shot me down. I'm very disappointed, but I'm
Speaker 3: just gonna go ahead and reinstate the tariffs again. All
Speaker 3: of this tracks. I don't see why there's any shocks, surprise,
Speaker 3: or even interest in watching it, So I don't blame
Speaker 3: you for not watching it. But at the same time,
Speaker 3: I'm confused by the you know, still insistence of people
Speaker 3: about complaining about what you know. It's like saying, man,
Speaker 3: I'm gonna be real pissed when the sun comes up tomorrow.
Speaker 3: This is just what's going to happen now. And the
Speaker 3: only objection I have in your whole set of statements
Speaker 3: really is you really think he's not going to try
Speaker 3: for a third term. You really think that's not going
Speaker 3: to happen one way or another. Seriously, No, I don't
Speaker 3: think so.
Speaker 4: I don't think his health is gonna let him do it.
Speaker 4: I'll really go.
Speaker 3: Do you think that'll be the loan factor that prevents it.
Speaker 4: Oh that or somebody eventually ends up successful in trying
Speaker 4: to shoot him.
Speaker 3: That's another weird point saying, oh.
Speaker 4: He's setting things up so that he can take control
Speaker 4: and make this to an authoritarian state. Well, you know,
Speaker 4: we're already in authoritarian state. It's just that we switch
Speaker 4: sides as to who's the authority, you.
Speaker 3: Know, fair enough for years, fair enough.
Speaker 4: I don't know. I don't think he's gonna try.
Speaker 3: You know, I hate to kick people back into reality,
Speaker 3: But here's something about those assassination attempts that people are
Speaker 3: missing again in that reporting, because there was in the meantime,
Speaker 3: yet again another alleged attempt on his life at more
Speaker 3: a lago. Right in reality, it has actually been, as
Speaker 3: far as what we publicly know, a fairly low amount
Speaker 3: of assassination attempts on this guy that have come to
Speaker 3: any sort of anything. Because if you track back and
Speaker 3: realistically look at maybe what the media didn't cover, but
Speaker 3: if you take a look back at Secret Service records,
Speaker 3: and you take a look back at stuff that they
Speaker 3: have memorialized in publicly accessible documents, quite honestly, he has
Speaker 3: not had a high frequency of attempts on him, as
Speaker 3: opposed to some of our very recent presidents, including Bush
Speaker 3: and Obama. Guess what now, I don't know Biden's assassination
Speaker 3: attempt record. I mean, you know, there is such a
Speaker 3: thing as beating a dead horse or shooting a corpse.
Speaker 3: I guess, so no point there. But I don't know
Speaker 3: the statistics. But so far from what I can observe
Speaker 3: from Trump's first term and this one, even what we
Speaker 3: know publicly is actually relatively non eventful. There's always assassination
Speaker 3: against our president, every single one of them. There have
Speaker 3: been attempts. Sometimes, you know, stupidity blocks the assassination attempt.
Speaker 3: Occasionally the Secret Service takes care of it. Sometimes accidental
Speaker 3: things happen. Sometimes a guy shows up with, you know,
Speaker 3: a semi automatic rifle at the White House, goes all
Speaker 3: the way in the residence and the guy's not home.
Speaker 3: That's happened a few times. Okay, just saying, given our history,
Speaker 3: to be honest with you, he hasn't even suffered a
Speaker 3: relatively high amount of incidents when it comes to this
Speaker 3: so far. But you know, then again, everybody's telling me
Speaker 3: that a civil war is coming, So what do I know?
Speaker 3: So would you mind moving to the next topic, because
Speaker 3: now I've totally forgotten it. Was it shakiri yet or
Speaker 3: are we onto something else next?
Speaker 4: No, all the all the purmoil in the UK and
Speaker 4: they've just had an election. They've got, you know, people
Speaker 4: are fighting for Islam. Took offense to him and threatened him.
Speaker 4: So he's in the state by the way red car
Speaker 4: at one Miami airport. He had to go to another
Speaker 4: airport so that he could use his debit card because
Speaker 4: he's been.
Speaker 3: Deb m So we have the controversy in the UK,
Speaker 3: which I find fascinating because the main thrust of that
Speaker 3: over here is, uh, this guy had to go because
Speaker 3: Epstein Poof. This guy had to go because Prince whatever
Speaker 3: the hell was over there actually involved with Epstein and
Speaker 3: now is no longer a prince whatever his new name
Speaker 3: is Poof. You know, it's interesting. There's like more Andrew
Speaker 3: Andrew sorry this Andrew Baton windsor thank you. But there's
Speaker 3: more fallout in Great Britain over the Epstein thing than
Speaker 3: there is in the US. Honestly when it comes to
Speaker 3: people in power.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I don't know there and neck about neck and
Speaker 4: neck because we had what Larry Summers stepped down. Oh crap,
Speaker 4: there was somebody else that just somebody with one of
Speaker 4: the financial firms just stepped down. Hillary Clinton's lawyer or no, no,
Speaker 4: Obama's legal advisor in the White House just had to
Speaker 4: step down from whatever, uh financial institution she was working for.
Speaker 4: So the funny thing is though in the UK they're
Speaker 4: going after uh, the former prints because of him using
Speaker 4: trade data, uh, giving it to Epstein and possibly influencing markets. Uh.
Speaker 4: There was also a lot of emails covering when Libya
Speaker 4: fell and Epstein was talking to people about you know,
Speaker 4: how can we how can we benefit off this monetarily?
Speaker 4: What do we need to do? And apparently Andrew was
Speaker 4: giving him info then on trade deals and and certain
Speaker 4: information that was supposed to not be public, but come
Speaker 4: to find out through emails, the now king his brother
Speaker 4: knew about this. So they arrested Andrew. He got out
Speaker 4: on bail. They're investigating him funneled. Funny that they're not
Speaker 4: doing much in the way of investigating him towards the
Speaker 4: Virginia Giuffrey situation, which I fell into a rabbit hole
Speaker 4: this week, and also I'll fill you in on but
Speaker 4: they're going after him for this business deal thing. Now,
Speaker 4: if the King knew about it, that's where they're starting
Speaker 4: to say, Okay, well, what are you going to do?
Speaker 4: We already have evidence that the King knew that his
Speaker 4: brother was pulling this shit, didn't do anything about it,
Speaker 4: didn't do anything until recently by stripping his titles. Are
Speaker 4: we going to drag the king into it? And is
Speaker 4: he going to have to step down which will then
Speaker 4: bring in the golden child William. So it's interesting to
Speaker 4: see how this was going to play out well kind of.
Speaker 3: But on the other hand, I was reminded this week
Speaker 3: from somebody who actually got, you know, the archive of
Speaker 3: a whole lot of MP three's from the earlier shows
Speaker 3: of the Ocelli Effect. They were like, wait a minute,
Speaker 3: you were talking about this stuff that these people are
Speaker 3: stepping down about ten years ago, and I go, thank you,
Speaker 3: but it's twelve and yeah, I know, but nobody wanted
Speaker 3: to listen because it was just you know, the kookie
Speaker 3: conspiracy guy. But the reality is that a whole bunch
Speaker 3: of this stuff back, yeah, goodhead.
Speaker 4: Back in back in two thousand, yeah, twenty thirteen, twenty fourteen,
Speaker 4: when this stuff was coming out. It just got ignored,
Speaker 4: which you know you're hearing part of that in the
Speaker 4: debate on this side of the pond when it comes
Speaker 4: to well, oh, everybody in the Obamama administration knew about this,
Speaker 4: but they do didn't do anything about it. Yeah, Harvey Weinstein,
Speaker 4: everybody in Hollywood knew what the hell was going on
Speaker 4: there for twenty years and didn't say it, damn think
Speaker 4: till he finally got busted. I mean, he's crazy.
Speaker 3: Yeah, But that's the funny thing is that everybody scoffs
Speaker 3: at the outcry people and the people to connect the
Speaker 3: dots until what they get confirmation from the bias institution
Speaker 3: they want to hear it from. And that's the funny
Speaker 3: thing where Okay, you know, for a while there it
Speaker 3: was nobody but the conspiracy people and a couple of
Speaker 3: people that were involved in things directly, and believe it
Speaker 3: or not, like him or not, Ed Opperman was directly
Speaker 3: involved in some of those cases, which is why I
Speaker 3: had him on talking around some of them because he
Speaker 3: couldn't disclose stuff that he had signed paperwork on, but
Speaker 3: he was letting certain things be known. Okay, so when
Speaker 3: did I start having him on twenty fourteen. Sorry, I
Speaker 3: didn't take the podcast live till twenty fourteen. Anyway, that's
Speaker 3: when I was talking about it with people that you know,
Speaker 3: had some information as best we could gather it. And
Speaker 3: that was without any of these you know files. Okay,
Speaker 3: these files now vindicate a whole bunch of stuff that
Speaker 3: we were told we were crazy about talking about. So now,
Speaker 3: the funny thing is the right wing fringe media picked
Speaker 3: up on it for a little while because they thought
Speaker 3: it paired nicely with Pizzagate, which you know, still to
Speaker 3: this day is remarkable to me that with no proof,
Speaker 3: we're going to keep insisting that happened, just because of
Speaker 3: weirdness and because people are you know. And the funny
Speaker 3: part is there are patterns of discussion in some of
Speaker 3: the Epstein files that are still being ignored, that are
Speaker 3: coded okay, like there is a whole Pizzagate type thing happening,
Speaker 3: but it ain't Pizzagate in the Epstein files. And yeah,
Speaker 3: I talked about it years ago and nobody's talking about
Speaker 3: it yet and nobody wants to hear it from me.
Speaker 3: So am I gonna take all my time and invest
Speaker 3: into No, But the funny thing is right wing fringe
Speaker 3: media picked up on it because it paired nicely with
Speaker 3: Pizzagate and they could go after the Democrats. Then it
Speaker 3: was found out that you know who your golden boy is.
Speaker 3: That's an in all this, I mean practically, it's not
Speaker 3: like Trump is in the Epstein files. It's like Epstein
Speaker 3: is in the Trump files. It's like who got their
Speaker 3: peanut butter in my chocolate? Or but their chocolate and
Speaker 3: my peanut butter over there. This guy is all sorts
Speaker 3: of involved with him. People in his cabinet are involved
Speaker 3: with him, and nope, paying no attention to that. Uh,
Speaker 3: from the other side. And now the left wingers, but
Speaker 3: the left wingers who are completely hip. Wait, wait, wait,
Speaker 3: let me get to the hypocrisy of the left. Don't
Speaker 3: cut me off until I balance it. The hypocrisy of
Speaker 3: the left is they didn't give a damn about any
Speaker 3: of it until it pointed in the right direction, the
Speaker 3: same as the right wing. And now we are literally
Speaker 3: witnessing this circus of an oversight committee yelling at people
Speaker 3: and then not answering questions, yelling back, and it is
Speaker 3: a completely incongruous and nonsense conversation. I mean, it is
Speaker 3: like the clown shoes have taken over the entire circus
Speaker 3: and that's all there is to it. And then there's
Speaker 3: a lot of people out there going, well, what about
Speaker 3: the actual crimes. Yeah, nobody's getting prosecuted, and Galaine has
Speaker 3: puppy time in her minimum security situation for being a
Speaker 3: sex trafficker. And that's the funny thing is that trafficking,
Speaker 3: which is funny to me, also has changed in its terminology.
Speaker 3: Wait a minute, it's changed in its terminology because now
Speaker 3: even simple prostitution is being called trafficking, which convolutes the
Speaker 3: whole issue and makes it into something else. But meanwhile,
Speaker 3: who's getting prosecuted, who's getting taken to task? Is anybody
Speaker 3: going to ask for yet another deposition from Trump or
Speaker 3: anybody else in the cabinet whose name is in the files?
Speaker 3: And you can also find Jackie the joke Man in
Speaker 3: those files, by the way, if you want to just
Speaker 3: go for name recognition. But it is amazing to me
Speaker 3: the like pick your poison, as far as what you're
Speaker 3: not going to pay attention to regarding this thing. And
Speaker 3: it's an issue being kicked around constantly, and that's all
Speaker 3: it's gonna be. I'm sorry, to say, guys, they are
Speaker 3: going to neutralize this by confusion. That's it, and it's
Speaker 3: gonna be for the benefit of guess what, everybody in power,
Speaker 3: everybody who had dirt on them, and nobody's gonna finally
Speaker 3: talk about any of the stuff that is still valid
Speaker 3: as all sorts of blackmail that nobody seems to know
Speaker 3: where it is. They can't show it, you know, on
Speaker 3: and on and on. So But meanwhile, cash Pateel can
Speaker 3: go party with the hockey team in Italy when they win.
Speaker 3: I mean, he's got time for that, and he can
Speaker 3: jet over there do that. But yeah, somebody solved this. No,
Speaker 3: they're not going to is my whole thing? Go ahead,
Speaker 3: say whatever you want. I'm done.
Speaker 4: Well, all I was going to say is this whole
Speaker 4: Epstein file thing is just show.
Speaker 3: I'm not messing with it.
Speaker 4: Disingenuous get to the left. They're realizing that that people
Speaker 4: are stepping down. Most of these people that have stepped
Speaker 4: down from positions have been die hard liberals all time.
Speaker 4: They're stepping down and they're you know, fading back into
Speaker 4: the shadows. One thing that irritates me, though, is you've
Speaker 4: got people like Thomas Massey, I agree with him on
Speaker 4: a lot of his stuff in fighting the bullshit that
Speaker 4: the Republicans have been pulling for years trying to say
Speaker 4: they're looking out for you, and they're not. But Massey
Speaker 4: has just made this massive little cult following him and
Speaker 4: Marjorie Taylor Green, although she's not there anymore. She got
Speaker 4: her damn retirement and hauled ass, so screw her. But
Speaker 4: these two have gotten together and formed this little cult
Speaker 4: over Oh, yes, the names, the names. You know, Massey
Speaker 4: has been saying for what four months now, I've got
Speaker 4: a list of ten or twenty people that they are
Speaker 4: not going to release, and I'm going to release. Well,
Speaker 4: they released four names and people with nuts over it,
Speaker 4: and come to find out people were getting docs who
Speaker 4: were simply in a lineup that was used for one
Speaker 4: of these I think it was when Epstein was arrested
Speaker 4: the second time they had some lineup information. Anyway, come
Speaker 4: to find out two of the guys that were using
Speaker 4: the lineup didn't even know who the hell Epstein was.
Speaker 4: One of them was an auto mechanic in New York
Speaker 4: or something. Anyway, he puts these names out there, the
Speaker 4: names that he's put out there. You and I both
Speaker 4: knew back in twenty fourteen. It's nothing new, but they're
Speaker 4: trying to make some big damn headline out of it.
Speaker 4: And it's like, I told you there is no list.
Speaker 4: What if we found out there is no list. I've
Speaker 4: told you. Epstein this whole time was not working for Mosad,
Speaker 4: and Epstein was working for himself. Now, he had a
Speaker 4: lot of clients, He had a lot of customers for
Speaker 4: the crap he had, including the CIA, the FBI, MOSAD,
Speaker 4: every other intelligence agency that had the money could go
Speaker 4: to Epste and get whatever the hell they wanted. He
Speaker 4: was working for himself. This is not some huge Jewish
Speaker 4: cabal that is running the world, and they put Epstein
Speaker 4: out there. Epstein above all else was worried about Epstein,
Speaker 4: and Epstein was working for himself. I don't care what
Speaker 4: anybody says. You're never going to get me to change
Speaker 4: my mind. Now on the letting the files out there,
Speaker 4: I don't understand why they can't sit down and redact
Speaker 4: whatever Victim's name victim and I put that in quotes
Speaker 4: because you can redact that. But why are we getting
Speaker 4: emails from Epstein that has somebody else redacted? When you
Speaker 4: read the information in the body of the email. They say, Oh, well,
Speaker 4: it's to protect the privacy of people who were innocent. Well,
Speaker 4: how in the hell do you know if they're innocent.
Speaker 4: Put their damn names out there and let these people
Speaker 4: start investigating this crap, because it's going to be the
Speaker 4: independent guys out there digging holes, one of which I
Speaker 4: came across the other day that got into this whole
Speaker 4: Virgin give your Geffrey thing, and how her story has
Speaker 4: changed twenty times since the beginning, and every time it changed,
Speaker 4: money was changed hands. So you know, I see a victim.
Speaker 4: According to some of the stuff I've read in the
Speaker 4: past week, she was just as guilty as the rest
Speaker 4: of them. She was just as bad as EPs. She
Speaker 4: was making her money off bringing her friends in and
Speaker 4: letting them get paid, and she was getting a cut,
Speaker 4: plain and simple. Epstein had the money to burn, and
Speaker 4: he burned it. Also read some information on his first
Speaker 4: case down in Florida and what the legal wranglings were
Speaker 4: behind that. And I'll tell you what, that guy he
Speaker 4: got set up big time, big time. And not only
Speaker 4: did they set him up, but they set him up
Speaker 4: purposely to tell him we'll create a list of people
Speaker 4: that we say are victims, and we're going to allow
Speaker 4: those people to sue you. In fact, we're even going
Speaker 4: to provide lawyers to cover them to take care of
Speaker 4: suing you. And then we're going to build you for
Speaker 4: the damnly eagle fees. That's how bad he got hit
Speaker 4: over a dan pandering charge. Okay, plain and simple. Well
Speaker 4: that was a railroad, and you can see from then
Speaker 4: how things got so screwed up.
Speaker 3: See, sometimes people get railroaded, Sometimes people get railroaded after
Speaker 3: they escaped, a lot of other things. And here's what's
Speaker 3: interesting about this whole Epstein saga. And I'll just put
Speaker 3: a punctuation on this and hopefully we can move to
Speaker 3: the next thing. But here's the parts that I guaranteed
Speaker 3: you haven't looked at, which is the casual discussions of torture,
Speaker 3: porn being exchanged, and you know, and cannibalism possibly occurring
Speaker 3: in emails along with along with you know, listen, here's
Speaker 3: the list of innocent names we're not going to publish
Speaker 3: being published because of the absolute chaos with which nobody
Speaker 3: knows how to redact. You know, it's like they were
Speaker 3: expert as far as keeping you know, parts of files
Speaker 3: redacted from us for many, many decades regarding JFK stuff
Speaker 3: until they weren't. And you know, it seems like, I
Speaker 3: don't know, maybe your girl Tulsa over there is not
Speaker 3: the best head or needs to hire better people, because
Speaker 3: she doesn't even have people knowing how to sort these
Speaker 3: things properly, apparently missing deadlines and not dropping the files
Speaker 3: like they're supposed to, and releasing the wrong stuff and
Speaker 3: hilariously supposed Yeah, well that's true, that is true on
Speaker 3: top of true. But she can only also do what
Speaker 3: she knows how to do. And I don't believe for
Speaker 3: a second that she knows how to handle a massive
Speaker 3: amount of data like this. Okay, I just don't see
Speaker 3: it in her skill set based on what we know
Speaker 3: about her history. It doesn't. I mean, miraculous organizer.
Speaker 4: Nobody is. I'm going to take up from a girl here.
Speaker 4: Nobody has the ability to handle the amount of data
Speaker 4: that they're trying to handle and shove through a funnel
Speaker 4: into the public eye. You know, And I'm sure there
Speaker 4: has been some heated discussions in the background as to
Speaker 4: what's going on now. If I were and they said, oh,
Speaker 4: we're gonna let doll. We're gonna let Tolsa Gabbert, head
Speaker 4: of National Security, handle this. I'd have said, wait a minute,
Speaker 4: ain't my job. Here's what we're going to do. Each
Speaker 4: individual department is going to handle their corrections or redactions,
Speaker 4: whatever the hell you want to call it, and we're
Speaker 4: going to put this shit out there. They haven't even
Speaker 4: got the JFK files out there. They were supposed to
Speaker 4: do that years ago. Now we're worried about this massive
Speaker 4: amount of data, and folks, there may be a of
Speaker 4: a lot more because what has come out is Epstein
Speaker 4: cleared out a lot of places and had shit put
Speaker 4: into storage, and they're still trying to track down the
Speaker 4: storage units where all these shit's boxed up. So you
Speaker 4: think there's six million files now, there may be another
Speaker 4: six million files come out before it's all said and done.
Speaker 4: This is not going to end anytime soon.
Speaker 3: It's going to be.
Speaker 4: Drug on for years. It's going to be argued about
Speaker 4: for years. But the thing is, oh and about Gallaine Maxwell.
Speaker 4: Have you seen the footage on X where somebody was
Speaker 4: walking down the street and recognized a woman and called
Speaker 4: her by name, and she turned and said, excuse me,
Speaker 4: what have you seen that, yet that woman ain't in jail.
Speaker 4: That's why when you mentioned puppy time, I wanted to
Speaker 4: break in and say, might not be puppy time for Galline.
Speaker 4: It might be puppy time for someone that looks an
Speaker 4: awful lot like Michael o' myers when it gets up
Speaker 4: in the morning.
Speaker 3: Could be. But here's the funny thing and why the
Speaker 3: defense of Tulsey, I'm sorry, still fails if she is
Speaker 3: not capable of doing the whole job. I get it,
Speaker 3: because there are many jobs where you could be the
Speaker 3: responsible party for running somethings. That's why they make you
Speaker 3: the head of it. In order to create something. If
Speaker 3: you had to build a house, you wouldn't do it
Speaker 3: single handedly usually I know men have done that in
Speaker 3: the past. But in order to do it efficiently, quickly
Speaker 3: and with good skills intact on all aspects of construction,
Speaker 3: you would bring in people that know how to do
Speaker 3: those things, and you would assemble a proper team. And
Speaker 3: that clearly was not done. So the head of National
Speaker 3: Security did not assemble or oversee a team.
Speaker 4: Time out, Okay, time out?
Speaker 3: Sure?
Speaker 4: How do you know she didn't try and was kept
Speaker 4: from doing it? I mean, plain and simple. Think of
Speaker 4: it this way. She's the guy that's the contractor building
Speaker 4: the house. She's got a sub who does all the framing.
Speaker 4: Case Cash, Ptel, and the FBI or above here the
Speaker 4: company that owes that subcontractor, the Department of Justice and
Speaker 4: Pam Bondi. Now she goes to Cash and says, I
Speaker 4: want this, and Cash says no and goes run into Pam,
Speaker 4: and Pam says no. Part of the problem that you're
Speaker 4: dealing with here is Pam Bondy in her position, not
Speaker 4: being able to get all those agencies under the Justice
Speaker 4: Department to do what the hell they're supposed to do. Now,
Speaker 4: I don't know, I've heard there have been some rumblings
Speaker 4: between Tulsi and a few of these people in front
Speaker 4: in charge of these other things. And that's the problem
Speaker 4: that you're seeing. She's you know, yes, you're right, she
Speaker 4: should have hired the people to come in. We don't
Speaker 4: know that she didn't. And the DOJ and the FBI
Speaker 4: all said, oh, hell no, no you're not. That's something
Speaker 4: you have to take into consideration. Oh yeah, because Pam
Speaker 4: Bondi and Patrick and Cash to tell I don't understand
Speaker 4: why they're still employed, let alone in this administration. I'm
Speaker 4: surprised they haven't had their ass fired and then nobody
Speaker 4: would hire them later on.
Speaker 3: Listen, that's how bad he's gott. I totally agree with
Speaker 3: you on those two, but put that aside for a second.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry Tulci fails because if she were an adequate
Speaker 3: enough head there, she could figure out how to work
Speaker 3: around that. I mean, do you think anybody that accomplished anything,
Speaker 3: whether for nefarious or positive reasons, in the past, did
Speaker 3: it with just the best people available to them right away. No,
Speaker 3: Sometimes they had to go outside, Sometimes they had to
Speaker 3: get innovative, sometimes they had to import training.
Speaker 4: Or about this though, yeah.
Speaker 3: Think about what s her job?
Speaker 4: What is her position? Head of National Security? Correct?
Speaker 3: Correct? Right?
Speaker 4: Okay, let's see who makes up the intelligence agency. The
Speaker 4: most egotistical, hard hit headed assholes in government work for
Speaker 4: the NSA, the CIA, Naval Intelligence, Army intelligence, all of
Speaker 4: these what seven intelligence agencies that come under the NSA.
Speaker 4: She's got to deal with them, people like Clapper and Brennan.
Speaker 4: So she doesn't have the easiest job to do considering
Speaker 4: the assholes she has to work with. Oh, true, they're
Speaker 4: the most.
Speaker 3: I'm true, true, absolutely true.
Speaker 4: Level of government. I like to test people to a
Speaker 4: certain amount. But those those three letter agencies under the
Speaker 4: NSA are the ones I have the biggest problem.
Speaker 3: With, well right, seventeen of them that we know of,
Speaker 3: plus the ancillary adjunct pieces of other agencies like, for instance,
Speaker 3: you know you got NASA. Well, NASA has an intelligence,
Speaker 3: you know, our apparatus to it, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 3: So I mean you have an immensely complex maze of
Speaker 3: possible moronic idiots in in the frame. No problem, all true.
Speaker 3: But with that being the case, and the fact that
Speaker 3: we haven't just you know, self inflicted wounded our asses
Speaker 3: off of the planet already, with all these you know,
Speaker 3: jabbering monkeys in place, it must mean that that something
Speaker 3: gets accomplished from time to time. But she has failed
Speaker 3: to bring together the right group of people that could
Speaker 3: have overseen this whole thing and could become because every
Speaker 3: time she gets consulted and then not talked about again,
Speaker 3: even though she I'm just saying, listen, you want to
Speaker 3: defend her, you're gonna I could come back and answer
Speaker 3: you again with you know, look, this is how you
Speaker 3: innovate and fix. And we know that none of these
Speaker 3: people operate according to the standards that we know of
Speaker 3: in public majority of the time, for good or bad reasons.
Speaker 3: It just is. So we'll just call that one a
Speaker 3: stalemate and leave it at that. But I gotta tell you,
Speaker 3: I still will stick to my position and you'll probably
Speaker 3: stick to yours. What was the next thing on your
Speaker 3: list though? Are we getting to shakiri? Oh?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 4: Right before number four was the Bohemian Grove list from
Speaker 4: twenty twenty three, from.
Speaker 3: Twenty twenty three. That's interesting. Clue, Yeah, I'm here, you're hearing, yes, okay,
Speaker 3: so the thing is okay, Bohemian Grove from twenty twenty three.
Speaker 3: You're saying, well, I.
Speaker 4: Was gonna say, yes, twenty twenty three. And that's something
Speaker 4: I hate out them statistic You know, even when you
Speaker 4: try to look up something and this is twenty twenty six,
Speaker 4: but for a lot of population and demographic information and
Speaker 4: taxo and DP you look at.
Speaker 3: This date, well, okay, you can.
Speaker 4: Find is roughly two years twenty five. Their heart is
Speaker 4: held to find, but the most recent stuff is twenty
Speaker 4: twenty three. This is kind of the same thing. Yes,
Speaker 4: was going on three years ago the attendance list, and
Speaker 4: I haven't had a chance.
Speaker 3: It's a long.
Speaker 4: List if I had had to just go and see
Speaker 4: exactly who was there.
Speaker 3: Okay, but here's the reality in collecting data. Instantaneous collection
Speaker 3: of data is not done by human beings. If you
Speaker 3: rely on instantaneous collection and the numerical values of those things,
Speaker 3: guess what you're trusting a computer to do all the work.
Speaker 3: And therefore a lot of nuance is not understand understood
Speaker 3: even with AI as it exists right now. So, and
Speaker 3: this is always my argument to people when they're cheering
Speaker 3: or they're screaming about, oh, we know this is happening
Speaker 3: right now, this is absolutely solid numbers. Actually, you're lying
Speaker 3: to yourselves always because those numbers don't settle down. There
Speaker 3: are always corrections and adjustments which need to be made
Speaker 3: because there were misunderstandings in the collection. There was misunderstandings
Speaker 3: in the data entry, whether a computer or a human
Speaker 3: being did it. So unless you're dealing with statistics that
Speaker 3: are a couple of years old and settled, guess what
Speaker 3: you're dealing with estimations that are based on a whole
Speaker 3: bunch of premises that are not settled. So yeah, that's
Speaker 3: the reality of that. So sorry, And I'm not surprised
Speaker 3: that it would take until twenty twenty three to you know,
Speaker 3: from then to now to actually verify and vet the
Speaker 3: names on the list so that you're not making an error.
Speaker 3: It takes them three years to tell you about it,
Speaker 3: and people go, see, he held it for three years.
Speaker 3: He's lying. Either way, people will take it as they're
Speaker 3: either being disingenuous or lying when they delay statistics when
Speaker 3: the truth is in order to get real solid, confirmed numbers,
Speaker 3: it's not done instantaneously. I can never understand these arguments.
Speaker 3: It drives me crazy because people go, oh, well, what
Speaker 3: about this year's numbers, Well, this year isn't over yet,
Speaker 3: so you have estimate, you know what I mean, Like
Speaker 3: a lot of things can happen. I'm sure in two
Speaker 3: thousand and one people did not expect a bunch of
Speaker 3: shifts in public attitudes and behaviors. You know, going into August,
Speaker 3: they had an idea about the way two thousand and
Speaker 3: one was going to turn out. Then September eleventh happened.
Speaker 3: You know what I'm saying. You might think you know
Speaker 3: what the production is going to be and what people's
Speaker 3: lives are going to be like in a certain part
Speaker 3: of a country or in a country in general. And
Speaker 3: then as tsunami hits it, there are things that occur
Speaker 3: that disrupt the estimation and projection. So you have to
Speaker 3: wait for things to actually occur, and then for the
Speaker 3: data to be collected, and then for the data to
Speaker 3: be you know, just looked over, actually verified, And people
Speaker 3: don't understand that does take time, even with computer and
Speaker 3: try to use them. Even if you let the computer
Speaker 3: do it, you've got to have you know, human human
Speaker 3: interaction here to double check it because guess what occasionally
Speaker 3: do to data error entry mistakes by people, The computers
Speaker 3: make a mistake, and then you've got to go back
Speaker 3: and readjust it. All kinds of anomalies come up in
Speaker 3: collecting things. This is why it drives me nuts when
Speaker 3: people are like, you know, do this math now, and
Speaker 3: it's like, look, that can't be done accurately. So I'm
Speaker 3: not surprised that it takes that long. Now, how relevant
Speaker 3: do you think? This is my ultimate question? How long
Speaker 3: do you do you think is it relevant anymore? Actually
Speaker 3: what's going on at Bohemian growth? Do you think that's
Speaker 3: still one of those elite super secret but yet we
Speaker 3: know about it kind of meeting places like the Builder
Speaker 3: Like you don't hear much about Builderberg. Now, Alex Jones
Speaker 3: certainly isn't talking about Builderberg anymore, is he? It was
Speaker 3: his obsession for many years, but he's not talking about
Speaker 3: it at all anymore. Matter of fact, I don't think
Speaker 3: Alex Jones brings up Boheming Grove anymore. Huh. I wonder why,
Speaker 3: because that was supposed to be the center of the universe,
Speaker 3: of the grand conspiracies of all and so I'm just curious.
Speaker 3: I mean, I'm not saying I agree with Alex Jones,
Speaker 3: but I'm wondering, from your point of view, how relevant
Speaker 3: is the weird little queer meeting out in the woods
Speaker 3: of powerful and rich men in California there, Because that's
Speaker 3: the way I see it. Let's dress up and let's
Speaker 3: you know, a cremate care and chant and run around
Speaker 3: and dresses and do this all in secret in the
Speaker 3: woods for you know, our vacation time alone. A bunch
Speaker 3: of guys running around in the woods, and some things
Speaker 3: happen that are not exactly heterosexual. Just saying, how relevant
Speaker 3: is that to the circles of power and actually the
Speaker 3: true power structure in the country, in the world at
Speaker 3: this point in your mind, be Pete, what do you think?
Speaker 3: Is it relevant anymore? Is it a relic of the past,
Speaker 3: Is it a joke? What do you think?
Speaker 4: I think it's a relic of the past in a
Speaker 4: lot of senses. But it's comparable to the Epstein Files.
Speaker 4: Now that these things are being released and people are
Speaker 4: reading what rich weird people do with their money, it
Speaker 4: would be similar in that here we have a bunch
Speaker 4: of elite, rich guys going into the woods for a hour,
Speaker 4: many long days it last, I don't know, but the
Speaker 4: stories that would come out of there would show you
Speaker 4: that rich weird guys doing weird shit with their money.
Speaker 4: In the Epstein Files also goes on there, maybe to
Speaker 4: a smaller degree. Anytime you get that people with that
Speaker 4: much money and a bunch of I mean, you've got egos,
Speaker 4: you've got fetishes, you've got shit in the closet, You've
Speaker 4: got all sorts of stuff going on that people don't
Speaker 4: hear about every day. They're starting to get a glimpse
Speaker 4: of what some of these people did through the Episod
Speaker 4: files and what their hobbies were I mean Bill Gates,
Speaker 4: look at him. The story on Bill Gates has done
Speaker 4: a one eighty from years ago. Oh he's this guy
Speaker 4: that came up in his garage with his operating system,
Speaker 4: and he was a brilliant guy. And then he switched
Speaker 4: into the we want to make a fake everything, so
Speaker 4: we don't have cows and we don't have butter, and
Speaker 4: we don't have this. And I got guys in a
Speaker 4: lab working on all this mad science to shit, and
Speaker 4: then we have COVID come out, we find out what
Speaker 4: happened with the vaccines. I think Bohemian Grove would just
Speaker 4: be another chapter in weird rich people doing shit that
Speaker 4: they can't do anywhere else because they get in trouble
Speaker 4: for it.
Speaker 3: That's where it is, That's what it is. But if
Speaker 3: that's the case, then really what we're looking at is
Speaker 3: just a you know, a getaway weekend for the elite
Speaker 3: and bizarre. You know, those that have become bored with
Speaker 3: all of the natural pleasures out there, so now they
Speaker 3: seek the unnatural and supernatural. You know, maybe that's all
Speaker 3: it is.
Speaker 4: Wonder though, Well, but think about this. I saw a
Speaker 4: picture of Clarence Thomas that was supposedly a Bohemian grove. Now,
Speaker 4: Clarence is a wheeler dealer, he's you know, he's the
Speaker 4: sense oh what's his name died, Scalia died. You know,
Speaker 4: Clarence is the conservative rock on that side of the
Speaker 4: of the court. And it's like he's got a guy,
Speaker 4: a friend of his is that takes him to all
Speaker 4: these places, expensive vacations, a motor home and this and that.
Speaker 4: And you wonder what it is about Bohemian Grove that
Speaker 4: would interest somebody like Clarence Thomas. You know, you think
Speaker 4: about it. Is it just rubbing elbows with you know,
Speaker 4: rich people? And you can sit down that I'm not
Speaker 4: a judge, You're not a corporate magnet. You know, we're
Speaker 4: just out here having a good time. Or does Clarence
Speaker 4: have a whole bunch of shit in the closet. We
Speaker 4: don't know about that. We'll probably never know about. But
Speaker 4: you know it's free kingdg weekend at the Bowiemian Grove.
Speaker 3: It makes you wonder, well, look remember from the Anita
Speaker 3: Hill thing. You know, who the hell starts talking about
Speaker 3: pubic hairs on a coke? Can you know what I mean?
Speaker 3: So strange proclivities are in play. As far as I'm concerned,
Speaker 3: whether you believe any of that stuff or not, it's
Speaker 3: kind of weird that they would make up weirdness for him.
Speaker 3: Number one. Number two, I think it's actually not all
Speaker 3: that bizarre or sophisticated. It's two things. Look, a guy
Speaker 3: who's gonna have business before the court definitely would like
Speaker 3: to have a friendly judge there, that is, you know,
Speaker 3: super friendly to him. And I think, you know, Thomas
Speaker 3: is simply not immune to the allure of free vacations,
Speaker 3: because this guy, when he was asked about a bunch
Speaker 3: of this stuff pretty much you know, snapped immediately, no
Speaker 3: lawyer's advice, said, Look, you know, the guy offered me
Speaker 3: trips and stuff, why wouldn't I go When he was
Speaker 3: asked about other trips, you know, the hunting trip or whatever,
Speaker 3: even though he doesn't hunt. You know, this getaway out
Speaker 3: of lake on an island that you know, happens to
Speaker 3: have its own lake and isn't on any normal maps anywhere,
Speaker 3: doesn't even have a name. All this kind of stuff.
Speaker 3: And whether they gave him a trip to Bohemian Grove
Speaker 3: or they gave him a trip to Vegas, what's the
Speaker 3: difference maybe he just, hey, free vacation, let's go. Why not.
Speaker 3: Maybe he's just you know, frugal and by the way,
Speaker 3: I would take a free trip to Vegas. I'm not
Speaker 3: sure if I would go to Beemian Grove, but maybe
Speaker 3: just to see what the hell is going on and
Speaker 3: be sworn to secrecy and whatnot, so long as I
Speaker 3: don't have any mandatory participation attached to that trip, you know,
Speaker 3: or anything else. I mean, I'll go to Vegas. It
Speaker 3: doesn't mean I gotta get hookers and blow and you know,
Speaker 3: and blow my whatever money I have, which wouldn't be much,
Speaker 3: take me about two minutes. But I mean, you know,
Speaker 3: would I turn down the free trip and hotel room.
Speaker 3: I don't know. Maybe not, especially if it's you know,
Speaker 3: gonna make them friendly in the future for things I
Speaker 3: might want to do or my wife might want to do.
Speaker 3: Uh you know, hey, look, this guy can supply my
Speaker 3: wife with cool stuff. So you know, what he offered
Speaker 3: me a free trip, I should be friendly and accept it.
Speaker 3: I don't know, but I don't think it's all that complicated.
Speaker 3: I think it's actually just something as simple as that.
Speaker 3: What are your thoughts, man, I don't know.
Speaker 4: I would think. You know, I can see one to
Speaker 4: go for a guy's weekend. We're gonna hang out, we're
Speaker 4: gonna do some silly shit, we're gonna have fun. Okay, fine,
Speaker 4: but I don't I don't see what the fascination is
Speaker 4: with these people that attend.
Speaker 3: It's it's the cultural.
Speaker 4: Personality all over again. You know people that are up
Speaker 4: there that other people seem to have these cult feelings for, Well,
Speaker 4: they're a little cult among themselves. You know, hey, I
Speaker 4: rubbed elbows with three presidents two x you know, presidents
Speaker 4: of major banks. And okay, fine, you know, well, hey'
Speaker 4: all next week where I'm going fly fishing with one
Speaker 4: of them. Great, that's fine, But I just I don't know.
Speaker 4: I've really not had any interest in it. It's just
Speaker 4: to me, another example of rich weird people getting together
Speaker 4: to do stuff with other rich weird people.
Speaker 3: Well, right, But then again, a guy who doesn't necessarily
Speaker 3: have to be weird, although I think Clarence Thomas is
Speaker 3: pretty well off. But even if he was or wasn't irrelevant.
Speaker 3: I mean, if you and I just doing this radio show, right,
Speaker 3: somebody said, listen, I know that you guys are going
Speaker 3: to be you know, covering news stories about us in
Speaker 3: the next few weeks and all that, But put that
Speaker 3: aside for a moment. What would be a mutually acceptable
Speaker 3: thing for you and me? How about like a massive
Speaker 3: music festival where there's a whole lot of bands where
Speaker 3: you know, you and I could pick from Colin Ay
Speaker 3: and Colin be Boy. I'd love to see them again live,
Speaker 3: or these are people I think have been fascinating, or
Speaker 3: we're never going to be able to see these groups again. Whatever.
Speaker 3: Let's think about a twenty twenty six version of Live
Speaker 3: Aid that's going to be all day concert. Right. If
Speaker 3: somebody said, we'll send you to where that is, put
Speaker 3: you up in the hotel where the musicians are gonna
Speaker 3: be and give you backstage passes just because we like you.
Speaker 3: You and I might look at that and go for
Speaker 3: free for real, And they might say, yeah, and would
Speaker 3: you go? I might, And I don't care if it
Speaker 3: was Elon Musk that offered it to me, even though
Speaker 3: I believe he's going to be partially responsible for destroying
Speaker 3: the world at some point. But even if if Elon
Speaker 3: Musk offered that to us, I would take it, and
Speaker 3: I definitely consider him to be a super rich weirdo.
Speaker 3: But definitely you know what I'm saying. So you know,
Speaker 3: and why not if somebody said, hey, look, just general
Speaker 3: trip to Vegas. There happens to be a poker tournament there.
Speaker 3: Tell you what, guys, I'll give you the hotel, plane fair,
Speaker 3: I'll make sure you get their private jet and your
Speaker 3: meals are covered all that, Plus you're entered in the
Speaker 3: poker tournament. You and I would be hanging out playing
Speaker 3: cards in Vegas for at least the weekend. You know
Speaker 3: what I'm saying. Just because, And again, if it was
Speaker 3: Elon Musk or somebody like that, I would take it.
Speaker 3: And I'm why not, ain't gonna hurt him and gives
Speaker 3: me something interesting to do, and who knows how I
Speaker 3: would do it good?
Speaker 4: I would do it just because it would give me
Speaker 4: the opportunity to tell some of these people to fuck off.
Speaker 3: Well, that would be fun too, That's always that's always
Speaker 3: a bonus. But okay, so fair enough. Now what is
Speaker 3: the next thing on the list?
Speaker 4: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?
Speaker 3: Okay, and this is where Shakira comes in, right, Sorry,
Speaker 3: did you say something?
Speaker 4: Did you commentary that someone had put out?
Speaker 3: Okay, so yeah, no, you broke up a little. It's
Speaker 3: all right. We're gonna be upgrading soon. But let me
Speaker 3: just get to it. First of all, Shakira being fifty,
Speaker 3: that's weird enough to me because I'm certain she's been
Speaker 3: around for thirty years at a bare minimum as somebody
Speaker 3: that I was aware of, which is weird to me
Speaker 3: that she's only fifty now because I didn't think she
Speaker 3: was very young then. But she hasn't aged really, and
Speaker 3: I think she.
Speaker 4: Has not aged a bit, right, not one bit.
Speaker 3: But that's what I'm saying.
Speaker 4: I don't know what she's doing, but I wish she'd
Speaker 4: put it in a damn bottle. I would pay nineteen
Speaker 4: ninety nine for it.
Speaker 3: Well, so with almost anybody. But here we go with
Speaker 3: the weirdness. Like I know, I've aged since I first
Speaker 3: heard of Shakira to now a lot everybody I know
Speaker 3: has aged a lot since I heard of Shakira. A
Speaker 3: lot of people are dead anyway. The point is that
Speaker 3: you can't bottle it. It's called genetics, and she has
Speaker 3: a certain set of genetics there that just simply are
Speaker 3: not aging quickly. There's that, plus she keeps herself in shape,
Speaker 3: and really she was first known and came to like
Speaker 3: everybody's attention for her unique way of shaking her ass,
Speaker 3: which has become a whole other, you know, cultural staple.
Speaker 3: And you got to admit, dancing is part of rock
Speaker 3: and roll, and rock and roll is not this you know,
Speaker 3: easily definable thing. You know, when they say the rock
Speaker 3: and Roll Hall of Fame, even to call something rock
Speaker 3: and roll at this point is weird. Uh. In in
Speaker 3: our current you know, artistic malaise that we find ourselves
Speaker 3: in where AI is doing a lot of work, rock
Speaker 3: and roll is almost an outdated phrase now for somebody
Speaker 3: to clearly define it. I got to say, when you
Speaker 3: listen to certain people's definitions of it, they are at
Speaker 3: the valid and at the same time completely different one
Speaker 3: way or another. Like there are people that would tell
Speaker 3: me that let Me Killmeister has nothing to do with
Speaker 3: rock and roll. He was a metal guy. Let Me
Speaker 3: Kill Meister was rock and roll, you know, and so
Speaker 3: was Guess Berry.
Speaker 4: Yeah, sorry, good, but I've heard In fact, I heard
Speaker 4: a guy. I heard a guy just two days ago saying, hey,
Speaker 4: when we look at these lists, granted, there have been
Speaker 4: inductees that were kind of questionable over the years. But
Speaker 4: when you're going to consider someone like Shakira over Motorhead,
Speaker 4: how can you even make that comparison when it comes
Speaker 4: to the subject of rock and roll? And I have
Speaker 4: to agree with him. There's people, you know, Phil Collins
Speaker 4: was inducted under Genesis when he was part of Genesis,
Speaker 4: but now he's up for an individual induction. And I
Speaker 4: could consider Peter Gabriel, Yes, still a part of rock
Speaker 4: and roll. But when you don't have Motorhead in there.
Speaker 4: As long as Motorhead was out there pounding live performances,
Speaker 4: they didn't. Their live performances were asked pnomical compared to albums.
Speaker 4: You know, you look at King Floyd. They would do
Speaker 4: a tour every other year, every year for a while,
Speaker 4: then they didn't for a few years. Now, Damn, Motorhead
Speaker 4: was out there pounding the pavement every damn day. Why
Speaker 4: are they not in there? And why are they not
Speaker 4: in there when you're considering someone like Shakira. Don't get
Speaker 4: me wrong, she's a fantastic artist. She puts out good
Speaker 4: music and correction, she's forty nine. She just turned forty
Speaker 4: nine February second. I said fifty. I was wrong, Wow,
Speaker 4: But still at forty nine. God damn, she's the best
Speaker 4: preserved thing I've ever seen. But still, you know, things
Speaker 4: like Motorhead, they're considering Oasis and groups like that. Dolly
Speaker 4: Parton is in the rock and Roll Hall of Fame
Speaker 4: and Motorhead isn't something's wrong there?
Speaker 3: Okay, now there is something wrong with Motorhead not being there,
Speaker 3: But Dolly Parton belongs there, Shakira belonged there because they
Speaker 3: are elemental pieces of what can see. That's the thing
Speaker 3: about rock and roll that is really bizarre that I
Speaker 3: think is so misunderstood and winds up people backing into
Speaker 3: their own little cultural corners mostly and rejecting different things
Speaker 3: for different reasons. The thing is, it is a giant
Speaker 3: eclectic thing. This wasn't you know, some sort of you know,
Speaker 3: staple of music that existed forever. What it did is
Speaker 3: it cobbled together many things and took on many forms.
Speaker 3: You know, you could look at the the you know,
Speaker 3: the blues, which was effectively developed here in the United States,
Speaker 3: and jazz, which pre existed that by a long time period.
Speaker 3: Those two things put together do make rock and roll,
Speaker 3: but they are not the only formula. That's like saying
Speaker 3: you can only get drunk on vodka. It's it's no good.
Speaker 3: You know, you got to understand that rock and roll
Speaker 3: is not a single drink. It is the bar. And
Speaker 3: that's well.
Speaker 4: I understand that, but when you look at it this way,
Speaker 4: the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has had a
Speaker 4: problem with heavy metal bands. You look at the heavy
Speaker 4: metal bands, Scorpions, Iron Maiden, motor Head, you know they
Speaker 4: the When you consider Shakira now, she says that a
Speaker 4: lot of influence came from you know, rock artists, and
Speaker 4: I understand that, but you look at the product that
Speaker 4: you're putting it putting out. It's hard now for rock
Speaker 4: and roll to be considered rock and roll because it's
Speaker 4: been devalued and dewatered over the past fifteen twenty years.
Speaker 4: You don't have rock station. If you have a rock
Speaker 4: and roll radio station, they're playing shit from Zeppelin and
Speaker 4: Queen and everybody else. Back in the Dinosaur days, there's
Speaker 4: not really a lot of new rock bands. So by
Speaker 4: diluting it, I don't understand. I don't consider I don't
Speaker 4: think Dolly Parton should be in the Rock and Roll
Speaker 4: Hall of Fame unless you can show me all the
Speaker 4: songs that she wrote for rock and roll artists, which
Speaker 4: there are very few. Most of her songs that were
Speaker 4: written that were done by other than country artists. Was
Speaker 4: pop radio Top forty that's not rock and roll. Rock
Speaker 4: and roll is a sub section of pop music, or
Speaker 4: Top forty. Rock and roll is rock and roll. I
Speaker 4: don't think Shakira fits. I don't think Luther Vandross would
Speaker 4: fit into that group. So why are they even in consideration?
Speaker 4: Maybe I'm more of a purist. I don't know.
Speaker 3: Well, you have a certain purest point of view. But
Speaker 3: here's the thing. Does Michael Jackson belong in the rock
Speaker 3: and roll Hall of Fame? You know, there's a big question.
Speaker 3: Oh no, see now, the king of pop in my education.
Speaker 4: He wasn't the king of rock. He was the king
Speaker 4: of pop.
Speaker 3: Okay, But oddly enough, I'm weird like this. I think
Speaker 3: he belongs because rock and roll. Again, Look, you go
Speaker 3: back to the argument about the rock station.
Speaker 4: Well, let me give you an example.
Speaker 3: Well, let me just let me just run by part
Speaker 3: of what you said, and then you can give me
Speaker 3: an example because exactly, well wait, wait a second, the
Speaker 3: radio station you were talking about, right, every major market
Speaker 3: has a rock station. You're right, and they all have
Speaker 3: the same formula, and it runs roughly from the late
Speaker 3: sixties to the mid nineties. Is basically ninety nine percent
Speaker 3: of the music they play, if it's not something new
Speaker 3: released by an artist from that time period, that's what
Speaker 3: they play on all these rock stations all across the country.
Speaker 3: And to me, there is plenty of rock and roll
Speaker 3: that occurred before that time period and after that time period.
Speaker 3: I think Luther Vandros belongs. I think that anybody that
Speaker 3: introduced an element which especially changed things regarding rock and
Speaker 3: roll and even influenced it to a heavy degree, is eligible.
Speaker 3: That's why I think Dolly belongs there, which is weird
Speaker 3: to probably hear from some people because I'm the heavy
Speaker 3: metal guy. It took them forever to accept Black Sabbath,
Speaker 3: which was ridiculous because Black Sabbath literally created a whole
Speaker 3: new genre of music from rock and roll. I mean,
Speaker 3: so this is the evolutionary and the precursors to the
Speaker 3: thing itself. I think it all qualifies and all belongs
Speaker 3: to be recognized if it played a part in the
Speaker 3: overall bar, that's the thing. Not every bar has the
Speaker 3: super expensive you know, whiskey. But every bar has got
Speaker 3: some whiskey, and there's a reason, you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 3: And every bar has the weak little girly drinks, and
Speaker 3: you know what every other bar has too, is some water.
Speaker 3: Almost everything to some degree you know that exists in
Speaker 3: modern music is either touched by, influenced by, or generated by,
Speaker 3: or is an element which is then later on added
Speaker 3: into guess what what I consider to be rock and roll.
Speaker 3: So there is a circular loop here where even people
Speaker 3: have complained about hip hop artists, right, they're hip hop,
Speaker 3: they're not rock, Well what is hip hop? And didn't
Speaker 3: hip hop then become cycled back into rock music and
Speaker 3: become part of it as well? See what I'm saying.
Speaker 3: It's not a straight line. It's a circular thing that
Speaker 3: keeps rolling. Literally, that undone rock and roll keeps rolling
Speaker 3: itself into new things. And even with the stagnation in
Speaker 3: creation as it exists now, we still see the older
Speaker 3: elements of pop, electronica and all these things that technically
Speaker 3: at their inception we're not rock and roll becoming integrated
Speaker 3: into this huge sort of massive collaboration, collective collaboration that
Speaker 3: has occurred here as a result of this genre snowballing,
Speaker 3: that's rock and roll to me. Now to you, rock
Speaker 3: and roll might have a different formula. Maybe you could
Speaker 3: tell me what that formula is. But every time I
Speaker 3: ask a purist about this, they give me bands, they
Speaker 3: give me examples, but they don't seem to tell me
Speaker 3: exactly what the formula is that makes something rock and
Speaker 3: where it deviates away and becomes something else, or what
Speaker 3: it lacks in order to not qualify as rock and
Speaker 3: roll exactly. It sort of fails in one way or
Speaker 3: another because I can find an example that'll counter that,
Speaker 3: even in their own arguments. Usually, So I'm curious, what
Speaker 3: do you think qualifies as rock and roll? And you
Speaker 3: want to give me an example, So go ahead.
Speaker 4: Well, I was gonna say, for example, to Jean Luke Ponpeig,
Speaker 4: he's a violin player. He's very heavy in jazz. His
Speaker 4: start was in classical, he's gone on to jazz. He
Speaker 4: was playing with people like Frank Zappa back before Zappa
Speaker 4: was with the mothers of invention. That goes a long
Speaker 4: way back in music history. I mean, you're talking the
Speaker 4: late sixties now. I would never even consider Jean Luponti
Speaker 4: to be a part of the rock and Roll Hall
Speaker 4: of Fame. That's not his genre. It's not what he
Speaker 4: does as a main emphasis of what he does. I
Speaker 4: don't think hip hop acts should be in there. The
Speaker 4: only hip hop act should that should be in the
Speaker 4: rock and Roll Hall of Fame is was it run
Speaker 4: DMC with their collab with Aerosmith. Other than that, that's
Speaker 4: a separate genre of music and the majority of what
Speaker 4: they do is in that separate genre of music. Who
Speaker 4: is the guy, oh Jacko Pactorius. He was with Weather Report.
Speaker 4: They were a jazz group, they were a fusion jazz,
Speaker 4: progressive jazz, whatever you want to name them. I wouldn't
Speaker 4: consider him in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
Speaker 4: And that guy, sadly he's passed away, but that guy
Speaker 4: was on the forefront with all of these rock and
Speaker 4: roll artists way back in the sixties, seventies on up
Speaker 4: through that eighties.
Speaker 3: Does Public just quickly does put a jazz artists? Yeah?
Speaker 4: Don't quickly?
Speaker 3: Does Public Enemy qualify because they collaborated with Anthrax on
Speaker 3: Bring the Noise? And I would definitely I'm not saying
Speaker 3: Anthrax is the Hall of Fame worthy, but if they
Speaker 3: were Hall of Fame worthy? Would that not also drag
Speaker 3: Public Enemy into the discussion because they collaborated with a
Speaker 3: metal band which is an offshoot of brock and Roll
Speaker 3: no or yes, no, I don't, I don't, I don't.
Speaker 4: Run DMC was doing some other things in addition to
Speaker 4: what they did with Aerosmith. I wouldn't consider that one
Speaker 4: collaboration with Anthrax would put him.
Speaker 3: Well, this is Hall of Fame, Well this was public Enemy. Well,
Speaker 3: this was Public Enemy who did the collaboration with Anthrax,
Speaker 3: and they were definitely off doing a lot of other
Speaker 3: things like Run DMC was previous to do and bring
Speaker 3: the noise.
Speaker 4: They are Public Enemy as far as I'm desern is
Speaker 4: a rap hip hop group. They're not. They shouldn't be
Speaker 4: in the rock and roll Hall of Fame.
Speaker 3: Okay, but you do know they collaborated with Anthras for
Speaker 3: a crossover very similar in formula to what Run DMC
Speaker 3: did with Aerosmith, Right, Okay, just checking, yes, but.
Speaker 4: I think that I think I think Public Enemy Run
Speaker 4: DMC was one of those that were kind of on
Speaker 4: the board a rap was really just coming out when
Speaker 4: they were big time. I mean, look at that's like,
Speaker 4: would you consider Will Smith to be a rock and
Speaker 4: roll artist, well his hip hop days.
Speaker 3: Well no, but I mean run DMC is part of
Speaker 3: the pioneering end of hip hop because they actually charted
Speaker 3: on the rock charts with a rap album before collaborating
Speaker 3: with Aerosmith, who was actually on a downslide in their
Speaker 3: career at the time. That walked this way was redone.
Speaker 3: So it's interesting to me that, you know, and and
Speaker 3: by the way, there are plenty of rap artists before
Speaker 3: Run DMC, and they had you know, rap charts, hip
Speaker 3: hop charts are and beach charts, et cetera. But run
Speaker 3: DMC actually broke straight on into the rock charts with
Speaker 3: their out and then you know, you know, cashed in
Speaker 3: on it by collecting with Aerosmith after and then did
Speaker 3: I think the album was if you can show.
Speaker 4: Well, and that's one thing, if you can show that
Speaker 4: a group was was charting on the rock charts at
Speaker 4: that time and pulling in the numbers, I mean, you've
Speaker 4: got to you've got to make an impression to even
Speaker 4: hit the chart. If you're able to chart those those
Speaker 4: entries that they've got, that's one thing, but just a
Speaker 4: one off, No, I don't I don't think they should
Speaker 4: be considered I think that's a different genre of music
Speaker 4: rock and roll. It's kind of like what was it
Speaker 4: they used to say about obscenity laws. It's really hard
Speaker 4: to define, but I can tell you what it is
Speaker 4: when I see it. Rock and roll is kind of
Speaker 4: the same thing. You hear it, you know, it's rock.
Speaker 4: This all this other crap is just I don't know.
Speaker 4: Maybe it's more the cult of personality taken over. But
Speaker 4: I don't consider Shakira. God bless her. She's an excellent artist.
Speaker 4: I don't think she deserves to be in the rock
Speaker 4: and roll all of lame.
Speaker 3: Okay, Well, I've heard other people even argue that like
Speaker 3: dancing no cool. I've heard other people argue that dancing
Speaker 3: is an essential element to the you know, at the
Speaker 3: inception of rock and roll, and it's certainly always been
Speaker 3: part of it. And it's not dancing in the traditional sense,
Speaker 3: and it's definitely not you know, disco, but dancing along
Speaker 3: with rhythmic stuff has always been part of it. Right
Speaker 3: even when you saw the earliest possible images of anything
Speaker 3: called rock and roll with Little Richard and you know
Speaker 3: and Chuck Berry and these guys you know, back in
Speaker 3: the fifties even right, you know, dancing was an essential
Speaker 3: element of it. What about the argument that Shakira basically
Speaker 3: innovated and created a whole new thing with this whole
Speaker 3: what do they call that twerking? I mean, it wouldn't
Speaker 3: exist without the influence of Shakira and that wild ass
Speaker 3: shaken that she did. That was really her memorable trait
Speaker 3: that broke her through into mainstream recognition regardless who even
Speaker 3: knows what she was singing because people were just mesmerized
Speaker 3: by that ass movement. I mean, let's be honest, right,
Speaker 3: So what about that sort of argument when you have
Speaker 3: an element that is not necessarily directly related to a
Speaker 3: formula of music, but might be related to the culture,
Speaker 3: Because rock and roll is not just a music, it's
Speaker 3: a culture as well, isn't it.
Speaker 4: Minch Yeah, they were playing dance music. Dance was a
Speaker 4: part of the beginning of rock and roll until an
Speaker 4: artist sat down and said, hey, if I put out
Speaker 4: this album, I might have a few songs on here
Speaker 4: nobody's going to be dancing to. And they found out
Speaker 4: they could do it. Look at the progression from say
Speaker 4: Bill Haley and Chuck Berry and what it went to
Speaker 4: up to the bands where suddenly you had Jethro Tolls
Speaker 4: shooting off in a progressive form, and yes and these
Speaker 4: I mean Rush, that's all progressive rock. Pink Floyd was
Speaker 4: progressive rock. It was a subunit of rock and roll
Speaker 4: where albums people would sit down and listen to an album.
Speaker 4: It wasn't geared again to change from forty five rpm
Speaker 4: records to full albums. You know, singles were the thing
Speaker 4: back during Bill Haley and the comments. It progressed into
Speaker 4: album stage where Okay, we're gonna put fifteen songs on here,
Speaker 4: and two of them you won't be able to dance to,
Speaker 4: but you end up sitting there hitting your ball and
Speaker 4: listening to them, and it becomes a part. I don't
Speaker 4: know if there's a progression there in rock, but I
Speaker 4: don't think past the point to where you include every
Speaker 4: top forty radio artist in the list.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't think.
Speaker 4: I don't think Shakira is part of that evolution. I
Speaker 4: don't think Luther Vandross is a part. I don't think
Speaker 4: Barry White should be in the rock and roll all
Speaker 4: of vein. He was singing soul of music, and there's
Speaker 4: a difference.
Speaker 3: Okay, look fair enough, but when you take a look
Speaker 3: at somebody like Dion Warwick or you know, Aretha Franklin
Speaker 3: or something like that, I think we're you know, we're
Speaker 3: in a different category. But it is interesting to note
Speaker 3: that we went from a time period where a musician
Speaker 3: was like, sell a single and maybe your B side
Speaker 3: will be happy too, you know, to well, sell a
Speaker 3: single so that we can sell the album, to concept
Speaker 3: albums and double albums, you know, the glut of it all,
Speaker 3: and then they could fit much much more on a CD.
Speaker 3: You know, on and on it goes. But the evolution
Speaker 3: there were some steps along the way that necessarily might
Speaker 3: have been you know, kind of not exactly on the
Speaker 3: point of the exact formula you might look for. But
Speaker 3: it's weird because at the end of the day, it
Speaker 3: does come down to the what is pornography? Question? Right? Well,
Speaker 3: I don't know how to describe it, but I know
Speaker 3: it if I see it. Okay, but that's kind of odd.
Speaker 3: I'm just saying just my mind, and to my mind,
Speaker 3: there's a lot of elements that come in, and there's
Speaker 3: people that don't belong there, that were purely you know, nothing,
Speaker 3: but marketing me.
Speaker 4: Yeah, look at this kind of like you look at
Speaker 4: the Grammys. Meat Loaf Bat Out of Hell album was
Speaker 4: one of the highest selling albums of all time, never
Speaker 4: won a Grammy. Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon
Speaker 4: was on the top two hundred for Billboard for over
Speaker 4: seventeen freaking years, never won a Grammy. You know it's
Speaker 4: you wonder about things like that. Did they not win
Speaker 4: the Grammy because they were too rock and roll? Well,
Speaker 4: I mean, who doesn't know the Grammy by the dashboard
Speaker 4: lighte from meat Loaf?
Speaker 3: Yeah, Look, the Grammys are a garbage thing reality. I
Speaker 3: know they're great rewards for musicians and all, but I
Speaker 3: mean the laughable. I remember the year that the Jethro
Speaker 3: Tull won in the heavy metal category over Metallica, who
Speaker 3: still deserved to win that heavy metal category at that time,
Speaker 3: and Jethro Tull won for an album that I didn't
Speaker 3: even know anybody who heard it. It was like it
Speaker 3: didn't belong in the category they put stuff. You want
Speaker 3: to talk about people who don't know what rock and
Speaker 3: roll is. The people at the Grammys, which is not
Speaker 3: just rock and roll, but the people at the Grammys
Speaker 3: have no idea what they're doing. They miscategorize everything, and
Speaker 3: I have no explanation for what goes on at the Grammys.
Speaker 3: The Grammys are like, you know, listen, my toddler doesn't
Speaker 3: like ACDC, or my toddler loves ACDC. Either one of
Speaker 3: these things is not a qualifier or disqualifier for me.
Speaker 3: It bears no weight on my scale. What the Grammys do?
Speaker 5: You know?
Speaker 3: Because good God will give.
Speaker 4: You an example. A perfect example you've got was this
Speaker 4: Sabrina Carpenter, who was one of Disney's prodigies that got
Speaker 4: brought up and now she's a huge artist on pop radio.
Speaker 4: She won an award for Best New Artist four years
Speaker 4: after she put out her music. It's like, wait a minute,
Speaker 4: why are you even given a Best New Artist award
Speaker 4: to somebody whose first album sold so many copies for
Speaker 4: Disney on her Hollywood Records or whoever it was they
Speaker 4: had four years ago. Why is she a new artist?
Speaker 4: It's crazy. Maybe we should look at who's doing the
Speaker 4: voting at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. I
Speaker 4: would think that you would take the inductees and let
Speaker 4: them vote that before it got to the point that
Speaker 4: it's at now, Because now it's beyond repair.
Speaker 3: See, that would be great if they did that. But
Speaker 3: that's the thing about these, you know by vote situations,
Speaker 3: is there are so many weird agendas, you know, involved
Speaker 3: in this. And I mean, you know, asking a bunch
Speaker 3: of guys who figured out a way to make a
Speaker 3: living as musicians to begin with, to quantify and qualify things,
Speaker 3: you're asking for trouble. But but that might be better trouble
Speaker 3: than whatever the hell they have is going on there,
Speaker 3: I know, but I'll tell you what I mean.
Speaker 4: Just saying a good example face brings it up in
Speaker 4: the room. He mentions the band Kansas. Now, when Kansas
Speaker 4: first came out, people thought.
Speaker 3: Who the hell are these guys?
Speaker 4: But look at what they went on to do over
Speaker 4: the course of them being a band. I mean, they
Speaker 4: put out some phenomenal stuff that was full of orchestrated
Speaker 4: cuts a classical elements, and yet look at how big
Speaker 4: Kansas became. They're one of them. I mean, to me,
Speaker 4: that was one of the bands I grew up on.
Speaker 4: But you don't get the accolades. I mean, I don't
Speaker 4: understand how Iron ma I don't think I is iron
Speaker 4: I don't think Iron Maiden is in there no, I
Speaker 4: can Iron Maiden not be considered rock and roll over
Speaker 4: someone like Shakira.
Speaker 3: Yeah, look, Ila entirely with your objections regarding metal bands
Speaker 3: that have not been included, artists who literally innovated genres
Speaker 3: and created subgenres that are now three, four to five
Speaker 3: generations deep, still not being involved in the rock and
Speaker 3: roll Hall of Fame where they absolutely belong. There's a
Speaker 3: ton of them because Nope, metal's not rock. And I'm
Speaker 3: telling you that's that's the kind of thing that it's like,
Speaker 3: it's so arbitrary that I.
Speaker 4: Don't understand anybody. I don't understand anybody that could make
Speaker 4: that comment that metal is not wrong. Awk, if it's
Speaker 4: not rock, in the hell is it? Well?
Speaker 3: I asked the same question about punk. Most of punk music.
Speaker 3: I'm not talking about performance artists who make noise. I'm
Speaker 3: talking about people that actually make music, and it's punk.
Speaker 3: It belongs in the rock category as well. It belongs
Speaker 3: in the rock and roll Hall of Fame. It just does.
Speaker 3: I know. It originated as the anti rock statement, but
Speaker 3: honestly it became just the slightly wilder cousin of the
Speaker 3: original rock and roll. You know, a formula that's all
Speaker 3: was and heavy metal for the most part. There's a
Speaker 3: whole lot of bands that people like consider to be
Speaker 3: heavy metal bands that really aren't as well. Like AC
Speaker 3: DC is nothing more than a honestly a kind of
Speaker 3: a formulaic, repetitive rock band. They've basically been playing the
Speaker 3: same kind of rips now for I don't know, fifty years.
Speaker 3: They've gone through two singers, that's not too many, and
Speaker 3: they've had the same lead guitarist for you know, half
Speaker 3: a century, and pretty much it's almost like the Ramones.
Speaker 3: It's the same song, just slightly rearranged over and over again.
Speaker 3: And I enjoy them, I do, you know something, not everything,
Speaker 3: but I enjoy the majority of a CDC's material. But
Speaker 3: there are some people that would argue to me, that's
Speaker 3: a heavy metal band. That's not a rock band. I
Speaker 3: don't even hear heavy metal. That is rock and roll.
Speaker 4: It's all isn they they should they should be in exactly,
Speaker 4: they should be in a rock and roll Hall of Fame.
Speaker 4: I hung there with any If you see DC doesn't
Speaker 4: it's not rock and roll. You have no concept of
Speaker 4: what rock and roll.
Speaker 3: Is absolutely true, and you know, look, I know it's
Speaker 3: a little odd, and for some people it's a little aggressive.
Speaker 3: But aggressive is not wrong, you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 3: There are a couple of different ways to go about this,
Speaker 3: and yes, some of it, you could make love songs
Speaker 3: out of it. You can make a you know, holy crap,
Speaker 3: I think you're good looking. Hello, I love you. The
Speaker 3: Doors is rock and roll. Also, you know what I'm saying,
Speaker 3: it's not all one sound. There's a great eclectic collection
Speaker 3: of things here, and that's my argument. But again, you know,
Speaker 3: I get told I'm crazy, you're good.
Speaker 4: Well, a lot of people that have opinions like that,
Speaker 4: I'm sorry. I don't think they have a very good
Speaker 4: opinion of music because they would only consider certain things.
Speaker 4: I listen to all kinds of music. But the Moody Blues.
Speaker 4: Look at how many bands they influence. Now, they were
Speaker 4: progressive as hell, they were one of the first progressive
Speaker 4: hop bands. But they were rock and roll, and they
Speaker 4: influenced the hell of a lot of music down the way.
Speaker 3: Well, I'll tell you a lot of people object to
Speaker 3: when I say this, but I think Eric Clapton sucks.
Speaker 3: He's overrated as hell. But here's the thing I wouldn't
Speaker 3: object I don't object to him being in the Rock
Speaker 3: and Roll Hall of Fame. He's been entered in there
Speaker 3: with what Derek and the Dominoes, the Yardbirds, I don't know,
Speaker 3: five different bands. I don't object to it. I just
Speaker 3: think it sucks. I don't think it's very good, but
Speaker 3: it belongs to because a lot of people enjoyed it
Speaker 3: and it became part of the culture. And there's a
Speaker 3: lot of people that count him as an influence, et cetera.
Speaker 3: But I think he's one of the most overrated guys
Speaker 3: ever to strap on a freaking guitar. Really, I don't understand.
Speaker 3: It's like, you know, the Oh Wow is a.
Speaker 4: Lot of people. A lot of people have the same
Speaker 4: opinion that you do. Eric Clapton's overrated, and in some
Speaker 4: aspects he may be. But Eric Clapton was part of
Speaker 4: that blues foundation over rock and roll. If you want
Speaker 4: to hear good Eric Clapton, you need to hear him
Speaker 4: live when he's playing just live jam. I saw him
Speaker 4: down at the House of Blues in Rurtal Beach, and
Speaker 4: I mean he's Yes, he's overrated by a lot of people,
Speaker 4: but he's damn good at what he does. And when
Speaker 4: playing the blues. He's he's right up there with some
Speaker 4: of the best. Another example, Patrick Travers, guy out of Canada.
Speaker 4: He was over in London when the punk scene was
Speaker 4: kicking off. He couldn't make it over here. He wanted
Speaker 4: to go over there, started playing clubs. Eventually he came
Speaker 4: back to the States. But Pat Travers isn't in there.
Speaker 4: He's got five, i know, five solid rock and roll
Speaker 4: albums that should put him in consideration. But again, we're
Speaker 4: talking about Shakira, Luther Vandross well In shouldn't even be
Speaker 4: in a discussion.
Speaker 3: But here's the thing. I don't feel that way. Now
Speaker 3: here's the thing about it again, just going over this
Speaker 3: part of it. You know, Eric Clapton is part of
Speaker 3: that English imitating blues situation where an American blues artist,
Speaker 3: when asked about it in the seventies. I can't remember
Speaker 3: the guy's name, but I'll never forget the quote. He said, well,
Speaker 3: you know, these English guys they want to play the BRUEs,
Speaker 3: real real bad. And you know what, that's what they do,
Speaker 3: they play the blues, real, real bad. I appreciate that because,
Speaker 3: you know, when Clapton toured with Stevie Ray, Vaughan. I
Speaker 3: was really sad that the wrong helicopter crashed. Seriously, Stevie
Speaker 3: Ray Vaughan was an amazing artist and weirdest looking guy
Speaker 3: you know. And two other guys who look like they
Speaker 3: probably just you know, put down the the squeegees at
Speaker 3: the gas station to come to play drums and bass
Speaker 3: double Trouble. It was hilarious, but you can't argue with
Speaker 3: the results. The guy did things with a guitar that
Speaker 3: I don't believe other people are able to replicate, you know,
Speaker 3: much like Hendricks and you know, here we go. Hendricks
Speaker 3: may be overrated a touch, but not really when you
Speaker 3: listen to his studio work anyway. Put him aside. A
Speaker 3: guy like Zach Wilde, in my mind, has to go
Speaker 3: in at some point, you know, not just for playing
Speaker 3: with Ozzie, but the guy is an incredible just you
Speaker 3: know artist with his chow An instrument and even though
Speaker 3: he looks like you know, I don't know a Pennsylvania
Speaker 3: biker got thrown back from a time machine, you know,
Speaker 3: in the nineteen seventies to now, the guy is amazing
Speaker 3: as a guitarist, and not just because he's from Jersey.
Speaker 3: Do I appreciate him. But there's a lot of people
Speaker 3: whose elements are going to come into play here. And
Speaker 3: there's also the cultural consideration. Shakira is on the borderline
Speaker 3: in my mind, but I think she goes in Luther
Speaker 3: Vandros not on the borderline. I think he goes in
Speaker 3: who else did you object to in the recent considerations
Speaker 3: in class? Or who else do you celebrate? By the way,
Speaker 3: did you happen to examine any of that?
Speaker 4: Let me pull up the list of who they're considering
Speaker 4: this time. Let's see I saved that article.
Speaker 3: Let me go, well, I'll tell you what. You pull
Speaker 3: that up. Let us take a quick break here, because well,
Speaker 3: let's just take let's take a quick break here. You
Speaker 3: pull that up, Okay, and uh, hopefully somebody will join
Speaker 3: us here in the last little bit because we're almost
Speaker 3: out of time for this Friday night. Nobody called in
Speaker 3: three one nine, five, two seven, five zero one six.
Speaker 3: We got lost in our conversation, but there you go. Uh,
Speaker 3: and I kind of enjoyed this gives you a different
Speaker 3: perspectives about b peach list what he thought, what I thought?
Speaker 3: And we went back and excuse me, back and forth
Speaker 3: a little bit. But I need just a quick break,
Speaker 3: so I'm gonna take it here on the Ocelli effect
Speaker 3: and return as quickly as I can. But you can
Speaker 3: join us after this three one nine, five, two seven,
Speaker 3: five zero one six and yeah, that sounds like fun.
Speaker 1: Revelation through conversation.
Speaker 5: Revelation through Conversage.
Speaker 2: The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national
Speaker 2: transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in
Speaker 2: the context of the times and reveals never before published
Speaker 2: information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not
Speaker 2: have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred
Speaker 2: years ago. His assassination took place in the context of
Speaker 2: the Cold War and the rise of the national security state.
Speaker 2: Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic.
Speaker 2: In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower.
Speaker 2: Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba,
Speaker 2: but knew that there were short range missiles on the
Speaker 2: island aren't with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy
Speaker 2: because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have
Speaker 2: led to a Third World War, and they wanted to
Speaker 2: go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson
Speaker 2: reveals why and will show you what President Kennedy was
Speaker 2: up against. For more information, the Warstate dot com.
Speaker 6: Glousy face person plays down and WI make curse. No
Speaker 6: horns placed by other bolted.
Speaker 3: Glass, chaos rings, no sul can pass.
Speaker 6: Feel the crush, the skies, calide, heavy storms and the
Speaker 6: sound defied.
Speaker 7: Blue gleaned out grass, greens.
Speaker 4: Bud and blues raft eternal shroud.
Speaker 5: Sweep the axe cruise, take sight of fury, dances in
Speaker 5: the nut in off the roofs swift, blue state clashnal
Speaker 5: storms turned close to ash, horns.
Speaker 3: Of brass tied to the wind.
Speaker 5: Chaos leaves no way to mend, breaks the chasee ignite,
Speaker 5: devoid clash, the air destroyed.
Speaker 7: Failed off rush the sky, heavy storms, those bleed out glass.
Speaker 4: It was a no shroud.
Speaker 5: Fire.
Speaker 7: The rhythm stews, paint stained rifts, inferno, blues bes rupt.
Speaker 3: Bound to the night piece in sight, Wall Street, endow
Speaker 3: dot dot Wall Street, Window dot com, do dot com.
Speaker 3: Michael Swanson, the brilliant author of the War State, gives
Speaker 3: you the benefit of his knowledge. Wall streetdo dot dot
Speaker 3: go there, Now go there, Now.
Speaker 4: Go there, now you.
Speaker 1: Chilly Effect is sponsored by Wallstreet, Window dot Com and
Speaker 1: listeners like you. No, I know the most d all
Speaker 1: media suck chilli revelation through conversation.
Speaker 3: And returning to it here for the last little bit.
Speaker 3: On a Friday night, nobody called in three one nine,
Speaker 3: five two seven five zero one six. I guess nobody's
Speaker 3: interested in our music talk, be Pete. I don't know,
Speaker 3: you know, nobody wants to join in on that, but
Speaker 3: you were gonna give me a continuation on your list,
Speaker 3: So let's just close it out with that. If nobody
Speaker 3: bugs us, we'll do it otherwise. Aaron begins around ten
Speaker 3: pm Eastern, so stick around for that. So what else
Speaker 3: you got there? You said there were some other people
Speaker 3: that were considering for the Hall of Fame and we
Speaker 3: were having a spirited discussion about this.
Speaker 4: I thought, yeah, this editorial ran across today. Girl down
Speaker 4: in Miami wrote it, and I mean she makes it.
Speaker 4: She doesn't make an argument, She just asked the question.
Speaker 4: I mean, the title of the thing is does Shakira
Speaker 4: deserve to be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?
Speaker 4: And I'll read just a short part here says with that,
Speaker 4: the rock and Roll Hall of Fame is announced seventeen
Speaker 4: nominees for his class of twenty twenty six, including major
Speaker 4: names like Lauren Hill, Phil Collins, Charde, Luther Van Dross, Oasis,
Speaker 4: Iron Maiden, and Wu Tang Clan. Now, of that list
Speaker 4: right there, just those few, I would think Phil Collins,
Speaker 4: Iron Maidens, Oasis. I wouldn't consider Wu Tang Clan, Luthros
Speaker 4: or Lauren Hill be included in the Rock and Roll
Speaker 4: haller Game. I mean it's it's hip hop names basically
Speaker 4: on that list, other than Oasis, Iron Maiden, and Phil Collins.
Speaker 3: Okay, well, I understand you don't like the hip hop names,
Speaker 3: but I would include the hip hop names. I would
Speaker 3: not include Shade because there is a pure pop marketability
Speaker 3: thing that's created. I'm not certain about Lauren Hill, you know,
Speaker 3: as as to including her there either.
Speaker 4: But well, she was with her solo stuff plus the fujis.
Speaker 4: Would she qualify under the fujis?
Speaker 3: Yeah? Now, see here's a weird thing. The fujis, as
Speaker 3: I remember them, they're definitely an American genre of music.
Speaker 3: But I don't know where I would put them, you
Speaker 3: know what I'm saying, Because there are certain things that
Speaker 3: are and let's get this straight. Every other country did,
Speaker 3: at least as far as I'm concerned, follow America when
Speaker 3: it came to rock and roll, so you know, it
Speaker 3: was created here. As for how it was marketed elsewhere,
Speaker 3: and you know, and reimagined elsewhere, etc. That came back
Speaker 3: to varying results. I mean, you had the British invasion
Speaker 3: where they pretty much spat back a whole lot of
Speaker 3: American music at us one way or another, whether it's
Speaker 3: the Rolling Stones really really wanting to play the blues,
Speaker 3: or it's Eric Clapton really really wanting to play the blues,
Speaker 3: or it's you know, and so on and so forth,
Speaker 3: or lifted Rips slash led Zeppelin ripping everybody off, you know, directly,
Speaker 3: you know, either way, that was a natural sort of
Speaker 3: imitation them aping us. But then after that things get weird.
Speaker 3: So I don't know, you know, Wu Tang Clan, you know,
Speaker 3: because you object to hip hop, but there is plenty
Speaker 3: of rock and roll in the culture, and hip hop,
Speaker 3: as much as it wants to be separate from rock
Speaker 3: and roll, is not. And you know, some people go, well,
Speaker 3: that's black music and rock and roll is white music,
Speaker 3: and gee, I'm sorry, but I think you forgot about
Speaker 3: people like Little Richard, you know, founding members, not because
Speaker 3: they're the only ones, but founding members of this creation
Speaker 3: of this thing. In my mind is Little Richard is
Speaker 3: Bo Diddley is guess what you know, Chuck Berry obviously,
Speaker 3: So you know, you can't say that black people had
Speaker 3: nothing to do with rock and roll. If you do,
Speaker 3: then I guess you consider that rock and roll began
Speaker 3: in the nineteen sixties, and you're still forgetting a lot
Speaker 3: of people. So if it's a black and white thing,
Speaker 3: then it's dumb. But if it's a purely like that's
Speaker 3: a completely separate genre, well maybe yes, maybe no, because
Speaker 3: some of the previous genre folds straight on into hip hop.
Speaker 3: For instance, where would you put James Brown? Does he
Speaker 3: belong in the rock and roll Hall of Fame in
Speaker 3: your mind? Yes? Okay, so a whole lot of it.
Speaker 3: I think structurally it's similar, it's unique, but it also
Speaker 3: fits into R and B, rhythm and blues, you know
Speaker 3: what I'm saying. James Brown, certainly that's rock and roll also.
Speaker 3: But here's the thing about it. James Brown fundamentally forms
Speaker 3: a whole lot of the sampling foundation for a huge
Speaker 3: amount of the initial hip hop artists. Funky Drummer in
Speaker 3: and of itself generated something like one hundred and fifty
Speaker 3: records just saying you know, and those rhythmic cues and
Speaker 3: beats were re sampled back into what was foundationally hip hop.
Speaker 3: At a certain point, Wu Tang gets even weirder with it.
Speaker 4: You know, I understand your point.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I understand your point.
Speaker 4: But to me, you know, if you want to have
Speaker 4: a rock and roll Hall of Fame and you want
Speaker 4: to have a hip hop hal and you want to
Speaker 4: have this as a sub unit, you know, whatever you
Speaker 4: want to do, that's fine. I mean, when it comes
Speaker 4: to I agree with you. The black and white argument
Speaker 4: is stupid. But I've gotten into battles on X over well.
Speaker 4: I don't know why you say that, because black music
Speaker 4: is responsible for all of us, and it's like, okay,
Speaker 4: I'm not even going to get into that argument. Screw you, block,
Speaker 4: I'm not even going to go there, because if you
Speaker 4: think about it, who's the greatest rapper of all time?
Speaker 4: A white boy that goes by Eminem Marshall Mathers and
Speaker 4: you have people in rap will tell you he's the
Speaker 4: greatest of all time you think about it, it's just skills,
Speaker 4: is yes, stupid? It should even come me.
Speaker 6: I don't know.
Speaker 4: Maybe I'm different, Maybe I'm too much of a pure
Speaker 4: Maybe maybe I just don't think Shakira should be there, no,
Speaker 4: no problem.
Speaker 3: But this is why we have these discussions. I think
Speaker 3: is you know, let's air it out and see what
Speaker 3: it looks like. Uh and quite frankly, look it just
Speaker 3: I go back to the foundation. You know, if you
Speaker 3: want to talk about the originators of this stuff, you
Speaker 3: can't have rock and roll without the blues whose music
Speaker 3: is that? That is not the white man's music. I'm sorry. However,
Speaker 3: you also can't have it with just the black man's music.
Speaker 3: See that's why I love that song. You ever hear
Speaker 3: that song by ac DC?
Speaker 4: Uh?
Speaker 3: What is it called? Let's oh let there be rock? Right?
Speaker 3: You ever hear that one? Well? So you know it's
Speaker 3: an interesting it's an interesting deconstruction. Oh yeah, no, I
Speaker 3: love that. Matter of fact, my favorite version was off
Speaker 3: of a live album which was called is If you
Speaker 3: Want Blood You've Got It, which was kind of weird.
Speaker 3: It's like agus young and paled by a guitar on
Speaker 3: the cover. Is a weird thing anyway, But that song
Speaker 3: pretty much lays out the story. Look, these things came
Speaker 3: together and that's what happened. It was, you know, jazz, blues,
Speaker 3: rhythm and blues, and that stuff got cranked up a
Speaker 3: little louder. And then a guy turned around and figured
Speaker 3: out a way to amplify the guitar a little differently.
Speaker 3: And then some idiot in England decided to slice his
Speaker 3: speakers to make him buzz, and holy crap, we've had
Speaker 3: an evolution going on for a while. And there was
Speaker 3: a guy named what Ray Perkins who did a whole
Speaker 3: lot of groundwork that nobody even thinks of, which, by
Speaker 3: the way, to cap this all off, you know what
Speaker 3: I saw recently in a video short, which means I've
Speaker 3: definitely lost my mind watching video shorts. A guy has
Speaker 3: now come out that they say is actually Elvis. Elvis
Speaker 3: is still alive, believe it or not. Did you see it?
Speaker 4: No, I've not heard anything about this one. I mean,
Speaker 4: al is he actually Elvis?
Speaker 3: I mean, is this guy? Is he Elvis at the
Speaker 3: right age? Apparently he would be Elvis at nearly the
Speaker 3: right age, you know, depending on how you look at
Speaker 3: it and the gap the gap in his teeth matches
Speaker 3: the early Elvis gap in his teeth, and he has
Speaker 3: a special problem with his hips that Elvis had his
Speaker 3: weird you know, one leg was longer than the other, allegedly,
Speaker 3: you know, just like Elvis. And when one of Elvis's
Speaker 3: children died, he even went to the funeral. This guy
Speaker 3: he photographed there and apparently has been the Elvis living
Speaker 3: in exile all these years. And he's got some like
Speaker 3: common name like Ray Brown or something, and he says
Speaker 3: that finally he's decided to come clean. He is Elvis.
Speaker 3: I think you might see some more news stories on
Speaker 3: this when stuff gets slow. But yeah, apparently there's some
Speaker 3: videos out there that are trying to get viral telling
Speaker 3: you Elvis is indeed still alive. So goes to show
Speaker 3: the old supermarket tabloid tricks are still not dead in
Speaker 3: this day and age. B Pete, what do you think?
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 4: I mean, I can understand the argument that Epstein is
Speaker 4: still alive, Glene Maxwell ain't in jail based off what
Speaker 4: I've seen, but it's hard for me to accept that
Speaker 4: Elvis is still alive. I mean, has has Lisa Marie
Speaker 4: been No? What was his wife?
Speaker 3: Was that his wife?
Speaker 4: Yeah? Has she been sending in money all this time?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 4: I mean with all the problems that they've had with
Speaker 4: the estate and this and that and everything else. I mean,
Speaker 4: what's he doing for a living?
Speaker 3: Wasn't Priscilla his wife? And then Lisa Marie was the
Speaker 3: kid that died not long ago? Or am I mixing
Speaker 3: the month Priscilla?
Speaker 4: That's it?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Okay, yeah, right, yes, No, you're right Priscilla. I mean
Speaker 4: hasd Was she just slipping in a check every week
Speaker 4: while he was in hiding? I mean that's a that's
Speaker 4: a tough one to pull off this long.
Speaker 3: Well no, and then there's some allegation that he literally
Speaker 3: showed up at Graceland around the New Year, uh, and
Speaker 3: was welcomed into areas that only the family knows about.
Speaker 3: There's another odd Trump related Elvis conspiracy thing too that
Speaker 3: I saw on these video shorts, which was crazy. You
Speaker 3: know that that also points to Elvis still being alive.
Speaker 3: So I don't know what they're preparing for, but I
Speaker 3: see them preparing for some viral marketing campaign coming soon.
Speaker 3: Elvis is still alive. And you know what's interesting to
Speaker 3: me about this is they just had this you know,
Speaker 3: found footage of like we have this old film that
Speaker 3: Elvis meant to release and now you're going to see
Speaker 3: an Elvis performance like you've never seen it before, restored
Speaker 3: in modern technology and all that. Have you seen that? No,
Speaker 3: I haven't telling you man. The Elvis thing is about
Speaker 3: to make a comeback. That's my prediction. And you can
Speaker 3: put that in your bank anyway you want, but it's
Speaker 3: coming anyway. I'll close on that note, but leave you
Speaker 3: with the last word, be Pete before we get started
Speaker 3: with the Age of Transitions and Aaron Franz. Anything you
Speaker 3: want to drop in since we got no calls and
Speaker 3: had a spirited discussion just off of your list this week.
Speaker 3: Great job there by the.
Speaker 4: Way, well I just won't tell everybody. Thanks for listening
Speaker 4: in all the guys. It's in a chat room. Appreciate
Speaker 4: your participation. Go to achelly dot com hit the donate button.
Speaker 4: Every little bit helped.
Speaker 3: And we'll see you next week, right and looking forward
Speaker 3: to the upgrades in April for sure, but maybe sooner
Speaker 3: if we can get it done. And special message Danny.
Speaker 3: I can't quite decipher when it is you want me
Speaker 3: to call you at home, but I will call you
Speaker 3: at home soon send me another email to clarify. I
Speaker 3: tried to send that to you, but it didn't go through.
Speaker 3: So there you go. Special message for one guy, and
Speaker 3: a special message to all of you who have stuck
Speaker 3: with me and has survived the great purge of the
Speaker 3: O'Kelly audience over the past couple of years. I am
Speaker 3: merely o'celly. You who have remained are the effect. Do
Speaker 3: you like history?
Speaker 1: Real history that you were never taught in schools? Why
Speaker 1: the Vietnam War, Nuclear Bombs and Nation Building in Southeast
Speaker 1: Asia by author Mike Swanson with new documentation never seen
Speaker 1: before that'll open your eyes to events that led up
Speaker 1: to this. Why the Vietnam War, Nuclear Bombs and Nation
Speaker 1: Building in Southeast Asia nineteen forty five through nineteen sixty one.
Speaker 1: Get your copy today at Amazon dot com. Why the
Speaker 1: Vietnam War by author Mike Swatson.
Speaker 4: Revel Ledge.
Speaker 3: Through calm sage.
Speaker 5: You show.
Speaker 3: Every magic statum at the real matter.
Speaker 5: Horseboter, we of one nation need anti gods and anything
Speaker 5: They would team worthing a brand to completely divide its
Speaker 5: play rhythms Adam.
Speaker 4: Life with don't the liberty just getting freely in justice.
Speaker 3: The only do you leave the.
Speaker 6: Cat Aford a win, but not on justice for the
Speaker 6: seat of the trans units. Jack bro Space Act rockets appatunity,
Speaker 6: every slaughter about.
Speaker 4: The systems for three years, so the rest of us
Speaker 4: all don't forget at the league.
Speaker 7: It's a life country which is mine?
Speaker 4: Which is so will be the punishment for Tea burn
Speaker 4: the for.
Speaker 1: What should the media life?
Speaker 3: The muse expressed like caller schools, there anyone else who
Speaker 3: happens to get on the air of Jelly dot com.
Speaker 3: You not necessarily reflect the views of Jelly dot com
Speaker 3: or Jeff Chilly and we are not responsible for getting
Speaker 3: stupidity which might have students.
Speaker 4: Thank you,