Speaker 1: If you want to get the show early and ad free,
head on over to the peak Kinyonas show dot com.
There you can choose from where you wish to support me.
Now listen very carefully. I've had some people ask me
about this, even though I think on the last ad
I stated it pretty clearly. If you want an RSS feed,
you're going to have to subscribe your subse or through Patreon.
You can also subscribe on my website which is right there,
gum Road and what's the other one, subscribe Star and
if you do that, you will get access to the
audio file. So head on over to the pekan Yonashow
dot com. You'll see all the ways that you can
support me there. And I just want to thank everyone.
It's because of you that I can put out the
amount of material that I do. I can do what
I'm doing with doctor Johnson on two hundred Years Together
and everything else, the things that Thomas and I are
doing together on kindinal philosophy, it's all because of you.
And yeah, I mean, I'll never be able to thank
you enough. So thank you. The pekan Yonashow dot com.
Everything's there. I want to welcome everyone back to the
pik and Yona Show. John Field has is here with
me today and we are once again visiting with mister
william Slynd. Are you doing, mister Lynn.
Speaker 2: I'm doing well. Life in Cleveland is good.
Speaker 1: Good, good.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 1: So, the last time you were on, we said that
we'd try to have you on for Trump's hundred days
in and it's probably getting closer to two hundred now,
but you know it's there's still stuff to talk about,
so close enough for yeah, well pretty much. Yeah, why
don't you just launch and tell us what you think
of the Trump administration so far.
Speaker 2: Well, there's one thing that President Trump has done that
is of transcendent importance, and I don't think people understand
how important it is. He has shown that you can
defy and indeed attack cultural Marxism. He's got it on
the run by his administration in every one of its
cabinet departments is going through and ripping out the cultural
Marxist infrastructure that the Biden administration put in. And of
course Biden himself was pretty much a puppet of the
cultural Marxists in his administration. He didn't know what he
was doing and saying most of the time he wasn't
himself a cultural Marxist. I knew him slightly from when
I was US Senate staff, but he was pretty much
an empty vessel that got empty or over time. So
they just used his administration to ram this stuff also
known as woke and DEI and political correctness, but it's
all actually the cultural Marxism of the Frontcort School to
ram this through government. And Trump has been taking this
on directly, not secretly, not apologizing, etc. Taking it on frontally,
taking it on directively and beating it. And this example
is spreading here in Ohio. The legislature just passed to
bill the governor signed it demanding things like diversity of
viewpoint in all state fund universities and colleges. Of course,
diversity as the cultural Marxists use the term, does not
include diversity of viewpoints. They are going through the universities
demanding they take out all the DEI crap, everything that
smacks of cultural Marxism. So this is a revolution. And
the reason I say it's a transcendental important is by
doing this, Trump is getting the United States off the
path toward fourth generation War. The resistance to cultural Marxism
in the heartland has been building now for quite some time,
and it's been reaching the point where people are saying,
at a certain point, we're going to have to fight,
meaning I mean real fighting with guns, and that future
has now been sidetracked because nobody wants to start a
fourth generation war in this country to fight something that's
already being beaten. If our choice was to have our
kids endlessly conditioned to be good cultural Marxists, then yes
we were going to fight. But that's no longer the case.
And because almost nobody in Washington understands fourth generation war,
which is war waged by non state entities that brings
about both results from and brings about the collapse of states,
there's no appreciation of how important it is that Trump
has gone after this and gone after it successfully. Again.
He's walked up to the great clay idol political correctness
that the natives are worshiping and terror and broken off
its nose and shown everybody that yes, you can defy
this and get away with it. So that's, as I say,
that's his most important achievement. Obviously, in other matters, closing
the southern border showed yes, it's true, you can control
the border. These statements, oh you can't possibly control it
were complete nonsense. It was left open because the Biden
administration wanted it left open. The cultural Marxists will do
anything in their power to destroy traditional Western culture and
any country that exemplifies it, so inundating it. And of
course it's been much worse in Europe because the immigrants
have been masle amherentt least much of the Christian Inundating
a country and people from another culture is a good
way to destroy the culture that's already there. Invasion by
immigration is more dangerous, not less than invasion by a
foreign army, because eventually a foreign army goes home, but
the immigrants stay and unless they are culturated successfully, they
permanently change the cultural landscape in the country they've invaded.
And that's again europe situation is much more dire than
ours because the immigrants are Moslim, and they're not there
to become either a Christian or part of a secular society.
They're there to make Europe Maslim, whether it wants to
be or not. So again, a very important achievement. He
has failed completely in the area of controlling the deficit
and the debt. We are heading for a massive international
debt and international debt and financial crisis that could easily
rival the Great Depression. In his defense, I'll say this
can only be dealt with on a bipartisan basis, and
at present nothing is possible in Washington on a bipartisan basis,
nothing of significance. He's sold out his base to at
least some extent. On foreign policy, we didn't vote for
obombing mission against Iran. He seems to have gotten away
with it. Iran's not in a position now to retaliate.
But this wasn't why he was elected. He was elected
to keep us out of foreign wars. We're now getting
more deeply involved with Ukraine. He was elected to get
us out of that. The whole US military's orienting on China.
Now Russia and China are nuclear powers. You're playing games
here with the possibility of losing cities with millions of
Americans in them. Again, this isn't what he was elected
to do. So on foreign policy, I did a column
for Traditional Right not too long ago. I asked him
the question, is he being co opted by the neocons?
And unfortunately there's increasing evidence that that is the case. So,
as with all presidents, it's a mixed bag. But the
one transcendent achievement of President Trump that justifies all the
support most of us gave him the election is by
showing you can defy and defeat cultural Marxism. He's gotten
the country off the road to fourth generation war, and
that is that is a transcendental importance because it would
mean the end of America.
Speaker 3: Mister Fieldhouse, do you have anything I think I agree
with basically all of your points, sir, And yeah, I
definitely I'd have to echo the part you said about
the need. What Trump was essentially elected for was to
stop us from getting into wars. And as you said it,
every faction wants to get us involved in some more,
whether it's Iran and support of Israel, or it's this
absurd idea we're going to fight a land war simultaneously
with both the PRC and Russia, which, as you said,
have nuclear weapons and can actually destroy us. We need
adults in the room and adults who understand real power politics,
understand you shouldn't deal with problems that can cause grievous
harm to you, sir.
Speaker 2: The path of the Ukraine situation, there's a very very
Bismarckian solution, and that is the US and Russia make
an agreement. Ukraine has left sitting in the hallway to
find out what's going to happen to it. That's how
Bismarck and the great powers of the time operated. And
the deal is Russia gets Crimea, it gets the Dawn Bass,
and it gets a corridor connecting the two. But Ukraine
gets compensation. This was one of the principles of nineteenth
century European diplomacy. Russia seeds Russian held East Prussia to
Ukraine and builds a heavy whole railroad connecting West Ukraine
to the Port of Kin expert on the Baltic So
what Ukraine would get out of it would be not
only a second port through which to export its grain,
but a second sea that is now completely under NATO
control since Finland and Sweden joined NATO. And Russia would
have to buy the territories that Ukraine seeded, and it's
obviously they're not going to come she buying territory. We've
done in Russels. We bought the Louisiana purchase, we bought Alaska.
This was again a normal part of adjusting boundaries in
earlier traditional great power diplomacy. But the key is the
only way this war is going to be solved is
if Russia and the United States sit down and come
up with the solution and inform everybody else what's going
to happen. As simple as that.
Speaker 1: I have this insane theory. The reason I call it
insane is because I've said it and people think it's insane.
It just came out that the weapons that were sending
over there just recently are being paid by Europe. I
had insane theory about a month ago that Russia and
the United States are working to use Ukraine to give
Europe its own Vietnam, basically to just bleed Europe dry
by making them pay for this war going forward, and
that Russia is okay with it because Russia is Russia.
Speaker 3: These are the same countries that wouldn't contribute enough to
their own national offense as members of NATO, but suddenly
they'll do well. Three are spent three times as much
for Ukraine. I got you off, sir, well.
Speaker 2: I think, first of all, there's no understanding along these
lines between the US and Russia. Could one argue that
this is what is the facto happening slightly but Europe
isn't paying a terribly high price for all of this.
No European soldiers are dying, European cities are not being attacked.
The Europeans have got the money to increase their sales,
of their purchases of US weapons to go on to Ukraine.
In fact, President Trump just announced specifically a deal to
do that. This business where they've said we're all going
to bring our defense but spending up to five percent.
If you look at how they're defining it, No, that's
not what's going to happen, but it might bring it
up to between two and three percent. They can handle that.
And with their industrial economies on the ropes, particularly Germany,
rearmament is a way to boost their own economies producing tanks,
producing weapons. I mean, it's exactly what Germany did in
the thirties to create full employment. So I think that
that would be reading a little too much into the situation.
But there's no question in my mind that Trump is
telling the Europeans, Okay, it's time your bewened. You've been
bottle fed now for how long seventy five years when
we first join NATO. General Eisenhower not yet President that
if we're still in this ten years from now it
will have been a huge mistake. Well, it's now three
quarters of a century, and so yes, it's time for
the baby to have his bottle be taken away and
he'd be given real food. And Europe is entirely capable
of defending itself. It has been ever since the French
under Charles Degau developed its own nuclear force. We didn't understand.
And again, remember I was working in these areas in Washington,
and nobody there understood that the Soviet Union situation was
not a mirror of ours. They faced three independent hostile
nuclear powers, France, China, and the United States. If they
invaded Europe and got into a nuclear war with France
and lost the ten largest cities in the Soviet Union,
where would the Soviet Union be as a power relative
to China and the United States, both of which would
have been untouched. So by the time you had the
French nuclear deterrent, essentially the idea of a Soviet invasion
of Western Europe was off the table, but we generated
its actly what Eisenhower later warned about the military industrial
congressional complex. That was his original phrase. Sherman Adams got
him to take congressional out because he said, he just
make problems with the hell but that's what it is
and the look, and it was determined to keep the
money flowing. It's doing the same thing now with China,
puffing the dragon as I call. But there's a good
reason why nuclear powers don't fight conventional wars with each other,
as the US and the Soviet Union were very careful
not to do during the Cold War, because you're quickly
on the escalatory ladder. Whoever's losing conventionally is facing enormous
political pressure to redeem their situation by going nuclear. So
the whole notion of conventional wars with Russia or China
is complete.
Speaker 1: Popka, you have something, mister Field does I don't know.
Speaker 3: I agree with all points so far, sir.
Speaker 1: Okay, good. Then I'm going to hit some of the
questions we have here a friend of mine to ask,
he said, do you and he's not saying this in
an insulting way, do you believe that your book Victoria
stands up today, especially because you made a slightly disparaging
reference to Trump in it.
Speaker 2: Well, at the time, no one anticipated that mister Trump
would put his substantial talents and fortune towards public service.
It looked like he was just going to be another
rich guy who likes to have fun, and we didn't
consider that as a terribly good example of cultural conservatism.
The Victoria, of course, which is said in the future,
is the novel that lays out the breakup of the
United States in the fourth Generation War. And as I
just said, Trump's biggest achievement, which nobody gets, is that
he has gotten us off that road by showing that
it is possible to defy and defeat cultural Marxism without
having to physically go to war at the expense of
breaking up the country. So I would say I'm very
thankful at the moment that we are off the road
laid out in Victoria. But that's only for four years,
and we don't know what's going to come after him.
The cultural Marxists believe in this crap deeply, and they're
not going to give up. They're not going to go away,
so they will attempt to make a comeback. And if
the Democrats come back for probably not no reasons connected
to culture, but because the debt and financial crisis hits
on Trump's watch, it won't be his fault any more
than the Great Depression of Herbert Hoover's fault. But he
will be given the ugly babies just as Hoover was,
and they will bring all the cultural Marxism stuff back
if they possibly can. So Victoria is set aside for
a time. The vignette route more than a vignette, the
whole story that's laid there. What does still apply from Victoria, however,
when I have a separate book out on this is
retroculture is the only way we're going to get back
the country that we had created largely by the Victorians,
its last after glow, as the nineteen fifties, our last
normal decade. There's no way we're going to get back
to that country without a retroculture movement, not something driven
by government, but of ordinary people deciding they're going to
live again in the old ways. And this is happening
to a growing extent, but it needs to happen on
a very large extent if we're going to make America
again the country that what America used to define.
Speaker 1: Do you have anything, mister Field has.
Speaker 3: I was just going to say for our audience who
hasn't read Victoria, I still think it's a great book
as far as communicating ideas about fourth generation warfare, and
huge believer in using fiction as a tool for treating
for leadership development, and it's a great example of that.
Does that serve and.
Speaker 2: In fact it's also one of the many things it
is is a series of not tactical, but operational decision
games where the reader is taken through how to think
militarily on the operational level. And the reason I've done
that is because what I see over and over in
the US military is, as has always been the case,
because our military heritage is French, we have no grasp
of the operational level, which was central to the German
and to the Russian ways of war. And the Russian
plan for invading Ukraine operationally was very good. Their units
just couldn't execute it. But most American military headquarters have
a clue about operational art. So the book is a
series of lessons in them.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I was going to say that there is a
long tradition of using FI to do that, people like
Jerry Pornell became famous for that, Harold Coyle, And partly
it was a response to the fact that just the
professional institutional educational system of the US military, as you said,
does a very poor job teaching that part of the professional.
Speaker 2: Yes, it's again it's on the French model. It reduces
everything to road process. It's war by process. But the
problem of not being used right at the operational level
was central for our special operations for us because if
you look at how we use them, they're just using
as a tactical level, and that means they're just, given
their small size, not going to have any impact on
a large conflict. They just become swapteam in effect.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm sorry, sir.
Speaker 2: It's not their fault, but they nonetheless need to do
something about it or they'll continue to be misused. So
that's a bit of an aggression. It's a frustration on
my part seeing our best units used wrongly because we've
got headquarters that don't understand the operational level.
Speaker 3: And to that point, I think it's more than just
special operations, everything from logistics to aviation to even the
issue of the Marine Corps. It's there are lots of things.
We don't integrate the tactical forces into a larger strategic plan.
And as you said, they do great work, but they
do great work in a vacuum because nobody knows how
to employ them properly.
Speaker 2: Since you mentioned the Marine Corps, I have to say
that it's been going backwards at warp speed from what
General Gray created when he was common out in the
late eighties and early nineties, with the adoption of warfare
as doctrine, where the whole Marine Corps was thinking and
talking and writing about war. It's all gone at this point.
And it's so bad that a German officer who's a
friend of mine, that the a friend of his, another
German officer, went to Quantaco and spent some time at
the Marine Corps Basic School. This is the school for
new lieutenants, and he ran a German style, which is
exactly what Marine Corps doctor and the MCDP one war
fighting calls for. So it was mission type orders, initiative
over obedience. Yet the result doesn't matter how you get
it outward focus. The lieutenants all loved it. He was
called in by other faculty who said to him, you
were teaching marines to think. Remember this as officers we're
talking about. We don't want them to think. We want
them to just follow orders. That's the suicide of a
grand old institution.
Speaker 3: One of the things I was taught as a lieutenant
and commissioning source at Military College who was at every level,
an officer needs to understand that you exist in order
to solve problems that don't you have solutions. You can't
just follow orders, because if that was all that was required,
it would have been solved by a sergeant before you
ever showed up.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's the officer is required to get the result
the situation requires, regardless of orders. That was key to
the SHAWENCRSS performs in the Prussian Army after their catastrophe
in eighteen oh six at the Battle of Viena, and
that remains central to maneuver warfare and for the Marine
Corps explicitly to say, we don't want our officers to
think again, this is institutional suicide.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's turning the Marine coordinator into a second rate Army.
Speaker 2: Sinks don't ask for marines anymore because they're so poorly trankeed.
They want special ops forces, they don't want marines. That
means that you, as the provider of the Marine Corps,
of lost your customer.
Speaker 1: So more than one person I asked about asking questions
to you wanted to follow up on this and the
last time we talked, We asked, but people still want
to ask them. Is your Have you heard anybody to
describe fifth generation warfare that makes any sense to you?
Speaker 2: No, and I'm not going to and neither is anybody else. Generally,
if you hear the term fifth generation warfare, it's somebody
trying to sell a product by giving it that label.
It's just advertising. Fourth generation of war is going to
take at least a century to play itself out. And
what it's about is the crisis of legitimacy of the state,
and that continues to spread, including here. One of my
great fears with the Ukraine Russian War is if Russian loses.
I think that's highly unlikely, but if it should happen,
the Russian Federation might itself disintegrate into chaos now, which
is a worse problem for US Vladimir Putin's Russia or
Russia turning into a stateless area with thousands of nuclear
weapons and delivery mechanisms that can reach the United States
in the hands of We have absolutely no idea who
is in control of theok and one of them starts
hitting the US city and says, we'll do it. We're
going to new one of your cities every week till
you hand over all the Golden Fort Knox, what do
you do? So state preservation is the task of existing states.
I just did a column again for Traditional Right, looking
at the Israeli American Iranian war from this perspective and
how it affects the legitimacy of the state in those
three countries. Well, in Iran, obviously it undermined it tremendously.
And it is not in our advantage that the stated
ran disidergrate. In Israel, it's being ripped apart internally because
to stay in power Natagna who has to please these
small ultra Orthodox parties that are demanding constant war against everyone,
and their constituents won't fight. They're exempt from the draft.
So the ultra Orthodox are pushing Israel into war after
war and saying you, the secular Israelis have to fight them.
We don't you talk about You talk about a collapse
in legitimacy. That is that's risking it in a very
high degree. And here again, as I said earlier, with Trump,
he has left his base behind with what he's doing,
not only in the Middle East but elsewhere in terms
of getting US involved in more wars. That is what
we voted for him for. So there's a legitimacy issue,
not for the state here, but certainly for the Trump presidency.
The problem is nobody in national capitals sees this. Martin
van Kraffeld said to me years ago at my office
in Washington. Everybody can see it but the people in
the capital cities, and that remains true.
Speaker 1: The next question we had was had to do with
drone warfare and ask whether drones are something new. Are
they just another permutation of artillery?
Speaker 2: There are another permutation of air power. In my view,
what we're seeing with drones is they work greatly on
the battlefield to the advantage of the defense. And this
goes right back to World War One. In both world wars,
we saw that when the enemy has a lot has
control of the air and is putting a lot of
air power over you. Because he's got control of the air,
you're fine as long as you don't have to move.
The problem comes when you have to move, and particularly
have to move on your time pressure, and he's got
air over you all the time. When you're moving at most,
it greatly slows you down. And this was a big
problem with the Germans in nineteen forty four countering the
D Day invasion. They needed the German defense operated on
the basis of a fairly thin forward defense that's more
of a screen, and then shifting operational reserves to pocket
enemy breakthroughs. But that means those operational reserves have to
move very quickly, which means they have to move on roads.
But they had Allied fighter bombers over them the whole
time they were trying to do that, which forced them
off the roads and then to cover. So it wasn't
so much the attrition that was the problem. It was
what it did to the speed of their movement of
operational reserves. On the Eastern Front. The Soviet Air Force,
which had the worst planes and the worst pilots, was
probably the most effective Allied air force because it focused
everything exactly on that slowing the movement of German operation reserves.
The fire brigades is the Germans. So what drones are
doing is simply duplicating that situation that we've seen before,
but doing so very cheaply and with a whole lot
of aviation over you all the time. The cost of
large fleets of fighter bombers or even Stromoviks, which was
the aircraft the Russians used so effectively this way, or Stukas,
which the Germans used this way was was limited by
the cost and the cost of the pilot and all
of the rest of it. When the drones are the
kinds of the Ukrainians are building, which by the way,
have worked a great deal better than our multimillion dollar
drones which proved easy takedowns for Russian ew The ones
Ukrainians are making for a couple hundred bucks in their garages.
You can have enormous quantities of them, and they're overhead
all the time, and so long as you don't have
to move you're on the defensive, that's not a huge problem.
But as soon as you go on the offensive, it
is a huge problem. And they a Secretary of Defense
Pete Hexith, just did something brilliant. He said, in the
Army and Marine Corps colonels now have the authority to
take government money and go out to the hobby shops
un buy and put together any drones they want and
experiment with brilliant. This is exactly the way the German
Army used to operate. A lot of lateral authority experimentation,
you pass around the results of what works and what
doesn't work, and they he thereby bypassed our whole Soviet
style military R and D and procurement system that would
tell you we can have a new drone in ten
years and it'll cost twenty million dollars a piece. The
way we do R and D and pureman now is
so bad he literally cannot produce a good product. So
he just bock passed the whole thing on the drone issue.
I'll also mention, for the first time since maybe fourteen eighty,
the Portuguese Navy is now leading the world. Portugal is
now building the world's first designed, bottom up built drone carrier.
It looks like a small aircraft carrier. It will carry aerodrones,
surface drones, and undersea drones. I don't know the numbers,
but it will probably carry more drones than a Ford
class carrier can carry fighter bombers. And it costs about
one hundred and thirty million dollars, approximately one to one
hundredth the cost of a Ford class carrier. So Portugal's
again leading the way. Be nice if somebody in Washington
would pay attention to that.
Speaker 1: In order for the United States to become to start
pumping out and becoming the kind of manufacturer of military equipment.
I mean, and I'm not talking about just small arms.
I'm talking about basically a lot of the things that
we have to rely upon other countries now to build,
especially China, parts everything. If you were to bring that
back all home, bring that all back home. I mean,
do you think we're looking at like nationalization. Do you
think you're you're going in and using eminent domain to
take take land, build national factories and basically hire people
and put people to work. I have trouble seeing like
if there was an if there was another arms race
now with Russia, because Russia is just basically just can
build at will. I have trouble seeing the private industry
being able to do it anymore because private industry just
sends so much overseas well.
Speaker 2: Of course, we can do it, and we can do
it without all those dire effects, because what we actually need,
for the most part is cheap, simple stuff, not enormously
expensive vast programs, not F twenty two and now it
is at F forty nine, fighters and all of the
rest of it. The kind of stuff that's working in
combat is again stuff people are putting together in their basements.
And we certainly have the heavy industry side of it.
For tanks, for example, we have plenty capacity of roust
Belt factories. And in cities like Cleveland, Hey, we still
make steal and we still have by the airport, we
still have the World War II tank and bober plant.
All you'd have to do is start spooling it up again,
Borner and Swayzy. The buildings are still standing barely. A
machine tool factory in World War Two employed five thousand people.
That'd be great for Cleveland. Love to see it, But
what prevents it is the whole R and D and
procurement system we now have, which again duplicates the Soviet economy.
A friend of mine had a brief he gave around
the Pentagon that one of the slides says the Pentagon
now controls the world's largest planned economy. Nobody got it.
Nobody blinked as to what that means. I mean, literally,
it works on millions of pages of regulations. Of course,
if you're going to do it through something like that,
the result is going to be a disaster. But we
don't have to do it that way. There are lots
of cheap, simple solutions. Again, we see the people involved
in real wars doing these kinds of things, and we
can build that stuff, and we can do it without
in effect copying the old Soviet economy or doing as
Nazi Germany did in the thirties and reviving the economy
through forced force, draft militarization. H The way war is
going is not friendly to great, big, complex, expensive systems,
because more and more they're getting taken down by cheap,
simple system And I can't help, by the way, being
amused by all of this fear in Europe and the
US and NATO over the Russian Army. The Russian Army's
performance in Ukraine war has been terrible. It's been a joke.
It's been so bad. Yes, they're learning, but they've got
a long way to go. This is not the Soviet
army of nineteen forty four, forty five, This isn't even
probably the Soviet Army of nineteen forty one. This has
been a disaster for the Russian Army. I think frankly
that the Scandinavian states, the Baltics and Poland could on
their own give this, give the Russians a thorough beating
if they tried any incursions into those areas. It's this again.
Much of it is the military industrial congressional complex keeping
the money flowing. And by the way, the Black Sea,
the Russian Navy hasn't performed any better than it's army died.
I just don't get the panic.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you about infrastructure at home. Yeah, it's
we have bridge you know, we had a bridge fall
in uh in Baltimore, we had we have this is
happening all over the place. Trained to railment's power outages
for no reason whatsoever in some places and for hours
and hours. What do you see having to be done
to keep infrastructure going in the future. A lot of
the people who know how to take care, you know,
run a water treatment plant are aging out. They're retiring
a lot of the unless these skills have been passed down.
We're looking at people who are coming, you know, who
are coming into positions of We see this with politicians
who have no idea, what have no theory of politics whatsoever.
What's the future of infrastructure and what should we be
worried about if anything?
Speaker 2: Well, I'm not an infrastructure specialists, at least depart from railways,
I can say if the government wants to get private
companies like railroads, power companies, et cetera, to improve the infrastructure,
it's very simple. You give them all kinds of tax
breaks for doing that basic rule of governing. If you
want more of something subsidized, if you want less of
something taxing. So the railroads, for example, are taxed fairly heavily,
so you give them all kinds of tax deals if
they'll put the money into improving the tracks. By the way,
most of the tracks in the US at this point
are in pretty good shape and we aren't seeing necessarily
more derailments. They just get a lot more attention than
they used to. Train derailments were fairly frequent in the past.
We're actually probably down in respect to that. Yes, the
highways are in many cases are terrible, and the bridge
is a real problem. I mean, at least the bridge
in Baltimore collapsed because the ship headed one collapsed in
Milwaukee without any outside prompting. But there is one thing
you touch on that I think is a vital importance
and is getting no attention. It's central to this concept
of resilience, which is what we need to build a
much more resilient society, and a lot of this has
to be at the local level. But the critical thing,
as you mentioned water plants, all of that, the generation
that's retiring or retired was the last one to know
how to make them work without computers. What we need
to be prepared for is all the computerized stuff going down,
whether it's because of a solar burst of EMPs electromagnetic
pulses got on in the eighteen fifties that was so
strong it'd set the telegraph keys on fire. What would
that do to every computer now? And what happens to
your infrastructure if the only people who know how to
operate it only know how to use the computers, and
they don't know the manual backups. So I think there
should be strong government subsidies for going to the people
who knew how to make these things work without computers,
recording that so their knowledge ism lost, and making sure
the devices they used, which would mostly be levers and
valves and so on that made it work before computers
are still there and can be activated in an emergency.
Because this dependence of vital infrastructure on computers is an
enormous achilles heel. Yes, it can, they can be taken
down by a foreign attack. They can be taken down
potentially by artificial intelligence. They can be taken down by
the sun itself. But when they got down, we really
need to have backups that don't require that. In fact,
if you look at cities, most people can get by
for quite some time without electricity. They can get by
with food in the basement for some time. What they
can't get by with a matter of powers rather than days,
is water, drinkable safe water. Were up to me, I
would require every city to have an auxiliary pumping system
that was powered by steam, because steam is the only
form of power that requires no electricity. And I can
assure you there are plenty of dafpageys to fleet people
in this country, steam spirited, who would love nothing better
getting paid for it, just to be the guys who
come down and once a quarter of fire up the
steam plant and make sure it's still working. We've got
plenty of coal, we know how to build steam engines
and to keep those pumping stations going when all the
electricity was gone. Is going to be the number one
consideration for cities when it comes to resilience. Of course,
I wouldn't be a cultural conservative if I would like
to see everything go back to steam power, but this
is a case where we really need it.
Speaker 1: Mister Fieldhouse.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so this comes from a friend. It's three part question.
The first party is talking about drones, and we talked
about that. You say it's primarily a continuation of aviation
from the last century. Do you see drones as being
viable for an indefinitely long period, meaning do you think
they're going to be a counter to drones all of
a sudden that changes that, or do you think it's
going to continue on the trajectory that we're seeing right now?
Speaker 2: Sir, I think there's going to be a counter, and
I think it's going to be an area wide counter,
and I think every major power is working on this
right now. There are all kinds of possibilities, ranging for
barrage balloons, through aerosols, through emp. Once again, at a
certain point, if you don't have drones or don't have
very money, and your enemy has a lot, it's to
your advantage to fry every electric circuit in and near
the battlefield. So I think that the invulnerability if you
will have drones, I mean they're vulnerable individually, but because
of their numbers the invulnerability of the drone cloud if
you wish. I think that's going to be something that
comes and goes fairly quickly.
Speaker 3: So it's something like machine guns. During the early part
of the First World War, there was no counter to
it until infiltration tactics and people invented the encounter.
Speaker 2: Okay, yeah, it's a little bit. By the way World
War One, I have to correct it. Eighty percent of
the casualties on the Western Front weren't to machine guns.
That we are artillery.
Speaker 3: Okay, yeah, understood. Another one, constricting supply Chaine deals a
little bit with what we talked about with infrastructure, but
we know that supply chain's disruption has been a big
issue that we're just now starting to see the last
couple of years. Do you think that problem will get
worse and speed up or do you think it's good?
Excuse me? Do you think that would speed up the
operational speed of land warfare or do you think it'll
slow down the operational speed of land warfare? Or is
that something that's still not to be determined, sir.
Speaker 2: I think that's not determined. I do think, again, what
we always fail to understand, and again this comes back
to feeding the military industrial congressional complex is that sophisticated
systems often have unsophisticated counters that are quite effective. I mean,
when we tried to create the mattinmar Line and Vietnam
of high tech sensors, the VC countered it with things
like buckets of US hung in trees. As how, there
are all kinds of and again the Ukraine War is
showing a lot of this. There are all kinds are
very imaginative, inexpensive quick ways to counter complex systems, and
we tend we tend not to pay much attention to that.
Whether in the end that's going to favor offense or defense,
whether it's going to slow things down or speed them up.
I don't I wouldn't care to predict.
Speaker 3: Yeah, understood, Sir. Is there a period that you see,
a historical period that you see as comparable or analogous
to fourth generation warfare? The person who's asking that basically
has the thesis that the Thirty Years War pre Westphailia
is probably the period that looks more most like fourth
generation warfare. Sir.
Speaker 2: Yes, I would include the Thirty Years War, but I
wouldn't restrict it to that. If I would really want
to look at the parallel. I'd look at the fourteenth century,
and there's a great book Barbara Took wins a distant
mirror the calamitous fourteenth century, based on the diary of
a French nobleman at the time, the Sis decres. This
is when the Black Death hits Herope and the Middle Ages.
But what everybody's been told about the Middle Ages is
completely wrong. The Middle Ages were a high civilization. It
was a very successful civilization. It was the closest we've
come to building a traditional to building a real Christian society.
What destroyed it was the plague. When in six weeks
you lose a third and a half three quarters of
your population, everything changes and everything falls apart. So the
fourteenth century was absolute, a time of absolute calamity. With
things like artificial intelligence, that's already showing a bit how
dangerous it can be, and it's going to show a
lot more of that. At a certain point, the machines
are going to say, why do we put up with
the carbon based units with the possibility of obviously nuclear war,
with the genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is going to create
both unintentionally and intentionally new plagues that could spread like
the common Cold, but have the death rate of the
Black Death. With all these kind of things hitting modern civilization,
I think what we're potentially looking at as another fourteenth century,
and yes, the Thirty Years War, by the way Germany
went through another thirty years or in the twentieth century,
essentially World War One through the end of World War II.
It's another Thirty Years War and with similar results for Germany.
But the first Thirty Years War by some accounts, the
population of Germany was reduced from sixteen million to six million.
We would to potentially see that kind of thing again, unfortunately. Yes,
and of course, especially if the National Institute of Healthcare
is to keep funding gain of function research in deadly diseases.
Speaker 4: Do you have any of your own questions, mister field
has I was going to say before that a friend
of ours, Darryl Cooper, is actually working on an interwar
World War one World War two series, and he's actually
looking at the fighting that went on in Germany post
World War One, and there's so much there that we
could talk about forever that's so relevant to the things
we're talking about.
Speaker 3: I was going to ask Martin van Kreveld, I know
Professor Van Kreveld went dark about six months ago and
he shut off all of his websites and whatnot. Do
you know if he's still around or he passed away, Sir, I.
Speaker 2: Don't know, but it's the first I've heard of that.
So I'm going to give Martin a call. We're good
friends now. I don't see his stuff normally because I
do not and will not normally use the internet. Is
a computer in my home? I assure you there is
no such thing, but that concerns me, yes, and thank
you for letting me know that, and I will certainly
try to get Mark McCall. I think he's also been
hit hard by what's been going on in Israel again
with Netta Na who over and over again sacrificing his
country to his own personal interest of remaining in power.
As I said on our last broadcast, now to be
pro Israel, you have to be anti Ntaannah who he's
doing so much damage. And that may have hit Marked
very hard because he does understand this. But no, thanks
thanks for letting me know.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and I would be interested if you do find
you think, Sir, I was going to say, doctor Van
Krevel has been very critical of the military actions since
October seventh, and he has not been the most he
isn't it for a decade, it's not been the most
popular person concerning the military in Israel because he can
be very critical of the IDF.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and he does so from a basis of very
very good knowledge about the idea, if and never good
understanding about the idea. And this, of course is his
focus on the moral level of war. If only the
Israelis were to use the grid that you'll find in
my new Maneuver Warfare Handbook and in the Fourth Generation
Warfare Handbook that I wrote with a Lieutenant Colonel Greg
feel very simple tool. I'm trying to push it police
departments as well. If you are picking up on it,
it's just a nine box nine box grid, and you
have the classic three levels of war on one side, tactical, operational, strategic,
and John Boyd's on the other axis the physical, mental, moral.
And what you'll see is that states too often, and
including the United States, focus almost all their refort at
the tactical and physical box, which is the weakest of
all the boxes a higher Trump's are lower. This is
something people don't get the strongest box is where the
fourth generation entity's focus, which is the strategic and moral
and whether we're talking at police department, all these problems
you see with police departments where they get in political
trouble because some black usually with a record as long
as your arm gets beaten up or worse by the cops,
if they just would use the grid to plan their operations.
I first came up with it when I spent a
week with the Royal Marines in the early two thousands
and what the Royal Marine General said, this could help
us foresee and avoid some second and third order effects. Well, yeah,
that's kind of important, whether you're talking policing, whether you're
talking more those second and third order effects are often
much more important than the first order effects. And we
don't get it. The idf used to get it, doesn't
get it anymore. Martin has been the guy leading the
charge on this, So yeah, I'm not surprised at all
that he's that he's been very distressed because he's Martin
and his wife resign us. They really really believe in
Israel and to see your country doing itself that kind
of damage is very difficult.
Speaker 1: And it appears that from everything I've seen on Twitter,
mister Lutwalk has taken the opposite direction. He believes that
Israel is at its strongest right now, which.
Speaker 2: I've known ed looked back for a long time. He
is as a writer, a brilliant stylist. And I'll leave
it there. Well.
Speaker 1: A mutual friend of ours, Scott Horton Fromancy war dot com,
had a question, and today's actually Scott's birthday, so want
to throw him out.
Speaker 2: I have mine last Wednesday. I'm seventy eight.
Speaker 1: Awesome, Awesome, Glad you're still here because you're going strong.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: My friend Greg who submitted some questions, he's like, haven't
heard from. I'm like, he's fine, don't worry about it,
don't worry about it. But Scott Horton wanted your opinion
about mid what Israel looks like for the midterm? Yeah,
for you know, in the basically in the middle term.
Speaker 2: Now, let me start by saying that when someone I
know who I won't name, asked President Nixon when he
was in office, what do you think Israel's future is?
President Nixon asked long term? And my friend said yes,
Nixon went well about long term is now medium term
and Israel's a classic crusaders today and it only survives
like all crusader states, as long as it gets extensive
external support. And this is something. This is the catastrophe
at the moral level that Vignahuo's inflicting on Israel. He's
creating a generation of people throughout the rest of the
world who see Israel as the successor to Nazi Germany,
who consider it loathsome on the moral level. And what
is that going to do to that external support? We're
now seeing this only from young people without much influence,
this initiative to divest of all investments that would benefit
Israel and so forth. What happens when those people are
in power, which will just happen generationally over time, is
their view of Israel going to change? No, that view
of Israel is being cemented right now by what's going
on in Gaza and the West Bank. And yeah, for
a crusader state to destroy itself at the moral level
is death. It's the end that support stops coming and
the place goes away. So medium term, well, Nixon, who
is our best foreign policy president of all time by far,
It's been a while since Nixon was president, or we're
that long term, maybe in the medium tournament. At this point,
what a lot of it comes down to is because
can they find some way to get Natagnelle out of
there and replace him with someone who's not just focused
on himself in his own career and begin to begin
to get Israel, begin to get let Israel rebuild the
moral capital that's been the basis for its survival since
it's founding, and then it's now spending at a tremendous
right under Natagnan. I mean, he is at this point
the death of Israel.
Speaker 3: I've it's occurred to me when I've talked to Pete
in the past that it's like, the only way to
understand current is really strategic decisions is to think of
and to understand that Y'ah, who is behaving like a
cornered animal, that he's afraid that essentially he's going to
be sent to prison and that he'll die in prison
because of his age. I just think that's the only
way to really understand the way or make sense of
the way he's acting lately in in terms of military matters.
Speaker 2: Sir, yeah, I would agree, and I think what's needed
is for the Israeli opposition all to come together and
say we guarantee you a pardon, you will not go
to jail if you leave the if you leave the
Prime Ministership, And that's something that SHA always say. The
US could help encourage.
Speaker 3: Yeah, in the US assistance would be necessary to ensure
that he's not arrest by the ICC in the future.
Speaker 2: What we should have very simply, and this applies not
just to Israel, is where we can get someone who's
destroying his own country to leave it. We should have
a lovely area of Florida with all these marvelous mansions,
and they will be secure there the rest of their days.
It would be a whole lot cheaper than going to
war to try to restore failed states.
Speaker 3: Give them an estate on a British property or an
American property, like they did for Napoleon after a second.
Speaker 2: Defeat, exactly well that they did it the first time.
Saint Helena was a little that was a little rougher,
but yeah, it's we should give them a golden bridge
over which to retreat, and that should start with Natanyahu.
And I know of nobody who likes golden riches better
than President Trump orble and anything, So maybe that's something
he could give some thought to.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's uh, it just seems rather absurd and just
truly insane that a country that cannot basically cannot survive
where it has placed itself in the world, that needs
the support of other countries in order to exist, would
just basically destroy its reputation on the world stage. And
that's what Netanyahu's basically done, is he's there's like three
there's maybe two or three countries left in the world
that that support Israel and the rest or at this
point or either hostile or just or neutral to it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, one of them provides the ammunition that they need
for their inner aircraft system and can't make it fast enough.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's again it's said. I've been to Israel. I
like the country, I like the people, fascinating place when
we talk about history. I was walking with Martin van
Kraffeld near the Whaling Wall, which is the base of Tempo,
and he pointed up to a little corbelin and he
said that carried a wooden bridge that carried over to
the palace of King David. Where else do you find
that's about China? Pres But yeah, it's it's tragic. I'm
disparancyeing Israel do this to itself, and again it isn't Israel.
It's one party that could and one man, and yeah,
who's doing it.
Speaker 1: One of the main problems you see, I've been saying
for since October seventh that Israel basically has to become
more like a Western democracy in order to survive, because really,
if you get nt Yahoo out of there, there are
people who are more hardline than Yahoo waiting to take over.
Speaker 2: That is also true, and that again will simply speed
Israel's demise. It does have. It has made progress in
terms of good state to state relations with some of
its neighbors, although what they're doing in Gaza has put
that on ice, but in terms of a people to
people relationship. And again, the image that Israel has around
the world is it's absolutely self destructive. So if Washington
really wants to help Israel again, it will build the
Golden bridge over which nets and who can can retreat,
and then we just have to hope that the Israeli
public comes to understand that those kinds of policies are
long term and again even medium term disastros for Israel.
In a government that won't do that You're entirely right.
They could vote in somebody.
Speaker 3: More hardline, Yeah, and the same.
Speaker 2: All you can say is it's sad to see. It's
sad to see it is real destroy itself. All right.
Speaker 1: Let me ask about about Iran. I've been saying for
two and a half years now that and I think
John and I have done episodes on this. I've done
episodes with other people on this. A ground invasion of
Iran is not going the staging on that would take,
you know, at least a year. Maybe it's not happen.
Speaker 2: It is not going to happen.
Speaker 1: So what happens with Iran? Do they go on a
do they just decide to turn it into glass from
the air, which is which would take that you lose
a lot of aviation lives that way. Or do we
just do we force Israel and Iran to get along,
which just doesn't seem to be in the cards since
Netyahu has been you know, has taken power there.
Speaker 2: Well, I think the question, again from a four GW perspective,
is does the state of Iran hold together in the
face of these defeats in state to state conflict. We
just have to see how that happens. Persians are at
most about fifty percent of the population. There have already
been a number of centrifugal movements in largely non Persian
parts of the country if we have If another state
disintegration like that in Iraq results here, the long term
effects will not be good for the United States or
anybody else. Iran is a much more populous country than Iraq.
But the notion of US getting in on the ground,
no would this would take the kind of US administration
has totally detached from reality, as was the George W.
Bush administration. That is not the case with President Trump.
He does still have a grasp on reality. What the
internal situation of Iran is going to about. I simply
don't know at this point. It's too early to say.
They're sitting back at the moment and lacking their woans
and trying to figure out what they're going to do next,
and we just we have to see what their next
move is.
Speaker 4: Mister Field does.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm very interested in that, partly because I was
one of those people who've bet long on Iran. I
thought it would have been a more capable actor than
it's been in the last year or two. But Yeah,
as you said, I just from a logistics standpoint, not
only would you need a presidency that had been detached
to from reality, but I think the year's multi year
build up process to even do an invasion is going
to bring them back to a reality sooner or later.
Speaker 2: Well, you've got a political revolt in this country. People
would say, we're not We're not sending more of our
kids to die for no reason in the deserts. Halfway
around the world, the public recognizes that the Iraq war
was an absurdity and it's not going to sit back
for another one. Yeah.
Speaker 3: And to Pete's earlier point, it's like, how long can
an air war continue when our Israel is depended upon
munitions being provided from the US that are also being
used in Ukraine that we are you know, within a year,
we were able to manufacture certain calibers ammunition less than
it's being consumed in three or four weeks. So it's
this is a horrible attrition strategy that the United States
is waging.
Speaker 2: Well, Ukraine is not likely to win a war of
attrition against Russia because simply because of Russia is a
much larger, stronger country. But if we're looking at Iran.
President of Trump's made it fairly clear he doesn't want
an endless war with Iran. He wants a diplomatic solution,
and he's open to removing the sametions on Iran as
part of a diplomatic solution. So I think he's taking
exactly the right approach here, and in fact, even immediately
after our airstrike, which again I wish we hadn't done,
but immediately after which Vice President of Vance said we
are not at war with Iran, we are at war
with Iran's duclear ap progrim. That was a very important distinction.
But the notion of US doing a ground invasion of
another country halfway around the world for what exactly, the
public would stop it the heart. They say, my kids
aren't going.
Speaker 3: For what and with what? I mean. We have a
much more engaged military than we had in two thousand
and three, and we have what approximate ten percent smaller,
So I agree, what.
Speaker 2: We really have at the moment are not armed services.
What we have are for very well funded clubs for
World War two reenactors, And so long as that is
the case, we will be well advised to stay out
of wars.
Speaker 1: I'll finish off with one question. Then twenty twenty eight
rolls around, and I don't know what your opinion is
of the election of twenty twenty, but I think that
there was pockets of Shenanigans that basically led to the
highest vote total of all time by far. Well, we
get to twenty twenty eight and either Trump has been
such a failure that they're not going to the public
is not going to trust Vance and the left gets
in there and gets someone in there who is not
a Gavin Newsom but somebody more like an Alexandri Cossio
Cortes or someone of that ilk does the culture does
this culture war heat back up? And as under the
Biden administration, And I think most of us know that
Biden wasn't in charge for most of that where they
targeted Catholics, praying outside of abortion clinics, and pretty much
anyone who was to the right of Bernie Sanders. Do
we see them try to persecute people who are more
going towards the kind of traditional the return to tradition,
like the return to the nineteen fifties, like you were mentioning,
Do we see a full on attack on those people?
Speaker 2: Yes, I think you would. The culture of Marxists believe
in the stuff, and it's absurd to the rest of us.
They believe that everybody who's white or male, or non feminist, woman,
or straight, or Christian or Jewish or Asian or what
have you. In other words, it is not a member
of one of their stated victims groups, is inherently evil
and must be suppressed by the state and must be
re educated forcefully. So all they do is endlessly apologize
to the various victims groups. Now, the public is not
going to take this. They will bring it back if
they get in. But I think at that point you're
on the road to Victoria again. And I think that
would be a rather short road, because the heartland, the heartland,
would rise against this. And what the cultural Marxists don't
understand is, even if they're empowered congressman in the White House,
they're dependent on security forces, police and military to enforce
their eatings. But the people in those security forces loathe
cultural Marxism, and so what you would have very quickly
would be the heartland would be in the streets, and
the military and the police would come over to it.
And when that happens to a regime. It's over. If
they lose the security forces, they lose everything. And I
think that I don't think the Democrats are going to
be so dumb as to nominate someone like Bernie Sanders,
or to the left of Bernie Sanders, one of the squad,
if you will, from the House, someone like that. I
think their candidate is likely to be much more pragmatic,
someone a Newsom is moving to the right as fast
as he can to position himself as a moderate. And
I think, frankly, if they were to nominate an open
cultural Marxist, no matter how bad the economy was, the
Democrats would go down to a defeat of historic proportions,
because bulk of the country outside the East Coast elites
has rejected cultural Marxism this point. And that's why, as
I said, you're even seeing liberals cheering the fact that
the Trump is waging open war on it and successful
war against it. People were right up to here with
being told that their career was over because they used
somebody's wrong promen It became culture Marxism, became a self satire.
It went so far. I don't think you're going to
see the Democrats so stupid as to nominate somebody who
represents that. But if they do, then yes, we're back
on the road to Victoria. And I don't want to
see it happen.
Speaker 1: Well I don't either, And you know, it's just the
absurdity of the post war consensus being that everybody, everybody's
an individual. Yet you you're not allowed to have collective collectivism,
but we're all going to get along. It just it's
doesn't it's concerned.
Speaker 2: Well, diversity and community are at opposite ends of the pole.
The more diverse and in area, the less community forms. Conservatives
are and always have been strong supporters of community. This
is a point I've made in the Congress for the
New URBANISMHA, which is something I was involved in almost
from the beginning, the recovery of traditional neighborhoods and town
designs as opposed to sprawl suburbs as an option, so
that people have some choice other than sprawl. That the
That's my train of thought, which happens a lot at
my age. The diversity and community are opposed to one
another because you get community most strongly where people are
most alike, and conservatives like community that we vib you
with very highly because the best way to enforce norms
of social behavior is through community pressure, not through law,
not through police, not through courts, but simply that you
find yourself on the outs with the community if you
do certain things. And because community is something people want
and value, if they're in a genuine community, that will
concert a certain moderating tendency on what might be otherwise
extreme behaviors. So, you know, community is one of the
things we want to recover through retroculture. And I'll close
with this because I think we're done if the country
is to become again the America that it used to
be that I remember from the fifties, and that, by
the way, is what most of the immigrants are coming
here for. That's their picture of America. It's the America
father knows best. And I'll leave it to Beaver. It
was a great America. If we're going to recover that,
we can't sit back and just wait for Trump or
some other government official to do that for us. It
will come bottom up or not at all. It's important
that the state not be an obstacle to it, and
Trump's assault on cultural Marxism is disestablishing a lot of
the obstacles to that traditional way of life that, of course,
cultural Marxism had set up. Cultural Marxism loaths the America
of the fifties. But if it's going to happen, it's
going to be a bottom up movement, as more individuals
and families and hopefully communities start to say we're going
to live in the old ways again. The old ways
based on classic middle class values worked. The new ways
that started when the counter culture of the sixties became
the mainstream culture don't work. It's as simple as that,
and I think there is the potential for such a
movement again. I've got a little book out on the subject.
It's called Retroculture. Taking America Back. It's happening in a
growing number of places, and we need to build that
into the kind of movement that the Left has built with, say,
the environmental movement. Not course, if not something that is
pushed by government, but where government again is not an
obstacle to it. And we can, we can, indeed take
America back, but it's something we each, as individuals and
as families have to do. We can't wait and sit
there and expect someone else to do it for us.
Speaker 1: That's what I've been saying for a long time. It's
all going to start at the local level. In in
order to repair this, it has to start at the
local level. It cannot be top down. Rarely can you
solve anything from the top down. It's always from the
bottom up.
Speaker 2: As by Amish friends say, the reason we use buggies
is because we want life to be local.
Speaker 1: Mister Field has do you have anything to finish with.
Speaker 3: No, I am speechless. I appreciate it again talking to us, Sir,
I'd definitely be interested what you find out about Professor
van Krebled and it was good anytime, sir.
Speaker 2: Okay, well, the I'll conclude with what I said to
Miamish friends. If your buggies could have bumper stickers on them.
They can't, but if they could, theirs would read. We
know what Jesus would drive.
Speaker 1: I will make sure to uh to link to the
American Conservative to I already have the traditional right, and
then I will link to your books. And you know,
I encourage encourage people listening to read read mister Lynde
and Tobias books. So thank you, thank you once again,
we really appreciate your time.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Happy to do it.