0106 Sir Gene Speaks with Dude named Joshua

Track 1: 0:14

That's Sir Gene. And joining me today is sir Josh. How are you

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 0:17

I am doing wonderful Sir Gene, thanks for having me on.

Track 1: 0:21

Yeah, it's been you were on once or twice before. I can't

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 0:24

I believe it was last summer that was on.

Track 1: 0:28

Okay,

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 0:29

Yes, sir.

Track 1: 0:29

gotcha. And just to remind people, you're going through getting your, uh, is it a history degree or an education degree? What, what are you

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 0:39

a, it's a Bachelor of Arts in History and with a focus on US history. anD I'm minoring in religion.'cause I, I, I, I come into religious kind of, you say accents when I study certain historical events.

Track 1: 0:56

Mm-Hmm. Mm-Hmm. Yeah. And you and I have just gotten, gotten. Chatting about quite a bit of historical stuff lately, and I thought, you know, it'd be, it'd be fun to get you back on

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:08

course I'm, I'm always happy to, to come on the show for from time to time. It's always a, it's, it's, it's very interesting. This particular format that's conversation based. It's, it, it's very it's, it's, it's a new type of podcast that I, that I, I actually prefer over some of the other things that are out there.

Track 1: 1:27

Yeah. The way I always look at it is most of the podcasts I do are just hitting the record button on what otherwise would be a phone conversation.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:36

Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And some, and, and oftentimes you get a little bit more of that unscripted, uh, organic element that I, I, I see as very kind of unique to, to a podcast that I, I think is more approachable and kind of wanting of the general public at large.

Track 1: 1:57

Absolutely. Yeah. I, I enjoy that. Plus it requires less work, so I, I enjoy that part as

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 2:02

Yes. Yes. Script. Scripting a podcast from start to finish. It takes a, it takes a lot of work. Sometimes the almost off the cuff discussion is a little bit more fun, more dynamic, and in my, and in many ways, challenging

Track 1: 2:18

Yeah. And I, I'll, I think definitely the fun part of it is there for sure.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 2:24

sir. Absolutely.

Track 1: 2:26

Let's see. We can talk about a, a, a slew of things, as it were, but wE, we sure seem to be living in a interesting time that I think other people will be reading about from a history standpoint. It's what the hell was America doing with all this meddling in other people's wars all time? What's from a historical perspective as you've been studying history of the world, what's your take on this? I mean, is it, is it seem, are you sharing kinda my oh, there we go. Gotta remember to turn off the, the old ringer. Do you share my perspective that it seems like we have an unusually active, uh, current interest in, in getting into other people's business then historically is the case or do you think that it's just, I'm reading into it something that's not there?

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 3:26

I share with your SI share your sentiment quite a bit. The United States does have a, um, a history of getting involved in other conflicts, and that really started to manifest itself. Following the American Civil War, certainly there was one instance, the Barbery Wars of the early 18 hundreds during the Jefferson administration, where we were engaged in, in that conflict in the Mediterranean. But really from my perspective, it was really the Spanish American war that really kind of launched the United States onto this, onto this national scene where we're going to go out there and, and take whatever we want. And some people would point at the Mexican American War, but that really had a completely different policy and purpose for making war with Mexico in 18 46, 48. And that was all surrounding, essentially we wanted Texas, uh, and so we were gonna take Texas, whether we, whether Mexico wanted us to or not. And so war was just inevitable, um, with Mexico in that regard. But the Spanish American War as the United States wanted to come onto this national scene to be a big player. And that was part of, kind of almost this domino effect where monarchies were more or less being toppled toppled and taken down. And that would culminate, of course, with World War I, the, the, the, the, the series of World War I and World War ii, as they would come to be later named. With all of these former empires basically being, being just destroyed and dismantled. And so I would say that since the Spanish American War the United States has, has had a history of, of putting itself into other countries, affairs specifically for its own gain. Namely resources, resources, land strategic military value, and so on.

Track 1: 5:26

Mm-Hmm. Yeah. And there's certainly a, um, I think a, a history of US business kind of driving that.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 5:42

Precisely the American Fruit Company would be one. And I believe the I don't think it's Dow Chemical, but the, the other premier chemical company that was around, I think might've been DuPont or the previous company that became DuPont in the early in the early 20th century the, the, those large American corporations were, were behind the, the military engagements throughout central South America throughout the Southeast Asia, including the Philippines and Guam, as well as China. We were instrumental in kind of going over to China and, and, and wrecking shop there as well.

Track 1: 6:18

Now, it certainly is not limited to the United States though, because we had the the West Indie Indian, what were they, what were they called? The was it the West Indies company? West indian com. What the hell were

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 6:31

The

Track 1: 6:31

The guy. The British guys.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 6:33

the EIC, the East India Trading Company. Yeah. Yeah. The,

Track 1: 6:37

the one? Yeah. East Indian Training Company.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 6:39

were they, they were the kind of the lapdog of the British Empire. The, the once Britain more or less became a, a parliamentary monarchy system following the glorious revolution in the late 17th century that kind of led the way for Parliament to kind of run things and Parliament liked to more or less compartmentalize and have certain you know, certain entities take care of things. And the East India Trading Company just became, you know, one of those entities that would handle the the large scale transportation of goods. On this, on this large highway known as the High Seas. And India was a, was a premier location and really came into its own in the 19th century being a, a, a place where you could get a lot of cotton goods and spices and so on. In fact a very popular beer the India Paleo IPA became known for its wonderful voyage to India as a result. And the East India Trading Company had a lot of problems. They were, they were the, the problem with the Sepoy mutiny in 1857. They were the reason that the, the British monarchy had to come in, in, in exact control over India and the latter part of that century. And it was just a, it was just a mess. There, there's a history with business driving warfare, um, and not, and, and it's not just the United States, but the Britain, Britain, Russia, China, they all do it.

Track 1: 8:05

Yeah. And, and certainly I think we've been seeing quite a bit of that including in the most recent, uh, conflicts us been involved in with Ukraine and sort of by proxy with Israel, where, there's a lot of, I think, emotions flying around on every side here, the, the thing you can't objectively you know, ignore is that for the last 40 plus years, the US industrial military complex, or the, if you wanna be more, um, I guess. More descriptive is just the American arms. Manufacturing companies have been getting paid for selling arms to Israel, but getting paid by the US government. So effectively, Israel has had a credit line for all kinds of arms from US arms manufacturing, which that credit line ends up actually getting paid by the US government rather than Israel. A lot of people that really looked at how this works, assume that the US is just shipping greats of dollar bills to Israel and giving them money. The reality is much like with Ukraine, uh, the, the free money that Israel is getting, the. Isn't completely free, it is basically tied to an equivalent amount of spending with US manufacturing. So really, I, I guess sort of a, maybe a slightly socialist way to describe it is it's a welfare program for the United States military industry.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 9:58

That's a, that's a good way of putting it. A welfare program, for the military industry.

Track 1: 10:03

Yeah. Because it, it's guaranteed spend every year that the government pays for, but which is not coming out of the same budget as the Pentagon sales. So the Pentagon buys arms as well every year, and they, you know, they've got their own consumptive needs. But on top of that, there's a number of countries, uh, and is by no means is Israel the only one there. There are a, a plethora of countries. The United States effectively provides money, provides grants to, in exchange for contracts for those countries to buy US military equipment.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 10:43

Wow. I had no idea that it was, that was that kind of you know, not necessarily, scandalous might be the right word, but just more or less just kind of out there in your face that, you know, we're taking all this money and we're going to guarantee, you know, a certain amount of armed sales to deliver to these countries. I didn't, I didn't necessarily realize that. That's, that's, that's pretty spec.

Track 1: 11:05

It's a win-win for everybody except the taxpayers because it, it, it makes, you know, for the, the countries that are getting grants from the us it, it ensures that they stay on the US' friendly side and that they're, they're less aptt to be troublemakers. Right. They're getting top quality, presumably US manufactured military gear. I. For the us military production industry, it's a great deal because this is additional money beyond what the United States military itself would spend. So they're getting a bigger percentage of the worldwide market share without necessarily even having to go out there and spend money on trying to market the product. And to the politicians, you know, they're, they, they all work off of the trade of favors. So by doing deals that bring money into a particular arms dealer, uh, they're almost guaranteed, if not completely guaranteed, of getting campaign donations from those companies as well. Like I said, everybody wins except for the US taxpayer, which is on the hook for additional money every year.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 12:25

Hmm. Additional money that we, that we seem to not be able to pay back, which is it's just a huge problem that I see for the, the United States moving forward into the 21st century. If we want to continue to be this this place that can continue to manufacture and give weapons to whomever, whether it be Ukraine or Israel or, you know, insert, you know, next favorite country, um, you know, that, that doesn't seem like it's going to be able to continue, um, forever. As though that type of thing would, I would say, would be finite, that eventually it would come crashing down at some point.

Track 1: 13:06

Oh yeah. It, it has to, I mean, like last year the US gave 3.8 billion, and again, I mean, it, it's technically true to say US gave 3.8 billion to Israel, but it's not an unconditional 3.8. It's basically. US paid for 3.8 billion worth of, uh, military equipment that Israel got. Now, it's, it is also, not to say that that is a hundred percent of the Israeli military budget. They get 3.8 billion, but then they also buy another 10, 20 billion themselves. So it's it's not like the US is covering a hundred percent of the Israeli military budget either. But a lot of people will point out that hold on. Israel has free medical care for its citizens. Israel has, you know, all kinds of programs in place that the US does not for its citizens. So why are we providing money to somebody that really is in a better financial position than we are? And it's a, I think it's a very valid question to ask and. You have to, I think, recognize that the, the rationale for providing money doesn't have anything to do with need. It's not a need-based, um, aid. It's still technically called aid, which is I think maybe a little not not accurate. It, it's a payment certainly. But I think it's, it's primarily driven by political interest rather than, uh, needs-based interest. So it's not the same thing as oh, the country of sedan is starving. Let's sell them some money for food. This is, this is more we don't want to lose an ability to land our planes in the Middle East, so we're gonna ensure that Israel always has runways and fresh fuel available for us. More of that kind of mentality.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 15:09

So a strategic asset.

Track 1: 15:11

We're doing the same thing with Saudi Arabia, frankly. I mean, we're, we're not limiting ourselves to the the Jews or the Christians we're doing it with Muslims as well. iT's, it's basically just part of the you know, buying friends strategy that super powers have always done. Same thing that Russia was doing with Cuba for 40 years.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 15:33

That's, that's pretty incredible. I almost kind of, you know, forgot that the United States was in fact still doing business with Saudi Arabia. Every time that kicks up, I'm like, oh we're actually still sent, who's Saudi Arabia fighting? And it's, it just one of those things that, that I'm not always able to kind of keep up with in the, in the current events, because m most of the news sources that I try to ser that I try to, to survey or, or, or Skimm through and try to get some kind of an idea on what's going on in the world today. They don't always I mean, some of the stories that they put up, it just, it's this isn't news. This is just nonsense. I mean, I don't, I don't care. You know about some, you know, gymnast, boyfriend and they had a wonderful date, but, you know, you, you scam, you, you, you. It's gonna be easy. Like you, you looking at like celebrity news and it's this is just garbage. So yeah. It's really, it's really terrible. But I, I get your point on the, the military spending this kind of military welfare spending, as it were, that's really kind of more or less setting the stage for, for some of these conflicts and it's, it's, rather unsettling.

Track 1: 16:52

Yeah. And I think it could all be explained like there is, it's not all n nefarious necessarily. When you look at, um, the ability for a large country with a, a massive GDP to be able to use a very small slice of that to impact relations in another part of the world. It's not necessarily a bad thing for the country, like it's a strategic investment into getting something that you want. It's, it's all part of the whole economic hitman strategy, right? Which is you come in with boatloads of money in order to then create a structure which benefits you and is worse for whoever you're, you currently dislike at the moment. So US isn't providing military assistance to Taiwan because the US likes Taiwan or Taiwanese people who are actually Chinese people. thE, the thing that the US is doing is not wanting to lose control of the location of the highest, um, generation, like the most advanced chip making facilities in the world. So we're, we're going to protect our ability to get high-end computer chips. And if that helps people that are living in Taiwan for the time being, that's fine.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 18:27

Of course, of course. You know, the, the situation with, with Taiwan, for me it's, it is still, it's one of those you know, world events that I don't always get the, the utmost information. But as you, as you point out when you're looking for trying to get you know, something as simple as these computer chips from Taiwan, it benefits the United States in, in certain ways to, to safeguard Taiwan or provide them with certain defense measures against a foreign aggressor. Whether that be China or whether that just be pirates in the region. And as I understand it, the US Navy, I. It's still is, is, is still patrolling those particular waters, um, to, to guard against piracy and, and other forms of terrorist activity. And

Track 1: 19:19

Yeah, that's just bullshit. That, that's propaganda. The, there's a lot of that's my opinion anyway. There's an awful lot of this the, you know, the US is providing safety on the high seas to all the shipping. There's no piracy. This is, this is such utter bullshit. And it's not to say that something couldn't spring up potentially, but we know where piracy exists and the US isn't guarding a whole lot there, which is right around Somalia. Any place where the industry of piracy. Can be successfully built up. It happens. And all the ships moving through there have to have countermeasure as a board, which most of them essentially hire a you know, a what used to be called Marines, which would be a military, military detachment aboard a, a vessel. And so there's, there's groups of guys with guns aboard, aboard. A lot of, not all, but a lot of the oil tankers moving through that area, uh, for the express purpose of keeping the pirates at bay. This is not something that the, the US is gonna be spending money on, is ensuring that every single ship of every country doesn't get attacked by pirates. But yet we hear this all the time, uh, from from people that work for the US government. In providing this type of narrative, which is that without the United States, the, the whole shipping industry and all the ships that China has shipping products overseas, they're all going to get robbed by pirates. The, there, there are not enough competent ships or, or a competent ship. There are not enough competent pirates and also not enough ships to be able to steal all that product. I mean, it's just a ridiculous thing to think. And if you're gonna have piracy, it's gonna be in a very close, uh, geographic distribution around ports. aren't going to pirate in the middle of the Atlantic because it's dangerous and because then what? Okay, so now you've just done something that will put a, a target on your back. You are days away from being back on land. Somebody doesn't need a Navy, they just need to have, uh, a capability to send some missiles your way, and there's nothing you can do about it. So I, I think that that portion of it is extremely overblown, is that this whole, like us, is the guardian of the world shipping trade. It, it probably started off that way immediately after World War II to where most, most countries, virtually every large country, uh, had paid a, a huge toll during World War II in the destruction of their infrastructure and the reduction of their capabilities, uh, to both produce and to safeguard. And the United States being on the other side of the world really only suffered one location at the hands of the Japanese. In Pearl Harbor, and for the most part was unaffected by any sort of anything from World War II really, which reduced the rest of the world's capabilities. China was devastated. Japan was devastated. Australia was devastated. All of Europe, all the European countries, uk, all their capabilities were severely reduced. Russia, obviously you know, there were countries in Africa which didn't have any manufacturing capabilities, so they were unaffected. That goes in part with south America as well. Countries where there was not much capability in the first place were obviously also not greatly affected by World War ii. But of the countries that did have capabilities, United States was the only one that was left sort of standing. So in a way, a defacto became the high power on the seas, um, because, first of all, US still had a, a substantial supply of military ships that it produced, um, during World War ii. There were also plenty of ships that were still active, that were produced prior to World War ii, and they could represent a, a single country had a bigger fleet than pretty much all the other countries put together at the time. So I think that that sort of idea of the US safeguarding the world's commercial pathways in the oceans came from a, a realistic place. I just think that today it is severely, uh, over-hyped to a regard where it's certainly no longer actually the case. If you look at it.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 24:22

That, that makes a lot more logical sense that you put it that way. And, and as I said, you know, I'm kind of a victim, if you will of a lot of that, you know, hype, that propaganda that, or misinformation if you wanna call it that, because that, that was my basic understanding of, of what you know, several of our Navy vessels are typically always doing in certain parts of the world is guarding against piracy. And that may be true in certain locations, but you make the point quite eloquently, you know, if there's a, a particular pirate that wants to take, to take on this particular vessel that's out at sea, I mean, what are they going to do? They're not going to have the, the, the logistics to be able to move all of that cargo, oil, whatever it happens to be on their little, you know, dinghy they got. And so mm-hmm.

Track 1: 25:11

The, the biggest change that happened, uh, in relation to the safety on the, on the high seas. It has nothing to do with Navy of any country. It has to do with space. And the fact that we've now put enough satellites up there to be able to look at every square meter on the planet Earth 24 hours a day. So there, there is no hiding in the way that a pirate ship could have hidden, I don't just mean the 17 hundreds pirate ships, but even like turn of the century, turn of the 20th century pirate ships, uh, the way that they could have just sort of, you know, hijacked a ship, stolen whatever they were looking for and then disappeared. That cannot happen anymore. You can literally monitor every single ship in real time on the oceans across the world. tHere, there is no disappearing act that can happen. And so it's sort of like putting a bunch of. Closed circuit TV cameras into a bank? It makes bank robberies a lot more dangerous. Not because there's more guns, but because you cannot not be seen, you can't avoid being seen, like you will be seen before you even enter the bank on the outside with cameras. And your path will be traced through multiple cameras inside. And then, you know, even if you're covering your, your face up,'cause you're pretending to have covid, um, your, your path in that bank and even out of that bank will be easily traceable up until somebody is actively looking for you. So it's the, the advent of, I think satellite did more to reduce piracy than anything else. And if you look at the Somali pirates back when they were big, what you're talking about is literally a group of a dozen guys with AK 40 sevens. That were in two relatively shallow water boats. Like these boats could not go anywhere near the open ocean. And their only real ability to steal these ships and to take over ships was in the fact that there were no weapons on most ships, most commercial VE vessels for whatever reason. I don't, I mean, I don't understand why I would sure tell have guns on there, but they, they did not. And they're so automated that their crew crews are fairly small these days. So you have these, you know, a hundred ton, a hundred thousand ton rather vessels going through. And they might have a crew of 12 people. You got a dozen guys with guns that just jumped on your ship, boarded it from small ships and climbed up ladders. Of course you're gonna surrender. There's not much to do. But there's nothing that the, that. The US military is gonna do about that, either not until it becomes like a focused, concentrated problem and they're getting pestered to do something about it.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 28:18

I like that. Pestered to do something that's, that's, that's, that's pretty excellent deed.

Track 1: 28:25

It's, I mean, you know, it's the old squeaky wheel gets to grease.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 28:28

of course.

Track 1: 28:31

So that's kinda, I think what we've got going on. And then the the Ukraine situation seems like it's winding down. The the Ukrainian troops are completely demoralized. They understand now that the chance of more money coming in from the US is shrinking every week. The focus is very much on Israel right now, and even if Israel ends up wrapping up, I think most people are tired and done with Ukraine anyway, and there's not gonna be any support to resume anything further. The fact that they've wiped out a whole generation of men and currently have over 50% women, uh, fighting on the ground, uh, is, is not a good image for western nations who tend to like to protect their women and not have them be in, in dangerous situations. the fact that they've shut down newspapers down to the point where there's only one state controlled newspaper, that they've literally banned religions, including, uh, orthodox religions, which both Russians and Greeks practice from the country, again, demonstrates the type of mentality that they have. It, this is it, it's always so ironic hearing Ukrainians or certainly the president of Ukraine, um, calling Putin a dictator while himself acting like an actual dictator and canceling elections. Meanwhile, Putin has been going through regular scheduled elections every, every time that there's supposed to be elections. So it, it's a it may be hard to believe, I think for, for some people in America or maybe Ukraine, but, uh, the population of Russia is in higher support of Putin today than they were two years ago. There are more people that are in support of what he's been doing, uh, than were supporting him prior to this action taking place.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 30:35

That is, that is definitely a hard pill to swallow, I think for many Americans today who probably hear com the complete opposite about what's going on in Ukraine. I, I, I never drank the Kool-Aid with, with Ukraine. I never drank that. I always, I was always on the side that, you know, Ukraine was a country itself. That's more of a. Of an illusion you know, the a byproduct of when the Soviet Union fell and they created this country, and then here they are. And they've always had a, a history of corruption and they've always had a history of a certain amount of human trafficking that's gone through that particular part of the world. And that particular region has always had conflict associated with it. And, you know, it's always been conquered by this group or the other across the many centuries. But recently with them outlawing religion. When you have a state that's going to outlaw, you know, one religion or the other, or all of'em, I mean, that's pretty telling about what that particular country wants to do. It's because the, the state itself is going to be the, the, the religious hierarchy. And so that, that, that state religion itself that should ring some kind of alarm bells off in the American psyche because we continually speak about the separation of church and state and how important that is. And it's not necessarily just a separation, but it has a lot to say about we don't want our government itself to be able to establish a state religion. And that was the, the, the first, the first tier of that argument is when you have a, a government that has establishes a state religion, then we would have precisely what was going on. In England, right about the time of the revolution where they had the, the, the state, the state religion, the Anglican church, which, which for all purposes was, was mostly Catholic as far as its how it was set up and, and its traditions and so on. They just had that separation from Rome. That separation from the papacy and that state religion was very was very dangerous. And it demonstrated a a, a specific intolerance to other Christian groups that began to emerge, not just in England, but throughout, throughout Western Europe. And if a state, if a state is going to go after religion that way, then they're not going to have anything that the, the, the kind of underpinning. Purpose of religion is going to deliver inside of, of that particular country. And I would say one of the primary purposes of religion would be to instruct people on, you know, moral matters. You know, differences of right and wrong. That would be one really distinct purpose. And it looks to me that that ukraine's gonna be going in a really bad direction as a, as as a result of that. That's just my opinion on it.

Track 1: 33:48

Unfortunately, they're just fucked. I mean, there's no other way to describe it at this point. There is no good future for

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 33:55

no.

Track 1: 33:56

It's, it's a bad future. It is completely the result of the rainbow revolutions that were orchestrated by Hillary Clinton's group, um, where they decided to take the chance to say, Hey, you know, I think we can pull it off. We can flip the government of Ukraine. If we get the current guy out of there and make people think that it's a, it's a countrywide revolution. Then we can take Ukraine, which is a. A completely Slavic country. It's literally the southwestern part of Russia. It'd be like, you know, if, if the US breaks up and Arizona and Southern California formed a country, it's okay. It was never a country. It used to be part of Mexico. Then I was part of the United States. Never been an independent country. Now we have the country of, you know, Cali Zona

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 34:57

Cali Zona. The Cali, the the Cali Zona Hypothesis on Surging Speaks. I love it. This is gonna be

Track 1: 35:03

that's right.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 35:04

Okay.

Track 1: 35:06

Cal Zona.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 35:06

There you go. You go.

Track 1: 35:08

and, and that's essentially what we end up with. And, and so really the way I've been describing is this whole situation is this, is, this is something that started off as a US directed action to a. Flip Ukraine to be able to expand American influence. So it's not just expand NATO or expand the eu eu, but really expand American influence deeper and deeper. And nobody at the time really thought it was a big deal'cause Russia's weak, so who cares? But what it turned into is more of a Slavic revolution, which is people on, even on the, what was Ukrainian side of the border, did not, did not want to be part of this new World American order. And so they said, no, this is a bullshit fake revolution that happened. The legitimate government is still in control and just'cause you guys chased them outta the country doesn't mean that you get the country. And so that created a. Over a decade worth of fighting from those eastern provinces against this government, the current government. And finally, there were a growing number of people in Russia that were essentially telling the government, telling Putin, and, Hey, our relatives are getting the crap beat out of them. aNd they're the ones that are supporting, what was the legitimate government of Ukraine? You gotta do something. And for a decade, Putin resisted.'cause he's very much contrary again to the American portrayal. he, he's the opposite of a war marger. He's somebody that always likes to come up with a negotiated solution to things, you know, he's not prone to, uh, the, the sort of rhetoric that we hear from people like Lindsey

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 37:11

Lindsey Yeah.

Track 1: 37:12

Graham. Yeah. Exactly very war hawkish. No, that's, you never hear stuff like that from Putin because, uh, he's actually intelligent. like Lindsey Graham, he, he understands that you get a lot further by having good relationships with a lot of different people that all help each other. And so it was a difficult and long coming decision for him, um, to come to the aid of the people that were stuck in Eastern Ukraine. But the end result is gonna be that anyone who wants to be Russian effectively is going to be living in Russia without having to move.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 38:00

Wow,

Track 1: 38:02

And that's, that's a end result that I, I think America didn't count on. Certainly the current leadership of Ukraine didn't count on. But if anyone actually understood the history of Russia and the history of all the fighting in that part of the world fighting with the Ottoman Empire, fighting with the Mongol herds, then this is the clear, inevitable outcome. This was always something that was gonna happen. And that's why on the first day after that event on Sine Speaks, I actually talked about what my predictions are, which is a line drawn from just north of Odessa, uh, and of Kiev that ends up becoming Russia because that part still has very close affiliation and ties to Russia. The most western part of Ukraine at times was captured by Germans. There's some German influence at times it was captured. By Poland. So there's quite a bit of Polish influence there. And in fact, the very western part of Ukraine used to be Poland and was, um, it became part of Ukraine after World War ii, uh, after Russia won the war. So there it was essentially a spoils victory kind of thing.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 39:27

The, yeah. Poland used to actually be bigger.

Track 1: 39:30

like around iv,

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 39:32

Yeah.

Track 1: 39:33

Poland's gotten bigger and smaller a number of times over the years. You know, they used to be part of the the Lithuanian Polish Empire, which controlled a lot of territory, including roughly half of what modern day Ukraine is. There, there have been,

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 39:50

Okay.

Track 1: 39:50

Like a lot of European countries, they've gone through periods of great success, followed by periods of a lot less success. And so it's not just Rome that had a huge empire. There were a lot of'em. The Austro-Hungarian Empire, uh, was very sizable. And you know, there's, there's a a lot of France had a much bigger impact. Obviously you, if you look at the Napoleonic Wars, you can see just how much territory France controlled at the time as well.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 40:25

the, that was.

Track 1: 40:26

And we, we all liked to make fun of France for just being the white flag country. But there were certainly periods of time where the influence of France was quite a bit greater and in, in some ways looking more, uh, towards the the Renaissance era is, you know, friends really was challenging Rome for the the religious supremacy as well as being the true holders of the faith as it were.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 40:59

Wow. That's European history itself is is very challenging. Indeed. Is

Track 1: 41:04

Which I think is hilarious because honestly that's the main history that exists, like of, of all the history books ever written, if you categorize them by what is the topic of the book, what area are they about? iT's probably about probably about five to 8% East eastern history, China, Japan, uh, probably a similar percentage around India. Less in Africa, quite a bit more in the Middle East, but probably about 5% in the United States and about 75% Europe, because there's been a thousand years to write history books in Europe. It's It's been barely over 200 years to write history books about America. aNd a lot more has happened in Europe, obviously than in the United States. And you know, I'm sure some people would say what you're implying that there was nothing happening here before the white man came? If there was, they weren't writing about it, were they?

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 42:13

No, they,

Track 1: 42:14

I mean, not, not my fault.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 42:15

really, they really weren't writing about it. There, there, there is a culture, and I can't remember the name of this culture, but they existed in South America. Again, I can't remember the name of the country, but they had these these strings and they were all kind of connected to a central point and it almost looks like a wig, if you will. And they had a series of knots in them. And what it was, was a, a, a, a story that's recorded in the way the knots are tied and arrayed on, on these series of strings and they have yet to decode it. I wish I could remember the name of the.

Track 1: 42:56

It could have just been a mop.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 42:57

have been a mop. Yeah. Or a, or a, or a broom. A it could have been anything, could have been a child's toy. But that, that was the assertion that that's what they were doing. But you, you're right, a, a majority of of history on the North American continent, a majority of that history is not written. It is in the oral based traditions of, of what are the the North American the, the Native American tribes that, that lived

Track 1: 43:22

Mm-Hmm.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 43:23

And they didn't have a written language for the most part. And written language was one of those things that the, the white men of course, brought over from Europe. And it was a

Track 1: 43:34

Along with smallpox.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 43:35

smallpox and a myriad of other things. And along with that was of course, more warfare. And the the Native American tribes began to understand the written word more so as the, this term, this thing called a treaty was to become more prevalent. And they had to start you know, having some of the members of their tribe learn to read and write in the English language or the French language or what have you. And that's what they did. So that whenever treaties Were written and signed and agreed upon that there could be a mutual understanding of what those treaties would mean. And of course, for the most part, those treaties would, would be, you know, not, not fully honored and so on. It was you could call it the, I think it's called the, the, the backroom dealing or the backwards dealing where you agree upon something and then you renege on the deal or you don't honor the deal. That was very, very commonplace. Because well as the, as the European settlers began to have more and more success, uh, along the coastal cities and they wanted to continue to encroach, westward into the continent, to ac to take advantage of the, of the resources of the land they had to, they had to move those Native American people out of the way, and they either, you know, bought the land or they took it. And it's pretty much the, the two ways that you get that land. You either pay for it or, or you just take it by force. And ma many of them were many, many of those guys, they didn't wanna sell their land off. They just didn't want to, they wanted to keep their, their lands in, in, in their possession. And so they, they sold it sold it with their lives, which is, you know, tragic. But it does happen throughout history.

Track 1: 45:26

Yeah, I think it's totally natural. I mean, that's mostly what happens the. The organizational skills of the Europeans were hundreds, if not thousands of years ahead of the Native Americans here. And so it was not that hard for them to be successful. And it's not just a matter of one group had guns, the other one didn't. The, the by, by the, certainly by the time that the west was in full-blown expansion in the early 18 hundreds, um, most of the Native American tribes had both horses and rifles, uh, that there are, uh, tons of trade opportunities, uh, for them to be able to acquire those. And so it wasn't really a matter of, I think, being necessarily technologically. But it was more a matter of just the raw number of Europeans that were coming over and being born, the raw number of Christians being born on the East coast and families wanting to migrate further west. The population densities of the Native American tribes were just not sufficiently high enough to be able to combat that type of expansion.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 46:55

Hmm.

Track 1: 46:57

You gotta have more cannon fo you can't lose your entire military when the enemy still has most of

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 47:04

Yeah. When you, when you lose the the manpower to fight, there's just the, the, you can, you can't rec, you can't recuperate those losses. And,

Track 1: 47:15

and a big part of that was because they were, they were still early in the agrarian development, so they, they did not have the ability to create massive farms to support large. pOpulations. Now, ironically, some of the most developed Native American tribes like the the Aztecs and the what's the other one? The Maya down in, in Mexico and Central America, uh, ahead and much better able to confront an invading army. They, they were no longer an influence by the time that the, not even just the West, but even the Midwest was being conquered. They, they were completely gone. Their, certainly their ancestors were still alive, but they'd gone back to a much more primitive ways of living than what was going on during the Maya and the Aztec heydays of those empires.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 48:17

Yeah. The Spanish were, were very successful at, at, at conquering at conquering those those civilizations at that time.

Track 1: 48:25

I think that was mostly just luck because the, there were a lot more people died as a result of a lack of antibodies to infections than due to any kind of great military strategy by the Spanish. Yes, they brought gun power with them, but the weapons that the the native populations utilized, uh, were very good at killing people. yoU know, there, the obsidian knives were many times sharper than the steel weapons that the Spanish had with them. The the blow dart pipes that they were using, uh, were also. Very accurate and quiet and able to deliver a poisonous shot to somebody with nobody around them, even knowing what happened. But if you combine that with the infections that were brought over that there was no way to treat, um, you know, that is, that is what what you saw was the core base example of of the way that again, I'm blanking out of yeah, I lost the word. But basically the, the way that a population that is unprepared for something effectively has to rely on random genetic mutations within that population. I. To finally be reduced down to the people that are able to fight the infection as being the only ones left to reproduce.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 50:16

Ah, okay. I, I, I, I, I see, I understand. Yeah, I, I understand what you're saying.

Track 1: 50:22

it's, yeah, I mean, it's a, it's sort of an evolutionary process that's slowly happens, but it's greatly sped up when you, when you have a, a brand new pathogen like that that nobody's prepared So it's, you know, there's certain things you can, like the infections that you survive through and you get antibodies for, uh, certainly are gonna be a lot less dangerous moving forward. But when they're so novel that there are. No antibodies being manufactured in 99.9% of the population. It's that randomly genetically mutated 0.1% that you're relying on to preserve the population and genetics. And that's kind of what happened. I think it's just tremendous numbers of people died not as a result of, of good military strategy, but as a result of a lack of antibodies.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 51:27

of a ba, basic internal protection against foreign pathogens. And so they would be,

Track 1: 51:32

Yeah, I mean it's, it was really un an unplanned, but it was really the first form of bio warfare.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 51:39

yeah. Which is a, which is a very terrible thing to think of, but it does, it does happen. And it's probably happened a lot more throughout history than we, than we probably, you know, ever thought possible. I mean, just the, you know, I, I always think of bubonic Plague and Bubonic Plague as I understand it, traveled traveled the silk Road from, uh, not necessarily India, but in a region around India westward. And that's how it got to Europe. And unfortunately the the specific flea that, that carried this pathogen,

Track 1: 52:18

Yeah.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 52:18

just kind of,

Track 1: 52:20

It's a rat flea. It was a rat

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 52:23

And it's just kinda spread around and nobody was able to, to handle this particular illness, and it just killed people in mass and you know,

Track 1: 52:31

Yep. And, and the problem was that people at that point kept rats as pets. I mean, the rats were basically squirrels at that point. They, like when you look at a squirrel, you don't think what a disgusting, horrible animal. You think, oh, it's kind of cute thing with a bushy tail, right? Give it a nut to go take back to its house. That's essentially the way that people thought of rats back then. They were just, these small little rodents didn't really bother anyone. And although they did eat grain, they certainly liked to eat our food, but they weren't thought of as these like really disgusting things that most people don't want to have anything to do with. Most people don't ever want to touch a rat given an opportunity. Right? And I think that that is literally up at this point still a general civilizational feeling based on what happened during the black plate.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 53:30

A a cup, one of those conscious things that you're still kind of reeling about because that, that those events

Track 1: 53:36

It's kinda like Friday the 13th.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 53:37

13th. Yeah. The, the, the notion of, of a Friday and the number 13 and how that particular event that occurred, and I believe it was 1307 when the Knight's Templar.

Track 1: 53:48

Yeah. It was October 13th, 1307

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 53:51

and I was think it was King Philippe, and I want to say it was, it was either Pope Bonnis or Clement iv. I can't remember which. But yes, that, that, that, that iconic event of all these people being magically arrested and then. And tried for crimes, convicted, of course, they were all convicted and then they were, you know, brutally executed in a, in a number of ways. And, you know, that, that occurs throughout the land. I mean, you're gonna remember that particular day. And, you know, especially for for the the Christians they would definitely see that as, you know, a a day that should live in infamy. And then it just lives on, in our psyche and our horror films. And even to this day, I think we still have a couple of nursery rhymes that ring around the Rosies one. That's all about the the plague and the symptoms of the plague and all that. And you know, sometime,

Track 1: 54:48

We all fall down.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 54:49

they all fall down. Ashes. Ashes, we all fall down, you know, the, the nursery rhymes and horror films, you know, kind of. Play off of these almost, you could almost call it genetic memory in a way, but not really. But these, these events that are just

Track 1: 55:07

Yeah. It's institutional memory, I think is the term.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 55:11

Institutional memory. Yeah. Okay. That's better. Instead of genetic memory. We don't have genetic memory yet.

Track 1: 55:17

Yeah generic, I mean, genetic memory I think is slightly different. Genetic memory is more like what the survivors of the Inca would have. Not memories of, you know, relatives getting killed or anything. But it, it's essentially the, the fact that, that they all do have, um, genetic capability to fight these diseases now. I think it was, um, other than then what else was there? I think one of'em was syphilis, the other one was chickenpox and then there was another couple

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 55:54

smallpox, syphilis. I think typhus typhus would've been a big one. I.

Track 1: 55:59

So all, all these things that, there probably is. Now, I don't know this, I'm not looking up data, but I would bet because it, it would make sense that there's actually a smaller percentage of people with Native American blood DNA, that would be, um, at risk from those diseases today than there are in the general European population because so many of them that died out that the bloodline was reinforced to only be containing the DNA of people who survived.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 56:45

It is, it's kind of, it's kind of just like almost all awestruck to consider that, you know, the, the, these populations experienced such an event that reduced their numbers down to this, you know, those those thresholds where they may not be able to continue to sustain themselves and, and, and, uh, anthropologists out there claim that there's, there's been several of those points for the entirety of the human species, uh, during some points in, in, in recent history, geologically speaking, recent history

Track 1: 57:21

Yeah.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 57:22

we, we almost

Track 1: 57:23

Yeah. I think Europe from what I remember if you go back far enough in Europe back to about 12,000 years or so, that they've, they've only found a variance of about 40 women in all DNA that is in your, that is of European ancestry today. So e essentially, it's not to say that we know for a fact that the population literally got reduced to. 40 females is just that, um, we've not been able to find more than that. So even if it was a higher number, it was still a number. Not too far from that. Let's say double. So a hundred, we like the entirety of the European genetic pool, uh, stems from roughly a hundred people.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 58:14

That's incredible. And that would've, and about 12,000 years ago, that would've been

Track 1: 58:20

Yeah. The younger dress.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 58:21

the younger Dryas event which was a great cataclysmic event. I follow Randall Carlson and his, his talks on the younger dryas

Track 1: 58:29

Mm-Hmm.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 58:31

and the the glacial meltwater series that occurred. It's it's, it's pretty incredible that that type of information, it's almost, it's the, the information is almost literally so large that it's hard to process when you start talking about large, large volumes of water washing over a land mass and moving large boulders that are just immovable today with modern technology

Track 1: 59:01

There. There's not a single historical civilization that doesn't have a flood myth

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 59:08

that literally, yep.

Track 1: 59:10

all over the world. All, all some of em are in the religious context. Others, just in the historical context, every civilization has a flood myth. That's, that should tell you something.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 59:25

it, it, it tells me that, that the, that the, the flood myths themselves are not necessarily true, but in reference to something that most definitely occurred in the past.

Track 1: 59:39

Yeah, it's a broken telephone, right? So it may have started off with some truth, but after many generations of verbally passing on the information, it may be quite different, but at least we know there was something that happened that affected the entire world. And the other interesting thing, I find that if you do the math to look back at

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:00:03

Mm-Hmm.

Track 1: 1:00:04

Atlantis and when Atlantis would have existed, um, you find the same thing that it goes back to 12,000 years ago. I think it was 11,200 for Atlantis.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:00:19

11,400 or so to speak? Yes.

Track 1: 1:00:22

Yeah. That it's, again, it's just based on verbal tradition. But, you know, our oldest references to Atlantis are essentially coming from about 4,000 years ago in Greece. And they're, they're already talking about something that happened thousands of years ago. So it, it's, it's fascinating stuff. You know, again, I, I would never make the argument that we know facts from any of this. We're just sort of putting pieces of a puzzle together and we're saying, oh, that kind of looks like a foot. Oh, this, this kind of looks like a horse. But, but nonetheless every year we can uncover more and more of these pieces that we're putting together. And the picture that it's drawing is sometimes amazingly similar to what we read about in religious texts. Which, you know, some people is surprising because they think that religion is just stories.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:01:30

they do think that, and the, the religious context for these stories, you know, for me, I, I, I look at'em and I'm, I'm just in awe that many of them have, you know, survived through the ages. You know, I would've always have thought that, you know, we'd probably Have taken the story of Noah and, and, and changed it around so much over the course of, of 1500 years of Christianity bickering amongst itself. But for the most part, the story has remained the same at least from what I know and understand, and it, it's, it's really awe inspiring.

Track 1: 1:02:08

Yeah. And you know, the fact that we've got, now the ability, or very close to the ability at least of bringing back extinct animals. The, the wooly mammoths. I know there's a number of projects going on right now, I think in both Russia and China. That will be recreating woolly mammoths essentially, uh, you know, taking the DNA that's been extracted from frozen samples and, um, combining it with DNA from elephants and then having an actual mammoth be born.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:02:51

that would be something pretty incredible to see. Now, however, I mean, we're talking like a real life Jurassic Park type, you know, situation. So they would be, they'd be taking, you know, DNA out of this wooly mammoth that's been preserved in the tundra. and I mean, would that DNA be fully intact? I mean, that's a question I have. I don't know. I don't know. And

Track 1: 1:03:19

Yeah. They certainly have sufficient DNA. There's a lot of, I mean, that's the other interesting thing about the whole mammoth frozen in the Siberia thing is that, um, they, they weren't emancipated when they froze, which means that this was a fairly fast event

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:03:43

yeah.

Track 1: 1:03:44

because they didn't even have time to lose weight because they couldn't find food. These were critters that were living there and eating and walking around, and all of a sudden, one week the temperatures just dropped and kept falling and getting colder and colder. And they literally froze to death rather than starved to death, which is totally contrary to what the, the normal theory of climate change has been for the planet.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:04:16

that's it presents an interesting argument for the, for the climate change alarmist is, is how does the the climate in an area, and I, I don't know how big this area was when these animals were w walking around, but this particular, you know, woolly ma, woolly mammoth that was, you know, frozen will preserved sometimes they were, you know, had just got done eating, the food wasn't even digested in their stomach, and now they've literally frozen to death.

Track 1: 1:04:49

Mm-Hmm.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:04:49

does that happen? Like at what, what, what is it that would have to occur to make those that that particular, you know, circumstance occur in, in, in, in a cli in a climate setting? It's just abs.

Track 1: 1:05:04

And I, I think the, an the most straightforward answer is is that there would have to be no daylight.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:05:12

No.

Track 1: 1:05:13

It would have to be, the sun would have to be blocked out completely to where the earth could not warm up during the day.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:05:22

Yeah. So if that, if that would be true, then there's something in the atmosphere that's blocking the sunlight. So my mind instantly would go to some type of, you know, comment, meteor impact, where there's a lot of,

Track 1: 1:05:36

That's the most likely. I mean, you can stretch and say a giant spaceship stood between the earth and the sun too. I guess

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:05:42

Or, or, or, or the moon. The moon was, uh, a particular distance.

Track 1: 1:05:50

The moon would have to be right next to the earth for that to work. It's so far away

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:05:55

you, if you

Track 1: 1:05:56

it couldn't block out that

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:05:57

we could definitely take a you know, an ancient alien astronaut theory apply it here. And the the moon is a artificial satellite put there by by an, by an alien civilization, and they were moving it with their remote control device. Yeah, there you go. That's a good one. I mean, it's not very plausible, but you could definitely, you know, you could throw that one around upside,

Track 1: 1:06:19

And, and the problem with having the moon closer is that if it's closer, then it's moving faster around the earth, which means that it couldn't really block out the sun for any period of time. I mean, it would be for a matter of a minute or two. Because it's just like the International Space Station, you know, at, at that height. It's making, what is it, I think 24 rotations or 28 rotations around the earth every, every day. So it's, it's less than an hour for it to go all the way around the earth. So there's a lot of issues there, but I, that's why I think I also lean towards the, the meteor impact or giant volcanic explosions that

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:07:06

eruption. Yeah, those, those two seem most plausible. Of a, of a causation for, you know, there to be enough particulate matter in the atmosphere to, to, to block out the sun for a period of time so that, you know, the, the temperatures just plummet because

Track 1: 1:07:22

And I'm sure somebody could do the math on it. I don't, I don't know what those numbers are to calculate just how much of a lack of sunlight it would take. In order to cool the temperatures down sufficiently enough that it would you know, make animals that are living in the Northern Hemisphere freeze, um, due to the weather. And it's, I'm, I mean, my guess is it's probably, you know, maybe three or four weeks with no sunlight,

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:07:52

that sounds about right.

Track 1: 1:07:54

but I'm just pulling that on my ass. It could be, it could be a lot more, it could be a lot less, but it would certainly have to be a lot more than just a few days because we've gone through a few days with no sunlight when it's really shitty weather and the earth still isn't that cool.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:08:14

it would have to be,

Track 1: 1:08:15

So it's interesting, it's interesting stuff to look at because you know, you, you being a a student of history and eventually a teacher of it, um, I've always just. Kind of taking the old adage that if you don't understand history, you're gonna repeat it, uh, to heart. And so I've always enjoyed learning about the past, but the older I get, the more I realize that there's very few of us that do. Most people really could give a rat's ass about the

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:08:49

They that, that, that attitude is very, is very prevalent. It's very common. A lot of people just don't care. I, I've had coworkers in the past that, you know, they, they really honestly don't care about what happened in World War I, world War ii. They wouldn't, they wouldn't care. I've had you know, fellow classmates, you know, they don't really care about, you know, studying wars, revolutionary War for one, they don't care. You know, more and more of our our students that are coming outta high school, you know, they can't find Washington DC on a map you know, let alone Israel. And yet you'll have these kids that are on college campuses having, you know, some very, you know, disheartening things to say about that conflict. You know, despite the fact that they really don't have any contextual information. About that conflict. And

Track 1: 1:09:36

Mm-Hmm.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:09:37

my, my driving force is to have more information about the people and the places and the events so that I can have a greater sense of respect for them. Having more, uh, having more respect for the culture that's involved in a conflict. You know, for example, you know, the, the, the Israel Hamas conflict. More, more information about them. The more I'd learn about them, the more I can at least give them respect. You know, there's still people that are being hurt. There's still people being killed. That's a tragic thing. No matter, no matter what anybody has to say, it's a tragic thing to lose people. However, there's a, a conflict there and not many people understand it. And the message that we get in the, as the general public is, is, is very much far from accurate. So it's, it's, it's all.

Track 1: 1:10:27

Yeah, it's all going through a filter.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:10:30

I will go Yes. That, that and that filter that you're, that you're referring to is, is not just some of the people who are, um, in our government that are, you know, presumably giving us information that is supposed to be right. That is supposed to be good. But they are but they're also are, are our media people. Our, our people in the, the television news industry, they, they don't give us information that's, that's really actionable. That's really, you know, useful to us that, that, that enlightens us.

Track 1: 1:11:01

It's not their job. Their job is to sell advertising.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:11:05

Yeah. Selling advertising.

Track 1: 1:11:07

they're just using the format of news as a vehicle to sell advertising. anD that's again, if more people just recognize it for what it is, then I think we'd have a lot fewer people being shocked that there's fake news because. Most of the news that's called news is fake news because it's simply the method that they're utilizing to sell ads. The only thing I would actually call actual news or real news, would get from people that have no monetary interest in the matter at all, and no political interest in the matter. So if, if there's a a fire that burns down a barn silo, uh, or a farm silo, and I'm not a farmer and it's really not gonna affect me a whole lot in any way, but it's just kind of newsworthy. It's interesting, and I tell my friends about it, like that's literally the only unbiased news out there because everything else is done for a reason. The news stations would tell you about that to sell advertising and nothing sells advertising. More than a conspiracy theory or some kinda salacious thing to blame somebody for that. yOu know, anybody that's involved with the farm would tell you about it, but they also have a very distinct self-interest in this, which is trying to get people's help to fix this situation. So everybody has an angle, uh, or vast majority of people do, but yet most people don't seem to recognize that everybody has an angle. It's the weirdest thing. Everybody just treats their preferred media source as the, uh, authoritative media source, and they're anything but.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:13:01

Wow. That's definitely a, a lot to take in and, and you're, you're hitting it right on the head. It's it's very difficult to find any type of source of information that's unbiased and that doesn't have the, you know, some kind of skin in the game. I mean, we don't necessarily have direct access to that. That's, that's why right now it's, it's, it's very difficult for me to, to get really good information about any type of, you know, world event. Almost everything out there is, is in it to sell some form of, of, of advertising whether it's

Track 1: 1:13:36

and it doesn't have to be unbiased. I mean, that's the thing, it's, that's a sort of fallacy too, is to think if only we could get unbiased news. No, you don't need unbiased news. You just need to recognize the bias in the things that you see. And so if you are watching, uh, you know, some show that clearly leans in a particular. Political direction. There's no downside to seeing what they have to say as long as you understand that they have a strong lean in a particular direction. So it's, it's like a filter. You subtract that filter back out, and what you're left with is probably closer to reality. And then you do that with multiple different people that all have preferably different biases. And that's really the only way that you're gonna arrive at the, something resembling unbiased news because today it's, it's really almost impossible to truly see something unbiased because anybody that's going to bother reporting on it, that's gonna bother repeating something, they have a reason for that, for doing it, for repeating it,'cause taking, if it doesn't cost them money, at the very least it costs them time. So what was the reason that they wanted to spend their time? Telling you about this particular thing. What do they, what do they get out of telling you this?

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:15:00

right.

Track 1: 1:15:01

Once you figure that out and you subtract out that bias, then you'll be left with what reality is.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:15:06

sounds, that sounds, that sounds excellent. I like that. Similar to what I do when I'm conducting a certain amount of research into a given topic. I like to look at not just the not just who wrote the particular, um, source, but the time period that it was written in. And time periods can give you an idea on. How far removed this particular source is from the event. yoU can also take into account when you're looking at a primary source, a firsthand account such as a journal entry. Journal entries are really good because you're, you're reading the words that someone put on paper, uh, that, that surround that event. And those, and those types of sources really give you kind of like a snapshot of what the person is thinking, what the person is feeling, what it is that they're talking to somebody else about this particular event. And, uh, when you start from the when you start at a primary source and you go forward in time to your tertiary sources that happen much, that happen much later down the timeline, it's, it, it's, it's a lot of fun. And that's where you can start putting together pieces of the puzzle. oF, of, of what happened. The Boston Massacre is per perhaps one such event where we as pro-American history people we always view that as this barbaric event that happened and the the British were these horrible people that, that shot a bunch of Americans dead in the streets. And that's actually not an accurate way to recall or to, to, to recount that event that's, that's not factually true. And there's a, there's, there's a a brilliant piece called John Adams John g Paul Giamatti plays John Adams. And a big part of that is the trial of the Boston Massacre. But principally the, one of the biggest pieces of propaganda. Is the engraving that Paul Revere died that Paul Revere did Paul Revere made the, the famous engraving and that, that engraving is, is in the history books. So you study the Boston Massacre, your history book will most likely have that painting, or it'll have a, a, a painter's rendition of the engraving in it. And it, it definitely gives you the, the, the appearance that the British did that intentionally to kill people. Versus the, the events are a lot more, it, it's a lot more accurate to say that you had a contingent of soldiers who were supposed to protect this particular building'cause it was a tax office. And they were being hounded.

Track 1: 1:17:46

Yeah. I mean the, and, and they were, they were being attacked by hundreds of

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:17:51

Yeah, being attacked by protestors. They were having you know, bottles and these rope rope bats. A lot of these guys were sailors. So they had these little bats that they used to beat the ropes. And so they were throwing these things at them and they were being they were being goated saying, shoot me, go ahead, shoot me. And eventually it was some point, one of the one of the guys in that in that contingent, you know, fired his weapon. And then the, then the, the remaining of the shooting happened, and then the officer got control of his men and, and then the city was placed on lockdown. sO

Track 1: 1:18:26

And you have to remember, they were shooting British

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:18:28

Yeah, they they were shooting British subjects, not Americans.

Track 1: 1:18:32

They were fully within the

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:18:34

Yeah, they were. And it's, it's a, it's a very interesting event that occurred. And I think it has a lot of, I would say, a modern day context for us when you look at how law enforcement handles protests, how law enforcement handles you know, violent violent subjects when they're trying to bring them into custody. And you look at that particular event that was, you know, part of the resistance movement at that time, and it was part of igniting this whole revolutionary mindset and, and that, that, that type of, I think that type of attitude is still probably pretty much alive and well today. However, you know, if you look at how law enforcement's handling things today, I think you can draw some, you know, some, some similarities to what the, what the British were doing to try and maintain order in a society that was kind of going down that road of going into disorder. Mm-Hmm.

Track 1: 1:19:32

Absolutely. Yeah. And it, it, there's a lot of things that you can point a finger at that the colonists didn't about England, but I. They're kind of like smaller than things that we don't like about our current government.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:19:52

Absolutely.

Track 1: 1:19:53

Like you're talking about the tax rates. The tax rates are higher today to the US government than they were to the UK government from the colonies.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:20:03

Yes. And, and yet we, we will go down that road of no taxation without representation. aNd that's not true. The, the, the colonial governments were all represented in parliament. They had a specific, represent a representative body in in government that, that, that tended to the needs of the colonies and that, and that, that was where their their, their you know, their voice was heard and, you know, probably much to, much to the admonishment that it's king George III was actually very much on side of the colonists up until the Boston Tea Party. He actually did side with the colonists with their with their with their concerns. And as a result you know, the most infamous, the horrible Stamp Act, the Stamp Act was repealed And people like to say the Stamp Act was one of the things that really made us all mad. I'm like by the time the revolution kicked off, the Stamp Act had already been repealed for almost 10 years. So you can't use the stamp act as a real causation for war. And it just, yeah, PE people, people don't study the interwar period prior to the Revolutionary War to really understand,

Track 1: 1:21:13

People don't study jack

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:21:15

yeah, they'll study Jack shit but.

Track 1: 1:21:19

Yeah. Yeah. And, and like you mentioned, Paul Revere's etching, I mean, it's complete propaganda because you have the correct number of British soldiers. You have eight soldiers there, and then you have about 15 people dressed in Blue Americans, even though I guarantee you they weren't actually wearing blue. But the reality was there was a crowd of over 150,

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:21:40

was a, there was a lot of, there was a lot of people there.

Track 1: 1:21:42

I mean 150 versus eight, uh, who were protecting an office filled with gold. Okay.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:21:52

Yep.

Track 1: 1:21:54

A little different than what the propaganda would

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:21:56

little bit different. That's correct. And

Track 1: 1:21:58

We better wrap up This episode of Britain was Right and US still belongs to England.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:22:03

You go. Hey, that's a good one. Hey, that, that, that, that's a great show title

Track 1: 1:22:07

That'd be a really popular podcast. Yeah. That that'll go over really well. But the, but it's just, it's a good illustration of how we let propaganda become defacto history. And if you don't take the time to find out for yourself, it, you're never gonna know the truth. And unfortunately, right now, this is my last thought is, um, with history moving off the written page to the internet, it is insanely easier to alter now than it ever has been.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:22:48

I'd have to agree with that.

Track 1: 1:22:51

And that's, that's a very, that to me is a bigger danger than ai as much as everyone's panicking right now because changing one's history is it, it's the best method of controlling future minds.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:23:06

Hmm. As a student of history, I would have to agree.

Track 1: 1:23:11

Yeah. All right man. I, I enjoyed chatting with you as always. We'll have to do another one of these. Our, our phone conversations are almost identical to what we just recorded.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:23:20

Yes.

Track 1: 1:23:21

Although a, a wee bit later at night, I had to actually fall asleep last time we chatted'cause it was getting,

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:23:26

It was, it it was

Track 1: 1:23:27

I think towards 1:00 AM

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:23:28

It was pretty late in the day.

Track 1: 1:23:31

But I thought it'd be fun to let other people hear as well, uh, what it is that we chat about. And it's also something completely different from any of my other

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:23:39

Absolutely.

Track 1: 1:23:40

as far as the topic. And I, I, I always have enjoyed looking at history and all kinds of different, uh, aspects of history. And so it's always a treat to be able to chat with you about that topic.'cause most people don't give a shit.

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:23:55

of course, sir Gene, it's a, it's a pleasure to come on the show. I'm really happy that we had the time to sit down and record and we'll have to thank my wife as well. She did a great job getting the kids outta the house.

Track 1: 1:24:05

Oh yeah. Handling the kids. Perfect. All right, man. Take

sir-joshua_2_11-24-2023_121012: 1:24:08

Bye-Bye.