0019 Sir Gene Speaks

Well, hopefully I'm going to sound chipper enough in this recording to keep you guys awake. Although I hear my ASM, our voice is pretty good as well. I'm recording this immediately after recording a very long podcast on grumpy old Benz. Check it out. I'll have a link in the description. And then a slightly shorter, but nonetheless, still a good length of time after show, just on the live stream, which is not actually recorded. I was just talking on the live stream for no agenda stream and answering questions and making fun of people and whatnot. So a fun experience. I will Lincoln. We confess here and now though that my goal in being. On grumpy old bands. At least one of my goals was to see how long I can stretch the episode out to. I think I did a very good job. I think we're hitting at right around four hours or so. It was a significantly longer episode. I would predict than Darren had anticipated recording. I think he was thinking it'd be maybe an hour and a half. And. Well, I can keep talking for a long time and I know that Darren can keep talking for a long time because we did when he was on my show. So I thought, gee, I wonder just how long I can keep it going before he finally decides to shut it down quit the episode. So every time I felt like we were getting sort of close to a natural ending point, I would pivot. My conversation to some new topic, which would have way more new stuff that we could talk about as part of that conversation. I think I stretched out his donation segment from about 10 minutes out to about 45 to an hour, which was pretty funny too, because I didn't expect them to have as many donations, honestly, as he did. I thought that he was done with it several times. But nonetheless he wasn't, there was more donations to come, which is awesome. Gee, maybe someday when this podcast is at hundreds of episodes, I can actually try expect people to give some donations. I keep saying I'm shocked. I tell you that I have already received several donations for this podcast without asking for them. Without really having a whole lot more than just my. H I R a QR code in the podcast itself. So, definitely thank you. Thank you. For people that have donated, I think there's only two of you guys and I'm also horrible with memory. Hopefully I mentioned you in the show notes. I try to do that, but if I don't mention you on the actual recording it's because I can't remember your name. So rather than John mispronouncing names, my problem's slightly different. I just forget and I'm lazy. So I'm too lazy to look it up, but nonetheless, I do appreciate the donations. If more come in, I will be happy again. All I can say is right now the fact that I'm not having to pay money for the hosting service for this, which is not a whole lot of money, but it's still real money. So early in the podcast, SLIFE. Is very impressive to me. I must be doing something good. Hopefully either that, or he gets just enjoy making fun of what I'm doing on this recording. So I promised that I would try going back to a, more of a news item format, I would like to do that. I started looking through news. I've been sort of out of the loop on catching up on the latest political news lately, but I did look through it a little bit earlier thing. I'm, I don't know. Maybe I'm just getting bored with the same old topics. Like one of the items I saw was U S grants, temporary legal status to thousands of Owens Veloz yes, it's a new item. It's a new event happening. It's something that I think the majority of people in the country, not just in the right, if they actually find out the details, they would think what. How is this happening and why is this an okay thing? There are people that have literally been waiting for years. In line to get a us visa, people from all over Europe, people from Canada, people that are getting married to Americans, people that are coming to America for things other than a job, which the H1B visa a little bit easier to get, but even still, those are capped out. So you could easily be one of the people that isn't coming to the U S because you were. Not part of that group for H1B, but most other visas are backlog several years, but yet, somehow people that are coming from. Mexico and from other countries on foot seem to be a special case for this administration. So the Biden illustrations granting temporary status, which is to say they're, I guess they're either granting them immediate visa waivers, or some other legal mechanism to allow people to be in the U S without prior prior getting a visa. So that's kind of wacky. I don't think you need to be conservative to think that it's highly unfair to people that are following the process as it was defined and as it was intended, and they're not able to get into us, whereas people that just walked across the border from in large groups, mind, you are able to get into us. Even if you think immigration's good, And I do think some immigration is good actually, but even if you are not opposed to generally letting people come in from the outside, there are processes in place. There are plenty of people that have been following those processes are on waiting lists and why they have to be delayed or denied altogether, just so that another group can come in with no process. Just seems wrong. It's just, I guess it's one more item to add to the list of what the hell relating to this administration. I shouldn't be a big shocker, I guess, all of a sudden done. Let's see, what else did I read? I read the Dubai is adding. Retina scalers or Iris scanners, I guess not retina that's good retina would be even the worse. Iris scanners are at a slightly bigger distance and are less intrusive, but here's where we get away from the story and into opinion. I used to spend a lot of time working in a security security arena. Let's just say, and. One of the things that I learned very quickly and became a very big what's the word what's anti supporter and an antagonist stuff I don't know is doing biometric any kind of biometric measurements for access. I'll tell you why the biometric was really seen as a a great step forward in creating. Unique identifiable characteristics about a person that would be extremely difficult to circumvent. And a lot of products have been created around biometric from fingerprints to facial recognition, to Iris recognition, to retinal scans, to all kinds of biometric type parameters. Here's the key problem with biometric is unlike other security measures. It's irrefutable. You can't take a compromised biometric key. That is your fingerprint and get a different fingerprint to replace it. You can't do that. You can use different algorithms. So if somebody has the hash of your fingerprint and you say, well, that's all right, we'll just modify the algorithm. And then the hashes are all irrelevant. Absolutely true. But what if somebody actually has a copy of your fingerprints and we've seen on a number of YouTube videos, in fact, even. Shows on television prior to that, I think on what was the show with Adam Savage and MythBusters? I think MythBusters did an episode where they demonstrate. How do you use masking tape to lift a fingerprint and then how to make that fingerprint actually work in a fingerprint reader. So biometric characteristics, things that are a part of you, rather than things that you're memorizing or things that, you're aware of how to obtain there one time they're one-time keys, your retina. Is your retina. And if someone has a copy of your retina, if someone can essentially duplicate to the device, that's reading your retina, what your retina looks like, you can't change your retina to anything else. That's it. You are now compromised. You yourself are not going to be able to use that method of security. What do you do in a situation where you can't use your fingerprints or your Iris or your retina or your voiceprint or your facial recognition? Because those images or those recordings of those things exist and are able to be utilized to duplicate you. And I don't mean duplicate you in so many theories sense. For the purposes of your phone, for example. So let's say phones like the iPhone that used their camera for for passwords effectively for logging into the phone device. Let's say somebody comes out with a way to take an image of a person create a 3d printed model, or maybe it's just a piece of paper who knows. And then it's good enough to fool the phone into unlocking. Let's say even 20% of the time, it doesn't have to be a hundred percent at all. It just has to be enough that a person trying this method several times we'll get it to work eventually. Seven some tea here. I love T I wish I was sponsored by T would be great. So if what you have already, as part of you is used for security, you just have to keep in mind that. If it's ever compromised, you are S O L you will not be able to use that thing again, whatever it is. And there's a limited number of biometrics that can be utilized. So eventually if enough of them are compromised, you're going to run out. I don't know, off the top of my head, what the process is for people that require actual clearance. That would end up with compromised by metrics. It's a question that absolutely will end up having to be answered or already has been answered. And I'm just not aware of what the answer is. My guess is if your fingerprints have been compromised to the degree where there is a known duplicate that works of your fingerprint, you may actually be disqualified from having a level of security clearance that you otherwise could. So by somebody else, essentially taking your info, you could end up being disqualified from doing the type of work that you were intending to be. Now that may be an extreme example, but nonetheless, it's illustrating my point, which is using something that you can't change, that you can't take back and replace with something else, I think is a fairly poor method of utilizing security. And so I've never been a fan of biometric and I've was involved in it for decades. And I think that the. Better approach is to use something you have and something, and a combination of those things obviously is great. Biometric is really only necessary. If what you're trying to prove is the specific identity that is irrefutable of somebody being in a specific location or doing a specific act. So if you're, if you have a login, let's say, and you have a one-time password device, and those are used, what you know is somebody that had access to both of those logged in, and you can certainly predict that the person who you know, has access to both of those is the one that logged in. But you can't really prove that it was them. And I think with biometric people assume, well, let's just take all of those out of the picture. It's really easy if they just swipe their fingerprint, we know it's them. We, a week you can assume it's them just like with the password and the one-time key, but we certainly don't know for a fact that it was them because biometric identifiers can absolutely be copied. And, I've already mentioned that there've been numerous videos showing this in a variety of ways, but secondly, do we really need it? No, that was exactly that particular person, because generally the only place where that requirement exists is in legal related things. Meaning. If you are trying to prove that a particular criminal committed a criminal act, it is very beneficial to have biometric information about that criminal, be available to you to tie them to that certain location and instance of the act. If you don't have biometric information as was the case for most of history, We can still convict that person. It's just that you have to prove, I think, to a higher degree that they were in fact, the person that was at that location and, or accessing that information. So it's definitely their biometric sort of is the shortcut. It's the, all we found DNA of this particular person at the crime scene. And with DNA, we can either eliminate him. But in this case, the results show, he was not eliminated. Therefore there's a very high chance that it is the same person. So I think that biometric data in a lot of ways is getting used as a means of simplicity for security, but it has a very high potential to be utilized in legal proceedings against the very people that are providing that biometric data. If you log into your phone as most new I-phones, in fact, all new I-phones do by using a camera and iPads for that matter. There is no more fingerprint reader. So if you log into your phone that way, and then your phone is utilized to commit some crime and there's a login that happened. To your phone at a point in time to ties to that crime is going to be that much more difficult for you to essentially disprove that. In fact, it was somebody else that faked your biometric information, like your face to log in, and then be part of that crime versus you. It sort of flip-flops the the presumed guilt or innocence around at least for the jury. If not for the judge, but I think from what I've seen of judges lately, they're less informed than juries are even, but it locks in this concept that, it's biometric. It's unique. You can't lie to that. And therefore, if your face unlock the phone and your phone was used to commit a crime, then we can directly tie you to that crime because nobody else could have done this. Even though the reality is that's certainly not an assumption that should be made. So I guess let's just wrap up that concept with my idea that using biometric information as a means of convenience is counterproductive. If your goal is for obtaining biometric information is around legality around finding people that are breaking laws. You do have a very good use case for using biometric info. And so when Dubai's airport is using Iris scanners, they're not doing that because it's faster to go through your scanners, even though if you read their PR, that's exactly what it's telling you is like, Oh, quicker check-in and airports. All you have to do is just look at the camera. The reality is. It's not the quick camera that they're doing it for. It's for having a higher degree of certainty of particular people being at that airport location, the idea being it's easier to fake your passport, your driver's license, your, you name it, your airplane, tickets, and name on those tickets. All these things are easier to fake. Then biometric information. And that is definitely the case. It is easier to fake those things, but it is not impossible to fake those things. And I think that's the point that I'm trying to convey here is that using something which is not impossible to fake, but difficult and relying on it as a full proof means of identification is dangerous. It's dangerous for the people using it I think it presumes from the standpoint of people utilizing this technology, it presumes a level of guaranteed uniqueness. That is really just an assumption based on the lack of current technology and current understanding. And that's something that is in fact the better. In fact, we know that using a combination of, I. A one-time key combined with a long or extended passphrase provides a level of security that is uncrackable at current technology with all the computers, all of Amazon if it's sufficiently unique and long enough, it is an crackable or another way of putting it it would take longer than your lifetime. Including computer advances to be able to crack that. Now, do people use super long pass phrases like that? And does everyone use a a one-time password token? Absolutely not. Most people don't bother. You may use it at your bank. You may use it at work, but you don't use it on your own email. You doesn't use it on most things because why it's not convenient, it's more convenient just to glance at my phone, have the phone on lock and then start doing whatever it is I'm trying to do. Anyway, as I said, 10 minutes ago let's move on off that topic. What else do we have for news? And then I do have another sort of commentary thing I want to toss out there. Oh, there's an article that I saw about sex tech, sex robots, virtual reality, wearable devices and toys will become more widespread in the next decade. Reports wall street journal. I think this is pretty damn funny. I think the fact that a wall street journal has nothing better to report on now that Trump has gone than sex toys is pretty funny. I also think it's pretty funny that in 2021 wall street journal is saying, yeah, in the next decade, there'll be more sex robots and virtual devices and virtual reality devices and wearable devices and all kinds of toys. And anybody that has watched pornography in the last month, which is probably a hundred percent of you knows that all this stuff currently, already exists. The sex robots don't look human I think if the implication is absolutely anatomic and correct human looking sex robots, yeah. Maybe it is still a decade away. It's coming. The real dolls. Just need to get some gears put into them. Probably some, like if you combine a real doll with Boston dynamics, the guys that make all the cool robot dogs, you'd have a very realistic looking sex robot. That's probably going to cost a hundred thousand dollars, but if you're not referring to a robot as only being. Humanlike, which really would be an Android technically, not a robot, but a robot is just a device that does stuff for you. And it does it somewhat autonomously. I wouldn't say completely autonomous only because a robot doesn't decide by itself when it should activate. A robot building cars is following a program. Just like anything else that moves a CNC machine is essentially a robot. It's a robot drill. That it's controlled by a computer to be able to create 3d shapes. So do robots are ready exist in sex? Yeah. Again, they, whether you admit to watching porn or whether you've just scrolled across some pages on the web that talk about innovations in sex toys, there are absolutely devices that qualify as robots, things that are controlled through your iPhone, things that are controlled. Through whatever other means of remote control and things that also have some capability of being autonomous as well. They just don't look like humans, but they are absolutely intended and utilized as part of sex. So good job wall street journal. You finally got a story from the last decade. Congratulations. Do we have anything on the vaccine stuff? It seems like the stories in mainstream are actually starting to get worse for the vaccine industry. Not better. Oh, here we go. So AstraZeneca vaccine suspended after death. Suspension by authorities is reportedly a precaution after a woman died, and one other person fell ill after receiving the shot. So I think there are websites. I haven't looked recently, but I believe that's the case that are tracking vaccine deaths. Not just for COVID, but like they've existed for a while now that are, I'm sure it would be grouped under anti-vaxxers by the mainstream media out there. But realistically. Given that you can't Sue a vaccine manufacturer, which is a shady thing to begin with given that they don't actually hold any complicity in whatever happens to you. It's essentially your own damn fault, not theirs. It's really, unfortunately, only up to governments that or whatever part of the government like the food and drug administration in the U S. To be able to control the use and distribution of these vaccines. And typically for the FDA to stop a vaccine, there's going to be way more than one death. The FDA will take their sweet time to stop a drug or a vaccine or anything else. Medical. And one death isn't going to do it. In fact, even hundreds of people that don't die, but have severe symptoms. Isn't going to do it. It's going to have to be in the thousands or tens of thousands before they take action. And this is just, unfortunately the reality that we live in, they do their mathematical, their statistical analysis prior to pulling a drug out, just like the drug manufacturer themselves. Do in a statistical model that says, okay if one people, if one person dies for every hundred thousand people that are healthy, then it's probably still a go to move the drug forward. There is an acceptable loss parameter for all these companies. I think the big example that people in the U S are aware of, at least people old enough, Where the Pinto Ford cars manufactured in the 1970s, these Pintos had an interesting aerodynamic shape, but one of the things that happened there was they placed their gas tank. And I can't remember exactly so I could be off, but the general concept is correct. They placed their gas tank to where it was. Close to the exhaust and or the rear bumper. So that in the case of a car accident, even a, let's say a midsize accident not like in small five mile, an hour bumper fender, but an accident that was not life-threatening otherwise could quickly become a life-threatening accident because the. The gas tanks tended to explode or at least leak and fires caught. And the cars either exploded or just caught fire and burned that was a known problem to Ford at the time of design it was a problem that they were they were willing to accept the risk for given their predictions on the small number of these explosions. Compared to the large number of cars that they could sell I'm not the type of person that thinks if it just saves one life, it's worth everything. Now I think there are plenty of things that have been done in the name of saving one life, which were absolutely the wrong choices, wrong decisions. But in this case Ford was sued and. It was sued by Ralph later, if I remember correctly or he was one of the guys that was pursuing that and they lost. And so they had to have a fairly substantial payouts and that pretty much finished the production line of that vehicle. Now you could also laugh and say it was a good thing because that was absolutely a shitty brand of a car. And I can't really disagree too much. But it was definitely somewhat forward-thinking for the time. It was just very poorly executed. I think that'd be the way I would phrase it. Cause I remember seeing Pintos on the road and the cool thing about the Pinto compared to almost every other car was the sheer amount of glass that they had. They had, they were completely surrounded. They were a hatchback. So they had glass in the back. Bad, obviously glass, windows and glass windshield, but the windshield started lower and went higher than most modern cars. The windows started lower. So like in a typical car right now in 2021 the window starts at about you're just below your shoulder level. So if you open the window, you put your elbow on the side of the open window, on the door sill. It's pretty close to that area. These Pintos, if you did the same thing, it like that window went down to just above your elbow. If your elbow was down by your side. So there was a ton of glass. It kinda looked like a F like you're inside of fishbowl, maybe where you can see a lot more all the way around. So anyway, I don't need to spend a whole lot more time describing the Pinto, but if you haven't seen one check out some photos of it I'm sure you can Google them very easily it was an interesting vehicle, if not a great vehicle by any means. All right. So enough news let's move on to opinion. One thing that I thought about over the weekend here is the idea of, are we getting. And by we, I mean, people that are predominantly libertarian thinking, are we becoming more conservative or are the liberals just moving so far to the left that they're leaving. So many people behind that, even people who would have been classified as leftists 10, 15, 20 years ago, are today classified as conservatives. And in fact are. People that I tend to agree with. Shockingly. So I've got a few people to go through with that. I think the first one that is the easiest to fall in that category is Tim pool. Tim Poole, who is a mid thirties millennial right now really came to prominence by being a guy with a camera and multiple batteries for his phone during occupy wall street. So occupy wall street was a at this point, what almost 15 years ago, I guess, 14 and 12 years, whatever it was point is over a decade ago a lot of people on the left that were younger, took to the streets of New York to protest what they were seeing happening. With a lack of jobs with bailouts for large fortune 500 companies with essentially a complete focus on corporate America and very little focus on the individual the small business operator or just individual people who were struggling financially. So, I guess it would have been the 2008 time period. So maybe 12 years ago, 13 anyway, more than a decade ago. So Tim came to prominence with that, and then he worked for vice. He worked for liberal publications. He worked for, I think, one or two other publications that are also left leaning on that side. And as he got more prominent, he got on Joe Rogan. He started doing his own YouTube channel that's really when I started paying attention and watching him is when he got his own YouTube channel. But while watching him, I didn't really see a lefty. I didn't really see somebody that was who I expected. I saw somebody that was much more libertarian and much more in agreement with my principles, but yet was calling himself. A liberal or a lefty, I thought that sure seems like he's, doesn't really understand what a liberal is because the liberals that I see are a lot more authoritarian, there are a lot more socialist and Tim is neither one of those things. And as another couple of years passed and Tim's prominence kept rising. As of today, I think he calls himself a centrist now, but he fully admits. That his audience is 90% conservative I think conservative slash libertarian is a more appropriate description of that. But I think there's, there are fewer people that are libertarian, who don't have some conservative leanings right now, or conversely, fewer conservatives that haven't adopted some libertarian leanings. Like it used to be very easy to tell the conservatives wanted to go to war. The libertarians didn't want the war, the conservatives. We're against all drugs, libertarians want drug freedom. The conservatives were anti-gay marriage and other gay things. The libertarians never gave a shit about it. It was never an issue. I remember ever since the eighties, it was never an issue. So if you look at the conservative stance right now, like most of those are a lot closer to libertarian stance than they used to be. So if the conservatives moved more towards. Anti-authoritarianism more towards libertarianism. Then the liberals have done the exact opposite and have moved closer to authoritarianism. And that's exactly what we're seeing is we're seeing something I never would have expected 20 years ago. We're seeing liberals wanting more war. We're seeing liberals wanting more restrictions on free speech. We're seeing liberals wanting more. Banning of books. the modern book burning when books are killed off of Amazon. And then immediately after that killed off of eBay, you've now gotten rid of something from 95% of the new market and probably a hundred percent of the used market so whatever, a little possibility that book has of seeing the light of day. It is, it has been reduced by a factor of 20 fold or more. So it is the book burning that of the current generation the prevention of publication combined with prevention of sale so Tim pool now seeing himself as this libertarian lefty, Is now squarely in the middle of the conservative camp on just about every issue. Once you actually hear Tim's opinion, not just what his guests have to say, but you get to those episodes where Tim starts speaking, you realize, well, yeah, the, what this guy is saying is essentially a libertarian with a conservative twinge viewpoint. So he is one of those guys that he thinks he hasn't moved really. He's maybe moved a little bit, but maybe the left has just moved so damn much away from him. Then relatively speaking, Tim is now a libertarian, another guy like that is Ryan Long, which I think a lot of people I've seen a lot of his cool videos. He's very funny. If you look at Ryan longs earlier comedy, if you look at his musical stuff, I would not call him a conservative or libertarian, but. In the guys he was always sort of an anarchistic. Maybe it would be the way to describe it maybe just slightly libertarian on the Hey man, drugs are cool side of the libertarian party. He has been now accused of being everything from a racist or a Nazi fascist right-wing conspiracy, not you name it. He's been accused of it because his comedy. Points out the absolute absurdity of a lot of the viewpoints that the left holds has episode talking about how the far left and the far right. Are exactly the same thing. Now, I think it's way too close to home for most of the actual left-wingers they start realizing that maybe there is some truth to this comedy that. The viewpoints of actual Nazis of people that proudly call themselves Nazis people that are white nationalists, their viewpoints are really looking at the exact same solutions that the far left has. They're just looking from different points of view, but seeing the exact same solution, Hey, people should be separated based on race. People should be treated differently based on race. People ought to be. The government should be the ones that are determining how many of each type of race of each person we have in different types of jobs, different positions. These are all things that the left and the right. The far left and the far right. Agree on. So seeing Ryan being not just appealing to. Conservatives and libertarians, but having him be perceived as a fire right by the liberals is as I guess expected, but it's pretty funny. Daisy cousins, I, Australian YouTuber, who is gotten to more prominence recently I think she's still relatively small, but I like her and I try to post her videos. She definitely started off seeing thinking of herself as a lefty. She had an episode from probably three or four years ago where she was talking about how she'd perceived herself and she absolutely felt like the left moved away from her. And she was just left standing there and sh shrugging your shoulders and going, but wait a minute, aren't these, the principles that we used to call our principles. And now she's absolutely a darling of the right wing, and I'm sure again, call the Nazi in every other word you can think of by the left, because she dares to question things that have to do with equity over equality or the promotion of women's rights to such an absurdity, to where they are displacing men's rights or the idea that maybe women who are not trans. Have certain rights that would not be afforded to trans women like being on the same sporting teams. Like all of these positions with classified this person who was just a few years ago, self-identifying as a lefty, as a conservative then of course we can't forget. They've Reuben, who was a fairly prominent lefty and he was on the the young Turks. Podcasts with Cenk who who was at this point, certainly I think has moved to the left with the left, but always has been a fairly lefty guy. Chank tried to emulate the rush Limbaugh style, but doing it in a leftist instead of a conservative perspective to some extent you got successful at it, I think I think he certainly achieved A certain level of fame that he was going for and financial independence as well. But Dave Ruben used to be on his podcast and he was a lefty. And Dave Rubin kind of started looking at the world and seeing that maybe the things that he thought of when he was young and naive were, and calling liberal concepts were actually not liberal concepts. They were just pro-human concepts. And they're the exact same things that the con the current libertarian slash conservative side is advocating. Whereas the liberal side, which he always assumed he was pushing further and further into authoritarianism Dave Rubin has made a wonderful pivot. He's generated tons of both publicity for himself and tons of money. He, but he would have done that on either side. I think that was just a, Dave has certain talent. He comes across as a good interviewer because he doesn't insert himself into arguments. Unlike me, I tend to insert myself into all these arguments. But Dave is a great example of a guy that's really flip-flop, but not by changing his viewpoints, but rather by re-examining cause viewpoints and realizing that his viewpoints. Even though they're consistent with what he held in his youth. He just identified incorrectly. He identified as a a liberal where he was in fact a conservative or certainly a libertarian he also happens to be Jewish and happens to be gay so I think for so long, his identity of if I'm gay and if I'm Jewish, I'm probably a liberal. I think that took quite a while for him to start seeing that is not a requirement that is not a direct correlation. Just because of your parents were self identifying liberal Jews doesn't actually mean they were right either, but you know, don't try and convert them to make them understand that there were not nearly as liberal as they think they were, but look at yourself and do what they did and realize that well, Maybe he's just been thinking he's a liberal, but all along, he hasn't been one. And I guess the one final one I will end on so we don't go too long is Russell brand who I've always seen as a total lefty a lot of his older podcasts, older YouTube videos definitely lean more heavily into the. The left agenda of everybody should be taken care of no man or woman or child left behind. Typical example of a lefty is somebody talks about this country is a rich country. Those countries are poor countries. Countries don't have any wealth countries typically have a, the exact opposite. They owe money. They have deficits. Most countries do anyway so there is no such thing as a rich country. There are countries where a lot of the citizens are rich and there are countries where a lot of the citizens are poor. And for that matter like China has more millionaires than the U S and most people can't imagine that. Well, how can that be? China has more people than the U S so they have a smaller percentage of their population are millionaires. But in raw numbers, China actually has more millionaires than the U S so when you look at it that way, you start to realize that it's really not about a rich country or a poor country. It's about what style of governance promotes the greatest percentage of its population to become. Millionaires or to at least live a lifestyle that they desire. I totally get, not everybody wants to be an Amelia. There are plenty of people, myself included are happy at a nice lifestyle and don't need to have seven figures sitting in their bank account if you do have that much, you will come up with a way to spend it. But nonetheless, regardless of the millionaire status ID. I've always seen Russell brand as being on that side. As I started watching his videos on his YouTube channel, more and more during the last year of the Trump administration, I started seeing him questioning more and more dogmatic, liberal stance now post-Trump with a Biden administration. Russell brand. I think right now, if he did a poll of his audience would probably find that over half were self-identifying as conservative or libertarian because certainly some of his stance have changed, but also a lot of his sort of, I look out for the little guy mentality is now the mentality of the right, not the left. The left stands for large corporate interests. The left stands for making their friends in Hollywood, their friends in Silicon Valley, their friends in New York, their friends in Washington, both Washington state and Washington DC making them richer because these are the people that donate substantial amounts of money through packs and other things to the liberal politicians. The conservative politicians are more, feel more fixated on trying to provide for the average American, the, what used to be described by the Democrats as the working American, which basically meant poor people, but we don't want to call them poor people. So we're going to refer to them as working Americans and working Americans right now. Is overwhelmingly a group that supports conservatism, a group that has seen absurdities coming out of the Democrat party. I grew up that has seen their children being taught things that they certainly never signed off on and don't want so this is why Trump had the largest turnout. Of minority groups and the largest he had more people voting for him than any other president in the history of the United States, except for Biden. And I'm always going to have a little asterisk by Biden for obvious reasons that we don't need to get into. So other than Biden, Trump was the most popular president of the United States ever had I think that Russell brand's commentary is. Certainly a indicator that the left in this country has moved so far over to the left, where they're literally holding hands with the extremist, right. That people that were historically calling themselves left have now gotten closer by simply the left, moving away. They've gotten closer to the conservatives than they ever would have imagined. And with that, I hope you enjoy this episode. We'll have more news and commentary soon, and I'm hoping to get Bemrose on here for an interview. So Bemrose, if you're listening to this and you better be, I expect you to reach out to me and we'll figure out a date and time to make that recording happen.