0021 Sir Gene Speaks

And as promised today, I'm going to focus on news rather than opinion. You guys know me well enough that it's never going to be more than 50% news or 80% opinion. So here we go. Let's start off with a story that I saw. Posted about some Twitter fighting. Now I'm no longer on Twitter, as many of you are aware, but it doesn't mean I don't occasionally see stories about Twitter because there still seems to be plenty of people that can't get off Twitter for whatever reason. This was a story about Tucker Carlson talking about the the executive orders that Biden put in relating to Military services and targeting specifically at broadening of facilities and options, I guess, for women talking some nonsense about getting flight suits for pregnant women nonsense, because there's no way a fetus should be exposed to three or four GS. That is ridiculous. Unless you want a baby to come out, squishy. The story that I'm referring to on Twitter. Was that an official Marine accounts? Now this is not the U S MC Twitter account. This is clearly a group within the Marine Corps, the two M E F or I M E F information group. Yeah. I M I G OFA official. Okay. Yeah. There we go. I Marine information group, probably. So they basically said, fuck you to Tucker Carlson by saying, get right before you get left boomer. Now the term boomer, really outta be up there, along with the N word. As far as I'm concerned, this is a, an extremely aggressive term utilized by stupid people, towards people that are. Absolutely they're betters. And I'm only half smiling when I say that, because generally, anytime you hear somebody say boomer, it demonstrates a general lack of funds in their bank account, a general lack of a job, and a general lack of any intellect. Now that's not a hundred percent of the people that use boomer. There are people that use it for spaciously and absolutely do it for the right reasons. But when somebody uses that term, As a procurement of they're pretty much guaranteed to fill all those three prerequisites. So I suspect that as the case here I'm fairly certain that it is in fact, get right before you get left boomer essentially say, Oh, and then the hashtags women, we are Marines Tucker Carlson, Fox news, currently serving and USM. See women. So the walk portion of the Marine Corps decided to use their voice on Twitter now for an organization that is actually older than the United States of America. I think it's a tremendous embarrassment focusing on the sex of the people that are in the Marines above everything else. Pretty much means that the Marines have lost their way. As far as I'm concerned, the Marines originated. And by the way, anybody that says the Marines are what 270 380 years old, whatever. Then the birthday has is full of shit. The Marines. Have been around for over 500 years, the United States Marine Corps has been around longer than the United States, but a lot of people just use the term Marines when they're referring to the United States Marines. The term Marine was originated in Europe. Well, before this country was ever formed and it represented people aboard a sailing vessel who were trained and. Authorized to use military equipment such as swords and rifles and they were not sailors. So essentially these are military personnel aboard a sailing vessel who are not part of the crew of the sailing vessel. They're essentially the military passengers. And their job is to only conduct military operations and not be a part of day-to-day sailing activities. That is the original term for the Marines. And of course has been adopted by multiple armies around the world. But since we live in the United States or at least I do and I think most of my listeners do as well. The term has been co-opted to simply mean the United States Marine Corps. And generally, I will say that my experience with members of the United States Marine Corps over the last 30 years has been very positive. These are folks that have a very good understanding of priorities. Their compass is securely pointed in to the North. They understand. The command structure, they understand priorities that are dictated to them and how ensure that those priorities are met. I'm sure that is not representative of a hundred percent of the United States Marine Corps, but maybe I've been lucky at the folks that I have met. They've done it to be they've tended to Excel at these characteristics. And I think they've represented the Marine Corps quite well. Majority men, a couple of women, but regardless of their sex they have portrayed the sort of values that I would expect somebody that was in the Marine Corps to represent. This, on the other hand, this tweet is coming out of absolutely left field. This is similar to the pinup girls of the Israeli armed forces. While there are certainly pretty girls, women, young women serving in these really military, where of course every Israeli citizen has to serve in the military. It's a requirement there. But clearly looking pretty is not the main point of serving in the Israeli military. And I think having photos of women with stupid expressions on their faces, participating in Marine drill exercises or other activities is not representative of the core either, but nonetheless, that's what got sent as a reply Tucker. And apparently a lot of people were not happy about that, including plenty of people that were in the Marine Corps themselves. And I'm assuming retired, but certainly not necessarily. So to the point where eventually the group that posted that image and that reply the III MEF information group Had to do a bit of a retraction. The Marines appeared to concede that they strayed away from their mission. Yeah, no shit promising to correct their mistake going forward. They took a swipe at Carlson for attacking women, which he did not do. He simply questioned the priorities of the Marine court, which is a very valid point. And the fact that you have people using an official military account to take a hit on a civilian is probably to me more troubling than the actual content of that letter. Because the U S military is ultimately a, an employee of the civilian force. And you can have all the respect you want for any of the military branches. I happened to be a huge fan of the Navy seals. I've read a lot of books written by seals. I've I've met a good chunk of seals, including Jesse Ventura. I was at his victory celebration when he won the gubernatorial race in Minnesota. And and it was held at a racetrack by the way horse bedding track typical of the sort of nonconformist attitude that Jesse even sure had. But I will say that regardless of how much respect I have for any of their enforces, I never forget one simple thing. And that is that the armed forces are there. In order to provide a service to the country's citizens. This is not some hyperbole bullshit. This is why a military exists. A military is at the very core of the services, which a federal government provides to all the citizens of the States and people working in the military have jobs for the federal government. Where their job is occasionally active, predominantly. It is a training and exercises and a non military deployments. But nonetheless, this is a job and a lot of people seem to somehow have the impression that people in the military are above the general citizenship. Like somehow, because they went. To a it's a volunteer army, right? So they volunteer to join. They were accepted for that job. They went through a training, basic training, advanced training there's a variety of training and that happens depending on where you specialize sniper training airborne training. Seals training, and these are certainly not easy things to do, and plenty of people are not physically capable of doing them. And I think that's a good thing. I don't think that the lower third of the population from a physical standpoint would be a good representative, would be good employees of the armed services. Given the nature of the tasks that they need to perform. So it is absolutely good that people in tip-top physical condition and a presumption, at least a little, not always true of reasonably stable mental condition are the people that are involved in the military. But by no means, can you say simply because somebody is served in the military, that somehow they hold a higher level of status. Compared to any other citizens in the United States. That's not how this country was built. That's not how this country currently operates in exactly the same way that politicians don't hold any higher status. People often say the politicians are our leaders and we need to follow what they're telling us to do, which again is a complete misunderstanding by sheep of the role of politicians. And in a country like the United States a representative Republic where the politicians are there to essentially do the day-to-day business of government by representing the actual citizens that elected them for that post politicians are not necessarily supposed to be. Asking the citizens each and every time. How would you like me to vote? They're elected based on their general views in order to be able to utilize their personal understanding of politics and how politics operates to vote for things that they would assume. The people that elected them with want and against things that the people that elected them don't want. But there's certainly some freedom of range there, but by no means, did politicians stand any higher than the average citizen of the country? That is again, just bunk. If. Somebody feels that way, then they need to take some more civics classes. They need to understand why people started this country to move away from a government system where there is somebody that is by God placed above the population. And that would be the King. So right now the highest level that you can attain it in the United States. Is citizenship, that's it? Everything else is simply a job in the government and does not offer any kind of higher standing compared to the rest of the fabulous. Now in other countries, like for example, let's take England since that's been the news lately. There is. A royalty. Now you can argue and say they're really royalty in name only. They don't hold any real power. Okay. Fair enough. I don't need to really argue that point, but there are a couple of things you need to be aware of. One is you can't choose to become a Royal. You can only marry into becoming a Royal the queen of England and. I'm not sure if this is the entire family or just the queen herself holds a combined value of property and assets that are in excess of$80 billion. That would place the queen as somewhere around the, I think third or fourth richest person in the world. Now, if that is the entire. Family then certainly that would be split amongst multiple people. If that is just the queen. And I don't know, off the top of my head, I'm sure somebody else can chime in on this. Then potentially the Royal family of England probably is the second richest family in the world. Of course, everybody knows Putin is in the 300 billion range, so he's way above everybody else. But he's a modest guy, he doesn't flaunt his wealth. The way a lot of other people do. And frankly, the queen of England doesn't either. Because I think if you look at the queen compared to the way that her uncle did and certainly her grandfather Demonstrated their wealth was significantly greater. So I think the queen is much more aware or the Royal family at this stage in England is much more aware that they need to, they can certainly grow wealth, but they need to display it in moderation. If you're going to have a gold chariot drawn by horses you only have one of those, you don't have one for each kid in the family, which probably would have been more of the norm in the past when they were absolutely. I guess in England, they weren't even absolute monarchs for the last several hundred years technically, but either way they are by definition above all the citizens of great Britain, certainly England. But by extension of great Britain that, is the way that the country has been structured. And then there are other countries, I think technically and again, that could be corrected on this, but I'm pretty sure that the the King and queen of the Netherlands are by definition. They stand above all the citizens of the country of Netherlands. They hold not simply a position within the country, but they have a hereditary position that is above the citizenry, meaning they can have exemptions based on their name, essentially where. Other citizens would not. But again, I'm kind of stretching here talking about Netherlands side. It's just another monarchy that currently exists. And I think there are a handful of them around the world. Certainly in Saudi Arabia, we have an absolute monarchy the solid family how olds absolute power. Not only are they not elected, but they can create laws out of thin air simply by desire. And the entire government of the country is effectively a government that they can dismiss, replace or maintain as they decide. And that thankfully does not exist in the United States here. Every one is on an even playing field as a citizen of the United States and anybody who does things that are bad for the citizens. As an example, shutting down the businesses in a state at the very least, they're not likely to be reelected. And potentially they are, will be subject to a recall vote and kicked out of their position prior to election. And certainly if the citizenry and or courts see that what they were doing was contrary to the constitution they can, in fact, even being present. That is not something that can happen to the Royal family in England. They can do all the wrong that you can think of and still not have consequences for it. And I, I guess to some extent, there will be public relations consequences. Their their popularity may go down. They may be asked to do something to demonstrate their Their understanding of a mistake. But ultimately if you want to have a I don't know, say a driver crash, a vehicle at high speed to take out a former princess. It's absolutely doable. And the monarchy isn't really going to be affected by that. Now right now, of course we do seem to have a little bit of a spat from the United States. With Megan deciding to flex her acting muscles and her racialist muscles against the queen of England. And I think we all know how that's going to end. Obviously the monarchy in England survived a lot more potentially damaging threats than Megan Markle, who was a crappy actress that happened to have married the idiot Prince. Of England and has managed to guarantee at this point that she will never have a place in the Royal home by first deciding to leave the country then publicizing that she felt horrible about it. And then finally putting the nail in the coffin with her interview with Oprah. But anyway, yeah. Neither here nor there. I think I think I've said way too much on this topic to begin with, but thankfully this particular Breen, Twitter posts I think has generated enough strive for it to be pushed back. All right. What else would we get? I guess Portland had a They are well, Portland's always riding, right? That's kind of what the country of Portlandia is all about. It's all about. Violent uprisings in the downtown area. And it appears that this time round the, there was some police pushback. It says the police confiscated guns, hammers, and other weapons after corralling about a hundred pro protestors during the demonstration. Now, I don't know why they keep calling things that involve violence. In the city demonstrations that, that sort of whitewashes what is actually happening and demeaned the term demonstration, because demonstration is supposed to be a group of people who are calling attention to themselves with some type of messaging, whether it's verbal or whether it's placards or science, they're essentially saying, Hey, We have a strong opinion about something. And we want other people to know about it. The minute that a demonstrator throws a malt off cocktail or any other military, or I shouldn't say military any other use of weapons? Any other offensive action? Anything else violent? It really should no longer be called a demonstration or a protest at that point, it should be called a violent uprising, which is what it is. You're more than welcome to think of other terms for it, certainly, but. A demonstration let's reserve that term for something that by definition is peaceful, because that has been what demonstration has meant for centuries. Literally. This is an old term that doesn't need to be revised to also include violent things. So no such thing as a violent demonstration. There is violence and there are demonstrations. And if you want to call a demonstration that is become violent, something else. That's fine. Just don't keep calling it a demonstration. Let's see, what else have we got? That's going on? Oh, I missed the, I guess the fun aspect of that is with all the weaponry that's been confiscated it appears that the. The quote unquote demonstration, which clearly wasn't is now at a point where they're outfits meaning, or I should say their kits, right? Not just the closer wearing, but the tools they're bringing with them includes Bulletproof else, not really Bulletproof same thing with helmets, military style helmets they're they've got guns and knives that are exactly the same as used by the police. I'm seeing images of Glocks and a Springfield XD is here. Tactical knives Bear spray. They're effectively now I think mirroring or paralleling what the Portland police can draw as well. Maybe not exactly what the SWAT team has, but certainly as much or more than the Portland police department in general. So good job guys in Portland after giving away areas within the downtown. To these armed. Resistance groups. I don't know. I can't call them protesters. I can't call them demonstrators because they're not either one of those. These are violent thugs that are occupying parts of the city. That's what they are. There they go out there to create violence that these are not protestors. So anyway but I've written off Portland. I, I spent about nine months working in Portland there in that area. I wasn't actually in downtown, but I did spend quite a bit of talent in downtown in the evenings and really kind of enjoying myself while I was working there. And I really don't care at this point, if they want to burn the whole city down, let them burn it down because the people that live in Portland are the people that voted for. Politicians that allow this and the people that live in Portland, frankly, supported a lot of these ideas. Even the ones that aren't going out and to to be part of these violent mobs they're nonetheless are still generally in support of the rationale behind these people. So if all of Portland burns down, that's probably. That's perfectly fine by me, but it's probably the right thing to happen because that is a natural consequence of the ideology that exists there. And certainly there are people that live in the suburbs and further out that don't share those ideas. I know I'm on the East side of the States of Oregon. There's a a very conservative leaning. Majority of the people on the side that frankly want to leave the state because they don't agree with what's going on in Portland itself. Good luck to them. I don't know if it's going to happen. Probably not, but I guess that's what you, that's the price of paying a price you pay for living there. And I think the only way to get rid of some of these cities. It's a just leave the cities up to the people that want to tear them down. And I can't imagine somebody staying in Portland through all of this, that would be absolutely nuts. Okay. Let's shift focus a little bit. Sarah Silverman has come out saying she doesn't want to be associated with the elitist Democrat party anymore. And she's now calling herself politically homeless. Well, I have a welcome message for cellar silver one. Fuck you. That's my message, Sarah. And I'm going to use the C word is a cunt and she's a con for a very particular reason. She made her act. She earned the money that she currently has. She grew in popularity by doing what. By being politically incorrect. She was one of the PO one of the comedians while she was in her twenties. That was absolutely doing acts around everything politically incorrect using N words using, you can. Think of it. It was part of her act talks about killing little babies in Africa. She she talked, I don't, I can't think of a group that I haven't heard her target in the past. And if you think of that in political or political, if you think of that in comedic context, It was genuinely funny. Like she was somebody that seemed to go beyond the levels that most comedians were willing to go. Guys like Jerry Seinfeld, who I think right now is perceived as being politically incorrect, but certainly during his heyday he was the worst thing you could say about Jerry Seinfeld is he liked to date younger women. Like not 16, but certainly in their early twenties, even though he was older than that, but really his act was fairly clean. There were a lot of other people during the the nineties, really from the early nineties to the early two thousands who were coming up in comedy and were trying to be edgy, but they were nowhere near the level that Sarah Solon was. And now so far, anything I said about her is actually complimentary, like she was pushing the envelope and I think she was getting away with it because she has a reasonably cute face, very Jewy, but, cute Joey, not like ugly Jui. And she was she was getting on a lot of programs, I think. As a result of having a somewhat cute face that other PO I keep saying politicians that other comedians simply were not getting to who were also as politically incorrect as her, if somebody looks like Sam Kennison and he is doing his absolutely politically incorrect bits, and then you have somebody that looks like Sarah Silverman doing the same bits. People are going to treat those two comedians differently. And Sarah was absolutely treated differently. She was giving a pass a lot of times because she's smiling while she's doing these politically incorrect act. She's got this kind of a smirk going on. And then for a time there she also kind of pretended to be, a little slow, let's just say. Certainly that was her act when she had her TV show, which was in the two thousands. And by 2000 she had the jury. Clearly she had already grown to the level where she could get a TV show. I think it was on comedy channel where she's the headliner, where it's her show. It's called the Sarah Silverman show. And in that show, she's playing somebody that is a little wacky, a little, not quite right in the head. And using that as a little bit of an excuse for the political incorrectness, but again, up to this point, these are all positive things about Sarah, but here's what happened when that fame came, when the money hit its maximum and she started becoming part of the The liberal intelligentsia in Hollywood and on the East coast. And she's got a couple of sisters. One of them is a rabbi out in Connecticut, I think. And she grew up on the East coast. Sarah did. And then the other one I think the other one, I can't remember what she does, but she's done some acting as well, but I think she had a real profession as well. But anyway, the point is when she got to that level of success, that few comedians get to certainly not the Jerry Seinfeld level, but it's sufficiently high level. For most women. She took a hard one 80 and all of a sudden, all the things she was doing in her act, she was now pointing out. As being how dare you, things you can not do or say to other comedians. And that's why I say, fuck you, cunt is because she did that one 80. She took a hard turn and went from being edgy and funny too. Not funny, not edgy. But just part of the overall big leftist elite Democrat party that she is now supposedly trying to distance herself from it's too little too late. I ain't going to fly people that enjoyed your acts back in the nineties and early two thousands like me. We're not thrilled about your actions in the next decade after that. And there's no way I would ever spend time watching Sarah silver and them again, and no way I would ever do anything that would put any money into her pocket. If there's a product that she's promoting or sponsoring, I will write to the company of that product and cancel her fucking ass. She does not deserve a dime from anybody that is seen what she's done. And if you haven't, if you weren't around during her early days, you didn't see her edgy comedy. There are some videos on YouTube that are available, that you can certainly watch clips of. She was genuinely funny, but there's also plenty of videos of Sarah. Once she got rich, once she got famous, once she had her own TV show, completely bashing other comedians, other people in general with all the strength of might of anybody that is an elitist in the Democrat party. They're there. And I'm not just even talking about Trump, like even pre-Trump she was bashing anybody that didn't fall in line with her very liberal views. Certainly plenty of that happening during Trump as well. I think she was one of the people that threatened to leave the country when Trump got elected and of course never did. Yeah, Sarah Silverman, fuck off now. Let's see. What's next. Germany, had an election. I don't believe the results are out yet, but it does appear that finally Angela Merkel's party is going to be greatly reduced, which probably means we're going to have a new German chancellor of very soon here. And really, I don't understand how Germans kept voting for a party that would keep putting her back in. She may have been good for Germany initially in promoting the EU, but she's also presided over the the decline of the EU as well. I don't think there's anything she's been bringing to the table over the last really decade. Nothing that I can see. So whatever initial benefits and credit she brought to the table, I guess her party was just too chicken shit to get rid of her and put somebody else in. So now that the party itself is taking a hammering maybe they'll finally Germany will finally get a new chancellor in place. I don't know. Not a whole lot more on that. I honestly I'm sure people have. Much better knowledge as to why Germans are finally starting to turn on that party. But from my standpoint, this is probably long overdue. Something else I ran across is I noticed that there was a couple of articles that talked about the reduction in tourism and specifically it looks like about 32% of all the countries in the world. Are right now closed to tourists. Now that may not seem like that much. It's still a minority, right? It's not like it's two thirds of the countries that are open conversely. Right. But a lot of the countries that are actually closed which I guess is 69 countries all said and done according to one of the articles they they're the countries that have a strong tourism. Generally. And about half of those 69 countries that are currently closed, had been closed for at least 40 weeks. So coming up to a year of being closed so for countries Portugal or Greece countries that are reliant on tourism as a normal part of their yearly revenues, they're screwed. And that will have long-term implications when people that own resorts end up defaulting on whatever loans on those resorts, or even if they don't have loans. Eventually just the upkeep and maintenance is going to eat up whatever savings the companies have. To the degree where they're going to be selling all these properties. So there'll be a lot of good properties that are coming off the tourism market that will be for sale, not just in Europe, a lot of touristy destinations as well. I think a lot of the Latin American and Caribbean islands are experiencing issues as well right now. And what's what happened. I can predict with some level of certainty. That guys like bill Gates are going to be snapping up properties worldwide because when you've got a hundred billion, what do you do with that money? You're saying you're going to not leave it for your kids. You're going to give it to poor people, but before getting into poor people, they're going to own all the property that they can worldwide. And it's a scary thing, not just from a conspiracy standpoint, but having a large amount of property. Under control of a single organization. And I saved bill Gates and guys like him, but ultimately it's companies, they own that. It could be just a holding company, but it's obviously not bill Gates personally signing for a piece of property that he's buying. These are all held by companies that they own. But when you have a large amount of property that is held by. Single companies or companies that own huge amounts of property, they can actually start effecting the market price in the region simply by either dumping properties down or buying even more properties as they come on the market. A lot of people right now in Austin are saying it's a total sellers market. You can get 150% of your asking price quite often when you're selling a house in Austin. Yeah, it is because a lot of people from California moved here, a lot of people that are used to having homes in the one, two,$3 million range for fairly mediocre homes, nothing special at that price. They're coming to us. And they're seeing comparable homes for 700,000, the million million five, that's like a 50% discount compared to what they're used to in California. So of course they're seeing these properties in Austin as being dirt cheap compared to California for what you get. But it's a simple, it's a, it's still a numbers game because once you buy this property in Austin, then what, because the properties here are going to get maxed out in terms of price point. Sure. They might be some small, yearly growth eventually, but right now, Austin is the California bubble of Texas. This is where 95% of the people are coming from California. And coming to Texas 95% of those are coming to Austin. And unfortunately they've also ruined us. And I will say that, and I don't think it's a huge surprise people that have been to Austin or people that know people who live in Austin will probably get tired after a while of hearing those of us that live here, bitching about what Austin's turned into. When I moved to Austin over a decade ago, it was a cute little Texas city with Canada. A funky vibe where people would have chickens in their backyard, even though they were two miles away from downtown. It had tons of live music everywhere around the city. It had a hippie culture that went back to the 1960s and it was never interrupted. And it was still even with all that was one of the most expensive places in Texas to live. When I moved from Dallas suburbs to Austin, I saw that houses in Austin were already about double the price of comparable homes that were in Dallas. And, it was a little bit of a surprise, but Austin has a more nature. It has cool lakes and rivers here. So it seemed like there's some rationale for that right now. I think the homes have doubled once more since I've been here. And what would have been a$300,000 house? In Dallas was a$600,000 house in Austin, which is now a$1.2 million house. Now prices in Dallas have gone up as well, but they've probably gone up from 300 to 500,000. So a$500,000 house in Dallas, in the burbs, comparable in its size and location to a$1.2 million house in Austin. So there is a huge premium for living here. And unfortunately I, I think it probably means eventually my days here are numbered because along with the increase in housing praise, the thing that didn't use to exist in Austin was a huge homeless population. And when I moved to Austin, you would very rarely see a homeless person. Mostly just walking around or maybe asking for some money. You never saw tents. There were no tents anywhere. You had no idea where the homeless people lived other than the homeless shelters. And there was certainly way if you were homeless people. Now it's 10 cities. Literally next to those million dollar houses, a block away are two or three tents set up by homeless people. All over Austin, the amount of trash and refuse and horrible smells everywhere has compounded as well. The amount of the amount of live music has gone down a lot. The amount of the quaint little Austin areas and little Austin food truck areas have all been reduced and have been built out. As the sort of very stereotypical all over the country, four level brownstone looking buildings. So they're basically a commercial first floor apartments or condo. Second, third, fourth floor. They're all four stories tall. They look exactly the same in Austin as they do in Chicago, as they do in Minneapolis, as they do in Kansas city, anywhere in the country, all the new construction of these four. Story buildings is identical and they're all planned with like little restaurants and barber shops on the first floor, to resemble a New York city kind of vibe. They're not really that cute compared to what was already here. So the value of Austin has greatly been reduced. In my opinion, even though the price of Austin has greatly increased. And of course, what that means is Austin's becoming a worse and worse value. Every year, maybe even every day for that matter. Yes, there's a lot of companies here, companies, including companies that I like, like all of Elon Musk's businesses. They now have operations here that they're the Tesla new mega factory in Austin is being built literally two miles from my house. So it's an area that is fast growing. But a lot of the things that really made Austin interesting and better than other Texas cities, almost all of them are down. Austin is just the fastest growing Texas city, but no longer in interesting Texas city. So there's my aunties. And I used to say, always try and convey a negative image of Austin because we don't want more people come here. I don't even give a shit anymore. Everybody should come here because. It's not that good. And you'll find out soon as you get here, that it's really not that good. And those of us that have been here awhile, I think a lot of us are starting to look around starting to get the itch, to move elsewhere. And for a good reason, Austin's no longer what it used to be. Let's see, maybe cover one or two other things and then we'll wrap it up. I know, cause I seem to be on the three-day schedule. I keep trying to be on the by daily or every other day schedule. Is that by daily? No that's, there's another word for it, but I keep missing the Mark. So it's every three days and hopefully I'll get back to every other day again. But for now it's been every three days. So with that, I'm going to try and make this one, this episode a little bit longer. What else we, Oh, we had the in New York. All boy. Did you guys see this video? There's been videos of it. So here's the video. If you haven't seen it, here's the picture of it. Imagine a whole slew of 20 something. New Yorkers, both millennials and zoomers 95% white, about 5% black with purple balloons. A lot of them are holding. And they're laying on the dirty streets of New York. Now I'm not sure if this is times square, this actually doesn't look like times square. It's probably somewhere else, but imagine a whole bunch of people that are just dressed in regular jeans and jackets, a vast majority of whom are white and in their twenties, just laying down on the streets. And I think they're blocking traffic as well. I think that was part of the point. And it's Diane. And it's a black lives matter event. It's an abolish the police event and it's essentially a, I guess it's a one-year anniversary of Brianna Taylor's death now. I think most people would remember back or at least were casually aware that Brianna Taylor was somebody that was killed in her house by police. She was black. The police were there to arrest her boyfriend and her husband, not her, but a. Either a straight bullet or potentially an intentional bullet ended up hitting her and killing her. Unfortunate. I don't think that well from what I've seen, she, wasn't just some random, totally innocent person walking by that hit with a stray bullet either. That's why I said that it was either a straight or intentional bullets. Cause I don't know, it may have been intentional, but nonetheless what the cops were there to do was had nothing to do with her. And it was just in her boyfriend and her husband, whichever it was her love interest and she ended up getting killed. It, this is what happens when people work from home and, or a lot of people are just unemployed. They have a lot of free time and they're pissed off. They're pissed off at their situations in life, like who isn't, I'm kinda pissed off too right now. So I get it. I totally get the fact that people are emotional right now. They want to be. They want to be doing things that make them feel better. And for, I think for a lot of people of that generation or of that age group being involved in group activities. Makes you feel better. It makes you feel like you belong. Those of us that are a little older, don't care as much about the group stuff, because we've been there done that. And at this point we care more about individual relationships that we have about quality time and conversations with people that we like less so about participating in just random things. But I get it again. It's this is all part of the the normal progression of growing up. The problem is instead of these people being busy with work and hobbies and relationships and all the normal activities that they would be in say three, four years ago, living in New York instead they're at home because of COVID. A lot of them don't have jobs or they have. Gig jobs. And those gig jobs are paying very little money. And so they're definitely pissed and they definitely have the time to go participate in events like this blocking traffic is never a good thing. If you're not blocking traffic, you're protesting. That's fine. I have no problem with. Peaceful protests. And again, I don't even want to use the word peaceful because all protests by definition are peaceful when it's not peaceful, it's ceases to be a protest, starts to be a violent uprising. Yeah, it's sad. It's not horrible. But it is definitely sad that this is what's happening. This is what we're seeing out of New York. And maybe it was time square, I didn't see the big signs, but now I'm looking at the image and I'm starting to recognize some stuff and maybe it actually is a time square event, but it is what it is. It's a, another reminder of that. There are a lot of people that are really focused on the division between. Races where they ought to instead be focused on the division between classes, between the elite tech finance class and everybody else that actually has a job because those people, the elite tech. And finance folks are the ones that are trying to create trouble for everybody else. They're trying to get people to focus on issues like race and gender and sex, because that way people aren't focused on them and yet there's discontent. And what people should be focused on are exactly the people that are causing these problems, which is the The left side of the country leads with money and generally in either tech or entertainment or other associated industries, the allow them to do a lot of public relations stuff. And PR is just another word for propaganda. All right, last story. And I will wrap it up. And it looks like, Oh, back to Germany. I wonder if this is at all tied to the story about Merkel's party getting defeated in the votes, but maybe not, but it appears that Lamis in Germany received 1 million in euros in COVID aid. Awesome. I'm happy that it's not just United States shipping pallets of cash out to rock. Or even Iran for that matter, like we did during Obama administration. So apparently Germany is also funding. Islamicists so good for them. Europe is on course as well. Now they're saying this was clearly a mistake that it was supposed to be COVID relief, but I don't know how much of a mistake could it be if you send a million euros. Two groups that are islamised. That's a lot more than just a little mistake, isn't it? So I suspect there are plenty of people in Germany that knew exactly what they were doing and were happy that the budget was going there. And because they're anti they're anti, Western civilization, and a lot of European countries from Germany, too. Sweden to certainly the UK as well have allowed people in whose motive whose interest first and foremost is to disrupt the country. And to shift away from a Western way of life, France, another great example of another country that's at this point teetering on the very edge of being considered part of Europe or being considered part of the middle East. And again, not that I need to say this, but. I have no objection to people that have ethnicities coming from the middle East, or even necessarily through people that have a Muslim religion. I hate all religions equally, but this is more a matter of the people that are coming across into these countries are driven by a motivation to disrupt the local culture and instill their own culture. When there are. More Sharia courts in France than there are French courts. That's a problem. When we just heard recently a few days ago that a man who was accused of I will see accused of use accused of somehow disrespecting a young Muslim girl. He was beheaded by the local Muslim population there. And now the girl has retracted her statements and said no, I was just making that up to make my dad happy. This is the France that. That exists in 2021. This is not the France that I remember from many years. France has been occupied before, certainly, and as has Spain and Portugal but not for many years. And I think right now, France is just teetering on the edge of essentially losing all the French culture historically. And becoming a what was the historical term part of the part of the Morrish invasion? That's what it was. So the Morrish architecture in Spain and Portugal and parts of France. Exists even today. And certainly that culture brought along a lot of interesting things as it invaded those countries. But that is exactly what it was. It was a Morrish invasion. It was an occupation and they had replaced the. Cultures that existed. The architecture, the art that existed in those countries previously, certainly in the cities, at least, maybe not in the country with their own style and culture and Arabic. And so what's happening in France today? I don't think is greatly different. Certainly not that different from what it was. What about 700 years ago, 600 years ago. Whenever that happened, I, again, I'm just going by memory. I could be off on my dates, but I've seen the, I've seen the architecture. I've seen the art for sand and a lot of it is very pretty. But along with the pretty, you got to remember this was an occupation that a lot of people died defending those cities and those countries. And a lot of people died on the invading side as well prior to being able to create beautiful art and architecture and build mosques on the locations where churches used to be. So anyway, we're hitting right up against an hour. So with that, I'm going to wrap this up thanks for joining. And I'll try to get back to a little more normal every other day schedule in the coming week. Take care.