Sir Gene Speaks

0023 Sir Gene Speaks

March 21, 2021 Gene Naftulyev Season 1 Episode 23
Sir Gene Speaks
0023 Sir Gene Speaks
Chapters
0:14
Intro
1:41
Project Veritas lawsuits
10:18
UK Propoganda for Baltic Nations
19:05
IS Volcanoes cause Manmade Global Warming
21:05
Blame the Whites (southpark)
26:10
Joes Border Play Camp
30:26
EU Update
32:44
Tax the Oligarchs into Humility Rant
38:46
The 80s Were the Best!
42:14
Collapse of an Empire!
57:19
Wrap-up
Sir Gene Speaks
0023 Sir Gene Speaks
Mar 21, 2021 Season 1 Episode 23
Gene Naftulyev

I recommend listening at 1.25X

Story Images and Links are inline.

I recommend Podverse on iOS
I recommend PodcastAddict on Android

Get the latest APPS if you don't see chapters, links, or images.

Support the show (https://bit.ly/39tV7JY)


Move to the same Podcast Host I use!
Get some credit on Buzzsprout! $20 Amazon Gift Card

Show Notes Transcript Chapter Markers

I recommend listening at 1.25X

Story Images and Links are inline.

I recommend Podverse on iOS
I recommend PodcastAddict on Android

Get the latest APPS if you don't see chapters, links, or images.

Support the show (https://bit.ly/39tV7JY)


Move to the same Podcast Host I use!
Get some credit on Buzzsprout! $20 Amazon Gift Card

I want to start off today by thanking my listeners, my audience, I'm actually very surprised and shocked at how fast the listenership of this podcast has grown. You guys rock, I appreciate the comments that are delivered through no agenda social. I certainly appreciate the donations, even though I haven't really asked for them. Few people have donated and most of all, I appreciate the subscriptions. I love the fact that you guys are hearing something interesting and whether it's political or opinion or w or news, whatever it is that I'm talking about, ultimately it should be entertaining for you guys because that's how I decided what I listened to. Is this something that's going to be providing me as some value in the form of entertainment? If it's. Without an entertainment and it's just pure information. It's sorta like work in a way. So if I have to watch something just to dig deeper into it, even though it's a topic I'm not horribly interested in I kind of see it as a form of labor to be done for some future payoff. Whereas listening to a lot of people that I do certainly to no agenda to Tim Poole and Tim caste to Lex Friedman spot guests. These are all things that combine providing information with a very good entertainment value. I'm hoping I can do the same for you guys and continue to doing so as well. So I've got a few stories to go over here and let's see how long that takes. If we get done quick, I'll, I'm sure I'll have some opinions to throw at you guys as well. All right. So the first thing is I dunno how many people follow the the. Lawsuits that James O'Keeffe brings up which happened quite frequently, frankly, project Veritas isn't just a news scoop organization that works with insiders in large companies. Certainly in politics as well to bring you information about the inner workings. But the other thing that they're known for, I think James O'Keefe is very proud of is the fact that they are very litigious. They will Sue at the drop of a hat because everything that they produce, everything they prepare is vetted multiple times to ensure that what they're presenting are facts. Even if they're inconvenient facts to the mainstream media. Recently they they had sued the New York times, I think, five different journalists working for the New York times. I even really hate to use that word journalists because frankly, these people aren't journalists they're really I guess you could call them writers. They do write to someone, but I will have a very hard time calling anybody a journalist who doesn't even go so far as to do basic research for a story. All they do is put in a keyword into Google, look at literally the front page of Google. They don't bother going to the next page and then use that as the the source for whatever story they're writing or as confirmation of whatever story they're writing. So in those lawsuits, Veritas alleges that. They are suffering financial harm as a result of the characterization of project Veritas as being bias. But I think even beyond bias as somehow making up information, being, completely what the left actually is doing so that it's, they're, they had stories written about them, multiple stories in the New York times, not just in your time, certainly, but for this particular lawsuit focused on the New York times claiming how their information is false. They unlike most people in London, like most organizations actually go after those companies that defame them, which this would be, and they did in this case as well. The New York times submitted a motion to dismiss the lawsuit because in their opinion, this was this lawsuit couldn't possibly hold any water because they're using the well there's two, two factors that they brought in. One was the defense of well, that's an opinion of a journalist. Not everything we print our facts and conveniently those facts, which were printed by the paper, but then found to be not true and therefore defamatory to project Veritas, which is why I sued them. That those were in fact merely opinions of the reporters and that facts. So part of their defense is there they're alleging that anything that was not true was an opinion and everything else was a fact, which is very convenient, but hopefully they're not. And get to get away with that that the actual lawsuit, when it goes on the arguments will be made on both sides for, and against that kind of thinking. But the other issue that be brought in was a listing 50 different meetings. Yeah. Groups that all claim that project Veritas is fake news and they hype things up and using that as a basis for the dismissal of the lawsuit. Now, the judge in this case I think did a very good job. He ruled against the New York times dismissal. Which just means that the actual lawsuit from Veritas can continue. So there'll still be plenty of arguing to be done. Right. But he definitely saw it, the hype and said that simple, please, because there may be 50 different websites or, journalists hate to again, use that word. That lists project Veritas as being a questionable news source and not truthful, doesn't actually prove anything. So essentially the judge said that the old 97% of all scientists agree or nine out of 10 dentists agree that smoking is good for your teeth. That simply saying something like that, doesn't actually factually make it true. It's a very good point to remember that in law, Allah, unlike in marketing and social media is. Basically marketing. That's really all it is. But in law, just because nine out of 10 dentists degree doesn't mean that nine out of 10 dentists are correct because the one dentist who didn't agree that smoking is good for your teeth, he may actually be the one that's correct. It's going to be up to the facts to determine whether or not it's the one side or the other side are correct. So he just missed that as an argument for New York times. He also effectively, he didn't totally dismiss cause this will be part of the main trial, but essentially said it's not really applicable as an argument for the dismissal of the case to talk about how your newspaper reporters were interjecting opinions in between facts. Because the, I can't remember the exact phrase, but it's something to the effect of that for the basis of a. Defamation lawsuit that you simply have to show that to a average reasonable person that what they read appeared to indicate that these were facts. So it really didn't matter what the intentions of the writers were. It didn't matter what they thought were opinions interspersed between facts, the way that the story presented this information was that all of the information, including definitely the items that were defaming were presented as fact, going back after the fact and selectively saying, well, that was really more of an opinion that wasn't really something we said. Even if that was thought of while being written, it doesn't affect the court case simply because to a reasonable average person, the fact that like an average person would not be able to tell apart the fact from the opinion in the way the story is written, there is nothing that says, and in our opinion, blah, blah, blah like that would have been a good defense to have specifically excluded an opinion from the other items, which were to be considered facts here. You have a list of things that were rattled off by the media, by the New York times writer. There was no. Separation of opinion from fact, therefore an average person could not find that there was anything that was an opinion and would naturally assume that everything would be a fact. Now this is this I think is very true for something like the New York times. Maybe even the Washington post, you could use that argument with certainly the wall street journal. But you can't really use that same defense or that same argument. If you're talking about the world news daily or one of these newspapers of the old or websites of the new, where the majority of the stories are going to be dealing with questionable topics like aliens and pyramids and frogs becoming gay, things like that. So if there is a, by a average reasonable person, if there's going to be a question as to whether things are real or fake to begin with, then you don't have the assumption that everything on that site is portrayed to be a fact. Then I think it would be easier to make the argument saying, well, these are just opinions. Maybe the frogs are B are gay. Maybe they're not my opinion as the frogs are gay and therefore there's nothing wrong with putting that out there. It's not a libelous or defamatory type of a claim that can be made against it. So long story short, this lawsuit will continue will be, I will certainly be monitoring it. It'll be interesting to see how the story is. Story moves forward with it. But for the time being, I think it's certainly a win for project Veritas and James O'Keefe in that a judge in New York state. I think it's a federal judge, I believe, although I'm not looking at the story, so I don't remember. But the fact that the judge had essentially thrown out the New York times motion for dismissal of the lawsuit is good. We'll keep watching it and see what happens. Let's see what else happening. So there's a story that I read that I hadn't seen the other he's talking about. I'm kind of curious from maybe folks in the UK to shed a little more light on this, but apparently there's a story out that the UK foreign office had sought to recruit comedians and YouTube burrs to take part in a secret Baltic PSYOPs camp. So essentially the UK in its capacity of the foreign office. Foreign and Commonwealth office, I'm not sure if that in fact, I don't believe that is their spy office, but certainly that would be where propaganda could be created and paid for that would serve the British empire. That would certainly fall into the forest of foreign office. But apparently there are now civil lawsuits being instigated in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania against this propaganda campaign that was being paid for by London potentially with ties to Washington, to the U S But it's it's in the very early stages of information coming out about it. The idea, was from a sort of, we look at this from a legitimate standpoint, it appears that the UK foreign office was putting money, investing into building pro Western culture which frankly, in this case basically means pro politically correct culture. Frankly, an anti-Russian culture, a anti old Eastern Europe culture putting together teams of paid YouTubers and comedians that would be targeting. Those countries, essentially Northern Eastern Europe in local languages to promote this. I don't know how much difference there is between what they were trying to achieve and what certainly voice of America and the United States has been doing for many years which is broadcasting pro us pro Western messages. You could certainly call it propaganda, but regardless of whether you call it propaganda or not, it is messaging paid for by governments to affect the thinking of people in other countries. In its broadest sense, it is absolutely meddling in local politics meddling in I don't know if I would say local elections. It depends on the specifics of the messaging, but if you have a a YouTuber. In Latvia that is a local YouTube or is targeting that audience, even if they're not local, they could be living in the U S or the UK or somewhere else. But their YouTube channel is targeting that type of audience. If there are being paid for, by the UK government and being given certain messages to make sure that they insert into their program. And if that happens at a point in time, which is during an election cycle and the messaging is actually affecting the outcome of the election boy, that is, that would actually be a I think, a more obvious and conclusive case of election tempering than anything that was ever proven about Russian meddling or frankly, even Chinese battling during elections. I remember when the Chinese gave a Hillary Clinton sizable donations. There was a little blip about that and media and is that legitimate? Is she giving it back? Because there shouldn't be any direct election campaign contributions coming from across borders, even though we all know that Saudi Arabia and a lot of the friendly Arab countries were very generous donors to multiple presidents on both sides of the aisle. The bushes got plenty of money from them. The Clintons got money from them. The Obama camp got money from them. These are all stories that we've heard and we're talked about a no agenda. So it is happening, but aside from the hard money stuff, is it still questionable? Is it still technically election tampering? If it's done, not by paying bright bribes to politicians, but rather the, by. Paying people who communicate with the voters and certainly not openly, right? So these people didn't voluntarily say, and by the way, we're sponsored by the UK government. This is a story that came out as a it was revealed through leaks, not something that was publicized officially is if the UK government is paying people on social media, on YouTube and performers, like I think they specifically mentioned comedians here, but it could be any type of entertainer or performer if they're being paid for, by a foreign country to provide a certain message during an election cycle. Would that not be election tampering? I tend to side on the side of, yes, it would be, but I'm not 100% convinced either. I could certainly be probably convinced otherwise through a good argument, but it seems to me like you're. You're very much in the gray area you can easily cross over into the the absolutely election tampering area that it would be unquestionable very easily. Imagine if we find out that I don't know, let's pick a random entertainer that's popular right now. I don't want to pick George Clooney because he's been overused way too much, but let's I don't know. Let's pick iron man. God let's say actor's name. I don't want to come to me anyway. The guy that plays Ironman, let's say we find out that iron pan has been not just having his movies use by China, which we know China money is funding a lot of those comic book projects, but let's say that more directly God, I forget his first name Downey Jr. Is that his last name found? Dammit. It sucks getting old guys, you start getting old. You like can imagine you can see things right in front of you. You feel the word on the tip of your tongue, Robert Downey Jr. But you can't immediately remember it when you're trying to think of what it is. Sometimes it takes a little longer sucks. Anyway let's say we find out that he was directly paid a $50 million fee by China to make sure that that there was a I don't know, something that was innocuous enough that nobody really picked up on that. Maybe some particular speech pattern, maybe the color of the clothes he wears, maybe the way that he, he does something that is a nod to the CCP, to the Chinese communist party. Something that essentially would portray the party as being the good guys and not the bad guys and certainly even I think it would be a little bit of a stretch to say that simply putting in money to produce a movie is also enough to be considered election tampering. I think that is insulated far enough away that it would be a real stretch to do that. But nonetheless, we all know no that they're not just putting money into Hollywood, especially now during the Hollywood sort of dark days when movies aren't getting made as much. Certainly the viewership is way, way, way down. The whole movie theater industry has basically been killed off now. So why would somebody put that the money in there it's a much higher risk that day than it would have been 10 years ago. But if they know that they can actually affect the production somehow if maybe they can have, Hey, why don't we have more Chinese extras in this movie? It doesn't really matter who they extras are. Let's just make them Chinese. Let's have some guys that are maybe Chinese tourists and they're all happy and walking by in the background that you don't see. they've got little Chinese flags with them. So you know that they're not some generic Asians, but they actually Chinese agents, you know, it's an Oculus, it doesn't really do anything. But once he starts seeing that in a lot of different movies and yeah, you see how friendly and happy Chinese tourists are and you just can't. I start thinking, Oh yeah China's one of the good Asian countries. Right? I think that it must have, the virus must come up from one of the bad countries, like a Mongolia or something. I don't know, one of those other backwards, Chinese Asian type countries. I'm not saying that Bengali is backwards. I actually liked their music a lot. They've got some cool stuff happen, but There are ulterior motives to money being invested. I guess the point of the story that I started off talking about on this was that we just found out that the UK had a program in place to fund money into YouTubers and comedians to affect the perceptions, the minds and plans, and certainly potentially the politics of the Baltic States, which would be Stony Anil if the mania the guides that border Russia very closely let's put it that way. All right, let's move on. Oh, this was fun. Fun. Okay. I'm going to mispronounce this. I know I will, but I'm going to do it anyway. This is the Icelandic volcanoes name. Far GERD, dowels yall, Fugger downhill. So people that speak Atlantic you're welcome for the laugh. Okay. The volcano erupted near Iceland's Capitol Reykjavik and the fun little bit that I made up from that as I saw the photo and I saw a helicopter flying in the photo. So I just had to make a little caption that says latest report shows that the biggest impactor of human made global warming are Islamic volcanoes the, just leave it at that. Of course the irony there being that it's, man-made global warming, but it's being caused by a volcano, but it's still manmade because that's how it is. 97% of all scientists agree. The science in. Then of course the other thing is that let's not blame China. Let's not blame any of the other countries that are cranking out carbon dioxide in massive amounts. If we're really going to look at carbon taxes, let's blame a little tiny country like Iceland because they can't defend themselves. They have less population than most of us States for the entire country. So let's just blame somebody like that. Plus they're all white. They're like no people of any other color in Iceland other than the white. I think the ones that show up there having a different color, they get bleached by the wind and the sun and the snow. So pretty much Iceland is the prototypical 100%. White country. It's very convenient to start blaming countries that are completely white, because it's very convenient to blame white people because they won't push back because white people are being taught to just take it up the ass. That's what it's all about. It's all about taking the I'm taking somebody that isn't willing to fight back and then piling more and more onto them to a point where now, even if they wanted to fight back, it seems overwhelming because if you're a white, not only are you white, but you're actually a Nazi now, you just don't really know it. It may not even really be your fault. It's probably your parents' fault, but if you're white, You are really the the demon race. You're the most evil people in the world, and you're going to have to pay for that whiteness through reparations, through segregation, through a changing of the standards that you have to meet. If you happen to be a male, which is just under 50% of the population yes, there are more white women than white men because men don't live as long. So if you happen to be that 49, 48% of the population who is also a male, not just white you've got a double whammy, you're even worse than the horrible white people, because being a male means that you've essentially been running this whole system and you've forced all the white females. To do all these evil things that they've done. We know they've done them because there are other way people that are writing books about them. And there's a few black people taking advantage of that and writing their own books about how evil white people are. But women know that they have no brain, they will never make their own decisions. They can't do anything without men. Therefore it's always men that are responsible for everything bad that can possibly happen. When it happens to an entire color of skin of people, an entire group of people that are United by unskilled color that just proves the point. It's convenient that all the worst people on the planet, it happened to have the same color skin. It makes it much easier to just sort of classify people in by skin color rather than by their actions. It makes it much easier to be able to see who is responsible for all the evil versus. Who clearly couldn't possibly be responsible. So when there's violence on Asian people, even though everybody knows that the majority of the violence against Asian peoples per portrayed by black people that, that is clearly the case. If you start looking at police reports, but that doesn't matter because since we know all white people are evil, it must be the evil white people that are also perpetrating violence against Asians. So every imagined version, everything that's propagandistic that is talking about how Asians are being attacked now shows white people attacking Asians, everything from actual police, body cams and from the videos. If available from the cell phones of the Asian people shows it's black people attacking the Asian people. Now there's also certainly Asian on Asian attacks. There are Asian gangs, just like there are black gangs in the white gangs and Latino gangs, and there were other kinds of gangs and you probably will find the occasional Karen out there that is willing to throw something in the face of an Asian server, because she didn't like their service. Certainly that happens. But in general the presentation of whites being the ones responsible for all this anti-Asian sentiment and really hate crime against Asians is complete bunk. That is pure propaganda. I think that a lot of people can see through it, but unfortunately not all people can see through it. And you have to remember, there's still a segment of the population. That will just blindly believe this stuff. The low information voters, the people that were responsible for Biden, getting elected, all kidding aside from from dead people voting, there were plenty of real people voting for Biden because I've talked to them. I've heard from them. I've watched their videos. These are people that were essentially, I don't know anything about them. I don't, I just don't like Trump. Like Trump has just a Dick. He's an asshole. So he needs to go. I really don't care who replaced them. These people would have voted for ALC. They would have voted for Bernie. They would have voted for Hillary. And Hillary is probably the most centrist of the candidates and the Democrats have run. Certainly her husband was the most centrist. These people don't care. They just didn't want to have Trump in there. With that in mind. I don't think it's that hard to believe that there are people that genuinely believe that the white devil is the cause of all wickedness and evilness and is born with a satanic or well, to them, they wouldn't call it Saint tannic. Right? Cause most of them are atheists, so they would call it a fascist seed. So you're born tainted, you're born with original fascist sin. If your skin happens to be white, that's how it works. Of course, if you're from Wakanda, well then you're lucky because you're not born with original sin. You're born with a with the challenge. Of having to teach all the evil, wicked white people of just how bad they are. All right. That's probably enough racism for this episode. Should we move on? What else we got? I got a couple other stories that I've was looking through. Yeah. So the migrant thing is kind of getting out of out of hand a little bit, I think. So it looks like there's now 50 and a half thousand migrant kids held in captivity. Now this, I don't know if they're an endangered species or not. So we have to be careful about making sure that they get an, a medical help while they are held in captivity. Because we mean, we may need to repopulate the wilds that they originally came from this group. This may be all there is left. Okay. Apparently there wasn't enough racism, so I'm gonna keep going. But yeah, that's a real number, 50 and a half thousand migrant kids. That is a higher number than we ever had during Trump's era. That's a higher number than wherever held at or patrol points. When AOC went down there and then cried in front of cameras next to a fence that was next to a burger King, because that was a convenient location for her to be at. Who has, who cares? W we didn't see any photos of the kids. Anyway, we just saw her standing next to a fence and crying. So the location of fence was really secondary to her emotional state at all those poor children that were being held away from their parents, because they showed up without their parents. How dare the government hold children that were there with no adults away from their parents. That is just horrible. Clearly what the us should be doing is sending troops. All through Mexico and Latin America in general, looking for the parents of these children and then bringing them together and reuniting these groups. That is really what ought to be the new mission for the border patrol. Because if the U S border patrol, isn't going to patrol the U S border, which Biden pretty much said with his executive order, they're not allowed to do anymore. I'd hate for all those people to just lose their jobs. I know people are calling to defund the us border patrol, but why don't we just change the mission of the us border patrol to something that's just, more benevolence, like finding the parents of the children that ran away from their parents and then reuniting the children with those parents. And then making sure that that we find everybody that currently is sitting in a fenced off camp that Biden created on the border. Then find their legitimate parents or guardians. Cause you know, frankly, some of them may not have parents that certainly could be a possibility if their parents were working as mules and drug trade. There's a very high mortality rates for those people. It's a sad, but true fact. So if you're a mule in the drug trade, you're probably not going to be a mule for more than a couple of years before you ended up dying from a drug overdose when they a condom explodes in your gut and the cocaine just rushes in and gives you a heart attack instantly. We have to still be able to return those kids somewhere. So maybe the guardians would be the drug cartels that their parents work for. That would be a good place to look anyway, to start looking maybe, and until you find the guardians of the children, maybe the God drug cartels would be. I'm sure we could encourage the drug cartels to be able to offload and take care of these children during that interim of time while the us border patrol is looking for their legitimate parents. So I think we could solve this problem, I'm optimistic. I think it's just a matter of time until somebody in Biden's administration has the same thought that I did comes up with the same simple solution to make sure that these kids are reunited. And that is to first and foremost to re task the U S border patrol with search operations in other foreign nations in search of the children's parents. Then secondly working and creating a system, maybe the U S pay some money to the as a Goodwill gesture. To the various cartels that these children's parents may work for. And then in exchange, the cartels would promise to provide for the children in the interim and then to house them. That way it seems like a win-win situation. So I just can't wait until I'm actually reading that story of Biden's administration, finding the creative solution. It may not be the final solution Biden comes up with, but maybe it will be the, his final solution. We'll find out only time will tell. Alright, what else is going on? Obviously that the whole last segment was a joke. I don't know if I need to say that, or if people can tell by my tone of voice, but since you're not looking at my friendly, smiling face, I figured I would mention it anyway. So there's a lot of fighting going on in Europe and honestly, I think there's a. There are more protests happening in Europe right now than I think the than the U S by long shot. There are anti lockdown protests in Europe. There are anti-proton vaccine protests in Europe. There are also protests in Europe against against the anti vaccine. The vaccine is as well. There are protests in Europe against the shifts too authoritarian culture. Let's see there's a, there's some, Oh, trans rights protest that I saw happening in Europe as well. I think there was one more year of peon protest story that I saw. Let me try and find it here. But Nope. That's new York's story. Okay. So London antilock down and Amsterdam police are probably, yeah, they're also dealing with the anti lockdown ground and an answer them. They're just using electric cattle, prods, and German shepherds. It looks like, so they are very good at finding how to control their populations. They're also using water cannons. Well, that's a tried and true thing to use, especially in the winter water cannons in the winter are great at suppressing protesters. People start realizing that being cold and wet and in a time where There's a higher susceptibility to to the flu, which we've now renamed. COVID that it's a lot easier to get sick when you're cold and wet. Then when you're dry and warm. So good job, Dutch police and using water cannons. That is wonderful. The fact that people are standing there with umbrellas while water cans are being used as it's a little funny, but it's also a little sad. I have to say. There's a lot of sadness with these protestors as well. Germany's looks like there's antilock down protestors. This is good. So the only place we're not really seeing this as the U S in the U S the protesters are not protesting lockdowns in the U S the protestors are protesting the crazy white people who don't like wearing masks. Here, we're seeing protests that are. Like the New York protest, which had nothing to do with lockdowns. But it was focused on I think at least one of the banners I saw was taxed the rich. So I'm glad to see the in the us are priorities are screwed on very straight it's. It's not about the lockdowns, not about the the COVID related stuff. It's not about the fact that the government has done its darnedest to crash the economy. Nope. It's about the fact that we had a tax the rich more. Now I'm not opposed to taxing the rich more. I will say that whatever libertarian sort of eternal truth mentality I have that said you, you can't tax anybody any higher than any other person because regardless of how much money somebody makes the. The taxation has to be even unfair and not progressive. I think from a practical standpoint, I'm just getting tired of defending the tax rights of the people that want to screw things up for everybody else. I'm tired of worrying about guys like bill Gates and guy. Frankly, any of the Google guys have the Facebook guy really anybody in tech who right now is using their corporate power to cancel diverging opinions, whatever side they're on, whatever opinions they have formed are the only opinions that are allowed in their companies, both for their own employees, but also the only opinions allowed. On their platforms. So you literally can't mention certain words on YouTube. You certainly can't mention certain phrases on Facebook because you will just get turned off. Your channel will be deleted and I've seen this happen a number of times to people that I've known. So with that in mind, I just, I think we should start taxing the rich. And I think that ultimately I think I first really heard of this as from John's war act, but I'm sure it's a much older, I'm starting to be in favor of wealth tax, not just an income tax because the Wolf tax is really what all of us in the middle-class already have anyway. And that wealth tax comes in the form of property taxes and the biggest chunk of property that any middle class person has. Is their home. It's the home and the land that it sits on. The taxes on those homes have been steadily increasing in all States. Then certain States certainly like Texas, which doesn't have a S a an income tax, which is good, but it makes up for that by having a higher than average state property tax and the property tax on atypical $550,000 home will make a much bigger dent in the total amount of income. The person that can afford that home, where a person who is, let's say making from 80 to $150,000 a year. So basically like a entry-level developer entry-level dude named Ben job that would probably start at about 85 K and then quickly get to over 150. So I'm only half kidding there. That is kind of where the reality rates are these days. Somebody coming out of college with a degree in software design is gonna typically start around 80 K or so anyway. So that property tax, as a percentage of your total income is much, much higher than what it would be. If you had a $2 million house, or let's say even the $5 million house, but you were receiving most of your income, not from a salary but from capital gains or from investment income. And your income was in the neighborhood of two or 3 million a year paying the property tax and the $5 million house at that point is just really not that big a deal. So having a wealth tax. Versus a straight income tax I think would go a long way towards not even providing all that much money because let's face it. The people that have enough wealth to be able to to have a sufficiently high enough payment from that wealth on a yearly basis is fairly small. It's not going to make us efficient dent in the U S budget at all. But what we'll do is we will take some of the isolation that people get as a result of getting substantial wealth. It'll take some of that insulation away from them, and that's a good thing. It's a good thing from a popular standpoint, because that insulation allows these people to make the absolutely asinine decisions that they do, which will affect millions of people. That are not in their financial class. When YouTube starts de platforming and then eventually Al altogether canceling YouTube channels. and I think we've had the conversation, if not, we will about the perils of being on a platform that you rely on for all your income. That's not a smart move to begin with, but let's just put that to the side for now, whether it's a smart move or not. But when that happens, when somebody says, Oh, I can't believe people are still watching Alex Jones, let's add a filter to our platform that scans for the word Alex Jones. And if any other YouTube channel mentions the word Alex Jones or the phrase, Alex Jones, let's just automatically deep platform and have somebody start reviewing their videos. And if there's anything in there that's controversial. Let's just go ahead and shut them down altogether. The person that can make that decision to be able to say that has to be sufficiently insulated yeah. Themselves to not worry about their income or their status in society. I think that having a wealth tax would go along with increasing the humility level of people like that. It used to be that somebody would be considered to be very rich if they were a millionaire. I remember in the eighties where the culture was pretty much the opposite of that today, I was a kid. So I certainly wasn't doing any of these things. I was just watching them on TV and seeing them in the surrounding area. Yeah. Growing up in the eighties, you saw that. Being entrepreneurial that taking chances, taking risks and going for those golden prizes at the top was extremely popular. That was the thing that was to be rewarded is to be somebody that can invent something that will take America and in chorus, all of humanity to the next level. So growth in business, personal growth, personal financial independence. These are all very good things in the eighties. People had an average income that was significantly lower than that is they, but not really lower based on based on the real inflation numbers based on real inflation numbers. People actually had higher incomes in the eighties than they do today. I remember I think one of my first jobs was working in McDonald's when I was 14 or 15 years old. That job paid for that dollars an hour, $4 an hour in the mid eighties is about equivalent to $17 an hour right now, I think right around there. And by the way, trying to make an argument for increasing the minimum wage. I, what I'm saying is that the dollar has been so different, slated that right now, people are earning less than they were going on back to the eighties. So 30 plus years ago, almost 40 years ago, they have a lower earning capacity and yet incomes of a hundred thousand dollars were not unheard of in the eighties. There were plenty of dual income business professionals that were bringing in 50, $60,000 each. For a combined income over a hundred thousand dollars. So a hundred thousand dollars at a roughly let's just be conservative at about a three X increase in inflation. So roughly a hundred thousand dollars in 1980s had the same spending power as roughly $300,000. It's a little more than 300, but let's just run it down to $300,000 today in 2021. So 45 years ago, let's say so I don't know too many people making three, $400,000. I actually do know quite a few people making, but they're actually making more than that. I know a lot of people making around a hundred and I know a lot of people making millions, I don't know a whole lot of people making three to $400,000 because that was a number you could get to. On two people on the salary, back in the eighties. That's not the case today, you can't get to that on the salary. It's extremely namely rare. By the way, the the new is making 80,000 that I mentioned coming out of school. So there again, in the eighties no, it was much more rare a degree to have a computer science degree, but certainly an engineering degree, when you would come out of school, you would be making 25, $30,000. And 25 to $30,000 is about 80 to $90,000 in today's money. So really inflation has happened, not not so much an increase in the lifestyle or the payments, but while, or that inflation has been happening. We also seen the. Gig economy that kind of blew up with the advent of phones, cheap phones and the internet that really pays a lot less than that on the gig economy. You're making 12 to 20 bucks an hour. And I'd say an average of probably 15, if you're like an Uber driver or something. So you're really making about $30,000 a year. If you were to do it, full-time most people either do it extremely part-time and it's so it's just extra money or they do it more than full-time because it's not a full-time job. It's not restricted to 40 hours. There are limits as to what Uber would let you drive. I think they require like an eight hour or maybe even a 12 hour break in between something like that. But that's still, people are going to be working a lot more than eight hour shifts, voluntarily doing the gig economy thing, because the otherwise they're making sub poverty wages essentially. I will say that watching this develop has definitely created more exceptions, my mind to pure libertarian principles in the nineties, it was very easy to be a libertarian because what you saw coincided with the principles work hard, you get to play hard. You do things that stab somebody else in the back. You get punished for it later. Karma had a very quick and immediate kick in the ass, but as we shifted to the two thousands, 2000 tens, there was more dissociation from doing nasty, evil things and getting any kind of payback. There was also seemingly more randomness to the success of people, things that really shouldn't have been that successful because people ought to know better, became very successful. And so with the advent of Facebook where literally millions, hundreds of millions of people voluntarily disclosed information about them, their closest friends and relatives, their goings on day-to-day, including documenting with photos and audio and video, and doing all these things effectively to fuel an advertising and a surveillance state around them. It was just mindblowing to any of us that worked in the security field, which I did at that point in time. It was absolutely unbelievable how much data people were willing to give up. Anytime I would create an account on any of these social media things, it would always be using completely fake data and free emails that I got by saying up for another Google email or something, it was too. Be able to utilize that system without contributing any value to it. But for the vast majority of the people, they were perfectly willing and happy to provide all their data, all their private information, the things that they just a couple of decades earlier would have considered absolutely insane to tell anybody you like, you wouldn't tell these things to somebody on the phone. If they asked you just some random questions. Even if you knew who that person that was asking you was, you're like that's kind of my business and that you have no business knowing who I spent last night with. Nope, it's on Facebook. Now. You can find out who everybody spent last night with it's on Instagram. Oh, look, they're there. They're happy with there to provide proof and details of their images whether they went somewhere, whether they met with somebody. It's just a and granted, yes, it's not near even necessarily reality. It's like a fixed fictitious version of them. That is overly glamorized, generally that's on Instagram. But nonetheless, there's just so much data available now that would have been considered absolutely personal data, if not strictly private, but certainly personal data. And they were giving all of this data up knowing theoretically now certainly some people were uninformed, but at least theoretically, knowing if they would have read the terms that all this data was going to be used by advertisers to better target them, that all this data could go to the us government any time they wanted to. As we saw recently with us bank volunteering records of anybody, any of their customers who have made purchases in the Virginia and DC area. Around January 6th. If you happen to be there on a business trip, for whatever reason your data was provided to the FBI, just because the banking system felt like, why not? Let's just we have the data, let's just give it to the FBI and help them out because we hate Trump really. That's the wine hug part, right? Is because ultimately somebody in that company disliked Trump so much that they're willing to use their customers in a way that certainly their customers were never intending their data to be used. When you got a credit card from a bank, you got it. So you get some cash back from the credit card company, which is what they advertise. You got to get a bigger credit line extended to you. You probably didn't really think that the reason you got that credit card is so that the bank can track your whereabouts. They can tell where you go, where you shop. What locations you visit, how often you go there and then sell that information. But that's exactly what it is. That's what everybody's doing. Yeah, I th this is why I understand that a lot people are frustrated and I'm personally disappointed, probably more than frustrate traded, but what do you do, right? What do you do with that disappointment? Because when people don't give a shit, when people see nothing wrong with enabling technologies that are used to control you, it really does demonstrate what I said. A few shows earlier, which is that the us has gone over the cusp of greatness. The U S now is on the downward side of the trend that every empire goes through. The thing that happened in Rome happened in the UK happened in the USSR, happened in. Pretty much every country that's ever had an empire because all those empires eventually collapse and the collapse doesn't happen overnight. It doesn't happen in a year, but it does happen at some point. I think COVID is going to be a very good defining point in history books, a hundred years down the road for when the U S collapsed when the U S empire ceased to be an empire. And the U S simply became a country. That is what's happening right now. So the real question is how do we adapt to no longer living in an empire? How do we adapt to living in a country? There will be certainly people that maybe even people listening right now, they'll start bitching about me. It's Oh, you're giving up. You're betraying the cause. You're not going to fight for it. No, here's the thing, guys. There, there is a finger to point here. That finger to point is exactly at the people that were getting rich in the eighties. That finger to point is exactly at the boomers. The boomers got all the benefit of the eighties. They got the benefit of investing in Apple, in Amazon, in all these companies in the two thousands and the nineties. Yeah, starting with the nineties, but all through the two thousands, the boomers had all these financial benefits to them. What did they do with their children? They put their children into little boxes for quote unquote their own safety because they were too afraid or didn't want to risk anyway, having their children be exposed to the real world. And when those children grew up, when those children started voting, when those children started getting their jobs. They came completely unprepared compared to previous generations. They came out there with very strongly defined ideas of what it means to be them. What that means is I need to be protected from everything bad. This is where cancel culture comes from. This is where safe spaces come from. This is where the idea that people shouldn't be allowed to say things that make me feel bad comes from it really comes from the way that the boomer parents were parenting. They were horrible. Parents. They're God awful. They acted contrary to everything that we learn in nature. What did children of any species on the planet? Do they learn survival techniques by playing with each other by rough housing? By getting hurt. This is why if a kid breaks a bone, it doesn't really affect them negatively in later life. Because when a bone breaks during the growth phase and it heals back up, it's actually ends up being a stronger bone than it previously was when when a person in their fifties and sixties breaks a bone, that bone will never be as strong as that bone was before the break. So this is why the repair facilities during youth are so much better. This is why historically humans have had more than two children because yes, I'm going to say it. Not every kid got to survive out to old age. A lot of kids died from a variety of causes some from disease, but certainly some from doing stupid things and paying the price for doing something stupid and dying. My a would have been, I guess my great uncle one of my dad's brothers he ended up drowning when he was in his late teens, because he was drinking and then decided to swim across the river. So you would do stupid things. You pay stupid prices. That's how it has always worked. The boomer generation decided that Nope, we've made so much money. We've been so successful. We have conquered the natural physical world to such an extent that we can isolate our children and ensure 100% survival with 100% happiness. And what did they get? Well, they got children that are mostly hopped up on Ritalin and other mood altering drugs. They've got a generation that has horrible social skills and worst of all, they have a generation which has. Zero empathy. You know why they now they act like they think they have empathy. They care about the black people and minorities and the women and everybody else. No, that's not empathy. That's just joining a club. All you're doing is you're joining some clubs to walk around with flags, same thing the Nazis did back in the 1930s. That's exactly what these guys are doing. No real empathy means. Being able to understand how somebody who's different than you, not somebody who's just like you fields. When you have real empathy, you tend to have fewer and fewer harsh, strong opinions. You start understanding how somebody else who's not like you lives and thinks, and you can't achieve that. Understanding. You can not have empathy. If you were isolated your entire childhood, if you were kept safe in the box, And the only interactions that you had were with things and people who your parents deemed to be safe. Those are people like you that requires no empathy that doesn't develop empathy. Only being around people who are different than you develops empathy. By the way, anybody that's sitting in a college room in college classroom, there's nobody different than you in there. You're all college students and your professors are teaching you the same ideas being in college does not develop your empathy at all. Living somewhere where you're physically interacting with kids, with people from a different social strata, a different cultural background. These are things that develop empathy. If you're the black kid who lives close to Chinatown and you end up fighting with, and then eventually becoming friends, With Asian kids that will develop empathy. And the same thing for the eight mile example. It's like when you're around areas where there's a lot of both cultural diversity and financial diversity that will develop empathy because you start seeing people as people and not as groups of people. So anybody who's, who mainly sees other people as a member of a group that is a very clear sign of a lack of empathy that has ever been developed by that person. And of course they will try and explain to you how you're wrong and that's certainly not the case. But they don't understand. They just don't know any better. It's like trying to explain sunlight to somebody who's been living in the cave, their entire life. They've never gone outside. They've been cooped up inside and you're trying to explain to them what it feels like to be out in sunlight. Like the literal positive feeling that, that creates in us when vitamin D generation is turned on in our skin we get endorphins. That is a natural mechanism in all humans that helps us to do things like w why do endorphins exist in the orphans exist to guide you when you don't know any better towards things that are beneficial for you. And so things that feel good exercise, you don't want to do it until you do it. Once you do it, you feel great. Why? Because it's good for you being out in sunlight. You don't really want to do it because you're too busy working. You're too busy partying. You're too busy doing whatever. Once you get out in sunlight and you've got that sunshine on your skin, you start feeling good. You got endorphins pumping. These are all things that. Nature has pre-programmed into us, literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years, but what the boomer generation did to their children. And I've seen plenty of gen X-ers con continuing on with this as well is to take them out of that natural environment and keep them in a box, locked up for their own safety. So who do we have to blame for the fall of the American empire, which has already happened? Well, we can certainly start pointing the finger at the, a lot of the millennials that are participating in the downfall, but really if you analyze it, you have to point the finger at their parents because their parents are the ones that were ultimately responsible for the way their children turned out and the way their children turned out in this particular generation. And I know I'm generalizing about millennials. I'm saying it from a statistical standpoint, not from a group standpoint, there are plenty of millennials who don't fit this mold because their parents didn't fit the mold. But for the millennials that do fit the mold, odds, are your parents treated you exactly the way that I'm describing. And that group, unfortunately, is the mechanism for the downfall of the U S their parents are the cause of the downfall of the U S so on that happy topic, I'm gonna leave you guys. Hopefully this episode, wasn't too long for you. I know they've been getting a little longer every time I do them. I'm just shocked at how long I can keep talking with nobody responding to me, I guess. But hopefully you liked the episode and you continue listening if you haven't subscribed yet. I would certainly appreciate you doing that. If you do want to donate, if you want to contribute, I'm not quite ready to start asking for it, but I do give you a place to do it. Let's just put it that way. There is a link in the podcast episode. If you do want to attribute something. Thanks for listening.