0028 Sir Gene Speaks

It's been an interesting few days for me. I want to get you guys all caught up on that also to ask you about a possible format change for the future. And a way to vote on that as well. So with that in mind, let's get going I guess, to start things off, it may have become apparent to you by the content of the podcast that I've made the big jump into crypto, and it was mainly driven by podcasting 2.0, which is of course the new initiative by Adam Curry that is changing the way that podcasting can be enjoyed. a lot of apps are starting to get on board. There's been a lot of changes, one of the key things and the thing that is responsible for getting me interested in crypto a lot more than they have been in place. Let's put it that way. Is the idea that podcasts can now be monetized directly through podcast apps. So for anybody listening to this podcast and an app that does not have monetization built in, just imagine the same app you're on, except that there's a couple of buttons somewhere on the screen. And one of the buttons is boost and then a, an amount of Satoshi's, which is one, 100000000th of a Bitcoin. So fairly small unit, much smaller than penny. And then the other button or a slider potentially will have a SATs per minute. And that can be 50, could be a hundred, could be a thousand, but whatever it is, you get to choose what it is. It could also be zero. You don't have to subsidize somebody. But those two features added to a podcasting app. Allows you as the listener to directly send money in the form of Satoshi. So it's not your dollars, but it is absolutely translatable from yours dollars and back to you as dollars. But it allows you to do that in both a single payment, which would be the boost. And the idea for that is if you're listening to the podcasts, all of a sudden something really makes you smile or really makes you feel like, yeah, that's really expressing the way I feel you can hit the boost button. And that boost will be sent to the podcast creator along with the timestamp. Now keep in mind, all this stuff is beta, right? But along with the timestamp of when that occurred in the podcast. So if, for example, most of you were already listening on apps that had a boost feature. When I start talking about. My format change or potential change in the future, you could hit that boost button either on vote, option one, or vote option two. And based on how many boosts come in for each option, that would give me a very good idea of what people are interested. And it's more honest than if I just did a random poll for one simple reason, because people are committing their level of interest with money. So it's a lot, it's a lot more valuable to know what the people who are willing to donate to. You want to see moving forward versus just opening it up to anybody who may or may not listen to your podcasts the next episode. So pretty neat idea. Again, this is all beta stuff, so not everything works yet. He will eventually, but anyway having those buttons again, getting back to the people that. Maybe are listening on an app that doesn't support that. And then other than the boost is the per minute donation which is really it's referred to as it's a Toshi stream or a socially feed, but it allows you to just set a rate. Again, these rates are literally in the pennies. It could be less than one penny, a us dollar. It could be several pennies, but it, or it could be a dollar a minute. Hey, it's your money. You decide how much you want to donate, but whatever it is, once you set it, when you're, whenever you're listening to the podcast, it will automatically just send that preset value every minute. And of course, if you're not listening to a podcast for awhile, for whatever reason there, you've got better things to do, you're busy. You're just not in the mood, then you're also not donating. So it makes donations only happen. When you're consuming the media that you're supporting, it's a really cool feature. I like it. Now, there is a very steep, technical learning curve for all this stuff. Right now. I will say that I've really spent pretty much all last weekend. And then most of this week, figuring stuff out and watching videos, reading bugging out Curry way too much on trying to help me out with this stuff, because he's done this literally for the last year. So he's had to figure a lot of this stuff out himself. And now he's passing on this knowledge and hopefully I can pass the knowledge onto other people as well. And with each generation of apps coming out, the process is made a little simpler. It may almost get to a point where I can have my mother be able to do this, although it's not there yet, but it is moving that direction. With that in mind, just keep in mind. This has been a focus of my attention for a while. And while I am still very much reading political news, I'm watching stuff. I'm watching Tim Poole. I'm listening to no agenda. I'm on the no agenda social, but my focus has definitely been shifting more towards how to work the the crypto stuff, which is utilized in podcasting 2.0. And for things podcasting related in general I've been putting in a lot of bug reports into a variety of podcasting apps. Normally I would only use one app and I've been using the same app for ages. Which I talked about in a previous episode, but now I'm testing a whole bunch of apps. So I probably have 10 or 12 apps installed on my phone out of those, like three or four of them are utilizing the podcasting 2.0 features fully and another three or four are partly. Yeah. And I want to be helpful. I want to make your contribution here as well. And so I'm trying to break all these things. I guess that's the best way to look at it. And when I break something, then I let the author know here's what happens. Here's what I was doing. Here's where the bug probably is. Or maybe it's intentional. And certainly some things are intentional and I think they're just wrong, but you know, we'll see what washes out in the end. Having good healthy company petition helps to create good features for everybody because without competition, there's no incentive to change or add anything with competition. There's always a little bit of a race towards. Getting more users using your product versus the other guys. And I think we're going to see that happening for sure, with the revitalized interest that's created by podcasting 2.0 in how podcasts are consumed by people, both on their devices and on the computer and potentially on the appliances. They, nothing says that you have to listen to a podcast on a phone. You could also listen to it then other devices you could maybe even listen to it. A an LG refrigerator. I'm sure there are people that have done that or maybe are doing it right now. So anyway, with that in mind what I'm going to do for this episode is shift gears back to my normal format. A little bit, talk about some political issues that we're seeing along with my opinion on them. And then once I've done a little bit of that, I'll probably spend a little bit more time on the I'm podcasting 2.0 and potentially related to that. What I've learned through my week of digging into crypto, pretty heavily maybe help you guys avoid some of the pitfalls that I've experienced. I'm actually going to change it up a little bit more. I have to relay a hilarious story that a friend of mine just told me literally just an hour ago or so. I have a friend named Greg who I've known for a long time, but yeah, we've definitely had some contradictory opinions during COVID where my stance, which I think is pretty obvious to most people listening has been, this is literally the common cold. This is no different than anything we've ever done. And it is silly for all the governments to act like this is Ebola or something. The mortality rate is no worse than it is for every other common viral infection that we have. The keyword being common here. So the extraordinary steps that most governments have gone to to prevent COVID or to keep people safe is really nothing more than an excuse to implement. Policies that they've secretly wants to implement for a long time that involve controlling people's behaviors that involve getting people into a mindset where they're willing to do things that there's no way in hell two or three years ago. If you asked people if they would be willing to do that, they would say. And I think the, for the most part maybe even to the surprise of a lot of governments, they've been fairly successful. They've been able to pass a lot of legislation that were just implement things by edict like an executive order that greatly restricts and controls people's behaviors. And even to some extent their thoughts. I've been really on the, this is all bullshit and it's just an excuse. And if people could start pushing back, we'll start. Getting things back to normal. Greg has been a little bit on the I wouldn't say he's on the opposite side, but if I'm on the very tip of one side of it, he's like in the middle between me and the people that are on the exact opposite sides. And those people are the ones that are wearing multiple masks, which don't work and are happy that businesses are closed. And they're essentially what we call Karen's here in the United States are people that are nosy and want to get into everybody else's business and be telling him what to do, because they think that there are some how the self appointed arbiters of what is the right behavior and their behavior model is whatever the government says is exactly what they're going to do. Ironically, these are the same people that generally are. Willing to go out and protest and burn buildings down for black lives matter. Not all of them, for sure, but there's a very large overlap anyway. So Greg's got in the middle of this. So he did believe that this disease is actually dangerous. I think he still might. So unfortunately he's running that count, but but I also know that he's a bit of a hypochondriac. This guy goes to the doctor more often than anybody else I know. And this is why I'm not gonna mention his last name. Cause I don't want people making fun of him. But if you know, Greg, you know exactly what I'm talking about. We've, we've been able to have some laughs about it on things we share then have multi messages, disagreements about things that we disagree on. But the reason I brought all this up and talked about Greg is because I want to put this into context. Now that we don't just have the fight over whether masks shouldn't be worn or not, but rather now we have people that are pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine, or think that a vaccine for a virus, which doesn't do anything in the first place is stupid. But wherever you fall on that line there is clearly a superiority complex that people that are very ProAct seen and have gotten the vaccine and want everybody else to get the vaccine that they have. And so what we've been seeing in political news and actions is that while the government is officially saying, we're not getting d'Orsay. Or we're not going to create rather when they are definitely endorsing, we're not going to create a COVID vaccine or D there I go, slipping truth wants to come out. We're not going to create a COVID vaccine passport, but it doesn't mean they're not going to endorse that if it's done by private industry. And it's from looking at everybody from air airline companies, to all kinds of travel services, to even stores are getting in line with this idea that we're going to provide our use of our products. We're only going to do business with people that essentially can prove that they have had a COVID vaccine, as silly as that concept might be. That is what they're choosing to do. And so that attitude isn't just between corporations, it isn't just between politicians. It's also on the street. And you can see that this, by the reactions that people have when somebody, whether it's they're wearing a mask or not, but certainly somebody as to whether or not they have had a vaccine makes an impact to these people. So the incident that I've been setting up for the last five minutes as Greg went through his favorite coffee, shop, coffee bar, whatever you want to call it, I guess, a coffee bar. He got his coffee and he's looking around for a table to sit. And generally these coffee bars have several large tables rather than individual booth for people, which would be super COVID friendly. I'm sure. And so he walks up to this table and there's a couple sitting there and he says, do you mind if I sit at the opposite end of the table? So it's at least. Two meters away from these people. Instead of saying yes or no, the couple of replies with Oh, well, have you had your COVID vaccine and Greg answers? No, I have not, even though he wants to get it, which I think is silly, but whatever, that's his business. Then when he says, no, I haven't the woman says, well, we've had the vaccine and we have a small child and we would really prefer you not sit near us. Now, there are so many things wrong with that statements to deconstruct, but let me just continue on with the story and come back to that deconstruction, Greg being a polite guy says, Oh, okay, well I understand. And so he leaves, walks around trying to find another table and finds another table. Is somebody sitting there. It says the same thing, do you mind if I sit here and the person didn't ask him amazingly about his status with the vaccine, and so he sat there and then eventually the person that was there before left. So now Greg is the only one at this table you could easily have. Tables are probably made for six or eight people, so you can easily have two to four people ended up coming there. But now Greg is very agitated, I would say, or I don't know, he's excited maybe, but either way he decides that if that table over there only once people that have had the vaccine, then his table is going to be only for people that have not had a vaccine. So When there's the folks that stopped by and ask them if they can sit on his table, he does something he would have never done in the past, which is he says, Oh, well, have you had the vaccine yet? And the answer they give is a Oh, yes, absolutely. We've had the vaccine at which point then Greg says, well then no, you can't sit at this table. There is a table over there. And he points to it that is reserved for people that have had the vaccine. So I would suggest you guys go over there and ask, if you can sit at their table, this table is reserved for people that haven't had a vaccine. And I can just imagine the puzzle, look on the faces of these folks as they're thinking. Well, wait a minute. So we got the vaccine and we did what the government told us to do. And now, because we did that, we were being denied the opportunity to sit at a table that's odd, but being polite people, they nod their heads and say, okay. And they leave and they go off to the other table. And then this happens a couple of more times where Greg essentially is asking people, Oh, you had a vaccine. And then this. This young lady that's 20 year old looking girl with a dog comes up and he asked her that and she says, Oh yeah, of course. And then he gives us his explanation for why she can't sit there. And then she eventually has to agree that, Oh, okay. Well that makes sense, I guess. And she leaves, but Greg telling me this story says, but it's very obvious both from her age and from her actions that there's no way she got the vaccine. She doesn't look like she works in any kind of priority emergency field. She might, but she's likely a college student and certainly college students are on the backside of getting vaccines. So most of them, if not the vast majority of them. Have not gotten the Maxine. And so this is very likely, although not confirmed to be somebody that has not had the vaccine decided to lie and says, yes, of course I have the vaccine. And as a result of that was denied sitting at the table. I think that it's hilarious. While we were talking on the phone and he's describing this situation to me, another couple came by and asked the same thing and I don't need to repeat it word for word, but essentially I then heard him firsthand as the phone was still up talking to this couple and saying, no, you can't sit here because you have already had a vaccine. And this table is just for people that have not had a vaccine. And it is honestly a fairly logical explanation because if you think about it, if you're going to limit the access of people that haven't had a vaccine and you're not doing it just to be a Dick. If you're actually genuinely doing it because you believe that there's more safety in being around people that have had a vaccine, then you have to also admit that there is a fairly large, in fact, the majority over 50% of the us population has not had a vaccine. And some of them may tend to like, Greg himself may intends to get a vaccine, but right now he's not in line to get it. you can't just say, those people have to stand. Those people don't get a table. Only the vaccine, people get a table. And so you have to then reserve a certain percentage over 50% of the tables for people who have not had a vaccine. And that may surprise the people that have had a vaccine that they are not in a privileged group who always gets to sit at a table, but rather they're no different than the people that never got a vaccine. The only thing that's happened is now segregation has come in. And so this is what I was laughing about and having this conversation with Greg, that I'm glad you're perpetuating segregation because that's essentially what it is. This is segregation, not based on race, not based on ethnicity or even financial status, but it is absolutely segregation based on something that was a choice of these people, which is whether or not they got a vaccine and it's not segregation necessarily meant to be a Dick move, as I said. But it's certainly segregation nonetheless. Now in case of Greg, honestly, there's no difference to him. Whether he sat with somebody who had a vaccine or didn't, he was only doing this because of the treatment that he got earlier from people that were afraid to have him sit at their table. Because he had not had a vaccine, so let's go back and deconstruct that statement itself. So when after asking if he could sit at their table the response from I guess it was the woman of the couple that said, no, because we've both had vaccines and we have a young child here's the problem with that. And there's lots of problems. The first one is this is something that goes to what the definition and the purpose of a vaccine have been for literally 100 years. It's actually over a hundred years now. And that, that purpose is you get a vaccine. So your body has the antibodies to be able to not have an infection spread. Even if somebody near you is infected with that particular virus. And bacteria potentially as well, but let's just focus on viruses. So the idea of a vaccine is to put an attenuated version of the virus traditionally into your body. Something that is already damaged enough, that it's not going to spread and caused the disease, but just enough so that your immune system can create a signature essentially for the virus. And then if it ever encounters that in the future it will have antibodies ready to go and fight the virus. And our antibodies have been successful for over 1 million years now in preventing humans. From dying from diseases that they've previously experienced. Now, this is not a perfect system, obviously, but it is the only system that we have until you take medication into account. And medication is a whole separate conversation because it seems somehow that for COVID all conversation relating to medical ways to treat COVID, at least in the United States is banned there. There's this idea that somehow the only way to fight COVID is only with your own immune system because no medication actually works. Now, that's also a bunch of bullshit, from not just studies, but also evidence from lots of doctors that are choosing to prescribe medications to their patients and seeing good results with that. So there's both studies and lots and lots of anecdotal evidence. Like when you have. Literally tens of thousands of examples of anecdotal evidence. It's not the same thing as my cousin's brother told me this is actually evidence that should be paid attention to, but let's just put that aside for the time being. So if the reason somebody gets a vaccine is so that their immune system response prevents them from having a full blown infection of that disease. Would it not make more logical sense for somebody who is immunized to be around people who are not immunized and are potentially carrying that disease then for two people who are not immunized to be next to each other, think about that. The person that has had a vaccine, the person that. It has been immunized the person that should not be able to get the disease itself because of that immunity to it has virtually no risk being next to somebody who is potentially carrying that disease and who is maybe potentially just got infected themselves. That's the whole point. This is why you immunized medical staff is because if they're more likely to be exposed to a disease and doesn't matter if it's covered or anything else, you want them immunized so that they themselves won't get sick from that same disease, that same virus, and then can work with people that are infected. That's the point? So saying I'm immunize. My husband is immunized, but because we have a child, I really prefer not to be around anybody who hasn't been immunized. Not around somebody who's even exhibiting signs of being sick, but just around somebody who has not been immunized, that is just more ironic. It is literally moron. I think, yes, I'm used to enough people being idiots that are not completely shocked at this behavior, but the behavior is saying, my husband and I, we both got motorcycle helmets and the motorcycle helmets are going to make it safer for us to ride motorcycles. But because we have motorcycle helmets, we choose to not ride with anybody who doesn't wear a motorcycle helmet while they're writing their motorcycle. Think about that. That's the exact same logical argument. It's essentially saying I've increased my level of safety. And reduced risk because I have now become immunized, but I don't want to be around you doing your own thing without that extra reduction in risk and safety, even though you have literally no chance of getting infected from somebody else. Now, the asterisk of course, on all of this is nothing is ever a hundred percent. And furthermore, the government is responsible for the brainwashing of these people, not just in getting the the COVID immunization done, but in now also believing that just because they've now had the COVID vaccine doesn't mean that they should stop wearing masks. It doesn't mean that it should stop distancing from other people. It doesn't mean that they can't get infected and it doesn't mean that they can't spread infection to other people. If that is the description of the COVID vaccine, that, which you is that the, that Fowchee and the rest of the government folks are telling us, it's not a fucking vaccine. I don't care what you call it. And it's not a vaccine, not because it's Mr. And a, it's not a vaccine because it doesn't work as a vaccine. There's a big difference between simply injecting something into your body. And then calling that a vaccine, it used to be that the only things that were called vaccines were attenuated viruses. They were viral segments that could be used by your immune system to prevent the viral outbreak. If that process doesn't work as seems to be the case with the COVID vaccine, which is what the government is telling us clearly, the vaccine doesn't work since you still have to act exactly like you did before the vaccine, nothing has changed after getting the vaccine. Oh, but your symptoms might be lighter. I guess that's what they're telling us. So the only benefit of this quote, unquote vaccine, unlike every other vaccine in the world, is that your symptoms might be lighter, but every other aspect of what is traditionally called the vaccine is not part of this. So I'm just calling bullshit on this. I think they, the attitude of the couple that Greg ran to is absolute bullshit. And I think that the quote unquote vaccine is clearly not a vaccine. By definition, you can have an injectable, you can have M RNA, you can even have a viral load that you inject into yourself, but if it doesn't achieve the result of what a vaccine is supposed to do, which is to tell your immune system what this is and prevent you from becoming infected in the future. If it doesn't do that, it is not a vaccine period and the story. So for whatever of the multitude of reasons, you can see that this is all just the emperor has no clothing on situation. People are believing utter, complete lies, which can be disproved simply through logical analysis. Like you don't need to understand molecular biology. You don't need to understand immunology, You don't need to understand any of the areas of study of viruses or how they impact populations. You just have to understand the language and the language is pretty damn clear that if it doesn't crack like a duck and it doesn't walk like a duck, it's not a duck. Even if you call it a duck. And that's the situation we're in. We're being told that getting this vaccines is going to bring things back to normal, but not yet, not immediately, not right now. And aside from even all the reactions, the negative reactions that people have had, which are now being very well-documented. There are several websites that are, co-leading all the various negative aspects of people that have had the vaccine. My father got the vaccine, my mother didn't, my father said that after the the first shot he was more or less. Okay. Just some just felt a little tired and headaches. The second shot, he just felt miserable. He was out for a week as though he just got, he was sick. Like he had a full blown, flu happening is what it felt like to him. So aside from all that stuff, If it doesn't actually do the job of a vaccine, which is preventing infection. Once you've had the immunization, then stop calling it a vaccine, please, for the love of God, stop calling it a vaccine because it is not a vaccine. I want know, move off this topic obviously, or a covered them a lot of the episode in this. But sufficient to say that I am not opposed to all vaccines in general. I've had vaccines. I probably will get vaccines if I traveled to deep dark Africa at some point, and I don't want to get malaria. And along with other diseases that are prevalent there, I will get shots for those things that have been proven to prevent actual infection. Those are real vaccines and those are worth getting, I also don't think the government has any business in mandating vaccines to anybody, whether it's kids going to school or whether it's adults trying to get on the airplane like that, that definitely is not something that needs to be done by the government. In fact, that absolutely shouldn't because it's imposing probably some of the most personal activity that you can do, which is a risk of sickness or death upon yourself that would be required by the government is just wrong. And I know there's some exceptions for people that join the military, where to some extent the government does have the right over your body and they may end up paying you fees for the rest of your life due to the damage suffered while you were in the military. But you don't really have the right to refuse while you're in the military. And that's just a consideration that everybody that joins needs to make. But in this case, it's just gone off the rails. When you have people using the status of whether or not you've been vaccinated. To determine whether or not you're allowed to be in their presence and sit next to them. And this is not in their house, guys. This is at a public coffee bar. It's crazy. All right, moving on. What else do we have? Watched a little bit more. I shouldn't lie. I've listened a little bit more about the Shovan trial. And it seems like things are starting to turn a little bit for the side of defense. I still think ultimately given the people that are on the jury, they're going to convict. I have a hard time believing that jury is going to not convict. They're showing. I think it's extremely unlikely, but they've got to start feeling worse about that conviction that they're going to make, because it appears that there's more and more evidence that drugs were the main cause of Floyd's death. The fact that the guy that was in the car with him has been now outed by his girlfriend as a drug dealer that was supplying them with drugs. The video of Floyd with something that looked like a pill on his tongue, swelling, it immediately after he was approached by police and again with literally his drug dealer sitting in the next seat The fact that the drug dealer buddy is refusing to testify on the fifth amendment grounds, which is everybody has the right to not incriminate themselves. So he's essentially saying that if he testifies, there's a high likelihood that he would incriminate himself and then suffer whatever legal penalties for doing that, whatever he did. And I think that whatever he did part is now becoming fairly obvious, given what what Floyd's girlfriend has said. And the girlfriend also admitted to both of them being addicted to opioids. And again, this is like addiction is a horrible thing. I don't care who you are. It's not something I would wish on you, but at the same time, it is building a stronger case for the fact that. Floyd suffered as a result of his addiction and ended up dying as a result of it. Not that this is simply a cop that hates black people and therefore decided to kill Floyd. And then another related thing that came up was that Floyd had actually been admitted to the hospital. And I couldn't quite tell if it was a week earlier or a month earlier, but at some point earlier, he'd been admitted to the hospital, literally complaining of the same things as he was saying during their risk, I'm having trouble breathing. I just want to lay down, like he was saying all these things when he was in the hospital with no cop on top of him. And now here we go. And it's the same scenario. And drugs were found in the system. I can't remember the details again, I'm not looking this stuff up while I'm recording, but it seemed like he had a concentration of some, I can't remember which of the drugs, but he had it. First of all, he had seven different drugs in the toxicology report that was done after his death. So they found seven different drugs seven different controlled substances, I should say, in his blood. And one of those was, and I believe it was one of the opioids was at a 11 something per milliliter. I, I don't want to lie about what the, something is. Some unit of measure and in. In reference books for overdose of this particular pill, it says that concentrations of more than seven units of whatever per milliliter of blood is considered dangerous. So here's a guy that is essentially walking around, packed full of drugs, like not in his pockets, but on his body, on, in his body, in his blood, and just got caught by the cops for passing a fake note. Now what he was doing with a fake note to begin with is very suspicious to me because fake bills look sufficiently enough like bills to justify, bothering, to try and pass them are not easy to come by. Either this guy was working for some much larger operation in Minneapolis, say, I don't know, from Somalia, maybe. That was doing a a distribution of phony money counterfeit bills. And he was just too stupid to realize when he shouldn't be using this for his personal use, or maybe he, I don't know. It's hard to say how he got it. All I know is it's going to be very rare that you pass on a fake bill, unless you have some contact with people that either make them or distribute them. Like normally fake bills get destroyed out of the system very quickly. They are, there are checks at multiple stages along the way. Whenever let's say that bills comes into circulation of somebody paying for something at a store. The store itself is quite likely to check for the authenticity of the bill. The bank is also very likely to check after the fact for authenticity. When the bills are being wrapped into bundles, those machines are also checking for authenticity. There's multiple steps where this might happen. So yeah, it's highly unlikely that he just accidentally ended up with them, felt like fake bill that he generally himself thought was real. So more than likely he was also involved one way or another in the passing of these bills, which I'm not saying this is a reason for him to be dead. I'm saying this is a reason for him to be arrested. And if the arrest happened at a point where he was having strong negative reactions to a multitude of drugs, which we found in his system, then it is just as likely that the stress of being arrested. Could have been responsible for his heart attack, as it would have been the physical pain of the knee on his neck. Now all of that could be well, I'm good, but it could still mean that Sean is convicted and I think that's going to be the likely scenario. Oh, well, one other thing I forgot if you watch the video and I'm sure everybody's seen clips, you'd hear him you hear Floyd calling out for his mother or at least that's what we thought was the case. And as it turned out from again, testimony from his girlfriend, that mother was his name for his girlfriend. That was his pet name for her. And the affectionate thing that he called her. And even to the point where on Floyd's cell phone if you looked up mother in his cell phone, that was not going to call his mother, that was going to call his girlfriend. So there's at least a high likelihood, if not a 100% chance that when the Floyd was calling out for mother, he wasn't calling out for his mother. He was calling out for his girlfriend, for the woman he loved. And he was not a mama's boy, but just a guy who was thinking about what's going to happen if he ends up in jail or maybe what's going to happen if he ends up dead. But I think, both of those thoughts were coming through his head because he was feeling the effects of a drug overdose combined with the effects of a policeman on his neck. So calling out for his girlfriend would not at all be unusual. But because he referred to her as a mother, the portrayal was like, Aw, look at this nice guy. He's he even is calling out for his mom. He must really love his mom. No, that's his pet name for his girlfriend. So there's a lot of the things that are coming out in the trial, which normally would very much make this a not guilty trial that they're showing they would not get convicted by a normal jury. But I think in this case, given the, who is on the jury right now, there is very little, I'd say almost no chance that the jury is going to go with a no guilty verdict. I think one of two things are gonna happen either. We're going to have a guilty verdict or we're going to have a mistrial, in which case, the jury members that are. Not willing to go along with just sacrificing Derek Shovan. Even though they can now see that it wasn't really his fault, this happened. I think they're going to come up with a way to just make this a mistrial and then this will have to happen all over again. And maybe with a different jury they'll there might be a better chance of not conviction, but I just don't see a non guilty at all. It's either going to be guilty or a mistrial. That's definitely my impression on this. Okay. What else we got for political stuff happening. I guess somebody ran a vehicle into the barricades at the us Capitol and there's two dead people. There's dead policemen and the suspect was shot and killed. So that's crazy. And this guy obviously had some issues. I'd be curious to see whether he was on the drugs. That's always my first question. Anytime you have anybody that is willing to assault others, including the police, you gotta check their drugs, man. You gotta see if they're drunk, they're high, what's going on in there. And if it's not the drugs and by the way, it usually is the drugs. But if it's not the drugs, then you can look at the mental state of that person without the drugs. Is this person normally somebody that is on the spectrum and dangerous, or is this somebody that is a regular person and doesn't normally exhibit this type of behavior, but then all of a sudden they got on drugs or something. It is virtually unheard of. For a person who is in a normal state of mind, which is not impaired by any drugs or alcohol and who has not done any violent acts in the past to go on a rampage or to end up killing somebody. Not accidentally, obviously it happens accidentally, but yeah, we'll find out, I guess we'll hear more about what's going on. I don't even have to know more. I know the spin this is going to create is that all conservatives are dangerous and need to be treated as, co-conspirators to the sedition. And the violent overthrow of the U S government and obviously the Democrats having power in all three branches right now. And I do mean all three the judicial branch was absolutely Democrat right now. Thanks to Trump. They've installed more Democrats pretending to be Republicans in there. But with that in mind, I think right now we've got a we're going to see this on a regular basis. We're going to see events that are going to make it easy for police for the government, for Democrats, for liberals, whoever you want to call them. It's all the same group for fortune 500 tech corpse. They're all part of the same group. And that group is essentially wanting to redo America with no conservatives in it. They want to create a new utopia in which everybody is politically correct. Everybody hits the same outcome, no matter their level of commitment or focus or their ability to be successful. We want to make sure everybody's identically successful. And the the tech elites are going to control and ensure that this happens to everybody except them. Of course, as we saw what's his face the former head of Google talking about that the big reset, the great reset that it will not affect his class. And I think that's by design is that if you have sufficient money, You're really not affected by any of this stuff. You're not affected by COVID you're not affected by lockdowns. You're not affected by restaurants being closed because, Hey, guess what? You can just reopen the restaurant just for yourselves. You're not affected by travel because you can still fly to Richard Branson's Island. There's no COVID on his Island. Anybody that gets invited to that just flies out. No problem. And I'm just using him as an example. I've known a number of friends recently that have been posting vacation photos with no masks. No, COVID no nothing from exotic destinations. Why? Because for people that can afford it, the planet is still wide open. It's only closed for the working class. And when I say working class, I'm not referring to the typical socialist definition of like you're digging in the dirt, the working class. I can define this for you guys. And I think it's a better definition than what others are using. The working class refers to people that make the majority of their income from a salary. It's just that simple, that's it? So if you're a developer making$130,000 a year and you're getting paid a salary, you're part of the working class. If you're a I don't know if you're working in a restaurant working a minimum wage as a waitress or you're part of the working class. Anybody that makes their living predominantly from a salary is part of the working class. And so who is not part of the working class people that make the majority of their income from something other than a salary, say capital gains or investment income, and then investment income could be. You own 10 houses and you're collecting rent on 10 houses. And other than just paying off the mortgage and all 10 of those, you're also living a comfortable lifestyle and the difference or you're you're trading stocks, you're trading Bitcoin, you're trading anything. And that trading activity represents the majority of your income. Now you can still have a small salary. A lot of entrepreneurs will pay themselves a small reasonable salary, often under a hundred thousand dollars a year, but the real money that they get happens either quarterly or at the end of the year when they receive either profit from, the operations of the business or they're essentially offloading stock from their company. If you're working for a company that has stock, that can be sold in a situation where your salary represents. Less than 50%. And usually let's realistically say less than 30% of your yearly income that would put you into the investor class rather than the working class. So one of the Democrats says working class people, what the image they want you to perceive are people that are working minimum wage and are barely having a hard time while they're barely living. They're having a hard time paying all their bills, but really working class embodies people at all levels of salary. You can have a salary of$200,000 a year, but if that's the main part of the income for the year for you, you're still part of the working class. You're just the upper part of the working class. You're an upper working class, I guess, would be the way to phrase it. We used to have three categories in the U S we used to have. Lower-class middle-class and upper-class, and there was always a lot of debate as to who's in what, because everybody wants to be perceived as in just being just like one step above where they are to other people. And so people that you would maybe consider to be working class, if you were in middle-class you would think of people that is working class. There are people that are working for just slightly above minimum wage. There, there are people that are maybe working more than 40 hours a week. There are people generally that live in apartments, they don't own the houses. All of these characteristics form up what would be considered the lower class. The middle class would be people that still work for somebody else, but they generally will live in a house. They will own the house. Really? The bank owns the house, but they're making mortgage payments. So they own the house. They, the lower-class person might take public transit to work. The middle-class person takes their own car to work. These are all not obviously a hundred percent rules, they're just generalizations. And then, people that would be considered upper lower class would want to be lower middle-class people that are middle-class would want to be upper-middle-class. So within each of the three, you have three more dividers in there. And so maybe if you were a middle-class person you're working, you're making a salary, but you don't just have a car. You have an expensive car, you have a nice car. Maybe you have a BMW or something, your house isn't just the house, but in a house with five bedrooms and a swimming pool. And so these are all distinguishing characteristics that would put you into the upper tier of middle-class, but you're still a damn far away from being in upper-class even lower. Upper-class like people that were in lower upper class. They were people that had exotic cars, not expensive cars, people that are just in the upper class, they don't think about cars. They have drivers that drive them to where they need to go. They take helicopters if they need to get there in a hurry. And they have things like yachts instead of boats. And they might have cars, but those cars to them are probably more like collector's item. They might have seven or eight cars, not one or two cars. And so there's always a distinction in that. And right now what's been happening over the last two, three years in the United States. And really it started to be horror before COVID, but it's continuing very much through COVID is the separation of the classes to the point where I don't think there are three classes anymore. I think there's really just two that the, there is no upper middle-class anymore. There is just middle-class. And lower-class. And then the thing that was the upper-class as almost unattainable at this point you're only going to get into that. If you somehow get lost, lucky, like you create in a company that just blows up and goes huge or something, or you make a killing on the stock market and you're able to power through it. But for the most part, the division today, isn't from lower class, middle class, upper class divisions, really working class versus investor class, and even people or an investor class don't get me wrong. They still work. They're not just lounging back watching TV. It's just that you might be working as a C or a COO of a large company that pays you a$200,$200,000 a year salary, but then. Your stock compensation packages. And then the year is$22 million. Like your salary is just there. So it doesn't look like you have zero salary. And it's just to take you out of the tax brackets for poor people and put you into the richer people tax brackets. But that is such a small representation of the money you making. So even if you work, you could be in the the investor class. So hopefully that kind of clarifies things a little bit. Cause you hear these terms thrown around, especially working class. You hear that all the time and it's never well-defined in the, what the term meant for socialists back 100 years ago, when they would say working class, what they were really referring to was non landowners because back then a hundred years ago, what determined your wealth was? Whether or not you can own land or whether you simply work somewhere. And so the workers of the world unite was essentially as a slogan a hundred years ago. Non landowners of the world unite because if you're a landowner, presumably you're the one that's getting to make the rules. Corporations were not really a big thing yet. And so there was really not a separation of core corporate elite or Silicon Valley elite, but there was a separation between landowning class and people that didn't own land. And right now certainly in the U S where a lot of people do own houses, those houses sit on land. So you could technically say the majority of the us population are part of the landowning class, which would make them not part of the worker class by the old Soviet definition there, the old socialists definition, even pre Soviet, like really looking at German definition. But right now I think the definition of working class has to be. Do you generate the majority of your income from receiving a check? All right. So enough of that, obviously a lot of opinion and discussion in this episodes. We're not covering a lot of stories here, but honestly the car crash kind of took over the news or the car ramming in DC because I've seen like 15 different stories. He's about it. So let's see, what else, what can we wrap on UK had a controversial co-ed passport scheme. Okay. So there, the UK has always been very good for long time, like hundreds of years at bureaucracy like bureaucracy. I think if you want to learn about bureaucracy, just look at UK government, that is the essence of bureaucracy, and it looks like that bureaucracy is now heading. Full speed ahead into separating their folks. They're there. What are they? They're not citizens, right? You're not a citizen of the British empire. You're a subject of the British empire. So they're separating their subjects into two classes. People that have bowed their heads to the state lower than the other class and have gotten COVID vaccines. And then the other class are people that have bowed their head, but not quite as low. And so they have not gotten COVID vaccines. And now it's going to become official that the class that is acting like good little subjects, the most will be rewarded and the reward being closer to pre COVID life and the class that isn't acting like good little subjects by only bending. Part way they're going to be discriminate against in an official capacity. So that's awesome. So good luck Britain. Good luck UK. We'll see how that works out for you. I think in the end that type of behavior will set the country as a whole back years and possibly decades. It already is going to take a long time to recover back to both financially and in terms of attitudes in terms of pay rates to pre COVID levels for every country that has jumped in with both feet into this COVID propaganda. But the UK is really doing their darndest under a conservative leadership minder, which is shocking, right? Like the conservative should have been backing away from all of this, but Nope. They've been going into it feet first. So that's a UK update. Sucks to be you, I guess. All right. just before I wrap up, I guess I wanted to bring up the question of change in format. So what I'm referring to, isn't even really that much of a change in format. What I'm referring to is that I've noticed because of my personal interest in this, that I've been putting in more content into this podcast relating to crypto relating to Bitcoin and relating to podcasting 2.0. Something that I totally agree with. And I read somebody that was, I can't remember who it was, but it was somebody famous from years ago maybe a musician or somebody had said that you're you really. Want to have as fans, people that like what you're doing and that people that wish you were doing something else. And it really stuck with me. And so I'm hoping that even though I'm changing the focus of the podcast a little bit away from politics and a little bit more on crypto and really podcasting itself, that this is still going to be something you guys like. And if some of you just feel like there's not enough politics in this podcast anymore. that sucks. I'm sorry about that. But I think it probably is going to go that direction. And so more specifically, here's what I've got guys I've recorded three interviews and I have seven more to go that I have scheduled that are on the calendar already. So I will have about 10 interviews with People from different companies, some of them own the company. Some of them are one man operations. Others are just, one of the people in the business, but from essentially 10 different companies that have something to do with podcasting 2.0, and a lot of that conversation is going to be about their product. A lot of it's going to be about crypto in general, and some of that's going to be about the future of podcasting 2.0. So when I started this, I thought I would just get maybe three or four people to do 20 minute segments each. And I would just put out one special episode that covers that what I'm finding is I'm actually getting people to talk for about 45 minutes to an hour each, and I've got to have 10 of these. So the question is I'm still gonna call these specials, these episodes when I put them out. But the question is do you want me to continue doing separate episodes between each of these they're still addressing political stuff? Like I have been. Or can I get a little bit of a break and just put out the episodes that I'm recording that deal with this topic of podcasting 2.0 Bitcoin crypto and really that being the main focus, because obviously with people that I'm talking about this stuff with, I'm not having political discussions, really, I'm just talking about their products and how exciting things are in the future when people are able to directly support podcasters and I'll give you a hint. One of the conversations talks about, can podcast be video? Can this whole platform extend to video where there's also financial support directly out of an app, and it's not going through YouTube because obviously on YouTube, you can support people directly, financially through super chats, but YouTube keeps 30% of that super chat. That's like crazy high, given that it's. It's a very simple thing they're doing and it sure as hell isn't costing them that much. It's pure profit for YouTube and using the new methodologies, this would be a much cheaper solution to the podcasts or so where you're keeping over 90% as a, whether you're audio podcast or a video podcast, or so anyway, lots of cool conversations, lots of new technology talk, but I understand that some people enjoy the political talk more than they enjoy the tech talk. And as I'm shifting into more tech talk, I just wanted to give you guys a heads up that there's even more coming. And some of my episodes that will be called specials have zero politics in them and 100% tech talk and hopefully you will still enjoy them. But if you don't, you will know that those are the ones to skip, I guess. So what I want to do is do this I'll let you guys vote. And obviously it's a totally optional thing, but what I've found is people vote, honestly, when there's money involved and they just throw away the votes of there isn't money involved. So here's what I'm going to do. If you make a donation to this podcast and it can be literally as little as$3, if you make a donation that is odd. So it's three ends with an odd number or let's say it's,$3 and 33 cents. So those are odd numbers then I will say, yeah, keep it going. This is great. We will be fine with the tech stuff. Okay. If the donation ends with an even number and again like this doesn't have to be$50, this could be a$5 donation. And I'm going to consider zero to be an even number. If it ends with an even number, then you're telling me, what I really want is the political stuff. I that's the, my main focus. And if I get enough of those coming in, if there's enough donations coming in with even numbers, then I will make sure that I record in between episodes in between the specials that deal with the tech stuff that I covered politics. If I get more donations coming in that are odd numbers and where you're telling me you like the tech stuff, as much as the, all the other topics uncovering, then you're telling me, okay, Jean, you don't have to create separate episodes in between. We'll just take the PureTech episodes as your normal schedule. And my normal schedule is essentially every other day with an occasional stretch to two days in between episodes. If I like, if there's no news or more likely, if I just forgot to record. And I also, the danger here, guys that I wanna remind you of is if I release my episodes too frequently, if I let's say for this. 10 episodes specialists that I have. If I just release them every single day, I can guarantee you that most people will not listen to all of them. And the content is really good. So I don't want you to miss the content, but I also don't want to overwhelm you with content, especially people that listen to no agenda. You are already listening to about seven hours a week of no agenda. So if I'm creating normally three hours a week of content, and then I switched to inserting the specials in there, and now I have six or seven hours of content per week. I just don't think you guys are going to listen. So it's really a question of, can I just release my specials one after the other? And we have a week or so maybe a little over a week of techie stuff with no politics or if you vote with the even numbers. Do you want me to still intersperse the political podcast in between the special episodes? So that is the question. We'll see what happens. I may not get any donations. I didn't realize that a possibility. And again, I'm leaving the actual amounts completely up to you. If all you care about is making a vote, make a small donation. If you actually enjoy this you can use this as an opportunity to make a larger donation with either an even or an odd last digit. So the last digit is the one that I'm going to look at guys. Whatever dollar amount you're making, the last digit, even the rod will signify what your vote is. And with that, I'm going to wrap up this podcast. I hope you enjoyed it.