I recommend listening at 1.25X
Story Images and Links are only visible to Podcasting 2.0 Apps :
See all the latest APPS for Podcasting 2.0
Donate via Bitcoin or Lightening strike.me/sirgene or
Happy midweek. At least that's what it is for me when I'm recording this. If it's the weekend, by the time you're listening, well, have a great weekend as well. Stay. I want to do a solo episode as I am setting up another guests for next week. And I want to talk about something that I think a lot of people that certainly listened to this podcast may be experience. And that is Shodan FOYA, which is a German word that essentially means deriving pleasure from the misfortune of others. Now it sounds a little a little psychopathic, maybe a little nasty if you just hear the definition, but it's really describing that, feeling that all of us have at various points in our lives, where when we're competing against somebody. And they start losing. Now that could be a sports competition, certainly in our childhood, that's the most likely scenario or at least used to be when children played outside instead of playing indoors it could be in the video game. So I guess there is a possibility for playing indoors as well. When the somebody that's been killing you over and over, all of a sudden starts having a string of bad luck and getting. In the same way that they killed you, or it could be in the political domain where people that have been really pushing your buttons, really doing things that are contrary to your political views, all of a sudden start being on the losing end of things. And that's what I want to discuss today is shutting up for the bad. And if you feel it. Should you worry about the fact that you're actually deriving pleasure from the misery of others? So having explained a little bit about what it is to those that have not heard the word previously and the reason I'm using that particular word rather than just the concept itself is because I think a lot of people have familiarity with that word and know exactly what it means. So it's a bit of a shortcut for those folks. This month in particular, and I think has been a month where we've seen a lot of the house of cards that the progressive have built up starting to tumble in some ways, this started as the consensus. The Chinese origin or rather the lab origin of Corona virus started to become more mainstream. We literally went from the progressive side, calling anybody who thought that the virus originated in the lab as being a Trump, supporting Nazi sympathizer, conspiracy theorist to. Even there they're anointed. Holy one. Bouchie all of a sudden saying, well, maybe that is the case. We should definitely examine it. And incidentally him saying this after how many months, nearly a year of vehemently denying that was even a possibility to look at of multiple people. Some of whom I've watched on YouTube and Twitter and Facebook get kicked off of those platforms. People losing their income because Patrion has deployed form people that were essentially Pro-D this hypothesis that gee could a virus that originated and was first observed right next to a lab that works on these types of viruses could possibly that virus em, come from the lab. If you would have said that, then you had a patriotic count and you were on face. You had a YouTube account, your likelihood of getting all of those, or at least some of them to ban you was extremely high. And I think for a lot of us certainly people that have more common sense than the current younger generations do. This was the most obvious explanation the wet market aside. And I think there's plenty of issues and problems with the wet market and. That could be a whole separate topic, but that aside the idea that a viral outbreak stems from a lab is the most logical outcome. And I would say anytime there's a virus outbreak in some specific area that should be one of the key things to look at. Yeah. Are there any labs nearby that were working on similar viruses where it could have come from? There was a book written, I want to say in the late nineties or early two thousands about the near outbreak of Ebola in Virginia, when there was a I think the book was called hot zone. If you want to look up the book again, I don't have it on the screen here. I'm not looking it up, but I think if you Google hot zone, you'll be able to find the book. And the book was based on the real world accounts of what was happening in that virology lab in Virginia. And it was written by a guy who's a good writer. So it's actually a fun. And I read it when I first came out, but I can't quite recall if it was in the nineties or two thousands. I think the incident itself was in the nineties. So this, and there was also a movie. And in fact, the movie wasn't very good, but it had a different title, but it was based on the book. And the movie, I'm sure it came out in the two thousands and it was probably called hot zone or outbreak or something like that. But the basic idea being that. You need many, many layers of protection and security and risk avoidance when you're dealing with infectious diseases. Now, Ebola has a it's a two-sided coin, right? On the one hand it's extremely deadly with a very high and very fast. Virtually everybody that gets the bowl ends up dying out of it. I think the survival rate is something like 7%. It's extremely low. But for that same reason, because it's fairly quick to infect and it has a very high mortality rate. It also is much more likely to burn itself out. So in a situation like this Wu Han Corona virus spread that we had. If that was Ebola, you would likely have a very high impact to the city until people started mobilizing a containment unit and really locking down the location and preventing any kind of travel to or from, and then very quickly, probably within the matter of a week or two, the infections would be down to zero because they have burned out everybody like. But in fact that it has been infected and the vast majority of the people infected would be dead. And the people that survived will have some immunity to it. I'm not even sure how good of the immunity, but certainly some level of immunity is there. There has been instances of people within Cuba with immunity going to Africa during Ebola outbreaks and actually working in the field because they have a natural protection against it. There is a, a silver lining on extremely high mortality rate viruses in that they burn out very quickly. If you can manage to surround them, if you can prevent their spread by preventing movement from inside and outside the hot zone but enough about Ebola and and viruses where I was going with it. Is that the headlines almost on a daily basis these days, at least the headlines on YouTube, which is probably where I get the majority of my news these days have been saying yet, another thing Trump was right about Trump was correct about the border. Trump was correct. The origin of COVID Trump, both correct about a lot of these things and the fact that this is coming up on more or less mainstream media, that there's now more coverage and more recognition of the problems with the current administration and that dimension more whistleblowers whether they're coming out from Facebook or the most recent one. From Fox news detailing how decisions are made at the top executives levels to control who has the permission, if you will to create content. And then generally in this instance, I'm talking about news-related content. Yeah. Like people playing video games, content. That content, whether you call it news or even opinion shows is very much controlled by an influence by a very small select group of people who have corporate power. And so to that effect, as more people start realizing that working for a company that is doing something that you think is wrong. That you think is bad for humanity is a bad thing. And more of these people decide to come out and say something about it. I think we're going to start to see the crumbling of, or at the very least the chipping away of eventually leading to the crumbling of these mega Corp's like Facebook, like Google like Amazon at least in some instance, I think Amazon without J B bayzos may become a much better company because bayzos very much seems to be the guy that was pushing the progressive agenda and the irony of somebody who got to be the second richest man in the world by utilizing the best and the worst parts of capitalism. And then advocating for a authoritarian socialist control seems a little strange. Like how could that be? How could somebody that made their living by being able to utilize the great corporate freedoms that America has and by having a people in the country and for your customers, who are your workers? Whose lives have been shaped by living in a country that really believes in free speech and freedom. How can that person decide that the opposite of those things is preferred? And I have an answer for that, and I think it's a fairly simple answer and it's, it doesn't really require anything but logical conclusions here, which is that as you gain. Customers as you gain market share. And again, this could be applied to Google. It can be applied to Facebook, could be applied to any company that is the dominant company of their particular industry. And certainly Amazon is in multiple industries. As that happens, you become more isolated from the consequences of your actions. You can get away with doing things that a small company could not do because they would have a high chance of going out of business. So when you are the dominant player in a particular industry, you can actually run worse than companies that are competing with you, but that are smaller. And that running worse can be simply making poor business decisions, or it can be making. Decisions that are very much based on your political stance, for example or religious stance or any other stance, and that you do in spite of the damage it may do to your company, because you understand that being the biggest gorilla in the room, your odds of survival are very, very high. Even if there is a little bit of damage. Coca Cola knows that they're not going to go from being the number one. So to maker in the world, to going out of business, they're not even going to go from number one to number two, even if they piss off a lot of people, even if they decide to go for whatever the personal tenants or interests of some of the people in power of the company are they know that there is so much momentum. So much inertia in play here that the odds of there being substantial damage to the corporate brand are almost negligible. They know that they can always pivot and back away from any bad decision they make and recover. Whatever damage was done very, very quickly. Now, if the number two company, if PepsiCo did the same thing they are certainly very large and they could do the same thing as Coke does. They could back away and things would return back to normal, but their risk factor is quite a bit higher. So if Pepsi and Coke do the same thing to piss off their client base cope, Coke will be able to return. Back to normalcy to get their sales numbers, to be exactly where they want them to be faster because the dominant company and because of the inertia, because even if they pissed off individuals, what do you think those contracts with McDonald's and burger king are going to get canceled? No, of course not. And it's the corporate contracts, the individual sales that make up the majority of the sales that happen in Coca-Cola. The further down the line, you go, the higher, the risk becomes the number three soda company. And I'm not sure who that is at this point. It used to be that like seven up, I think was separate. Seagrums used to be a separate company. I think they're pretty Coke now. Maybe not, but clearly there's a number of three, four and five companies out there as well. And for those companies, It is an extremely risky maneuver to try and do something that'll piss off a large portion of your buyer base. And so they tend not to do it. So companies that are lower on the rung compared to the dominant player for a particular industry, they can't afford to take crazy risks. Goodyear was able to come out and piss off a lot of their customers. By their practices because they saw themselves as being one of the, probably three biggest tire companies in the world and certainly in the U S and so they weren't particularly worried about temporarily pissing off a large segment of the population because who buys most of the Goodyear's tires. It's not consumed. It's car manufacturers. These are OEM tire products. These are the tires that manufacturers buy to put on the cars they sell brand new. So yes, they certainly make money from consumers buying their products. But they're not as worried about that as companies that don't have the great deals with auto manufacturers that completely rely on sales to individual consumers. Or buying their tires to replace the the tires coming out through their vehicles. Like I'm a big fan of Yokohama tires and I've been buying those tires as replacement tires for my vehicles for probably 30 years at least 30 years and have always had great luck with those tires. I've never once seen a vehicle sold in the United States that comes with those tires pre mounted from the factory. Even though they're excellent tires. They're extremely grippy. They're very, very quiet. I'm not being sponsored by them, but I wish I was because I really think they make a huge difference. So if you have a car or a sport you at or anything where there's a lot of road noise, a lot of tire noise, getting Yokohama tires in a lot of ways, we'll eliminate that road though. Because they're soft and gummy, I guess that's the best way I can describe them. I'm sure. Chemically there's many more differences, but it just feels like they're gummy or tires. They're more sticky to the road. They tend to have better grip, but they also have to be, are, tend to be a lot quieter as well. So when you have these large companies, market leaders, whether it's Amazon or used to be Microsoft, hasn't really been Microsoft for a while. Certainly Google, certainly Facebook and really Twitter in is still in its niche. Absolutely. The big gorilla, they can get away with more more actions that are really contrary to growing their business, simply because of their pole position. When you're in that pole position. You can piss off your clients and it won't matter nearly as much. So to that end, since we've seen the winds starting to shift, and a lot of the, I dunno if I would call them predictions, but certainly a lot of the potential. Prognosis that were made pre-election as to what could happen or would happen if we had a country that was being run by progressives instead of by really Centris like Trump, anyone that thinks Trump is anything, but a centrist doesn't know any history Trump has voted for and been friends with. And was really close to running as a Democrat. His his politics really are more of a populous centrist than they are of a conservative in the traditional sense, in the sense of conservatives that are run for the last 30, 40 years. Some people would say isn't he similar to Reagan? I got news guys. If you look at Reagan, Reagan kind of followed the same mold, he was very much. A centrist populist. In fact, he used to be a Democrat. He ran as a Democrat in California. He was a, he was not a conservative during the 1960s. He was a liberal during the sixties and Trump was not a conservative during the eighties. Trump was a liberal during the eighties. So really what we had in this last election. Was a populist centrist who maybe got pushed load further to the right, simply because he ran as a Republican. But running against a authoritarian centrist who is Biden and how can they both be centrist? Because if you look at bias, He was by no means the most liberal of the Democrats in w when he was been in the office for the last 30 years Biden was a guy that mostly focused on getting pork barrel contracts for for his state for the people that elected him that I think that's probably, if he didn't run for prison, And if he wasn't a Obama's, vice-president what he'd be best known for is bringing home the bacon to his constituents. There is nothing that was particularly outstanding about him and sure. We can make fun of the fact that he liked to smell. People's hair, smell children, say. It's a bizarre thing and stupid things that Biden said, but really from a political standpoint, if you look at them, this was not a deeply agenda driven man. That was championing, traditional liberal causes in the eighties or nineties. This is a guy that was just there to get, bring the bacon home back to his condition. So in a lot of ways, he is he's definitely a Democrat, but he's a a centrist Democrat, but he's also an idiot. And this is the area that I think a lot of people that voted for him really get their panties in the water about is they consider it to be a great insult when somebody describes him as. And these are, by the way, the same people that called Trump, a fascist they have no qualms about doing that, but if you actually point to the way that Biden acts and examples of it and recognize that he's had multiple brain surgeries. So he may not have been an idiot when he first got elected, but the way that he's been acting over the last decade, for sure. And certainly during the. Current term indicates, this is not a man that you would want as the president. This is not somebody running it over a hundred IQ. This is a guy who is, probably on the lower tier of average. And again, that may not be because of genetics that may simply be because of what he's gone through or the course of his life. But nonetheless, that's where he. If you watch the videos of him, whether it's falling down, walking up the flight of stairs and the airplane, whether it's losing where he was and not really understanding what people are asking him at the G seven, which really should be the G nine because they have nine people there, but whatever. All of these instances demonstrate that the leader of the United States is. Not the guy that you want, making complex life and death decisions that may affect generations are multiple generations in the future. So that observation w much like the change in the origin of COVID I think is starting to. It's starting to be talked about more. It's starting to be recognized more. Certainly the mainstream media, the the lame media, the whatever you want to call them. The old school news, they're all on the fence. Like on the one hand, they're big supporters of the Democrat party, or rather they're hugely anti-Trump or whatever. They're, they, I don't think they have huge love for the democratic party in general, but they're certainly do have a lot of hate for the Republican party. If these guys could vote for the socialist party of America, they probably would do that more so than they would for the Democrats. So they're starting to talk about more of these. Issues and problems simply because as the rest of America is talking about them, no matter how many people Facebook decides to shut down and delete the accounts of by saying these are just Russians. Lots of when are literally real people with real photos and real conversations, we just happened to have an opinion that is contrary to the opinion of the billionaire leads of this country. No matter how many of those they shut down. The popular consensus does seem to be moving. And that movement, I think, is partly the result of the Trump derangement syndrome, no longer having Trump in its foreground. And this is why I've said that once the election got called, once it was evident that Trump could not win. Sure they could try the lawsuits, but I, early on right off the get, go in the election predicted the lawsuits would fail and they would fail because the Supreme court does not have any kahunas. They have no interest in inserting themselves into anything that might be a a topic with very heated debates. Supreme court is there as the ultimate reward. We're doing a good job as a judge up to that point. It is not the people that are there to ensure the constitution has followed. That may have been why it was created, but early on in the history of the Supreme court I think it became pretty evident that the Supreme court itself did not see themselves as an equal third part of the game. If they were, they would want to ensure that the, any kind of squabbles or contentions in the other two parts of the government would be straightened out. Now, dream court sees itself as administrator bureaucrats are there to take on cases that really have a minimal consequences to a small number of people. And then they can rule on those cases. And it'll be forgotten by everybody other than law school, students who have to memorize these particular Supreme court cases. Supreme court has no interest in it and it hasn't for a while. This is not a new phenomenon, but it certainly wasn't helped by Trump's picks for the Supreme court. The Supreme court is a retirement job. The job for people. With a pocket watch and a pat on the back thing, we're going to pay you money for the rest of your life. For as long as you'd like to make these decisions, you can be on the court and don't rock the boat and they're not rocking a boat. So the Supreme court, I think anybody that thought the Supreme court was going to jump in and save the elections was very, very wrong. And they were proven to be right. Even though the elections were even more obvious, mostly undermined, like if we had video and testimony from the people doing the actual ballad swaps, if we had that, I don't think the Supreme court would still get involved. They would just say that this was something that the states and really anybody that would push a case forward, lacked standing. So I think from the Supreme court's interpretation, the only people that could actually Sue or election tampering are people that are individuals, not organizations who are negatively affected by the consequence of the election and who were part of the tampering. Like I think you would need to find somebody like that, essentially, a whistleblower. Who recorded themselves, doing illegal activities to alter the course of the election and is now unhappy about it would probably be the only lawsuit that the Supreme court would actually hear every other lawsuit they would just refuse to hear. But I think that to some extent that's going to be irrelevant because without having Trump in the forefront, Of the hate that is pushed the progressive agenda to the point that it says with Trump being out there, playing a little golf, maybe showing up to an event, doing a little PR, but not really being at the forefront of the new cycle, the way that he used to be. I think a lot more of the problems with the current administrations are coming to light. And that's why. It'll be a downward spiral from a perception standpoint, unfortunately from a reality standpoint as well as America starts to move further and further away from leading the world and more towards following China, but for the next three years, I think we're going to have more and more opportunities to experience shutting in further. We're going to be able to watch shake our heads. And say, what the hell are they thinking about multiple events that are coming out as a result of decisions made by the current administration? So why did I ask that question in the first place? Why did I start talking about shutting the freighter? Well, the question that had bags is it good? Or is it bad when your enemy starts failing? But the cost of their failure may involve a price on everybody's head. So when, for example, when the United States makes decisions through the current administration or the current administration makes decisions on behalf of the United States, probably a better way. That result in a broader, greater China and a smaller, less powerful United States. Should we be gloating about the fact that see, I told you they're idiots look at these poor decisions they made. Right. And I don't know, I don't know that there is a correct answer here. So I'm asking the question. And I'm not trying to lead to a particular answer for that question. I think it's a question that, that we all should think about. Like at which point does it make less sense to laugh at the failure of our leaders and make more sense to actually do something, to help the country in spite of them. And with that thought. I think I'm going to leave you and wrap things up. I want it to really focus on this particular topic, a big shout out and thanks goes to Jason H otherwise known as sir. For being the main donators for anyone making monthly or anonymous donations, I want to thank you all as well. You guys are helping me to pay for the costs of doing this podcast. And it's really what I'm looking for. I'm I never started this in order to make money, but any money that does come in that allows me to pay for the fees associated with creating and hosting the pocket. Are greatly appreciated. So big thanks to you, Jason. You liked this episode, please share it with somebody else. Let other people know what topics we're covering. Next week, at some point it may be one or two episodes down the line, but it's something. I'm going to have somebody who's very interesting and very mainstream from the Bitcoin crypto space what I want to have them do. And we'll see just how close I get to my goal here is really have a discussion about Bitcoin and crypto. That isn't for people that are already in Bitcoin and crypto, but is really. A discussion to demystify that topic. And I think he's just the guy that's able to do that. So stay tuned. I don't want to announce who it is until the actual interview time is booked, but I've been talking to his manager and his people and hopefully we'll get them on. But if that takes a little longer, then I'll certainly have another episode coming out of my conversation with you guys directly before them until next time.