45 - Craig Story: To Vax Or Not to Vax: The Definitive Answer! Vaccine Safety, Covid Risks, and Why It Matters.

45

Taylor Ealand: [00:00:00] Hi, my name is Taylor Ealand. I'm one of the co-hosts of contracts, normally a political podcast, but today we're taking a trip down COVID lane scientific lane backed by lots of evidence. There will be sites and a document provided in the description. As with every episode of contracts, everything anyone says me or the guests can and will be held against us in the court of public opinion.

[00:00:31] Although due to the nature of the. Doesn't really fit that quote because longtime listeners understand. So here's where Ram I did an episode with URI Dagon, um, check it out if you haven't and we talk about ivermectin and we kind of go, um, against some of the anti-vax rhetoric coming from people like Brett Weinstein, certain elements of the conservative, right.

[00:00:49] That conversation is kind of, it stands on its own. This is supplementing that conversation. But if you're hesitant about the vaccine, this is probably the more important one. The last one has to deal more with ivermectin. Uh, it talks, there are some generalities about the vaccine, which I think are important to understand.

[00:01:04] But again, if you're worried about, should you get the vaccine? This episode has tons of information. So here's how it's going to go. I put the more interesting part in the beginning, and what I did is I got a PhD in microbiology is one way to put it, to talk about the mechanisms of COVID-19. And the mechanisms of the vaccine.

[00:01:26] This is a political podcast. There was a, there are a couple parts where the guest goes into masks. You will see me not really engage. I'm not here to talk about masks or policies. Uh, today there is a very simple goal. I am trying to tackle this issue by separating the conversations that are intermingled right now.

[00:01:46] I see lots of people who are hesitant being hesitant because of government reasons, because of policy reasons. For this episode, please separate the two. Today. I am tackling the science questions. I am not tackling the policy questions. I have brief commentary at the end of the video about what I think policy wise kind of, sort of, so keep that in mind.

[00:02:11] So don't put your biases about Trump or Biden. Hello, seam Connell, whatever vaccine person you do, or don't like put your biases about them away from this episode lease, please. If you do, this will be a much more beneficial episode for you. It's going to start with an interview with Dr. Story, a professor at Gordon college, you can say COVID is in his wheelhouse.

[00:02:38] He spent lots of time going through the literature. This is something he's very interested about. He's very vocal about, uh, links to some of his stuff. If I find that will be below, please again, separate science and policy. The second part, which might actually be longer than the first is me going through.

[00:02:55] There is a document I'm holding on my iPad because it's when I'm reading, when I'm going through it, going through the notes that I had made prior to the interview, complete with citations to scientific articles, not CNN articles. Not Fox news articles, not AP articles, actual scientific literature, respected scientific literature.

[00:03:16] I'm not talking to the Carvello study with five people in it. I'm talking review articles that pull from dozens of other articles that can create this very complicated spider web of evidence supporting Mike attentions much more rigorous than the anti-vaxxers are cleaning with their five or four studies of the key pieces.

[00:03:36] To promote ivermectin, for example, much more rigorous and put them there so that you can check my work. You can read along, you can read it yourself. See if I read something wrong. That way you can tell me I'm wrong with my own sources that I provided for you to read. You can go down all the rabbit holes of whatever particular, um, the discussion interests you.

[00:03:57] If you want to learn more about the damage that COVID can do to your brain or do your laundry, you want to learn more about how the vaccine works. You can click on the articles that I provide and then click on the sites that those article provide to continue down the rabbit hole. If you're so pleased, I did this to make it abundantly clear that I do know what I'm talking about.

[00:04:15] I brought receipts and you can trust what you're hearing in this episode. So again, we're going to listen to Dr. Story of Gordon college, and then we're going to go over a lot of the same information, but some of it more in depth. Um, some of it to add my commentary because I try not to commentate while my guests are speaking too much on the show.

[00:04:35] At the end. This is a long episode, especially for a contract's episode. I think it's worth it. Thank you for watching. Enjoy the show. I am with doctors story of Gordon college. He's a professor of immunology and biochemistry there. He's been teaching there for almost 20 years safe to say again, you know, the ropes and your research has related to viruses and the immune system, your postdoc involved looking at other viruses, not particularly COVID, but things like herpes, which then allows you to kind of take those concepts and extrapolate out intelligently.

[00:05:10] One thing that you were talking about prior to the show that I have written down the notes that I want to open up with. So the listener understands, you mentioned how viruses often manipulate our immune systems and. Actually counterintuitively, but getting infected by a virus could be, you won't get as much immunity as you would if you got a good vaccine, which I didn't know, I kind of figured that they operated similarly to my understanding of bacteria, which is natural immunity, vaccine immunity.

[00:05:38] It's very similar. So already you're kind of busting misconceptions that I'm running into with virus. Cause one of the most common things I see people say is, you know, why would I get the vaccine? I'll just get it naturally. And on the same immunity. And it might actually be the case where that's not as helpful as people think it is.

[00:05:55] Craig Story: [00:05:55] Yeah, that's right. Um, um, many viruses in do this. They, they manipulate the immune system to like not be noticed so that they can replicate themselves. That's that's a good virus, a virus that doesn't really make us very sick. Yes. SARS go Coby too. Um, COVID as we call it does make us sick, but, um, it it's likely to happen.

[00:06:17] Genes that manipulate our immune system so that we do not get as high a level of immunity. Um, that's a trend for many viruses. So, so vaccines on the other hand are specifically designed to provoke the immunity, uh, to make us provoke a strong antibody response and a strong cellular response to the virus.

[00:06:37] So unlike the actual infection, the vaccine won't make us sick. So there is definitely another advantage to vaccine over the natural way of becoming immune. And

[00:06:49] Taylor Ealand: [00:06:49] then just blaze through the basics here. I also see a lot of people who will justify not getting vaccinated because of a low death rate. And, you know, on first pass, this seems to make sense because what a lot of the media was sort of portraying early on was primarily about death.

[00:07:06] It wasn't really about other issues that could start coming out of COVID-19. COVID is much more than just death though. Uh, the paper that I found kind of outlined four different stages, and many, most people get stuck in stage one, which isn't that big of a deal. Once you start getting into stage two, things can get really bad really quickly.

[00:07:25] So there's more so you could get blood clots, you could get long-lasting pulmonary damage, which is damaged to the respiratory system. And I mean, the paper that I saw was that stage three and four, you're starting to getting into neurological symptoms and degregation of the blood brain barrier, which to me is terrifying.

[00:07:39] I can't imagine. Um, at my age being affected by that,

[00:07:43] Craig Story: [00:07:43] well, a lot of people loss of sense of smell. It was one of the early surprising, uh, effects of this virus. And I believe what is happening there. And the kind of the, the sense of smell is neurological. Of course. And you have the olfactory. Uh, neurons that have nerve endings.

[00:08:00] They have endings in the, the sensory cells have tips in the nose and the nasal epithelium, and then they lead back into the brain. And I believe I heard, uh, a researcher studying this, saying that some of the supporting cells that support what these cells are, Don are being targeted by the virus. And so it could be that some of the neurological supporting cells are being killed and making this the nerve type cells or the sensory cells not function properly.

[00:08:28] And so, in a way that's a sign of a form of a sensory damage or neurological damage. I mean, you could even use the word brain damage. So, I mean, I think people started to think of, wow, this fires causes brain damage and look at the look at the effects of, um, brain fog. Right? That's the other very common.

[00:08:47] In fact, I mean, that's, that's, that's a form of brain damage, not to say that the brain can't recover some or maybe even all function, but people are suffering for extended months with these symptoms. And that is a very serious thing to think about. And so, right, the virus causes this and maybe up to a third of the people infected, I've heard, um, a large number of people and the vaccine does it.

[00:09:10] So, so like, which is better it's it seems to me so straightforward. And so maybe we should talk more about some of the concerns you've heard that people have about the vaccine. There's a lot of mystery about how does it work? Oh, it's new. We're not sure if it's going to be safe. Long-term things like that.

[00:09:28] And as a biologist, I think I, I feel very comfortable. Well, knowing what I know about biology, that this is a highly unlikely to have very long-term effects, mainly because it's gone after a short window of time. And what remains is your immune cells ability to recognize the current coronavirus?

[00:09:46] Taylor Ealand: [00:09:46] Yeah. I, I will get to the vaccine, but a lot of the misconceptions, I want to start with, start with the virus because a lot of people think that they're because they're my age, they're 24 years old.

[00:09:55] Right. They're basically immune to it and sure, like the brain can heal, but the brain doesn't heal like skin does. So even if it does feel it's going to take much longer than an injury and other parts of the body, the same can be said in the lungs. I mean, it's not going to be as bad as the brain, but also lung tissue as much.

[00:10:12] It's very delicate and can also scar and cause issues that people just don't look think about. Which to me, I think is a great starting point because you can't walk around thinking that this is just another cold. It's not. And I just find it odd that people prefer the natural infection, um, because they, they have this.

[00:10:31] Very distorted. And it's a distance thing. It's not an intelligence thing. It's a very distorted view of biology from when they were in high school, which they may have gotten a, you know, even a decent grade in. Um, but since they're so far removed from it, they don't understand that just because natural immunity is a effective means for many diseases.

[00:10:49] Doesn't mean it's the preferred means. And then, and then they also have forgotten how things like MRMA works. I've I mean, we've all seen the people talking about how it's gene therapy, even though that's not how gene therapy

[00:11:01] Craig Story: [00:11:01] works, but yeah, like, well, think back in history, uh, to smallpox was a scourge of humanity and everybody was pretty much many people.

[00:11:10] A majority of people will be exposed to it sometime in their lives. And so most people had some sparks scars on their face from this horrible disease and it killed a large fraction of the people that got it. And the earliest form of vaccination was not surprisingly, uh, smallpox related. And before they figured out you could use a related species and it re related strain, if you will, the bovine strain to protect against the human strain, they would actually take and purposely give a small infection on the arm of the smallpox to a person.

[00:11:43] And it would kill the like maybe 1% or maybe looking around in that, or the order of magnitude the people. But if you got the smallpox, you would have an even worse situation. So back then there were even willing to suffer a milder infection of your, of your tissue of your arm. Say then get the actual disease because yeah.

[00:12:04] Even in the case of smallpox, uh, the disease was known to be so much worse than the actual, um, variolation or this kind of procedure that they did. Uh, and then of course, Jenner came up with the, the cow pox vaccine and the whole milkmaid story, and milkmaids were immune because they got little infections of the cow pus Jules on their hands.

[00:12:25] And, and, uh, and then, you know, there was always an anti-vaccine group then, uh, where they're very suspicious. Like, what is this gonna do to me, et cetera. So I think the way to fight that kind of worry and concern is by providing, providing more knowledge about not only the biology of like you're saying, like the biology of the viruses, what the viruses do, but also the biology of how the vaccines work.

[00:12:48] So, so we do know a whole lot about that. So I'm here to help explain.

[00:12:54] Taylor Ealand: [00:12:54] Right. So starting with the vaccine, a lot of people, and this kind of astounding to me, which I understand is my bias with my previous biology education. But a lot of people didn't understand that MRN is a naturally occurring substance in the body.

[00:13:08] So for the hesitant who like MRNs sounds scary, it's a completely normal product. We use it all the time. The analogy I use is like, you have to, you have to breathe, right. And breathing requires protein interactions. And in a really like long, boring way that you don't really care about in order to create those proteins and is involved in the process.

[00:13:28] And your body makes it naturally.

[00:13:30] Craig Story: [00:13:30] Yeah. If everyone knows, we have a lot of proteins in our body, a hemoglobin hair, keratin is our hair and our skin. Um, you know, this is act in my muscles and made a myosin and actin, like all of these are proteins. And so most of the stuff of our body is, is proteins. And so.

[00:13:48] Like where does the protein come from? Well, it's, it's created by linking together these individual monomers sub units. This is like a boring biology lecture, by the way, right here, this part. So you can skip ahead a couple of minutes if you don't want to learn it, but basically it's straight your cellular machinery strings together, these monomers into long chains, which then fold and precise ways and that's, uh, that's proteins.

[00:14:09] And so how do you, the cells know what order to put these monomers of proteins together? And they read it off of a, a tape, like a, like a message that's telling the cell make this, and that message is messenger RNA, M RNA. So, yes, it's an incredibly important molecule of a cell. It's one of the main kinds of nucleic acids of the cell.

[00:14:35] And it floats around in the cytoplasm instructing the cellular machinery to make proteins. This is one of the things it does to make proteins in a certain sequence. And this RNA that's being introduced, happens to encode the message to make the foreign protein, the spike protein. So the whole goal of which is for your body to make.

[00:14:57] A foreign protein, which will then lead your immune system to recognize it as foreign Intermountain immune responses against that foreign protein. And so there's no infection mechanism theoretically possible. There's nothing infective being put in. Nothing that can replicate in your body and messenger RNA.

[00:15:16] Once it's made in the cell actually only lasts a short time on the order of minutes to hours usually, and then it's gone and then your cell has this protein, which itself can have a longer half-life. It just needs to stick around long enough to trigger the immune response, which could be in the order of hours, days at the most, most likely not, not a terribly long time.

[00:15:37] It's a very temporary instruction. Molecule messenger RNA. Yes. In a normal part of the cell, as you said, Taylor, thank

[00:15:45] Taylor Ealand: [00:15:45] you. And Mr. And EY, isn't going in and messing with DNA. MRN is separate. It's put in the cytoplasm, but operates in the cytoplasm and DNA. Doesn't go into the cytoplasm. It hangs out in the new.

[00:15:57] You don't have to worry about any concerns about, you know, your DNA being

[00:16:01] changed.

[00:16:03] Craig Story: [00:16:03] Gene therapy. It's a, it is a temporary message. That's quite, um, short-lived in the cell. And, uh, and yeah, and so believe it or not, people were trying for many years to develop DNA vaccines, right. Where they would inject a small circle of DNA into your muscle.

[00:16:22] And it would then do the same thing. It would actually be, they would have to be converted from DNA into RNA, but then that leaves the open, the possibility since you're injecting in some DNA that maybe just possibly in very rare cases, that DNA could insert itself into the genomic DNA. Um, this would be maybe a few thousand nucleotides of DNA base pairs of DNA.

[00:16:45] In a 3 billion base pairs of genomic DNA. So very small amounts. So the chance of it doing damage would be very minimal and perhaps even worth doing. But we didn't ever think that the messenger RNA approach, which takes a shortcut, avoids the DNA, it just goes directly to the product you would want the DNA to make.

[00:17:04] We never thought as a, as people in the field never, um, expected that you could actually successfully introduce just the message there, RNA and get a good immune response. People most likely assumed that it would just not last long enough, it'd be gone before it could do its job. But lo and behold, they tried it out and it did actually.

[00:17:26] Right. And so this is the safety net because the studies that were done, uh, and no, uh, the shortcut is the manufacturing is very easy for this making messenger on. We can do that. This is not a hard thing to make. So the research, so the research and all that in terms of making it has been done over decades in terms of how to make messenger RNA and understand its function, then, uh, so you have this vaccine, the, the trickiest part of the whole thing is to get it in a form that it can be delivered into cells, which has, is the lipid, the lipid aspect, because, uh, you need to get it into some cells.

[00:18:01] So we combine the Mr. RNA with a lipid, which is basically a little tiny, teeny, tiny wobble of almost like a fatty oily molecule. And that when it fuse, when it hits a cell surface, it'll actually fuse and allow that miss variety to get into the cells. And then those liquids also are. Found in the body and they don't, you know, they don't do anything to your DNA.

[00:18:24] They're just there. And then they get degraded and broken down after relatively short time. So yeah. So all of this stuff is there in the vaccine to just deliver that message messenger, RNA, that message to make the spike protein, which is the foreign protein on none of the components seem to be anything are, are anything that will have long-term effects on your DNA.

[00:18:48] Or your biology in general, other than the immune system response that you want. So you

[00:18:53] Taylor Ealand: [00:18:53] flew through that and you, you knew the question that I was going to bring up next, but I do want to highlight it just so it's clear with what I was wanting to pull out there is been, you mentioned that we've known it for deck.

[00:19:05] We've known about the MRN, a concept for decades, and that there's been research going on and people often will point that out and they'll say, well, how come now? It works. And then you, you brought up the lipids. But that the traditional research that I found was that they were trying to use, I'm going to over.

[00:19:23] Big lipids to encapsulate the Mr. And a and provide the vaccine that way. And now we're using tiny limits and I'm not entirely sure on the reasoning, but it's not that the MRA was the problem is that when you put the RNA in the body, the body is a very hostile environment. And I think most people intuitively know this.

[00:19:44] So then we ran into this issue where we have to keep an alive, because it will degrade very quickly, as you said, minutes to hours, and we needed to provide a little capsule for it to go to where it's going to go. And the viruses have already figured this out. They use a protein shell. Um, everybody knows the picture of the Corona virus, where it's like this little circle with a bunch of dots on it.

[00:20:05] And the circle serves to protect the viral RNA, uh, while it's being delivered to the cells that it's going to affect, because if it were just floating. The hostile body would take it out. So that's, that's the new development. It's not the MRN. Is this rushed out therapeutic that we don't know anything about is that we didn't know how to deliver it effectively and safely to the cells that need

[00:20:29] Craig Story: [00:20:29] it.

[00:20:29] If you could imagine for a minute that they are ver they are vaccine researchers, they know that if they can get the cells of the body to, you know, to manufacture this foreign protein, it might be a very effective vaccine. And we know the sequence that we needed to make. So man, if we could only get this messenger RNA into the body in a, in a way that the cells respond, wouldn't that be great.

[00:20:53] So you have a bunch of probably mouse experiments and they've probably tried many different lipid formulations. And so you're a researcher you're trying all these various lipid formulations and you're injecting your mice and you're saying, wow, I'm going to wait two weeks and then I'm going to measure my antibody response to the spike protein.

[00:21:10] See, did they respond? You know, or I'm going to measure the half-life of the, like how long does the messenger RNA to linger in the, in the mouse before it gets totally degraded. So, so you're doing these experiments in one day, you try this particular blend of lipids and wow. It works right. It works better than the other.

[00:21:27] So you're like, you're like Eureka, I have figured this out. Right? And then you send your little liquid preparation down to the electron microscope room and they take images and they see the size of the particles, these lipids, and they're characterizing them. And so on. You know, this, this, this is like what they did.

[00:21:43] They had a Eureka moment, right. Where they were able to suddenly, uh, get this to work. Uh, and not only it's, it's not even, it's partly yes, the formulation. But like I said earlier, even the idea of using messenger RNA was something nobody was doing. They were using, they were doing this with DNA. They were trying to deliver DNA into cells, probably with the same kinds of lipid technologies.

[00:22:08] And so delivering the messenger RNA is, is the, this is the thing that they didn't think would work. And then lo and behold, the. So that's, I think more the true story of what happened. Um, there's a particular, a woman researcher. Um, man, I should've looked her name up before this, but she should be, she should get the Nobel prize for this discovery, lipid vaccine.

[00:22:30] She, she single-handedly pursued this, uh, experimentally believing it would work, showed it would work in her lab and then brought it to another lab that was doing vaccine work right around the time when COVID was breaking out last February or so January, February, and right at the very beginning was starting to work on this.

[00:22:48] And that's why it happened so quickly. It was just perfect timing basically. So we got lucky. We did get very lucky. Can you imagine what would be like now with, uh, we didn't, no one had a vaccine. I mean, we, we would definitely have to just be relying on the masks and someone we haven't talked about yet.

[00:23:03] Is the fact that the virus is no longer the original virus. It's a new version of the virus. In fact, probably many new versions. It's continually making flight changes. I do want to get

[00:23:16] Taylor Ealand: [00:23:16] there, but I'm gonna, I'm going to pause you for a moment, but that's

[00:23:19] Craig Story: [00:23:19] basically they putting us back to the, almost the pre pre vaccine days, almost not quite.

[00:23:25] Taylor Ealand: [00:23:25] So something else that I think would be beneficial for people to understand is the viral biology of how the virus works, right? Because the idea that you get this injection, it goes into your arm and it works is cool. But the virus has many mechanisms that are at play, which make the vaccine preferable, but we have to understand why the virus does what it does before we can explain why the vaccine is preferable, you know, from a mechanism point of view.

[00:23:51] So the virus is my understanding is. It has, we had the spike protein, which everybody knows about. And the spike protein is basically the keys to the kingdom, where it attaches on think of Velcro, I suppose it attaches onto a cell. And thanks to this spike protein on the cell, recognizes it and says, Hey, we can be friends.

[00:24:12] And then the cell membrane, which is also a phospholipid bi-layer, uh, which is similar to those little lipid particles, we were talking about a moment ago, merges with the virus and the virus injects its RNA load into the cell that I get

[00:24:31] Craig Story: [00:24:31] there. Yeah. Yeah. So, so, um, pretty much, uh, yeah, the, I, the idea of the.

[00:24:38] The, the virus having a, a surface protein on its surface that recognize there binds to a normal protein of our, of our cells. That's the key. And so this determines which kind of cells, any particular virus will infect. So the HIV virus affects a particular immune cell because it has its own kind of a spike protein that binds to a protein on those particular immune cells.

[00:25:05] And so the, the receptor of our body that recognizes the coronavirus, spike protein is on the longs. It's actually on lots of different tissues of the body, not just the lung tissue, but, um, it, it, it binds. So the spike protein binds to this receptor. That's doing other things in our body, but it just happens to bind tightly and.

[00:25:28] Then it can become internalized into the cell. So it gets into the cell that's step one of any viruses replication cycle. How, how does it work? Well, it has to get endocytosed or brought into the cell by some means the spike protein in way that's, that's its main job, right? That's that's, that's what it does.

[00:25:47] And so vaccine designers will usually make a vaccine, uh, using that particular viral protein, whatever it is, that's on the cells on the surface of the virus, because. Part of our immune response is to make antibodies against those, those spike proteins and the, the spike protein actually has different shapes that it takes depending on whether it's in the infecting bind, whether it's bound or non bound to the log-in.

[00:26:20] So they actually used structural knowledge of the coronavirus spike protein to design the sequence of amino acids so that it isn't a particular conformation that's more effective at blocking the virus particles. All right, let me rewind the tape on that. You're not only making a spike protein, but you're making this the right spike protein version in terms of its shape its confirmation.

[00:26:43] So that antibodies raised recognizing. VI, sorry that vaccine spike protein will neutralize the virus particles. So your, your immune response happens. You've made antibodies. Then a month later, someone costs on you as COVID. The little viruses are, you know, millions of them are in every droplet of, uh, this person.

[00:27:07] They're, they're, they're heavy spreaders, you know, a nice dinner party. You're talking with them for a little while and they're, they're, they're, you're breathing in all that those little particles start to bind, get into our, um, lung tissue space. And lo and behold, you've got all these anti spike protein antibodies waiting from the vaccine.

[00:27:27] They stick all over the surface of the coronavirus, blocking it from getting into yourself. So that's called virus neutralization. So that's one of the mechanisms that the vaccine, uh, uses to block. Uh, viral infection. So by neutralizing and that's, that's the problem with new variants, which we're going to talk about later is that they avoid some of that.

[00:27:49] Aspects so they can still infect you. But our immune response is able to eradicate them more rapidly due to the other aspects of the immunity that we generate. These decides and buys this other aspects of our immunity. Mainly T-cell immunity that can help get rid of the

[00:28:05] Taylor Ealand: [00:28:05] virus as well. I've heard some people express concerns about the vaccine because they see.

[00:28:11] The spike protein as the end all be all. Um, so they're like, why would I basically make my body a factory of spike proteins when they're going to cause damage anyway? And I just wanted to briefly outline that there's much more to a virus than that. Well, let's

[00:28:26] Craig Story: [00:28:26] talk about that. Let's let's so, so the spike protein itself, uh, is, is merely the, um, the grabby hook that it uses it to get into the cell, but that doesn't actually make you sick.

[00:28:38] Just getting into the cell. A virus particles can get into a cell. It's not going to kill the cell immediately just by the fact that it got into the cell, what actually kills the cell and can cause the damage and the destruction and the inflammation and all the, all the symptoms is the fact that it's churning out thousands and thousands of these particles per cell, and actually very likely to killing the cell in the process of replicating the virus.

[00:29:05] Uh, so, so it's. It's the virus life cycle that in the end license, the seller busts open the cell, releasing Saylor contents, causing inflammation. Um, and so the spike protein is just merely, uh, you know, the, the very beginning of the way the virus gets into the cell, but it in itself is not what is causing, you know, it'd be sick.

[00:29:30] So a single protein being made by a particular cell using biotechnology, using messenger RNA technology. That's not going to make the cell, uh, sick, uh, that is only going to hopefully make protein that gets presented in your immune system to make antibodies, make T cells and give you immunity cellular immunity with memory cells set aside for the future.

[00:29:56] That's what you want. Right.

[00:29:57] Taylor Ealand: [00:29:57] I also do try and play Keno scale with people when I'm talking about it, because if you get immunized with the. Um, RNA vaccines, then the UVA, you're going to get that initial wave of COVID wherever you got it. And you're going to defeat it and it's not going to replicate nearly as much as it would during a natural infection.

[00:30:13] And I often joke, you know, humans are monkeys and monkeys are bad at scale, um, uh, understanding, you know, really big numbers and the difference between the COVID that you would encounter with the vaccine versus the COVID that would grow when you, while also developing natural immunity is incomprehensible as a, as a numbers game.

[00:30:34] Um, it's not an order of magnitude. It's not two orders of magnitude. We're talking multiple, multiple, multiple orders of magnitude, even from a numbers point of view. If the contention that the spike protein is harmful was true, would still be preferable, even though I don't even think that contention.

[00:30:51] Craig Story: [00:30:51] Yes.

[00:30:52] Yes. So the amount of spike proteins being made in an actual infection by virtue of the fact that each cell is producing thousands and thousands of tens of thousands of particles that then infect other cells, which then produce tens of thousands of particles you end up with with, um, numbers of viruses in, in the, in a severely infected person on just the right day, if it peaks and wanes as your infection, uh, reside, reside, uh, sort of resolves itself.

[00:31:18] But yeah, it's, we're talking numbers like 10 to the eighth, you know, huge, huge numbers like per mil or, um, you know, just, this is why this is why when you talk in a little tiny droplets come out that are invisible to your eye, they float around the room. These things are they're full of thousands and thousands of viral particles.

[00:31:38] Uh, and so people do not appreciate. Uh, that concept to that. First of all, the concept that we're always spewing stuff out of our mouth without our, without realizing it. And secondly, the fact that they can float around the room for days and be in and be infective. So the, the, the, the looser fitting masks cut down a lot on the production of those little bits.

[00:32:01] They don't really help filter on the inhale. So if everyone is not wearing masks, that's why that's when that that's simply won't work, because it just takes one person without a mask who doesn't realize that they've been infected. They could have been vaccinated. Now, it doesn't really matter what the Delta, they can still spread it.

[00:32:21] Everyone has to wear a mask in doors to prevent this. Right, but that's, that's the concept people are missing. Uh they're like, I don't want to wear a mask cause I was vaccing. Well, no, the Delta now you can still spread it. I can still spread it. I wear my mask, you know, when I, and when I was shopping here, uh, this is, um, this is mid August and Massachusetts.

[00:32:44] I was shopping at a day hard. Very few people had masks on cashiers and whatnot. Even though this week, CDC is recommending masks worn by everyone in doors for the reasons I just mentioned. Uh, and maybe they changed their, their, uh, view today. But they've been saying this for over a week, at least for a week and a half, two weeks, uh, saying, look, you know, vaccinated, people are gonna spread it.

[00:33:09] Everyone has to wear a mask indoors to block the spread. That's what you gotta do. Poor kids under 12 don't have vaccine and they can also get sick or now. Back to the viral life cycle, which is what we were talking about. The Delta probably has a tighter binding, a more capable spike protein that works better.

[00:33:31] It could also have other biological changes in it and replicate better in the body. So in other words, making more of itself more quickly and getting purchased into the cell more readily. And so along with the ability to spread more effectively, it makes people more sick. So we're starting to see just looking Florida, starting to see emergency rooms, fill up with people in their twenties and thirties.

[00:33:55] Right? Younger people are starting to get sick now when they didn't before. So this is very, very concerning and everyone should be worried about that. Lots of stuff to think about.

[00:34:05] Taylor Ealand: [00:34:05] Right. So I'm going to back up a moment. So we were talking about. The scale of the virus versus the vaccine, just, just for the listener, keep, keep that in mind.

[00:34:13] You know, it, when you don't see it, it's easy to kind of shove it away. And I understand that, but you kind of have to also remember that you also don't see the cells that are being damaged and you would much rather catch this thing. Catch the catcher of ours. Be vaccinated, take it out much more quickly because something else that.

[00:34:38] It needs to be talked about is that the natural immune response takes days, which is the headstart that you get with vaccination. So it's not like you're immediately creating all the tools. You need to fight an infection. Once you get infected, it takes time for the infection to make its ways to immuno a lot that this is where it kicks my butt immunological cells.

[00:34:58] And, you know, we've, we, you can shortcut that process by taking the vaccine. That's important because if you're getting infected, uh, I think Sasha just released a very simple video on this, where it takes. I want to say two days before the, the workers of the immune system even acknowledged a few days, a few days, which a few days of infection, that that can be massive damage, especially if Delta is moving as fast as we think it's moving in the body.

[00:35:27] Like if it's true, that it is replicating faster, that is causing cell damage faster. That is binding more quickly. Two days is a long time.

[00:35:34] Craig Story: [00:35:34] Well, a lot of people can, uh, can get it. Now, the one thing I don't want to forget to mention, and that has to do with how vaccines work in a common misconception, but another thought just occurred to me in that is this, um, are not value that people bandied about in the, in the field.

[00:35:48] And all that is, is like how many people tend to catch the virus from an individual who's infected. So if it's, if it's less than one, then the virus will diminish and disappear. If it's greater than one. Then it will increase in the population. And so for different populations, like say a prison or a hospital or a school, these are not values could vary, right.

[00:36:13] Because of the different behaviors. And if people are wearing masks, that's going to affect it and things like that. So I think the are not of the original virus was around one and a half to two or something like that. Whereas the Delta is between six and seven they're estimating, which is a significant, well, I know, I don't know.

[00:36:32] And you're like, why isn't this? Something that everybody knows this is important for your life people to know these things. So these are of course estimates, but they're, they're estimates based on data and based on epidemiology. Yeah. So that's very, very concerning. I wanted to mention a common misconception people say, oh, Look, I got the vaccine and now I'm catching COVID.

[00:36:52] Well, remember this is a new COVID. It's not the same COVID that you, um, may have worried about last year, a year ago. It's the Delta version. It's it's it's derived from the original COVID. Okay. That aside the misconception is that, oh, somehow the vaccine didn't work because I got infected. Hmm. That's a misconception because vaccines never prevent an infection.

[00:37:17] No vaccine ever prevents an infection. Think about that. So you got your polio vaccine right back in the fifties. Everyone ran out to get the polio vaccine. What a horrible disease there. You got neurological damage. You know, it might've been an iron lung for awhile and hopefully you can get out there still one guy.

[00:37:33] I think he's still alive. He's an iron long since the 1950s, because he's diaphragm is paralyzed. Couldn't, can't breathe without assistance. So. Everyone ran out to get that vaccine. And I mean, a live vaccine for crying out loud. I mean, you mentioned people today, they would freak out. They would never take that thing.

[00:37:50] You know, live, you're going to give me a live virus. Anyway, it was effective. It was, it was, it was an important vaccine. So, but you got the polio vaccine, the fifties, and it was around and the environment. So someone's gonna, you know, in the water, you're gonna, you're gonna maybe get some polio after you've been vaccinated in your, in your water.

[00:38:07] And just, it goes in and starts to infect your intestinal cells and you get a little mini infection and no one ever knows that you got that infection. Cause you fight it off very quickly. Right? That's how vaccines work. They do not prevent an infection. They do prevent you from getting sick or dying. So the good news is that the existing kroner vaccine, um, vaccines as smaller, more than one, they, the vast, vast majority of 99% of the people in the hospitals now are the unvaccinated people that are getting sick.

[00:38:37] We're a really sick, hospital's sick. We're at. People with the vaccine are still losing a sense of smell. In some cases they're feeling really lousy, like the worst flu I've had, but they're not dying and they're not having to go to the hospital. Right. So the vaccine works. Right. But the other hand on the other hand, uh, there's the scary part is that those people, uh, that are vaccinated and getting an infection.

[00:39:00] Yes. They're protected, but they still can spread it to their loved ones and their, and their grandkids and so on and so on. That's, that's the really scary part

[00:39:07] Taylor Ealand: [00:39:07] about it. I want to take a moment and this will not mean as much to you, but it'll mean more to the listener who listened to the URI Dagan episode.

[00:39:13] Urea and I had a quick tip about the vaccines. Vaccines don't stop infection. Yeah. He disagree with that. The semantic difference that we were talking about. Dr. Story just laid out there. There's a difference between an infection and getting sick. So I was looking at it from it. It doesn't stop you from encountering, um, or dealing with the virus when you encounter it.

[00:39:32] And Yuri was saying more along the lines of it's. It stops you from. Getting sick, which yeah. Yeah. It's different. So if you're wondering where that semantic difference came from in that last episode, that's what it was. And I just, I just slipped it under the rug because it was an answer really point that I knew I could deal with later.

[00:39:50] Craig Story: [00:39:50] This is a really, I think this is a really important point because so subclinical infection and infection cycle, that's a technical biology term, meaning that the virus is replicating. That's all it means. Right. You can have an infection and not even know that you've had an infection. In fact, you probably do all the time for many other cold viruses and so on.

[00:40:10] Um, but yeah, um, virulence, or the degree to which he gets sick is, is, is the thing we are trying to avoid. And, and, uh, uh, what's the word, trying to temper that down by being vaccinated, trying to minimize the effects of the sickness, uh, aspect of the infect.

[00:40:30] Taylor Ealand: [00:40:30] Right. So for the listener colloquially, you may see infection and sick as the same thing.

[00:40:35] They're not necessarily the same thing, but they are part of the same process for lack of a better term. I guess we need to talk about variance, but I want to preface this conversation with why I am talking about it and why, why I'm even making this series of episodes. There's a particular professor and he's not the only one doing this, but he is certainly, he's not even, he's an ex professor, but he is the most prominent in.

[00:40:58] I'm going to call it anti-vax field. Because at that point, I think that's where he's done, uh, spreading these ideas that don't get vaccinated. It creates evolutionary pressure. More of our hands will come out. The X-Wing will be useless. It's all used. It's all fruitless. And that's how I met URI Dagon who was on the last COVID episode.

[00:41:15] And basically what's going on that, there's a number of people who normally operate in this sort of internet intellectual space. They make podcasts. And then now they're making lots of content because they look at some bogus papers, uh, which have either been retracted or being refuted over and over and over again about things like IVR Metron about things like breakthrough cases.

[00:41:43] And, you know, they, they bring on people like Dr. Malone, who has there. There's all kinds of confusion because people think science, if it's in a paper, it must be. And that, that I know this is going to break some worldviews. That's not true. If it's in a paper in theory, it's been reviewed and it may be true and it needs to be validated, but scientists are people too.

[00:42:10] They're not infallible to the common flaws of humanity. They lie. They, they fake data. They start with the answer and try and find the ways to get there. And now there are people who say, well, this PhD says I shouldn't get vaccinated because you can pick, you pick a misconception. It makes me infertile.

[00:42:31] That's been busted.

[00:42:33] Craig Story: [00:42:33] Not all papers are equally weighty. Not all papers are of equal value because you know, they may be published in a journal, which is kind of, um, It doesn't have as strict of a peer review process, or maybe, maybe this result is sort of preliminary. And like you said, they were, they were kind of just looking for some kind of correlation and it's a correlation that hasn't really shown a causation.

[00:42:56] And whereas other papers, they set out ahead of time with a particular question that they want to answer. And they prospectively designed study to end at a certain point, not waiting until the data fluctuates until it makes the point they're trying to make so. There are better papers and there their worst papers.

[00:43:15] So, uh, and science progresses it once. But once data is in that's solid data with good controls, that was a well done study, most of them, but most of the time, those kinds of papers, those kinds of results don't really change. People. Think science changes all the time. Well, not if it's a really well done study that that made a very clear, had a really clear result, right.

[00:43:40] That, that is, that is huge. You know, most of the time that doesn't change, it's kind of a weaker studies that often get on the news actually, that. Dead change, you know, then people get like, wow, what should I eat this week? Should I eat fat? Or shouldn't I eat fat should eat carbs tonight carved. Well, a lot of those kinds of studies are just not the best studies.

[00:44:00] And so look at, look at really big studies, but lots of people and look at who is quoting the studies, people that are in the field leaders in the field. Those are the people that, that won't give the, the, the oxygen of, um, of news to these kind of fringe studies. I, I, from Nekton or something like that. I mean, ivermectin as an anti-war medicine, I'm actually friends with one of the guys who worked at the company who developed ivermectin.

[00:44:30] I mean, wouldn't it be great if some other drug, for some other thing, like worked on COVID it's very unlikely, right? Because biology is so specific, the biology that's going to counteract. This virus is going to have to be something very specific for this virus. So it's very unlikely that other than sort of tempering the immune response, which could help, you know, could possibly help, uh, those kinds of general immune suppressive functions could help, but they might not, they might make it worse, right?

[00:45:01] If you suppress your immunity. So, so it's very complicated. Um, have, uh, you know, the best advice is for people to become scientifically literate. And part of that is recognizing good sources of data, good sources of information and reputable sources that publish in the best journals like the journals, like science nature, not to say that now.

[00:45:23] And then a bad paper, doesn't get published in a good journal due to political reasons. But believe me, everybody's watching this very closely in the field and it's highly unlikely that a specious or, um, otherwise crappy paper will get into one of those top journals.

[00:45:38] Taylor Ealand: [00:45:38] Right. Journals are like restaurants.

[00:45:40] There are good restaurants, there are bad restaurants, but they're all still restaurants.

[00:45:45] Craig Story: [00:45:45] You can get food poisoning, you can get food poisoning at some restaurants, you know? Right. Exactly.

[00:45:49] Taylor Ealand: [00:45:49] And the difference between Applebee's and Ruth's Chris may not be obvious from the outside, but once you know, the inner workings of how they work, there's a clear difference between the two restaurants.

[00:45:58] Journals are the same way. Nature. I know nature is a good one. So if I say a nature paper, I are immediately know, oh, this is great. If I see a paper that is published in a very small journal coming out of Argentina, that's not the bag on the journal, but it's not nature. So I'm going to hold a different sort of deference to it.

[00:46:16] And you can, you know, you can question that methodology, but it's the way that the world works.

[00:46:21] Craig Story: [00:46:21] Yeah. And if it's a really very important, fine, like say they found a drug to fight coronavirus, wouldn't just think it would be a nature or science instead of this other journal. I mean, common sense dictates that.

[00:46:35] So more than likely the statistics are just weak, the number of subjects is, is poor. Something's wrong with this study? It's just not, it's not going to hold up. So

[00:46:45] Taylor Ealand: [00:46:45] I, I think URI and I tackled ivermectin pretty well, but I do. So highlight to the listener, the variants that can be created because a lot of people are saying, well, I shouldn't get vaccinated because if I get vaccinated, I'm creating evolutionary pressure to create vaccine resistant variants, which again, we're running back into this.

[00:47:04] Humans are monkeys and monkeys don't understand scale. Why is that just demonstrably false?

[00:47:09] Craig Story: [00:47:09] Yeah. So I mean, if the virus travels around the world on a bait and without any vaccine, there's still going to be variants and those variants are gonna probably be better at infecting us. Um, that's what, that's, what evolution does it, it builds upon what went before and improves upon it.

[00:47:26] And yes. So the good thing is if we get a variant that escapes this vaccine, they can very easily reformulate the vaccine to, you know, give boosters to affect those. But honestly the honest truth is it may be the case that we end up having echoes of this thing echoing throughout the rest of our lives.

[00:47:46] Like as, as another virus that becomes like a human virus. Hopefully though, if say in the worst case scenario, everyone ends up catching, not necessarily Delta, but you know, whatever the next versions are survey, they won't die. Right. I mean, but yet they will develop new antibodies to the new version that will then affect effectively squats that down.

[00:48:11] So maybe we'll end up having sort of a, a, a truce with this thing. If people would only do, you know, cover their face is when they have, when they're feeling sick and, and things like this. We could actually minimize some of the regular disease that we deal with. Like the flu, for example, it's sort of been a revolution.

[00:48:33] And public health knowledge and understanding. I think through this coronavirus experience, I really wish people wouldn't see the mask as this kind of evil enemy thing, but they should see it as a wonderful tool to prevent spread a virus right. And more, and, you know, buy stock in the mass companies.

[00:48:49] Because I think it's a really good tool that I I've never wore a mask when I had a cold ever in my life ever. Right. But why didn't I, I mean, I should have, um, so, uh, yeah, so, so again, the, the vaccines we have will prevent people from dying. You know, this, this that's demonstrably true. Whereas the virus makes people sick and a large number of those people have long-term symptoms.

[00:49:19] And so why wouldn't you want. Um, prevent that. Why would you just right. Think of that as a justification for not getting the vaccine? I mean, in fact, if, if more people had, if we had more vaccine around the world than the Delta wouldn't have appeared at all, most likely, right? So in a way it's, it's a by-product of not enough people being vaccinated.

[00:49:39] Taylor Ealand: [00:49:39] Well, this is the part that I've had trouble getting people to understand is that as we were talking about before, when you get the natural infection, there's a lot more virus and it takes a lot of time. Deal with it. Andrew also expelling more of it because there's just more virus to expel where the same concept does that play with vaccines.

[00:49:56] So they take, they take this idea, which, okay, there's a, there's a credence of truth to it. This idea that a vaccine is going to create evolutionary pressure is in theory, passible, like it passes the sniff test. However, since you're releasing so much less viral load, the chances that any variant that would be created, which probably wouldn't would be created is so many orders of magnitude lower, because there are so many less opportunities for a variant to escape.

[00:50:27] If you're releasing trillions and trillions and trillions of COVID particles, each one of those particles has the potential to be a variant. If you've reduced the number down through vaccination to billions, even it's a huge deal. There's you've already reduced the number of potential. Um, variance by an order of magnitude and that's being ridiculously conservative with the numbers.

[00:50:49] Craig Story: [00:50:49] Yeah. And, and also, uh, you know, if, if people wear masks and, you know, we, we can get that are not number below one, then it will it'll die out. Right. It won't die out. I mean, if you think about it, if we could stop the replication cycle for the next two weeks so that no new infections occurred, boom, it would be gone just around the world would be totally gone.

[00:51:07] Right. That's what they did in some countries like in China and, uh, maybe in Korea and some of these countries, their people listened to authority more, they locked down really quick. And what happened? They had no cases. Right? Sure. It's that simple. So, but people are just not willing to, you know, sacrifice temporarily for a long-term benefit.

[00:51:28] Taylor Ealand: [00:51:28] All right. So we've, we've thrown all kinds of information at the listener, gave him lots of chew on they're going to probably have to real listen to it once or twice to fully get it all. But there's one more thing that I want to talk about. That I keep saying, and it's this excuse, the FDA has not fully approved this vaccine.

[00:51:44] This is an experimental vaccine. And therefore I won't take it. What's that?

[00:51:47] Craig Story: [00:51:47] Yeah. Yeah. I was very curious about that myself and I was, I was a little frustrated with the FDA for like, not fully approving epics. I'm thinking, well, it did the safety enough. Cause he studied, those studies are done. They know it's safe, they know it's effective.

[00:52:01] You know, what, what more are they waiting for? What is it? What is the deal? FDA is like. And so I heard, I heard maybe a few weeks ago, the reasoning behind, uh, this, this lag and this waiting around has to do with things like the label. And the storage conditions for the different vaccines that are there doing like stability studies of how to store it, things like that.

[00:52:26] So, so I think most people assume why wouldn't they, they assume the reason it's in the UAE or the emergency use authorization is because it must maybe they don't know fully that it's fully safe, but I, I believe it has much, much more to do with those kinds of seemingly less important, at least to me, less important things like how to exactly put the label on.

[00:52:47] So why couldn't they maybe, um, in the light of the biology of the pandemic and the urgency. To get more people vaccinated. Why couldn't they have at least put out some statements to educate the public on, well, why is it in the EUA? You know, but I have heard no, no such, you know, official statements, um, by the, by the FDA, I did hear that it's going to be fully, fully approved very shortly.

[00:53:12] Um, maybe in just a couple of weeks, maybe around September, so that's good. I mean, uh, and then those people be like, oh, I guess the safe now. Uh, no, no, we've known a whole while it's safe. It's just a matter of, uh, maybe the labeling will be complete. And, um, I mean, if, if the reason they're not able to fully authorize it with an asterisk is so that they don't have to like redo the labeling information.

[00:53:36] That seems kind of dumb because you know, lives are at stake here. So I wish they had been more forthcoming on that information, but you're right. That is a very confusing thing for people. Yeah.

[00:53:46] Taylor Ealand: [00:53:46] And there's all kinds of legal stuff going on in the background too. Bureaucrats are very, very cautious, which maybe I'll bring on an administrative law attorney and explain that someday.

[00:53:56] But right now the biology is more important. So Dr. Story, thank you for joining me. I appreciate you being so generous with your time. And of course, for the listener, if there's anything you feel that you want clarified, you know how to reach me, send me a message and I'll see if I can find better answers for you, but I want to be respectful of your time.

[00:54:16] So I'm going to go ahead and move on to the next segment of the show. Thank you so much.

[00:54:21] Craig Story: [00:54:21] It was a pleasure. I enjoyed sharing with you guys.

[00:54:25] Taylor Ealand: [00:54:25] Alrighty. Well, that was, it was interesting. Wasn't it? And I'm going to go through a lot of the same things. Um, I have some notes which are going to be in the description of wherever you're listening, hopefully where you can go and check my sources and see the notes that I had prepared prior to this meeting.

[00:54:45] Dr story. And before, you know, get too far into this, I'm going to list sources with the state immense and what you're able to do. It's click on those sources and check my work. Now there's going to be certain people in comment sections that may try and match my one source to my one source. What I would suggest that you look at is the differences in the articles.

[00:55:08] I'm not presenting articles that are providing one finding most of the time. I'm presenting review articles. These review articles have dozens of sources that it within them each, and that's important. So keep in mind that each one of these articles is backed up by many, many more, and I'm not arguing the contentions of any one article, like many people are with say the Carvello study, which was brought up in the URI episode.

[00:55:32] This is an overview of how viruses work, how COVID works, how a vaccine works and treat it as an overview and understand that the overview comes from like a big review article or there's lots of other articles supporting it. It's taking all of the consensus from other articles and making a spark notes of the industry.

[00:55:52] So to speak, to oversimplify it also keep in mind that again, a lot of the same information, but I'm just going to use, you know, other language that maybe more concise or more, um, or my flow better than perhaps the interview did. And also repetition is key, right? For those of you who are trying to learn how the vaccine works, how COVID works and what you should be doing.

[00:56:14] Just consider it like review session. So we know that there are a number of different ways that COVID can harm the body. Uh, for instance, the virus can injure the lungs in three ways. You could have acute respiratory distress in DMS. Um, you could have a alveolar damage, which is basically the sacks that help you breathe when you could have, I'm not going to explain every single one of these, but you can go in the source diffuse thrombo thrombolytic alveolar, microvascular, occlusion, and inflammatory Amenia associated airway inflammation.

[00:56:46] In other words, you can get some swelling in the lungs within the lungs and thrombotic suggests, you know, blood clots. So you can get a class that way. So there's more to COVID than just death. As I said before, and, you know, you could have, um, impaired oxygenation, so oxygen might not be going to the blood as you need it to, uh, which could, you know, cause all kinds of other issues.

[00:57:06] And this is a risk of COVID. This is the, this is a risk that could happen without death. And that's important to understand. There have been cases where there wasn't effective treatment. The consequences of poor oxygenation was either death or permanent lung injury. And that's something you want to be aware of as you're making the decision.

[00:57:24] You know, do I want to naturally back, do I want to get the natural infection, which the answer should be no, in my opinion, I'm going, I'm going to stop. I guess I'm going to editorialize more in a section than I did in the interview. Um, or should I get vaccinated? Which should the degree of cell damage may depend not only on the effects of viral replication, but also on the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines.

[00:57:45] So you may remember in the beginning of the pandemic, something about a cytokine storm. So when you, when you. Cells blow up in the way that Dr. Story and I overviewed earlier, your body has to react. And one of the ways it does it in the beginning stages is this massive release of molecules meant to just destroy everything.

[00:58:07] And that's what it does. It destroys everything. It destroys viruses, it destroys lung tissue. I lost my spot. The cytokine storm can, you know, follow the cell death. It could lead to apoptosis. It could create, um, highly membranes and basically create that alveolar damage that we were talking about before.

[00:58:27] And sorry, I'm trying to decode scientific speak into. Everyday speak in real time. And it's a little harder some article they did this and some it didn't. So basically what can happen is that with the cytokine storm, the cytokine storm can damage your cellular, your cellular mechanisms. They can damage your lung tissue, which is already fragile.

[00:58:44] It's much like the brain where it's not going to heal at the same rate as say your skin, when you cut your skin. And this is going to cause an issue with oxygenation with the blood. Um, it's not permanently, at least temporarily, and this could lead to significant injuries down the road. This could potentially lead to all kinds of other issues, say like poorly Ashton and blood, and you don't oxygenate the brain correctly.

[00:59:07] We, we, we can go down this rabbit hole, the list of injuries it's severe, and the stats are out there. The thing is that they vary, um, they're not insignificant like something. I think Dr. Story said something like a third of people are experiencing brain fog who recover from COVID, which that that's brain damage, um, on some level and.

[00:59:30] You know, you may argue well, I'm you, you may argue the point that I argued at the beginning of the pandemic. Uh, I'm 24 years old. It's not going to hurt me. And it turns out there the answer is technical term should have been. It's not going to kill me very well, may hurt you. And that's not because of the spike protein that's because of the widespread damage caused by the immune response because the virus is basically bursting cells open and the body needs to find a way to contain the toxins that are now being released out into the open environment.

[01:00:01] That is the body. So that's important to keep in mind effective alveolar gas exchange by diffusion depends on the normal function of the cells that are within that part of the lungs. And obviously, as we've been cycling about the last couple minutes, SARS COVID to damage the two major functional components of alveolar gas exchange.

[01:00:20] Basically damages the, the barrier in which that gas exchange can happen. And the function of the they're calling it Abule or microcirculation, that's gonna be circulation of blood and oxygen in the system. That's getting kind of technical, but basically it's saying that it's going to disrupt the ability for your blood to intake oxygen, where it needs to intake oxygen.

[01:00:43] It also induces airway inflammation, which to reduce the inch ventilation function of the airway, the common association with Bronco pneumonia, which COVID-19 pneumonia provides direct evidence that SARS COVID two affects airway ventilation function. So not only can your lungs, not oxygen at the same rate, but you're not getting the same amount of air into your lungs.

[01:01:03] So you're, you're getting a double whammy. You're getting less air because your airway is being affected. And the air that is getting in there, isn't being used as efficiently as it normally should be. Healthy conditions. That's a big deal. Again, this could cause all kinds of damage. This could cause all kinds of neurological symptoms.

[01:01:19] This could cause a shortness of breath. This would make it hard to exercise. This could cause a snowball effect. Please understand this is more than just death. And the article is there. It's linked in the, um, in the show notes, you can follow along if you, so please so with, but an increase in the numbers of COVID 19 patients and the appearance of different symptoms and signs, reports of neurological damage have gradually attracted attention.

[01:01:43] It was initially thought the SARS COVID two had great difficulty in passing through the dense blood brain barrier, but this is not the case. It was more than the studies on the cerebral pathology of COVID-19 patients and the use of an advanced 3d microfluid model of the human blood brain barrier identified three important findings.

[01:01:59] First, despite protein binding receptor AEs two was widely expressed in brain microvascular endothelial cells. That means that COVID can attach to brain cells. At least the microvascular into various cells that are probably on those brain cells. Second, the S protein can directly damage the integrity of the blood brain barrier to varying degrees.

[01:02:19] There are the spike protein can induce the inflammatory response in microvascular endothelial cells that change the function of the blood brain barrier. And he's finding support that SARS COVID two can alter the blood brain barrier and enter the brain and support the appearance of neurological symptoms.

[01:02:33] The formation of fatal microthrombi by one o'clock in the brain, and even the appearance, the occurrence of encephalitis associated with COVID-19. So these neurologic associations of COVID-19 support the clinical reports of early neurological changes and support the potential basis for the occurrence of long-term neurological sequelae.

[01:02:53] In addition to cross the blood-brain barrier SARS, COVID two may enter the brain by transom, lactic, chancellor, optic, and olfactory nerve channels and vascular endothelial cells. So it can go through, it can go through neurons. It can go through cells that connect the brain to the eye, and it can go through your smell pathways as well.

[01:03:13] Now, back in 2020, I have a note that this next part was conjecture, but it was educated conjecture, and it looks like it may be true, uh, after the fact. So it says SARS COVID one and infection of endemic from 2003 was reported to cause various types of neurological damage, including the ExxonMobil variant Goulian Barson.

[01:03:36] Ischemic stroke and seizures. These results provide indirect evidence for possible mechanisms of cerebral damage caused by SARS. COVID two. Now we obviously haven't seen these extreme, uh, symptoms. A ton that I'm aware of, perhaps I'm wrong. And someone will tell me if I am, but it still is important to understand the other viruses of the same family also have been shown to have brain altering symptoms, which means the fact that this one has, is not only a surprise, but was actually not only not a surprise.

[01:04:05] It was to be expected and was expected. This paper came out super early on in the pandemic. The olfactory nerve is now considered to be a potential pathway for entry for the SARS. COVID two into the brain. S so I'm gonna, I'm gonna dry a certain cells that maintain the integrity of sense of smell and stem cells and the olfactory epithelium, all highly expressed ACE two and transmembrane series protease two.

[01:04:26] Again, ACE two is the part where the spike protein can latch onto the cell and not all cells have it, but certain cells do. And that's the problem because that's how COVID inter said cells. Do you remember that conversation with Dr. Story? New York degenerative disease is an umbrella concept, including a range of conditions that primarily affect the neurons in the human brain is one of the key factors leading into the decline of quality of life.

[01:04:47] Whether SARS COVID two causes, narrowed, degenerative diseases or accelerates their premature occurrence is still unclear. I think it's more clear now, and it's also difficult to draw conclusions within just a few months. However, the high expression of the ACE two receptor in a wide range of sites in the brain not only provides an initial target for SARS COVID two to cause acute brain damage.

[01:05:06] They may also be the basis for later. Neurodegenerative changes. This possibility is supported by the findings from recent studies that show the presence of functional inhibition of viral and nicotinic, acetylcholine receptor complexes in the pathogenesis of SARS. COVID two, in fact, Let me just to dumb it down.

[01:05:23] SARS COVID two causes problems in brain. The SARS cov two virus has many unique properties that increase mission and pathogenic effects at such an early stage of the pandemic. The potential longterm sequelae of COVID-19 are just beginning to be realized. They've been more realized. Now this review has highlighted the need for more long-term clinical follow-up data on patients who have had COVID 19 over the attention will management longterm sequelae symptoms.

[01:05:46] If I haven't sent that already, which will emerge in patient care settings. And then of course the economic impact has not really been worked out. So now we're going to move on to a different paper and, and this paper has some educated conjecture from 2020 experiences from other coronaviruses, including MERS and SARS.

[01:06:02] COVID one suggest that fibrotic disease as an outcome of COVID-19 is a concern. A study of Merz noted that in 33% of patients with abnormal chest radiographs x-rays of like that, uh, had lung fibrosis. These patients had longer, ICU stays were older and had higher chest radiographic scores, as well as higher peak lactate dehydrogenase levels versus patients without pulmonary fibrosis.

[01:06:25] They had more problems. Now this is partially to be expected, right? We expect the older to have more problems than the older show that got vaccinated. And by and large, it looks like they did. It looks like at this point, most of the hesitant people are of my generation or perhaps the generation right above me, which, which is odd because you would think it'd be the other way around.

[01:06:39] But the last year we are studies from the first, from the 2003 SARS COVID one virus indicated that 27.8 to 62% of patients. In fact, it was ours. COVID one exhibited decreased lung function and increased fibrosis. That looks to be much like the case with SARS. COVID two, uh, there is a table there and basically what it does is outline all the different damage that could happen.

[01:07:02] Um, And you can have all kinds of cellular injuries. You can have a all kinds of injuries that are related to the cytokine storm, like respiratory distress, immune recruitment. And then of course, there's, you know, the, the regular mechanical stuff that's happened by destroying the cells compounded with age issues, uh, it's table one of the notes.

[01:07:23] Uh, let me find the name summary of fiber genetic mechanisms associated with viral infection. Now you will see people mentioned online or in your light, how their infection went and suggest others to see their experience as the experience. And this is not necessarily the case. I have a very brief review article.

[01:07:40] That's outlining the different types of COVID 19 infections. There's COVID in COVID infection. It's when you have COVID infection, but nobody. These are the people who have tested positive on a screening test, but never reported any major symptoms beyond a low grade fever in my lot, my myalgia. So it is probably in the upper respiratory system only if even there there's, COVID RI COVID infection that is resulting in respiratory infection.

[01:08:05] I believe this is also upper, but may also include, yeah, these occur early stages of disease and presents for longer duration only in elderly or immunocompromised people. So you're not really going to feel this one, especially if you're young. But it's causing damage and you just don't know it yet many diseases into there, but some go further there's COVID I, which is a COVID infection resulting in immunological condition.

[01:08:26] This subset consists of relatively young people with strong immune system who have responded to COVID infection in an unusually strong and atypical fashion, much like auto-immune disease, cytokine storm causing massive damage throughout your lower respiratory system and potentially moving on to your neurological system, big deal.

[01:08:42] And each of these, by the way, I'm, I'm pulling out little parts of the article. The article goes into more depth, if you're interesting. So again, follow the site, check my work, read under the quoted part. And I'm sure you'll find more information if you're interested in about maybe how your infection went or how infection could go.

[01:08:57] So I just did COVID I, so there's COVID S which is. No active infection, but COVID has resulted in residual damage. So this is long COVID. These appear between four weeks and three months in the COVID infection, but potentially longer. And depending on the primary, some type and they affect different organs.

[01:09:11] We're talking again, we're talking to lungs, we're talking to the brain. We're talking. It sounds like even your eyes and your nose, that's a big deal. It's not something I would want. Now there was a site there that I have listed just to see like, oh, I want to see where that site goes. I clicked on that site and it turned out it was the episode I started this episode with it was the, was it was this, the article that I started this section of the episode with.

[01:09:34] So not only are all the sources different, but they're talking to each other and backing each other up. That's important. That's very important, which is not something you see with the, the, the bogus papers that are being brought up by the anti-vaxxers. And when I say anti-vaxxers, I mean, the, the influencers and the YouTube personalities that are peddling, this information, even the widespread disagreement is being thrown their way.

[01:09:59] And the consensus disagrees with them. They're still going to bring up papers like the Karbala paper, which there's not a lot of papers following that back and supporting it. And if there's anything you take from this section of papers that I just talked about is that there's more to COVID than death.

[01:10:15] So, yeah, sure. If you're my age and you're healthy, which, which means you're healthier than me. COVID wait, thanks. COVID you have to keep in mind that just because there's like a one in a thousand chance you die, it doesn't mean there's a 1000 chance that you get hurt. The chances are much higher. And that again, upwards of one third, and choose between the vaccination, which was explained in the previous section.

[01:10:35] And I'll, re-explain it a little bit here. You're going to consider that. And the risk though, I think it's like at most one and a half a million chance of anaphylaxis, which you probably already know if you're alerted to vaccines versus one in third chances of brain fog of brain damage. Essentially. I don't understand how the math comes out.

[01:10:54] You being against the vaccine, unless you think, well, it's experimental. No, it's not. We've already kind of talked about that with Dr. Story, uh, or, or any other typical anti-vax claims that frankly, I don't like, I don't expect everyday people to know better because it's like, I'm not an accountant, so I don't know anything about accounting.

[01:11:13] Uh, it's sort of the same thing. That's why I'm trying to explain it to you, but in the same token, yeah. I think, I see a lot of people who are just saying whatever they can say to justify not taking it. And I imagine those people, the people that I'm actually talking about being anti aren't, listening to the show.

[01:11:28] So I'm not talking about new near listener. I assume it makes sense on some level. Now I want to keep talking about COVID, but there's something else I really want to, and it's because I see this all the time. All right. And you've probably heard about it. It's called there's V a E R S there's is a passive reporting system.

[01:11:51] Meaning that reports about adverse events are not automatically correct. Did that require a port, a report to be filed to theirs, theirs, or it can be submitted voluntarily by anyone, including healthcare providers, patients, or family members reports vary in quality and completeness. They often lack details and sometimes can have information that contains errors.

[01:12:15] That's a quote, that's a direct quote. You might be saying, oh, well, where's that quote from there's dot H H s.gov. There's tells you, tells you their database. Ain't that great. It's better than nothing, but I think that great. There's a little line buried in there in the FAQ that healthcare providers are required to report to the following adverse effects after, after COVID 19 bags.

[01:12:45] And there's more to the quote, but I admitted it just because that happened doesn't mean the vaccine caused it. It just means that something happened after maximum. Right? And that's, again, directly from theirs. It turns out people sharing those graphs, the show like basically no adverse effects in vaccines and this giant spike it's because it was a passive system that nobody knew about.

[01:13:05] Or until this year a and B, when you're fully FDA approved, you don't have to report. Which means once they've COVID vaccines, get FDA approved for. You're going to see those reports drop off a cliff because doctors know that what they're doing, isn't helpful. They have to do it, or else they potentially lose their license.

[01:13:25] They're not going to risk their license, but in the same token, they know like this person got a heart attack. Six weeks after they got the COVID vaccine. Uh, also they had a history of hypertension, probably wasn't the COVID vaccine. Yeah. Yeah. So keep in mind that just because various data exists doesn't mean it's accurate at best.

[01:13:46] If the ceiling at best, you'll see people throw around quotes like, oh, only 1% of adverse effects are reported. That's four things that's at best for like flu shot. The, the, the FDA approved stuff. It's the higher than 1% for COVID. Sorry it is. And it's crap. Also, if you questioned me or you're just like, you don't know crap.

[01:14:08] Yes, I do. I actually downloaded the entire year's worth of adverse effects for COVID-19, um, in the raw Excel file before I played with the database thing that you can do on the CDC website. And I started and I went through it. I didn't go through all of it line by line, cause that would have taken me forever, but I did a lot of scanning.

[01:14:28] I actually have a background. Many of you don't know this. I have a background in medical data entry, so I know how to read patient notes. And I know how to tell when something is caused by something it least from the doctor. Thanks. So, and very, very, I'm gonna say virtually none suggested that there were some were kind of like, I don't know, this just happened.

[01:14:49] Then there's injury. Right? But not very many of those. I didn't find very many of those. Most of what I found was something along the lines, they were vaccinated a few days later they had this issue, but they also had a history of whatever. And as you looked at the age groups of these events, it turned out the older, you were, the more likely you were to have an injury, which suggests older people are sick more often.

[01:15:07] And therefore. Have adverse events, but since they were recently vaccinated, when they went to the doctor, the doctor had to report it, which is kind of silly. And of course also with the added, the added scrutiny that the COVID 19 vaccines are getting people are going to see that their loved ones got vaccinated and then went to the doctor for some issue that maybe started not long after, because that's how injuries work or suddenly people were going to the doctor who hadn't gone to the doctor in years.

[01:15:34] And then they see, oh, I had this problem now, even though they may have had it the whole time, or we're going to develop it anyway. And then either them or a family member reports a diverse, and you have to keep in mind that we're seeing as a scale of vaccination we've never seen before. Right. And when I looked, I, I, the number is higher now, but when I looked there was something like 443,000 bears events reported in the database.

[01:15:56] And you have to compare that with at the same time, there were about 400 million administered doses of all three COVID back. So when I ran those numbers, the chances that you had any sort of injury were very slim. If you were to assume that every various report is accurate, which they're not. And when you looked at the various death reportings there at the time was 4,710 for all of the COVID vaccines, which if you were to assume that all 4,710, and those were accurate, which they're not, and you compared it to the number of vaccines that were out at that 0.1 at a time you had about it was in between one in 1,000,002 in a million.

[01:16:38] And that's being exceptionally generous going to that two in a million with the numbers, let's assume it's right. Let's assume this is an, this is a bad vaccine that kills. And it kills two in a million. The death rate Maxine is so exceptionally lower than the death rate for the virus that it still doesn't make sense to not get maximum.

[01:16:57] And if you're going to wanting to roll the dice and you're going to roll for your, my age. So let's say it's, um, 0.1% death rate one in a thousand versus one in 500,000 being the most generous you can be against the vaccine. I don't understand how with that math, you come out on the other side, thinking vaccines.

[01:17:18] The worst of the two options added on the vaccine does not have the long-term complications that COVID has. As we explained again, in that Dr. Story interview. So keep that in mind. There's also, and here's something to be considered. I know a lot of women are concerned about blood. Especially when I'm on birth control, especially with that puts my atrium back in the category.

[01:17:37] It's an a, it's an, it's a valid concern. I looked up the there's deep vein thrombosis numbers. It's 1,584. In other words, you're more likely to quote die and which again, the numbers are bad, but the numbers are still lower and that's important. And the risk there is again, minor, but you can consult with the doctor again.

[01:17:57] We're going back to, do you want to get, do you want to get blood clots from your lungs when you get COVID or do you wanna get blood clots from, do you want to probably not. And if you do, we're talking now one in 2 million, almost a percent chance of getting. Yeah, that's important. So that all this data was as of August 6th.

[01:18:15] So I understand it's been a little bit, not as an August six, we had something like 193,774,000 people with at least one dose of the vaccine and 165 million, 918,000 that were fully Vaxxed. Um, about 13 million, 674,000 word Johnson, Johnson vaccines. And that's how I know the fully Baxton the first versus second dose were different because I know the number of Johnson, Johnson and Statista was helpful for that.

[01:18:45] Yeah, I didn't put the source there, but I combined the various event sources, uh, numbers with the statista.com sources. So there you can check my work. God, this is such a long episode, but it just has to get out there. So now I talked about bears. There's this bad, don't use it. Okay. It's not a useful database.

[01:19:02] Someone's going to get me on semantics. There for the everyday person is not useful. They could point out that there may be some issues, but even then you have to consider the numbers. Humans are monkeys, monkeys, don't understand scale. If you haven't, if you have something with 1500 events in 400 million doses, you're you're, you're going to be okay.

[01:19:20] And those 1500 events, right? Well, if I remember correctly was 1500 thrombosis events, going back to those women who were concerned about birth control and what gluts and the thrombosis with blood clots mainly happened in older people. So it wasn't even women on birth control. Again, you can go through the various database, you can stratify it all out by you're fine.

[01:19:37] Get vaccinated. Don't anybody who uses bears as a reason to not get vaccinated. Doesn't know what they're talking about. There's no, the way around that statement, there's no way to sugarcoat it. There's no way to be nice about it. There's no way to be like cute with my tone. If you use theirs, if you use theirs to justify not getting the vaccine, you do not know what you're talking about.

[01:20:01] You do not understand the math. You didn't look at the actual database and you don't know how to read medical notes. There's no way around it. I don't care if some PhD there's, they're using it wrong. I'm sorry. It's going to come off a little harsh. I understand. But if you see someone using theirs discount, the argument, it's not good.

[01:20:23] It's not good. This is a, this is a matter of knowing methodology. And I don't know, expect everyone to know this. I don't think everybody should know this. I think it's a waste of time that we have to even go through this. The fact that it's not obvious when you look at the graph of infections over the course of the last year and how, when it dropped a drop, right at the time vaccines showed up and now a new variant comes out and now suddenly there's cases again, which was primarily among the, uh, un-vaccinated that it's even still a question as to whether or not they're effective to me.

[01:20:51] It's mine. Mind blowing. And before I get to, and before I get to the mechanism of COVID-19, I'm also seeing that it may not, the CDC says this, but they don't cite it, which is frustrating for me. If I find the paper, I will let you know about it, follow me on Twitter. I will post it. Um, there, the CDC is suggesting that, well, I guess this easy suggesting that even if you have a national infection, you still only get vaccinated, which would go back to the general virology concept that Dr.

[01:21:18] Storey was telling us about. So I will find a paper that backs that up so that you can wave it to your friends if you so need be, because that's what people do now is just wait, scientific papers at each other. And instead of following the scientific consensus, because let's be real, I'm sorry, plumber.

[01:21:31] You probably don't get the full picture. I'm a biology. I have a BS in biology. I don't get the full picture. So. Keep that in mind. Um, I will find a paper somehow, even if it's not COVID related that points that out. And maybe not, maybe that is probably why the CDC is suggesting vaccination. Even if you have natural immunity, that was new information for me today, by the way.

[01:21:56] So I learned something 10 minutes before y'all did well, I guess I have to record this, but you get the point. So the neck aneurysm of COVID-19. I started in this research to answer the question that is derived from whether or not COVID has long-term side effects. My research then started with this particular article, which came out of the journal of Alzheimer's diseases that states a spike protein facilitates entry into a cell.

[01:22:17] Um, eventually that article led me to another article that stated the mechanisms of the spike protein attaching to said cell. And after learning about how the spike protein attaches to the cell and why the spike, and basically this tells us the spike proteins function I asked, well, what happens after the spike protein attaches to said cell.

[01:22:35] Quote, once the virus enters the cell, the viral RNA is released Paul poly protein that are translated from the RNA genome and replication of transcription of the viral RNA genome occur via protein cleavage in assembly of the replicates transcriptase complex viral RNA is replicated and structural proteins are synthesize assembled and package.

[01:22:54] And the host cell after which viral particles are now, I wanted to get to this with Dr. Story, but we just didn't I'm uh, I thought about it. We had moved on from the conversation, so I knew I would talk about it here. So I don't want to get into the specifics of how scription works pro mainly because I'm going to mess it up and then someone's going to catch me on it.

[01:23:15] And then they're going to use it as an excuse, not to listen to me where the concept is still there, even if I'm my I'm muddy on the details because it's been yeah, a couple of years, but viral RNA is viral RNA, M RNA, all the different kinds of. In A's are all part of a larger process, right? And there's a particular order in which they're created, right?

[01:23:39] So the spike protein is only part of the cells and the, and part of the virus. The virus then injects a bunch of DNA that tells the cell to make everything associated with the virus. This includes more spike protein. This includes the, the, the protein show that protects said viral RNA. That's going to be put in all of the other viruses and this includes everything else.

[01:24:00] The virus needs to do his job. The vaccine only makes spike protein, viral RNA, hijacks cells, and it hijacks cells with the ACE two receptor. Right. And basically only thing cell does make virus. Essentially it's an oversimplification, but it works. That doesn't seem to be the case. With the vaccine also with the viral cells, they're attacking anything with an ACE, two receptor with the vaccine.

[01:24:36] They are mostly starting with dendritic cells, which wouldn't even be touched by an infection of COVID-19 until later on in the process. Generally speaking, potentially even days if Hank Green's researchers, correct. So already you've the damage by direct injecting with the RNA vaccines so that they go straight into the appropriate, the appropriate immune system cells  cells, as opposed to a natural infection, which is going to start wreaking havoc in your upper respiratory system, potentially moving to your lower respiratory system.

[01:25:13] At that point, finally, the immune system's starting to kick in. So now it's getting into the immune system. Oh, and if you have a really bad case, it's going to start going into your head. Which one do you want? And go back to that. Doctor story interview turns out viruses actually suppressed the immune response.

[01:25:31] So you might not even get the same. Oh, this is so frustrating. I'm sorry. I'm passionate. I apologize. But it's just, it just irks me so much. You might not even get the same immunity that you would've gotten in the vaccine. Nuts. Absolutely. Nutty, the mine that your cells burst when the virus has done, because the end of the virus lifecycle is punching a hole in the cell.

[01:25:54] And not only is the virus going into the immediate environment was so are cell organelles, which are not supposed to be outside the cell. And now you have other issues. Other toxic waste basically for your body to deal with, as opposed to just at worst with the vaccine, a couple spike proteins, and couple is relative.

[01:26:12] I understand that, but compared to a natural infection, it totally, I got both. So this begs the question, what does viral RNA do? That's what I've said. It basically makes all the components of the virus. It hijacks the cell makes it to the cell, makes all the stuff the virus needs in order to recreate itself.

[01:26:26] And at some point, um, and I couldn't find one, I couldn't find an article specifically for COVID, but it's going to be a similar process to the rest of viruses. It basically is going to send some sort of kill signal that isn't going to be obvious with spike proteins, uh, to then cause the cell to. There's there's more information SARS.

[01:26:46] COVID two is an enveloped, uh, which means surrounded positives that have single-stranded RNA virus, that upon infection of a host cell deploys, a translation ready, RNA molecule. And that's going back to that process. I really didn't want to go into because I'll mess something up and then people will attack me for it, which uses the protein synthesis machinery of the host to express a set of viral proteins.

[01:27:04] Crucial for replication. Spike proteins don't have those critters. So for replication things going for them. All right. So then there was a site there that site also, by the way, was from nature.com. nature.com is a good source. Where does that site go? Psychopathic viruses, including SARS. COVID two induced death and injury, a virus infected cells and tissues as part of the virus replicative cycle.

[01:27:26] So I could find a site for that. I just couldn't find the exact mechanism, which we probably wouldn't even care about anyway, but it does do it. We do know it does it. I just don't know how I'm sure someone does on the world. And I ran out of time for research viral infection and replication in airway.

[01:27:40] Epithelial cells could cause high levels of virus linked pyro, ptosis. I hate big bio words, uh, with associated vascular leakage as shown in patients with SARS COVID I wrote is, you know, what I'm trying to say is, hi, I'm interested to start saying popping. Popping is a highly inflammatory form of program cell death that is commonly seen with cytopathic viruses.

[01:28:02] And this is a likely trigger for this stuff. Inflammatory response, which again could cause issues in your lungs could cause lung damage. You don't want this. And then this can also cause uh, they call it one L one beta. I don't have any better way of saying an important side of Keene released during a popping is elevated during SARS cov two infection.

[01:28:24] So presumably without the viral RNA, this is cell death would not occur in the same fashion if at all. And that's what make the vaccines safer than natural infection should be a duh. But there it is there's sites. You can check my work, but that's where I'm at with it. Other notes, I have found SARS cov, two infection and the destruction of lung cells triggers a local Munis.

[01:28:47] So this is there's a site. This is citing the cytokine response, uh, in the, after the cytokine storm, the cytokine storm, then. Creates another local immune response and immunologist. I know I'm going to get some of these details technically wrong, like on a minor detail. Uh, but there feel free to correct me, but keep in mind the purpose of this.

[01:29:06] Um, it recruits macrophages and monocytes that respond to the infection release sidechains and prime adaptive TMBC T and B cell immune responses. And most cases, this process is capable of resolving the infection. It doesn't mean it's not causing damage in the process. However, in some cases, a dysfunctional immune response secures, which can cause severe long and even system systemic pathology sickness.

[01:29:30] Sometimes your immune system has too good. There is such thing as too good immune system. There's also such thing as too good of cell reproduction. It's one cancer. It's a way you can get cancer. So if you have a really strong immune system, that's very morale on the virus that's going to cause damage.

[01:29:47] It's not going to cause damage if you got vaccinated. Okay. So then how does the vaccine work? Oh, did we not talk about this on the, I don't remember. Okay. So the way Dr. Story explained it to me, and I'm hoping I'm remembering all the relevant details was that you had the syringe, right? The syringe goes into your arm.

[01:30:06] It releases a bunch of liquid into your arm, into your muscular tissue. And then it basically seeps into the dendritic cells, the immuno cells that are re that are responsible for expediting the vaccination process. Right. And we were talking about earlier. So it's not as if, um, it's gonna, and it's not causing gene therapy or any of that, that M RNA can't do that.

[01:30:26] Um, it doesn't even go into the nucleus, right. But basically it's creating this fluid that's in this fluid seeps floozy watch, and then you can see me grab my arm, seeps around the dendritic cells and basically makes the cells make antibodies, blah, blah, blah. And before you know it, you have the tools you need to fight infection off better.

[01:30:43] That's great. That's good news, right? That's what it does. Um, now I'll go through the sites, which again, you can find in that document with sites in all in the show notes below M RNA wouldn't survive in its natural state. So we have to modify it somehow. What are we modifying also, by the way, this modification helps control inflammation, which is good.

[01:31:03] You'd rather have controlled inflammation from a shot, then uncontrolled inflammation from natural infection in your lungs. Um, have I made my point clear yet? I hope so. In an effort half-life as well as translatability and safety, uh, a group of researchers tested a variety of naturally occurring modifications to nucleosides and MRI and a vaccine or molecules, sorry, including, okay.

[01:31:27] I'm not going to go into the specific names, but there they're there. Checking the MRA strand, right. Of these variants, they found that the incorporation of a particular thing in place of your Adeen led to a, um, tenfold increase in translation over unmodified MRNs. So what this means is that was the modified MRMA, would the unmodified MRNs, w let's let's make up numbers?

[01:31:50] You know, they put a, they put a hundred in, let's say they put 10, it was like 10 of them actually worked and was making spike protein so that we can create antibodies, which are bad. Um, and she put in, you know, in this case, if you put a hundred in, there would be a hundred making it. Now that's not a perfect thing bite me.

[01:32:05] I know. But the point is, is that you have a whole order of magnitude, more effectiveness with the modifications they made to the MRI, which means it's not the same MRN name that you would have gotten from the virus, which could be a potentially a good thing, too, I guess. Furthermore, the researchers were able to show in the MRNs molecules possessing.

[01:32:23] This modification did not trigger pathogen associated molecular patterns, sensing mechanisms, such as troll like receptors are other genes. Um, this avoids excess inflammation. So the changes they made make it to where you have less swelling, less inflammation. And by the way, a site that is much preferable than the lungs, uh, with much better effectiveness of creating the proteins necessary to elicit antibody production, big deal, much more preferable to the two natural infection.

[01:32:56] Have I said that yet? Have I said the vaccine is much more preferable to the natural induction? I don't think I've said that yet. So since we're avoiding excess inflammation, this could result in undesired vaccine side effects. It has, um, actually sidebar. I heard us on this during the very section. The side effects were sitting with MRI and vaccines.

[01:33:16] Aren't as bad as the side effects you often see from, you know, more old school vaccines, it all the vaccine hesitant anti-vaxxers knew how old school vaccines work. You all would be terrified. Don't research it. Keep getting vaccinated for these reasons, many candidates, including two recently licensed marinade vaccines adopted this modification in their vaccine design.

[01:33:36] And that's talking about Pfizer. And the next section, I basically paraphrased vaccine changes to amino acids to prevent the spike protein sub units from separating. I'm not going to read you the article part because it confused me, but basically the spike protein is made of two separate parts, right?

[01:33:50] And oftentimes when during an infection, the parts break, it's a mechanism, right? It's part of the structure of the protein and protein structure creates function. So they change the part that links them together to make them harder to split and make them better for creating antibodies. That's what you need to understand about that.

[01:34:08] If you need, even to understand it at all, it's there, there's a longer SU site in the show notes. If you're really interested, Oh, I don't want that fan on right now. And they did this to stabilize the S protein again for antibody creation. Now, talking about this with Dr. Story, but I'm going to repeat it here.

[01:34:25] People have been pointing out that, you know, the MRN vaccines haven't been, um, used for decades. And so why does it suddenly work? Now? It turns out we got lucky with the delivery capsule too, to over simplify. So in order to deliver the marinade to cells, we surround them by liquid nanoparticles that prevents damage with the introduction to the cell, because the body is a hostile place.

[01:34:49] If you just put RNA in the body, the body, the grades, it is just think of it like a string of beads and in the body, it would just come apart. It would untie itself. And once it's in the cell, it untied itself really quickly. So we have to read that string of beads as quickly as we can with the protect, the string of beads until the bead readers are able to read them.

[01:35:07] So we are surrounded by.

[01:35:13] And the part is actually important to you that it turns out the regular liquids that they were trying to use decades. It didn't work, apparently they weren't any bitty enough. The advent of it flip nanoparticle and capsulation was a turning point in the development of MRN vaccines, as LMPs were able to efficiently deliver MRMA in vivo when injected intramuscularly, MRNs L and P is, can be internalized and quickly translated by antigen presenting cells at both the injection site and in draining modes, dendritic cells, that's promoting the initiation of adaptive immune responses.

[01:35:44] Think again, this is much preferable to a natural infection. I don't think I've said that yet. Additionally, peace can protect MRNs from degregation by nuclear nucleuses. Think of them as little organelles that. Eat nucleotides to oversimplify it. Um, although the precise composition of the LMP is used by many vaccine developers is proprietary information.

[01:36:05] Thank you, patent world. It is known the LMP has contained a combination of lipids cholesterol phospholipid and PGS that assemble into about a hundred nanometers nanoparticles encapsulating, the MRNs, the vaccine candidates and clinical trials at L NPS are the standard method for being used to introduce MRMA vaccines to participants.

[01:36:25] We got so lucky that this was found at about the time COVID-19 hit the scene. I didn't realize how lucky we got it. That was just chance, which means that there's good news here. I was under the impression that was just because the whole scientific world was on the task and we figured it out. It turns out that wasn't even the case, but, well, that means that, you know, you know, in the next couple of years, because COVID wouldn't have created more, um, strain on the.

[01:36:54] FDA to approve the vaccines. We would have gotten some really good flu vaccines. So this was coming no matter what. That's awesome. And then RNA stuff is so cool. It's going to fix so much. I'm so excited for it. It's like people don't realize how huge MRMA vaccines are going to be for especially viruses compared to the old stuff.

[01:37:15] There was a reason to antivirals. Weren't very good. There's a reason. There's a reason the flu shot isn't as effective as say the COVID shot. This is good news. Is it the same article? So from the same article, well MRN, a vaccine uptake and bio distribution, and the innate immune response to MRA vaccines are critical for the initiation of adapt to the immunity.

[01:37:34] These processes are thoroughly reviewed elsewhere in other articles, which I kind of sort of talked about and are not covered in this article to do a lack of available data. This was created when the COVID 19 Mexicans were much younger. There's a picture in the notes. That's outlining how the vaccine works.

[01:37:49] That's going into the dendritic cells. It's priming the dendritic cells to make the appropriate antibodies, uh, which again is much more preferable to the infection that would be happening in the respiratory system. Because again, the vaccine nation who is much more preferable to natural infection, that is why there is a picture that tells you exactly why that vaccination is preferable.

[01:38:08] Then when compared to natural infection, natural infection attacks, all kinds of cells, vaccination to the MRNs, vaccines to gifts. Many of those steps go straight to the immune system and prevent cellular damage. Vaccination is preferable to the natural infection. It will cause so much less damage. I even put the picture in the document so you can see it for yourself and read it and check my work and tell me if I'm wrong.

[01:38:37] Is this the best episode on COVID you've ever heard on what? So either MRN Olympians are, we produce antigen are taken up by antigen presenting cells, which are called APCs, uh, such as dendritic cells, these ABCs and traffic to the lymph nodes, where they can able to prime CD four and other lymphocytes.

[01:38:56] Basically it's making the immune system do its job. MRN. Apex zenes have become an increasingly attractive platform to fight the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic for a multitude of reasons. First, the need for only a DNA template of the desired antigen to produce a vaccine candidate result an exceedingly fast manufacturing timeline.

[01:39:13] Let me put it this way. You don't need to make all the other stuff you'd normally would need to make with a old-school vaccine, like a cell line, you would need to make viruses. You would need to make, um, cultures in order to put them in vaccines. And this takes a long time, especially if you need 600 million doses were with him or not, you don't need DNA.

[01:39:32] You need the DNA to make the marinade. It's super easy. It's so much easier. We're talking. Oh, man. The difference in difficulty is absurd. My brain can't comprehend it and I kind of get it so cool. Secondly, MRNs vaccines elicited a very potent immune response in both animal studies and human clinical trials.

[01:39:52] As extensively discussed in section three and section four, importantly, these potent immune responses are substantiated by an impressive protection from COVID-19 in phase two and three studies while the FDA has initially stated that SARS COVID two vaccines would require a minimum of 50% efficacy to qualify for approval.

[01:40:09] Both of the current MRMA vaccines for the alpha strain, uh, currently approved for emergency use authorization reported greater than 94% efficacy years. You've probably seen, um, studies recently that suggest lower numbers. The numbers are lower. They're not nearly as bad as some people may come out to be.

[01:40:26] Even if they are, you will not reduce the damage by 50%, I would still do it because why. Vaccination is preferable to a natural infection, but. I will say there is evidence and, uh, it's on my Twitter page for sure, somewhere. Um, and if I remember, I need to go pull it up and put it in this document. The, the breakthrough cases are still exceptionally rare.

[01:40:55] The vaccinated people are not getting sick as much, and they're certainly not being hospitalized as much as unvaccinated M RNA vaccines also possess additional desirable features compared to other vaccine platforms. And the vaccines are appealing because of their minimalist nature. Yeah. All of those of you who are afraid of vaccines because of all the crap in them, there's less than MRO vaccines.

[01:41:14] Uh, MRNs vaccines do not need a vector dead cell for their delivery expression, thus removing the possible complication. The pre I said, that's all I should say. Dead virus, a possible complication of pre-existing and or Denovo anti vector immunity. In other words, what if you reject the vector because you were already immune to the vector and thus the vaccine efficacy was altered.

[01:41:36] No, that's bad. You don't have that with the LMPs so cool. Uh, differently from inactivated or attenuated vaccines, less important, and genetic targets that do not lead to nib generation are not included since there is no need for the involvement of any viral growth. The possibility of other contaminating viruses from the cell lines is removed.

[01:41:55] You only get the vaccine, no extra guests, no stowaway guests in the airplane, cabin and marinade vaccines that are encapsulated in NLP. LMPs also do not require complex delivery methods, including electroporation as required by DNA vaccines, which we're not using. Um, nor do they need an Agilent, which is required with protein vaccines.

[01:42:15] Now, granted they do need to be cold, but that's a problem that the developed world has solved very easily. Moreover, as described earlier, all available data suggest that MRN a LNP platform polarize the T-cells towards an th one bias suggesting that the likelihood of these vaccines causing adverse events, such as.

[01:42:34] Oh, they call it varied. Um, discussed in another section of the paper is quite well. They say seems quite remote is quite remote, is quite remote because remember, as I said earlier, the various data's garbage. The likelihood that you have an adverse event and marinade vaccines is exceptionally tiny. Any of you have any concerns, talk to your doctor.

[01:42:56] Also when you get the shot, you're supposed to sit there for 15 minutes after you get the shot. In case you do have an immune response, an allergic reaction to which medical personnel, the ones who just jabbed, you are able to treat you and stabilize you. So even if in the very rare, very insurmountably, tiny percent chance that you have of getting hurt by the vaccine, it's probably going to happen within those 15 minutes.

[01:43:23] And you're going to be stabilized there, which you know is much better than catching COVID and dying at home or dying in hospital. Resources are strained. Sorry. That was a little hyperbolic, but you get the point. All right. Finally, MRN, a Maxine's can be readily modified based on need. This is quite possibly the coolest part of this whole development target immunogenic epitopes epitopes can be easily switched in and out of candidates and all that as needed as the DNA sequence of the antigen to serve as a template.

[01:43:52] And I bolded this a SARS COVID two vaccine construct can quickly be adjusted to a target, a newly emerged Corona virus, strain all these people mad about booster shots or the fact that you might need additional vaccines. I'm sorry. This is the new paradigm of flu shot. It's much more effective as far as I can tell.

[01:44:10] As far as I can see from the literature, it's better in basically every way. Welcome to a new normal. And it's a better normal now I get it. Okay. Many of you are against the vaccine for political reasons. And as I said in the beginning of the show, um, separate the politics and science for a moment, right?

[01:44:30] Notice I didn't talk about masks with Dr. Story like me. I sort of let that conversation go, uh, because of policy reasons, you know, I want to talk science and I wanted to talk science of vaccines and I wanted to talk science of COVID-19 right. Keep in mind. That many people are making government arguments for not getting the vaccine and they're coding it in science and this is bad.

[01:44:54] And hopefully I end the recording the beginning after this, hopefully I say all this in the beginning too. You need to, you cannot be free if you're operating with that information. If you've gone this far, and you've only been operating with information given to you by the likes of Bret Weinstein, uh, I'm sorry, I'm glad you're here now and keep them on you.

[01:45:11] You have to keep in mind that the risk in the benefit of the vaccines it's so much skew is skewed so much towards benefit that it doesn't make any sense not to do it. And if, if everyone just did it, we wouldn't have to have the politics conversation if you're scared of the ramifications. And so this is the political part of contracts coming up.

[01:45:32] If you're, if you're conservative like me, in case you have forgotten or didn't know, because this is your first episode, this is a conservative podcast. I am a conservative, I am weary of. Okay. If you are worried about the potential snowball effects of a COVID-19 vaccine mandate or a mask mandate, if you're worried about grams of power, best thing you can do is alleviate the need for the power grab and get vaccinated, please.

[01:45:58] As the best thing you can do to combat the government from taking more power, right, are I don't want to get into policy arguments. I don't want to talk about how policy can only be ticketed designed by can only, it cannot only be dictated by science. Because there's more to life than science. And I don't want to explain that scientists.

[01:46:20] I would rather explain to you the science so that you know, that it is without a doubt, preferable to get vaccinated to where we don't even need to have the discussion. Please get vaccinated. If you're worried about, you know, if you're a minority, for example, and you're worried about things like the experiments that happened on African-Americans in the past, understand that many, many, many of the people I think most of the people might even be that are vaccinated.

[01:46:43] Uh, if you look at the sub categories of groups of races, uh, whites got vaccinated. So if, if this was a grand conspiracy to bring down minorities, it, it failed miserably. Um, please get vaccinated that the science is in your favor. If you don't trust the government, I understand. I don't trust the government either.

[01:47:01] I get it. I get the policy confusion. I get the policy weariness. I get it. I really do as not the conversation. I really want that. If you don't like the idea of a vaccine mandate or passport cards, that's fine. Back in the day when people didn't like the draft, they burned the card. You're going to lose the opportunity to go to certain places.

[01:47:23] That's what protest looks like. If you don't like it, then the pro you're not cut out for the protest. The vaccine is safe. It's remarkably safe for vaccine. It's remarkably safe. It's remarkably effective. The fact that it's still effective against the Delta variant is also really good news. And even if it wasn't, you quickly create new ones and the FDA needs to figure out a quicker way to fast track the approval process based on the science and safety of the vaccine, um, to prevent this type of misinformation to continue to spread.

[01:47:54] This is not as expensive. You think it is. This is not as bad as negatives. This is great news. The fact that you can take, you can take all of my or ours, um, and throw it in. You know, you can take it with a grain of salt. Keep in mind. This is huge. Okay. I'm not telling you to wear a mask. I don't want to have that discussion.

[01:48:14] I think we could maybe not have the mass discussion. If we all got vaccinated, might even wanna go there right now, please get vaccinated so that we can remove the possibility and the government needing to use his own power. And, and here's why I, I try to avoid the policy and discussion here. It was in 1905 Supreme court case that basically says vaccine mandates, uh, when mandated by local governments, alongside of the fine, that would be the equivalent of $150.

[01:48:41] We'll comply, uh, our, our constitutional, so the New York city vaccine mandate, it could be constitutional as with anything. That's not a given that it is, or it isn't, but the Supreme court has spoken in the past. And when there's precedent, the courts tend to follow it. You know, for those of you who are saying it's unconstitutional, I don't think it is.

[01:49:00] I think you should read the article. I think it's article one powers of Congress. There's some something in there about the general welfare of the populous or something like that. And even if it's, you know, unconstitutional state, government's 10th amendment, they can do it and you can choose to leave. I think it's a little cowardly to do that at this point, but it's not a given that states can't mandate it.

[01:49:21] I think the can maybe I'm wrong, but either way, regardless of the policy, the policy shouldn't even be that much of a consideration because the science is so good. And the science isn't changing, what's changing is bad information. Okay. And if a policy maker, a policy maker, um, flip-flops, that is not the same as the effects of the vaccine.

[01:49:47] There are going to be people in the comments section, we're going to challenge what I said, and they're going to say something is not effective. They're going to make it evident. They didn't listen to the whole episode like you did. I'm not engaging with them. I'm not trying to change their mind. There's always been anti-vax movements.

[01:50:03] There always will be anti-vax movements. They're kind of like flat earthers. You, you can't reason with them, but I can reason with you. If you're still listening, ignore their comments. Ignore what they're saying. I understand I'm kind of doing an appeal to authority, but I tried to back it up with sources that you can go read yourself.

[01:50:20] I'm trying to make this hard for you to dismiss. I'm being honest with you up front right here. Right now, Taylor, England is being honest with you. He wants you to trust his work because he brought the receipts and you can follow them. You can roll the receipts, you can follow the rabbit trail and you, and if you look at both positions, the anti-vax position in my position, and even just compare the number of sources supporting mine contention as compared to the numbers were still on the other side.

[01:50:50] It's not even close. You're going to see anti-vaxxers bring up the same four or five papers over and over and over again. They're going to bring up theirs. They're going to bring up all kinds of other bad information, which is easily dismissed. Do not engage. Do we not retweet them? Do we not like their posts get vaccinated, please.

[01:51:13] And if you have friends hesitant who are listening to anti-vax influencers, and I'm going to call Bret Weinstein, anti-vax at this point, if you have friends listening to these people, please, please, please share this episode with them. Please talk them off the cliff. They don't need the well they're anti-vax friends.

[01:51:33] They got vaccinated. You don't need to tell your anti-vax friends. You got vaccinated. Yeah. What you can do is help people who are genuinely confused in scared so that they can get vaccinated so that we can remove the anxiety. Are some of you who get vaccinated still going to get sick? Yes. Especially if people don't get vaccinated, but the likelihood that you get sick will be reduced by a massive amount.

[01:51:58] And the likelihood that you even get hospitalized or reduced again, by a massive amount, you will reduce the damage done to your lungs. You will reduce the damage done to your brain. You will reduce the damage done to you term. So even if you do get sick, you're still going to be better off vaccinated when you were unvaccinated.

[01:52:18] And there will be a very, very, very low number of unlucky people who going to get the full brunt of it in imagine what they would have gotten. If they weren't vaccinated, maybe those are the people that would have died. So now instead of dead, near, alive, but injured, which is still preferable. Why? Because vaccination is preferable to a natural infection.

[01:52:40] Again, call to action. If you know anybody on the fence who needs convincing, share this episode, I brought on a doctor. I'll bring on more. If I need to, I brought my receipts. I'll keep doing research. If I need to, this is a hill I am standing on. I'm going to scream it because I am a scientist in some capacity.

[01:52:59] Even I went to law school, I studied biology for four years. This is something I'm passionate about. This is something I trust. This is something I know to be true. And at least my name is attached to it. And if I am wrong, you can ruin my reputation now, can't you. Thank you for listening. I hope to see you another day.

[01:53:14] That's.

44: Yuri Deigin - Vaccines, IVM, Misinformation, and Pickles

This is an automated transcript - there will be errors.

44

Taylor Ealand: [00:00:00] And we are live. Anything you say can and will be held against you in the court of public opinion. My name is Taylor, welcome to Contrarix, and I have a very special guest with me today. His name is Yuri Deigin we met on Twitter. He's been very vocal in some of the recent COVID vaccination talks that sort of have been emanating out of Bret Weinstein.

[00:00:30] And I wanted to spend some time and get to know this wonderful Russian I've met on Twitter. Yeah. I appreciate you taking the time to come here and talk to some smaller

[00:00:41] Yuri Deigin: [00:00:41] podcasts. My pleasure. Oh yeah. Yeah. That's the dig of David. Huh? It's funny. Yeah. Cause on rebel wisdom, he's yeah, you've been around on some podcasts with like low view counts.

[00:00:53]I was trying to stand out for those podcasters. Like I personally, I don't care, like view counts is not my thing or whatever, like some viewership, but people took it the wrong way. They're like, oh, you already said he doesn't care about me. You gown. But now he's like telling me, bringing not what you said

[00:01:12] Taylor Ealand: [00:01:12] at

[00:01:12] Yuri Deigin: [00:01:12] all, but to be honest, what differences mean?

[00:01:18] If people like to watch whoever watches stuff with lots of accounts, other people like actually. Very particular topics that don't attract a lot of attention. I don't know. Yeah.

[00:01:30]Taylor Ealand: [00:01:30] People got to start somewhere. So I wanted to spend some time and before we get into some of the vaccination stuff, I want to spend some time and, humanize you a little bit so that people can get to know who your he is because the Twitter feed can only tell you so much about it.

[00:01:41] Yuri Deigin: [00:01:41] I'm so inhuman. So I need a few more humanizing humanized, mice, human lungs. Let's get some humanized URI there, go for it. So before

[00:01:56] Taylor Ealand: [00:01:56] the pandemic, what was a hobby

[00:01:59] Yuri Deigin: [00:01:59] you were in? I guess you've been implication being that now my hobbies investigating the SARS cov two origins, because that's my like Twitter bot

[00:02:07] Taylor Ealand: [00:02:07] or maybe there's not time for it anymore.

[00:02:09] Yuri Deigin: [00:02:09] Yeah no. My hobbies been working out and running for. Better part of my life. And actually, thankfully you can do that even within a pandemic. So I've been, yeah, like the pandemic definitely got me out of shape. Cause the, the clothes, the gym, or it's a pain in the ass to get yourself out in the morning and run outside.

[00:02:32] I'm just more used to running on a treadmill in a gym. But recently, like recently for over almost a year now, once they opened the gym, Jim's back, I've been going back to the gym and getting back into shape. So really, I'm in it to white, long distance running for while before this, like I've spent almost a decade doing like half marathons and actually doing a couple of marathon.

[00:02:56] That was like my thing. But then I just, I gave up, but I was like, 38 or something, starting having some heart issues, all the long distance running. And my doctor's told me to stop though. Be pretty, pretty dumb to die of a hard tissue for someone trying to live forever was pushing himself beyond his limits.

[00:03:19] Gotcha. Yeah. I like, hobbies, I like sports or like poker actually, they used to be my, one of my biggest hobbies when I was living in Canada and Toronto, like we'd play poker every week or with my friends and I still love it. Just don't, get to play that much. Gotcha.

[00:03:42] Awesome. How deep do you want to go? I got a lot of, no, that's

[00:03:46] Taylor Ealand: [00:03:46] good. That's good. What do you consider your background

[00:03:50] Yuri Deigin: [00:03:50] in terms of for professionally or

[00:03:53] Taylor Ealand: [00:03:53] like sharing? We can be professional. It's an open-ended question for a reason.

[00:03:57] Yuri Deigin: [00:03:57] Cause yeah. What people mean? What, what's your background like?

[00:04:00] I'm Russian, I'm Canadian. That's my background sometimes. They mean yet professionally. I've been doing drug development for over a decade now and before that I was in a it software development I worked for IBM. I did a database development, actually wrote like the DB to the engine for DB to query optimizer and also did some, had a startup in it, in the mobile space.

[00:04:31] So between those two, I guess that's my background. Like first time. I'm a geek by nature nerd. I love physics, quantum physics computing. I was actually initially planning to go into computability and complexity. I was going to do a PhD, actually got a reference letter from from cook professor cook out of university of Toronto.

[00:04:52] It was like, God feels metal. He's like kind of a big deal. And he actually wanted, he wanted me to go up to his group, to his, do my masters in his group computability and complexity. But then I got pulled into like IBM had haunted me and recruited me into their database division. And so I actually switched my masters to like a database and I just went to, into the industry and actually never finished that master's of mine.

[00:05:19] And so I've been doing kind of database development for seven, eight years. But then I switched over to what I actually always wanted to do, which is drug development and developing new therapies. So I did an MBA with a concentration in pharmaceutical business development in Columbia and New York, which is really it was the program for pharmaceutical business development.

[00:05:42] We had people like mentors from Y like former CEO of Wyatt. Robert Asner was my mentor. W why haven't got later bought by Pfizer, solves all of you. People think that I'm a Pfizer shell, or you might have something to that. But and a couple of other people, yeah, like pharmaceutical business development in Columbia, the program was top notch.

[00:06:05] So yeah, after I finished that, I got into the industry. Pharmaceutical industry we had in Russia startup with my father, we were developing a broad portfolio of peptide pharmaceuticals for different indications between Alzheimer's like a cancer, potential cancer therapeutic and also vaccine adjuncts.

[00:06:26] So I know a little bit about vaccines and we had an ax Banksia clinic as well, actually. I know a lot of well, like brain stuff and brain indications. And so actually also right now, focusing on some of the neurological aspects of aging. So yeah, right now we're working on actually a gene therapy for rejuvenation gene therapy against aging and with some applications, the spheres that I have experienced it.

[00:06:55] Taylor Ealand: [00:06:55] That's awesome. Did

[00:06:57] Y

[00:06:57] Yuri Deigin: [00:06:57] drug development. The most impactful area that at least I can apply myself to initially because my dad was always been my hero in terms of like his developing actual therapies that can help a lot of people can sometimes help cure them or at least alleviate their symptoms. To me, that was just noble thing to do perspective that was it.

[00:07:24] Like what else? What, I don't know. There's many other areas that you can apply yourself to. Some people go into solar energy or, making the world better through other ways. But for me, I don't have the medicine and then curing diseases and alleviating the suffering and just learning to manipulate biology was always an interest of mine from an early age.

[00:07:49] Cause initially computers and biology were two of my competing interests in computers. One just by virtue of just very, good at it. It was very easy for me to do computer stuff because I was like 11 years old. And so when I went to university of Toronto, I took all these courses like biology, chemistry, physics, computer sciences, because it was an easy credit and computer science just to coffin was so much easier to do than anything else.

[00:08:13] And ultimately I was then ended up picking between computer science and physics. And then I took physics until the third years, like quantum mechanics and computers is my passion. But then, once I actually got into the interesting, I'm like, wait, I also you know what my dad is doing and drug development.

[00:08:30] And I always thought about. Computers was just like a phase. It was a passing phase, is that, eventually I'll actually just leave it and do what I really want it to do. And I found myself like I was 27, 28. I'm like, oh, wait, this is already taking a while. I better. If I want to do drug development, if I want to go into something that I really think is most important in, at least for myself, which is creating new therapies, I better switch careers now.

[00:08:54] So this is what I did. And are very happy about that choice. I should look looking back. I'm very happy with that. I find myself now and this is very serendipitous because my background in traditional drug development, once I then discovered this paradigm of rejuvenation and fight the aging and prolonging lives.

[00:09:14] They mesh together really well and really helps me with, traditional drug development experience. Now that we're developing a novel gene therapy for rejuvenation, this is, it's almost, she's I'm in a computer game where like all these steps achievements needed to be unlocked before I can actually find myself equipped with all the tools that I need to make a difference that I would like to make a difference in the world, which is of course, a cure aging or at least help cure agent, which I think is the most important problem of humanity.

[00:09:48] Yeah. I'm not going to quantify that same. I think hearing aging is the most important problem in humanity and the most interesting one that anybody could hope to be working on. And I'm very happy. I'm very lucky that I got to do that. So it's like a lot of programmers, software programs for some reason, then you realize that.

[00:10:10] And then they actually switch over from software, from ID, from physics and physicists. A lot of physicists in this field realized that, wait a second, like biology is actually what is limiting our potential. This is the fact that we're mortal and very quickly mortal is limiting all the things that we would want to do in our lives.

[00:10:29] So we asked to first solve this problem, and then we can do whatever the hell we want. We can just work on the grand unified theory of physics. We can go colonize, Mars, and then stuff like that, but provided that we can live as long as we want. Yeah.

[00:10:42] Taylor Ealand: [00:10:42] That's quite the path to go from database developer to working on it, immortality for lack of a better term, even if it's not immortality, but so I guess it's fair to say you enjoy your job.

[00:10:54] It sounds like there was a lot of oh yes. This is something you've been wanting to do for a while. Yeah.

[00:10:59] Yuri Deigin: [00:10:59] I don't know. I love what I'm doing. I've been doing in terms of aging, even starting from acting. And now with actually having a chance to develop actual therapies and develop the paradigm that I believe the most, which is this partial reprogramming that yeah, I'm just a very lucky

[00:11:16] Taylor Ealand: [00:11:16] guy.

[00:11:17] Awesome. Is there something you wish somebody told you at the start of either your database career or your drug development

[00:11:25] Yuri Deigin: [00:11:25] career? My Bitcoin maybe gone a long way? Nah, I dunno. There's so many things that in hindsight you wish you knew and if you did probably would have saved you a lot of time and efforts and emotional issues, but I don't know, probably not one thing.

[00:11:50] It's always like you build very slowly, this wealth of knowledge and experience. That, helps you be much wiser and smarter and more effective at professionally and in your personal life, maybe don't argue with us on Twitter would have been something that I still actually need to learn not to do, but I'll get there.

[00:12:14] There you

[00:12:14] Taylor Ealand: [00:12:14] go. There you go. So it's not so much about the knowledge, it's more about the journey. Is that what I'm getting

[00:12:19] Yuri Deigin: [00:12:19] out of that? I think it's both. It's not like you can actually impart knowledge with just like one advice or a bit of advice. I find if I met myself, 20 years ago, like I couldn't download all the stuff I know now into that guy's brain cut, downloaded by Bitcoin.

[00:12:37] That one should be pretty easy. There's one thing I could send old. Bitcoin or Tesla stock would probably like, although, I don't know Bitcoin's is probably a much, depends on when you buy it. If you buy it on, when it still costs like under a dollar be pretty well off right now.

[00:12:56]Not that I complain again, like some, like for me, money is not really the thing. It's always nice to have, not just like a lot of money, but just enough money to basically a few money that you don't really care. Like you're not concerned that tomorrow you going to be, don't know how to feed your family, or even just have a decently comfortable lifestyle, but there's like law of diminishing returns, like the richer you get the less, emotional positivity you actually get out of the, all that money.

[00:13:28] And actually at some point it becomes the opposite. You're like worried that, oh my God, I'm going to lose my millions. I'm going to go from like a billionaire to down to a millionaire. And. How much money are you making on a yearly basis on just pretty well compounded interest? Or if you're less than something where people are trying to actually steal your money.

[00:13:46] Cause when you're rich, there's always these leeches around, you're trying to get some money from you. So I think like looking at some rich people that, I've seen or interacted with, they're not the most happy. Bunch. I don't know. Maybe it's the Russian oligarch always worried about so much stuff.

[00:14:04] I can appreciate that. I tend to go off on tangents. You probably can tell that it's no worries. Blend that you want to stick to. You better, keep me

[00:14:14] Taylor Ealand: [00:14:14] so far. We've stuck to it. Quite kinda. You give yourself too little credit. Okay. So what advice would you have for young people in either of the fields that you've been a part of, either database developers or drug

[00:14:26] Yuri Deigin: [00:14:26] developers.

[00:14:27] We're not positioned to give any advice on to ID people these days, because I've been out of it for over a decade and that. Mo moves pretty quickly in terms of drug development. I guess I would just tell people who are in traditional drug development to maybe look into longevity drug development, because this field is going to take off.

[00:14:48] It's already taking off, but it's going to be huge, whatever you've seen with the internet boom, even the biotech, boom, like longevity is going to eclipse all of this. So if you want to be on the rising tide trajectory, longevity is the field to be in like we're on the cusp of, so I think amazing discoveries and amazing results that I'm going to help people live significantly longer, like decades longer within maybe 30 years, 30, 40 years.

[00:15:19] I'm very comfortable making that prediction. If we're lucky, maybe within 20 years, 20 for really lucky. And like our paradigm actually pans out in animals, trials that we're running right now. Animal trials actually support our conjecture our hypothesis about partial reprogramming. Maybe even within 15 years will be, if we translate this paradigm within the clinic, we'll be able to offer gene therapies for people that will be able to extend lifespan significantly by if not decades, by at least decade or maybe 15, 20 years.

[00:15:54] So that's my advice going to longevity.

[00:15:56] Taylor Ealand: [00:15:56] So for people who are interested in longevity, what's a good resource for them. They're looking to

[00:16:02] Yuri Deigin: [00:16:02] probably just Google it on like longevity newsletters. There is the traditional resource is fight aging.org. And I think based on that, you can then go off and there's lifespan.io.

[00:16:17] One of the premier platforms with both like newsletter and information about what's going on. There's a couple others that I'm probably blanking on right now, or I think Nathan Chan is like the new kid on the block. He's trying to, I think if you just go on Twitter, I forget the exact address of his newsletter.

[00:16:38] But if you just go on Twitter and look for Nathan Chan, he's a, from Toronto actually. So it's funny for small world awesome. Or just a DME and I'll, I'm happy to provide you any links about longevity or anything else you're interested in,

[00:16:56] Taylor Ealand: [00:16:56] right? So it's not like you're just buried in COVID Twitter.

[00:16:58]There's more to it than that.

[00:17:01] Yuri Deigin: [00:17:01] There's this minor distraction. It might seem that this is all I'm doing because this is all I'm doing on Twitter, arguing about COVID or vaccines, but Twitter is just a hobby and outlet. I do when I'm on a treadmill or a, I don't know, whenever I got time to waste. Some people watch Netflix.

[00:17:19] I watch

[00:17:21] Taylor Ealand: [00:17:21] yeah. He a fight with the trolls. So I think that was a pretty good background in a year in the man let's get into COVID a little bit. Your Twitter is almost exclusively. COVID what made you so passionate about COVID 19?

[00:17:37] Yuri Deigin: [00:17:37] I dunno. It's not like that. I think it just happened because when I published my medium article about COVID origins, back in April, 2020, we published it on Twitter and this kind of then seated everything else for my Twitter presence that I got attracted the attention of people, interested in the topic.

[00:17:59] And so I was also interested in it when we started collaborating. And this is how Twitter just grew organically for me as what I was doing. And that just have hasn't changed since. So yeah, it's all about really, it's all about either star scope to origins or now like COVID treatments, vaccines or potential other non treatments.

[00:18:24] Like I remember going and arguing with people who mistake some weak data for strong data and claims on odd things, which I think are unfounded and just arguing and how it's, once it starts on Twitter, it's self-sustaining shut shops. So that's, yeah, that's what that's been for me on Twitter.

[00:18:45] So

[00:18:46] Taylor Ealand: [00:18:46] are you the originator of the LaValley hypothesis being taken seriously?

[00:18:50] Yuri Deigin: [00:18:50] No. No. I'm one of the first ones. I don't know. Like it's not for me too. Make this claim. I'm not Robert Malone to go like I'm the inventor. OMR Natixis I'm the lab leak inventor. No, people, this is an obvious hypothesis for anybody who first hears about an outbreak and who are near the lab when they're like go to the iLab league.

[00:19:13]Trump was saying this before me, but I published that medium article in a recent, in April of last year. And it might, might've been like the first really substantiated analysis. Like why lab, like hypothesis is plausible, like before people will like maybe pointing out one or two things about just weird that this is the lab and this was the outbreak.

[00:19:37] And all of this lab actually did this experiment with Barrick in 2015, doing some kind Americ mice. This was also pointed out before me, but I think I synthesize. All of the circumstantial evidence of why I think it's lovely hypothesis, not just plausible, it's likely and put that into that medium paper.

[00:19:58] And I think that was the catalyst for a lot of people to actually start considering this hypothesis. Seriously, one of which was Brett Weinstein actually, because he said that until he read my paper, he was still not very convinced.

[00:20:11] Taylor Ealand: [00:20:11] I find it in your use of language surrounding lab. Really is what gives you so much credibility in my mind because you make it a point to say it's whether or not it's plausible, it could be likely you don't speak in absolutes.

[00:20:24] Like many scientists tend to do. You seem to be self-aware enough to know that there is a possibility

[00:20:30] Yuri Deigin: [00:20:30] or no, I think scientists don't actually scientists don't speak in absolutes. Politicians do. And even this GOP report that just released, I think they're like overreaching, the evidence, like they're drawing conclusions that I still, I wouldn't make.

[00:20:46] I wouldn't say it's conclusive. No conclusive means like almost a hundred percent, nowhere near a hundred percent like 90%. Yes. 95%. Maybe no. Where

[00:20:56] Taylor Ealand: [00:20:56] near a hundred percent. I see. I guess I see a lot of MDs and PhDs in my country speaking and absolutely it's as if they forgotten how science does work. So I appreciate your language and the way you approach these problems and it's allowed, it's made it to.

[00:21:11] You have more credibility with me at least. Because you're not sitting there trying to speak in absolutes and when the data may not reflect what you're saying, but it also makes it clear that you've also done your research because you bring the receipts. I haven't looked too much into your specific writings about lab lead.

[00:21:24] By the time I was looking into it, I started went yeah there's a laboratory right there, but it was one of those issues that was just all my periphery. Cause I don't think like my country will do anything about it. We were pretty weak when it comes to China,

[00:21:40] Yuri Deigin: [00:21:40] what can you do about it?

[00:21:42]China's a nuclear superpower and it's even from a trade perspective, it's gotten everybody by the balls. It's not like you can really challenge them.

[00:21:52] Taylor Ealand: [00:21:52] Yeah. So I just wanted to point out that I think it's important that people realize that you're not speaking in absolutes here. You recognize.

[00:22:00] Plausibility and that's huge. Appreciate you for doing that. And I appreciate you for consistently using that language, it shows that you do know what you're talking about and how to navigate the space.

[00:22:09] Yuri Deigin: [00:22:09] Yeah. There's really, it's the only way to investigate scientific matters. You have, if you don't have conclusive evidence, you can be certain stuff.

[00:22:20] The language just reflects that underlying approach to solving problems or not solving, but evaluating evidence. So yeah. Some people, yeah no yeah, whoever speaks in absolutes, I think they're just lacking adequate training in scientific methods, scientific analysis. And they're more like, more emotional driven rather than data-driven so right.

[00:22:46] And sometimes they mistake their personal expenses. For data like frontline physicians. Oh, I gave satellite general my patients on our mics and then they all got better. That must be not American works. No, it doesn't necessarily mean Rick works as district too much in the small sample size and we didn't have a control group.

[00:23:07] And so many things that could be just clouding your judgment. So just, you're not equipped to make these inferences. You don't know how to analyze the data properly and all the pitfalls you don't know anyway.

[00:23:21] Taylor Ealand: [00:23:21] Interesting. So of all there, there are all kinds of issues that surround COVID. And there are all kinds of issues that have surrounded COVID since its outbreak.

[00:23:30] What made you so interested in lab leaks?

[00:23:34] Yuri Deigin: [00:23:34] Cause it really was the issue like that was the first issue surrounding COVID and it was I think the most interesting issue. And also I just. So many people dismissed it out of hand as a crazy conspiracy theory, that when I realized it's not a crazy conspiracy theory, I just couldn't stay silent because nobody was really using their own brain to do this analysis.

[00:24:01] They just outsource that thinking to Christian Anderson and whoever they thought like no better. But when you actually examine the arguments that Krishna Anderson virologists provided for why? Because the crazy conspiracy theory, their arguments were so weak that like just, if you think about them for 10 seconds, those arguments, you realize, wait a minute, this is not convincing at all.

[00:24:29]There's so many other things that could have gone wrong in that laboratory or so many other scenarios that could have been lab leak scenarios that you guys are considering your paper that let's actually examine the evidence. For the lab, the K-pop. So when you start looking for that circumstantial evidence, it's huge.

[00:24:48] Like all of the things that they've been working on, that one is working on and the things that we've been collecting. And so many other things that when you look like, look that the Anderson paper didn't even consider this thing. To me, that was a huge red flag. And I just decided to write a medium article about it and just cause, I've been writing on different topics for many years.

[00:25:12] That's another hobby of mine. Speaking of hobbies, I like to write, I like to write about things that I discover and like it actually helps to crystallize my understanding, like for a topic initially was all about aging. I was learning about the biology of aging and when I would learn something, I would write a, mostly in Russian write a blog post about it, or like a medium article about.

[00:25:34] And that really helps you crystallize your understanding and basically probe that you really understand because you have to I always put citations about the claims I make and you have to mind the papers for the quotes and when you actually write it and you synthesize that knowledge, I think that really helps to then synthesize inside your brain.

[00:25:56] So that's what I did with the lab week thing. And that's what interested me in the beginning. And that's what kept my interest of interest because it was very cool because it's like living in a detective novel that you're investigating something and get pushback from pushback, from like potential perpetrators or people trying to cover it up with Chinese authorities with Chinese scientists, like telling you one thing, and then you catch them that Outright lie or not being truthful and not being forthcoming.

[00:26:31] And you're like, wait a second, you guys didn't sequence this in 2020, you actually sequenced it in 2018. It wasn't me. It was our like other members of our drastic group who discovered these things. But it's so interesting to be in the middle of it that it's way better than Netflix. So that's why I spend so much time on.

[00:26:49] Taylor Ealand: [00:26:49] So for the uninitiated, what is the most important evidence that's supports the LaValley

[00:26:56] Yuri Deigin: [00:26:56] hypothesis? There's there isn't really one thing or real smoking gun that you can point to and say, ah, this is it. There's just so many small things are not smallish, like circumstantial things, both on the side of the actual genomic evidence.

[00:27:12] Like you look at our scope too, and there's a few insight insertion that's really looking suspicious. And the funny thing. Anderson initially also found it very suspicious. And then he had a call with Fowchee and he completely changed his life and put up that paper, that claim exactly the opposite that no, nothing suspicious here.

[00:27:36]And also the other like circumstantial evidence whole first and foremost, the outbreak happened. It's a very uncharacteristic place for this kind of virus to, to, to outbreak, to occur for that virus X, if it wasn't for the fact that these viruses are in that lab, like normally they're not found in Mohan in the radius of a thousand miles, but they are found within the lab.

[00:28:01] And so this is a huge coincidence that, for any, it just common sense person make theme or her just pause for a second and say that's suspicious. And also the behavior of the people involved, potentially involved in this. Which is very reminding or mindful of a coverup, both the scientists and the authorities, they're behaving as trying to hide something.

[00:28:27] And they're trying to delete the evidence, destroy evidence between all those things. I think it makes a pretty compelling case for the lab to K-pop so much. So that actually like gob intelligence, community thinks it's

[00:28:41] Taylor Ealand: [00:28:41] actually conclusive. Yeah. I think it was interesting. Cause I remember the GOP being interested in this slightly at the start of the pandemic and then it dropped because the powers that be in this country decided that it was impossible.

[00:28:53] So it was interesting to see them turn back around on that, to get to the meat, but meat and potatoes. Why we're here today. There's been quite the hubbub and there is still quite the hub, even outside of like the conversation you're having about things like Ivor Metron hydraulics and core Quinn the vaccines and their safety and efficacy.

[00:29:18] And then one of the main champions that I've seen that's at this point almost anti-vax. And then of course is pro ivermectin and pro I don't know if he's pro hydrochloric one. No. Is Bret Weinstein, the brother of the famous physician, Eric Weinstein. He's been all over podcasting world has been on Joe Rogan.

[00:29:39] He's been on Lex Friedman. He's been everywhere and he's going around suggesting that the vaccine is unsafe and that ivermectin, like you've alluded to multiple times as some sort of wonder drug. So that's how I know you. And I want to just give you the floor. And lay out what people should know about this particular topic is I ever metronome wonder drug are the vaccines unsafe and why is it that it's such an

[00:30:07] Yuri Deigin: [00:30:07] issue?

[00:30:08] Sure. It's a big issue because the claims, the anti-vax claims that rep and Heather have been either promoting or amplifying out from other people are very dangerous claims because they lead to create vaccine hesitancy in people and not a hand. They give them a false sense of security that ivermectin kids now somehow prevent the vacation COVID.

[00:30:30] And the two of those things can actually kill our people. And so to prevent all those needless deaths I had to speak up and Claire, Berlinski my coffer over an article we are released about a month ago in Colette. Challenging Brett from his messaging, challenging him going around on these people without much understanding of biology lecture Rogan, like Lex free room, but willing to give Brad the benefit of the doubt because they respect him.

[00:31:01] They just can't push back or the misinformation that Brad is providing. And yeah, we put out to the coolant article. Actually before that, I reached out to Brett privately four months, or he started doing this misinformation on about first of all vaccines, almost three months ago, he invited girt.

[00:31:21] Vandenbosch all his podcasts and Gert was like throwing, not throwing shade, but like creating fear about vaccine. I guess throwing shade on vaccines, he's oh, vaccines are going to create an old variants and it's going to be awful. And we're going to have. And new variant that's worse than the old variance.

[00:31:39] Like the vaccine generate antibodies will somehow odds compete these wonderful, natural antibodies, that GERD things that are like much more protective. The vaccine, generally the ones, and actually Gert has a conflict of interest as it turns out because he's been developing these, his own platform of using natural antibodies as a vaccination strategy, which he never disclosed by the way.

[00:32:00] But like people dug that up. Basically. They explained it very well when he's creating this vaccine hesitancy. And after Gert, Vandenbosch already, I challenged Brett on Twitter. I'm like read the claims that this guy's making are ludicrous. They're completely unsubstantiated. And the red didn't really respond.

[00:32:21] Like he didn't engage girds in respond. And then Brett had on his podcast, a peer Corey, who is this? I reckon. And so they were like hyping up. I wrecked it, how wonderful I reckon is not just as a treatment, which would be like, okay, like it's not great to be promoting a drug that hasn't really been established in terms of efficacy for treatment, but it's treatment like people already got COVID.

[00:32:44] So we might as well try it, although with the hydro heterodoxy cork, and actually this embrace embracing this yet unproven drug might've actually killed a hundred thousand people because they did a meta analysis of the fatality rates of people taking hydroxyl or those not taking it. And actually hydroxyl core Cain was about 10, 10% more in terms of mortality and increase mortality, the people taking it.

[00:33:10] So it just might be the same with ultimately ivermectin might actually turn out to be hazard. Because nobody really studied it to the, taking it for prolonged periods of time, because the use of it is an anti-parasitic agent. They only take it like once a year, twice a year at most like four times a year, every three months, nobody was taking for four weeks or four days in terms of like treatment for colon.

[00:33:33] And certainly not as a prophylaxis for like weekly dosage as recommended by Brett or by peer Cory, weekly, 12 milligrams, nobody has done any kind of study that safety of that dosing regimen. And all at the same time, we know that our rectum is actually relatively dangerous, even with the single dosing.

[00:33:53]It's potentially turning genic. It's been turned agentic, shown in animals and even the weekly to the genic shown in. Also, it has got like sperm toxicity in rats, for sure. I don't know. I don't think they did follow study, follow up studies in humans. So basically it's not as safe as these guys claim and it's definitely not as efficacious as they claim because whenever all of the treatments studies have been repeated and done properly as a randomized placebo controlled trial, all of the benefits of met them disappeared.

[00:34:23] So it was pretty much useless as a treatment. Okay. Then they also went and hyped it up as a prophylaxis. They're like, it's almost as good as first of all, some people are saying it's almost as good as vaccines, but then Brett went further and said, prof, ivermectin is something like a hundred percent effective if it's taken properly.

[00:34:41] And he had a podcast about it with Robert Malone and Steve Kirsch and the wall was again like creating all these fear about vaccines and code the spike, protein and spike alone and cited, toxic and dangerous. Steve Kirsch was like, yeah. And it accumulates in your ovaries, like beaks and your ovaries.

[00:35:00] And basically the brother's yeah, it's unsafe for women at all the, that vaccine, but ivermectin a hundred percent effective. And so all this misinformation, I know from people writing me that after that podcast, they canceled their vaccine appointments. They started taking a reluctant, like a lot of people, I got a little better message, but a lot of people were like, took that as very important messaging of the dangers of vaccines.

[00:35:26] And just because of that advice of Brett and the people he had on his podcast, they could potentially catch COVID. And yeah, I couldn't stay silent. Berlinski, couldn't stay style put on that article. And the finally Brett actually engaged in the criticism and he was all pissy about it oh, was like the tone.

[00:35:44] And the article is, and they're like Mr. Presenting what I'm saying, although they never corrected any kind of representation and misrepresentation in the article. Like the only thing that some people are complaining about the quote that 99% ethicacy applied, not to prophylaxis as Brett Quain, but like to treatment, which was Pierre Corey's thing.

[00:36:05] He's like I'm acting as it was almost the perfectly effective or something. And, but in terms of misrepresenting the position on vaccines what we definitely didn't represent anything. We were just outlining all the falsehoods that were amplified through a breadth messaging and his podcast through his or his guests.

[00:36:27] And basically we chose. Oh, those points. And then ultimately I actually put out a podcast with the fuller rebel wisdom just last week with point by point, going through the false claims that Brett has made Brett or his guests made on his podcast. And there's 19 claims that I analyze and show that they're false or unsubstantiated basically disproving the claims that Maxine's are so dangerous that you should use them.

[00:36:57] And that I respect in this state say for the fact that cause it's not as effective, it's not effective as a prophylaxis, the only data to support it are very weak data, very weak studies. And basically it was just compared to vaccines. I would recommend is not even close in terms of efficacy and safety profiles are known and vaccines are extremely.

[00:37:17] So this is the ultimate message. And Brett chose to take issue with the tone rather than arguments. And it's been very non-constructive about it. Basically, they shut themselves up and were like, oh, we debunked all your points. Although they never did.

[00:37:32] They just, on their podcast, 87, they addressed three or four points and they're made mistakes, addressing them. They didn't actually debunk them at all. They just kinda embarrassing themselves with their misunderstanding of either how drug development is done or what they actually read, like reading comprehension issues.

[00:37:50] And so they never engaged with our criticism, actually, mine. And so that's where things stand basically, although they did dial it back a little bit. Now they're not claiming brands no longer claiming that our maximum a hundred percent effective, because it was only based on one study that is I'm sure going to be retracted very shortly now, Brenda's going with, I reckon was 85 or 87% fact based on Laurie tests, Lori's meta analysis.

[00:38:15] And that meant analysis is laughable because it's only based on two studies, two different studies called meta analysis. And it's almost like it's almost, it's very close to statistically insignificant. And yeah, the she's claiming 85 to 87% effective. But even that is nowhere near as close, nowhere near as effective as vaccines, which are 95% effective, which are, they actually three times as effective because you have to look at the inverse of the efficacy.

[00:38:45] So basically 5% of vaccines and 15%. Ivermectin potential or treated people are likely to get COVID, compared to the control group. So 5% and 15%, so three times more likely to get COVID when you're using ivermectin, then when you've been vaccinated. And of course like you don't even, I'm not even talking about the difference in the convenience of having just two shots versus having to take ivermectin continuously for weekly, for months or even years.

[00:39:18] And again, you're not even there's no safety trials to guarantee that you won't have any issues from like toxicity or whatever from ivermectin. And yeah, this is where things stand right now and really rep hasn't retracted any of the, his misinformation. On vaccines on my rectum. And there've been trying to just Dodge the issue and then put out a podcast saying that, oh, even if people die for, from listening to their advice, they're not at fault like Brett and Heather, not her fault because they were like, nobody made you follow our recommendations.

[00:39:52] Nobody made you like, if you were convinced by whatever we've been saying, it's only your fault that you followed. What we had implied you should be doing, which is, I think is total bullshit. Like actually betrays that they are very unsure about their position, but they're just kinda pushing forward because they're too embarrassed to admit that they've been wrong and they'll just wrong, but like dangerously, criminally wrong.

[00:40:19] Like it could be liable for a lot of deaths,

[00:40:22] Taylor Ealand: [00:40:22] even if it's like not a legal issue, they've still potentially killed people. Yes, that should not be here.

[00:40:28] Yuri Deigin: [00:40:28] I think it's a wiggle issue. It could be, I think it's a pretty black and white. There could be a wrongful death lawsuits coming. It should be.

[00:40:37] Taylor Ealand: [00:40:37] Yeah, shouldn't be.

[00:40:39] So that was a lot of information. Sorry. I didn't know. You're great. Honestly. I would prefer that way. I tried not to interrupt her, you're talking about, and you, at least you, at least, even like you make references to evidence or other places they can go. So I don't want to restate everything you said and rebel wisdom.

[00:40:58] I think my listeners are smart enough to go check that out and not get a repetition of that. You just a couple of quick questions I've seen the study get passed around on Twitter. That suggest that I remember this is effective. And my understanding of it is that the dosage that is required to be effective.

[00:41:18] Is not necessarily safe for humans. Am I right in that?

[00:41:23] Yuri Deigin: [00:41:23] You probably mean that you've seen this in vitro study that, in, in a test to try to assess the efficacy of ivermectin against SARS cov two. And basically what that study did is they took, green monkeys cells, in fact, with them, with the virus and then used varying concentrations of ivermectin to see if I reckon can actually stop the virus from proliferating.

[00:41:47] And it did. Yeah. They observed that at some concentration, actually I wrecked and stops the replication of the virus. They only problem is that the concentration that was effective is like 30 times greater that than what is ever observed in human plasma at the doses of I directly usually use. So yeah, like that level.

[00:42:10]Plasma concentration that was used in cells or the cell concentration that was used in that individual study is never, ever reached in humans. And yeah, the nobody would be able to prescribe this kind of dose of ivermectin because it's just, hasn't been at all proven safe and it's likely toxic.

[00:42:29] So nobody is advocating to take doses that were shown in Detroit to be effective. And this is, yeah, this is one of the kind of primary issues are like, why do we even think it will be effective if tissues, if yeah. The in vivo in human concentration never, ever reaches that level that was shown to be effective.

[00:42:50] And it's not just that level was shown to be effective in that study. It was shown that lower level is not effective. So at basically at like one micro micromolar, if one micromolar efficacy stopped two micromolar was the. Efficacious concentration of ivermectin. Like the, I think five was the C 15 if I remember correctly, but basically like the little one is not active below one micromolar I wrecked as is not effective.

[00:43:21] And the human concentration is again I think it's actually 17 times or something lower than the one micromolar in, in plasma. So why would you think it's effective? I don't know. And

[00:43:35] Taylor Ealand: [00:43:35] this is an important nuance for the non scientifically literate in the listenership, in which you have to understand, this is one of those issues that we often point out and biology, poison is dictated more by dosage and less by substance on the substances is of course important.

[00:43:50]There, there are trace amounts of arsenic and apple seeds. For example, the apple seeds don't kill you. So it doesn't matter if I ever mentioned it. Useful in absurdly large quantities because those quantities can still cause damage or do nothing. While when they're in usable form in your body.

[00:44:08] And it's not as simple as, once you take 30 pills that it accumulates and then it starts working. It's not how the human body works which is an important nuance. And that's something that, if you're not familiar with scientific literature, because it's just not what you do, there's nothing wrong with that.

[00:44:24]It's something to keep in mind when you're seeing these initial studies come out, you had also mentioned a meta analysis of two different papers or two different studies, which is not a meta analysis in my mind. And that barely was significant. Do you remember the P value for that?

[00:44:45] Yuri Deigin: [00:44:45] No, but it has to be below 0.5 just because yeah, it didn't cross one and it was 95% confidence.

[00:44:52] Yeah. This is men analysis by test Lori, her bird group. And yeah, it's I think it's very weak because she initially she had three prophylactic studies in that min analysis, but then one of them was retracted. This is the Egyptian algo's our study that was shown to be fraudulent with fraud, for like fake data of people who are dead or something who, which they could have in the control group.

[00:45:17] So once she pulled that study from the met analysis, she was only left with two and a little, she claims like it didn't make a huge difference. It actually widened. Like the interval. And also, I think it brought it much closer to two to one, basically much closer to losing the 95% confidence interval certainty.

[00:45:41] And so actually Tesla excluded another men and another study from her meta analysis. Another prophylaxis study from competitor analysis, which showed only a 50% efficacy of ivermectin as a prophylactic. And I'm not sure why she chose to exclude it, but I think that would have brought the overall number way, way lower.

[00:46:01] But again, I think, once there's actually a proper study with the large enough sample size done properly with all the control groups and everything like the prophet, even on the prophylactic efficacy of erected will be shown to be virtually non-existence. So it's just a matter of, and there are actually studies ongoing that hopefully soon enough.

[00:46:23] The results studies of a prophylactic efficacy of overreacting. I think five different, large studies. I don't know if all of them are prophylactic studies. Some might be both treatment and prophylaxis, but I'm sure we'll get further data out of them very soon. But the problem is that even, even the rectum is effective.

[00:46:45] Why would you want to choose it over vaccines? Like vaccine hesitancy that they're creating is completely and words. Unsubstantiated vaccines are very safe and I respect them in terms of safety is probably more dangerous and more unknown unknowns about are erecting, like taking it on a weekly basis for months or even years then vaccine because vaccines are, once you have the injection within a week, the vaccine is gone and only, its effect on the immune system remains.

[00:47:18] Should we be more concerned about ivermectin because nobody has actually done any long-term studies on ivermectin being taken, continuously for Montessori years on a weekly basis. Whereas in terms of vaccines have been shown very safe and in the history of vaccines, any long-term effects have never manifested themselves after two months of administration.

[00:47:42] And these vaccines actually, we already had over seven months of kind of safety monitoring, if not longer, because the first actual clinical trial participants they finished probably I think in August of last year or September and in December, they actually started delivering the vaccines to the general population.

[00:48:04] And they've delivered already like over 4 billion doses. And in the United States alone, it's been, I think, three. Over $300,000. I think it's almost 200,000 people vaccinated and we haven't had any safety issues beyond the two months windows. So it's, I think it's wrong to anticipate any unknown unknowns of vaccines outside of this time interval basically worrying about all.

[00:48:36] What about long-term safety in vaccines? That it's the wrong kind of worry about? Because vaccines, as I said, they work in a way that almost guaranteed, they won't, there won't be long-term issues. You, the vaccine that goes into your body, it alerts the immune system kicks off the process of the immune system, learning about the pathogen.

[00:48:57] And then the vaccine disintegrates and disappears that actually marinade or DNA in case over to the virus. They get degraded and disappear. It's only what remains is the kind of the knowledge of the immune system of what to do when defendant Karen encounters, his passenger, either the neutralizing antibodies or antibodies that are floating around in our body, they will also actually gradually disappear.

[00:49:22] Or what will remain is the memory of a memory cells of what actually like recognizing these passages in immune system can quickly ramp back up the defenses against this passenger, if you actually encounter it, not within three months or within like at least like the first six months. And he buddies is still around, but maybe in a year or two.

[00:49:45] The immune system has to recognize that's why usually like vaccines last stops for almost lifetime many times. So yeah, worrying about vaccine safety is completely unfounded, but all these people on social media and Twitter and YouTube saying that vaccines are dangerous with horrible long term effects.

[00:50:04] Basically creating this vaccine hesitancy. I think they're doing a great disservice, not just the people who might actually catch COVID and die, but to rally in general, because they're preventing humanity from quickly radicating conduct. And it's a race against the clock because if we don't stamp it out quickly, it can develop new mutations can develop new variances.

[00:50:25] We'll be back to not square one, but like we'll have to do another round of vaccination.

[00:50:31] Taylor Ealand: [00:50:31] And let's hold that thought for just a moment. So I know a lot of people like know somebody who's allergic to vaccines or whatever, and they'll use that as some sort of excuse for why people shouldn't get vaccinated.

[00:50:41] And just to quickly talk about that, cause I know people will bring it up to me personally, the people who have already have issues with vaccines. Because if you've been getting vaccinated throughout your whole life, there's not going to be that much of, a bit difference here with them RNA stuff.

[00:50:55]The medium that it's in is not going to be detrimental to you. The people who are allergic to these types of substances already know. And if you are seriously concerned about it, that's a conversation you can have with your doctor and you could find that out. It's not, but it's not an excuse to say I'm just not going to get it.

[00:51:10] I'm going to prefer, I have a Metro in which won't protect me longterm. Or, it's not a reason to be afraid. There's you can still go through the process of figuring it out if you're truly concerned about it, but chances are. It doesn't affect you because it's a very rare thing to be allergic to the materials within a vaccine.

[00:51:27] And like I said, the people who are allergic to them already know about it by continuing to not get vaccinated, you threat, you threaten this concept of herd humidity so that you, if you want to protect those people who can't get vaccinated, the best thing you can do is get vaccinated so that they don't have to worry about it.

[00:51:42]So that's important too, to also footnote you, you were, you I've said twice now in passing about vaccination, creating pressure for mutations and people have taken this way outside of what is reasonable as well, throughout social media and in real life as well. Can you briefly explain to the listener why it is that is not a valid reason to not get vaccinated?

[00:52:06] If you're concerned about evolutionary pressure,

[00:52:08] Yuri Deigin: [00:52:08] it's just a bullshit concern because whatever pressure gets created by vaccines, the same pressure gets created by. Natural immunity is just the virus actually gets much more time if we don't vaccinate. What's the alternative. If people think no vaccines create pressure for the virus to preferentially or for the new variants cause they would say vaccines breed, new variants, which is in itself because we bullshit.

[00:52:36] But what they usually mean is that if new variants arise, vaccines, having vaccinated, a lot of people somehow creates additional pressure on these variants that they will be selected for in, in the remaining on vaccinate, which, what's the alternative. If your alternative is not to vaccinate, actually it's still the same pressure, but you just providing many more people for the virus to develop new variants because it's either both a previous infection and vaccines create.

[00:53:08] Which, of course the virus, whoever learns to evade that immunity will get selective advantage. But the problem is that for the virus, the problem for the viruses, that if we vaccinate much more quickly, then the virus can infect people. We take away substantially more people for the virus to experiment it for the virus to create those mutations that can potentially provide selective advantage to the net benefit of vaccines for us, or the detriment to the virus is huge.

[00:53:39] It's orders of magnitude greater than if we didn't vaccinate. And like people saying these silly things, that whole it's the vaccines fall, the Delta roles. Absolutely not Delta rolls way before vaccinating. And all the other variants, like no variants has yet arisen after vaccinations, no variants of concern.

[00:54:00] There might be like mutations, but nothing has been solid. By vaccinations, thrust to show and pinpoint, oh, it's the vaccine then like it created, this gave great pressure for evolutionary pressure, selective pressure for the spirit. And that's why it's taking over the world. And actually reinfecting people who have been vaccinated because for the evolutionary pressure to be there, that new variant will have to break through evolutionary protection.

[00:54:27] Like otherwise it's there's, it didn't realize the selective pressure. The only way, a virus we can say and pinpoint to a virus actually being caused by vaccines is if that virus arose after vaccines and it actually breaks through the vaccine. So that's the creative, selective pressure and professionally not break some just for vaccines.

[00:54:49] It doesn't break through previous infection, but breaks. Cause, that's the selective pressure exclusive to vaccines, and we don't observe that at all. Basically the protection, the vaccines provide is very similar in terms of neutralizing antibodies, to the pressure that natural infection provides.

[00:55:05] And basically like the alternative that even those people who think that there might be selective pressure, the alternative of not vaccinating, but rather waiting for everybody to get infected and create natural immunity is so dumb and dangerous and criminally stupid that because it's going to cause new kinds of deaths that it's not even, it's not even worth discussing.

[00:55:29] Like what are you suggesting we do, we stop vaccinating. This is what Greg Vandenbosch was suggesting way back in may on breast podcasts and bred them and challenging them. The challenge that, that claim, which is like a ridiculously dangerous criminally, dangerous grave, let's look back, say, let's wait until 10 million people die, but we get natural immunity and it's a numbers game too.

[00:55:51] I get riled up.

[00:55:53] Taylor Ealand: [00:55:53] That's not a

[00:55:53] Yuri Deigin: [00:55:53] bad thing. Yeah. But then people say, oh, your tone. And your

[00:55:58] Taylor Ealand: [00:55:58] tone is just fine. You're telling us just fine. So I think what people also fail to realize that it's a numbers game. People were misled and I don't know where this came from, but it's a scientific literacy problem for sure.

[00:56:09]They thought that. The vaccine prevented you from catching COVID and that's not really what it does. It's more like it prevents transmission and the new ones is subtle, but also important. So it's not going to necessarily stop you from getting

[00:56:22] Yuri Deigin: [00:56:22] sick. No, it does prevent you from catching Carter. Of course it does prevent you and it lowers your chances of catching color.

[00:56:29]Taylor Ealand: [00:56:29] Yeah, it lowers you from having symptoms, right? And that's, and

[00:56:34] Yuri Deigin: [00:56:34] no lowers you from catching. COVID like if you get vaccinated 20 times, fewer people catch COVID who are vaccinated and the control group, that's 95% efficacy. Forget about the transmission. That's the whole different issue.

[00:56:49] It's for the 5% who still do get cold. The question is, does it lower transmission from does it lower the shedding? Does it lower the viral roll? And those people, cause it could be that, they catch COVID but they don't share, they don't transmit at all. This is an additional benefit of vaccines that not only do they prevent you from catching COVID when you do catch COVID, they still stop transmission.

[00:57:12]This is the question about like perfect for imperfect vaccines or sterilizing immunity. Like you could still catch the disease, but if the immunity is sterilizing, you won't be, you won't transmit it onwards. And these vaccines that are about like 80, 80 to 90% effective at preventing transmission.

[00:57:31] So even like the 5% who still catch COVID 90% of them or 80% of them will roll, transmit that they'll have COVID, but they won't infect other people. No, this was for the wild type. Very Delta threw a wrench,

[00:57:44] Taylor Ealand: [00:57:44] but this is also suggesting if you're following the math, then that for every hundred people that would have caught COVID 95 of them wouldn't have caught it.

[00:57:51] So five would and. One in five ish would transmit it. So instead of a hundred people showing symptoms and spreading it, we're now down to one and that's huge. That's the numbers game that people need to be realizing here,

[00:58:02] Yuri Deigin: [00:58:02] right? Not even mentioning the chances of dying lower like one in a hundred, like by a factor of.

[00:58:10]Taylor Ealand: [00:58:10] But the people who are concerned about evolutionary pressure, they don't understand that instead of having a hundred people spreading substantial viral load, and that's creating a, a hundred people creating opportunities for a mutation to continue to spread. We're now down to one.

[00:58:22]And that's two orders of magnitude. That's massive. I think that's a huge part of the evolutionary question that people just don't understand. And then about the, I think the Kachin thing, I think at the end of the day, it's semantics, but you, yes, you are. And I need to clarify my semantics there.

[00:58:37] So I will try and work that one out. I do want to be respectful of your time. I know you have other things to do. So I want to blow through the last couple of questions here. Are there any sources that you recommend for the vaccine hesitant that can maybe distill the scientific literature down to a simpler level?

[00:58:55] Yuri Deigin: [00:58:55] And then again, you can watch my podcasts on rebel wisdom. I go through all the claims. Why of ex like all the false claims, why vaccines. I go through them or at least the best, the more biggest hits the ones that got the most potential, the ovaries or the flu vaccine, the spike being dangerous, all the sources.

[00:59:20]I'll

[00:59:20] Taylor Ealand: [00:59:20] vouch for the podcast too. You bring

[00:59:21] Yuri Deigin: [00:59:21] receipts. I wrote a medium article about that. Like it's called get vaccinated. And I wrote it back in may, actually ended up, also goes through like the anti-vax reasons have actually shifted from may to August. And I addressed the popular fear-mongering of anti-vaxxers for me in that medium article.

[00:59:43] And then I guess the podcast addresses the more recent ones, because back then it was like a prion odds, a prion disease, like spike blooding is it's 300 disease. Th the vaccine is going to give you pre-owned disease, man. And then the, what else was there? Oh, Ady, we're afraid of age and people were way more afraid of the antibody dependent enhancement than they are now, because it's been, as I said, 7, 8, 9 months, we haven't seen any evidence or ads, thankfully.

[01:00:12] So I think fear-mongering, and again, like making it specific to vaccines. Okay. There's going to be age is going to be from any kind of immunity, goes from vaccine immunity and or from natural immunity. Can you just basically being afraid of vaccinating because of Ady it doesn't make any sense and you're going to caught catch.

[01:00:31] If you don't get vaccinated, you're going to get Delta. Like it's almost a certainty.

[01:00:39] You're going to get a D thankfully we don't have a D don't be stupid. You're vaccinated.

[01:00:44] Taylor Ealand: [01:00:44] Okay, cool. And for those of you who will go on to watch the rebel wisdom podcast or read Uriah's article that I will hopefully remember to put in the show notes, focus on the evidence presented and keep in mind that a comment in a comment section is not evidence.

[01:00:58] So you're going to see all kinds of claims that sort of attack areas, claims if there is nothing attached to it. They are noise, not signal. I think too many people confuse comments as evidence. Yeah. Most of them are

[01:01:11] Yuri Deigin: [01:01:11] just ad hominine dehumanizing.

[01:01:16] Taylor Ealand: [01:01:16] A lot of them show that they didn't even watch the damn thing.

[01:01:18]There were some people was like, he didn't say anything of substance. And there was two hours of substance in there. You didn't watch it. You're just viewed as mad. Call it the personality.

[01:01:26] Yuri Deigin: [01:01:26] The preamble was a bit long David, but like when people thought that this is podcasts just meant to go through the slide.

[01:01:33] And of course slide were like the cherry on top. I think initially David just wanted to talk and discuss all the issues and all the questions we had. And that's the one we did for the first hour or maybe longer. And then we get into the slide zips with the slides pretty quickly. So that was by design.

[01:01:51] Are

[01:01:51] Taylor Ealand: [01:01:51] you concerned by the wider damage is being done to science by people spreading this misinformation? Term

[01:01:59] Yuri Deigin: [01:01:59] or in science would find it's not about science. It's all about the stupid people who distrust science. And this could be like, this is bad for the people. If they stop trusting science, they're going to find themselves in the whole world problems in a pandemic.

[01:02:15] I think it's okay not to trust science, if everything's fine. And you're like, oh, the earth is flat, man. You're an idiot. It's not going to kill you. But if you say vaccines are going to kill me, actually, COVID is probably going to kill you. Or maybe I remember I was going to kill you.

[01:02:29] You take it for too long.

[01:02:30] Taylor Ealand: [01:02:30] So people will take issue with you saying that. And they'll say something along the lines of, depending on the age group, it's 0.1 to 2% mortality rate. And they don't seem to have any understanding of the implications of having COVID that may even if you don't die, it could still do serious damage to different systems in your body.

[01:02:47] And those are something that's something to be concerned about. There are people my age that I know that have mental decline. It's not like they're brain dead now. I'm a little young to be getting stupider already. You know what I mean? So why would I risk it?

[01:03:02] Yuri Deigin: [01:03:02] Yeah, it's a neurological issues of COVID are definitely under appreciated.

[01:03:07] I know this firsthand, I had to call it a year ago and it was fucking awful. Like the neurological stuff. Like I, I had to go on antidepressants for it. I had to go on, I've been on them for a year. Thankfully I'm off now, but like the brain fog, the apathy, all the issues that I had after COVID like neurological issues were just brutal, man.

[01:03:34]You don't want it, if you think you like you're so brave enough. You don't nothing, he, that wording, you don't want to call it

[01:03:43] Taylor Ealand: [01:03:43] to be clear. There's been a lot of talk about Brett, how there's been a lot of talk about other people at the end of the day, your criticism is not personal, correct.

[01:03:51] This is about the science. The goal is to say lies, but it's not necessarily a personal attack on these individuals. You just,

[01:03:59]Yuri Deigin: [01:03:59] I don't know, like you can, whatever, like I definitely like on a personal level, I am appalled by what they're doing. Sure. Initially it was, I thought maybe it's, MIS misguided beliefs and if only I can show them the evidence, they'll see the light and stop doing it.

[01:04:20] And he'll be like, oh, we're sorry that, we can use people were wrong stuff above excellence safety, but no, they just keep persisting on pushing that message and

[01:04:30] I'm getting personal. I don't like what they're doing.

[01:04:33] Taylor Ealand: [01:04:33] I would rather it get personal and start personal because I'm right there with you. If they're going to continue to push bad information, then so be it. But it didn't start that way.

[01:04:42] Yuri Deigin: [01:04:42] Started the opposite of personal. I did think of Brett very highly and I thought of him as a friend and he did a lot for the lab leak hypothesis early on.

[01:04:54] He, popular with my paper. And so I had all the, the good feelings towards him. It's just that he's behavior in light of all of this. And he's reaction definitely made me disappointed in him very much.

[01:05:11] Taylor Ealand: [01:05:11] You had a quote that I really liked and I don't have the quote down, but the idea is still there at the end of the day.

[01:05:18] You would prefer if we could just go down anybody, if we could just sit down and have some vodka.

[01:05:22] Yuri Deigin: [01:05:22] No, I think it was actually Eric, Weinstein's kind of interpretation of my little blurb on like the Russian way versus the American way. Not even the American. I was just like, I think maybe people just think I'm coming across as this very mean person because of cultural differences, because in Russia, like friends tell friends that they're full of shit and they can be, quarrelling and disagreeing and fighting physically.

[01:05:58] And then the they'll have, the just go drink some vodka and everything will be all right. So a lot of cases like the rest of the remedy for any personal disagreements. And I think it, Russians are. I don't know, maybe thicker skin or just like willing and not able to take criticism without getting all oh, our friendships over.

[01:06:18] Cause you, you said I am doing something wrong or even you called me an idiot. It was like, okay. Today you call me an idiot tomorrow. We'll be the best buddies again. So yeah, I think I mentioned that and Eric's I'm looking like, why are you throwing shade on the breaths? I'm looking forward to us.

[01:06:36] Is drinking water together, something down for any, what could with anybody at any time?

[01:06:44] Taylor Ealand: [01:06:44] I have a similar adage in that here in the states. That's, we should be able to disagree and still get a beer afterwards. But I wanted to bring that up to end on a lighter note because I'm curious, just close out the interview.

[01:06:55] What's a vodka recommendation. You have, even if we can't get it in the states, it might be good to know. What's good out

[01:06:59] Yuri Deigin: [01:06:59] over there. Chris Walker. They're all the same. This is just marketing bullshit. Trying to sell you. Great. Yeah. Yeah. We actually have a tasting contest for marketing class in Columbia and like blind testing, trying to see people can tell apart the good walk could the expensive Walker from a bad one.

[01:07:17] Most people failed

[01:07:18] Taylor Ealand: [01:07:18] miserably. No, the really cheap stuff. I feel like I can. It's

[01:07:21] Yuri Deigin: [01:07:21] pretty bad. Yeah. Yeah. Like you don't drink it for the tapes you should, while you don't, you should walk, you don't enjoy the taste. You just shoot it and you eat the big goal or, so have some nice food to get that.

[01:07:34] They study, wait a minute, you

[01:07:35] Taylor Ealand: [01:07:35] eat a pickle. Oh, I asked something. I

[01:07:38] Yuri Deigin: [01:07:38] have to try now. Yeah. The Russian thing is, yeah, you have a pickle, you take a shot and you eat. Or, dark cry bread. If you don't like pickle as the canonical could chaser for rushes. I

[01:07:51] Taylor Ealand: [01:07:51] did not know that.

[01:07:52] Yuri Deigin: [01:07:52] Maybe you learn something.

[01:07:54] All

[01:07:54]Taylor Ealand: [01:07:54] I'm going to do that. I learned something from the rush, and

[01:07:56] Yuri Deigin: [01:07:56] if you don't take a vaccine, at least now, you know how to prep,

[01:08:01]Taylor Ealand: [01:08:01] I'll show you the video of it and I'll post it on Twitter for your enjoyment. So you can see an American do it for the first time.

[01:08:05] That's funny. Yuri, I really appreciate you coming on. I really appreciate you being candid and going through all of this and being methodical and bringing receipts. I hope you don't feel overwhelmed by the amount of hate you're getting. I think there are a lot of people who are silently rooting for you, even if they don't have the gall to say it themselves against somebody who has as much repertoire as say a Weinstein brother.

[01:08:29]Just wanted to let you know, I appreciate the work you're doing. I appreciate you taking the time to come on this very tiny podcast. It means a

[01:08:36] Yuri Deigin: [01:08:36] lot of fun. So yeah, if you have fun mission accomplished, there you go.

[01:08:41] Taylor Ealand: [01:08:41] Mission accomplished.

[01:08:49] Thanks for listening to that conversation with URI, I was fascinated by it, but it was what I expected a good conversation. He brought the facts with them and I'm glad that I was able to provide him some space to explain his position, because sometimes you can't have very nuanced positions with Twitter and Twitter certainly seems to take the emotion out of everything.

[01:09:14] If you want to support the show, there are a couple of things you can do. I'm going to put some links to your stuff in the show notes, check them out. It should include an article and another podcast. You can also support the show by going to store.contrares.com. I released a new product. It says, go VAX, burn the card for those you who are pro-vaccine, but small government minded as well.

[01:09:39] Again, that's store.contracts.com and you can find us on any social media platform. Basically at this point, it is at contrary X, or you can look me up Taylor Eland, and I'm sure you'll find me. Thanks for listening. And we'll catch you in the next one.

42: Representation Matters, and We Seem to Have Forgotten That

Taylor and Kyle discuss life, representation, and current events. 

Share the show!

https://store.contrarix.com

http://contrarix.locals.com

Where to find us:

Taylor: @contrarix on everything.

Kyle: @VoteKyleHermann on Instagram and Facebook

Music By: Garrett Vandenburg

Rough Map Kyle Used For His Conferences*

*Not the final product.

This is an automated transcript - there will be errors.

And we are live. Anything you say can and will be held against you in the court of public opinion. Welcome back to contrary facts. What episode we're on, we're in the forties at this point. Awesome. Yeah. Right. It's Kyle and I today, we're going to go through some quick topics that we've workshopped with together, and then we're actually going to announce some changes that will be happening to the structure of the show.

At least between Kyle and I, the guest formats will probably be more or less the same. So I think that'll be pretty exciting before we get started, though, I want to plug some stuff best-selling item on our merch store store.com. direct.com is the, ask me about my pronouns coffee mug. If you want. And ask me about my pronouns coffee mug with attack helicopter, circling the phrase, stored out contracts.com is our best-selling item.

We also have that in short form, along stuff, alongside stuff with our logo and other things. Products that night just put in and put off my leisure. So that's a great way to support the show. Probably the best way to do it. You can also share support the show by sharing on your preferred social media platforms.

I know at the beginning of this, I was like, I'm not on social media. You can now find me basically anywhere at Taylor Elan, Twitter, Instagram, hell, even tectonic and clubhouse, all of it. And you can find at contrary as well on pretty much any platform. At this point, we are everywhere and I am being active everywhere, and it is taking up way too much of my time.

So I think it's everything I want to plug. So if you got anything Kyle, you want to share with the audience, otherwise we can get started.

No, I'll, uh, I'll save kind of my leadership organizations conversation for just a minute. I'll interrupt. Cool. So Kyle and I have not been able to record a ton together over the summer. I have finished the bar at this point, so I will get my results back in November. Apparently I thought it was September for the longest time.

I don't know why. Apparently it's November. So I won't know if I'm a licensed attorney until November. So be it known you are in November or December, you'll be listening to an attorney and a politician. Not, I don't know how you feel about that if I passed. Yeah. Those are two things that people sometimes hide off of their, uh, their credentials.

Yeah. I mean, I, I call my, right now, I call myself more of a business slash media consultant because I'm helping people to create their own podcasts and stuff like that. Which if you're interested, you can also go to country x.com and we'll sell you our services. And that's all there as well as well. But realistically, yeah, I don't know.

It's been funny because as a personal update, I think I'm at the point where I can share this and not feel bad about it. Uh, attorneys. I think it's part of the job market. I think COVID is largely responsible for this. They are normally law students, you know, can get jobs fairly easily and they get their internship and companies here.

But I've heard of a lot of my cohorts who do not have work lined up. And maybe it's COVID maybe something else, but attorneys just won't talk to us until we pass our bars. Maybe they think that, you know, zoom university is not quite an appropriate method of learning the law. So we'll see if that changes come November.

So I don't have anything lined up for attorney work per se. Um, we'll see what happens very nice there. I'm not really, I mean, worst case I'm doing something else. Law degrees are helpful for all kinds of things. Um, so like right now with contracts, we're doing all the podcast production stuff, contract drafting.

We just can't obviously enforce it because I'm not an attorney. Um, Consulting and stuff like that. It's it's going all right. It's going all right. So you've been busy with other things you've been traveling. What feels like all over the country, doing leadership events, leadership conferences. Is that a way to put it?

Sure. Um, so why don't you tell us about that? Why I know you're telling me and Taylor, it feels like I've been traveling all across the country. Well, yeah, I sure have. And the past month I left June 28th for my first conference and I went up to Idaho and then, um, over the month of July, I ended up going to Orlando and the Moines and just recently Columbus.

Well, it's been a really exciting run. What I did. In early college, I got involved with some leadership organization, student ones, and I ended up going most of my summers of my undergrad to Washington DC and, um, other places like that. But now that I've been getting out of undergrad over the past two years, even with the, uh, quarantine year, I really wanted to find leadership organizations that were worth traveling for, you know, that even as I'm getting out of that, you know, student phase, undergraduate phase, something that I could go to and network and learn and sharpen myself and all these sorts of things.

And so I'll just give a shout out to some of the ones that I've been doing this summer. One is called Patriot academy, um, run by a former state, our former Texas state rep who basically turned around and a few years after his term, he set up a legislative simulation for people to, for students, especially to come.

How the process works. Um, this one was in Boise and it's phenomenal program. We draft a bill and then we take it through the committee process and then the floor process. And we had a governor and we brought the bills to the floor. We debated them in open session. Um, we took the vote and then at the very end we sent it to that.

We had to go Senate, which just means we had like one person. We didn't have a real Senate, but, um, they would either make changes or send it back. And then at the very end, the governor signed it. We had a big signing ceremony. It was very, very real obvious, obviously modified, but real. Um, so that was really exciting aside from that.

And this kind of applies to another one that I'll talk about is we have incredible speakers come in and give us constitution, um, ethics, faith, all sorts of things, as it relates to our conservatism and our conservative values and our American. Not just conservative, but truly the American ones. Um, and it's just a phenomenal experience.

So to my listeners, our listeners, if, um, as I go through these, first of all, if any of them sound of interest to you, look them up. Second of all, if you want to know more, you can, um, you know, attention me on the contact line and I'll help you out. Um, let me know. Secondly, I went to, uh, so the other one that's just like, it was called forge leadership network.

It took place in Columbus, Ohio. And so we went to the Ohio state house floor, very, very similar, ran the bills through committee, um, and took them to the house floor and had some speakers that were, I mean, Nationally renowned speakers. Some of them, we even had a CIA, a former CIA operative, which I should have told Taylor about off the air, but I will just remind me, um, just, I mean, incredible story.

He told us some stories now how much, how many of them were, what details were true? I don't know, because he also just told us about how good of a liar he was. And then he tells us all these stories. And then I go, wait a minute. How many of those stories were actually anywhere near accurate? But he was hilarious.

We had, um, we had a lot of people from heritage foundation Alliance, defending freedom, um, all these sorts of places. Incredible, but kind of flipping on that a little bit. So those were two very similar ones, but then I went to one called student leadership university and that one wasn't political really.

Um, but it was just. It was about Christian leadership specifically. Um, but it was really interesting because we brought in good speakers and then we actually had a little bit of fun. This was in Orlando. So we went to a universal studios one day and roll road. Some of the incredible roller coasters I went on.

This is a fun note from that. I went on the best rollercoaster that I've ever been on at universal studios in Orlando. It was awesome. Next time you end up in Florida, you need to go to Bush gardens. Yeah. Well then we went to SeaWorld. We didn't go to Bush gardens, but we went to see where all the other, the other day of that trip.

And, um, we got to do a backstage tour and then they did some, um, analogies. So they took us to dolphin stadium and then they actually taught us about leadership and a relationship. Kind of based off of how dolphins relate with each other super fascinating stuff. An example of this is where, um, there was an injured dolphin and SeaWorld rescue was out there trying to rescue that often, get it out of the water and the rescuers couldn't get to the dolphin because all the other dolphins were swimming around it and swarming it, um, as if the rescuers were like a shark.

So the rescuers couldn't even get to the dolphin because the whole pod protected it. Now, I don't know what happened. You know, obviously it was like dolphins, come on and let us get the other one out. We'll help him. But it was an amazing analogy to, uh, you know, realize what happens when you actually stand in the fence.

Somebody lastly, um, I went to Iowa for something called run gen Z. Now I'm very excited about this organization because. It is an organization of young elected officials, our age, young conservative elected officials who are trying to help other people run. So if that's a passion of yours, highly recommends, um, looking up that organization and you can also talk to me about that.

Uh, contact me on my Instagram or something about that. Um, all that, to say, something I've talked about in the past on our show is getting involved. And so sometimes me being very biased and passionate about, um, my career path so far, I really pushed people to go to public meetings and sign up to run for office.

But this is also a really practical way, looking up some of these organizations to go and participate in because now as a, you know, I mean, I think there's high school just graduated from high school students that are so 18 years old, you can go as an 18 year old and learn how to do the floor. That's an incredible, um, step forward for your political career.

Even if that doesn't come to fruition until much later in your life, you'll understand the process. And I even would venture to say, you'll come to love the process. Um, it's very exciting. It, when you get out on the house floor, um, it's a ruckus because someone gets up and is talking about their bill and, you know, you have people firing questions at them from across from the back of the room.

So they're are on the mic and you have the person up there going, ah, yes, my bill is going to, um, prevent foreign invaders from, and then someone comes up and as they're talking, you just hear Madam speaker and it's just all this ruckus. It's really awesome. Um, so you just get the full experience anyway, all that to say, um, those are just four that I got involved in the summer.

I'm sure there's a thousand more, uh, that you can get involved in, but definitely look into some things that you can go and just, uh, Kind of immerse yourself for four days a week, two days for some of them, um, and really get a leap forward in your, in your path. Awesome. Out of curiosity, mainly cause I know the answer and I went to my own horn a little bit.

What was your bill? My bill was based off of what we've talked about on the show before, which is splitting the Cal state of California into six distinct states. And it was actually really fun to take it through committee. Um, because Taylor and I were pretty United, I think, on our, on our view. Um, but it was very interesting taking it through the committee process, how the different people on my committee interpreted it, what their concerns were, what they were confused about.

You know, I wrote it just like anyone who writes an essay, right? You write it thinking all this is the best thing I've ever done. You submit it. My committee, they all got this look on their face. And someone, someone goes, are you concerned that this would open a can of worms across the country for other states wanting to do the same?

I said, half the point. I said, representative with all due respect. Absolutely. That is exactly what I hope this bill accomplishes. And they said, what about Washington DC and Puerto Rico? Are you, are you bringing up the fact that we have a, a district in our nation right now that doesn't have proper representation yet?

Yes, we are with 3 million people. And I was like, yeah, yes, we should absolutely figure out how to get those introduced into the union. So are you concerned that, and so I actually, but because of those questions, I'm standing there literally, you know, facing the entire committee, the entire panel and I'm firing off back at them and they ended up voting for mine seven to three, but three people were just, no, I, I don't think this is a good idea.

I had someone at the, they don't want to split up to excess. We don't want to split up the exits. I know what they said. They said, isn't this just going to introduce 12 new democratic senators? No, it's not gonna introduce 12 new democratic senators. I said it would actually do the opposite. It would potentially introduce six democratic senators and up to six Republican senators or maybe four with a purple one in the states being purple.

Right. And he said, it's, it's amazing. And, uh, at one of the other conferences, someone goes, so, um, what are the costs associated? I mean, are you going to elect a new governor for each of those. Yes. Are you going to a new legislature for each date? Yes. Yes. And then I said, that's, that's exactly what I'm trying to do.

Um, but I mean, it was just so oh, fun. Um, I ended up amending it because I kind of had to fudge it a little bit in the sense of like, it was kind of out of our scope. Like how do we, how do you actually pass this bill? That was a really interesting question too. That's what got my committee really confused is because I said, okay.

Um, so I had written out the breakup of it and that Taylor actually helped me with, and then I amended it to take that out, to avoid confusion, right. Like, okay. Let's not worry about the actual breakup. Let's just discuss the idea. But then the committee didn't like it at all. So I put all the, I brought all of the divisions back in and said, then made another amendment to say, if a county doesn't like the state that we've put them in, then they can vote to move to the next contiguous state.

And that's how I think we've, we've talked about, we talked about this way a long time ago. If you have no idea what we're talking about, we went through for a couple episodes and kind of discussed breaking up. We use California cause we're from California, but large states to increase representation and procedurally the way you would have to do it for those who are just kind of like what the hell is going on is constitutional.

You, you have to get the state's approval, which is, I would say half the battle, but really, it depends on the federal government, the makeup of the federal government. Um, but it's a major hill. So you have to get the state's approval. Kind of by extension, you sorta have to get each county's approval, but that the counties have less say.

Um, and then once you get state approval, you have to also get federal approval. And it's not as simple as you know, the state of California wants to, the feds can block it and vice versa. The feds can approve it, but the state blocks that it's all moot. So you have to fight two battles. And what we had done, I think you presented six are we've got, and you printed six.

I think we got it down to seven, but I know five. We, we made it back down. I thought we had it, whatever. Yeah. We had a seven. I know I have, I have a version somewhere that's seven and the it's it's what you're trying to do is base it off of, um, economic needs, population, density, culture, culture, culture is huge.

People think California shuts LA and San Francisco for our out-of-state listeners. It's not there's massive state. And I think a great example of this. I actually use this story, at least at the conference sometime is just recently. About two weeks ago, I drove from San Diego up to San Jose in one night.

It was well, one afternoon. Pretty crazy eight and a half hours. Oh eight. Now I'm gonna say that's like a six hour drive and that's the thing, like in eight hours, you're crossing a good portion of the Eastern seaboard. Right. And so what was interesting about that drive is, okay, so we drive through LA, we sit in the horrible LA traffic, so that's actually something in itself.

Um, but then we get, we got get up. Yeah, I know that was the eight hours of the trip. Everything else was like 20 minutes. Um, but uh, we get up over the grapevine and then we're driving through the central valley. And I know you and I have talked about this on the show too, is, um, kind of how, you know, fire policy, water policy, we've talked about some of those things, but when you drive through the central valley and Taylor, um, that's funny.

I actually texted Taylor when we like made a stop when we were in Fresno county, just like 20 miles away or something. But as we were driving up interstate five through the central valley, I see a sign that says, build dams, not training. We need water, please. Somebody give us water and then recall Newsome recall, there's recall.

And I'm going, this is, I mean, completely for all intents and purposes, we're like 45 miles away from Los Angeles. At this point, you know, Southern central valley is still pretty close to LA and yet we've crossed over this mountain and now we just meet all these people who are basically like, we don't want LA telling us what to do.

We don't want San Francisco telling us what to do. We need more autonomy. We need more representation. We need somebody to listen to us. I mean, it almost as a elected official myself, it just hurt my heart to see all these people who were kind of putting up signs, just saying, would somebody please listen to us for a.

And you'll see those signs all the way up to Sacramento. And then I know you kind of skipped them over Sacramento because Sacramento is part of the trio of cities that control the state. And then once you get past Sacramento, you'll start seeing those signs again. Right. And so it really is just, it's amazing to see such a culturally different and economically, that was kind of the thing too.

It's not, you know, when we think of gerrymandering, we think of, oh, we just need this many Republicans in the district. This many Democrats won't, it's not districts are gerrymandered. Like these lines would be drawn in a way that is very, very particular to, um, to the needs of the state. And quite frankly, you know, the central valley would need its own way to, um, irrigate, um, and keep water for itself.

Um, LA. And then it's actually something I talked about in committee and they said, you know, are you, are you advocating for cutting off the awkward arc from LA? Yes. Well, um, if LA, I think for greater, for greater cooperation between the different regions of the west coast, I said, provide a fair, yeah, fair balance.

If LA, think about this for a minute listener, if LA can't sustain itself in a desert, basically, maybe just maybe it, it shouldn't be stealing water from other places across the state. I mean, I don't know if the central valley is officially dubbed America's bread basket, but I mean, it's huge. The, the output, you would know this way better than I do, but the output of the central valley of California is just tremendous.

The stats change year to year. Uh, we produce at least. 35% of basically all the food in the states. This is the last stat I heard and I'm pretty sure it's higher, but at least 35% of all produce for sure. Um, a substantial amount of the beef. Yeah. And we can grow. What's interesting. Here is we can grow right.

Everything from oranges to almonds, to avocados, to apples in certain parts to, yeah. Everything, everything it's, it's truly one of the most unique agricultural centers of the world. And because of Southern California, it's being bled dry. Uh, we have parts of the central valley where the ground has sunk substantial amount of inches.

Because the water has been depleted. Um, the water is funneled out of Norco and the Sierra Nevada's goes right through the central valley. And sure. Some of it's used for irrigation, but it goes to Southern California to, to help sustain the unsustainable city that is Los Angeles. Um, and you know, probably even to a lesser extent, San Diego, I mean, those cities just aren't sustainable.

Yeah. And of course we still the water from Colorado river. Right. Which is also a problem. I mean, this isn't, this isn't a policy that should continue to happen and busting the states to where the states have to cooperate. Like the, the idea that Fresno was going to stop providing water to LA is it's antagonistic at best.

I guess the difference in that case would be that they're actually there's money involved. They could actually, I know they, they could make real decisions for themselves. You know how it's going to go, or don't be surprised when, you know, Act like a state and start terrifying your stuff when it comes in.

I mean, states can do different things. So it provides a little bit more bargaining power and representation because the whole point, the initial point where we started brainstorming at the very beginning was the number of people in Congress is arbitrary. The people don't feel heard, and this is still true.

People do not feel heard. I mean, what was the number we came to? It was like for every representative represents about 700,000 people in Congress or in the state in Congress. Congress is yeah. Somewhere over 700. Yeah. Could you look it up in our state representation was somehow worse. So our state senators, because we have about 40 million people, we have 40 state senators.

So yeah. So our state representation, the 1 million each state Senator. Yeah. And each state assembly member is half of that. So 450,000 or 500000%. And for example, um, people who've listened a long time, know that I'm very critical of Devin Nunez. Devin Nunez is my congressional rep, and I've tried multiple times to try and get in contact with him.

And I've never gotten past his secretary at his desk, um, at the office. And then I know people who have much more clout than I with viable projects during COVID that would have benefited public safety, who couldn't get in touch with the Congressman who cares so much about his district. So how is, how is this a sustainable system when there's a lack of representation?

And that was kind of the premise of the bill. So I'm glad it went well. Yeah. Just let me just give this to the listeners too. Um, because I kinda thought about this for the person listening to this in like five years. Okay. Here's my disclaimer. If you ever try to use this against me, first of all, this is a legal process.

This is not an anarchic process. And secondly, there's historical precedents for this. I just know someone's going to pull this up and say, oh my gosh, he was Herman wants to, yeah, he wants to destroy. He's going against his oath of office against the state of California. This is completely legal because it is the state's prerogative.

If it wants to go through with this, I am not advocating for an illegal, any, any sort of that. Okay. And now that Taylor and I are both becoming more future minded, he's more of the attorney minded. I'm more of the PR minded. I just know someone's going to try to use that against me. It isn't completely constitutional bad press might be a good thing.

Yeah. It's a good place. Completely constitutional process. So, you know, don't even try me, but secondly, um, and I'll just say this. There is amazing historical precedence for this. Um, Taylor and I have talked about this extensively, but the states that have been both broken up in a West Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia, um, that was all one state.

That's now three states. I believe Vermont don't new. No, in fact, Jeremy me on this Vermont is I believe part of New York or something like that. Um, but anyway, so states have broken up like that. Um, and secondly, the reason this is such a big deal about California, more than some of the other states is California is distinctly geographically isolated.

Um, if you come in from the ocean, you come up against the cliffs that we have for a substantial part of the coast. You know, the, some of the original explorers to come over to California actually missed the golden gate because from afar, you see mountains and then the mountains behind it. And so they actually missed the opening to the San Francisco bay.

Um, And then you have Los Angeles and San Diego. So coming from the west and then coming from the east, just ask the Donner party, how easy it is to get into the state of California. I mean, not even to be crass, but it's not. And so you can come in through Palm Springs. I say all that, just because it is my personal belief that when the lines of California were drawn, I really think someone could have looked at it and gone, no one's going to move there.

How are they going to move there? I don't even know how to get into the state. There's two mountain ranges between, um, you know, Nevada and San Francisco, two major, major mountain ranges. And now that we have cars, airplanes, trains, we can get pretty much right past them. But back then, I really think California was just drawn as a big block because it's like, we have no idea how people are actually going to move into this state.

But now here we are 40 million people later. Um, and the golden. Really just needs a lot better representation. The whole country needs representation. And we talked about this too, on those episodes is the idea that we're going to cap, what is it? 4 35, 4 35. Yeah. That's something as a part of this conversation.

I really want to get to the precedent of that because I don't know why we stopped. I don't know why we can't have 436 or 440. Right? What is the beautiful 435 number? I really don't know. Um, and even the 50 states, number someone in committee asked me this. They said, what about our branding? And I said, that's a great question.

You know, the flag that we flew on the beaches of Normandy, that beautiful American flag, you know, how many stars were on it.

Let that one sink in for a second. You know, Arizona was introduced into the union after 1900. So we think of the 50 United States of America, Arizona, right behind me here just celebrated its Centennial. So, you know, when Theodore Roosevelt was president and that doesn't feel too long ago, I would say Arizona, wasn't a real, it wasn't an official state.

So we've been introducing states into the union up until Alaska and Hawaii. So why did we stop? Right. Also when we have territories that at this point, really probably morally speaking should be states. I know they aren't because of political reasons, but places like Puerto Rico, um, especially if it's their will, I, I'm not advocating for imperialism like we should, but if those people want to.

Enter into the United States. Great. And they're basically citizens anyway. I mean, they have a few less rights because they're part of a territory, but at this point, it's, for me, we're playing politics with people's lives in a way that I find reprehensible. You know what I mean? And I also don't think there's any reason why we shouldn't allow people who want to be part of our country from outside our country to be in like, let's just say, Mexico puts it up to a vote and every single province wants to join.

I mean, we would have to facilitate that. Obviously we'd have to make sure it's safe and that we kind of vet the process and, you know, get rid of the cartels. But there's no reason why the U S shouldn't expand if people want to join. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sure if you put it to vote in Mexico, I bet you'd be surprised with the result.

And that would be a huge boon. I mean, that wouldn't be a net net negative on our country. We would suddenly get a entire class of hardworking people who would be thankful for their new Flint newfound, um, citizenship and would work to build their communities up. And with the resources of the greater American population could build it up, could expunge the bat could actually make the place a much better place for everyone involved.

I find it a lot that our culture has decided that we're capping ourselves. And it's just kind of like, this is part of American complacency now. Don't yeah. Again, don't be in Peerless. Don't go taking it by force. Yeah. And you know, I just think it's, so it's such a more recent phenomenon to stop growing and stop developing, you know, and we, we like the status quo, but quite frankly, you know, I think the Republic itself.

You know, we have the status quo of rule of law. You know, of the constitution. We have a lot of things that are designed to be stable. So I'm not advocating for instability and insecurity or anything like that. But when people, if you think about West Virginia splitting from the state of Virginia, they split over the issue of secession, slavery, civil war.

Um, can you think of any reason across the United States that anyone would feel as strongly? Maybe, maybe not. I, I, I wouldn't see North Dakota having any reason to split amongst itself, but could you imagine people in upstate New York having a reason to split from New York city, right. And it's this idea that it, that, that inherently leads to instability.

And it's also not about that at all. And it's also about giving these people a voice. Yeah. And it's also not about division in that sense. It's about the very idea of being able to represent ourselves. And this is a really good idea, especially when you think of San Francisco, let's just say San Francisco's policies are either, you know, really good, really bad.

You obviously, if you've listened to our show, you know where Taylor and I would be on the, on that, uh, spectrum. However, why should San Francisco run the entire state of California? Right. If their policies are so good, Then, you know what they'll, they'll just do just great in there in their little bubble, but it should actually be provided the opportunity to prove the rest of the world wrong.

I mean, right now, California is hindered by its size. You cannot do San Francisco ideas in Kern county. You can't do San Francisco ideas in Redding. You can't do San Francisco like the lesson. There's nobody in lessons, sorry, lesson. Um, you just can't do it. So it would be provided the means to actually be more efficiently divert their resources, their taxpayer resources into their region and prove the country wrong.

Maybe progressivism is the future. It just needs to be on a smaller scale. Who knows? Yeah. And I mean, it, it kind of begs the question too, you know, South Dakota. Bragged about the way it handled the coronavirus. Okay. We can not handle the Corona virus at the same way as South Dakota. No, we, you know, despite my reservations about the way we did actually do it in California, we are different than South Dakota.

And I think that's actually the beautiful thing about that. Like San Francisco. Yeah. Like Taylor just said, let San Francisco try it. And if their policies are so great, people are going to go flocking to it. Um, and the rest of us, however, the reason that's important is because as you can probably realize their policies, maybe aren't so great.

So not only do they need that local representation too, for their people in that region to be able to debate the ideas for themselves, but people also need to be able to, I don't know. I'm just, if, if the policies are so bad, we shouldn't be spreading them across the entire state of California. You know, all the people from San Francisco when San Francisco.

More hellish than it already is. They can now move to one of the glorious, uh, other states of California. Yeah. Do you remember the names that you put in the bill? I've I haven't come up with the names. Gotcha. No, that was kind of the least important thing because, and I did actually come up with yeah.

Taylor and I did actually come up with a real county by county map. And honestly, for anyone who knows California, um, geographically, culturally, I think you would find that it's actually pretty easy. If you come up with a number, it took me like 30, 45 minutes to just go through and let me go. I'm asked to post it in the show notes on contracts.com easily accessible.

Yeah, let's do it. Let's do it. People can look at it. So anyway, um, that's kind of a, we were talking about the bill, but now we rehashed out the idea. Um, oh, the only last thing I wanted to say is kind of to drill the Washington DC point home. Everyone's freaking out about Washington DC because they think it's a power play to get two more democratic senators.

Well, states have always been admitted into the union when we had Slaven free states. Um, they were admitted one by, you know, or I should say political, they don't get admitted until there's a political reason to do it. I will say DC is a little different. Um, the different, like DC is a little speck and there is a clause in the constitution that sort of sets it out as, I don't know if it's like DC, but like there is a district that supposed to be the nation's Capitol.

It's small enough that I almost think that like that the population centers should be moved into one of the states that is surrounding DC. They should just sort of. Because what I found insulting when the Democrats tried to push the see-through was I get their political reasons for doing it. It's guaranteed to blue senators, whatever, whatever they want to control this.

Okay. Whatever. Um, it lets ignoring that it, the, the population of DC doesn't even come close to the population of Puerto Rico. And that to me seems like a gross injustice and honestly, a, um, it's betraying the foundational ideas of this country to think that the elitists who choose to live in DC, who could very easily move into a suburb that is represented by Congress are more important than the millions of people living in standard that are very different from the mainland and Puerto Rico.

Well, I would actually, my only pushback on that is the reason I'm so passionate about Washington DC is because the majority of it is not actually. Um, the it's actually a very, but it could be incorporated into states that are already there much more easily than it could be. No, no, absolutely. No. Um, my, my point exactly for that too, is that, um, I don't know if we've hashed this out on the show before or not.

I think we did, but honestly, I've actually talked to some people at the conference this week. I said, you want to know where the Pentagon is and they go, oh, well, it's in Virginia,

the Pentagon isn't in Washington, DC. Wait, I'm sorry. The largest office building in the world is not actually in the nation's Capitol. The department of defenses, not in Washington. So I thought, wait a minute. So there's two options here. Very simple options. If Virginia can handle having a large federal building, very large, very important, then Maryland could handle having the rest.

Maryland can, if you look at a map of Washington DC, it is painfully obvious, what is Washington, you know, federal buildings and what is residential honestly, or you just, you could just walk down the street of Washington and point. Okay. Big gray building with windows, boom, as the district, not big gray building with windows, boom, that's Maryland.

Right. And you could literally draw the lines around what I would consider, you know, like this really slim district of Columbia. Um, and just make sure there's no residents, right. Or if there are residents, cause I know there are a few places that you can live right around the Capitol. If there are residents say, Hey, just so you know, your, your condo is about to make it into the, um, you know, the district, no representation zones, or just be aware of that.

Um, but you could literally draw a pretty distinct line being that these are square. Around all the federal buildings and say that is the non-represented district of Columbia, and then send all the neighborhoods, um, back to Maryland, including all the way out to, you know, um, the stadium all the way up to, or all the way over to George Washington university and the national cathedral and all that you don't need.

And I just think that's a much simpler way of doing it. I don't think because once you see the problem with making DC, a state is like, well, there's way more people in New York city, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, salt lake city. I mean, Dallas, Houston, Austin, all these big cities would suddenly be like, how come you get to be one?

But we don't. Well not to mention it would almost be the, the reason DC was not supposed to be a state, at least in my understanding is the very fact that they didn't want double representation. No. So the founders had a reason there would be some serious, serious, um, I would even say ethical issues with having the nation's Capitol have representation in the nation's capital.

Right. Have us have senators that w wow. That's, that's amazing. That's kinda, yeah. With, with a city that would be fill like the rep part of who's being represented with the people who are, they're supposed to be represented. It's just a weird, I forget about the Federalist paper or not, but if it is, we'll get to it.

Um, the, the, the founders had a reason. Yeah. And they've actually. And maybe we should actually bring it up sooner rather than later. Um, and, and the nuance there is th there's a, there's a nuance between DC and Puerto Rico. There's a nuance twenties in the Virgin islands and whatever other territories we have that we don't learn about.

Cause their territories. Alrighty. Well, another thing that's been in the news recently to kind of do a hard pivot is the CDC and stuff like that in response to coronavirus Delta, variant, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, has reinstated mask guidelines, not just for the unvaccinated, for the vaccinated as well. Uh, those of you listening to the show could probably guess we're calling.

And I think about that, Kyle, you more, you're more outspoken against the government. I talk less about the government. I agree with the basic libertarian notion that people should kind of be left alone. The government should stay out of this one, especially since I flip-flop so much that they've kind of discredited themselves.

And the more they flip-flop, the more the discredit themselves, uh, the CDC especially has made it clear that they are not a scientific organization. At this point, they are purely political, which is troubling because they're supposed to be scientific and people will say the same thing with the FDA. I can not hold the same opinion that the FDA has actually shown to be a reasonable body during the pandemic, but we can agree to disagree on that if we want to, um, I cannot believe that the, the byte administration and by extension, the federal government has decided that it is a better move to alienate vaccinated people who did their part, as well as the hesitant who have reasons to be hesitant.

Now let's say, we're just going, we're going to punish you if you've done your part, because there are people who haven't done their part, when it's not actually clear, the science is backing their decision. They say it does because the mask work mask, work, mask work, and there's vigorous debate about it.

Um, but the reality of this is even with Delta, when you look at the numbers, vaccinated, people are handling those better, regardless of whether or not vaccinated people are getting infected, because people don't understand, the vaccine never stopped you from getting infected. It stopped you from spreading the disease.

There's a nuance there, but that nuance is important, but I find it interesting that the Biden administration, federal government, and to an extent, state governments have found it to be. A better idea to punish its own citizens, a specialist, citizens who have already done their part instead of holding the parties that are actually responsible, responsible.

So I wanted to sit here and make a proposition. I am I'm at this point, I've gotten vaccinated, uh, 24 years old, I'm young and healthy, the science backs. What I'm about to say, I feel very comfortable that my risk of long lasting damage from COVID is low enough to where I decided that I don't think I should wear a mask, which probably coming from a conservative is not surprising to anybody that being said, I don't intend to wear it where I can get away with it.

And I will change my mind. If the government does this. And I think conservatives maybe should actually sort of adopt this logic if the U S government with this power and state government with their powers, which I do think they can do. There's a whole bunch of legal stuff. That's probably a whole episode by itself, but if you want to bring up, if you want to continue to punish American citizens for something that they had nothing to do with, and you're going to punish those who have done their part, if the U S government holds China accountable for at the very least the failure to contain Corona virus, because of the amount of economic damage has done to this country, let alone the world.

Then I will not complain about wearing a mask, knowing that the people responsible, namely the CCP would be held responsible until then I will be resistant and I will vocalize that resistance. And I think conservatives should make that trade-off, if you want to continue to punish American people for doing the right thing.

Then you need to hold the people who did the wrong thing accountable. I'm not even saying the CCP is responsible for releasing it or that it was made in the lab. That's still out in the jury. We don't know yet, but they did fail to contain it. And they lied to us while they were quote containing it. We know these things were all.

Remember those videos that came out at the very start of the pandemic of Chinese people just dropping in the street at this point, isn't it pretty clear that was propaganda because that didn't happen here. And the Chinese decided to release that. That was a decision that was, that was calculated. So hold them accountable.

And I promise on air. I will not complain about masks. I will wear a mask. That's the deal. And I think I'm not saying this because I think the government cares about my opinion, but I think if conservatives hear this opinion and then spread it themselves, fine, hold them accountable. I don't know what that means.

Canceling debt. That would be what I would do. I would cancel it. I'll start canceling. You've done how much damage all this debt we owe you. You're never seeing it. What are you gonna do? Go to war? I don't think they would. I think China knows I can't actually take us on, um, find something and I'm not talking sanctions for the CCP party members who also hold stakes in large companies.

It doesn't work. It just doesn't work. Actually cripple the country in some way, take away a lot of debt. Take away, major trading advantages, take away something. Maybe, maybe adopt more Trump policy. I don't know. Would you like Kyle? You probably are more strongly opinionated on this than I am. Would you accept that idea and entertain it?

Um, maybe, maybe that is further than I would have gotten without that compromise. Yes. Yes. Talking about the, the Chinese population or not the Chinese government, the Chinese government. Um, if president Biden actually, you know, was being tough on them and it was damage control. Then I would, I would feel a lot better.

Cool. So there you go. If, if I can move the needle, like I just did with Kyle, that means this is doable because I didn't think I could honestly move the needle. So conservatives, think it over. Talk about it with your other conservative friends. Start spreading on Twitter. I'm going to start saying this on Twitter.

Uh, this, this is something that kind of needs to happen. I am so taken. Like I see so much stupid everyday politics. Um, there's a lot of CRT stuff in the news right now and I get it. It's important and there's valid reason to be concerned about it. Um, but a lot of, it's just kind of whatever. I see a lot of useless vaccine talk that's straight up is wrong.

The right is getting the vaccine so wrong. It's really frustrating. Um, how about we pivot go there. That's my call to action for this episode, consider saying I am willing to be pregnant. And I'm willing to say fine if I am going to get punished, because I did my part because of the coronavirus, then the people who are actually responsible for letting coronavirus out into the rest of the world need to be held accountable.

That the political party that runs the CCP and basically every private entity within the CCP within China, because the CCP needs to be held accountable and they need to economically suffer because they are not suffering in the same capacity that the rest of the world of suffering they're an authoritarian state.

They can choose to be extremely efficient against their people. I guess my, my only pushback on that is really, I don't think we should be punishing the people who we should hear at home. So I guess, I guess my pushback, I guess my pushback to you is that I'm a little more, no compromise on this in the sense that that's just what we need to do anyway.

And my. My opinion about the mask doesn't really change where it shouldn't be. It shouldn't be like, I will, I will suffer wearing a mask when I don't need to it, you know, because in that sense that actually opens up something else, which is, oh, I'll listen to uncle Joe. If uncle Joe do does what I want, you know, like I'll wear a mask, even if it's completely unnecessary, completely irrelevant.

Right. That's and that's a premise that I don't fully, fully, like, I think he just needs to go out and do that what you said regardless and not turn around and say, guys, look at what I've done for you now, can you all wear a mask again? And everyone goes, yes. Yes. Uncle Joe. You you stunt, you stood up to China.

We'll do whatever you say. No. So that's, that's I guess a little bit where I would hold the reservation, however, and you're going to be pragmatic, I guess. No, where I would get to where you're at is I know that just talking about the mask as well, but, um, is maybe something more, the mask is just, I don't know where you stand on this, even though we talk almost every like week or two weeks.

Um, but you know, all the stuff coming out about how ineffective the masks are. I think the mask is a little bit different than maybe even the vaccine conversation, quarantining testing. Maybe some of those things here I'll simply put it like this. This is true. Even if you disagree, the premise masks obviously will work to an extent, the difference between a cloth mask versus a N 95.

It's measurable. I'll just leave it at that.

Yeah. I mean, I still, I would say I would be more willing to continue to do whatever the American part is. If America stood up for once on his life, it does not feel like we're standing up right now. There are people who are responsible for releasing this onto the world at the very least lack of containing it.

And they get to make off like bandits and get rich off the pandemic while we continue to suffer. Yeah. That makes no sense. They withheld PPE when we needed it. That was funded. That was created by American companies with American capital and we let them get away with it. That doesn't make any sense.

Hold them accountable. We hold a lot of debt to China. I'm sure it would cause a ruckus if we just said no, what are you going to do? We're a nuclear armed power already moving on in Taiwan. They can start there. You need the back Taiwan. We're ready to go to war for Taiwan. That would be a huge step. It always comes back to American leadership.

America as is an incredible leader. And I say is, you know, we're, we're in a weird time in our, in our history, but our leadership makes a difference around the world. Um, and we need to, you know, and this isn't even to go into the conversation about the police power, the friendly neighbor, whatever you want to call it, our leadership makes a difference and we, we have to be able to use what we have are resources that are available.

To stand up for what is right. And just in this world. And if, you know, if you're listening to this and you think, oh, well, we shouldn't do well. Just think about it. What superpower is going to come next? China's going to run the world. Russia is going to run the world. I don't know. Germany maybe is one that somewhere near there, they're not anywhere near, you know, uh, where Russia and China are, but it's like this idea that we're ashamed of ourselves for how powerful we are.

And I'm not saying, you know, just, I'm not saying we should go out and nation build or anything like that. But when we have the ability to stand firm and to take leadership on a position, we should do it and not be ashamed. And that's, I don't know. That's I don't even think that's being America centric.

It's what any other country should or would do if they were in the same position. That's what a lot of countries are trying to do. They're trying to uphold their version of the events that happen. And they're trying to evoke, uphold what they want. I mean, there is a reason why Russia put their vaccine out as quickly as possible, and they skipped a lot of testing.

You want to talk about sketchy? That that was a little bit more sketchy. Um, there's a reason why, you know, Israel holds the policies they do. It's because they're upholding what they think is right. And they're actually doing it. They're not backing down because of outside pressure, not to do the things they're doing by and large Europe is not backing down.

I mean, the conversation was happening in Europe. Our vaccine passports are mandated. Vaccines are all these different things. And the conversations there are different because they are following their compass in a way that we are. And China is most certainly following through on what it thinks is right.

But, you know, let's just, yeah. Let's, let's sit around and seed our ground because, well, frankly, I think it's not even because we don't think we should. I think it's because we're so distracted on other stupid stuff, which we've talked about agnosia almost to show. So I don't want to beat that horse to death.

Manhole covers, um, the amount of people who talk blindly about vaccine effectiveness, even though they don't know anything about it or the talking blindly about CRT and they don't know anything about it left left-hand right. It's just focus on things that will actually make a difference now. And that is a big one.

The job market here, isn't great. Look around and there are all kinds of people trying to hire for entry level. Positions, they can't fill them. And there's a number of reasons why, but you know, what, if it's going to continue to hurt our pocket book as a nation, then we need the hurt, the pocket book of the nation that caused this and imagine how much that would free up our resources.

We actually have a valid reason. We have a valid reason to just go. No, no. And once we did it, I mean, you really think we couldn't convince our allies to do it. And then can you imagine between the pressure that would pull on China and finally act, and maybe act to the same moral standards of the rest of the world Hills day?

Because don't forget, this is the same nation that basically wiped the foul and gone off the existence who are oppressing the Tibetans and trying to reintegrate them with the sight of the Tibetans don't necessarily agree with who are also, you know, currently oppressing their Wiggers. But we don't want to talk about that.

This is the same country that is openly trying to have a land dispute with India. And Hasso for years at this point between, um, Northern India and also a little sliver, a little closer to the area that would. Vietnam. This is the same country. That's encroaching upon many nations in the China sea, especially at Taiwan.

This is the same country that basically bullies the rest of the world. And the thinking Taiwan does not deserve representation on the world stage. This is the same country that is openly hostile towards, uh, Japan. They have good historical reasons to be, but that also kind of goes both ways. This is the same country that, although it looks like they're buddy, buddy, with Russia, they are not all that buddy, buddy.

They have all kinds of disagreements. This is the same country openly working to try and build up infrastructure, not just here in the states, but throughout the entire country so that they can unseat us in. Dhamma near us with the same belief structure that allows for weaker camps to exist. We have all kinds of valid reasons to do it at this point.

And we'd be vindicated. God be damned what the left is. Think that say otherwise, you know what I mean? Where's w w we just stand up for certain things, and this is one of those things I do. The China issue pisses me off so much as a hill, I will probably die on because why are we letting the CCP, the Chinese people don't need to suffer?

Unfortunately, they may, as a repercussion, the CCP is a dangerous organization that actually wants to arm you. Yeah. And certainly make the dis you know, I'll even make the distinction between, you know, I think where people really like to try to pull the racist card. You know, we talked about this off air, but where they tried to pull the racist card is saying, well, you're, you know, you're anti-Chinese oh, this is, you know, this kind of goes back to internment.

Those kinds of ideas. No, this isn't an ethnic battle between, you know, white people and Chinese people. This is a, um, this is a political battle. The communists and, um, capitalist, you know, yeah. How many Chinese are here on student visas? The Chinese had a brilliant populace. The Chinese are able to do what they do because there are great people they're dictated by a murderous regime.

I have no animosity towards a Chinese person whatsoever. The world would be better if they were free. I know. I mean, and this goes for, I, and I know kind of in this larger conversation, we're all having about, um, Asian, Asian racism, Asian hate crimes, those kinds of things like this is not about, this is not about Asians.

Um, this really is about a communist government. Um, and we just. Call evil, what is evil and what they're doing, um, is particularly that. And just to build off of your point a little bit, you know, just a small but meaningful example of what happens when the U S takes leadership. I always think back to the embassy in Jerusalem, you know, that's still a hot topic to this day.

I'm sure. But all the nations of the world who had embassies in Israel had a mentor, including us, I've seen it. Um, it was pretty cool actually to see the big American flag flying in Tel Aviv. And I was like, there's the embassy. Um, but all of a sudden, the United States, we move ours. Right. And everyone knows about that.

But what we don't talk about is what happened after that other countries that did the same, they said, oh, wow, they're finally gonna. The United States is going to do it. We're going to do it too. Now, unfortunately off the top of my head, I can't think of which those are, but I believe Guatemala was one of them.

Um, I believe there were some African nations that did it too. They were floored by the American leadership. And I suppose they could have done it on their own too, if they wanted to, but they were looking, you know, when our embassies over here, they're sitting there scratching their heads. Like gee, if the big man isn't willing to make the move, I don't think, I don't think we are.

And then we finally, we did it and they said, sweet, let's do it too. And I think some of them were within days or weeks of us moving. They said, let's do it. And they moved. There's two. Um, that's a, you know, very micro example of what happens when the big man on the block, the United States. Does it, um, and follows through and it gives courage to other other nations.

Absolutely. All right. So I think those are the two big topics we wanted to go through. Do we want to announce the changes that we're going to make to the show? I think so. That would be great. All right. Cool. So Kyle and I had been struggling through, uh, we can, we, these types of episodes can be difficult when we're talking about the day-to-day, especially since it feels like recently the day-to-day politics hasn't really changed.

We were, we started the show and I think we did a good job when we started, uh, being different, trying not to be just another political commentary show. Uh, uh, you know, I advertise regularly that we're not another binge pro club because there's enough of those already out there. We want to add them under the table and we wanted to take more of an academic approach.

We are going to start guiding the conversations between Kyle and I specifically behind. Historical documents and other historical tidbits. And then we're going to tie everything back in to what makes conservatism conservatism in the U S and how it's affecting us today or not affecting us today. Uh, we're going to start with, yes, we're going to do it here.

I don't know what we're going to start with. We're going to do the Federalist papers. We're going to go through them. Uh, we'll talk about a couple per episode as we start talking. Same thing for parts of the constitution. I know I've done the declaration for the 4th of July this year, but we'll probably come back and do that again.

Just so it's an actual episode on the feed. That's not a special holiday thing, and I think it will be, be really pivotal in trying to understand what it is that makes conservatism take and why conservatives believe the things they do. I think there's a huge misunderstanding and branding issue. If you want to call it for why we think the way we do this is what we opened our show with.

We're going to sort of return to that, but we're going to return. With some notes from actual documents from past, because so many people want to say things like, you know, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, but like, what does that mean? Where did they come from? What were the founders actually thinking?

And why is it important that we keep those things going to the future? So Kyle and I will be doing that. The guest formats probably won't change. We will still continue to talk about political topics. And with guests, it's often easier to do it the way that we do it right now, but expect a change, a shift from the conversations that Kyle and I have to be a little bit more academic and I think a lot more interesting, we think, I think so.

Um, you know, since I started my master's program, um, I've found myself quoting the declaration of independence a lot. I wouldn't say in every single paper. Probably most of my papers, I've at least put in something from the preamble, something from the, uh, the grievances. And I actually have, uh, a doc saved on my, in my, uh, homework folder of just the text of the declaration of independence.

So I can go directly onto there and pull it off. I have it, the citation saved in my, in my, you know, Microsoft word. So I can just throw it right back in. Um, it's an incredible document when you get past. And I love some of the opening words. When we talk about life, Liberty pursuit of happiness, um, all men are created equal.

I've quoted those parts too. Amazing. However, the document is just so, so rich when you get past the first sentence, when you get past the preamble, I think Taylor and I might have actually talked about this on one of our recent episodes, but when you get into the grievances and you understand it even helps you to understand the revolutionists.

'cause we, we might have our 30,000 foot ideas about what is revolution. Is it okay as a justified, right? When we see people like Antifa rioting in the streets? Well, is that an American idea? Is it not right? Is violence is revolution. And then you go through the declaration of independence. I actually thought about this on my flight home yesterday.

And you see, I think one of the key lines in the declaration, just as an example for you guys, is where it says at this moment he is sending troops over. And it talks about that. It talks about how he's ravaged the coasts and all these sorts of things. And it, and it's kind of funny because they also call him a tyrant.

I love the line where it says, you know, um, it's a right inestimable to them and formidable the Tyron's only, um, if the shoe fits. So not only is it rich historically, it's actually, um, it's kind of a funny document too, when you get some of those, was that a dig? Was that an insult? I think it was. Um, and I think, you know, just hearing the document and especially a lot of the other ones really does make you go, oh, um, kind of, yeah.

Getting past some of our current conversations, some of our current rhetoric, you know, Taylor and I have talked about separation of church and state, we've talked about, um, I mean, you know, we've kind of. In our culture, we've exhausted some of the talking points, but what if we go back and see what's in the Federalist papers and, and I bet we'll be surprised what talking points we're getting wrong.

Uh, and as a, as a quick teaser for where I think this project will take us, uh, the, the vaccine mandates for states are actually allowable. I'll just leave it at that and let the viewer go. Like

it's constitutional idea. Thanks for watching. We'll catch you in the next one.

040 - Katie Trent - Conservatives NEED a refocus.

Katie Trent is a listener from Arizona who believes more reasonable and moderate conservatives need to speak out. We have an awesome conversation concerning conservatives, republicans, democrats, and what the different groups do right/wrong. Be sure to follow Katie on Twitter: @KtTrenta

Support us by:

Sharing the show with your friends!

https://store.contrarix.com

http://contrarix.locals.com

Where to find us:

Taylor: @contrarix on everything.

Kyle: @VoteKyleHermann on Instagram and Facebook

Music By: Garrett Vandenburg

[00:00:00]Taylor Ealand: [00:00:00] And we are live. Anything you say can and will be held against you in the court of public opinion. My name is Taylor. This is contrary because I have a new baby to the podcasting scene with me today. No, Kyle, he's still traveling. I have Katie Trent, you are a master student studying in the world of psychology human behavior.

[00:00:25] And you recently were on the Joe Mobley show when you were actually a hand picked recommendation from Joe, like right after recording, which he's never done for me before.

[00:00:37] Katie Trent: [00:00:37] That's

[00:00:37] Taylor Ealand: [00:00:37] it must've been good.

[00:00:39] Katie Trent: [00:00:39] Thanks Joe.

[00:00:39]Taylor Ealand: [00:00:39] And for those of you who have listened to Joe Mobley on my show and on his. He's a friend of the show.

[00:00:44] So Katie you're on a conservative show. You've decided that you want to enter the realm of podcasting and you've picked quite possibly the worst topic and that's politics all OD the American. So I suppose we should probably start there. What does the word conservative mean to you?

[00:01:02]Katie Trent: [00:01:02] When I think of conservative, I think of the constitution and what the founding fathers expected or were planning for the country and for the citizens. And to conserve that, conserve our rights and make sure that's not impeded on by the government. That's pretty much how I would sum it up

[00:01:19] Taylor Ealand: [00:01:19] Sounds like a staunch constitutionalist right there.

[00:01:23] Katie Trent: [00:01:23] a little bit. Yeah,

[00:01:24] Taylor Ealand: [00:01:24] It's a good, it's a good document to base your beliefs off of. Okay. So then when you look at the Republican party, then what do you think?

[00:01:30]Katie Trent: [00:01:30] I just think that, to be honest, it's the party that is biting the most for those rights right now. I don't think. They do it perfectly. I don't think that there's a lot of conserving and the Republican party going on right now. But I do think that their main goal is aligned more to the constitution and kind of those rights as citizens and making sure that, our rights are not taken away more than I guess the democratic party.

[00:01:54] So that's pretty much my Mo why I'm more Republican than

[00:01:58] Taylor Ealand: [00:01:58] Got you. So you sound like a cautious Republican

[00:02:01] Katie Trent: [00:02:01] cautious. Yes, definitely.

[00:02:03] Taylor Ealand: [00:02:03] All right. And what about the Democrats? Just make it hard for you.

[00:02:06]Katie Trent: [00:02:06] I think that it's the lack of reality and a lot of their policies, I think, or just the lack of even foreseen how policies are going to turn out and how they are going to negatively affect a lot of people that they claim to, be wanting to help. So I think it's just the lack of realistic.

[00:02:25] Ideas in the democratic party that I can get behind.

[00:02:29] Taylor Ealand: [00:02:29] Sure. So when you say lack of realistic ideas, let's just throw a couple of other, I am, Republicans love to pick on the green new deal. So I'm sure you're probably not. You're probably thinking about that type of stuff. What else comes to mind when you think of they have ideas, but they're not realistic.

[00:02:41]Katie Trent: [00:02:41] I think that. Yeah, the green new deal is definitely a huge

[00:02:43] Taylor Ealand: [00:02:43] It's the

[00:02:44]Katie Trent: [00:02:44] Yeah, it's the one where it's just like a ton of spending where it's almost just let's be realistic about what we can actually expect people to be able to do people to be able to afford. I also think, a lot of

[00:02:54] Taylor Ealand: [00:02:54] Yeah,

[00:02:55] Katie Trent: [00:02:55] Medicare for all is a very difficult thing to do and to say it's going to be very easy.

[00:02:59] It's just something we should all do. It's going to take a lot of planning and I don't have the belief that they're able to. Plan, something like that and implement it to the way that it would be productive for everybody. I see it being a disaster. If that party is going to be, like similar to just the way that stimulus checks went out to everybody or how unorganized, things are, I worry if that's our healthcare, I don't want it to be that, that unorganized.

[00:03:21] So things like that where I'm like, wait a second, let's really plan this out and is it really possible? And I feel like there's more messages going out Hey, we need to. going to do this and it's like, how are you going to do this? Like, how is that actually realistic? I would say, things like that, just the spending and the lack of understanding of the repercussions of some policies,

[00:03:39] Taylor Ealand: [00:03:39] gotcha. So have you always been conservative or most that story?

[00:03:46] Katie Trent: [00:03:46] always been pretty centered. I even would say a lot of social issues. Like I'm not very far right by any means on a lot of things. I think that, like your personal social rights, I don't really care if it doesn't affect me personally or my family, I don't care what you do, type attitude.

[00:04:05] And I've always had that. If you're not really hurting anybody else who cares what you do, who cares, who you married, who cares? Whatever. So I've always been like that. I just, to be honest, I don't like the. I've become more Republican in the past few years, I would say, especially with toxin, gun rights and things like that, where I'm just like, wait a second.

[00:04:25] I don't want the government really I'm impeding on certain things. So that's where I've moved a little bit more, right? The past few years.

[00:04:33] Taylor Ealand: [00:04:33] And then has politics always been an interest or is this kind of as you've been moving, have you been getting more interested?

[00:04:38] Katie Trent: [00:04:38] No, growing up, I really didn't have much and my dad was, yeah. He's a corporate lawyer, but always really into politics and knowledgeable. And so I grew up around it and having the discussions and, hearing about it, but not ever being that interested in, I don't know what happened to me, but something like where I'm like, I think it's more like you realize what's actually going on around you as an adult.

[00:05:00] And you're like, where your tax money's going, what's actually happening. And you can read into this and you're like, wait a second. I don't like certain things. And from there it snowballed yeah. My pastime time, which is a very weird thing to say, but when I get home, I want to read through Twitter and

[00:05:13] Taylor Ealand: [00:05:13] now I understand it's kinda my pastime to us. If masochistic, in a sense when you've entered the political arena and taken that up as your hobby. Although I don't do the Twitter thing, so I guess you're more dedicated than I am.

[00:05:27] Katie Trent: [00:05:27] No, I don't read comments and I don't go into the deep end, too much. I don't know. I think that I get a lot of like my articles and stuff. You find some good journalists and just follow them, but yet it's not a dead, healthy place

[00:05:40]Taylor Ealand: [00:05:40] That's a good place to go. All right. So a lot, most people's politics is really influenced primarily by the news they read. So you, that, that was a little brilliant streaky got there. So who do you read and why?

[00:05:55] Katie Trent: [00:05:55] Like news-wise that's very difficult, I try to. If I find a topic that I see trending or notice a lot of people, posting about I usually go to, Dr. Phil or some search engine, and I try to find local news articles and things that are not tied to, the mainstream media, because at this point I don't trust any of it.

[00:06:19] I don't trust Fox. I don't trust CNN. So I really don't have a specific it's really hard. I feel like a lot of it's very difficult to find true reporting these days. And it's I think that's the most dangerous part of our country right now is that this lack of, actual information that we're able to access.

[00:06:38] So I try to go local. If I know it was an event happened, I try to find something that, you know, somebody that lives there that wrote about it and go that route because

[00:06:45] Taylor Ealand: [00:06:45] Are there any pundits you follow?

[00:06:48] Katie Trent: [00:06:48] No, I don't have any. Specific who are yours? Should I follow? Should I make a list?

[00:06:54]Taylor Ealand: [00:06:54] It's hard, but I hesitate to. Flesh it out too much. So I listened to people like and I don't listen to them consistently, so I go through a rotunda, with whoever I'm in the mood for. Sometimes it's Ben Shapiro's sometimes if I just need like the, know what the right, the pulse of the everyday, is thinking, I'll go to Steven Crowder. Rubin is, he's he's getting red pilled hard, but he's still center ish. So there's Rubin there's Tim pool.

[00:07:16] Katie Trent: [00:07:16] I liked him pull. I do, and that's the thing is that a lot of them are like considered bar. And I get it. There's some times that I'm like, I don't really agree with some of what they're saying, but I do I do Deborah abandon a lot in temple is

[00:07:28]Taylor Ealand: [00:07:28] And I make it a point to tell people it's a good way to figure out what someone's dialogue. Like I will read the New York times. I will read CNN. I actually, the one that I hate the most is actually Fox. It's just, I don't know what it is about how they handle their business, but yeah.

[00:07:42] Always ring. It always rings. Alarm bells were, the CNN, New York times MSNBC. I know what to expect from them. Fox seems a lot more wishy-washy and playing both sides in this really weird way. And it's like the worst of both sides. So I never feel like I'm actually getting something real for them.

[00:07:57] And perhaps that's just because the propaganda has worked on me. I don't know. But yeah, so

[00:08:01] Katie Trent: [00:08:01] If you say that it hasn't. Okay.

[00:08:03] Taylor Ealand: [00:08:03] All right. Maybe. So it's one of those things where it's I often ask conservatives if you're only listening, like hardcore types, I'm thinking, Michael Knowles who's the other daily wire one.

[00:08:15] The is a good example too. To an extent Hannity, all of that tends to be an age related thing. And then what is the other one from the daily wire? He annoys the piss out of me. He's like hyper Christian, whatever. Anyway, if you're only like paying attention to those extreme types, it's kinda okay, you need to walk it back a little bit.

[00:08:34] You know what I

[00:08:35] Katie Trent: [00:08:35] sure. And

[00:08:36] Taylor Ealand: [00:08:36] not that they don't have their place, but

[00:08:38] Katie Trent: [00:08:38] Yeah. And that's the thing is I don't follow those, the fire, but I do felt like Shapiro and Dave Rubin and actually Dave Ruben has the locals that I said, I follow his locals page. So I, see some of his, a lot of his stuff that he uploads there and I do like it, but again, I get like topics and I take it with a grain of salt and I, go to try to find, other articles and, even see if a left.

[00:09:01] Media is covering any event and go from there. Cause I'm, I'm skeptical on all ads, to be honest at this point, I don't know where to find correct information at

[00:09:11]Taylor Ealand: [00:09:11] That, that leads me to the obvious question then. What do you think of Trump?

[00:09:14]Katie Trent: [00:09:14] I think Trump did a lot of good, I think that he had policies that People fail to even acknowledge were good ones, when it comes to immigration and the middle east and, really just I think the best thing that Trump did is open people's eyes to how corrupt both political parties are.

[00:09:33] And really opened our eyes to big tech and the media and everything like everything that we're talking about right now and not being able to find this information and actually questioning it. I think he brought that to the surface. So I think he was, to be honest, I wish that somebody changed his Twitter password the first year of his presidency that I wished exactly.

[00:09:51]I just wished that, lot of it's like people don't like a lot of the things that he said, and neither did I cringed a lot. And so I wish I could just like, if you race just the cringy annoying stuff that he would do. Some of it was really good. So I it's frustrating cause it's if he can't see past that, obviously he sounds terrible and he's an actress, but I do think he did a lot of good.

[00:10:11] And I think he opened a lot of eyes to issues that probably have been going on for ever and people just ignored or didn't know.

[00:10:19] Taylor Ealand: [00:10:19] Yeah, people are really good at not being able to look past giving grandpa phone and Twitter. That's that was the gist I got from his feed. I was like, oh, this is what happens when Nika grandpa Twitter. This was my grandpa's shit. Now Twitter.

[00:10:31] Katie Trent: [00:10:31] Yeah. And to be honest, like Biden's interviews currently right now, you're like, let's, they cut him off. Cause he doesn't get to the point where he's saying the things and sometimes he gets a little bit, rambling, but they tie them in. He's not allowed to say probably half.

[00:10:45] Comes to its head or doesn't sit long enough to be asked those questions, but Trump just went on and on and nobody stopped him. And I don't know if anybody could stop him. He has that personality, but that's the one thing that was so frustrating because it's like, a lot of stuff is actually going right now for the country, but we're failing to recognize it because of the personnel.

[00:11:03] Taylor Ealand: [00:11:03] So if Trump's the Republican nominee in 2024, it sounds like you will support him. Even if you're going to accept the caveat of he's grandpa on Twitter.

[00:11:13] Katie Trent: [00:11:13] Yeah, I can, to be honest, I can look past that. He's not on Twitter, right? Is he ever going to be back on Twitter? That's another thing is it's I would prefer it's not Trump, I would prefer a new candidate. I don't

[00:11:24] Taylor Ealand: [00:11:24] All right. You are Kendred spirit. Who do you prefer?

[00:11:28] Katie Trent: [00:11:28] to say.

[00:11:29] Taylor Ealand: [00:11:29] Scientists. All right. Let's say,

[00:11:31] Katie Trent: [00:11:31] Scott. I would say to Sansa, Scott would be my ticket that I would like to see a big round Rand, Paul fan too.

[00:11:37] He's got more of the libertarian that I liked,

[00:11:40] Taylor Ealand: [00:11:40] Yeah. Ram Paul. It's hard because like I liked him a lot when I was in high school, which was, would have been almost eight years now. Holy shit. And just thinking that through his life, he looks so much older and tired now, like ramp hall almost looks like he's done with the fight. And I feel like he's really one of the only Republicans who's been consistently fighting

[00:12:02] Katie Trent: [00:12:02] And he was libertarian, right? He was.

[00:12:04] Taylor Ealand: [00:12:04] well, he's part of the libertarian wing of the party.

[00:12:07]Katie Trent: [00:12:07] The one that's there,

[00:12:08] Taylor Ealand: [00:12:08] he's the one in the Senate.

[00:12:11] Katie Trent: [00:12:11] but ran Paul, I do think though that he was vocal during COVID. I think that with Fowchee and interviewing him and questioning him, I should say I think he was pretty aggressive, but that stuff I feel like other than ran pod and didn't see a lot of that going on by the Republicans, not at least.

[00:12:27] Taylor Ealand: [00:12:27] Okay.

[00:12:28] Katie Trent: [00:12:28] Cause I do like the things that ran Paul's chooses to speak up against. I liked, and I wish that there was more of that in the conservative or the Republican party. I think that's what Republicans are terrible at is battling through. And, they make outrage about something and then it's over the next day.

[00:12:44] It's like they never actually fight. And I do think that Rand, Paul is one that does do that. At least, in Congress and tries to get.

[00:12:51] Taylor Ealand: [00:12:51] Okay.

[00:12:52] Katie Trent: [00:12:52] Especially when it comes to COVID and vouchers, everything that was going on with that.

[00:12:55]Taylor Ealand: [00:12:55] So you mentioned you liked Santas Scott, so you're already Kyle's best friend if he was on. Yeah he likes Tim Scott a lot and he loves to Santos I'm sure. But we haven't really talked about him much, actually. The Santas to me, seems like a very Trumpy and figure just slightly, not slightly, just a much better politician.

[00:13:15]Mainly because he is a politician. So is that the appeal? It's kinda like you get Trump without grandpa.

[00:13:20] Katie Trent: [00:13:20] Kinda yeah, like a Polish, he says the things you want to Trump to say the way you want it to say him without, making a fool out of themselves. And still making a point to be heard and fight for. A lot of these rights that, a lot of these states are giving. Here and there, and he is really held his ground, especially during COVID and things like that.

[00:13:41]I do like the way that he delivers a message, which is the opposite of what Trump could do, I think. And he does it in a way that, you listen to him when he speaks and he makes good points. He makes them clear. And I that's, I wish we had more of that in the Republican party. Cause it's just a strong voice, my grandpa, and I think that Scott as well.

[00:13:59]I think that he really connect when he's speaking and I wish there were more women in the Republican party that I could get behind, but there aren't any right now that I would be excited for, to see on a ticket. I

[00:14:12] Taylor Ealand: [00:14:12] It's interesting. You say that. Cause like my pick for 20, 24 has been the same for a couple of years now. And it's a woman and she's been quiet recently and I think that, I think it was a very calculated move. She'll probably come back up next year. I'm a big Nikki Haley.

[00:14:27] Katie Trent: [00:14:27] Okay.

[00:14:28]Taylor Ealand: [00:14:28] Cause you have the she has a proven track record as governor.

[00:14:31]She wasn't wishy washy. Was she's what I think Kristi Noem wants to be. And she's also got the UN side of her. So she can be very tactful when she's acting as president, which, Trump was terrible dealing with foreign leaders. We can agree on that doesn't mean that his taxes didn't have a place or weren't sometimes correct, but like his engagement with say the president of France just isn't wasn't good.

[00:14:57] It just wasn't good. We're Nikki Haley has the diplomat, but Nikki Haley. Is a conservative and isn't an attack dog just in a political sense. So you don't see it. She's, prim proper. This is going to sound slightly misogynistic, but it is relevant in politics. She's pretty, it can put an image up there and

[00:15:18] Katie Trent: [00:15:18] I like her and that's funny you use it. My dad is a huge McKayla fan and he wants to see her be the next president. But, I just, so I like her, but what I worry about, or when I think about it, in a way she lost a lot of Trump supporters which I don't understand why I, don't

[00:15:33] Taylor Ealand: [00:15:33] Trump's supporters are hard to understand.

[00:15:35] Katie Trent: [00:15:35] They are very

[00:15:36] Taylor Ealand: [00:15:36] I say this as a Trump voter. I do not understand Trump supporters.

[00:15:40] Katie Trent: [00:15:40] No, like I don't write nothing. I don't think anything she did was. Worth hating her for, but I do think that she lost a lot of those votes. By the way she handled, everything was the end of his presidency and she went back and forth a little bit supporting him and then, and then went back to him.

[00:15:58] So I think that I liked her. I just don't know if she would be able to earn their boat back. That's what I would worry about

[00:16:06] Taylor Ealand: [00:16:06] Yeah, it's hard though, because, and an L Kyle and I always talked about this a little bit on the show, so I'm not breaking new ground here. The issue with the Trump takeover is that it has brought on a lot of people who are masquerading as conservatives and conservative to me is not Republican conservative to me is I believe in American ideals.

[00:16:29]I traced the origins of those ideals to the declaration of independence specifically. And from that the rest follows. And I want to use those ideals to PR to propel my country forward. That to me is conservative. Isn't saying no. And conservative isn't I hate Democrats and conservative.

[00:16:45] Isn't. I'm a populace and I vote for Trump. You know what I mean? Where I see a lot of Trump voters are populist and populism has a time and a place, but it's also a fire and it's a fire that can get out of control very quickly. And now I see a lot of Trump supporters who are trying to excommunicate as many quotes, wishy washy conservatives, like myself, the day view as enemy rhino, whatever much like the left to done with moderate Democrats.

[00:17:13] And I'm concerned that they're going to drive the party with politicians in a bad direction to where there will be no conservative party at all. Like the Republicans at least are somewhat conservative, But I'm not convinced that the hardcore and hardcore Uber minority, what super loud queue type Trump populous voters, yeah.

[00:17:37] Are going to drive us off of the cliff, much like the AOC types are driving the Democrats off a cliff. if we

[00:17:46] Katie Trent: [00:17:46] That's what I'm seeing happen. That's what I'm worried about right now is that, we have it's almost like extremist just ruin everything, right? Like on both sides. If they just they're the loudest, they're small group, but they're the loudest group and they're stupid and they're irrational and they're emotional.

[00:18:02]And it's it's frustrating. Cause this is politics. These are supposed to be very realistic things that we're talking about at school. How do we implement things for the entire country? That's good for people, not because you love the politician like that. It's just so frustrating that you, that they are not able to get past, Trump, their Lord and savior, and actually focused on what's next for the party.

[00:18:24]It's holding us back and I don't want another 20, 20, I don't want to do that again. I want to move on and, go for it. People that we feel good about. And that kind of have to repeat that the, how we were in, as good as some of the stuff was, it's I don't want to do it again.

[00:18:37] I don't want to,

[00:18:38] Taylor Ealand: [00:18:38] I really don't want to hear about my president every day for four years. Like it does get tiring. There were parts of the Trump presidency where I was am I going to be able to vote for this orange fool? And then he would do something really good and I'll be like, okay, fine. I'll vote for him.

[00:18:50] And then it would be like six months of just misery which really shows the power of the media at the end of the day. Because I'm not listening to anything anymore because I'm so tired of it. And all the Biden, derangement syndrome coming from the right. I'm just not listening. I don't care.

[00:19:01] Katie Trent: [00:19:01] Yeah that's the thing is Biden and Trump both could shoot themselves in the foot without the media having anything to do with it, but it's they make it even so much worse and you know that this echo chamber on Twitter and everything else, clubhouse even now there's no like reality.

[00:19:16] It's like, where are the normal people? Looney tunes

[00:19:20] Taylor Ealand: [00:19:20] Normal people are living their lives. That's what they're

[00:19:23] Katie Trent: [00:19:23] true. So what are we doing here? I know, but that's why I think it's important. Like I want to talk about this stuff because I know there's people that are like I don't want to talk to that person about politics cause they're like insane, but there has to be somebody that, is some rational thinking person that.

[00:19:37] Has some of my views. And I think that's what clubhouse was originally good for is that you found people that you're like, all right, I'm not crazy. We're not, I don't fit into this group or this group, but I feel like there are people that think like me. So I think that's why podcasts like yours and Joe's are so important because it's hard to get these normal voices out there.

[00:19:54] We're not loud and we're not crazy. So we don't really get heard much.

[00:19:59] Taylor Ealand: [00:19:59] This was something I tried to get across on clubhouse. I got into a lot of fights with Republican operatives who are much more right. Leaning, quote, conservative by their definition, not mine than I am. And they, and, with call me naive and whatever, what I was trying to get them to understand is.

[00:20:16] The people who matter are not armchair pundits. They're not people like you. They're not people like me. They're not people like the whatever opera that I'm talking to, who's boasting about how close they are to Trump on clubhouse. You guys are important, but you don't drive them politics. It's a political people voting based off of what they see coming out from.

[00:20:36] The political people in their lives. And there are not enough political people you're pointing, you're painting this brilliantly who are reasonable it right now. We're giving microphones to the worst of both sides because we're trying to finger point. And so I see they're crazy. No, they're crazy. No, they're crazy.

[00:20:52] And it's like, when you're a regular person and you have these conversations with a political people or people who only get involved every four years, they just go, I don't know, I just want to go to work, hang out with my kids and not worry about food being on the table. That's all they care about.

[00:21:09]Katie Trent: [00:21:09] And I think that's what Republicans do wrong is they don't know how to get their messages through to those people or to make it in a way that, I think Democrats are better at getting their message

[00:21:18] Taylor Ealand: [00:21:18] They're much

[00:21:18]Katie Trent: [00:21:18] The target at selling what they want to do. As unrealistic as it might be, they're able to make it sound realistic and they're able to, make you believe that they're going to do it.

[00:21:26]It rarely happens, at this point it's

[00:21:27] Taylor Ealand: [00:21:27] If nothing else, that's virtuous.

[00:21:29] Katie Trent: [00:21:29] Exactly, but they're good at it.  that's how they get votes and Republicans are terrible in it. I don't think that they get their message across in a way that's productive at all.

[00:21:38] Taylor Ealand: [00:21:38] And they tend to focus on weird things too. Like right now there's so much culture war stuff. And it's funny because now suddenly Republicans and conservatives care about the culture. When they've done everything in their power to abandon every realm in the culture. Republicans have left, Hollywood Republicans have left academia, Republicans have left sports, then they're even leaving the church.

[00:21:58] And then they bitch and moan a about the fact that there is no conservative meat. Culture. And now we're losing the culture wars. Now we have to fight the culture war. It's you can't fight the culture war with politics.

[00:22:08]Is downstream of that, but there's, that's like the hot topic and we can't move past on that.

[00:22:13] Meanwhile, we have China knocking on our door, which is a huge issue that people do not understand the scale

[00:22:21] Katie Trent: [00:22:21] threat to our country always has been.

[00:22:23] Taylor Ealand: [00:22:23] Quite possibly ever. Yes. Huge issue. We have issues like human trafficking, which if you've ever had that conversation with Joe, if you haven't, you need to second biggest crime period in the country.

[00:22:35] If not the world in that's bigger than petty theft and that's happening here right now in our country. But we're bitching about what Emma Watson said last week, like who cares

[00:22:47]And.

[00:22:47] Katie Trent: [00:22:47] the thing is it's all a distraction, right? We don't get to focus on the actual. Issues because what is our government doing about any of

[00:22:55]Taylor Ealand: [00:22:55] And a political people does, do not care what Michael Knowles thinks about rap. Now, if you want better values in the culture, support the people who are making. Things that people like, like rap also saying your message, there are people like Tom McDonald, I'm going to get labeled a racist for mentioning his name, support him.

[00:23:17] If if you believe in conservative values and he's actually out there making waves, don't dismiss them because he's a rapper with tattoos on his face. He's making the culture you want. That's what culture is. Make movies, make poems, make paintings, get in the arts, get in the humanities, take back the field

[00:23:34] Katie Trent: [00:23:34] Yes, look past these that's. We're in 2021, w let's look past tattoos at this point. Let's, and I'm all for it. Like I'm not even, I'm not religious. But I'm all for freedom of religion. I think that's slowly going away, which seems insane to me that even Republican come on guys sports.

[00:23:53] At what, how did sports now turn to

[00:23:57] Taylor Ealand: [00:23:57] one cares what the basketball player

[00:23:58] Katie Trent: [00:23:58] what far left is this is like a great, but of course they're sending the message that, that the Democrats want. So I think that, I guess they get more democratic fans now, but I would think conservatives would be more of the sports Watchers and out of the two groups, but right now if they're willing to send the messages, because they're getting paid by the people that want them to send those messages like LeBron and everything, then they do it.

[00:24:20]They know who to target and where to get their messages across and heard it from. And it's dangerous though, because it's like Democrats set the scene, they wanted to talk, these, what is it, the PC, politically they wanted to do that go that route and they've taken it, tenfold and now Republicans. Pretending to care and trying to take back what they've lost over the few years. That it's really, since Obama, I think it started, but it's frustrating though, because it's like, these are not the topics that Republicans are good at talking about. They're not the topics that Republicans should be talking about because they are terrible at talking about them.

[00:24:53] But the topics that are actually important, like you said, China, sex trafficking, platinol these opioids like this. Is detrimental to our country right now. And you don't hear about it hardly at all. It's rare that I go through Twitter or anything and see anybody posting anything. Actually, that's a threat to our country right now.

[00:25:12] And that's pretty scary. To be honest,

[00:25:14] Taylor Ealand: [00:25:14] Right now, I don't want to red pill or red pill, black pill, the listener too much. I will say this 4th of July was significantly better than last year. So like conservative media is all up in arms because certain people said certain things about the 4th of July, which they come from the same people every year, ignoring them.

[00:25:33]I'm recently out of grad school law school, whatever. I'm not too far removed from undergrad. Most of my friends are still very heavily Democrat. If they're ever going to leave the bubble. I don't know. I'm a Californian.

[00:25:44] Katie Trent: [00:25:44] Yep.

[00:25:45] Taylor Ealand: [00:25:45] I saw virtually no America bashing this year on the fourth. And that is huge. Now maybe it's because orange man's out.

[00:25:51] I don't know, but also take those wins because I think a lot of people in the last year have, like they've seen on the BLM. A lot of them saw the flip-flop with COVID. A lot of people were whoa, what's. Especially with the lab leak thing. I was talking to a Brit yesterday. And even she was like, I think I now understand what conservatives in America mean when they don't trust the media, because that was so obvious and so blatant with the whole lab leak, flip I don't know how anybody missed it.

[00:26:22] Katie Trent: [00:26:22] and that's the thing is I even, I've seen a lot. Democrats are, not far left or whatever finally say, to me like, yeah, that's not something's off there like that. I think that lab lake was like the moment where they're like, wait a second, like Facebook actually wouldn't even allow the sharing of that information, and they actually came back and said, oh, we'll allow you now to share this. And it's oh, thank you so much that I can show the truth. That should never have been silenced in the first place, but how scary it is that, And I do think that those moments we need to focus on and realize like th that's waking people up more and more like they're shooting themselves in the foot, big tech, media, everything like they are making these mistakes and they made our lab of I'm a COVID and I think that's helped open people's eyes.

[00:27:05] I'm like maybe we shouldn't trust everything we blindly hear from these people, there's should look a little bit deeper.

[00:27:11] Taylor Ealand: [00:27:11] I just worry of like, when these people get woken up by the estate and they can, they then go, oh, then maybe I'll look to see what these were. Republican Nazis I'm supposed to hate are saying about the news and they go and they see Ben Shapiro reading the lyrics of whap and they go, okay, this isn't serious like that.

[00:27:26] Katie Trent: [00:27:26] that's frustrating. That's where I'm like, stop, like who cares about that stuff? And I'm, I'm a rap fan. I am all for any kind of music, art, anything like that, like who cares about that? No. I think that there should be like, if you're a parent control, what your kid sees, don't allow them access to certain things.

[00:27:45] If you don't want them hearing stuff like that, like it's very, it's it really comes down to parenting. If you're that concerned, it doesn't come down to our government or politics or anything like that. It comes down to, if that upsets you well, then make sure your kids aren't exposed to it. That's really at the end of the day, what you have to focus on, we should not be talking about. Before we were talking about China or before we're talking about sex trafficking, like these are the stuff that they should be talking about every single day until they get through in the face. And somebody actually starts to listen to them about it. Cause right now we're focusing on the dumbest stuff.

[00:28:14] Like I don't care about Cardi B. I don't care about any of what she says or what she did. She's irrelevant. And why are we making we're making her more relevant when we dwell on all of that, just ignore them and they'll go away.

[00:28:25]Taylor Ealand: [00:28:25] You'll do well in podcasting as you get more comfortable.

[00:28:29] Katie Trent: [00:28:29] Yeah.

[00:28:30] Taylor Ealand: [00:28:30] Okay. Then let's see here work. Where do I want to go with this? What is the most, I guess you said China is the most important issue. Is that accurate? Do you think China the most porn issue or if not, what is okay.

[00:28:40] Katie Trent: [00:28:40] I think China big time. I think it's all very closely tied together and China has access to. Much more than we could ever, even think of when it comes to even big tech, everything like it, they really control a lot. And I think we don't give them enough credit for how much power they actually have.

[00:28:58]Financially everything. So

[00:29:00] Taylor Ealand: [00:29:00] you studied Chinese history at all,

[00:29:02] Katie Trent: [00:29:02] I have no, I'm not a big

[00:29:04]Taylor Ealand: [00:29:04] I'll send you some links. I recommend to anybody interested the podcast sinal Babel. She's the bread I was talking about. Is it, if you want to learn about China and how they're doing everything they're doing, and I'm saying this to the listener to 20th century, Chinese history, you think the Nazis were screwed up.

[00:29:20] You think the Russians were screwed up? Wait until you start going through Chinese history. Those people never stop. At least Germans shut down after the forties, at least the Russians, they had peaks. Events, there were certain events, but the Chinese is just, issue after issue.

[00:29:37] And that in the CCP, because of this constant stream of history is a machine

[00:29:42] Katie Trent: [00:29:42] Oh, yes. Yeah. They planned all of this right for forever, and I think that's also what I'm so frustrated with. I guess we could say far left the Democrats in general is that they almost seem like apologetic or okay. With China at time about. The Chinese government, or even like COVID and things like that.

[00:30:02] And it, this is made in a lab and this is a, this is a big deal. Like we should be mad about it, but why are we so willing to just be like or even like they have concentration camps going on right now. There's things going on in China that you would think these people that are just so for human rights and they just, care so deeply about everybody and, but they seem to be pretty forgiving when he'd bring up China

[00:30:21] Taylor Ealand: [00:30:21] Made in China is the new slogan for, I don't give a fuck about human rights. That's really what it is at this point.

[00:30:26] Katie Trent: [00:30:26] And what what athletes are all fortunate, when you actually think about the athletes preaching like LeBron, James, he's a big, lover of China, even, these empathy, then he comes here and he preaches all those Democrat, democratic, policies and claims to be democratic, but it's wait a second. If you're really for human rights, you would not be worried, the Chinese government that's for damn sure. But it's just, doesn't add up then. I don't understand how you can overlook stuff like that. If you claim to be

[00:30:54] Taylor Ealand: [00:30:54] I think a lot of it is a general tendency by Americans that think that we are the center of history and history doesn't happen to us, but around us, if that makes any sense, if you've ever heard that before.

[00:31:05] Katie Trent: [00:31:05] yeah. And I also think you don't, the whole ignorance is bliss. Like they just choose not to really think outside this country or the fact that, when something happens in China, it affects everybody. It's actually as much as you want to ignore it, it's gonna blow up in our face pretty soon.

[00:31:19] And they're going to be,

[00:31:20] Taylor Ealand: [00:31:20] but Hey, you can get $10 slippers.

[00:31:22] Katie Trent: [00:31:22] that's true. Made by who? Yeah, exactly. But as long as they can. I know it's frustrating. I think that's really, it is stop pretending to care about people. When you, when it comes to outside our borders, you really don't care. Like you're very willing to say, I want open borders and anybody can come in and no big deal, but like you, you actually don't care about people.

[00:31:42] If you're willing to overlook genocide and concentration camps and children had

[00:31:47] Taylor Ealand: [00:31:47] right.

[00:31:48] Katie Trent: [00:31:48] worked

[00:31:49] Taylor Ealand: [00:31:49] Yeah. I don't want to hear black lives matter with wives anywhere else. Don't matter to you.

[00:31:53]Katie Trent: [00:31:53] Exactly.

[00:31:54] Taylor Ealand: [00:31:54] A hundred percent. All right, let's do it. Let's do a hard 180 then. Cause I gotta make sure you're not an idea. Log. What's something Democrats get.

[00:32:01] Katie Trent: [00:32:01] I think messaging a they're great at getting their point across. They're great at

[00:32:05] Taylor Ealand: [00:32:05] All right. Let me change the question. Policy-wise

[00:32:09] Katie Trent: [00:32:09] Policy-wise, I'm a big, like gay. Gay marriage. That is huge. And I'm so glad that exists and that, people who have different sexuality or, who are gay, are able to marry whoever they love.

[00:32:22] I think that was like the number one thing that Democrats have done in recent years that has been so necessary. And in saying that it didn't happen earlier. So I'd say gay rights is like the. I don't want to go too far into, like right now, I feel like you give them an inch and they take mile.

[00:32:38] They take, it's like all of a sudden we need to, change everything. And that's, what's frustrating is that I am all for, if it doesn't impact other people's lives, you should be able to do whatever you want. I think that Pass that I'm really, I, this is bad, but I'm finding it difficult to find policies that I'm like.

[00:32:55] Yeah, that's really good that they're doing. Lately I just feel like a lot of it's been so extreme that it's I can't get on board with that because it doesn't make sense to me in my head, like how that's not going to have a negative impact in 10 years. On our country. So I would say, yeah, that's really my answer.

[00:33:09] Can you give me your answer? I want to hear, because I'm probably forgetting about something,

[00:33:14] Taylor Ealand: [00:33:14] Generally. You're hitting the nail on the head. I also have a hard time with the recent extremism. Like I am all same thing, which it's a softball to say gay rights. Cause yeah, that was 20 years ago. The way they've handled LGB, and I'll hesitantly say T is better than the Republicans.

[00:33:31] Katie Trent: [00:33:31] Yes.

[00:33:31]Taylor Ealand: [00:33:31] But that's their general take on social measures. I generally believe if you're going to take the parties not left or right, because they don't really fit pretty in that framework. But if you take the parties, I generally agree with Republicans on economics. I generally agree with Democrats as from social policy until recently.

[00:33:55]And that could just be me being a California. I don't, I really don't give a damn here. I don't give a damn what color you are. I don't give a damn, who you go to bed with. I really don't care. If anything, you probably make better food than me. So by all means welcome aboard. You know what I mean?

[00:34:10]I went to a school that even though it wasn't suburbia was still, I think majority white, it was barely like barely and. It's one of those things where I've never understood the whiteness. And I never understood the white attack either. The white supremacist, Nazi racist attack that Republicans got until I left California, then I understood it more.

[00:34:34]Cause I went up to Washington for law school

[00:34:36] Katie Trent: [00:34:36] There's areas. Yeah,

[00:34:37]Taylor Ealand: [00:34:37] Very eyeopening.

[00:34:38] Katie Trent: [00:34:38] Too is like racism. So racism is an issue. Like racism exists. We should be talking about it, but unfortunately the

[00:34:45] Taylor Ealand: [00:34:45] half the country,

[00:34:46] Katie Trent: [00:34:46] And at the law. Yeah. They've taken it to say anybody that votes a certain way is one. And it's now you've gone too far.

[00:34:52] Cause people are not gonna listen to you when it comes to that topic. Like you're gonna, they're gonna roll their eyes or they're going to believe you and say that. And half the country is, are Nazis. And that's where I'm like, I can't get on board with this stupid, exaggerated claim of something.

[00:35:05] That's actually really important that like, why are we ruining a topic that we should be able to discuss?

[00:35:11]Taylor Ealand: [00:35:11] Other credit I'll give to the left? Not really. I'll give Democrats is they often have their hearts in the right place. It's really hard to go after them for being cruel outside of abortion, oh, Awesome education for everybody. Okay. Me too. We want healthcare for everyone.

[00:35:27]Okay. Yeah, no shit. We want, paying jobs for everyone. Okay. Yes. But you can't do it the way you want to do it, and people lose that messaging and that's gonna be just as much on Republicans in their piss, poor management of the issues, but

[00:35:39] Katie Trent: [00:35:39] Yeah. And I agree with that completely. Like I that's, the thing is like their messaging and I'm completely on board for, but the way that they want to do it, I'm completely not on board for, so it's just so frustrating. But yeah, I would say, I agree with you on that and say, okay, gen team, I'm all down for that.

[00:35:55] The analogy.

[00:35:56] Taylor Ealand: [00:35:56] I'm cool with Juneteenth. I don't want to replace it in Penn state with it. You can't take

[00:36:00]Katie Trent: [00:36:00] No, I think. You should have both. And then, get rid of one of the holidays that, we don't really care about that we take off work for there's a, has to be one that, it can replace the time off work for people are really up in arms about that or whatever it is.

[00:36:13] But those are the things that Republicans stop that should not be something that you're fighting. Yeah, we shouldn't replace an independence day with it, but it should exist. And why are we fighting it existing? That's not necessarily want to die on right.

[00:36:22]Taylor Ealand: [00:36:22] Okay. So a couple more questions got to make sure you're not an idealogue.

[00:36:25] Katie Trent: [00:36:25] yeah. See.

[00:36:27] Taylor Ealand: [00:36:27] Who's your favorite Democrat?

[00:36:27]Katie Trent: [00:36:27] Who was my favorite Democrat? I would say cinema, I would have to go with,

[00:36:35] Taylor Ealand: [00:36:35] that's a cop out. All right. Send him a sheet. She is technically Democrat. All

[00:36:40] Katie Trent: [00:36:40] Arizona, I'm here. So I have to say I've been pleasantly surprised by

[00:36:44] Taylor Ealand: [00:36:44] She isn't what I expected her to be. I will say you're the first person that's I sent him a, I usually get Joe mansion and it's okay, you're just following the times because Joe, Manchins the Wright's favorite person right now. And then

[00:36:54] Katie Trent: [00:36:54] her because she's weird. Quirky, but she I like when people can stand their ground and act up bullied by their party on certain things I think the filibuster is important. I'm glad that she, holds her ground and stuff and is

[00:37:07] Taylor Ealand: [00:37:07] They don't want to get rid of the filibuster. She understands that's going to, it's going to bite them in

[00:37:12] Katie Trent: [00:37:12] That's the thing is like, why are you trying to do this now? Do you know that when you know, you don't have control, it's not going to be fun for you. So that's the stuff that it's come on guys. Let's be realistic. So I like her. She's just add, but she's been, I've been pleasantly surprised.

[00:37:25] I'll say by her, I know it's a cop out, but I don't know. Given me a good one and right now that's not. So I just feel like a lot of them are just so far.

[00:37:34] Taylor Ealand: [00:37:34] The moderates have certainly been, I'm going to say primaried out. We'll I'll assume the best. And they were primaried out. The answer I normally get recently, as Joe mentioned before that the answer I would normally get and would normally be my answer is Tulsa Gabard, but she's gone radio silent

[00:37:47] Katie Trent: [00:37:47] See, that's the same as like, when I just, yeah,

[00:37:50] Taylor Ealand: [00:37:50] Yeah. And it's a cop out. I understand, but I do actually like Tulsi even though I disagree with her on so much policy as a person, I can. I'm actually shocked the Democrats didn't picker. And it's really, you're going to put quite possibly the smartest politician in all of DC at the time, smarter than Trump, who by the way, was a minority woman veteran

[00:38:08] Katie Trent: [00:38:08] Yes.

[00:38:08] Taylor Ealand: [00:38:08] who could bridge both sides.

[00:38:10] And what, like what. Trump killed Rand Paul by calling him a poodle. You know what I mean? Trump went after Ted Cruz's dad, Trump call Hillary all kinds of things, lock her up. He was the master of these stupid one-liners that made people go and laugh at the wha what are you gonna make fun of Tulsa?

[00:38:28] Gabard for it.

[00:38:29] Katie Trent: [00:38:29] You've got nothing.

[00:38:30] Taylor Ealand: [00:38:30] If you have to actually go for policy, you have to actually have a debate. It

[00:38:34] Katie Trent: [00:38:34] would have done better running as with Logan?

[00:38:37] Taylor Ealand: [00:38:37] No, because she's not a conservative. She was progressive. Her policies were very progressive. Which made her terrified because if she won, we would be dealing with something more like Bernie Sanders than we are now.

[00:38:48] But minority woman, young, intelligent veteran, what the hell are you going to critique her on?

[00:38:55] Katie Trent: [00:38:55] No I agree. I do Randy, it's just, you don't hear from her as much anymore. So I guess I was going more current, but I do a lot

[00:39:01] Taylor Ealand: [00:39:01] And then someone else, I have,

[00:39:02] Katie Trent: [00:39:02] stuck with Biden Harris is

[00:39:04] Taylor Ealand: [00:39:04] yeah, this is especially Harris, like Biden. I understand. I, the Harris play, I will never understand

[00:39:10]Katie Trent: [00:39:10] Nobody even in the party wanted her, like the voters didn't want her, so why, and the

[00:39:15] Taylor Ealand: [00:39:15] state didn't want her,

[00:39:16] Katie Trent: [00:39:16] exactly. Biden's old. So that's what we're going to be stuck with. It's just wild. Like both parties are like, what the heck we did not, we didn't want this. Is one that, yeah, it's

[00:39:26] Taylor Ealand: [00:39:26] Someone I will respect, although again, I think they are incredibly naive. I can at least respect the personality and respect the person at Andrew Yang. He, up there, he had a really dumb idea, but he believed in it

[00:39:38] Katie Trent: [00:39:38] Yeah, I

[00:39:39] Taylor Ealand: [00:39:39] in hearing him explain it, he like, oh, you're making it make sense. I just know it won't play out that way.

[00:39:44]Katie Trent: [00:39:44] And the eat. But I do. And he even recently said something. He was like, interviewed about the homelessness. In New York right now. And he said, how, they need more access to mental health facilities and things like that. And it was a very rational answer to Hey, these people are, attacking people in the subway.

[00:40:01] We're having, high crime. We need to get them help. This is what I would plan on doing. And that just sent outrage to the Democrat. Like it's like he, he gets attacked even when he goes just a little bit center, a little bit rational and all of a sudden he was as all those far left. It's frustrating because we need rational voices and it's almost just we don't have any going on right now.

[00:40:24]So yeah, that's, that would be my answer to that one. Hopefully I'm not and that ACU yeah.

[00:40:30] Taylor Ealand: [00:40:30] Thank you. Now that you've mentioned that I have to bring up. Do I really want to piss off people?

[00:40:35] Katie Trent: [00:40:35] Yes.

[00:40:36] Taylor Ealand: [00:40:36] The problem is I piss off all sides of retaining lip. Listenership can be hard. All right. Fine major. What's her name? Major? He tailored green.

[00:40:44] Katie Trent: [00:40:44] she's the ASC of the Republican party. I don't like her. She, again, we're just giving microphones to people that are just, that's just like a female Trump that she just, It's not going to do any good. You're just, and she's no, she shouldn't have just like AOC, neither of them should be having as much airtime as they do to be saying the dumbest things, like, why does this keep happening?

[00:41:07] And that's, she gives w this is going to hear right. Instead of piss off people, but that's what gives women a bad name is when we're emotional, Looney tunes saying things that make no sense and make us look crazy. Men get away with a little bit more, I think, too, but women, you can't afford to be like that. At the end of the day, it gives men and anybody else I see crazy. Like you can't be acting like that. And that's, what's frustrating is can't you get these points across without being like that, and just,

[00:41:36]It's just frustrating. No, I'm not a fan of her. I wish people would stop giving her a voice, because I think that if she were just to be in the background a little bit, it wouldn't be as bad, but again, of course that's who the media focuses on.

[00:41:49] Cause they know they're going to get the story out of it and they know they're going to be able to get a narrative that, people think that Republicans are all crazy,

[00:41:55] Taylor Ealand: [00:41:55] Yeah, she's a very convenient boogeyman.

[00:41:57] Katie Trent: [00:41:57] Yes, exactly. They had to find something after Trump and that's, that's the type that they needed. So I think that she could be good at, she was just. Newer place and knew that we didn't need to hear from her in her crazy ideas all the time. Yeah, she's frustrating. I'm not a fan. I put it in the same category as ALC at the same time.

[00:42:15] Taylor Ealand: [00:42:15] I do too. It's, she's one. That's like really Matt gates is up there too. I was just like I don't understand why this person gets so much attention. And I think his hair looks retarded.

[00:42:22] Katie Trent: [00:42:22] And that's, and there's like social media influencers at the end of the day. They just know what to post and how to get attention from it. And it's just not a productive way. Like there, I'm sure a lot of I don't know about MTG, but AOC, a lot of, I bet her, a lot of her fans are just very young and believe this. world that she fells on Twitter and can get likes, but it's not like she can go to the Congress. She doesn't do anything productive. Actually. She's really good at pretending she's blind to, for her powers and then never follows through, she's just all show. And that's what I hate about that stuff.

[00:42:56] It's like politics has become like a reality TV show at this point. And it's

[00:42:59] Taylor Ealand: [00:42:59] for ugly people

[00:43:00] Katie Trent: [00:43:00] truly, that is

[00:43:02] Taylor Ealand: [00:43:02] to quote Ben Shapiro, it's Hollywood for

[00:43:03] Katie Trent: [00:43:03] because that is true.

[00:43:05] Taylor Ealand: [00:43:05] All right. Any final thoughts that you want to share with the world?

[00:43:09]Katie Trent: [00:43:09] I would just love to see more rational thinking, talking about this stuff. I think it's important to focus on what's actually important and, The threats that we have to our country are not even being addressed. And I just wish that more people would be willing to speak up about things that actually matter and less about things that don't like celebrities and, anything that the media is, claiming as a big deal is not.

[00:43:37] And I think that's my biggest thing is let's start actually acknowledging these issues in our country. It's getting bad and we're going to be, shocked when it all comes, come score. Then we realize we've been ignoring a lot of threats. So

[00:43:51]Taylor Ealand: [00:43:51] Maybe you should not go on a podcast and then go on a run. Huh?

[00:43:55] Katie Trent: [00:43:55] Yeah. I don't know if I'd want that. Like

[00:43:58] Taylor Ealand: [00:43:58] That's what I say, but I keep getting pushed to do it by a couple

[00:44:00] Katie Trent: [00:44:00] he should. That's the thing is like I pushed people, but then when I think about it I wouldn't want that life,

[00:44:05] Taylor Ealand: [00:44:05] Yeah. I, the question that I tell people to consider, I am considering it is everybody wants everyone else to do it. And at some point you have to ask, okay, fine. If not me then who? And I hate that question because it makes me Hey, it's egotistical, but it's also okay, at some point the bucks on you.

[00:44:20]If it, if no one's doing it because of whatever reasons you gotta put your neck out there and I hope

[00:44:25]Do.

[00:44:25]Katie Trent: [00:44:25] I've thought about it before. It's a scary thought though, because it's not a fun life. I think that you're choosing to live when you go into that area with the way the world is right now.

[00:44:32] Taylor Ealand: [00:44:32] And we're young enough. Nobody will take us seriously anyway, so

[00:44:35] Katie Trent: [00:44:35] that's

[00:44:35] Taylor Ealand: [00:44:35] it off.

[00:44:36] Katie Trent: [00:44:36] We have to act really crazy to get any attention to get votes

[00:44:40] Taylor Ealand: [00:44:40] All right. Time listeners know that I have one more question, but first, if you liked what you listened to, I will put Katie's information down in the show notes before I'm sure it'll be a Twitter handle. Whatever else you want to put down there. If you liked the show, support us@storedotcontrarians.com.

[00:44:57] You can also see all kinds of other content on contrarians.com. Sorry to cut you off. But I do want to get you moving with the rest of your night. One final question. The most important question, arguably Kyle and I ask every interviewee, what are you thankful for?

[00:45:15] Katie Trent: [00:45:15] I'm thankful for my health and. To be able to live in a country where I have the rights that I have and the freedom that I have to be able to function and live a happy and healthy life. That's what I'm thankful for.

[00:45:35] Taylor Ealand: [00:45:35] Kyle would be beaming ear to ear.

[00:45:38] Katie Trent: [00:45:38] Oh God.

[00:45:38] Taylor Ealand: [00:45:38] he is here in spirit,

[00:45:40] Katie Trent: [00:45:40] Yes. I channeled Kyle.

[00:45:42] Taylor Ealand: [00:45:42] and which means people know my answers about to be incredibly stupid. I'm thankful for Coke. Thank you for listening. And we'll catch you in the next.

[00:45:50] Katie Trent: [00:45:50] Appreciate it. Thank you.

039 - Sinobabble - Is China a Sleeping Giant?

Edi (Ph.D. - Chinese History) returns to talk all things China! China is the most important political issue we face, and I refuse to talk about silly things when we could spend time fleshing out the CCP and why they act the way they do. Edi is the host of the popular Sinobabble podcast.

Support us by:

Sharing the show with your friends!

https://store.contrarix.com

http://contrarix.locals.com

Where to find us:

Taylor: @contrarix on everything.

Kyle: @VoteKyleHermann on Instagram and Facebook

Music By: Garrett Vandenburg

Taylor Ealand: [00:00:00] Alrighty, we are live. Anything you say can and will be held against you in the court of public opinion. And we're going to ignore the fact that I'm sitting on the ground because of technical difficulties with my camera. So I'm here today with a very special guest. She's actually been on the show before.

[00:00:24]Eddie, how are you? I

[00:00:27] Edi From Sinobabble: [00:00:27] am very good. Taylor, how you doing?

[00:00:28] Taylor Ealand: [00:00:28] I'm doing all right. And Eddie's in the show. And for those of you who listened back to the China episodes in Asian American Pacific heritage month on, oh, it was a corporate pandering month. Nobody cared about we talked to China, Eddie. I'm going to let you introduce yourself, but basically, she's here, we're talking China.

[00:00:43] We should return to this topic. I hope to return to it throughout my punditry career. Cause it's a big issue that no one's talking about. I was just telling Eddie before we started, is that my downloads actually went down in may. Which just gives you a good pulse of where the conservative conversation is regarding China, which is funny because conservatives will happily tell you that China is one of the biggest issues that we have to tackle now.

[00:01:06] So everybody wants to talk about how we should tackle it. Nobody actually wants to tackle it, but we're here. We're going to do it anyway. I'm going to scream it until your ears until you listen. But first we need to establish credibility. Eddie, who are you and why does my listener care about you?

[00:01:22]Edi From Sinobabble: [00:01:22] I have a PhD in Chinese history.

[00:01:25] So my PhD was mainly focused on the culture, society and politics of the 20th century. So of course that is obviously when the CCP was founded and came to power and everything that's happened ever since then. And so I've been studying China basically for the past decade now. And I also have my.

[00:01:47] Podcast, which is called Sinai Bible, which sort of retraces 20th century Chinese history. And that sort of comes with its own substance newsletter, which is more about modern day politics. Like you said, tackling the issues surrounding China that people say they want to tackle, but you have to have quite a, it does require a niche understanding as quite a complex topic.

[00:02:11]So I try and do these newsletters that sort of dive into mod, things that you see in the headline news, like China's flying fighter jets over Taiwan. What does that mean? And put it in the context of, okay, this is China, Taiwan, and also us and other relevant nations relations for the past a hundred years.

[00:02:33] And all of that leading up to the present day is why China is flying fighter jets over Taiwan. So I do try and give some of that perspective because it is, it can be quite challenging. Dive into China, just

[00:02:47] Taylor Ealand: [00:02:47] head on. Absolutely. And your show is a huge Testament of that. Because I don't even think you get into the 19th century at all.

[00:02:54]Which I'm sure will also, lay the foundation of why the 20th century is so relevant, but Chinese history in the 20th century is, volumes upon volumes. Like I, I have a general understanding of the basic world powers, Nazi, Germany, Soviet Russia, and Soviet Russia all the way up until its collapse.

[00:03:11] And that's so a lot of history to unpack there and it's still like people throw around the term Nazi or communist and they don't know what those terms mean. And China dwarfs those because the amount of just action for lack of a better term that happens in the country throughout that entire century is crazy.

[00:03:29] Absolutely crazy. Between, Pre world war two, their own revolution, then world war II, which ranges from being domineered by Japan, atrocities, like the rape of Nanking, which for some reason, the west has decided it's going to ignore because now Japan's our friend to, the co the coalescence with Marxism that came from the Soviet union, but like China made it a point to be distinct from the Soviet union.

[00:03:54] So it's not really the same, but they're similar and you've done a phenomenal job of unpacking all of that and really making it make sense. Nia Stewart, among you listening will also notice that is not an American accent, which is beneficial in the sense that your dog in the race, when you're looking at China is very different from say mine as a conservative in America.

[00:04:15]Listener take that. How you will. I say it makes you a more credible source because I obviously have a vested interest. I'm not one to hide my biases. I have a vested interest in American remaining. The number one superpower on the planet of the group, on the planet of the earth. Yeah, that makes sense.

[00:04:27] Okay. So you can take my word and you can spin it as bias and the Chinese will do that. That I'm starting to knowledge, I've listened to you. I'm starting to recognize when I'm seeing Chinese propaganda, which just sounded ludicrous before I met you. I actually posted something on my Instagram that was so blatantly propaganda, that it actually pissed me off.

[00:04:50] And I saw the number of likes this picture had which was dividing up China by basically they get the contentions that it's having either with borders or with subgroups of people like the Tibetans. And it was like, China shouldn't do this because America wouldn't tolerate this. And it had a similar type of thing where it was like the Pacific states break off and Texas breaks off.

[00:05:10] I'm like, okay, first things first, not in an equivalency, like we're not killing our own people. We're not having border disputes with Mexico.

[00:05:18]Edi From Sinobabble: [00:05:18] I've seen some things that China's one of my favorite tweets from an actual, this'll be from a Chinese politician, a foreign affairs minister or something like that.

[00:05:28] It's when all the shin Jan cotton sort of debacle broke out and it's these we girls are being forced to pick cotton against their will. There was an image going around. I'll try and send it to you if I can find it afterwards. Or it was in one of my newsletters, actually. I think the one about shin John Cotton, and it's an image of A slave owner in presumably the American cells, a whipping black people picking cotton, and with some sort of, Citi tagline, like this is the only way we know how to pick cotton clearly directed at the U S but not actually saying it and being like, the U S is projecting onto everyone else because all they know about picking cotton is slavery.

[00:06:08] So they're assuming that we're enslaving our own.

[00:06:10] Taylor Ealand: [00:06:10] Even though we haven't had slavery

[00:06:12] Edi From Sinobabble: [00:06:12] since the 19th century. Yeah, exactly. So the forced equivalency thing is very, it's a very popular CCP property, right?

[00:06:19] Taylor Ealand: [00:06:19] And for American listeners, not just doing it to America, they'd done it to Australia, very famously.

[00:06:24]This was recent too, where they depicted an Australia, soldier slaughtering. Was it a Muslim child, I think. Yeah. And it's just this was proven to be false, I expect propaganda from adversary powers where I don't expect to so many Americans and by extension Westerners buying it.

[00:06:39] But the number of people who buy it is mind boggling to me. And this isn't me like as a conservative, this is just me as an American. Like I grew up in an education system and this is granted it's different from even when I went to high school just a couple of years ago, but we were taught about propaganda.

[00:06:54] Like we understood what it was. Even within our own country, I'm not sure if the same was going on now. So it, to me, it sticks out like when I see propaganda, whether it comes from Trump, whether it comes from Biden, the 16th sense saved on 4th of July was hilarious. What, whether it comes from China, whether it comes from wherever, when I see it and recognize it, it's oh, turn that off.

[00:07:15] You know what I mean? Cause to pretend that the. That the political differences between the west coast and the rest of the country are in any way, similar to the board of spewed between India and China is ludicrous. Yeah. And yeah, I

[00:07:29] Edi From Sinobabble: [00:07:29] we are Chinese kind of apology. If you will, is very real, it's alive and kicking.

[00:07:35]People will go out of their way to defend or not so much defend, but explain a way, like she very recently actually sheeting pink because it was the 100th anniversary of the founding of the CCP on the 1st of July, which is not actually the date that it was founded, but it's the day that the party has adopted for political reasons.

[00:07:55]Shooting Penn gave this speech and he used he used a ton of phrase, like a metaphor or whatever, and the way that the metaphor translates literally is something along the lines of to break ones, to break someone's head and to have a blood spilling out sort of thing.

[00:08:14]And, it's it's like how you would say something like, oh, they threw me under the bus, right? Like they didn't literally throw you under the bus. It's like that kind of metaphor. Twitter was a flame with people arguing back and forth. Some people like, because the sentence that he used to end was, if people try and bully us into following their way of doing things in the world, then they will find themselves with their head bashed in and their blood flow.

[00:08:44] And, the amount of apologists on Twitter being like, they don't literally mean that they're going to bash your head in. They don't literally mean that there'll be rivers of blood flowing and it's okay, regardless of whether or not they meant to literally it still stands. That's right.

[00:09:00] Taylor Ealand: [00:09:00] Chosen. Yeah, exactly. Maybe the phrasing was chosen because Chinese would inherit it, would recognize it as one thing. And the rest of the world. That's still

[00:09:07] Edi From Sinobabble: [00:09:07] valid. The language is still aggressive, regardless of whether it's literal or if it's, a phrase like all, they threw me under the bus to throw somebody under the bus is not a good thing.

[00:09:18] Just like to imply violence in such way is not a good thing. Whether or not you really intend to do violence. So people are very quick to jump to China's defense when I'm for a multitude of reasons, whether or not they're communist apologists, whether or not they have had positive experiences in China, China funds them as is the case for a lot of people or China funds their Institute that they work for.

[00:09:41] China funds their research. Whatever it is, people have their own reasons for being supporters or apologists in that way.

[00:09:47] Taylor Ealand: [00:09:47] Right now you don't come across. You come across as more unbiased to me, but you don't come across as an unbiased party. I, your point of view, I'd almost expect from somebody who has never stepped foot in China, but just so the listener is clear.

[00:09:58] You've spent an extensive amount of time in China as the country. Not just even like an exhibit.

[00:10:05] Edi From Sinobabble: [00:10:05] Yeah. Yeah. So I when I did my degree, I've lived in China, I think a total of three years, like mainland China. And then I've lived in Hong Kong also for three years as well. And I lived in Hong Kong from 2017 to 2020.

[00:10:19] So those during the protests, during the introduction of the national security law, all of those things as well. Yeah. And I've been to China on multiple occasions. Yeah, so I'm one. I do my podcast when I do my newsletters, I do actually try and include what I believe would be Chinese perspective, if that makes sense, right?

[00:10:38] Like you say, it's impossible. It's impossible to be unbiased or objective. But my research is not funded by China in the same vein. I don't necessarily hate China. I don't have a reason to hate China. I'm I just simply try and analyze what's going on and try and point out things. I feel fairly self-evident.

[00:10:57] Taylor Ealand: [00:10:57] Now, it seems like you have been critical of the Chinese government though, or am I misreading?

[00:11:01]Edi From Sinobabble: [00:11:01] No, I'm certainly critical of them. When they do things to be criticized, for

[00:11:05] Taylor Ealand: [00:11:05] sure. They'd let you back in.

[00:11:07]Edi From Sinobabble: [00:11:07] It's something my husband board's about for sure. I'm not sure, actually, I don't know how much of a background in depth look into people that they do when they do visas and things like that.

[00:11:17] I know they look at your job for sure. But as my podcast isn't necessarily my job. They would have to do quite a deep social media dive in order to find out that I had analyzed them. Not always critically as well. Sometimes it's China did this thing and it wasn't the worst thing in the world, so

[00:11:35] Taylor Ealand: [00:11:35] sure.

[00:11:35] Now let's assume they do know everything. Do you still think they let you.

[00:11:39]

[00:11:39] Probably not, no. And I do this not to, paint you as some sort of adversary, you'll probably take a similar line that I had to maybe to a greater degree. I don't hate Chinese people. No, if anything, I feel sorry for them, but zooming pink can kiss my ass.

[00:11:51] And if that leads me to, not being able to ever step foot in the country, then. Yeah, probably wasn't going to go anyway.

[00:12:00] Edi From Sinobabble: [00:12:00] No, I'm definitely I wouldn't say I was hypercritical of the CCP and the Chinese government, but I certainly don't agree with their governance strategy.

[00:12:07] Taylor Ealand: [00:12:07] Sure. So what makes you interested in China?

[00:12:09] Why not literally any other country on the planet?

[00:12:12]Edi From Sinobabble: [00:12:12] At the time when I started studying Chinese, China was only just becoming an interesting place, an interesting phenomenon in the world. So this was in, when was this? 2010 ish. China was like still doing its peaceful rise shtick.

[00:12:29] It hadn't yet become the world's second largest economy. It hadn't really had that transformative moment. It was still, it was just coming out of it sort of latent workshop of the world phase. And then after I did my first degree, that's when sheeting ping came into power. That's when, China became more interesting from a geopolitical perspective.

[00:12:50]And that's when people started really becoming interested in China. And I think it was maybe 2015 that the economist if anyone doesn't know what that is, that's a very famous, British newspaper that's been around for a while. It's sort of magazine newspaper. So the economist only has only had two sections dedicated to countries.

[00:13:12] One was for the UK and one was for the U S and then after 2015, it also introduce one for China. So that will indicative of how important China was becoming from a global perspective. And yeah, if you follow China people on Twitter, it's never a dull day.

[00:13:27] Taylor Ealand: [00:13:27] It's never a dull day with American people either.

[00:13:30] Alrighty. So then what, okay. Again, your dog in the race is different. However, like you said, you've been critical of China. And in know that I have seen statements come out of other places, other parts of the west that are also critical of China, including your home country of the UK. What do you believe is something that the rest of the world is doing right when, considering how to handle China?

[00:13:53]Edi From Sinobabble: [00:13:53] I think that actually something that it sounds cliche or whatever, but just learning more about China, like actually taking the time to examine China's actions, think about what their intentions are and make decisions based on. That process, like you'd be surprised five to 10 years ago, how much people would just know China was just getting away with stuff.

[00:14:21]Like for example, with this these things coming about production supply chains with cotton and shin, Jang, this is not a new thing. It's not like they started doing this last week. These are things that have been going on for a while. And it's only just now that these things are coming to the forefront, people are examining them.

[00:14:36] People are actually taking action against it. For example recently the EU decided to put a freeze on an investment deal that they were doing with China. I think it was at the end of last year, beginning of this year that they decided to just put a stop to it because of all of these things that were coming to light all of these investigations that were going on.

[00:14:58] So I think it is It just generally important that the world increases their awareness of China, whether or not it makes you more critical or less critical. But according to a recent study by pure research, apparently everyone is more critical of China. I read something today that was like the majority of developed nations.

[00:15:20]People surveyed at least 75% of people had a negative view of China. And that's an increase of double digits since last year. Yeah. Do you happen

[00:15:30] Taylor Ealand: [00:15:30] to know what the numbers look like for Russia? Just curious.

[00:15:33]Edi From Sinobabble: [00:15:33] I don't know that I had anything. Yeah. I don't think that they were included in the study.

[00:15:38] I would be, I'd be surprised if they weren't, but they might have been, but I know that I've got to figure here. Yeah. The U S was 73%. UK was 75% and Australia was 81% have a negative view. It's

[00:15:50] Taylor Ealand: [00:15:50] it's mind boggling to me that 75% of Americans, 70, we'd just say 3% of UK, the Brits other way round. Oh, okay.

[00:15:58]Either way it's still super majorities holds the dis favorable view of trying to, and I don't claim to know anything. Your country is Dre. I am an ignorant American stuck in my own bubble. As far as I can tell my government is not doing what needs to be done. There were, there was a little bit of a show of force recently by moving a lot of our Navy to the south China sea.

[00:16:19] But we'll see what actually comes of it. It's a lot of saber rattling going on, which was happening between us and China us and Russia right now, Russia and the UK. It's going to be an interesting couple of years that I don't feel like at least. And I'm not just saying this because I'm a conservative, I do not feel like my administration is up to the task of a potential.

[00:16:39]We can say what I think about the previous administration. It's moot point they're out and not here, but right now, it just feels even though if your, I assume your numbers are correct, if 73% of people think that this is a bad thing, why are we still doing major business deals with these people is our reliance on them really that bad.

[00:17:01] And if it is, then I would rather take the economic hit now, fix it. Like we were doing under the previous administration and move on because this, the rise of slavery, cotton is not something we should tolerate. And it's something that I think I can say for both of our countries. Our countries in our histories have decided that we weren't going to tolerate this behavior again.

[00:17:27] And here we are tolerating it. And perhaps your government's acting debt better. I have no idea. But no. Okay. I was gonna say but for some reason I just doubt it and it seems like you guys are a little preoccupied with Russia at the moment. So maybe you can't. All so you said something right.

[00:17:40] We're learning about China and this is true. China wasn't even on my radar two years ago, three years ago, really. It was the

[00:17:45] Edi From Sinobabble: [00:17:45] same for a lot of people. Yeah.

[00:17:47]Taylor Ealand: [00:17:47] And you've been pivotable, pivotal, whatever. And changing my mind and informing my decisions because before it was just China bad look at the trade deficit and it's okay, the trade deficit is really the least of your concerns.

[00:17:58] Yeah. All right. What is something that the rest of the world is doing wrong regarding.

[00:18:04]Edi From Sinobabble: [00:18:04] I think you, you would like about to touch it or touch upon it because you were talking about how, do we really need the business? And I think I would put it as selling out essentially.

[00:18:16] Okay. Cha I read, I think it was today. A lot of news came out today. I'm not sure why, but so a Chinese owned firm has just bought the UK its largest semiconductor manufacturer. Oh great. Yeah. And for anyone listening who doesn't know how vital yeah. Semiconductors are there and mobile phones, basically most of your electronics.

[00:18:37]So they're like . Yeah, like hugely important. Basically the, as we move, especially into the future, probably the most important part of the global supply chain, arguably. Yes. So I don't know that much about tech, but I know, I hear so many conductors spoken about every single day.

[00:18:55]And to me that's just it shows a complete disconnect between companies and the governments within, in the jurisdictions within they operate. That cannot continue if the world wants, if governments keep saying, we want to take a stronger stance on China, we want to take a step back from China.

[00:19:14] We don't want China to become the next hegemonic power. We don't want China to encroach on the developing world and things like that. But then you have companies within these countries basically just undercutting, whatever the government says, which is not only bad, but it's also interesting because from the that's something that the Chinese government would never allow.

[00:19:36]Taylor Ealand: [00:19:36] Is this a sale? The UK could have blocked?

[00:19:38]Edi From Sinobabble: [00:19:38] I don't think that the government could have blocked it. Okay.

[00:19:43] Taylor Ealand: [00:19:43] Cause I know that UK has been in the news for the arm Navidea which supposedly they can block that. So if they can't block this one, Yeah, maybe you need to take some notes from the American government, because I think we could block that stuff.

[00:19:56] I don't

[00:19:56] Edi From Sinobabble: [00:19:56] think we are, I don't know exactly what the legislation is around that. I'm sure they could have at least consulted. It doesn't seem like any sort of consultation occurred. It just seems oh, this was, like a straight up business still basically. And when you do business with a Chinese company, you're not just doing business with a Chinese company, you're also doing business with the Chinese government and the communist party of China.

[00:20:20]And that's something, again, this is something that people need to learn. This is something that people need to incorporate into their decision-making process because now that this semiconductor company is owned by a Chinese firm, that means that the CCP can basically oversee the

[00:20:35] operations.

[00:20:36] Taylor Ealand: [00:20:36] Right.

[00:20:37] And there, there was an old adage maybe a hundred years ago, whoever controls the seeds controls the world. And this is why. This is going to be a little bit of a side, but I promise it will make sense in a moment. And this is why the Brits were so invested in their Navy for the longest time.

[00:20:50] This is why they were the dominant superpower for basically until world war one, if not world war two and to the sky is whoever controlled, the sky is controlled the world. And this is how basically the U S and the Russia Russians became the super powers they are because boats can't defend themselves against planes.

[00:21:07] It turns out and not all battles are fought and see, as we learned in the world wars. So then it turned into that and now whoever controls the digital sphere will for all the world. And yeah, I think the only country that has been in this regard from a governance point of view is the Chinese. I'm not convinced that okay, let me put it this way.

[00:21:28] Boomers have were the last four or five presidents, and we finally had a generational change and it went backwards. To the silent generation and I get the presidency is not the end all be all American politics, but that does put a pulse on where it is. And our, my leadership is not, and this isn't like a dig at the boomers.

[00:21:54] I'm happy to dig at boomers, but this isn't a dig per se. There's just a difference in lived experience. They don't know this world. They don't understand the importance of it, and maybe Boris Johnson's closer. Doesn't give me that idea, but maybe he is, he's at least younger.

[00:22:09] So he's more likely to listen to someone younger than him.

[00:22:13] Edi From Sinobabble: [00:22:13] Yeah. And his cabinet in general, they're not boomers. They are gen Xs and

[00:22:17] Taylor Ealand: [00:22:17] yeah. You have some of these tech people and we can say what we want of mark Zuckerberg or Jack Dorsey, bill gates the Google guys, whatever.

[00:22:29] But the problem is. And I say this as a capitalist proud capitalist, they are motivated by money and there's a lot of money in China. So they're going to do business with China, even though it is not really in their best interest to do longterm turns out companies don't think more than like next quarter, governor, governance, governments need to do a better job of understanding the issue because of, we don't have semi-conductors under for lack of a better term, our control, or at least the control of allies like Taiwan, we will be subservient to the power that does, and Russia is making a stake in this.

[00:23:03] Although let's be real, they're probably not going to overcome China. And China is making a major claim in this. And if China takes Taiwan, I'd be willing to waiter. Yeah,

[00:23:12]Edi From Sinobabble: [00:23:12] I think that's fairly, that's not an absurd thing to think. It's, for me, it is such a huge just like red flags should be popping up basically when things like this happen.

[00:23:23] And I think for me, the problem is that they're not immediately, right?

[00:23:28]Taylor Ealand: [00:23:28] There are red flags or the Chinese flag

[00:23:32] Edi From Sinobabble: [00:23:32] popping up in China, but like nowhere else, people are, they see certain things and they, they don't see other things. For example there was a, there's a Chinese version of Uber it's called D and it recently had an IPO in the New York stock exchange.

[00:23:47] So it actually IPO. Yeah. But the Chinese government flagged an issue with their like data sharing, something to do with that with they were worried about the transference of data to the U S if it was listed in the U S so they delisted the app in China and they will probably do what they did with other apps that they delist, which is they start blocking it from people's phones.

[00:24:12] So essentially the slowly shutting down the company just after it had its IPO in New York. And of course, People who are interested in investing in the stock market and, investing in Chinese tech firms and things like that. For them it's been flagged because they're like we just invested in this.

[00:24:30] This is China's meddling in our markets and things like that. And they're already doing this to spite us or whatever. And it's no China to control infamy. This is about the control of the flow of information. China doesn't want things leaving its borders. If it thinks that it cannot have full control over it.

[00:24:49] And that is not the concern that other major powers seem to have with their own companies, just, oh, semiconductors. Yeah. Just sign up with the Chinese. If that increases your profits, that's great. Maybe your supply chains will be faster and like maybe you'll get your resources quicker and things like that.

[00:25:05] Those are the things that they think about. Like you said, their profit making companies, whereas China's first and foremost thought is always governance.

[00:25:13]Taylor Ealand: [00:25:13] They're an authoritarian system, even. I know you've explained the system to me, and it's not quite that simple, but if you're going to do Republic versus whatever the Chinese have, it's not exactly a democratic stronghold.

[00:25:26]Then, do you think that the general Western policy pointed towards China is correct? Or is there something that has to change foundationally?

[00:25:37]Edi From Sinobabble: [00:25:37] I don't think that there is anything that can be identified as a Western policy towards China, at least not in like a monolithic. Sure.

[00:25:47] Taylor Ealand: [00:25:47] That's always true with general conference.

[00:25:50] Edi From Sinobabble: [00:25:50] Yeah. In as much as, we know who our allies are. It, you can say, okay The west in general is taking this approach of we want to keep you as like an arm's length. We're very cautious about you. We want to call out your human rights abuses.

[00:26:05] We want to be able to nitpick and point out things that we're doing in Hong Kong and Taiwan that aren't quite right. But at the same time, in terms of taking action, not everybody is on the same page. And that's a huge problem.

[00:26:19] Taylor Ealand: [00:26:19] I think most of the action I do see is coming from granted. I'm biased America.

[00:26:23]And I do see, at least British politicians and pundits also speaking out, I don't see the same coming out of say Brussels. I don't see the same coming out of France. I don't see this same coming out of well, I guess you do see it in India, but they're playing a very different game because their histories are just intertwined in a way that it was never going to go well But India does not have the same power that Brussels has and to not see the rest of the European continent, I don't want to say, get in lock step with the U S cause I understand Europe wants to be independent.

[00:26:52] They don't want to be seen as pawns of the U S and I get that. But you would also think okay, but this is not in your best interest. So like, why aren't you taking action? Maybe I'm wrong and just misguided because

[00:27:03]Edi From Sinobabble: [00:27:03] I think you're right in the, in thinking that everyone is pursuing what they believe to be their own best interest, their own self-interest, which is not necessarily actually their self-interests. So I mentioned earlier that the EU had to put a freeze on this sort of like trade and investment deal, but China is still the largest trading partner. Maybe after the U S but certainly side the number one or number two, and every single country within the EU also has its own.

[00:27:32] Bilateral agreement with China outside of the overarching EU sort of trade policy. So the problem is, again, comes down to what are the motivations, not only of countries, but companies that operate within those countries, to what extent are countries willing to, metal in their own markets, the effect where it's I can't, no, no one can do trade with China right now.

[00:27:59] If you're, if we've flagged a problem with the supply chain, if you flag a problem with the production lines, if we think that, any kind of coerced or slave labor is being used here or there, then you know, you're not allowed to do it. To what extent are countries willing to do that? It comes down to their own governance.

[00:28:19]And yeah, it's not a union. It's not a unilateral. Thing because the whole, the, not the problem, but I guess in this sense, it would be a problem of sort of Western ideals. The idea of Western democracy is that people are free to make their own decisions, especially in a free market.

[00:28:39]Taylor Ealand: [00:28:39] Yeah. I don't know. I find the whole thing crazy. I would think there would be more agreement within the west, but there clearly isn't and this is evident just between our countries, the way that your country is conducting itself right now versus the ludicrousness that is mine.

[00:28:52]They are different from what I do know. So it's just,

[00:28:55]Edi From Sinobabble: [00:28:55] Yeah, and also frustrating do it in Europe as well. Different countries are squabbling over different things. I think it's, people are, the EU is for example, mad at hungry and is starting to kick them out over issues with Victor Orban.

[00:29:08]So there's an P other countries are upset having to bail out, poor countries still and like sure. Different people have different ideas, for example, about how the coronavirus vaccines should be approached, do we need passports? Should we maintain freedom of movement, things like that.

[00:29:26] So there's already antagonisms within the EU also between the EU and the UK as well. There was recently something that came out that said if you had a vaccine that was produced in India, as opposed to one that was produced in the UK and in Europe, by AstraZeneca, you would not be allowed to travel to Europe.

[00:29:45] So there's been a whole feud about that as well. So there's lots of things going on already where people are not seeing eye to eye. There's already spaces of tension. We're in a recovery period right now, trying to come together on such a large issue as China, while China is happily we recovered from the pandemic and now we're making geopolitical moves, no one is in the right frame of mind to come together and think about how to deal with that problem.

[00:30:10] As a sort of Western based uni lateral

[00:30:14] Taylor Ealand: [00:30:14] approach, I would like to thank him in the U S and your corner would be helpful making that decision, but maybe I'm just wrong. Okay then it's weird because you say all that, Germany's happy to have to create a natural gas dependency with the pipeline that they're building with Russia.

[00:30:29] So it just seems like a mess over there. Just seems like a mess. So then, we've been overarching large issues, scale issues, but we've keep touching on, genocides and the weekers and stuff like that. Do you believe the. Numerous accusations against China concerning genocide ranging back to let me put his date to this looks like 2000.

[00:30:50]Edi From Sinobabble: [00:30:50] I would say that it probably depends very strongly on your definition of genocide. I think in the straight up mass slaughter, since I would say there's probably no evidence for that. However, in an indirect sense, there is almost certainly a culling of both the week of people and of there in sort of indigenous culture and their religion, which has predominantly Islam.

[00:31:19]And there've been numerous studies to show that there was a recent one by the I forgot what they're called. It's like the Australian strategic policy planning Institute or something like that. They've done two major studies. Very recently. One was about the shin, John Cotton supply chains to show to prove that people were going from these detention centers into factories or into cotton fields in order to do coerced labor.

[00:31:46] And then they've just recently done another study about family planning and D population in shin Jang that shows that the birth rate fell by about 50% between 2017 and 2019 alone. So in two years, yeah. So in two years, the birth rate fell by 2%, but they think that the policy has been going on for at least 10 years.

[00:32:09]You've got the literal numbers side of thing and like the population control thing. We've all read. Now I should think, I should hope we will read about the detention centers that have sprung up. There's also been other studies that have come out about mosques disappearing, not only in terms of like on the map but people will go to mosques that they've known they've been to before basically.

[00:32:30]And all the minarets will be gone. The decoration will be gone. And then a Chinese communist party official will come out and say, there was never a mosque here. Who'll be all chained up and things like that. And you go to certain communities and all of these religious leaders have suddenly been disappeared from the community.

[00:32:48] Never to be seen again, people don't know what's happened to them. So there's plenty of evidence for. A cultural genocide, if you will. And and a definite population control mechanism there's very strict. I think xingjiang is one of the strictest had some of the strictest enforcement of the one child policy.

[00:33:10]People were fined, people were imprisoned, people were sterilized. And apparently it's still going on if not today, then until very recently. Gotcha.

[00:33:18] Taylor Ealand: [00:33:18] So for the wingers, at least may not look like a Nazi genocide, and I understand all comparisons to Russia are imperfect, but this seems a little closer to the Soviet style of quote genocide, which is more gulags and population redistribution.

[00:33:32] Yeah.

[00:33:33] Edi From Sinobabble: [00:33:33] Okay. It's it seems more like a Kulak thing. So like getting rid of the richer peasants not necessarily by straight up killing them, you've been exiled or you've been sent to forced labor somewhere else, but it rips you out of your community. It tears you away from your family.

[00:33:48]You're removed from your way of life, in these detention centers, the main focus is on, they say it's on reproach. Sure.

[00:33:57] Taylor Ealand: [00:33:57] Yeah. And I've, I remember from your content correctly, they're also encouraging Han Chinese to basically replace the displaced people in non Han regions.

[00:34:07] Edi From Sinobabble: [00:34:07] Yes. Han hand to region regional migration is a policy that the CCP has been couraging for.

[00:34:16] I think at least the like 20, 30 years. So when you get when you get the CCP saying something like, oh, we've lifted this region out of poverty. And we've done that through urbanization. So you go to shin junction. John used to be all sheep, farmers and cotton fields and things like that.

[00:34:32] And now it's it's got these major, big urban centers. And it's got all of these companies, right? Who works with these companies. You go to the companies, 80% of the people who work there are hun Chinese people. There are no weekers working at these, there are no Wiggers living in these cities.

[00:34:48] There are no weekers. Working at these big corporations, there are new weekers who are benefiting from the urbanization. Of these areas, they are being either sidelined or controlled in their own enclaves and the urbanization is taking place without

[00:35:04] Taylor Ealand: [00:35:04] them. So that answers the question with weekers.

[00:35:07] How do you feel about the accusations against China concerning the Tibetans and even more obscurely the Falun gong?

[00:35:13]Edi From Sinobabble: [00:35:13] So to Tibet, it's similar to shin Jang, but it's the difference I would say is that the CCP is trying to bring to bear more into China. It's been separate for a long time and they've basically just controlled it by, policing it basically no one goes in and no one can.

[00:35:32] That's how they've dealt with Tibet to date. What they're trying to do now is more regional integration. Bringing people literally down from the mountains, into these new cities, putting them into brand new flats and giving them jobs in the community. So they basically like we'll build a community from the ground up and just move whole families, from the step way of life, whatever they've been doing, whether they be hurting, goats and sheep or whether they've just been, I don't know.

[00:36:01] Yeah. But yeah, they've been living the lives of sharpers basically in these steep mountains and the borders, they don't really have that, strong national identity. So the aim of the CCP is to give them the identity in that sense. So they're being

[00:36:18] Taylor Ealand: [00:36:18] a little bit more peaceful with Tibetans.

[00:36:20]In a sense,

[00:36:20]Edi From Sinobabble: [00:36:20] The tactics, yeah. The tactics are different. There's still the problem of both places have a problem of their religious institutions being shut down essentially by force. So there was recently a case of, monk and non-training monastery. It's really huge.

[00:36:38] That was shut down because, oh, it didn't comply with this regulation or that regulation. And, they show the erasure of it on a map over time and things like that. And it's, These things happen relatively clandestinely. And if you don't, if you're not paying attention to it, if you're not working on Tibet sort of thing, it's not the thing that will be brought to your attention until after the fact, which is very unfortunate because it would be like, no one, no, one's following the erasure of Tibetan culture, but we'll know when it's gone.

[00:37:07]Essentially.

[00:37:08] Taylor Ealand: [00:37:08] All right. Then with that, I know I asked you about the fall and going last time and last time danced around it too.

[00:37:14]Edi From Sinobabble: [00:37:14] Yeah, the the thing with the fallen gong, I don't, I would assume that this is the CCP being very skilled at hiding, you know what they're doing again, we'll know when it's gone.

[00:37:23] It's all very clean. The Steiner

[00:37:26] Taylor Ealand: [00:37:26] has gone. This was early on. When there's one guy spearheading this conversation online, it's probably gone. Yeah.

[00:37:33]Edi From Sinobabble: [00:37:33] Not to, dismiss the filing gong issue as passe at all, because, any issue of like the complete erasure of a people or a culture is big deal.

[00:37:43] Yeah. It's a big deal, but the Falun gong stuff, it was always like we had no information, it was clump. It seemed to be clamped down on very quickly, very effectively before the internet became really big as well. So before we were able to archive things and it was in that weird period as well in the nineties and eighties where it's oh, this is just a friendly, chigong breathing exercise, spirituality movement.

[00:38:08] And like the CCP is more. Spirituality movements now, right? Like that sort of move past it. And then I was more

[00:38:16] Taylor Ealand: [00:38:16] concerned with

[00:38:16] Edi From Sinobabble: [00:38:16] Japan as well. Yeah. And it's exactly Japan was having its moment. China was a non entity really in the eighties and nineties, except for the tenement thing, which was obviously it brought it to light.

[00:38:30] But then again, not a lot happened about even the Tiananmen square incident. And also there's still a lot that we don't know about that. And that was a huge issue at the time. Taking something like the fallen gong web, and you have accusations of like organ harvesting of people just disappearing people being put into again, Gulag style, concentration camps.

[00:38:50] We just never really got all the facts together. And then it just. Basically vanished.

[00:38:57]Taylor Ealand: [00:38:57] Do you think there's some legitimacy to it with countries? I think the U S eventually did, but like the first country that I know of that actually acted on this whole Oregon harvesting thing was Israel.

[00:39:06]And there are European countries that, again, these bands are stupid because you can't really enforce them, but they banned travel to China for medical reasons because organ harvesting. So do you think there's any credence to it, even if the information is not as clear cut as say the weekers?

[00:39:23] Edi From Sinobabble: [00:39:23] Yeah. I think it's the kind of thing where you know, if the rumor exists and it persists, there's probably a kernel of truth to it. Yeah, exactly. But the, I think the fact of the matter is like what's more There are bigger fish to

[00:39:39] Taylor Ealand: [00:39:39] fry because at this point they're doing

[00:39:42] Edi From Sinobabble: [00:39:42] yeah. But I think the fallen gong more than anything, whether or not the accusations of organ harvesting are true or forced it's important as a case study for how the CCP can make things disappear.

[00:39:56] Cause the fallen gong existed. I saw some falling on protests in Hong Kong when night of there as well. So they could, there are only like 50 people there, but the others, they embarrassed. Yeah, they will. They're probably not. But yeah, that, I'm sorry. That was terrible on Izzy. But yeah.

[00:40:14] So if anything, the falling gong is really important just so that people can understand. It's like there was this thing that existed in the Chinese government was able to make that disappear, understand that they can do that and they can do that very well and very efficiently. And you probably won't even know that it's happened

[00:40:30] Taylor Ealand: [00:40:30] until it Falun gong was not enough.

[00:40:33] I think that's like why it's so alarming to me. Because I sat out when I found Mitchell Gerber, I set out to prove him wrong. You know what I mean? Like I was like, this guy is a conspiracy theorist and I'm going to prove it. And I couldn't do it, which, you could say then you have to assume nothing.

[00:40:47] It's no, but I couldn't do it. And here's a person who is making accusations against a country that we know lies. So I have to take the country that we know lie of saying we never did this versus this one, dude. No one else is really pushing the message he's pushing. I'm sure you've looked into him at some point.

[00:41:06]In no one really will pick it up. Outside of the, I think the Canadian government had a PM that was interested in it and he basically got buried. Just screens, conspiracy theory, and already sounds like one. So you just dismiss it. You know what I mean? And really I was at the point where I'm not willing to talk about this until I can find governments acting on this and then it turned out.

[00:41:29] Yeah. It turns out lots of them did your government. And I'm saying your as in mind not so much. And it was like, oh, okay. So what concerns me about that issue is that, with the Wiggers you have an ethnic thing going on and ethnic cleansing bad, don't get me wrong, but it's easier to ethnically cleansed than it is to culturally cleanse because Falun gong, wasn't people born in a regional China.

[00:41:56] I'm sure there were regions. It was more prevalent. It was being a monk. It was doing yoga. It was

[00:42:03] Edi From Sinobabble: [00:42:03] you like breathing exercises.

[00:42:07] Taylor Ealand: [00:42:07] Let's just go and persecute model, plane builders. That's the type of thing that was going on and they did it successfully, which that's the part that terrifies me about it, which is why I bring it up, even though it is harder

[00:42:18] Edi From Sinobabble: [00:42:18] to, that is the thing that people should be concerned about because the CCP does this every day.

[00:42:23]Something that they did either this week or last week, they banned so on the Chinese version of Twitter, which is called bore. They banned every single university affiliated LGBT group and feminist. And any sort of groups that use those hashtags, any groups that sort of, was like involved in meet the me too movement in China, or it's just talking about feminism on campus, whatever it is.

[00:42:50] These are extremely fledgling movements, like in China, gay people still cannot get married. They still cannot adopt children. It's still not okay to be gay the way it is everywhere else, let alone other LGBT issues. So these are very small groups that are only just getting the foot in the door.

[00:43:11] Only just getting their voices heard. And the government was immediately like, Nope, shut it down. And just very, not Marxist. Yeah. And also to be clear for people who are not sure, not aware Chinese Twitter is indeed controlled by the government, even though it is an independent company, it still has to adhere to a Chinese state censorship policies.

[00:43:36] Taylor Ealand: [00:43:36] I forget the number. Is it any company with more than 20 employees has to have a party

[00:43:39] Edi From Sinobabble: [00:43:39] member? Yes, it has to have, yeah, like an offender. Is it 20? I F I believe it's 20. Yeah. It's like a, if that's me. Yeah. Once you become an SME, basically.

[00:43:50] Taylor Ealand: [00:43:50] Yeah. Let's see, where am I at? All right. Let's shift away from that.

[00:43:55] You lived in Hong Kong. What emotions come up when Hong Kong comes up?

[00:44:01] Edi From Sinobabble: [00:44:01] Sadness? Definitely. It was strange. I was talking to a friend who still lives there the other day. And, she was saying that. As you would expect on a day to day basis, nothing about your life has obviously really changed.

[00:44:14]Especially if you're a foreigner who's living there just going to work normally. If you're not literally in the streets, when a protest is taking place, when the police are arresting people when they're holding up these banners that say you are breaking the law, we will use deadly force.

[00:44:28]If you do not disperse, then you don't know, and you just go about your day. But I also know Hong Kong, those who've moved to the UK because of things that are happening in Hong Kong. I follow a lot of people who worked for the apple daily, which is the newspaper that the Chinese government shut down a couple of weeks ago for basically, daring to voice opposing opinions.

[00:44:50]And yeah, it's just, it's very sad. Because I had people saying things to me directly, oh, nothing's going to change, nothing's going to, the national security laws, it's just a precautionary measure. China still adheres to one country, two systems nothing's ever, like until 20, 47 or whatever, it's all going to stay the same.

[00:45:11] And I'm like, it was just very, I don't like to predict the future when I'm writing or when I'm analyzing things. Because I think that, that comes with its own bad territory, but I always felt that it was naive to think that there would be this sort of long transitionary period where Hong Kong would continue to enjoy its like, free for all sort of style of like democracy and capitalism and just doing whatever they wanted.

[00:45:38] It's no, China's going to bring that to a swift close. They are doing

[00:45:43] Taylor Ealand: [00:45:43] something right. You're I told you, so attitude and your recent south stack about that. I was all for that a hundred percent. I was like, I want to embody that sort of Eddy energy. Yeah, I know. I was right.

[00:45:55] Edi From Sinobabble: [00:45:55] Yeah. I wrote that mad.

[00:45:57] I was very

[00:45:57] Taylor Ealand: [00:45:57] mad, but it was like it wasn't an anger that was well-placed there's a time and a place for it. And I hold a similar sort of anger with how my country handled Hong Kong because we even had our president at the time say, Hey, stop doing this. And, he was known for his brashness and his ability to actually like talk to other countries and bring the temperature down, whether it was because he was crazy, who knows, but he didn't there.

[00:46:24] And it w it was a moment where I was particularly disappointed because yeah, that, that was a big deal in your energy. I was with you on it. I was with you on it. I remember seeing a video of a bunch of Hong Kong or singing the American national Anthem as a form of protest. And that was a very prideful moment for me in the sense that these people are looking to my country as a beacon.

[00:46:50] And then when nothing came from my country, I'm sure the disappointment that all of those people felt was much worse than the anger that I hold for my own government and how they've handled the situation. Yeah. Because they basically prayed to us and we didn't help them.

[00:47:07] Edi From Sinobabble: [00:47:07] Yeah. It's a huge, it's a huge let down.

[00:47:09] And especially as a. A lot of countries, whether America is still feels us where not a lot of countries do still turn to America as a sort of bastion of like the free world basically. And America obviously made its own mistakes in international politics and things like that.

[00:47:25] But when it comes to demo democracy and like the ideal and standing up against authoritarianism, there is that expectation. And people were waving British flags as well when we went to the protests and, looking to us, the formal, we were the former colonial

[00:47:41] Taylor Ealand: [00:47:41] overlord.

[00:47:42] Yeah, exactly.

[00:47:43] Edi From Sinobabble: [00:47:43] And they were still like, have you got anything for us guys? And it's we've got some passports, but other than that, like we can't save you from this deal. This awful, terrible, very poorly thought out deal that we made a hundred years ago. Like we've sold you out. Sorry.

[00:48:01] And that's it.

[00:48:02] Taylor Ealand: [00:48:02] I'm gonna take that clip of you saying the other parts, look to America, and I'm going to clip that. I'm going to hope that you can, at some point, come talk to half of my country and remind them of that basic fact of reality that we are still a beacon, even if imperfect. Yes, absolutely.

[00:48:17]So sadness comes up when we talk about Taiwan, not Taiwan, Hong Kong. Now I gave my cards away. What's what are you thinking about Taiwan right now?

[00:48:26]Edi From Sinobabble: [00:48:26] I think it's very interesting that people like there's, a lot of rabble rousing about Taiwan, all of a sudden people are gearing up and it's oh, is this the thing that China and Hong Kong China and the us are going to go to war over?

[00:48:37] It's like probably not. China absolutely. A hundred percent intense to reincorporate Taiwan back into back as a province of China. That's, undisputed fact sheeting pink said it in the speech that he gave on the first, he said, Taiwan is part of China's national territory. We will continue to pursue the one China policy.

[00:49:03]People should butt out and not interfere in that basically. But people seem to think that China's going to March into Taiwan and take it over by the barrel of a gun. And it's no, it's probably going to be more of a, this is just my thoughts on it from what I've seen and what I asked for.

[00:49:18]Yeah, but from what I, it seemed from the past sort of 2015 years it seems to be more of a slow. Economic creep more than anything else. As with a lot of countries, nowadays, China is Taiwan's biggest trade partner. It relies on China for a lot of its own imports as well.

[00:49:37]Basic necessities imports jobs as well, lots of Taiwanese factories that are set up in China because there's more space in China. In terms of flow of people. It's very easy in terms of the cultures, obviously they are extremely similar. The only thing that China really has to deal with, which is, again, very recent problem is the idea of Taiwan ization.

[00:50:01] So like an actual Taiwanese identity, because for a very long time, Taiwanese people identified as Chinese. It's only very recently in the past. Again, 15 years or so that people have been identifying as Taiwanese, as opposed to Chinese. So this sort of cultural separation is something that China would have to deal with, but I don't think it's something that they would have to do deal with military force.

[00:50:25] I think they could perfectly be easily over the next 30 years. Take it easy and just basically take over Taiwan's economy.

[00:50:33] Taylor Ealand: [00:50:33] The, I guess the issue that I foresee, if our governments are looking forward is that Taiwan is still an ally of ours. Taiwan has differences with China that as far as I'm concerned, have not been worked out because of their histories and perhaps the modern people are shifting their tune on that.

[00:50:56]And if Taiwan becomes China, as we alluded to earlier, the semi-conductor balance has completely shit. Yeah, because Taiwan is home to basically the major players. Yeah. So even this is going to sound it, this is actually going to be the first genuinely imperious and Peerless thing I've ever said. I think I am not convinced it is in the west interest to allow Taiwan to incorporate with the CCP.

[00:51:30] Now, I don't think it's in the Taiwanese interest in that, and the fact that they're making their own identity sort of insinuates, they understand that too. Or else why make a new identity and why make an identity when you're separating from China? It's not like you were in Japan, Japanese, or Korean or something.

[00:51:43] So there's clearly something going on there, but perhaps it's not an issue of whether or not Taiwan and China wanted, kiss and makeup. Perhaps it's more, an issue of is the west going to sick, going to seed what is essentially the major player and what will determine the next. Yeah,

[00:52:03] Edi From Sinobabble: [00:52:03] because yeah, I agree.

[00:52:06] I think that's the major question. I think the problem is that there's kind of two problems. Taiwan is not necessarily recognized as a country. Yes.

[00:52:19] Taylor Ealand: [00:52:19] Many countries don't recognize them. I don't think that you

[00:52:21] Edi From Sinobabble: [00:52:21] end up no. So it's not it's it was kicked out of the UN when that's a reason to

[00:52:27] Taylor Ealand: [00:52:27] get rid of the UN, but that's my American coming out.

[00:52:29]Edi From Sinobabble: [00:52:29] And the who as well does not recognize Taiwan as a country. It is a part of China officially. So increasingly

[00:52:37] Taylor Ealand: [00:52:37] the, who has lost its credibility here in the states.

[00:52:40] Edi From Sinobabble: [00:52:40] So yeah. So you have on, and even, the U S. Like you said not to be imperialist about it, but it's basically the only thing that is keeping Taiwan a country.

[00:52:52] If it was not for the U S Taiwan would not be a country, be it would never would have existed and it would not continue to exist until this day. So it's essentially at the behest of the U S and the U S is allies in the region that Taiwan can continue to exist because China has now made formal trade deals with all of the APAC countries, except for Taiwan.

[00:53:17] Taiwan continues to be excluded from regional deals. If China is involved, Taiwan can not attend ceremonies. It cannot attend the UN it cannot attend the who, it can not get access to certain forms of investment or aid because of China. If for Taiwan, they are basically going to have to make the decision.

[00:53:37] Are we okay to continue as a non entity, not be recognized as a country and kind of go it alone, hoping that the us will maintain its presence in the Taiwan street forever? Or do we basically just give up and join China

[00:53:55] Taylor Ealand: [00:53:55] again? I know this is something that Americans don't talk about and there's a number of good reasons why I, I wouldn't be opposed to the idea of the U S extending an invitation and be like, yeah, we're the U S of a, but you can join us if you want.

[00:54:08]That like never happened in

[00:54:10] Edi From Sinobabble: [00:54:10] Hawaii.

[00:54:11] Taylor Ealand: [00:54:11] Yes. Yeah. And it will never happen in the current political landscape. And it's not, I hate it because there is a significant portion of my country who uses the term imperialism.

[00:54:24] Like the turn means something. And like every other term it's been or down, I, for 1:00 AM, if people want to join and they're willing to say we want to become Americans and all that, I'm all for it. You know what I mean? There are obviously hurdles to clear and that's not a major conversation in my country.

[00:54:40] So just because I'm saying that, do not take this as any serious conversation that's happening here. It's not. But this almost seems like an example where it would be in the U S interest to extend a friendly invitation. In mean it, there, we don't mean it currently with Puerto Rico which I think is insulting when we say make DC a state, because for political reasons, that's advantageous to one party, th the country of a couple of million, the territory of a couple of million screw you.

[00:55:03]But we're going to make this tiny little, but he died. That's a state now. No, that's not cool. So I'm not convinced we would even like, if we even did it, it would make sense because I don't trust my government to treat them with the respect they deserve. It, that seems like a move that could be peaceful in a sense that, if it's true that we're going to risk war with China over Taiwan, I would much rather say, Hey, this is not American land.

[00:55:24] Look, you could do a UK style, not Brexit, but like ENT and enter it. I don't know to where the, if they have a referendum and we're not Russia, so it'll probably be good and they decide to join, touch us now, type of thing. But I don't see it actually happening. And why would the Taiwanese do it and be

[00:55:41] Edi From Sinobabble: [00:55:41] we do it.

[00:55:42] Yeah. And China would see that as a declaration of war anyway, because to them, Tai Taiwan is sovereign land and in to B to B. Fair to both sides. Taiwan also pursues a one China policy. They just disagree with Hulu,

[00:55:56] Taylor Ealand: [00:55:56] China. They want to be the China. They don't want the other China to be like

[00:56:00] Edi From Sinobabble: [00:56:00] on the other China.

[00:56:01] So the, I, from my own perspective, what would be nice the least the world could do would be to recognize Taiwan as a country as, instead of a sort of like place. Especially because, Taiwan meets all the requirements to be a country more than other countries do that are recognized as countries, as you said before, for political reasons, certain places are recognized, whereas others are not.

[00:56:22]If the west, as we discussed earlier, wanted to pursue some sort of unilateral policy towards China coming to an agreement about what to do about Taiwan would be a very good place to start. Sure.

[00:56:34]Taylor Ealand: [00:56:34] I've taken up a lot of your time, so I should probably wrap up soon, although you're always great and fielding my questions.

[00:56:40] Edi From Sinobabble: [00:56:40] Nice, great. It's always great

[00:56:42] Taylor Ealand: [00:56:42] conversation. Awesome. So is China the, is trying to truly the greatest threat to us or is it albeit, maybe important and an issue still a boogeyman?

[00:56:53]Edi From Sinobabble: [00:56:53] think the threat of China has been over-exaggerated, but not on purpose. I don't think people are fear mongering necessarily.

[00:57:03] I think people are just getting information as it comes at them and w reacting viscerally to it. So I think in that sense, like China registers as a threat, obviously. However China has a lot of internal. Issues that people don't know about because people don't know a lot about China that would prevent it really from becoming the threat that I think people think it is like, China's not a copy of America with an autocratic government.

[00:57:31]That's not what it is. It may ha may be the world's second largest economy. But for example, the GDP per person is I think something like an eighth or a sixth or something of American GDP, which is not the best measurement of, a country or a people's wealth. But it just goes to show that Chinese people are not living the same way that American people are living per se.

[00:57:52] There's a huge wealth gap in China. They've got an aging population they're very concerned with their own internal security they're in regional security. As we've seen with things like shin Jang, as we've seen with things like Tibet, as we see with Hong Kong, they're very concerned with territorial integrity.

[00:58:09]People are becoming disillusioned with China. That with belt and road projects that are being canceled or African countries defaulting on their loans or places like India, basically refusing to allow any belt and road products to come near to the country, go for them. Yeah. But then obviously there are like we've discussed, there are other levels.

[00:58:31]There's the economic level, there's a supply chain problem. There's there is an awareness that I think everyone needs to have about China. I don't think it's an awareness, like China's, gearing up to attack sort of thing. But I think there is like a creep sure. That people definitely need to be more attuned

[00:58:51] Taylor Ealand: [00:58:51] to.

[00:58:51] I know, like I know that temperature in America is rising and I know that on a, we get over this way, the news that actually seems to break our public consciousness, even if it's only like conservative news outlets was like, I think Jean ping was recently posturing about nuclear silos which, through to us it's big deal.

[00:59:11]And it's interesting because you'll say things that they're true. Not I'm not, yeah. That's the came out a little antagonistic that wasn't meant to be. But you'll say things like, Taiwan isn't recognized and it isn't and Americans know that like when we have to deal with North Korea for it, China is the daddy that can actually get stuff done, like naturally punished the child.

[00:59:31] You know what I mean? So it's we look at this country that's aligning itself with bad things, obviously, between the weakers between North Korea. There's been I want to say there was a recent thing between using ping and Putin flow. They're aligning interests. Now, if I'm remembering correctly, I keep track of too many lines.

[00:59:48] I need to stop. You have all of these different, events that are happening that are, these are, what's actually making American news and yeah, I can understand why Americans believe that war is coming. It does feel like it, even though what you're saying makes sense.

[01:00:02] Like China is a little preoccupied with its own. And w I also talk about when I talk to people about Russia, Russia has its own issues right now. Boone's got a full plate over there and the likelihood that, Putin escalates. Is not as high as the world news wants to make out right now with the whole UK drama with the warship.

[01:00:20]Putin knows because Putin's a smart man that has plates full and sure it's using ping knows this as well, but you can't help. But think, it's clear, China thinks 10 years down the line, 20 years down the line, we know they at least think in five-year increments. So sure today is not a threat.

[01:00:39] And I feel like it's easy for people to say that, but that's how Americans think we think of today. We need to start thinking of tomorrow. And I think as more and more Americans start thinking about tomorrow with the information that's coming from China, it's hard to not think within the next 20 years, shit's going to get real.

[01:00:56] Edi From Sinobabble: [01:00:56] And yeah like I said, I don't like to predict things like, with a rubber stamp and say, that's, this is what's going to happen. It's certainly possible that armed warfare takes place in the next 20 years or so I just, on the balance of probability, like you said, China thinks in at least five-year increments, they've got a 20, 25 plan and a 2050 plan as well as the normal five-year plans.

[01:01:22] So in terms of just seeing what China thinks, our priorities the U S is not one of them. So for us listeners out there, sorry, you didn't make it under China's list of top five priorities this time, maybe you will later on. And I think that people need to think of China less as lessors a copy of America in that.

[01:01:46]They're big, they've got money, they've got a big military. They can make moves. Like they can, they can push their way around the world a little bit and, move things, how they want to move things. China's still can't move things. How the U S can move things around the world.

[01:02:00]China has to be for want of a better word, a lot more insidious, a lot more gradual. They're still building, they don't have the soft power of American, nowhere near it doesn't even touch it barely even registers. So these are things that China is still like they have in the plans written, and we need to build up our soft power.

[01:02:19]We are, they, these are things that they actively work on. They actively going to developing countries and train their journalists to be pro China journalists. They actively go into countries and build ports that, now are just shipping ports, but in the future could be Chinese military bases.

[01:02:38] So you somehow

[01:02:39] Taylor Ealand: [01:02:39] made that sound helpful. It was a

[01:02:43] Edi From Sinobabble: [01:02:43] good sound. I think what I'm not hopeful about, but what I'm in terms of a long time is that we have time, like if people start thinking about China now and start taking action now and start analyzing China, now we have time to deal with these things because China, like you said, works on a long time scale.

[01:03:03] We can work on time. China's timescale. They write everything down, they publish everything that they're planning to do. It's all written there. All you got to do is read it, read it, understand it, turn it into a response is, would be my advice.

[01:03:18]Taylor Ealand: [01:03:18] With all that said, do you think that current leadership around the world ranging from Europe to America, Canada, Israel, India you'd think the politicians?

[01:03:28] No. Unfortunately the monkeys making the actual decisions, not just us pontificating about what's correct and incorrect. Do you think they are equipped to actually handle the issue?

[01:03:37]Edi From Sinobabble: [01:03:37] They're certainly equipped to deal with it. They deal with people that they don't like very quickly. In other situations, you see how they move in the middle east or in north Africa with people like Gaddafi.

[01:03:47]When these Western countries don't like where something is going, when they want to change something, like I said, when when they want to nudge the world in a different direction, they certainly have the power to do that. I just think it's a case of actually. Coming together and stopping sidestepping a lot of issues.

[01:04:07] Like I think something that really needs to be dealt with this is another thing that I had a rant about that I was going to write a newsletter about that I didn't because the other one took over is that the flip-flopping on the coronavirus lab leak. The west really meets to just stop sidestepping the issue stop memory holing the fact that as soon as this happened, everyone thought it was a lab leak.

[01:04:30] And then all of a sudden it wasn't a lab leak. And now that there's all of a sudden a new presidency in the U S there is a possibility that it could be a lab leak again, how convenient. So

[01:04:41] Taylor Ealand: [01:04:41] I'm gonna point out for the overlords. I, this is not the American conservative saying this. You can't damn this show.

[01:04:48] That's a Brit, she's a Brit. I did not say any of those things. I have no idea if it's alive, like no idea.

[01:04:55] Edi From Sinobabble: [01:04:55] And that's, this is the thing. Like no one has an idea. And that's because the issue was not addressed at the exact moment that it should have been addressed. And this is the problem that Western powers have.

[01:05:08] So what we really need to do. If we want to have this unilateral dealing with China, whether it's look, we all want the world to grow prosperous and peaceful together with China, with maybe with the CCP, maybe it doesn't need to require overthrowing them. Maybe it's, whatever their plan is in the end.

[01:05:29] I'm not a politician. I don't have grand visions of like future utopias, but whatever it is that they're planning, they need to be more willing to address issues as they appear and stop sidestepping issues and, face China, head on.

[01:05:45] Taylor Ealand: [01:05:45] You, as an American, I can't comment on that bleak. I can only get banned.

[01:05:50] I know you can do it, which is the bullshit part. But

[01:05:53]Edi From Sinobabble: [01:05:53] I have no political affiliations. I have no say in this issue, I'm just pointing out the fact that articles were written about a lovely and then they weren't and now they are. I'm just saying

[01:06:03] Taylor Ealand: [01:06:03] no, I think an orange guy had something to do with

[01:06:05] Edi From Sinobabble: [01:06:05] why it wasn't maybe I'm.

[01:06:07] I wouldn't know about that. Be honest.

[01:06:11] Taylor Ealand: [01:06:11] All right. I want to wrap this up, not just for your sake, but at this point, the listeners, Eddie, it's a pleasure as always. What do you do? What are you plugging? I, whatever you do, I support. So if you listen to contrary facts and you think China is even worth learning about let alone an issue, you have to go look at Eddie's stuff.

[01:06:31] What is that stuff?

[01:06:32]Edi From Sinobabble: [01:06:32] So it is the Sino bubble podcast. So S I N O B a double B L E a N. The podcast is mainly about 20th century China. We're just going through history at the moment. So if you want to learn all about the history of the founding of the CCP major events that you might have heard of like the famine or the cultural revolution, or just why is China like white as today?

[01:06:53] You can check that out or you can check out the newsletter, which is on sub stack by the same name, sign up bubble. And that talks about current affairs and tries to break down, essentially both historically, and from a modern perspective, why is this happening? I don't, instead of just ripping things from the headlines, we go into the details of it and try and break it down and put some of China's own perspective on it as well.

[01:07:17] So you know where they're coming from, as well as where the Westerners writing the headlines are coming.

[01:07:22] Taylor Ealand: [01:07:22] Sure. Awesome. Thank you so much. You always have an invitation on the show, but you know that, so thank you. Please check out Eddie, please check out her work. What else is there to say? She proved herself.

[01:07:36]She's fielding my questions. She spent an hour and a half of her valuable time here on contrary. I was talking to an American conservative, which I understand you don't have the same, like your world isn't as nutty as ours, so you don't care as much, but that's a big deal in my country.

[01:07:50] Appreciate it. Thank you so much. And for everyone else, I'll catch you in the next episode.

038 - Kyle and Taylor CLASH Regarding Environmental Policy

Taylor and Kyle get absolutely SPICY when discussing environmental policy. As much fun as this show has been with our minimal disagreements on air, this was a great insight into our more "contentious" conversations. At the end of the day, we make great cohosts because of our ability to disagree and then move on with life - you know, as respectable people are supposed to do.

Support us by:

Sharing the show with your friends!

https://store.contrarix.com

http://contrarix.locals.com

Where to find us:

Taylor: @contrarix on everything.

Kyle: @VoteKyleHermann on Instagram and Facebook

Music By: Garrett Vandenburg

Taylor Ealand: We are live anything you say can and will be held against you in the court of public opinion. Although I don't know what we're going to say,, that will get us in trouble today. If anything, we might get in trouble with the right more than the left, but

[00:00:21] Kyle Hermann: I know, crazy

[00:00:22] Taylor Ealand: how that works. I know. Right. We'll see how that goes.

[00:00:24]Today we're talking about conservation ,  at Kyle's request. So I really am not entirely sure what I'm about to get myself into. I know generally, you know, as, as people ,  I tend to believe that I'm more of the environmentalist than Kyle, and we'll see if that holds true today. But since I don't really know where we're going before we get started.

[00:00:44] I want to do it quick plug store dot contrarix dot com. If I thought about it, I would of wore it. We have shirts. We have mugs. We have sweatshirts. We have products you should go check them out. Some of them are cool. Some of them are just our logo and so they're less cool, but still representative. And I won't keep them there for long, but store dot contrarix dot com if you want  to support the show.

[00:01:00] Monetary and get something out of it. That's not, you know, like a membership. We don't Patrion as everyone else does Patrion and it's whatever. Also you can find us at contracts on most outlooks in most places, and that's pretty much it I've been on more shows, contrarix.com. We'll eventually have a place where all of Kyle and I's ,  guest appearances can be found if you want to find more of us because you've been listened to all of contrarix and you need more of our voices.

[00:01:28] That's probably going to be a week or two. So that's everything I care about plugging right now. Why conservation, Kyle, why are we talking about this this week? This is not like you.

[00:01:38] Kyle Hermann: Oh, are you kidding? See Taylor. I, I don't know. He might just be learning this about me, but I'm an inner environmentalist at heart.

[00:01:46]I guess the difference is that I just don't fall under the environmental preferences of the left. But I think for all intents and purposes, I am a conservative environmentalist. So the reason I'm really thinking about it today for one is that I was looking for a really good birthday present yesterday.

[00:02:07] And I came across the America, the beautiful federal lands pass and the San Diego county level version of that, which is just a parking permit for all the county parks. And when I ended up getting a hold of these two things, I thought what a freaking cool thing to have. Of all the different things that I could buy on the internet buy off of Amazon.

[00:02:32] This was like, man, I'm going for this. And I love this. And I went down to the county building and bought it yesterday and got the permit. And I am just so stinking excited to go visit all of the county parks, all of the federal lands. The, I didn't get the state one yet because it's very state of California.

[00:02:52] It's very expensive. But for the most part, right, I just love the idea of getting to go to all the national parks, natural or national lands and all these sorts of things. So when we were trying to pick a topic last night, it was really the first thing on my mind is parks open space and kind of the adventuring and recreation that comes along.

[00:03:17] Taylor Ealand: So you're using politically charged terms when talking about environmentalism. And I suppose I want to step away from that a little bit. So let's define our terms real quick, because I'm not suggesting that, you know, the left or the right has, is, you know, has the bulwark of environmentalism. So when you're talking about being an environmentalist, what does that mean?

[00:03:37] Kyle Hermann: I think it means being responsible with our resources ,  you know, but it's also acknowledging that there are resources out there for us to use. You know, the, I saw today when someone said, save a tree, you know, scan the QR code and look up the menu online instead. Well, sure. There might be opportunities to not have to print something out and use less paper.

[00:03:59] I, I get that, but at the same time, realizing that, okay, we can cut down a tree, we can plant a new tree, you know ,  that we can do it in a responsible way. Still use paper, that sort of stuff. So I I'm just saying that I fall into the responsible category where we should use our resources. But we should not abuse our resources and we should be smart about how we do it and not decimate the land that we're trying to use or anything like that.

[00:04:32] Taylor Ealand: Gotcha. So I say, I, I understand the take of- it's take that I often associate with Christianity with the whole we're masters of the land and should be able to use that type of logic. I'm not sure I buy into it wholesale. I mean, sure. The tree is there, but the return time on a tree is 30 years. Was the menu really worth it?

[00:04:55] Kyle Hermann: You plant more trees too.

[00:04:57] Taylor Ealand: You can always plant more sure. But like there, there, there is a discussion to be had about an efficient use of resources and a QR code with a device that everybody is carrying around anyway is much more efficient than printing menus. But you know, in the grand scheme of things, it's not the menus that are killing the trees.

[00:05:13] It's the volumes upon volumes of papers that corporate companies are using to file away and never see again, because paper is king in some industries, I actually experienced this in my internship. You know, a lot of things got printed off and just kind of like, I guess some of you are 80 year old attorneys, but please just stick it on the computer.

[00:05:29] We don't need to print off four copies of these ,  a hundred page memorandums. Like it's just ridiculous. So, you know, if you're really concerned about the, the laminated often laminated paper menu at the restaurant. It's not the thing to be most worried about, but in the same token, I mean, when I see a QR code at a restaurant, I use the QR code.

[00:05:49] I mean, it's just a more efficient use of resources. And frankly, I'm used to seeing things on my phone anyway, and it makes it to where the restaurants are able to be environmentally conscious as well as change up their menu more often because they don't have to print. And in most cases, laminate using plastics additional menus.

[00:06:06] Kyle Hermann: Yeah, no, I mean ,  not to get too stuck on the ,  that example, but, you know, that's what I mean by responsible is just making the best decisions. But understanding, you know, it's kind of the difference between like, you know, understanding, I guess, for example, that you can go out in the forest and have a bonfire, right?

[00:06:25] You can have a campfire, as long as you're burning, you're not burning, you know, cans of paint or anything like that. Fire is natural, right? You even though ,  the smoke and all this, that is a completely natural process. So it's the difference, I guess, between saying no, we shouldn't have any impact on the environment whatsoever.

[00:06:45] And being able to say, well, there are forest fires that happen without man's help every single year. So, you know, a campfire and a forest with natural wood and natural fire ,  is not an inherently bad thing. You know, I guess that's, that's kinda what I'm getting at is understanding our place in nature and not being, so I guess what I'm trying to push back on from the extreme sides of this.

[00:07:13]So from the left would be the people who are very extreme in the sense that they would wish that humans didn't even leave like a footprint in the dirt because they think that that's going to like change the course of history and like the books that we read in middle school,

[00:07:29]Taylor Ealand: I think that's an extreme fringe.

[00:07:31]Kyle Hermann: So the people who  honestly do hold to the idea, though, that humans are, are necessarily bad for the environment. Anything that we do that is outside of what we think is the natural order. Like we are having a bad impact on it, right? So we shouldn't go into the forest. We shouldn't walk anywhere. We shouldn't even go near them because we are going to have a bad impact on, on the land.

[00:08:05] And I see this there's places around here ,  that are completely barred off to humans. And I looked on the website and it. People, this has been barred off because, you know, people are just going to destroy it. And maybe there's a specific circumstance that they're talking about or what, but it was that idea that saying, okay, humans and this place, which is just hiking trails are a bad combination.

[00:08:30] And I thought, no, we can do better than that. We can make it so that humans can interact with this area and everything we can all live in harmony.

[00:08:43] Taylor Ealand: We'll come back to this cause I, I disagree with you. But you said a peculiar statement and I want to make sure we're on the same level with understanding when  you said that there's a, we have to understand our place in nature. What is our place in nature?

[00:08:58] Kyle Hermann: Well, we're here on this earth. We have resources. Like we go out and fish and we can fish for food. We can hunt for food. We can, you know, do those sorts of things. This is kind of going back to our ,  vegetarian, vegan shtick ,  from a few weeks ago. But I'm just saying the difference between ,  you know, going out and fishing and saying, look, there's plenty of fish in the sea.

[00:09:21] Let's go out and fish them, get some food versus saying, Nope, we, we shouldn't go out. And fish. That's kinda where I'm saying our place in the world is, is interacting with.

[00:09:32] Taylor Ealand: But when we look at the number of fish in the sea, there's not as many as we think; we've destroyed the biodiversity in the sea. You can't just go out and fish and you can't just go out and fish.

[00:09:44] If companies are pouring out, you know, billions of tons, millions of tons of toxic waste into the ocean, killing the fish. I mean, it's not that simple, you know, we know, you and I can't just go out and find fish. There are no fish to be found and the numbers are getting worse and worse as time goes on.

[00:09:59] And we're not sustainably ,  allowing fishing, fishing isn't happening on a sustainable level. When we're looking at the grand economic scale of trying to feed 7 billion people. So I don't know if I even agree with you. You know, what is our place on the planet? Because in the same token, I kind of do fall more in line with the logic that we are, that we are ultimately creatures of the planet.

[00:10:21] We are one with the planet. We cannot leave this planet and we affect this. And, you know, it's, it's one thing to say, if you're like, well, we're the top of the food chain. So, so fish be damned. It's like, okay, fine. Sure. We, we are the top of the food chain and  we're going to affect ,  environmental change as being the top of the food chain.

[00:10:35] But in the same token, our changes are killing ourselves as well. And, and we are upsetting a delicate balance. I mean, with your logic, it sort of stands to reason: well, we can extract the fossil fuels out of the ground and therefore we should be able to do so. And it's like, well, no, not if there's better methods of energy generation available to us which there are ,  and there's debate as to what those are, but there are, and I don't think it's appropriate or ethical to be extracting resources from the earth to the scale that we're doing.

[00:11:07] So. Being sustainable about it. And this isn't necessarily a human issue, which maybe this is where you and I have overlaping agreements. This is more of a cultural one. You know, certain cultures are better about sustainability than others. The native Americans understood this very well and understood the importance of the land and the animals and everything that they sort of interacted with.

[00:11:26] Now it's dismissed as animalistic, but at the end of the day, they understood the value of the resources that were given to them by whatever you want to call it. And they tried their best to keep the balance of nature sort of in play where now, -and this is a more Western capitalistic issue -we don't hold the same value to land.

[00:11:47] I mean, you're talking about ,  we're going to keep people off of this land because people are ultimately going to destroy it and you say that's not inherently true. I think it is right now because when we do let development go without any repercussions or any insights into the land that we're developing on.

[00:12:03] Yeah. We destroy ecosystems. Now. There's always a balancing act, you know, what's, what's the return on the destruction and sometimes it's worth it, but sometimes it's not, and I'm not sure we know when it's not worth it.

[00:12:17] Kyle Hermann: Well, so let me, let me clarify two things. One, the specific reference that I made about that piece of land was that they've boarded off entirely.

[00:12:28] So no one's allowed to walk on it. It's not building there's no, no traffic whatsoever.

[00:12:34]Taylor Ealand: Sure.

[00:12:35] Kyle Hermann: So even though it's a huge, huge land preserve. So that was, that was my key on that is ,  I wasn't proposing any actual buildings, just access

[00:12:48] there.

[00:12:48]

[00:12:48] Taylor Ealand: But even people walking, you go on the trails in the Sierra Nevada, you go to bald mountain, you go to ,  Rubicon trail, you go to Yosemite, you're going to find humans disrespecting the land.

[00:12:58] Even though there's a general understanding that we should respect the land. I mean, if you let people walk on trails, they leave behind trash  not everybody does this obviously, but what you're preaching is sort of idealistic because if you go on a beach, go to a California beach and you stick around at the end of the day, there's going to be trash on the ground, left behind by people who do not care.

[00:13:18] Maybe they're everyday Americans. And they think that their individual choices don't matter in the grand scheme of things. And maybe in the grand scheme of things they don't, but they still add up over time. And it's just easier to say, no, you can't enjoy this because you can't be trusted with it. I think in certain situations where we're trying to regrow what we have destroyed, it might be the appropriate response.

[00:13:39] Kyle Hermann: Hmm, that's interesting. I mean, I would view it more as the, the gun-free zone logic for some of these places. You know, you can put a fence, you can put a thin barbed wire fence around this place, but people who don't care about the environment are probably going to hop the fence anyway. So I don't know.

[00:13:57]I, I think I would just rather focus more on even opening it up. Here's I guess, where I'm kind of turning my logic is opening it up. Maybe even charging fees for it. Right. I'm even willing to go that far and, you know, give it organization, give it ,  park Rangers and volunteers and all this sort of stuff so that there can be people who go out and make sure that the park is clean.

[00:14:25]And that the area is clean after it has been accessed. So. I'm still, you know, advocating for responsible use of it and obviously punishment of anyone who decides to do elicit things. But I just think people who like going out and spray painting rocks for, for fun are going to do it, whether or not they've been given real access to it.

[00:14:53] You know, people go and spray paint the freeway bridges, definitely not supposed to be doing that. And it's probably dangerous in some of the cases that they

[00:15:02] do it. Sure.

[00:15:03] Taylor Ealand: But ease of access plays a role. I mean, you and I know those alma mater had a guard tower. You and I both know that guard tower didn't do diddly squat, but you really don't think that it didn't do anything at all. Just by purpose of being there just by the purpose of the rule exists.

[00:15:18] Kyle Hermann: Oh, what I'm I guess what I'm saying is in that sense now, There's nobody to take care of it, right? Like, because the park is just closed off, which is this big land. If you get caught. Yes, you you'll be fine, but there's just, no, there's nothing out there.

[00:15:40] So there's probably just as much going on, but there's nobody else out there too.

[00:15:46]Taylor Ealand: You're you're, you're assuming that just because you're not as a member of the public allowed to go on the land that the state doesn't have the authority to send out, Rangers are researchers out there ,  knowing how these places tend to operate, that's not what's going on.

[00:15:58] It's monitored. They want to keep the public out of it because the public trashes things ,  now, you know, whether or not it's right and wrong, that's a fair point to go back and forth on. And you know, in my libertarian perfect world yet, and you and I should have the right to go wherever we damn well, please.

[00:16:10] And as long as we enjoy the earth, but there is. A valid concern because this does happen all the time. Everywhere people don't take, take care of their surroundings, go to a dilapidated part of San Diego and tell me I'm wrong. Those people have a vested interest in keeping their streets clean. They don't, for whatever reason you think you, but you assume that if they go to a re a reservoir or a reservation or conservation place that they're going to treat it any better.

[00:16:44] Kyle Hermann: No, I'm just saying that there are people who will treat it well. And so. You know, to give them access. I don't know. It's, it's hard. It's a, it's a balance. So I, I totally hear where you're coming from because we've opened up some places to the public and we do exactly what I'm saying. Right. We monitor it, we try to clean it up when it gets trashed, then you know, we kind of appease the public.

[00:17:10]And then there are some places that the public just isn't allowed to go because the state wants to the state or the county, or whoever wants to just preserve it altogether. I guess I'm coming from a more altruistic view that I do just wish that ,  I guess I don't really disagree with you. I just wish that we could be in a position to be able to open up any sort of land and be able to either trust the public or have people rally together.

[00:17:46] Right. Like kind of the hikers or the ,  I don't know the ,  the bird Watchers, those kinds of those types of groups to be able to go out and maybe pick up the slack for where other people have fallen short. And I will just say I'm biased. The reason I get so fired up about this one specific land preserve is that it's very close to my house and the hike ,  would be very, very cool.

[00:18:10]And, and the other thing, okay, this is why, let me add on, there are radio towers at the top, so it's just slightly ironic, slightly that the government says, oh no, no, no people can't be around here because ,  people are going to destroy the environment. Oh. So maybe we shouldn't have ,  telephone wires running up the side of the mountain and big radio towers up at the top.

[00:18:37] Oh, you don't want people near the radio towers either. Okay. Just save that. But it's, it's just kind of this, this hypocritical, it doesn't sit well in my stomach because they're saying, oh, no, people shouldn't be here at all. And then it's like, yeah, but we have like communication installations throughout this thing.

[00:18:57] So I don't really see what you guys are getting at. And there are, there's a paved road to get to that thing too. So it's not like it's this pristine never been touched ,  open space area. There's actually the huge type of ,  power lines that run through it too. So it's just like, well, if we can run power lines through it, I think we could maybe put in a few trails or something.

[00:19:23] Taylor Ealand: Sure. I mean, I'm not with you on it, but sure. Okay. Well, you, you made a point at the beginning of this conversation to say that you're a conservative ,  environmentalist as opposed to a liberal one. And that clearly means something to you and I, this is one of those issues. I don't think it should be political.

[00:19:40]But it clearly is. And you and I also understand that the, the conservative environmentalism liberal environment is, do believe in different things. Because politics is that stupid, but what does that mean to you?

[00:19:52]Kyle Hermann: Kind of going back to what we said before, I think that we should conserve ,  I love the idea of having parks and open space and ,  making sure that our land is clean and not excessively polluting or anything like that.

[00:20:08] So even what you said about overfishing ,  I don't, I don't disagree with you at all. I think the company. Should be taking responsible action. You know, I'm not advocating for the companies to do that. They either, there's a lot that can be said about, you know, overproduction over fishing, over all sorts of things.

[00:20:28] Just go to a grocery store and see how much it's sitting out and how much it gets wasted. So I'm with you on all that? I guess my difference when I say conservative ,  environmentalist is that I maybe just don't fall into the extremist ,  apocalyptic environmental worldview. That's kind of like the scene in the Simpsons where if you throw one more piece of trash in the lake, then the lake is gonna ,  swallow up and the squirrel is going to come out with 37 eyes.

[00:20:57]I think that we should strive to keep the lake clean. But at the same time, We are able to live harmoniously. Yeah. You know, and I guess the other way that I've put it in the past is that the earth itself is strong. And we should obviously respect it, but it kind of goes back to the, the bonfire example that, you know, we can take those sorts of actions.

[00:21:28]We can go out and fish, we can have, you know, fires, we can have all these sorts of things if we do it responsibly and we do it, you know, in moderation and the earth will be able to handle it.

[00:21:47] Taylor Ealand: And my context for, we will handle whatever we throw at it. The question isn't about the earth, the question really at the end of the day, it's about us.

[00:21:53] Kyle Hermann: Yeah. And so my context for this really ,  just to maybe frame it a little bit better is kind of, like I said earlier about the forest fires, right? Are our boys in red who put out forest fires are some of the best in the world. So shout out to Cal fire for all that they do. However, there are places where forests burn without human help and without human hindrance.

[00:22:20] Taylor Ealand: Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So you keep saying things like this, but when you're losing scale, they don't burn the way that they've been burning even naturally there wasn't frequent fires every year,

[00:22:31] Kyle Hermann: because it's that, and you're right. It's because of that exact reason it's because when, whenever there's a fire, we put it out.

[00:22:40] No, because we don't want it to burn down our houses. So there are places that burn and they burn naturally, and then they don't burn for a long time, but we put out fires when they start. And so they, so the, we have interrupted the national or the natural process

[00:23:02] Taylor Ealand: that would already be happening you're after the natural process long before the fire even started, buddy.

[00:23:06]Ah, no, you pick, you're picking an order. I knew this conservation episode might've been, might be more contentious than you think it will be. You don't understand the scale that humanity has on the environment as is right? Because no, it's not like sure. Let things burn. That's fine. Most of the places where fires are burning, even in California are burning and uninhabited lands.

[00:23:31] That's not a big issue level. And also you're, you're disregarding the part where we actually do purposely create fires. We do controlled, burns all the time, and that's perfectly normal. And there are environmental reasons for doing that. However, when you have his poor forge forge forest management, and you're letting dead dry, organic matter accumulate on the ground, because you're not willing to let the loggers go in and clean up the space a little bit while also being environmentally friendly, because loggers traditionally are, we're not the rainforest we never were.

[00:24:07] And you let all this matter. Accumulate these fire spark. They get really hot, hotter than they are in their natural counterparts, really fast. And they burn way more than. This is, you know, made worse by the effects of climate change, which I was going to get to eventually, because now there's less rain to naturally put the fires out or to naturally keep the ground more moist or whatever it is that would normally contain these fires, which does have a significant human impact on us and on all.

[00:24:38] And, you know, we have, we have a significant impact on climate change. We'll just see which you can argue is not making it hotter here. I mean, it's the middle of June and we hit 110 degrees here in Fresno. That is not normal. I never was normal. So to say something along the lines of like, we should just let it burn.

[00:24:58] No, no, no, no, no. You're what you're so far late in the chain you've missed the forest from the tree.

[00:25:03] Kyle Hermann: Well, I don't think I'm, I don't think I'm disagreeing with you here. So, you know, even the fact that you're elaborating is not necessarily a point of contention. I mean, because you bring up exactly what I was trying to get at.

[00:25:16] I guess I was just pointing out one specific point in that chain. And it's exactly what I was saying. When you, for environmental reasons, don't let loggers clear the forest because you just say, Nope, nobody's touched the forest. Don't look at the forest. Don't even sniff the forest. Then that sort of stuff starts to happen.

[00:25:37] I just use the example of the fire itself when you actually get to that point. But I'm just saying

[00:25:45] Taylor Ealand: on climate change,

[00:25:48] Kyle Hermann: I mean,

[00:25:54] I don't know. You start, it's a political

[00:25:56] Taylor Ealand: issue. You have viewpoints. No, no, no, no, no, I'm not. I'm not you, you know where I stand. You made it a point to say that you're a conservative environmentalist, you, you, which means that you believe in quote, conservative policies, whatever that means. I'm not entirely sure.

[00:26:09] I know what that means because Republicans don't do shit for the environment.

[00:26:15] Where do you stand on climate change? Generally. Open-ended question take that where you think it needs to go.

[00:26:22] Kyle Hermann: Well, I I'll take it kind of both ways. One is we need to do what we can to be responsible, which is what I said on the flip side of that. And why I will tread lightly on this question is that on the flip side of the climate, right on the flip side of the climate change debate, you have people who think that the world is going to end.

[00:26:51] I mean, literally some of the books that have been written about this are like, guys, we're, we're done with this. If we keep on this track, then we're going to be, the earth is going to implode in seven years. Something like that. That's the kind of thing to which I say, well, then there's nothing that we can do right now.

[00:27:14] If, if the world's going to end in seven years because of what we've done to it, I can guarantee you. We're not going to reverse course on it in the next

[00:27:24] Taylor Ealand: humans have a significant impact on the global temperature.

[00:27:31] Kyle Hermann: Oh, sure. I think, I think we should do,

[00:27:35] Taylor Ealand: should humans use the government as a tool to enforce the, to prevent the deterioration of the, of the environment?

[00:27:48] Kyle Hermann: The only caveat that I will put to this is that.

[00:27:56] And this is why we're having this conversation is because when I, when you say humans, I think of the, the general population making these decisions. I think people will, I think people in general don't know which things we should or shouldn't be using. That's that's kinda that's so that's, so that's, that's why my answer is the way that it is, because we say to the government as the general population, we say ,  you know, we should ban ,  we should,

[00:28:39] I don't know. We'll just say let's ban it. Paper bags because we want to stop producing paper bags. Right? Okay. So then the companies by necessity, because they still need to give out some sort of bag say fine, we'll we'll produce plastic bags. So when I, all I'm saying is that we don't always understand the other side effect of our decisions when we use the government to enforce environmental policies.

[00:29:12] And we should be very, very careful. Right. So I'm not, I'm not saying no, but I'm

[00:29:19] Taylor Ealand: saying it should be.

[00:29:24] Yeah, it should be. It should be watched. I understand governor Newsome's decree executive order to ban the sale of new gas cars. I think it's 2030. It might be later though. Yay or nay.

[00:29:49] Kyle Hermann: Is that your question or did you have more? Yeah,

[00:29:52] Taylor Ealand: no. Governor Newsome's ban on the sale of new gas cars. It's either it's at least 2030 and may be further out yay or nay.

[00:30:02] Kyle Hermann: Well, let me, let me just turn it to you. What are the side effects of using only electric cars

[00:30:10] Taylor Ealand: is forcing automotive companies to produce electric cars at a scale because of one state, because it believes that the trade offs of producing batteries is better than the trade-off of releasing a continued stream of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the air.

[00:30:38] The trade-offs have been.

[00:30:41] Kyle Hermann: That's my question, I mean, in general is, is that trade off worth it because how it is sold to the general

[00:30:52] Taylor Ealand: you want, the answer is the trade-off worth it. Kyle, based on what you know is the trade-off worth it. I don't tell you my answer, but I don't think I should go first.

[00:31:02] Kyle Hermann: So on this matter, I am not an, I'm not an expert.

[00:31:07] I am a member of the public. Okay. So I will, I just have to disclaim that I am going based off of what the general conversation says. Okay, sure. To which I would say at this point, I am not confident in the trade-off because of the production of batteries, the production of the cars and the production of electricity.

[00:31:31] So, you know, we we've been sold since we were younger on solar energy. That's great. I'm not opposed to solar energy, right? And so we have this simple mindset that electric cars, solar energy, we all lived happily ever after, but even as a member of the public on this issue, I still go, wait a minute. There is manufacturing involved up to the point of taking in solar energy.

[00:32:03] So there's, there's something hiding in the closet here that it is not abundantly a cleaner industry by introducing electric powered cars.

[00:32:19] So I

[00:32:21] Taylor Ealand: wouldn't have done the

[00:32:21] Kyle Hermann: executive order. I'm saying if, if we can truly put our confidence in renewable energies, which as greatest. Aspire to be are not fully there yet for one. Because they have side effects of their own, like putting a solar farm in the middle of the desert that beams sunrays up into, you know, cause the air to be like 250 degrees or something like that.

[00:32:53]

[00:32:53] Taylor Ealand: In a small area that has no, it has no bearing on most life, let alone human life. So this is, this is where you make the insinuation that you think you're closer to me than I really think you really are because no, this should be a pretty clear answer. So do you, what do you do not, or do you, okay, let me, let me, let me, do you, or do you not support governor Newsome's executive order on the ban of new gas, new only new, you can still sell old ones, new gas cars after whatever that period of time is.

[00:33:25]Kyle Hermann: Right now, no.

[00:33:26] Taylor Ealand: Okay. Now do you, or do you not believe that the government should, in certain cases, inf you know, use its monopoly of violence to enforce environmental policies? Yes or no?

[00:33:45] Kyle Hermann: I'm going to go with your libertarian streak on this one and inclined to know,

[00:33:50] Taylor Ealand: I actually thought you were going to say yes on that one. So this is where my libertarian streak goes out the window. Cause it's just a stupid way of looking at it. Do you believe that the government is at times the only viable player to do certain tasks?

[00:34:05] Yes or no?

[00:34:08] Kyle Hermann: Wow. You're turning me into a libertarian on this show. How dare you, Taylor?

[00:34:17] Yes. Yes, on the government only being able to do certain things.

[00:34:24] Taylor Ealand: Why is protecting the environment or at least starting the protection of the environment, not one of those things,

[00:34:31] Kyle Hermann: because the government isn't necessarily better at it. It's not

[00:34:35] Taylor Ealand: about being better. It's about being the only one able to do it.

[00:34:39] Kyle Hermann: No companies are able to do it.

[00:34:41] Taylor Ealand: No companies are not able to do it. Tesla is only profitable because of government incentives.

[00:34:47] Kyle Hermann: It is, it is within the business. Owner's interest to be able to have farm land to farm on next year.

[00:35:00] Taylor Ealand: Sure. But business owners don't think about 30 years or 40 years or 50 years down the line.

[00:35:06] Not necessarily, especially business. The farmer is going to be more prone to think like this. Absolutely. They hatch fund that owns the farm. Not so much. They won't.

[00:35:19] Because that's the, that's where we're at in society. You know, right now I'm pissed off a ton because BlackRock is buying up properties throughout the entire country to make it to where people like us will never be able to afford homes. It's bullshit. It's not capitalistic either in certain things, the government is well suited to tackle.

[00:35:38] And I do believe that a wide-scale short-term plan to get us on the track of sustainability is one of those things. Now, you and I probably agree in certain policy decisions, like I think providing the foundation of our environmental policy on solar and wind is shortsighted and naive. It shouldn't be nuclear in a perfect world fusion, and the government should be spending billions and billions of billions of dollars to make that a reality.

[00:36:07] It's not, but it should be. And you, and I would probably come to agreement if I explained the benefits and why, and you're probably already inkling to do so. Cause I do know you however, to also say like, there aren't like you, you do this weird wishy washy non-answer with governor nuisance order as if you know, the, the, the, the trade-offs is the term you use, isn't worth it.

[00:36:28] It's like, okay, but we have a dependence on gas and gasoline and on fossil fuels, even if it's coal, like we have a dependence on dead stuff that was buried in the ground. And there is an inherent issue of pulling carbon out of the ground, lighting it up and then letting it go into the air and not putting it back in which we're not doing a good job of putting it back in at all.

[00:36:55] So then you had let this carbon accumulate and it makes it to where there's like, now this, the blanket on the earth that is the atmosphere is getting thicker and thicker and he is getting trapped in and it's going to. Fry us. I mean, maybe not us, but it's going to fry certain environments. It's going to melt the eyes.

[00:37:13] It's going to raise the ocean and that's going to have consequences. I believe the trade-offs of destroying multiple ecosystems is greater than the fact that you might have to buy an electric car in 10 to 15.

[00:37:27] Kyle Hermann: No, that's not what, that's not my emphasis on that. My emphasis on that is that I am not convinced as a member of the public, that electricity is right now, or even in 10 to 15 years, 10 times cleaner than gas production as it is because we only think of electricity coming out of the wall.

[00:37:49] And we think of the quiet car driving by and not seeing a tailpipe on it. So that's what the populace is thinking of clean. But what about the factories that produce them and the factories that produce the batteries and. Everything that leads up to the car, actually being on the road,

[00:38:09] Taylor Ealand: take a step back and think about this.

[00:38:11] Logically, everything that's been produced has is going to have fossil fuels involved in it. Sure. But now it's no longer a hundred percent fossil fuels. It's no longer even 90% fossil fuels because we've, we have always had electro power, hydro-power and stuff like that for a long time now. But as we move more and more towards electricity towards solar, towards wind towards ideally nuclear, the dependence on gasoline or on fossil fuels to power the electricity generation, which you are pseudo correctly, pointing out ,  is lessened because you have more and more renewables in the picture.

[00:38:48] Right. Does that make sense? How is it then that if some, if we know some of the electricity is produced by renewables, if not a significant portion of it is produced by renewables, how was an all gas car better than an electric car, which does have a significant upfront costs and electricity production because of the batteries, which means there is a significantly more upfront costs in the fossil fuels being used to create them.

[00:39:21] But over the long-term it takes like something five to 10 years, depending on the car is still a net positive over an all gasoline car. How was it that you prefer the all gasoline model?

[00:39:32] Kyle Hermann: I'm not saying that I'm like a pro gasoline advocate,

[00:39:37] Taylor Ealand: then what is wrong with governor Newsom's order?

[00:39:40] Kyle Hermann: The, the thing with it right now is that it is in, okay.

[00:39:47] So the executive order is set for, I guess, nine years, right? I'll check

[00:39:51] Taylor Ealand: it, but it's something like that.

[00:39:53] Kyle Hermann: It wasn't, yeah, I think it was 30 or 30. Maybe it was 20, 35 might have actually been 20, 35. I'm just saying standing right here right now. It is hard to see how we would, how we would be able to make that transition.

[00:40:10] And I guess just looking at it from a layman's perspective, seeing the way cars have evolved ,  over the past 50 years, we'll say right from, yeah, from the gas guzzlers of the 1950s to now. So 70 years, I don't actually see a great evolution in that. And quite honestly ,  and so I guess I just, in that way, I'm not optimistic.

[00:40:43] In, in our capabilities of how we're going to, I don't know. Maybe that doesn't make any sense at all, but

[00:40:51] Taylor Ealand: it doesn't, but I feel like you're coming from a place where you just say, I don't say this to be rude. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

[00:40:58] Kyle Hermann: Well, I told you I'm a layman

[00:41:01] Taylor Ealand: on this. Even laymen who have experience would be able to dispute what you just said, because the sense of fifties, there's been significant improvements in gas efficiency, which has been in, which has only existed because of government interference.

[00:41:15] This is one of those weird places where again, the government isn't any is in a unique position to stop something from happening. If we let this is why I'm not a pure capitalist. If we let companies do whatever they want to make the most profit in the least amount of time, they don't consider long-term ramifications.

[00:41:32] They should, but they don't. So the government has stepped in and put an emission standards has put in requirements, you know, on power, on power versus.

[00:41:43] Versus consumption. They put on, you know, you have to hit these targets for ,  particulates that are coming out of the tailpipes. You have to require catalytic converters. You have to do all these things, which these companies did not want to do. It was bad for business, but because of these, because of this, because of these regulations, the world is cleaner, is more environmentally friendly.

[00:42:04] LA is not as covered in smog as it was in the seventies. That is huge. We don't,

[00:42:12] Kyle Hermann: this is where I, I guess LA is a great example because this is where I'm a little bit of a cynic. Okay. Is LA has improved, but LA is also the example to me of it should be better than it is because California has had its time and LA has had its time to implement all the policies at once.

[00:42:37] No one is stopping California from implementing all the policies at once too. And why is LA still smoggy?

[00:42:44] Taylor Ealand: That's what it does for some reason, environmental, environmental ism is political,

[00:42:50] Kyle Hermann: but there's no one to stop LA from doing whatever at once. Yes, there is. There's no, there's no Republican, essentially

[00:42:56] Taylor Ealand: the car companies in Detroit to make a better cars to where when you bring them in, they don't dirty up the

[00:43:03] Kyle Hermann: air.

[00:43:03]You sure can because because of the California car standard across

[00:43:08] Taylor Ealand: the country, or which has the backing of the California government and the California government enforcing a gasoline ban is going to significantly affect the entire country. The Bose, because California has the willpower to do it, which it doesn't always have.

[00:43:24] I mean, California is more than LA and San Francisco, and these are political issues and people are considering votes when they're thinking of palsy. And for some reason, uniquely in this country thinking environment,

[00:43:36] Kyle Hermann: Yeah. Yeah, that's, that's kinda where, that's why I'm a little bit more of a cynic. I'm just saying, I don't know why.

[00:43:43] I don't know why. And I will, I will say being in San Diego. Okay. San Diego is as relatively clean air. And I think we've done. I don't know, San Diego's

[00:43:58] Taylor Ealand: relatively cleaner has not as much to do with your policies down in San Diego. As much as it has to do with your geography. All of your dirty air goes in the ocean or goes inland.

[00:44:09] Fresno does not have clean air. The cars here are no different. The people here are relatively, no different. Our electricity generation. Isn't all that different. We live in a bowl and we get smog and it's killing us quite literally giving us lung cancer and shorten the lives of older populations in Fresno, in the central.

[00:44:30] Do not confuse San Diego's relative success with better policy, because there are places that benefit from geography because that's how the

[00:44:38] Kyle Hermann: earth works well. So I guess I'm still not disagreeing with you on this matter is I'm saying that it is places like LA and Fresno that need to figure out what they're going to do.

[00:44:55]You know, it isn't, I guess I can't be as sold here in San Diego for that reason, but LA needs to figure out how it's going to not. Smog trapped in his bowl like it is, and they need to, but LA

[00:45:13] Taylor Ealand: is the smog in LA. The smog and froze now is being created by machines that are not produced here. And without them, we wouldn't be economically viable.

[00:45:22] Anyway, we have to have tractors run to grow the farm, to do work. The fields that grow the food that you and San Diego get to enjoy. So to say that it's Fresno's problem is stupid because it's not, it's, it's a human problem. This affects all of us. This is one of those issues that legitimately affects every single human being on the planet.

[00:45:40] There is not that many of those issues, you know, this in like nuclear warfare, and that's basically it to then say that it's on the it's on the onus of those who are most heavily affected so that you can keep living the life you want to live is sort of ludicrous because no, that's not,

[00:45:54] Kyle Hermann: that's not exactly what I'm saying.

[00:45:56] I'm saying for the, for the businesses in Los Angeles and the businesses in Fresno, it, it should be. They're concerned to figure out how to be cleaner, right? It should be everyone's. It should be everyone's desire. I'm saying by virtue of living and owning a business and, or owning a business in LA, we'll say it should be Las high priority to produce a clean environment.

[00:46:36] Taylor Ealand: It can't LA doesn't operate in a vacuum. The machines don't come from LA. They come from Mexico. They come from Canada. They come from Detroit. They come from China, Japan, Korea. They don't come from LA. How are they supposed to do it? It's not Elway's responsibility to solve climate change. It's all, all of our responsibilities.

[00:46:59] Now there are

[00:46:59] Kyle Hermann: policies. We're not just talking about climate change, that we're also talking about the immediate impacts of, of smog and air quality.

[00:47:11] Taylor Ealand: It's all the same. It's all connected.

[00:47:13] Kyle Hermann: Well, no, I'm, I'm not saying that San Diego shouldn't take part in developing a cleaner production. I'm saying that LA by virtue of its geography needs to figure out what it is going to do to keep the air clean.

[00:47:34] Taylor Ealand: I think you're on a track that goes nowhere because there's no way for them to do it with the system that you're trying to create. The way we clean up the air, not just in LA, but everywhere is to enforce cleaner standards for everyone because there, you know, if we can prevent a car dumping, tons of lead, we did this with led led was bad.

[00:48:00] Led was very bad lead. Was it, you know, there's why there's unleaded gas. It was releasing all kinds of pollutants that were led in the air. It was killing people. And we decided none of that create a technology that doesn't use lit and companies did because the government told them to how was LA supposed to do that?

[00:48:16] When now it's not led, but it's excessive greenhouse gases that we're pulling from the ground and not putting back in that is the new pollutant. How was this any different and why is it that it is on the onus of communities like LA and Fresno to figure out their unique problems when their unique problems are caused by literally everyone, including San Diego, because your habits in San Diego are influencing the commercial habits of companies that are multinational, that are producing cars in LA.

[00:48:47] That is leading to the small, okay.

[00:48:59] Kyle Hermann: I'm saying from a capitalistic standpoint, there can be a,

[00:49:11] we should have ours struggling because it doesn't work. No, I'm just saying we should have our ,  we should like do two rounds of the podcast. One where we battle out our ideas first. Anyway, I'm saying that based on supply and demand, if people in LA don't like smog, then they, they need to use their consumer power to, yeah.

[00:49:43] My point is that it should not fall entirely on the government. I'm saying that companies have the ability and have the opportunity to make these ,  Make a cleaner environment possible and that it is not ultimately the government who will or can do it. Absolutely. Government is

[00:50:04] Taylor Ealand: not the end all be all the government is at, at the very least the starting point the government has to enforce the rules.

[00:50:10] Government has to make rules, enforce some rules. Now we, you and I all the time are knocking the government because they make stupid arbitrary rules that shouldn't be enforced. So it's not like I'm saying that every time government makes rules they're legitimate. However, there are situations. But the government is in a better position to enforce change.

[00:50:28] And there are some changes that need to happen. We know, based on scientific data, based on the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the effect that these greenhouse gases are having on our environment, we know that the path we're on right now is not sustainable. Long-term you and I may live our lives in relative safety, I suppose, but it's going to kill our grandkids.

[00:50:52] If we don't change the government is realistically the only body that can force the change because you're talking about consumer power of Los Angeles and sure. Politically for California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles is a huge part party in the grand scheme of GMC. Not so much, they don't have that much consumer power, especially when the rest of the world doesn't necessarily care about what we'll say, Angeles, think about cars.

[00:51:18] So they're just going to buy whatever. And GM's going to produce more of those because it's way more profitable. That's forcing Los Angeles. That's forcing Fresno to buy the worst alternative. If they want to be able to be relevant. The, the, the, the purely capitalistic scheme, which I wish would work, doesn't work here.

[00:51:36] This is one of those areas where pure laissez-faire capitalism fails because it's not in the interest of the long of the short term profits of major companies, which do not give a flying F about you or I to produce electric cars, because they're just not as valuable government is in a unique position to further the development of the technology required to.

[00:52:01] These electric cars more viable. That's why when you buy a new electric car from Ford and for a while, Tesla, although they've used up their reserves at this point, when you buy a new electric car, you get a tax credit provided by the government to further the development of these cars. And thanks to policies like this.

[00:52:21] There are companies, not just Tesla, but now a major player Ford making electric cars. And it would be naive to think that they would do so if it wasn't for the structure in which government provided to allow them to do so and still be profitable, because it is not profitable to be an electric cars as Tesla look at the way that their company is run and tell me where their profit comes from.

[00:52:42] I can tell you where it comes from. It's not the cars, it's the tax credits and that's huge. That's not bad per se. There are certain things I think the taxpayer should pay for it. Making sure that our grandpa kids can live is a good starting point. And the government is the only person, the only group with the power to enforce these companies to do this, especially when the governments are teaming up to tackle an issue that we know is going to affect you.

[00:53:09] Now, you have a valid point about the point about the general public, not having all the data and that's fair, but you know, that's just as much in the general public's fault too, because you could have access to all this information. It's all out there on easy to watch YouTube videos that make it plain as day of what the data says.

[00:53:26] We know that gasoline cars have a lower carbon footprint at production. That is not the problem. The problem is throughout their lifespan, which is quite long, they produce more carbon than the electric alternatives. If you only use a car for five years, the electric one is worse, but cars don't get used for only five years.

[00:53:46] Maybe you only use yours for two or three or four before you turn it in, but cars have a longer life than that. So over the grand scheme of things, they produce much less carbon. And when you factor that out to a whole societal scale, that's a significant impact, especially if we can get the technology to the point where we can put it in things like semi-trucks, which produce way more carbon emissions because of the prevalence they have on our roads.

[00:54:08] But that isn't to say that we shouldn't try or shouldn't enforce policies to get us towards that future faster, as opposed to letting the free market do its thing when it feels like it, which isn't going to be until it's too late, because it's not that type of issue. This is a slow gradual buildup,

[00:54:25] Kyle Hermann: I guess, where I'm maybe trying to call back on your libertarian streak here just for the purpose of these ideas is ,  again, not that I really don't like the idea of electric cars.

[00:54:39]But just to say, like right now with co California environmental policies, this is something I heard. This is not something I've researched. Okay. I asked someone at a car dealership who, whose goal is to like, you know, sell cars. I asked them how long a car is supposed to last, how many miles a car will get.

[00:55:01] And they said, brand new cars off. Now we'll last about 120 to 140,000 miles because of the restrictions that California has put on them. So the car itself now, a gas car ,  barring the conversation about electric cars, specifically a gas car is now like living half its life that it could have before.

[00:55:26] And we're having to produce another one. If you buy a brand new gas car today, you're going to have to buy a new one in six years because of the policies that are wearing down the cars because of the technology that have been put in them because of the, all those sorts of things,

[00:55:46] Taylor Ealand: too simple. Sure. There, you could maybe argue that the cars aren't built the way they used to be.

[00:55:51] And part of that is intentional. And part of that shirt is maybe a side effect. However, is not necessarily a case that you have to buy a new car after 140,000 miles. What gave out was at the end. Well, the transmission, wasn't the brakes. Can you replace the part and not the whole car? And even if you know, cars used to last two 50 and now only lasts one 20, but they live, you know, on 20% of the old cars emissions in the process, it's still a net positive.

[00:56:20] It's still a win. So no, you can't simplify it. That much cars too complicated of a machine. And you'd think these cars are complicated. Look at the electric cars. They're freaking weird. There's more motors, there's more parts there's batteries. And now we have to keep that in mind. I'm sure there are trade offs is sure it's not perfect, but it's better.

[00:56:44] And it's not going to get any better than it is currently without dealing with what we currently have. So you also have this like weird mentality where you're saying right now, it doesn't make sense. So we shouldn't do it, but if we don't do it right now, it's not going to get better at the same pace that it would with the policies in place to incentivize people, to buy the products so that the research departments get the money they need to make better products.

[00:57:06] You lose, no matter what

[00:57:11] Kyle Hermann: I mean. I guess one of the key things here though, is that, are we still operating under the possibility that electric cars or the electric car industry is not the best way to do it, or it is not actually.

[00:57:34] Taylor Ealand: There be better solutions. The question is whether or not these better solutions are economic or, or available, look in a perfect world, you know, the way that I see things and the way that I understand the science in a perfect world, it'd be algae farms and biofuel, but turns out that's not really a scientifically feasible right now.

[00:57:54] So we have to decide, we want to pull more gas out of the ground or make batteries and make electric cars and try and make the grid as sustainable as possible. At least until we can get a better solution or maybe make this a solution that makes it longterm viable.

[00:58:12] Yes. We're pretty sure that electric long-term is better than gas. Is it perfect? No, that would look more like hydrogen or like I said, biofuel, but that's not. You know, it's like saying, well, we shouldn't do solar or wind until you, because we could do nuclear. Sure. But for some reason, society has determined that vision nuclear reactors aren't exactly viable.

[00:58:34] Long-term. So until we get fusion, it's better than nothing.

[00:58:40] Kyle Hermann: I know. We just shut down recently. We've shut down more nuclear nuclear plants. Really interesting book, which we talked about a few weeks ago ,  is apocalypse never by Michael Shellenberger. Not saying that, you know, a hundred percent full endorsement of everything he says in it.

[00:58:57] If you go to, you know, if you choose to go out and read it. But I guess what I really pulled from it and kind of my basis for this conversation is. Really at the end of the day, the complexity. And in fact, the politics that do actually go into the, the altruism. We'll say of some of the policies in California, that California policies are not always as, as good as they seem that it, it really does come down to motives sometimes, and that people aren't always necessarily making the best decisions.

[00:59:35] So I'm advocating

[00:59:37] Taylor Ealand: the question isn't in, nor it shouldn't be whether or not it's as good as politicians make it out to be. Politicians always make things better than they seem to be. The question is whether or not they're better from the current status quo.

[00:59:50] Kyle Hermann: Well, without ,  without going into too much detail about the book, he, he basically was laying out the fact that the crusade against nuclear was.

[01:00:04] By vendettas that people had specific motives

[01:00:09] Taylor Ealand: for crushing, I guess nuclear was incorrect as a policy decision, but, but, but then that's something that we should be discussing, not whether or not, you know, should we really be considering these policies that we are considering because a, there are potentially better ones available or B because we're not sure about the consequences.

[01:00:26] It's like, well, yes, we should still be pursuing those because right now, because conservatives refuse to seriously take on the nuclear conversation, nuclear, isn't an option. You and I can pontificate all we want on the fact that nuclear would be better for a whole number of reasons than it's actually safer than all of the different methods.

[01:00:44] Even when you take account that the drastic ,  examples of nuclear destruction, like generable like the like CUNY a tall, like a nuclear, no, the Japanese one, whatever, like whatever one speaker Shima, even when you consider those nuclear is still the better option as far as the amount of lives lost. We can't have that conversation because conservatives are unwilling to actually do so on any initial level.

[01:01:05] But we do have policies that are better than the status quo, which is still support those while we work on, I suppose, a better alternative, but that's not happening. I mean, you're, you're sort of operating, which is funny. Like, I feel like the positions are a little flipped. Normally you're the more realist and I'm the idealistic one.

[01:01:20] We shouldn't be operating based on the realities of the world, especially in this situation. And you're kind of not, you're taking this more idealistic ultra, do you use your own terminology? You're, you're taking on an altruistic approach. That's not going to work. So I don't really know what to do with that because at the end of the day, you're wrong.

[01:01:44] And I, and again, your, your most valid point is that the public doesn't have the biggest grasp on the issue and that's fine, but we also, you know, are we, do we expect them to like the public doesn't agree on abortion and that's. To us a pretty clear cut one, you know, is life valuable or not. So to then expect the public to, you know, spend the hours and hours and hours and hours of time, it takes to understand this issue, to read all the videos, to read all the videos, to watch all the videos, to read the literature, to understand that when you pull carbon out of the ground, I mean, this is a hard concept for certain conservatives, which I do not understand.

[01:02:22] You pull carbon out of the ground, release it in the air. Don't put it back in and carbon makes things hotter. What follows? Oh, it's natural. No, it's not.

[01:02:34] Kyle Hermann: I guess, I guess I'm taking it past the, the public position on this too. To what I said about the politicians is we, we're also putting our faith here in the California politicians. When, like I said, our, our own California politicians will run out. Fought against nuclear that we both know would be a better option.

[01:03:01] So I guess this is where my skepticism comes in. I'm just, I, I'm not saying that there aren't better options. I'm not saying we shouldn't pursue the better options. I'm just saying we have better options and one we've shot them down. We're still shutting down nuclear plants to this day. And to, well, I mean, that's kinda the, that's kinda the big one for me is if, if we're going to rest in the ability of the government to make the best environmental decisions, then I have some concerns because our own state government is already not making the best environmental decision.

[01:03:48] When it has options

[01:03:51] Taylor Ealand: better than a status quo when the option that you would prefer is not available because of public opinion. If you want nuclear, that's all fine and dandy. So do I go out there and convince the public to vote in people who are pro-nuclear, but that's not what happened? We can point and do what about ism and point to, you know, the bad acts of prior people and say, well, this, because of this, we shouldn't do this.

[01:04:12] That's not what we have to work with. What we had to work with is the here and now, and what's viable now. And what is viable now is electric cars as opposed to gas cars. And we have politicians who are willing to put their political careers on the line. I hope Newson loses his political career, but not for this reason, but there are really to say by 2035, no more we're done in the story, make electric cars because that is better than gas cars.

[01:04:42] And we're going to talk about, you know, viable options. I don't know ,  putting a nuclear reactor in a car is feasible, but if we made nuclear. Produce the electricity and then put the electricity in the electric cars, as opposed to having a gas cars going around. That's still a hell of a lot better than the alternative.

[01:04:58] I don't understand the argument because you're going in too many different places at once when you're what you're really, it sounds like what you're really saying is I don't know if it's best, so we shouldn't do anything at all that doesn't work. It's not going to work. Long-term, it's going to affect our kids.

[01:05:11] And that should matter to you. And I, I mean, it's not like we're disagreeing over tax rates. It's not like we're disagreeing over even whether or not to go to war, because that tends to be a more moral dilemma thing. This one's pretty cut and clear. Like if you actually know the data, you know, this is going to harm future generations and we are in a position to do something about it.

[01:05:32] Therefore we should, I don't know how in that equation you come out. We should. I just don't see it. Now, if you want to say coming out of the

[01:05:42] Kyle Hermann: thick, then coming out of it. I don't trust, I don't trust the California state government. To, to take such a sweeping action. Okay. Let's go back a little bit to what we've experienced the past year.

[01:05:58] We gave Gavin Newsome the pen to fight a pandemic and look at what he did,

[01:06:09] Taylor Ealand: but the pandemic climate crisis. No, you can't do that. You can't do that because it's like your view on abortion that they disagree with and discounted everything you say you can't do that. That's the tribalistic bullshit. That's infecting our country right now. You have to give credit where credit is due

[01:06:27] Kyle Hermann: to environmental policy.

[01:06:29] I'm saying if, if we are basing even this conversation off the fact that we trust an executive. For our future. And we're going to give the governor that much authority and the legislature, that much authority to essentially overthrown entire industry, even if we want, if, if we like the outcome. Okay. So we're going to give the state of California that much power.

[01:06:57] We should be very, very cautious about how we do that, because we've seen the way that our own governor with the stroke of a pen can decimate thousands and thousands and thousands of businesses and run a campaign on the fact that he did the right thing during the pandemic. That's why I'm concerned is because of exactly who we're talking about.

[01:07:22] I'm not even talking about it in the abstract. I'm saying we're talking about the exact same governor.

[01:07:27] Taylor Ealand: So you oppose nuisance order because Newsome.

[01:07:32] Kyle Hermann: I'm saying I don't, I would be very concerned about giving him that much authority. We're we're saying that he

[01:07:41] Taylor Ealand: can ask you whether or not you liked the fact that Newsome signed it.

[01:07:45] I asked you whether or not you like the policy, we need to separate the policy from men and women. There's a difference there. You can't engage in this bullshit you're doing because you're insinuating. If the Santa's signed the same thing at the same time, you'd suddenly be cool with it where you cool with the

[01:07:59] Kyle Hermann: policy.

[01:08:01] No, because the question originally was should the government be the one to take that action? And the government is not this, you know, this book that's out there. It is made up of people and legislators and you know, electric 

[01:08:18] Taylor Ealand: holds the monopoly of violence to use a Michael mouse term. It's not like a corporation like apple, apple can't do that.

[01:08:25] So it has this unique

[01:08:26] Kyle Hermann: set of power. Well, yes. So under that same assumption that it holds the monopoly of violence, is that I'm saying for that very reason with our state, our government right now that holds the monopoly of violence that holds the monopoly of putting people in prison and shutting down businesses as they've done.

[01:08:51] I don't trust this California government with that much power. I'm not saying that the government, I'm not saying that the government can't do it. I'm saying it is scary to give our California government that much power, because then they can do. People who actually follow the science, I don't know.

[01:09:19] We're giving them a science thing and they can't even follow the

[01:09:22] Taylor Ealand: science, following the science. They're not following the science everywhere. Sure. Finding any that's why I'm saying separate the policy from the man. So if you're what I'm, I'm assuming this so, correct. My assumption if I'm wrong, but I'm, let's say we give all the same materials with Trump and Trump came to the same conclusion.

[01:09:37] Would you be okay with it?

[01:09:44] Kyle Hermann: I would. I would be more inclined to trust someone who is not Gavin Newsome, but it

[01:09:49] Taylor Ealand: isn't Gavin Newsom in 2035 Newsome isn't even empowered,

[01:09:53] Kyle Hermann: but he, he wrote the order.

[01:09:58] Taylor Ealand: I think, let, I'm thinking about a, let your logic sit with the listener

[01:10:01] Kyle Hermann: and let them no, he wrote, I'm saying he wrote the order that because it's not, it doesn't take effect in 2035.

[01:10:08] It's saying starting now by 2030. That car companies need to start doing this because in 2035, this is what's going to come down on you. That will be the policy. Yeah. You had an issue

[01:10:24] Taylor Ealand: with the man, not the policy. You don't know the science that you can't even say. They're not following the science because you don't know the science because you are okay.

[01:10:34] You're more inclined to be okay with it. If a Republican signs it, that doesn't make any sense. We have to stop.

[01:10:39] Kyle Hermann: I didn't even say, I didn't even

[01:10:40] Taylor Ealand: say that you'd be more inclined to trust. You're right. I said Trump, but Trump is the Republicans right now. So I stopped with

[01:10:47] Kyle Hermann: Symantec for the actual question, not Gavin.

[01:10:52] Taylor Ealand: Yeah. And then I post Trump and you said you'd be more inclined to trust. So,

[01:10:57] Kyle Hermann: because what I'm saying is when we're giving them that sort of sweeping power, I'm agreeing with you in the fact that we can do this well, and we can do this responsibly. Well, I did do some, I asked you about. I don't think the state of California right now can do that responsibly.

[01:11:17] And this is because of the side effects that will come with over throwing an entire industry like this right now. Okay. We're not talking about 10 years from now. We're talking about right now when Teslas are $90,000 or whatever they are.

[01:11:38] Taylor Ealand: The Ford Mustang Maki starts at 42. The Ford F-150 lightening is going to start at 40 with a $7,500 tax

[01:11:45] Kyle Hermann: credit. There's Teslas that start at 30,000

[01:11:49] Taylor Ealand: Tesla model three. You should look it up. Well, that's good.

[01:11:52]Kyle Hermann: So,

[01:11:54] Taylor Ealand: well, nor Tesla, there are Chevy volts. There are Chevy bolts, which are both used in the market.

[01:12:00] There are Nissan Leafs, which are significantly cheaper. There are viable electric cars that are just as cheap as. Well, you know, gasoline counterparts, maybe not as powerful, maybe not as nice inside, but they're there. They are viable economically. They're making money. They are pushing the envelope. Sure.

[01:12:19] There are $90,000 Teslas. There are $150,000, I suppose. I'm sure somewhere, but that doesn't mean that just because those exist, that there aren't more viable options. Tesla makes viable options today. Now

[01:12:33] Kyle Hermann: we're, we're kind of going back and forth on our, on our scope of government here,

[01:12:39] Taylor Ealand: Tesla. Isn't where it's at today without government policy enacted by governments.

[01:12:44] Like California's like the United States, like Europe's Tesla wouldn't exist if it wasn't for

[01:12:50] Kyle Hermann: government, but the, but again, so going back to the companies themselves, you were talking about laissez-faire a minute ago, but the com the government did not produce these cars. The companies did. So

[01:13:04] Taylor Ealand: what I'm trying to.

[01:13:06] Companies do it because without the environment, they would have never have had the need to what I word would not be making the cars it's making today. If it wasn't for the restrictions that they see coming from the government, both in the present and in the future right now, because the government is in a unique position, regardless of who runs it, the government is in a unique position to influence change, not just regarding short-term profits, but for future generations, because it holds the monopoly of power.

[01:13:35] It holds the monopoly of violence. In a purely laissez-faire system, which is primarily looking at short-term profits. As a matter of fact, not a matter of principle, no, they would not be incentivized to make the cars they're making today. The Tesla model three is model wise, model Xs. And is there another one?

[01:13:55] S think I missed that one as well as the Ford Maki is the Ford F-150 is the Chevy volts and bolts. One of them is no longer being produced the Nissan leaf and the litany of other examples that are coming from companies that we both know. And both don't know if it wasn't for government incentives, this industry wouldn't exist on anywhere near the same scale that it currently exists.

[01:14:23] And that's a matter of knowledge. I mean, that's not just pontificating about policy. You remove the incentives. Tesla goes under tomorrow.

[01:14:37] Kyle Hermann: Yeah. I mean, I guess it just really what it comes down to ,  on our philosophical underpinnings here is really just, I'm just posing the question, how much we want the government to be able to do that all the time. And it goes all the way back to the railroads. We, we see the railroads now and we like how the railroads operate.

[01:15:02]And it is the same situation. They were heavily subsidized by the government. I don't think any one company could really build a railroad across the United States by itself. They were given obviously substantial ,  subsidies with land and property and all that sort of stuff. And so the railroads wouldn't really be around without government interference.

[01:15:24] So I'm not fully disagreeing with you. I'm just saying. If we're going to give the government that much authority, then we just have to be ready for what else comes with it. Sure. We can say that we want all clean cars and we're willing to let the government do whatever it needs to. But I guess just my inner skeptic, especially from the past year of government interference is when the government says, look, look, look, look, look at how well we did overthrowing the car industry.

[01:16:02] And now we've produced all clean cars and you're like, yes, yes, thank you government. And they say, okay, now ,  we don't want anyone living in single family homes. That's where it is. It is a slippery, it is a slippery slope because yeah, we are giving the government authority and you think the government is going to.

[01:16:27] Take take less authority next time when we give them enough authority to, to radically change an industry. Do

[01:16:37] Taylor Ealand: you remember our conversation when we basically put out the idea and you agree with me, I believe at the time that governments are uniquely situated to take on large tasks and for task in which the private industry has already figured out they are objectively worse.

[01:16:51] Correct?

[01:16:55] Kyle Hermann: I don't. Do you

[01:16:55] Taylor Ealand: remember this conversation? Okay. Well, it wasn't.

[01:16:58] Kyle Hermann: Oh, I remember this conversation. Yes.

[01:17:00] Taylor Ealand: Okay. So then that was basically the conclusion that four tasks in which that the private sector just cannot compete like space travel in the 1950s, the government is in a better position. And once we figure this out, once we figure things out, the government is in a worst position.

[01:17:18] We saw this with healthcare. To point that out in a different term. And then 2.2 specific instances of abuse of power as a reason, not for the, as a reason for the government not to use its power when it is appropriate, when it is the best player is nonsensical. Because by that same logic, we shouldn't have allowed the government to do space travel in 1950 and 1960s because later on, oh, maybe they'll think that they're going to shut us down during a pandemic

[01:17:51] Kyle Hermann: and take away your business.

[01:17:53] And so then we,

[01:17:54] Taylor Ealand: I mean, I'm, I'm saying, I'm saying it is

[01:17:59] Kyle Hermann: as a well, but I'm saying as a, you know, as we are both, I know I'm not, I'm not digging at you because I know we're both ,  you know, constitutionalists and ,  And limited government in various ways. I I'm just, I'm yielding that part of my limited government ,  stick to say, we should just be very, very cautious because the government overall, which we know as ,  more limited government people at the overall, the government does not necessarily do things better.

[01:18:34] It does not inherently do things better than the general population or the market. So we have to be very, very cautious about what we give the government, the authority to do, especially when it's something as big as the car industry in California. I I'm not, I'm not fully or even really disagreeing with you in the sense that it could go really well.

[01:19:07] I'm I'm just saying it's a lot of power to give the government. And the state of California already has this power. So it's not like, oh, I'm S I'm scared about what could happen. I'm scared about what the state of California is already doing when, and going back to the, the shutdowns example, people are like, oh my gosh, this is so crazy that governor Newsome did this.

[01:19:30] No, it's not. It's not crazy because the state already had

[01:19:34] Taylor Ealand: it's a false equivalency is they're separate issues that have to be treated separately.

[01:19:38] Kyle Hermann: Not, not really because we're talking, talking about a government that has this much power across the board. It's not a government that is restrained. It's not a government that is acting in.

[01:19:50] Let's just say the state of California has a monopoly on Caltrans. Basically does. And it's like, well, our budget is going to Caltrans and the state doesn't really operate outside of that. So they have a big budget for it. They have a lot of authority over the freeways, but they don't operate outside of that.

[01:20:08] That's not true. The state of California does operate and operates in schools, roads, environmental policy in food, saved it in. It operates in all these sorts of things. One of the reasons that you could've gotten shut down during the pandemic was by the food industry, by the ,  by the health agency that operates like for OSHA, basically it wasn't even a stay at home issue.

[01:20:32] It was an OSHA issue. So I'm just saying the state of California, exercising, not much authority is not really an isolated thing. And you can't really look at it separately than all the different things that they could do as. When they can shut down a public beach during the stay at home orders, it's like, you can shut down a beach.

[01:21:00] Okay. Wow. That's pretty incredible. That is a lot that the state already has the power to do. And by giving them essentially a blank, not a blank check, but like a blank law to fix the environment or to produce a better environment by the year 20, 40 or 2035. I just don't. I can't get on the train

[01:21:26] Taylor Ealand: blank, check a blank law.

[01:21:27] You're arguing a false equivalency and maybe you don't see it. That's fine. I've grilled you for an hour and a half. There's gotta be some questions you want to at least grill me on and then we can sort of finish up, wrap up.

[01:21:41] Kyle Hermann: No. I mean, this is, this is good. I

[01:21:45] Taylor Ealand: think the listener got a good ,  good look at my more moderate side.

[01:21:48] They probably go, like you always says he's moderate the libertarian streak and always sounds more like a libertarian. No, there are places for the government. And just so you know, fair is fair. I agree with the order. In fact, I don't even know if the order does enough. I think it might, maybe my 2030 is rarely where I think it should be 20, 35 is a long way away.

[01:22:07] You know, I think the government isn't a unique position and I think it is fair and appropriate to separate the different uses of government power and, you know, condemn the bad ones and condone the good ones. So I actually, in this regard do support governors because I try my best to separate men from policy and every now and then even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[01:22:29] And I think Newson was right. Maybe even two. I think, and this is why I knew like when you ever use, I think, you know, w we're more on the same page and you realize, no, I don't think we are. I think I'm a much more hardcore environmentalist than you. And although you and I may agree again on things like we should be pursuing nuclear.

[01:22:51] That's not the conversation being had right now because conservatives, the other political block don't even want to come to the table to the environmental question. They just want a block party of no, I'm not a party of no person. I never have been pisses me off. I want conservative solutions in the American sense, mopped up political sense of the difference clear, and those lines are using the government in order to foster development, because you know, the feds have the right to do this, and they did this with NASA and we should do it again with this.

[01:23:22] We should do it again with nuclear. That would be the American conservative thing to do, which is not libertarian. So I feel like the listener I'd see that. And keep in mind listener. I mean, Kyle and I ,  well, I mainly get heated. We're gonna come back next week around another episode, Kyle and I will still be emailing and texting back and forth.

[01:23:46] But man, do I think you're wrong on this one?

[01:23:50] Kyle Hermann: Yeah. Did the listener, if you think that this is somehow, oh my gosh, they disagreed on something. Wow. What's going on. I've now known Taylor for, let's see ,  four and a half years, four and a half years. Almost five years. So this is what we talk about on the air.

[01:24:07] Just imagine us off the air. So don't think that ,  something scary has happened here to date. It's actually probably been a long time in the making that we talked about something that actually got more contentious than usual. And this is why. This is why we do this. You know, we've probably mentioned it on our show before, but, you know, it's kind of a funny ,  two-sided coin of civility, how civility can both be contentious and, you know, like civility in itself is not like, oh yes, we're going to have conversations that we agree on everything.

[01:24:44] And no civility is actually disagreeing with a common trajectory, a common goal and a common friendship, and in what we do. And I think the key of this conversation, despite some major differences of thought and opinion is that Taylor and I are both ,  pushing for a cleaner future ,  and a better future.

[01:25:09] And the ideas that we hash out from now to then ,  are how we're going to get. So, yeah, so my, you know, my takeaway from this conversation is not like I'm going to cry myself to sleep at night because Taylor said I was wrong. Oh man. Yes. I can be wrong. And that's why we hash out these ideas. You know, we encourage each other to look things up, to do more research.

[01:25:33] And I think that's what we're trying to encourage. All of our listeners to do is to ,  first of all, you know, listen to podcasts, learn from the experts. We're not experts, I'm not an expert. But listen to experts ,  dive into whatever you're trying to focus on environmental policy, social pot, whatever it is.

[01:25:52] And become more well-versed on a ,  on a thing. So you don't end up speechless like me when Taylor is ,  one of your friends at a party ,  you know, trying to grill you on, on something. And you're just standing there like, aha. Yeah. Great. So anyway, no ,  I'll just wrap up with that, that I am, you know, I'm willing to be wrong or stretched in conversations.

[01:26:19] I'm not admitting defeat ,  in this, but I, I will admit when I'm stretched and confined new solutions to my, my old, my old ways of thinking

[01:26:32] and

[01:26:32] Taylor Ealand: this conversation isn't going away. I mean, on contracts we've had. We've tried to focus on certain issues. Like there are issues we keep talking about, we keep talking about China.

[01:26:40]And because I'm forcing that conversation because nobody else wants to talk about it. We will probably keep coming back to ,  climate change because it is a big issue. Whether or not, you know, you believe in it existing or not. It's a big issue that people talk about. Politically. I'm talking to the listener around necessarily Kyle here.

[01:26:53]We'll keep coming back to the societal issues. We'll keep coming back to all kinds of things. And I believe Kyle is wrong that doesn't automatically make him wrong. And he clearly believes I'm wrong on certain things that does not make me make me wrong. And that goes both ways. I think people are often afraid of disagreement and they avoid it.

[01:27:12] And how are we supposed to get any better without the disagreement? And what's interesting too, is ,  you know, I think oftentimes on contracts because I tend to lead the show that people see me commandeering and whatever that may be. People don't see ,  as much, especially behind the scenes conversations when Kyle has made me go ashy.

[01:27:30]I know when we met, I was much more libertarian my stance on pro-life. My stance on being more pro-life even through the use of government has changed partially and thanks to Kyle and his arguments. So just because you hear more of my assertiveness here does not necessarily mean that I'm always like that or that I'm always the one who refuses to back down.

[01:27:51] So thank you guys for listening. One more thing for both of us, and then I'll end the show with our usual plugs. What's something you're grateful for. And don't just rehash what you just said about disagreements.

[01:28:03]Kyle Hermann: Going back to the beginning. Why, why? I know why I even brought up this topic to begin with.

[01:28:08] I am, I am truly thankful for my discovery yesterday about these ,  Parks passes. It, it felt like a natural thing for me. I went straight up to the county building ,  and bought one of them without even hardly thinking, because I just absolutely loved the idea of getting to explore all the open spaces here in the county and getting the federal lands pass as well.

[01:28:31] Getting to go to some of the national parks I've already since buying it yesterday. I've already been listing out places that I really want to go first priority. A lot of them are a little too hot for summer, so I don't know how that's gonna work, but  there's so many amazing parks and lands out there that I want to go and visit and see.

[01:28:49] So I'm super encouraged today that I have a new opportunity to be able to do that.

[01:28:57] Taylor Ealand: Sweet. I'm thankful for air conditioning. It's hot here. And people are probably tired of hearing about how hot Fresno is, but Fresno is hot. We hadn't, the, this might be the coolest day in a week and it's a, it's a cool 97. So shoot me now, who has always, you know what you can do if you enjoyed the show and leave a review five star review for boy subscribe so that you hear more.

[01:29:24] If you're watching on YouTube, same thing, subscribe, drop a comment. Maybe I'm right. Maybe I'm wrong, but Kyle's right. Ms. Colorado, let us know your opinions. Maybe we're both idiots and we're both wrong. You can lay out your opinion there. We all know the comment section tends to do that. Drop a, like drop a dislike, leave a subscribe, all the things that promote engagement.

[01:29:41] We really need to the little push in the best thing you can always do no matter where you're at it. Share the show and tell your friends who you think should be listening to us. Hey, go listen to these two people on the internet. Best thing you can always do for contracts. If you want sports that monetarily, you can find us@localsandyoucanalsofindusatstoredotcontracts.com.

[01:30:01] I would suggest going to store because then you get a cool shirt or a mug or something out of it. But if you just want to donate money and you don't care as much about material things, locals, probably the best way to do it. Patrion has seen very little activity, so I'm probably just gonna kill it and leave it at that.

[01:30:18] Anything else before we go, any final words, Kyle?

[01:30:21] Kyle Hermann: I don't think so. We've got a lot of words in this show. That's for sure.

[01:30:24] Taylor Ealand: You got a lot of words in this. And like I said, I don't know how we're going to get in trouble for it or words of anything we're going to piss off conservatives and that liberals.

[01:30:30] And if I'm going to piss off a group of people, I am much less afraid of the conservatives. Know they don't cancel , 

[01:30:34] Kyle Hermann: conservatives. Don't cancel. That's good. Yeah.

[01:30:37] So

[01:30:38] Taylor Ealand: thank you for listening. We'll see you in the next one.

035 - China Wrap Up and Tom MacDonald's "SNOWFLAKE" Analysis and Reaction

Today Taylor wraps up the current mini-series on China and analyzes Tom Macdonald's new song, "Snowflake." 

Please support us:

https://store.contrarix.com

http://contrarix.locals.com

https://www.patreon.com/contrarix

Where to find us:

https://www.contrarix.com

Taylor: @contrarix on Instagram

Kyle: @VoteKyleHermann on Instagram and Facebook

Music By: Garrett Vandenburg

Hello, and welcome to a bonus episode of contrarians. My name is tailored. It's just me today. And today, anything I say can and will be held against me in the court of opinion, for those of you watching the video portion of this podcast on YouTube. Thank you so much for doing that. I really appreciate it.

Uh, feel free to leave us, you know, subscribe or like comment, whatever, you know, let's get this channel off the ground. For those of you still listening on the podcast version. That's perfectly fine. Go ahead and leave a five star review and subscribe and check out some other episodes and share the show.

It's the best thing you can do at all times and share the show. A couple of things I want to do. I'm going to do a quick announcing. Uh, four contracts at large, and then I'm going to go through a brief thoughts on the Chinese and CCP episode that I did for three episodes that I did throughout the entire month of may.

I was going to do an entire wrap up video, but I don't think any of the drone on and on about it for an hour. Uh, and then I'm also going to talk about a video that came out on June 4th, which I think is a big deal that Republicans and conservatives need to do a better job of, uh, sharing and also, you know, spreading the message, uh, by a famous rapper.

And I'll get to that towards the end of the show. So actually it'll be the bulk of the show. All of that. The quick announcement that I have is, you know, I have been asking, uh, you guys to support the show in a number of different ways. Um, one of the things that's, you know, becoming not difficult, but increasingly more pressing is the need to monetize because of all the things I want to do.

And it's, you know, I can ask for donations and I do ask for donations through the locals and Patrion. Um, but it doesn't, it's not interesting to you guys. And I understand that. So what I've done is open up store.contraras.com. There are products there that you can enjoy that either have the contracts logo, or we'll put meany products up there, you know, joke products or conservative products that you can enjoy at your own leisure.

Uh, right now we have. And, you know, sweatshirts and leggings, uh, stickers, and a asked me about my pronouns, a line of products, then, uh, feature helicopters, circling around the phrase, ask me about my pronouns. Uh, it's actually inspired by a target mug that I got that says, ask me about my pronouns and rainbow lettering.

And I thought it was funny. So I made my own version with attack helicopters, circling the entire thing. So if you're interested in that, feel free to check it out on store.contracts.com uh, as always, you know, you could of course, talk to us through the usual channels, whether that be on YouTube, Instagram, clubhouse, uh, or even the contact us on the contracts.com webpage.

So that's the quick one announcement,

uh, regarding China in the CCP for the entire month of may for, um, Asia. It's Asian Pacific heritage month, uh, here in the U S signed by George W. Bush during his presidency. Uh, it's supposed to be a month like, uh, black, uh, black history month or pride month that we have here in the states that we dedicate to Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, uh, you know, for, for their contribution to our melting pot of society.

You didn't really see them. Corporations or people talk about it. Uh, even though that not too long before may, we were all supposed to be against, uh, Asian hate crimes and all that stuff, this type of stuff, that, that marketing was silent, as soon as it wasn't, uh, useful for those in power, funny how that works.

But for the entire amount of my, I did focus on Asian history. I focused on China and the CCP. Um, my general thoughts after doing this episodes are as follows some behind the scenes stuff. It was actually really easy for me to get foreigners to talk about China and the CCP. It was much more difficult, much more difficult to get Americans to talk on the subject.

Um, it's actually much more difficult to find Americans who actually know anything about the subject, which to me is sort of alarming. And the somebody I was really interested in bringing on was my congressperson, Devin Nunez. Uh, I've reached out to his office a couple of times. In relation to this in relation to everything's every, every interaction of how the office was terrible, every re um, interaction that other people that I know have had with his office.

It's terrible. I say this as a conservative, I said, this is, you know, as a registered Republican, I said this to somebody who's voted for him, uh, because I've pinched my nose and voted for the lesser of two evils office, completely dropped the ball on, you know, it's going to take a seriously bad candidate on the other side for me not to vote for them.

I don't care if you know, my district flips blue. We need to have politicians who are willing to at least listen to their constituents. This is not even close to the first time that this has happened to me. Office completely dropped the ball. And I'm, I'm really tired of politicians who care more about themselves, or only about people who are important.

Uh, you need to talk to your constituencies and that's something that needs to change. So I couldn't get him to talk on. I was really interested in getting his point of view as somebody who's supposed to be, you know, knowledgeable and foreign policy and stuff like that. Couldn't get it. Couldn't get him.

And Americans are harder to get from the top on the subject. Really interesting. I tried to bring people on who had firsthand experience in China, and I think I did a fairly good job of doing that. Everyone that I brought on for the month of may talking about China and CCP has at least been visited to China.

If they didn't actually spend a considerable amount of time there, some of our guests were only there for, you know, a couple of weeks, some were there for a month or two, some were there for years and are bonafide experts in the field. So that was awesome. I think the most important episodes. Uh, most important episode if you missed them, uh, was the episode with Eddie from Sino babble?

It's important because it provides a lot of historical context and her show also does a lot more in depth stuff. Obviously she's an expert on Chinese history and frankly, it was very insightful and very helpful and helped me understand what the CCP is and the nuances between inside the Soviet Russia government, or even like the modern CCP versus the older 6k.

Like there, there's a lot of history that goes on in China and China is this place that is rich and full of history of the people. And then I've tried to make it clear throughout the entire month. I don't hate Chinese people. I don't hate the Chinese people. I don't hate Chinese people in the United States.

I hate the Chinese government. The Chinese government is atrocious. It's bad. It's awful. I hope that we, you know, Americans get their act together and we can, uh, keep it at bay. So those are my general thoughts. I think, you know, Listen to any of the episodes I would for sure. Listen to the episode, uh, with Eddie, there's also the, you know, if you want something a little more interesting and potentially more gut punching in relation to the winkers, um, and other genocides that, uh, China may or may not have done, you can check out the episode with Mitchell Gerber, which was definitely interesting.

Like again, a little bit of inside baseball for that episode, I was really kind of on the fence of bringing him on I've found him on a podcast guest platform and, you know, red flags are immediately right as to when the only people who are normally big people who are going off of someone's ideas are basically Infowars.

And I had them on after looking into his, his story and his accusations against the CCP and I couldn't debunk them. So I thought I would at least provide the opportunity to lay the evidence out that he has. And let you think for yourself. I, with that episode, I sort of lean towards with the. Inclusion of a former Canadian prime minister, not prime minister, former Canadian PM PM does not mean prime minister.

Um, I'm a dumb American, uh, eh, you know, kind of backing up and being a spearhead for the, for the accusations that Mitchell Gerber is laying against the Chinese government. Uh, and many countries actually creating laws in response to the, the supposedly fallen gong, um, genocide. I was more comfortable talking about it because it's it, you know, when you're looking at sniff tests, it's one thing.

If it's just some random person on Alex Jones, it's another thing. If the Israeli government recognizes it. So. That was there for you to ponder and for you to consider this isn't, you know, the leaguers are not the first time the Chinese have done genocidal actions. Oh wait, w you know, there's accusations against them for the felon.

Gong was Allie allegations against some of the defendants. Uh, we, we know that there's been, uh, a Han centric, uh, view of power in China for a long time. And I don't see that changing anytime soon, they're doing it right now by putting Han Chinese and throughout the entire country to sort of not destabilize, but to de-legitimize, uh, portions that have other minorities as the predominant cultural force, like the workers.

So I thought it was a really interesting episode. I think you should check that one out as well. And then of course, the testimonials from people who have traveled to China were, uh, increasingly important. And, you know, I also can't forget about Derek, who is, who is an American, who was willing to talk to me, but he's a student.

I think he actually might be graduated by this point from undergrad who was basically supposed to be, uh, uh, studying foreign policy type stuff. And I think it's. It's not called foreign policy, but it's the along that time type thing he's in DC trying to create a career for himself there. And, you know, he had some insights into China and Hong Kong that were important.

So overall, I don't let the Chinese government, I hope Americans their act together and stop talking about stupid stuff like pronouns, which I'll get to with the music video that I was talking about earlier. And that's pretty much just a bit like I don't need to spend an hour talking to you guys about this.

I think the episodes stand for themselves. I wish I could have gotten one more episode. Uh, but my, my Congress person wasn't interested in returning emails or phone calls. So. What, what, what, what can I do? Uh, the best thing, you know, that we can do in order to prevent this in the future is to like share subscribe so that I have a larger audience and especially the share part, the shared part's important.

So I have a larger audience so that, uh, you know, it's harder to ignore me when, when I'm, when I really want to get something done, that's important, the CCP stuff, I'm not going to stop doing it because May's over. Like I'm going to keep coming back to this. It's an important issue. It's something that we all need to understand now.

And, you know, take some time in your free time and learn a little bit about Chinese history. We have to understand our quote enemies before we can really handle them in any efficient manner and conservatives need to do better on focusing on issues that really matter. Um, and there was one episode that I released that was a bonus episode, I believe.

Um, there might've been two, but there's one that I'm remembering. Joe Mobley came on the show, Joe Miller from the Joe moley shows really cool. Uh, I brought him on thinking he would be a nice guy. Change in pace from China. And we ended up talking for over an hour about human trafficking, which is a big deal in the states.

So again, issues that matter, stop focusing on pronouns and stupid stuff. And that was basically just a bit, it's also an important episode. Check it out if you've been tuned out for the month of may, because you were interested in China at CTB. All right. I think that accurately wraps up my overarching thoughts.

To get into the meat of this episode. What I really want to do is introduce you to somebody who I think is a great cultural warrior for the right now. I want to be clear. I am not convinced that this person is necessarily of the right. I'm not necessarily convinced that he's a Maga loving Patriot. Um, I think what this person is, is just a person with common sense and that's becoming increasingly hard to find.

And there's, and there's a lack of common sense on both sides of the aisle. Now that doesn't mean that I agree with everything that person says that doesn't mean that, you know, we should make him a pariah or any of that. Although I have mad respect for the man because he was doing things that conservatives by and large are not willing to do.

Uh, he's getting attacked, left, right. And center for his views and he's making a lot of money doing it. So I have to give him credit where credit is due. I would love to talk to him, but he's bigger than I am. So it's unlikely that's going to happen. However, I think it's important. That we realize that the right needs to do a better job of propagating a simple message that people can understand.

A lot of the viewpoints of the right are highly nuanced and highly philosophical, and can be hard to articulate if you don't know what you're talking about, um, which is, which is fine. Like that's perfectly fine and dandy if you know, I'm not expecting everybody on the right to have the best, uh, grasp of the issues of the quote, right.

And to be able to articulate every single one of them, clearly, this is why a lot of single issue voters exist. We're just monkeys. At the end of the day, it's hard for us to have in-depth knowledge on a lot of different topics, as well as having a life outside of being miserable, political armchair pundits.

Right. What we need to do is sort of returned to the culture for the issues that matter. Uh, I am on a, I've been on air and I've talked about how our Republicans have left academia. They've left the media, you know, they've left, they've left music, they've left TVs. They've left their opinions at the door while the other side is more than happy to shove their opinions down your throat.

They've left sports and they've even left the church at this point. Like the American right has left every battlefield, but the political one, because they've made a grave miscalculation, they think they can win with politics alone and hold the horde back. And this isn't. It simply isn't true. Now there are, are conservatives who are trying to return to academia or returned to places like the media were, see the daily wire with their media outfit that they're trying to start up, uh, with Gina Carano among others.

And, you know, that's, that's great. They need, and they need to get content out there. And I know they have one, I think at least one film out at this point, and that's important, but not only do conservatives need to make music, make TV shows, make movies, they need to make good music. They need to make good TV, just, they need to make good movies.

And if you don't, you, you know what I'm talking about, look concerned as make like a, a who rock conservative stuff. And it's just not as good. It's not as well produced, not as well. And it is not as well written as not as well, um, composed, like they needed to not only make stuff and then to make good stuff, they need to be, they need to be better at basically every room they need to reintroduce themselves in act.

They have to do this, uh, whether we like it or not, academia is important not only to our society at large, but to the advancement of our culture, both in, you know, in good ways. There there's good things that come out of academia. Believe it or not. Uh, I am a product of academia at this point. Like I've spent more time in academia than anything else.

Uh, I spent four years in undergrad and I spent two years in law school, which was the equivalent of three years of law school. And I, you know, I'm 24 years old that way. It's a six years that puts me at 18. That's counting, you know, throughout high school in there now we're at a 10 years and that's basically more that's most of my memorable life that makes me a product academia.

That's something that conservatives have to be okay with. They need to return to the battlefield and engage with ideas and create better ideas. As a result. I tell people, I tell conservatives who are afraid to go to college and speak their mind. You know, they don't really have to fight for what they believe in.

They have to be able to defend their position and conservatives have an unfair advantage when it comes to going to college. Because if you come out the other side still conservative, you will have stronger arguments for it. You will be a better conservative. You will be a more articulate conservative.

You will be able to stand your ground, not just in the classroom, but in the board room, you'll be able to critically think your way through issues and maybe figure out more easily where you are wrong and where your site is, is wrong. And there are places where the side has to be wrong. Statistically speaking, both sides, the chances that any one side has anything a hundred percent correct approaches zero.

And that's just, even if you know, I've done this exercise before, but consider the following. Let's say every choice is a binary, black and white, which we already know is not true, but then it gets too complicated. So let's say you have a 50 50 shot. You have the correct moral. Let's just say that for every single issue, we have a 50 50 shot.

The chances that you get two issues hundred percent correct is 0.5 times 0.5. You have a one in four chance of getting both issues perfectly correct. You have a one in eight chance of getting three issues perfectly, correct. You have a one in 16 chance in getting four issues perfectly correct. The chances that you have, the litany, the list of issues that we have as a country, a hundred percent correct with your politics is zero it's functionally zero, and that's okay.

We have the, our best guesses. We operate on those best guesses. And it is an important that, you know, we can articulate to the best of our ability and reason through our choices. Now, if we're able to critically think through our choices, we can maybe make those chances better or at the very least more.

Now consistency is key. If you look at the party platforms and the party lions that the, that the RS and the DS take, there are a significant inconsistencies on both sides. We have one side that, you know, is all about capitalism and economic freedom, but they have a major set of social conservatives that are socially restrictive, and those don't align.

And you have the, the DS, you know, which are going to be more socially, uh, obviously liberal, some more socially accepted and tolerant for lack of a better term. And they, they are all about freedom in that regard. But as soon as it comes down to how you spend your money or, or live your life, as far as the professional, uh, that, that goes out the window, that freedom goes out the window.

These are major inconsistencies. If you take the time and think through your position, it will be easier to work out these inconsistencies or maybe find extremely nuanced ways on how they're not inconsistent. I'm not saying do acrobatic gymnastics to make them consistent. I'm saying, are we sure everything is consistent?

That brings me to the video, which for those of you watching, I've seen it for a while. Now, Tom McDonald is a, I would say at this point, famous rapper, uh, who is formerly Canadian. I think he's an American citizen. Now I could be wrong on that. And what he does, his shtick for lack of a better term is mostly controversial music.

And this is not uncommon in the rap space. It's never been uncommon in the rap space. I will say it's becoming increasingly more uncommon in the rap space because it's kind of turned into this, this model with of culture. From what I can tell. However, here he is sort of leading a movement and a revolution of a sect of music that is actually more conscious of the current political.

Climate and is not just free painting. Whoa. Talking points. Now, does that mean everything he says is correct? No, but it's at least different. And if you can't agree with them, you should at least be able to respect that it's at least different. And it's really hard to go against a lot of what he says. He has songs that I've pissed people off for a year straight white males, a good one.

Fake woke is a good one. Clown world is a good one. Um, but not all of his music is strictly political. He, you know, he did an homage to M and M even though they have political differences, uh, just a couple of weeks ago with a song called dear slim, which was when he just a beat from M and M, uh, which I know Eminem was not too happy about all in all.

That's who he is. He's a famous rapper, mostly because he's a controversial figure. Every line here has a meaning, and I'm going to do a lot of stopping for fair use reasons on this music video. So we're going to go through a couple of lines. I'm going to say what I think. And then we're going to kind of push through the entire little video.

It's a three-minute 42 second video, but about 30 seconds of it is instrumental between the front end and the back end. So say three minutes, 15 seconds, ish of content. Every line could be an hour long discussion. So I will try and keep it quick, quick ish, as quick as I can be with my overly verbose nature.

So this is Tom MacDonald. The song is snowflakes. It was re released two days ago as of recording. So probably two and a half to three days as of release, um, on June 4th, it already has. After about 48 hours, 50 hours, a 2.8 million views. He got 2 million views in a day and it looks like it got throttled.

And I don't say that, oh my gosh, he got throttled. Oh, his shadow ban. Like, no, it actually looks like he got throttled. Um, supposedly people are getting banned for sharing the link and he's, you know, violating guidelines, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. It doesn't say a single curse word. I think I know why. Um, or at least the easy reason why.

And when he says the word, it'll probably be very obvious to you cause it's sort of taboo, but I'll get there when we get there. For those of you watching the video on YouTube, you'll see the video on the lower right-hand side of the screen. Um, and there's actually one bit that I want the viewers to keen on.

I want to see if they beat me to the point.

If you lie to the government, they'll put you in prison. But when they lie to all the fonts, it's coffee and a politician who think taking guns away will save our kids from the Kaitlin's, but you're pro choice, abortion kills way more children. All right. So already he comes right out the gate, pointing out that when we lie, when we commit perjury, when we mess up our tax returns, we can get fined.

We can get imprisoned and it's a big deal when we do it. But when they do it, they're just politicians. Uh, which we, you know, we've seen this on both sides of the aisle, uh, you know, left us right now are understandably peeved because Joe Biden has dropped basically. Doing the student loan crisis overview reform, whatever.

And you know, this is a common, this is common that they lay out to us all the time. Uh, we see this on the right and the left in regards to big tech. They talk all big and bad. They're going to do all these big and bad things. They're going to reign in big tech and then they never do squat. Uh, the only politician who seems to have broken that chain is Rhonda Santos.

I don't care about Ted Cruz, marching in the executives of Facebook and giving them a verbal lashing in Congress. And he's done this multiple times. He uses it to get a, to get a quick sound bite that he can share to his followers and get, and get praise. But he hasn't actually done anything past that. So I don't really care.

I don't care. And neither should you, by the way, stop, stop law, allowing their pandering to work. Um, we're seeing this a Josh Holly as well. We're seeing this with, uh, even like even people who are out of Congress. They're not really fighting, uh, Tulsa. Gabard right. We'll talk about how bad the media is, but again, it doesn't do anything.

The only conservatives that I see that are actually acting on social media against social media are Rhonda Santos, the governor of Florida. And of course by extension the Florida legislature, because they had to pass the bill and Steven Crowder, um, is actually assuming a lot of the big players and that's a big deal.

It needs to happen. So. He, he immediately nails on the head and then he follows that up with a line that's going to already piss so many people off, you know, there's, there's all this talk about gun violence and how it's terrible for the children, but yeah, he's right. Like abortion is killing way more individuals.

Now, you know, if you don't consider those people, individuals, then we have to have a philosophical cultural discussion on what is life. But at the end of the day, the fact that Democrats and liberals largely hold the belief that gun violence is bad because it's killing, killing all the children, but they're perfectly okay with murdering fetuses in the body.

That's an inconsistency is, and it's a smart way to point it out. And that's something that perhaps more conservative should do. You know, whenever they want to talk about the number of kids lost in school shootings throughout the last decade, then perhaps we should bring up the statistics and the number of fetuses lost within the last decade.

And the orders of magnitudes of difference will be impossible. Reasonable way outside of somehow killing people through abortion is okay, but killing people through gun is worse and don't get me wrong. Conservatives have an inconsistency here. You know, they're all about the children, but like the, the attitude towards war is a little different and it's, and it's a much more nuanced discussion to get out of that one.

Um, so it's not like both sides, aren't guilty of this. They are, but it, it, it's a good point. You know, I'm not, I am personally not willing to have the gun control discussion. Uh, the, the left side of the aisle has made it abundantly clear why guns aren't necessary for government it's to protect myself and my rights and my family, you know what I mean?

Like I understand that belief, um, and you know, to make it, to make a counter argument. I also think that the fringes of the right and have made it abundantly clear why it's necessary to have guns, uh, because if they decided to do a populous revolution on the far fringes of the right, and they do a, you know, they made January six, looked like a pillow fight.

I want to be able to, again, defend myself, defend my liberties and defend my family. So. It's important. It's a conversation where he immediately comes in and just drops a truth bomb. And this is basically setting the tone for the entire video. So I'm going to go back a couple of seconds, and then I'll talking to him after a couple of lines, portion kills, way more children.

If America's so terrible and prices, it probably isn't safe to encourage immigration to say, and all the contradictions are in fantasy. You know, who hates Americans? The most Americans drink. Now that is huge. Um, again, he's pointing out another inconsistency with the left. You know, they want to talk about how racist and how terrible it is to be a minority in America, in America.

But then there are like pro open borders and they want to bring in as many people as they can and they want to, and I want to loosen restrictions or, you know, those two things like if America is so bad, why are people coming here? That's, that's a fair counter argument, but realistically, if America so bad, why do you want people to come here?

Why don't you want them to live better lives somewhere else? That is a huge inconsistency. I think it's a fair one. And I think it like easily points out the lack of thinking that goes on in politics, by people who do not know what they're talking about. You know, if you just follow the party line on either side and you're not considering the inconsistencies that exist, you're kind of a fool, right?

And that's sort of the point, like if you're going to say these terrible things be consistent, the left is inconsistent in this regard. They're pro-immigration that are probe and borders to an extent, but they want to talk about how terrible it is to be an immigrant or be a minority in this country, which isn't true.

You know, you look at the statistics it by and large, isn't true. That doesn't say that they don't mean it. They may not have harder time than certain places, but like if you're going to be an immigrant, would you rather be, would you rather be an immigrant here or a citizen of Mexico would rather be an immigrant here or a citizen of Columbia would rather be an immigrant here or citizen of Venezuela would rather be an immigrant here or a citizen of Saudi Arabia.

So it doesn't have a raw citizen, citizen of Iraq, citizen of China, citizen of Russia. So it isn't like where, where would you rather be? And that's an important discussion and they focus so much on the bad. They completely dismiss all the good that comes from being here. All the good that comes from this country and the quote racists that live in it, you know, and I say, quote, racist, because there's not that many actual races in this country when you compare the scale to the real population numbers.

So I love that. And the whole, you know, who hates America and the most Americans line. I like the way it hits. I like the way it sort of gut checks you. Um, I don't know if it's true. Like, I, I think Iranians hate us. I think a lot of people in the middle east hate us. I think, uh, a lot of people in China aren't fans of us.

And I think a lot of Russians don't like us and, you know, so I don't know if I quite believe it, but I do think there are a lot of Americans who want to see the entire system burn and they do not understand the consequences of those actions. Um, so yeah, they do hate us. And you know, he's about to go into a line that considers trigger warnings, uh, which is interesting.

So we'll go ahead and get into that. He has another line that will relate to this Americans hating America bit. And I think it's like the most powerful line in the entire song and the hook. So Metro, because the most Americans trigger warnings used to be on TV for seizures, and now they're everywhere to protect millennials feelings.

He see his, him hers. Then they screw up pronouns because every one's a retard these days. Okay. So for those of you watching the video, I w I, I'm going to give you a minute to figure out who this person is. And then if you beat me to it, you went some internet points. But first, the first things first about the whole trigger warning.

But, uh, I know I've said this on air, and I know that it's not a popular opinion, and I know that, you know, people will call me heartless. People will say all kinds of terrible, terrible shit, about my opinion on this issue. And look, to be honest with you, I get it. I get it. I get, there are people who have underwent extreme trauma and they don't want to go through the PTSD of reliving that trauma.

Without some warning, I get that they're rape victims. I get that. They're a human trafficking victim. I get their assault victims. I understand all of this line of reasoning. I get it. And I wish it didn't happen to you. I wish that life was better to you. And I wish the world was a better place. Hello. It is not a better place.

These issues exist, and Americans need to be able to handle this information when it hits them in the face. I think trigger warnings outside of perhaps for young people, you know, parents should be able to somewhat shoes when their children are introduced to this terrible concept. If they're not already forced to be introduced to them.

Um, I think trigger warnings are stupid. Sorry. I do. Uh, and it's not because you know, I'm insensitive. I think that people need to live in the world. As the world is, and we are not helping victims by shielding people from society, from the atrocities, committed to victims, and to provide the opportunity for somebody to walk out and potentially never have a conversation on the atrocity of the rape of Nanking, for example, um, is bad.

I think Americans need to have stronger spines. I think we need to have thicker skin. And I think we need to be able to talk about atrocities and lay them out in the open for the Dean as the demons that they are. We need to be able to confront these demons that way. When we are approached by these demons later on in life, we can, at least at the very least have a discussion about them and hopefully actually propose and enact solutions to these issues, Joe Mobley claims, um, and he claims through, you know, with other sources of his own that human trafficking is the number two crime in the world.

And in the, in the U S second only the drug trial. That means there's more human trafficking going on than there is car theft or theft in general, which is huge. The scale of that is huge. If that is true and don't have any reason to think it's not true at the moment, we need to be able to have the conversation.

We need to be able to have the conversation about the people who are being held against their well being sex trafficked, being, you know, who are in ponds of drug trafficking, who are doing all those things, who are being moved around, smuggled, whatever it is that has to be talked about. But if we put a trigger warning to which every victim, and if it's number two crimes, there's a lot of victim, a lot of victims that every victim has the possibility of backing out of the conversation when their opinions are the most important and their reactions, which may not be pleasant, or also extremely important to the people who are not victims of sight, Crunckins understand the pain and suffering that these crimes are causing.

It's it needs to be done. People who have successfully gotten out of bad situations need to be able to talk about them. I know it's a hot take. Many of you will say, we have a bad take. Many of you won't want to slap me in the face and all this different stuff, because I'm a heartless sob. But at the end of the day, I still think trigger warnings are stupid.

I'm sorry. Now, you know, th the he's she, then they A's, whatever part that he's bit that, that w that, that a little R word I think. And that's really what they're nabbing them for. I don't think that that's a word that the social media platforms think is appropriate. Um, I have nuanced, I have a nuanced position on the view on I'm a word, like I would never call somebody.

Who's actually mentally handicapped that. Uh, but I do think it can be an effective word to use in when someone is just being an absolute. And he's kind of got a point, you know, even if you don't like the use of the word specifically, he's still got appoint the whole pronoun issue. And it's prevalent in the culture to me is mind boggling.

I do not understand why this is such a big deal. Pronouns don't matter at best they're just words and Mo and at worst, they're nothing like they're there. There's, you know, there's a saying that I was taught growing up and I know people, you know, in generations prior to me told this to me all the time sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

The amount of power that people have put into pronouns is mind-boggling to me now, obviously you guys can hear me in the mic, makes my voice sound a little bit more basically than it really is, but I have a high voice. I get mis-gendered pretty frequently because when I'm on the phone or when I'm out of drive-through, it's.

Always obvious that I'm a male and you know, I'll, I'll get the sheet, I'll get whatever, and it doesn't bother me. It's not that big of a deal. And if you tie your identity to any one word too heavily, you're kind of a moron. If you tie your identity so much into a series of words, you're, you're kind of a moron.

You're your identity is linked to you. And words are just words. Like it's one thing for someone to say, I disrespect you as a transgender person than it is for them to actually act on that disrespect and go after you violently, there needs to be a separation between the severity of these different issues.

Right? And the pronoun thing at large has turned into this discussion that I think is misplaced because there's a side that seems to be talking about gender roles, but then they want to turn those gender role discussion into new genders or just the abolition of genders and separate gender and sex, even though they've been used interchangeably.

Basically for generations at this point, um, if not longer. So if we were talking about gender roles and the pronoun, if we're talking about gender roles, pronouns, don't matter. Because what you're trying to change is the PR is the stereotypes of each, each gender is expected to uphold. So, okay. So be it. I would love to have that conversation.

And if that were the conversation presented, I would a hundred percent agree with it. But now it's turned into this thing where you have to put he him or she, her in your email tagline for the university to go to, um, they, they pushed for you hard for me to do that at law school. I never did it. Um, Instagram has now put an extra line so that people can get pronouns, right?

Even though at the end of the day, they don't matter. Which brings me to the video for those of you listening, I'll clue you in a second. But that line was lip-sync by somebody who was not Tom McDonald. Um, this is by all appearances, a woman who was talking about he, she, them, they, whatever, everyone's an Ari these days, that was lip-sync by a trans woman.

This is Blair white, Blair white is a famous, uh, well, pseudo, pseudo, semi famous, uh, political commentator, who is a trans was a man. And is now a woman talking about the trans issue in a way that is not woke. That's a pretty big deal, right? So we have this cameo by somebody who kind of proves the entire point now for people like Blair.

People like Caitlyn Jenner who are making it abundantly clear that there went through the process. I'm not, I'm not going to say going through, I must say went through the process of changing genders. I am more than happy if you're a sheen out you're sheet. If you're a heat out, you're a heat, that's fine.

And dandy past the part. Right? That's all I ask. Um, and at that, where the conversation for adults, then we could start to approach maybe the whole trans issue at large, uh, from, from a cultural and even biological slash health point of view and have that discussion. But I am willing to, to respect people going who have gone through the process.

Okay. So there's that now to have somebody like Blair white come in and sort of affirm the whole pronoun issue is stupid, is it's really refreshing because when you look at Blair white at first glance, it's like, oh, And, and then, you know, there there's a, I forget who said it, but there's somebody who pointed out that men are pretty easy, not pretty men have a much easier time pointing out when someone is trans, because something just isn't right.

And we're kind of hardwired to see it, like, okay. But at this point, when I look at Blair white, it's obvious what's going on. I'm happy to play along, I guess for, I mean, that's, that's going to sound dismissive, but play alone for lack of a better term and have discussions later on about the, the health effects and the psychological effects of whether or not we should tolerate those long-term, um, that is refreshing.

And it's important that, you know, he made a point to bring someone on who was controversial, like himself to sort of say this message with him. It's important that people who are much more aware of trans issues like Blair white, uh, and Caitlyn Jenner talk about trans issues. Uh, you know, we have, there'll be a line later about, uh, trans women in sports.

Proves it very simply puts the conservative concerns in one sentence. So I really appreciated this cameo. At first, I was kind of like, I know that face and I was like, that's not Blair white, is it? And I looked it up and sure enough, it was Blair white. So good on Tom preaching at the protest that hatred the problem, but Haiti straight men, white folks, and Christians is common.

This is call attendant people. They should be less white. They preach and tolerance, but if you disagreed a fight, there's a race war here is based on fear. Black lives only matter once every four years. Okay. So there, so you know, the Coke thing, I don't have much to say on it. It w it was one of those things where it's kinda like, yeah, conservatives did this and actually sort of worked, they backtracked a little bit and continue to boycott Coke if that's your deal.

Uh, good, good on you. I I've definitely drank less Coke since the song, since the song, since the issue has happened with Coke and CRT, um, haven't eliminated it a hundred percent, but by and large, Hurt them, you know, hit them where it hurts and it hurt and they've changed and they're going to continue to change as long as you continue to hit the one that hurts.

This is, you know, conservatives are going to be better at boycotting. Um, liberals are great at boycotting and that's why companies follow their lead. Conservatives need to a lot more and make them lose more money. I agree with them. Okay. Now the election is based on fear. Bit is a hundred percent true politics right now is based on fear and it needs to be based on reason.

It's not based on reason. I wish it was based on reason. I'm trying to make it more based on reason, but it's based on fear. Both sides do it. It's bad. It's not going to end well. And the whole bit about black lives matter. Uh, black lives matter only once every four years. That is huge. Now you might say to yourself, but Tyler, I live in a city where there are still BLM protests.

Yes. That's not the point. The point is, is that the mainstream media is no longer interested in it. Where's all the. There was tons of coverage during the election year when the goal was to unseat Trump, Trump got unseated and then what, and now we're even further along and there's zilch on it. Black lives matter as an organization has pretty easily painted themselves as I really craptastic organization who did a wonderful job of marketing, uh, what they tagline that no one should be able to really be against.

But at the end of the day, they're still multi-millionaires who bought expensive houses in California because they could, and they're not actually interested in black lives mattering because they're not doing that money. Those millions of dollars, uh, to underserved and privileged communities filled mostly if not, almost completely by black people, which by the way, they also undertake things like defund the beliefs, which is primarily hurting again, black people and the communities that are being burned down, or again, black peoples, if this thing that, you know, they only mattered until you voted for the power is one in your vote.

And that was the end of it. You don't matter anymore. You know what I mean? And you're more than happy to get mad at the all lives matter crowd. When at the end of the day and the all lives matter, crowd has been here the whole time. Say you, we can't defend the police because that's going to hurt you.

It's going to hurt the black community. Black lives do matter. It just turns out all lives matter in this country because that's what we are. And our, our, you know, liberal sell the times are our words. Matter. Words do matter. I don't think they're violent, but words do matter. So say something like black lives matter is an inherently discriminatory statement and all lives matter is trying to say no, no, no, no.

We all matter equally. That's an important deal. Let's help raise you up. Let's not remove the resources that keep you safer than you would be otherwise. It's that simple. And he correctly points out that politicians lying through their teeth. Only care about you when it's convenient for them. And to be clear, they do not care about.

They care about themselves first and foremost in the story. And they don't even know you exist most likely so nailed it. Absolutely nailed it. Love that line. I'm going to go back a couple of seconds in the morning to go listen to the next couple. I have only met her once every four years. Soldiers died for this country and every one of us benefits get welfare to the bombs and forget about the federal slack folks and white folks divided by the news.

But we are all the same. We are red, white, and blue. So the, the welfare bit, especially in light in the last year with the pandemic hits a little close to home, um, I'm not a fan of welfare. I would much rather prefer a job programs. For example, the way that we've currently implemented healthcare is, or healthcare of welfare is not great.

It's not great. I know there are issues with job programs. Every time I say that I hear my dad in the back of my head, I Gulag has a job program. So you have to prevent that. But I would much rather, you know, that the government in that society who, you know, and the taxpayers get something for it also supporting others and then disability could fill in the role where a job program cannot.

That's what I would rather see happen. Um, you know, and a lot of veterans are on the streets because they have PTSD, they have mental illness, they have dependencies because war is rough, uh, to put it very mildly. And why is it that we provide care to, to, to, to bombs? I mean, that's the word like the 40 years and let's use it and there are veterans on the street.

Like that's not cool. Um, it's, it's disgraceful. Yeah, a hundred percent. Now the whole, the whole white versus black thing is something that I've, you know, and we're all red, white, and blue. That's something that I've really been wanting to touch on more recently. And I'm going to make some products that sort of support that idea.

I don't understand why, where, you know, while we're led by acids and elephants, but at the end of the day, we're all American Eagles. Like we're all Eagles, you know, and this, this is something that I kind of wish more people understood that I think this is why centrists think the way they do. And it's unfortunate that people give people in the center so much crap because at the end of the day, I think people in the center understand the best that at the end of the day, we're all on the same team.

We all want the same things. We're all Americans. What is with this vitriolic, Kate what's with it. You know what I mean? He nails the a hundred percent on the head, whether you're white or black is irrelevant. We're all red, white, and blue. Whether you're blue or red politically is irrelevant at the end of the day, we're all red, white, and blue.

We're all on the same team. At least we all should be. And if we looked at everything through that lens, then perhaps it would make it easier to find the bad ideas trying to undermine our society. You know, I don't mind liberals. I'm not a fan of leftist. I don't mind liberals, liberals are smart people, you know, there are smart liberals out there.

You know, we, we, you know, me and them would agree with the mostly on social policy and disagree on tax rates. Because at the end of the day, we understand the, the American foundation that leads to the social policy bet. And we're just disagreeing on tax rates. Like that is important as important, you know what I mean?

And, and they, and they get it. You know, if I actually talk to a real liberal, who's done the research, they understand where I'm coming from, even if they disagree with it, that is crucial because we're all Americans at the end of the day. And we can all agree. This is a problem. You have your solution. I have my solution.

Let's try and work the differences out or create something that we can both at least live with.

But that's not what we have right now. So that's what I think. I think it's odd that we're led by asses and elephants. Um, I think I, you know, I've only do this aside for a moment. I think the animal's chosen for the political parties are actually very good. Um, they're very descriptive of the different parties.

You know, you have the Democrats with asses or meals or whatever donkeys you wanna call them that way. And they're supposed to, you know, they, they chose the donkey because they're, they're the working man's tool. Right. And they have this sort of backwards thinking, um, And it's like, sure, it's the tool, but it's not the best tool for the job.

Why would you rather have a donkey or a horse type of thing? Um, or would you rather have a donkey or an excavator if you're trying to move something or push something or something like that? Like, it's not, if it's an old fashioned tool, it doesn't work in the modern era. Um, and they just don't, they're there, they're out of touch with Americans.

I think it's perfect. You know what I mean? And the elephant, oh my gosh, the elephants, the Republicans, you, your animal is so perfect. It's so large and grand and you know, there's the, I know, I understand it's a myth, but the perception that you're just scared of mice and you're running away from anything on, you're not actually good in battle.

We know that historically speaking, you're not actually good at marching to war and, and, you know, elephants are non American, so there's that, um, I think the animals are perfect and I really wish that there were more angles. More American ideals being representative in both parties. So the perfect, I'm gonna go back a couple seconds and we're gonna keep going all the same.

We are red, white, and blue ashamed to be American. Okay. That's cool dishonesty. We are all ashamed of YouTube for your leftist friends who want to burn the system down, make it abundantly clear that you are ashamed of them. More people need to say that. We're going to go through that again. So that's big.

That's important at white and blue ashamed to be American. Okay. That's cool. Does honestly, we are all ashamed of YouTube. So the forecast said that that'd be so whoa, you can make us

no more snow. That's a good hook. I appreciate it. Um, it's fun. It's a good beat. It's catchy. Um, it's funny. Like I haven't heard the snowflake thing in a little bit. The left has kind of co-opted it. And point to find out it, uh, Tom McDonald bringing it back in a way that I think makes a lot of sense. So I think it's good.

Let's catch it at the very least. It's fun to listen to. Those are my thoughts. No, they set us up to fail. That's what they built the system for, but an ammunition shop across the street from a liquor store, empowering women used to be different than this before the role models got only fans are dancing on a stripper pole.

There's a lot to unpack there. Um, I understand why my generation thinks the system is set up in which you are supposed to fail. I think that's to an extent true. Uh, the system is. And he's gonna, he's gonna get into, you know, the whole capitalism bit. Um, but it's set up in a way that's very anticapitalistic and yes, it holds people down.

I know people with stem degrees who are lucky to have a job at target has that's insane, insane to be, you know, a hundred plus thousand dollars in debt, student loan debt, and you have a stem degree and you're working at target like that doesn't make any sense to me. It makes zero sense. Um, Sarah, is it not?

So you have this issue where people believe, and I think they're great in believing us that they don't have a fair shot. I don't think you do. I don't think it's about what, you know, I think it's about who, you know, I don't think that we have capitalism in the country right now. I think we have really advanced cronyism.

I think it's more powerful to know somebody than it is to know something and that doesn't make any sense to me. We want people who want to think, who want to know something, not people who know the boss's dad.

Period. So there's that, um, then the liquor store ammunition storyline. I get what he's saying. I think, I think it's one of the weaker lions, cause like I'm not abundantly sure what his point is, but I also, I like, I get the general consensus that the, that the things that are sort of the way that society is structured in the way we put things in, where we put things on what businesses thrive in which ones don't and where they thrive.

Um, that's, that's a big deal. So I get the, the global point, um, But I'm not sure I track where it was supposed to take me. And I said, this is somebody who has no, no real knowledge of music. You know what I mean? Um, I don't know anything about music theory. Um, but even as somebody who was very politically aware, I'm not quite sure what the point was there, because if he's saying that, you know, we're putting ammunition next to liquor stores and that's going to make it to where there's more death.

Um, I'm sure like on some level that's true, but like it's not a major, cause I don't think it's terribly relevant. Um, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I just don't have the data. Maybe I'm just a dumb, dumb, dumb righty who doesn't get it. But I don't, I don't quite get the point there. Then the last bit about women and role models, I'm a hundred percent like I.

It's landmine and it was up. I agree with the sentiment and I think this is true. I think men who are, you know, going out there and making it a point of how much they bang women and all those different things, I think that's equally bad. I don't think it's wise to, for extremely, uh, unvirtuous people to be role models.

You know, I, I look at people like LeBron James, and how he acts publicly. I don't think he's a good role model. He look at basketball role model, if you're into basketball, but as a person I'm not convinced he's a good person. Like at all, you know, he can donate all, he wants to different organizations and provide basketballs to kids and funding for education.

But his actions speak way louder than his words and his, and his funding, which I understand as part of actions, but like the way that he, the way that he interacts oftentimes on the public sphere makes it hard for me to say he's a good role model. Uh, we have, you know, the, the cash me outside girl with her only fans account, like that's, that's not a great role model.

Um, there, you know, If you're the type of person you want to be promiscuous and all that, my libertarian streak in me, perfectly cool with it. You go do you, but let's not pretend like it's virtuous to do it all the time. You know, there has to be more to your personality there that's been more to your existence than that.

And, you know, sexual liberation. I, I understand the sentiment. I agree with the sentiment. I'm not sure in practice, it's working the way people thought it would. And we've taken this, this Uber tolerance. Um, and, and we've taken it too far in some instances. So he's talking about Cardi B, I'll take it a step further.

Like Cardi B is an easy punching bag for conservatives, but there's another famous artist. I have a really hard time with, from a social point of view. And that's, I think her name is Lizzo, um, with the whole body positivity. And look, I, I don't, I'm not saying that we should be rude or disrespectful to people who are overweight or obese.

Uh, right now, actually I am overweight. I Don pounds through the pandemic, but I also don't think it's intelligent or even correct to say that you can be just as healthy as a fit person, if you're obese that isn't true. We know it isn't true. I am overweight recently because of my poor decisions because of my lack of desire slash drive slash capability to will myself to exercise more and eat better.

That is not a virtue. That is not something I want people to emulate. That's not something that I think that society should want people to emulate. You know, that, that isn't to say, be mean, don't do that. Don't be an asshole. Don't go, you know, crapping on people's way or being disrespectful, but in the same token, Don't glorify, unhealthy habits, you know, so I think the whole role model thing is a discussion.

We should be having a little bit more, I think we need to have stronger role models. And at the end of the day, I think women especially, um, and I understand that this is just going to be labeled as some white guy who has no business talking in this arena. You know, talking from a place of privilege from a place of the patriarchy, but women especially have been robbed with the role models that have come out in recent years compared to the role models of their past, um, of the past that have come from feminism, the more recent feminist wave, um, this man hating, uh, ultra sexual, but like you're supposed to be, you know, not just strong, independent, but almost hateful and doing something you're supposed to forego, whatever other goals you may have in pursuit of achieving everything a man can or has achieved, I think is going to set women back in the longterm.

And we're going to see that in a couple of lines and go back a couple of. The fans are dancing on a stripper pole. Screw it. I ain't tripping. I don't mean to be mean, but about children are the future that our future was bleak. They take it out of raw focus, hit McDonald's to eat the predicted the phones, and they take 10 X asleep.

They blurred the lines, divided communism and democracy in 2021, we beat the Patriots. All right. So the whole future's bit there. If the kids are our future, our future is bleak there they're addicted to Adderall, their screens, and they take Xanax asleep like that. Oh, that, that, that, that hits that hits hard.

And it's so true. You know, you look at the different generations and look, I, I, I understand everybody craps on gen Z. Apparently. Technically I'm now a part of gen Z, even though before I was considered a millennial, I don't know when that changed, but it's one of these things where why do we think it's a good idea to over-prescribe Adderall, to children who are restless?

I'm sure there are kids that need it, but. You think all the kids, you know, that are diagnosed with ADHD, be honest with yourself. Really. You really think it's that prevalent. I mean, we stick these kids, these monkeys, these, these child monkeys, by the way, with all this energy at a school desk for hours a day, and then the, and then the student, the student teacher relationship will get sour.

If the student is too restless, they then call the parents. And this starts a chain that ends with the parents, taking the kid to a doctor to get diagnosed with ADHD, to then get Adderall so that the kid stops the child. Monkey would lots of energy that comes muted for multiple hours a day. Really? No, one's thinking this through biologically and how that's idiotic and we're stunting these children's psychological progression for convenience.

We give them phones. Cause it's easier for YouTube to babysit. Our children is for us to do it ourselves. Really? And then these kids are now becoming older. Cause this is, this started with my generation and now we're seeing it full force with people younger than me. We're getting out into the workplace in my generation is not prepared.

We don't understand history. We don't understand ourselves. We have a mental illness epidemic and yet this is supposed to be better. Our future is bleak. If this is the future, you know what I mean? And we're only going to make it worse by raising our kids in the same way that we were raised, but going a step further.

And of course, with more advanced technology that will make it easier to be absent while still technically present.

It's not, it's not good. This is bad news. The whole phones thing. Let me put it this way. We know at this point, the amount of time is being spent on phones is affecting the way humans, younger humans are. It's affecting their health. We know this with posture. We know those with, we know this with, um, mental illness.

It's a bad thing. And even like, if you don't buy it, that's fine. Let me give you, um, my experience with somebody who, who has a phone problem, my back hurts way more than it. Should I have bad posture? Um, I try to work on it. I do good for a couple of weeks. I slept for a couple of weeks. I had bad posture because of my phone, a hundred percent.

It's my phone. And to an extent my laptop, but really it's my phone. It's affecting the way we live our lives and our health as a by-product. Our future is bleak. If we don't get on top of this sooner, rather than later, men playing women's sports, you get selfies for winning, like great. Let's celebrate a man for beating some women a hundred percent perfectly in one sentence, outlines the issue with trans women and women's rights.

What we are doing. And this is what I was talking about earlier with the whole feminism thing. What we are doing is at the expense of women, removing their achievements from them and returning those achievements back to men, back to the patriarchy, that's the issue a hundred percent. We're going to celebrate men for beating women.

And that has two different meanings. Like yeah, sure. Beating them. You know, this is they're going to take all their soccer records are going to take their soccer scholarships, their golf scholarships, or tennis scholarships or basketball, soccer scholarships, but also in the more physical space, literally beating women, whether it's UFC, karate, boxing, whatever.

And we're supposed to just be okay with this because feminism, because tolerance, because left this ideology, w w here's it doesn't make any sense to me. That's why I have a hard time with this new wave of feminism that it kind of also has started to include this stuff. You're, you're allying yourself with people's who interests are directly adverse to your own.

There aren't like, I understand people there was going to be a biologist who tries to counter me here, but, um, they, they're doing bad science, a BS in biology. I think I'm allowed to talk about this a little bit. There are differences between men and women. Some of them have to do with general size. Some of them have to do with general strength.

Some of them have to do we see differences here with mental acuity? When you look at the entire distribution of features, not just the extremes. We look at the entire distributions, the means of where the different, um, where men and women seem to accumulate for strength or size or acuity are different women on average are smarter than you.

Men on average are stronger than women. Now, when you take something like sports, where now we're getting out of the averages and to the extremes, the men extremes are higher for strength. Then the woman extremes, the strongest woman can not you and get close to competing with the strongest man that's effect.

But we want to let potentially very strong men hinder their own testosterone levels, even though there's more to it than that, there's more to strength than just a SaaS drone. Um, and even though they have different biomechanics because their bone structure is actually different. We want to allow them to participate in women's sports with all the biological advantages that they have, which is more than touched testosterone.

Sometimes it goes down to muscle placement, ligament, placement, and bone structure to compete and beat and take away the opportunities of.

Because we refuse to acknowledge that there are biological differences between men and women. We're happy to acknowledge them day in and day out with literally any other animal. There are differences between black widow, males and females. There are differences between female dogs and female and male dogs.

There are differences between female cats and male calves. There are differences between the genders in virtually every damn species lions, lionesses tigers. Tigress is like no chickens and Cox, all these different differences. And we refuse to acknowledge that simple reality in our own species, because we think we're special at the expense of another.

This is the patriarchy, a bunch of men who couldn't have, and I'm sure this isn't everybody, but this is relevant. And you know, it is a bunch of men who couldn't hack it with the best of their own gender, decided to switch teams so they could be good.

And we, and we're supposed to tolerate it. Now that isn't to say no sports for trans people, I would say you give them their own league. And as the issue becomes more, um, prevalent, those leagues will become large enough to actually support the demographic

trans men, women, whatever the term is, women who are not women should not be competing against women who are women biologically.

I don't understand that like feminist tape that's morphed. It doesn't make any sense. It's anti-feminist it's anti-woman and he perfectly in one sentence outlines more clearly than I have in the last five minutes, the entire please for winning, like great. Let's celebrate a man for beating some women. If you're black, your life matters, you're supposed to embrace it.

If you're rich or you're smart, then you're probably Asian. If you're gay, then you're brave. All of that. I'm okay with. But if you're white, the stereotype is you are a racist. Yep. We're all about the good things about different cultures until it comes to the straight white male. God forbid that straight white males conservative a hundred percent great inconsistency alum that he pointed it out.

But if you're white, the stereotype is you are a racist blaming capitalism. Like that's the reason things are tough when you tweet from an iPhone and sip on a Starbucks. A men. I know conservatives have been saying this line in some capacity for years, but it's so true. Like these people, these idiots who tweet these Twitter wars, just keyboard warriors who were on, who are sipping at Starbucks and on their iPhone, iPad, Mac book, surface pro or whatever, even if it's a low end device, even if you're on the crappiest of Walmart, Android phones, you enjoy the, the fruits of capitalism fruits that would not exist without capitalism, whether you like it or not.

And then rail on it with your $5 coffee, which was my coffee right here. Before I started recording, I went to Starbucks, got a Trento cold brew with whatever. It's like a vanilla cream, cold brew, $5 for a Trenta. In my hand, I'm showing terrible investment. I should stop drinking these

and you don't see the irony. It's ridiculous. It's absolutely ridiculous. Again. And one line just like thrashes. The entire movement of that is that side because they don't understand their own stupidity. They don't, they don't get it. Or they believe naively because they don't understand their own philosophy.

Cause I've never actually read angles or read marks or read into stolen and luminous history or read into the CCP, which also embraces, they call it socialism with Chinese characteristics. They don't know anything about socialism, but they think that they can still enjoy our Starbucks and MacBooks pathetic mean from an iPhone and sip on a Starbucks.

You're supporting what you stand against. You don't think you are, but a Percocet addict don't donate money to pharma Ferguson addict. Don't donate money to farm it. Like he's not wrong. Now the last year has made me have the belief that perhaps we should give big funnel more money because when it came to actually needing to get something done, big pharma delivered when our governments couldn't.

And still in some cases or not. So I don't agree with the general distaste of big pharma. I actually am a fan of big pharma. Um, I wish they were paying me off to say that because I'm going to get accused for that one. But like at the end of the day, when it comes to actual industries that need to make money, their system makes more sense.

If you actually sit down and think about it, uh, and this whole idea that big pharma wants you to be sick, to make more money. Isn't true because they don't want you to be sick. They want to get you healthy so that you live longer and keeping you sick means you'll die sooner, which means they make less money.

Like it's one of these very simple thought experience, experiments that isn't hard, but people do not understand. However, that's not the point. His point is that if you have an issue, you don't donate to the cause causing the issue. And yet these people do with their I-phones and Starbucks hot. Yes, socialists in America.

Have no idea what they're talking about. If you want to go enjoy socialism legitimately go enjoy socialism, go. Just move to Venezuela. Yeah. That's pretty much it. Buddha, Venezuela, all these other socialist countries. Aren't socialist. Uh, uh, let's take China for example. Cause they're, they're uh, an easy one.

That's not talked about China embraced communism. You know, they were part of the quote second world that was Russia, Cuba, um, and China throughout the cold war. And they weren't struggling until they began to introduce aspects, reintroduce aspects of capitalism into their society. And then they began to thrive.

They are a oddly socialistic capitalistic blend. So they're not really socialist, but they're closer than the current model here. And you know, you don't want to say it's people like to point to the Nordic countries, even the Nordic countries don't consider themselves socialists. They consider themselves capitalistic, uh, with a really large safety net.

And there's a difference there. So all these socials don't understand what they're after what they believe, the revolutionaries who do know what they're talking about. Um, blindly without doing their own research, a hundred percent Tom and Don got it. Donate money to pharma damn dog. We're all afraid to speak the truth.

And the more afraid we get, the more we hate the ones who do you're ashamed to be American. Okay. That's cool. Because honestly, we are all ashamed of Utah. I know Joe mobile, his biggest thing is bringing conservatives out of the closet, right? And this is true where we've become more and more afraid of speaking the truth.

And those who do get trashed on Tom MacDonald gets trashed on Ben Shapiro gets trashed on Steven Crowder gets trashed on Dave. Reuben gets trashed on even people who aren't conservative like, well, I, I believe he's been red pilled pretty thoroughly at this point, but he wasn't even a year ago. People like, um, Tim pool, Traston for pointing out truths of the world, even if they're inconvenient to their world beliefs crazy.

Right. And how many people are afraid to speak out because they don't want their grades to be hurt in college, or they don't want to lose their job. Well, they want to be able to get a job. You think it's easy for me to find a job after law school with this political podcast and existence, it's not as easy as it could have been otherwise, but more people need a speak.

And he's absolutely correct in pointing out that we need to, you need to, and Joe Lobely, if he was listening in, he would say, yes, you need to, you have to speak out. It's imperative that you do to remove the fear, because it's only getting worse for those who have the kahunas to actually do it. They need our help.

They need us to share their videos to publicly show our support. Not because we're political zealots, but for the simple reason that they understand and that the people who are attacking them understand there are people on their side who believe in what they're saying, that they do not outnumber their supporters in the manner they think they do.

That's important.

you can make us

We can all get along, but there's no stopping everybody's wrong. That's a real problem. They don't want to hear it, but they still talk it soon enough. We running out of options. This ain't going to end and let's send a coffee. We ain't going to be friends till we try to squash it. I don't know how we can make a man's that we drop these snowflakes melt.

When it's high kid. Now a little bit about this is not going to end till it's in a coffin. I see that sentiment a lot online. I see a lot of talk about civil war. I see a lot of talk about succession. I see a lot of talk about violence. We are seeing violence done by people like Antifa. This is not good.

It's not a good trajectory. We need to get off of this trajectory sooner rather than later. And we need to be able to talk to each other at the end of the day. That's the point. We need to be able to talk to each other, to tolerate each other, to work with each other and to be self reflective about our own beliefs, because maybe we are wrong and we should at least hear what the other side has to offer before determining whether or not we are self righteously.

Correct. Now he's having on both sides a hundred percent. Um, I rail on conservatives all the time. I, you know, you guys don't see it as much because I don't do it as much on the podcast. Uh, but like the, the conservative take on vaccines is idiotic. Uh, in my opinion that the, the general take on the environment is not enough.

Um, there, there are issues in which, you know, I'm not a fan of social conservatism, uh, in the, in the extremely ant, you know, the anti-gay sense of the, of the movement, um, or block and all this other different stuff because of the. The desire to put, you know, religious, for lack of a better term beliefs on everybody through the government.

I'm not a fan of all of that, right? So I had my issues with the right, but generally speaking, we have to be able to talk. I think I'm a better person for being able to talk to the other side for having liberal friends, for even engaging with leftists. Even though I didn't have my reservations for doing so, this needs to happen more and more.

And if you talk with people who are different than you and you actually engage in intelligent discussion, it will stop radicalization on both sides, which needs to happen before things do get violent. I hope things don't get violent. Obviously. I don't want things to get violent and I would love for there to be less trash talking of California as a whole less trash talking on Texas and Florida as a whole.

And we'd be able to recognize that Americans live everywhere in America and it's important that we all tolerate and live with it.

and that's the end of the song. So I'll cut up last 20 seconds of instrumentals. Um, go check out Tom McDonald. You can find them on Instagram at hangover gain. I'll get that screen up for those of you watching the video. Uh, I am Tom McDonald on Twitter. You can also of course, look up Tom McDonald on Facebook, Spotify, YouTube music, YouTube, um, apple music, iTunes, and you'll find his stuff there.

That's all important finding dandy. And generally I agree with virtually everything in that song. I'm a little confused by the liquor store one line, but I'm sure if he. Actually explains like I'm five, that sentiment. I would probably agree with him on there too. I'm not convinced he's, you know, a hardcore righty.

I think he's a man more towards the middle who just believes in common sense. I think of any more of that, but you know, it's one of those things where we just have to embrace and enjoy more thoroughly. Thank you for watching. Thank you for listening. I'll catch you all in the next show.

So, uh, editing, headed, Nate Taylor, I forgot to say checkout store.com trex.com and where we are on Instagram at or find me on par or not parlor on probably it's funny. I was just talking about that someday, uh, clubhouse, you know, just look at my name, Taylor Eland, and you'll find me there. So check us out, you know, if you want some merge, go to store.contrares.com, leave a review comment, like subscribe, whatever you're doing on your preferred preferred platform.

And yeah, now I'm going away for sure. So thanks for listening, catching the next one.