Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Chronicling what went wrong for Middle America to future generations
We are digging deeper into the social / political conversation: Diagnosing and discussing the underlying issues we are facing as a society, the irrational philosophies and ideas we are being subjected to, and their disastrous consequences.
Welcome to Unsilent with your hosts Dave and Brian. This is not another current events podcast. We're digging deeper, diagnosing, and discussing what's really going on today, how we got here, and providing observations for future generations.
Speaker 2:Welcome to Unsilent. We're Brian and Dave. We'd love to hear where you think we had it right and where we completely missed the point. You can do that by visiting unsilentpodcast.com, visit Rumble, or, we have a YouTube channel as well where you can leave us comments. We'd love to hear back from you.
Speaker 2:So, Brian, what's, interesting and on your mind right now?
Speaker 3:Well, Dave and I are recording this a week earlier than usual because, you know, the holidays and schedules and stuff like that. So if if Mount Vesuvius Erupted, well, we're done. We're not talking about that. That's why. I did see as we're recording this a few days ago, a study came out saying that forty percent of women aged 15 to 44 want to leave The United States permanently.
Speaker 3:Now this is per Gallup. This is not this is not some, you know, community organizer putting this together. You know, Gallup is, you know, is what they do.
Speaker 2:Pretty reputable. Yeah.
Speaker 3:What what do you so 40 almost half of women, 15 to 44, want to wanna get out permanently. What do you make of that?
Speaker 2:Well, I mean, maybe the guys aren't doing much of a of a decent job in in, being men around The United States. I suppose that's a possibility. That I mean, that surprises me because that's such a large percentage of the you might call that, like, the eligible age range, so to speak. Yeah. I mean, it I I suppose I could see with the amount of derision that is in in, you know, full play for in schools that that could be the case that, you know, I mean, how much do you hear isn't America a great country in in schools and, you know, colleges these days?
Speaker 2:I don't know the the common
Speaker 3:Probably not probably not a lot.
Speaker 2:Probably not the common refrain. Although I At the same level I heard it when I was in school.
Speaker 3:That's
Speaker 2:No. No. Probably probably not as many flag salutes going on. I it it is surprising that upper age range though, that that's I mean, you know, there's all sorts of snarky things you could say about that, of course, you know, about, you know, maybe these are are are women that have have not made them gosh. You can get so much trouble.
Speaker 3:Go ahead. Go ahead, Dave. Just just let it go. Yeah.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Maybe these folks have not made themselves as appealing to the opposite gender as as they they might otherwise have in previous generations.
Speaker 3:There is there is a there is a I I never really saved these videos. It might be well, I I won't because it it it would be funny, but but at people's expense in a way that I wouldn't really be comfortable doing. But there there's no shortage on X, for example, one of the major social media feeds. There's there's no shortage of videos of, like, man on the street videos Yeah. You know, where a guy with a microphone is out at, you know, at a outside of a club at, you know, midnight or whatever on a Friday night interviewing women and or men for that matter.
Speaker 3:But there's there's a a re there's a there's a constant release of these videos where women that are not what you would say Cindy Crawford esque
Speaker 2:Yeah. Sure. That's safe.
Speaker 3:Not high income earners and not interested in doing things that traditionally women might do, like, you know, make meals and have children and that kind of thing.
Speaker 2:Sure.
Speaker 3:And they ask him, like, how much does a man have to make for you to consider dating him? Right. Then and it's like, you know, well, I wouldn't even talk to a guy. Makes less than $200,000 a year. It's just like, it's just it's now, again, they're they're cherry picking these.
Speaker 3:Sure. Of course. I'm not saying by and large that's the the thing. And then, also, you see this constant kind of release of videos of of young women sometimes exasperated, would say. Why can't I find a good progressive man?
Speaker 2:Yeah. Well, then, you know, there's some built in answers to that, I suppose.
Speaker 3:Anyhow, I know I know that those videos are being cherry picked. They probably interview tons of women who are like, you know, I don't care how much he makes as long as he's a good person. I'm sure there's there's plenty of those. Those don't those don't make the headlines, of course. But there there has to be some kind of a significant portion of women who young women who are actually thinking that way to support this this the results of this survey.
Speaker 2:Well, it it would seem to me, you know, the the dominant, you know, narrative, the dominant social media, and Pradeep, you mentioned social media, the dominant social media narrative and the sort of the dominant social narrative for a long time has been against the sort of traditional male female roles. And Yeah. And there's been, you know, there's been a lot of of pushback against the patriarchy, against anything male dominated, you know, and certainly for good reason. If you go back to look at if you go back to look at, you know, the opportunity for women in the thirties and forties and fifties, not sure you can understand that, but it's gone. The the pendulum has swung so far in the other direction as as the example that men are men don't even though men represent about 50% of the population, they don't represent 50% of the population in colleges as an example.
Speaker 2:Right. Women, are vastly overrepresented in terms of colleges, in terms of, you know, some of these things. So there's been a there's been a significant swing, societally speaking, in probably in reaction to the how women were previously held back. Now, has it gone so far that now we end up with things like that statistic where, you know, I if if you would have thought of that in in the nineteen forties, I'm sure that even though women had it much worse off in the nineteen forties than they do in the twenty twenties, that you would have found the vast majority of women would be like, no. I wouldn't be anywhere else.
Speaker 2:But, you know, 90% I would I would be surprised if it was, you know, anything else 90% would 95% would wanna be here as opposed to other places. So I think there's
Speaker 3:Also, I I that if you hear for, you know, from the time you're seven years old until you're, you know, 17 or 27 years old that you live in a horrible country founded by people who support the patriarchy Yeah. You'd you'd probably wanna leave.
Speaker 2:Sure. Sure. Yeah. It's it's the dominant narrative. It's it's the dominant social narrative and and, you know, and the worst thing is is the colonialism, which is all a male dominated you know, all all of those narratives land squarely at the feet of the guys, you know, everyone.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 3:And and like you said, it's not all necessarily misplaced. I I Sure. You know, I don't the number of Genghis Khan type conquerors that were female is probably the percentage of those is
Speaker 2:pretty pretty low. Fairly small. Yeah. It's probably probably fairly small. Yeah.
Speaker 2:Yeah. So there's I mean, there's nothing comes from nothing. Everything comes from something. So if there's if there's that feeling, then it came from somewhere. Now, it also things tend to when momentum happens, so if momentum is happening, if an sort of an anti male momentum is happening, it is inevitably going to overshoot the place where equilibrium established.
Speaker 2:You know? The it's it these are all pendulum swings. Right? They're all Yeah. They go and forth.
Speaker 3:Yeah. It just And the grass is always greener, and all these cliches have been around for twenty five hundred years for a reason. Yeah. Yeah. And also If you look at you look at somebody who, like people who have, like, severe drug addictions, sometimes there's like, you just you just gotta go find you have to go find a new circle in a different city.
Speaker 3:You have to remove yourself in the environment, and it's for self preservation. And so if you're in that mind where, like, you're the you're the prey, you're the oppressed, you're the you're the victim, well, how could you come to any other conclusion? Like, just get the hell out of there.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Yeah. Well, and now and and I think a lot of those if I think if you probed deeply in the people that responded to that survey, I'm guessing that most of them wouldn't have a deep knowledge of places where it's all that much better for women, you know? Yeah.
Speaker 3:Yeah. And well, did see one where they the guy asked them, like, where would you go? And none of them said Uganda. None of them said, like, South Africa.
Speaker 2:Like Yeah.
Speaker 3:They all wanted to go, like, the South Of France.
Speaker 2:Sure. You know, that's right. They wanted to go wherever Hallmark movies are recorded. Right? It's Right.
Speaker 2:Right. Right. Sure.
Speaker 3:Right. The guys are nice to be Okay. Well, enough of that. The main thing I thought that for for this week, the the the one of the main things I've been noticing is, you know, we talked we talked a couple months ago maybe or a few weeks ago about how there's there's a a divide in the the Democrat progressive side where there's kind of the, you know, mom dummies kinda on this come on the scene, and you kinda have the the the squad and the and the younger generation who are embracing that kind of philosophy. And they kinda have the old guard who's like, you guys are nuts.
Speaker 3:You got the, you know, the Bill Maher's very, very progressive guy who's also saying, you guys have lost your minds. Like, you like, depending on the thing you talked about, like, you're overshooting the market, and it's it's it's gonna be a disaster. You can't have free everything that's that there's a mathematical problem there. Up until recently, though, the the Republican party, even though they were drug along kicking and screaming behind Trump like, there's no question. They did this at him from day one, but but the reality is set in.
Speaker 3:Like, he he was the guy that people were the constituents were rallying behind. They were pretty well unified, I would say. But now there's there's a a there was a a pretty public divorce between Marjorie Taylor Greene and Trump. Yeah. He's been very, very anti Thomas Massie, which I I cannot wrap my head up.
Speaker 3:Very harsh. I mean, Thomas Massey is in, you know, four conservative people. I would say he's in the top five
Speaker 2:most
Speaker 3:respected people in the congress by his peers who vote against him every time. Right? Yeah. He votes with Trump, I think, like, 93% of the time, but Trump's just really going after him. Yeah.
Speaker 3:And the and and just reading social me reading the tea leaves on social media, it's it's bewildering to people who are ardent Trump or were ardent Trump supporters that there's now this chasm dividing between the Republicans or conservative folks. And so now it it's almost, like, unfolding to explain to Kenny g, the guy we're talking to seventy years from now, what this moment is like. To me, as again who I have no political understanding, I I I just I see what I see. Right? I don't I don't I didn't I don't have a poli sci degree.
Speaker 3:But it does feel like now there's four parties. You got the socialist leaning progressives and then the more traditional progressives, and you've got the you got two factions in the conservative Republican side, and the the line of demarcation seems to be Israel. Yeah. It seems to be like you've got a number of of conservative Republican people who are like, we gotta defend Israel no matter what. That that's our they're our strongest ally, and and we we we will live or die with Israel.
Speaker 3:And then you've got and and, like, Ben Shapiro's a voice that's very much like that and whatever. And then you got the other faction that's more Marjorie Taylor Greene and and Thomas Massey who will not take money from the Israel fund the funded PAC. Yeah. Who are basically like, yeah. I mean, they're they're a great ally, but but, you know, we had enough problems at home.
Speaker 3:And Yeah. Maybe we should just focus on us. And and so there's a but it's a it's a very strong dislike for each other developing there. And it's it's I don't understand it. Yeah.
Speaker 3:It's very noticeable. And what I was thinking in terms of the fourth turning and the pendulum theory that we talked about a lot here is if you have four parties in in in nobody's in charge now. Like, nothing can get done. Things will absolutely come to a grinding halt until a catastrophe happens that has to be responded to that everybody can get behind. What so two questions for you.
Speaker 3:One, are you seeing the same thing I am, or you think I'm nuts? And and two, what do you make of it?
Speaker 2:Well, no. It's definitely everything you're saying is is objectively what I see happening. And and, yes, if you we're we're not in a parliamentary system, so you can't really have, you know, four controlling parties. It doesn't work that way. I mean, you know, I wonder because like, if you think about the formation of the Republican Party, it was it was when the Whig party collapsed.
Speaker 2:Now, you know, the the most the staunchest defender of the Whigs was Abraham Lincoln until Yeah. Until the moment that he wasn't. And so that that was a fourth turning situation where one party collapsed and a new party emerged from then. We've had, you know, for for two two sets of of, you know, secular cycles, we've had the the Republican party now. And and it it's a strange dividing line on the Republican side to me.
Speaker 2:It's very odd dividing line. The and the reason it's odd to me is is I had this discussion with somebody I really like, respect, friend of mine, and she was posting about this stuff. And she said, you know, here's all the money that that APAC and the and the Israel lobby was giving to the to the to affect policy in The United States. And and I said, yeah, that's true. And basically, my you know, I put it nicely to this.
Speaker 2:So? And she says, well, don't you think people should know? And and what do you think this means? And I said, well, first of all, I think that if the Israeli government and the and those that are supporters of Israel in The United States weren't doing that, they would be certifiable morons that should be fired from their jobs because, you know, we're the only reason that that country can even exist in the world. So they'd be they'd be totally stupid to do that, to to not do that.
Speaker 2:And secondarily but she said, well, there's there's yeah. And they and and like the thing that this person was posting was about, you know, the FARA, the Foreign Agent Registration Act. You know, they have to say where they've given well, and and they're doing that. They're saying we're giving money, and so it looks like it's all in the up and up. It looks like it's all legal.
Speaker 2:And my comment was, well, pick a country in in the world. They they do as much as they can. I don't care what country you're talking about on planet Earth. They do as much as they can to influence US foreign policy. Why?
Speaker 2:Because it is the smartest thing for any country on Earth to do. If you don't, you're a moron because we're the biggest, we're the most powerful, we've got the most money, you know. If you don't do this, you're an idiot. Yeah. When it comes down to the Israelis and and this divide that's happening here, it it seems to it's it's it's bewildering to me because it's like, you can say, well, we we should be giving more money to this instead of to foreign aid.
Speaker 2:Okay. Well, that's let's that's a good argument. Let's have that argument. Let's have that discussion. But why why is there this I mean, so you've got this country in The Middle East, which the Middle East is arguably an important place.
Speaker 2:I mean, there's like oil and stuff there. Yeah. The Israelis don't have oil, but
Speaker 3:It's also a tinderbox at all times of catastrophic bad things happening.
Speaker 2:Exactly. I mean, the next world war could happen in in, you know, South China Sea. It could happen in The Holy Land. It could happen in any of these places. So it it seems a reasonable logical thing for a country, for for us as a country that's interested in maintaining peace, maintaining economic stability in the world to support a the country that is most like us in The Middle East, and that's those guys because like they've got a democracy and stuff.
Speaker 2:So so the whole discussion of the whole thing is a little bit bizarre to me in the sense that and and then you you you I I wanna resist folding in this thing, well, it's the Jews. You know? It's the Jews. It's always the Jews.
Speaker 3:Yeah. No. That that makes it prickly to have a conversation, a a reasonable conversation because, you know, like, name a people that has been more horribly treated in history than them. Like, I mean run
Speaker 2:of it for only a few thousand years.
Speaker 3:Top They're in three for sure. Right? Yeah. And and going back, you know, long time and, obviously, African blacks, like, right at their like, there's no quite so it it it does make these conversations prickly. I think that and and by the way, I think this is probably the only issue that you and I are not pretty well aligned on.
Speaker 3:I think this is probably the one topic that you and I we would debate how this should be Sure. More than just about any other topic, I would imagine. Yeah. You and I are pretty much in alignment on everything else. Think I think I because you're smart.
Speaker 3:So, of course, I think like with you. But I think I think I think here's here's a here's a here's and, again, this is just a governmental flaw. This is not unique to this situation. But here's a question I've never heard anybody pose. Again, using your example, like, pick a country.
Speaker 3:Uganda. Okay. It's Uganda. Uganda should should do this thing. And we heard last year I can't remember who said maybe you'll remember who said it, but we talked about it on here briefly that it was remarkably cheap to buy a senator.
Speaker 3:Yeah. For $10, you could you could get a senator to vote how you wanted. I think that was the number that was thrown around. And for a congressperson, it was, like, $5. Yeah.
Speaker 3:Right? The question I overhear asked is, how would you know when it went too far? Meaning Sure. How would you know when a country went to from serving their own best interest, which, again, to your point, they'd be stupid not to. Like, they if I if I was their adviser, I'd say, yeah.
Speaker 3:You might wanna get some people who think, you know, helping you is a good idea in the United States Congress because
Speaker 2:Right.
Speaker 3:You know, that'd be smart. But there is a line that could be crossed by, let's say, Uganda or let's say Ireland. Let's say Ireland. Let's let's let's take all the all the racial and religious stuff out of it. Ireland.
Speaker 3:There is a line Ireland could cross where they're no longer supporting their own needs, but rather dictating how we govern our country. Mhmm. And there is a line that could be crossed there. I've never heard anybody say, how would we know that happened? And and I think that that is one of the major points of contention.
Speaker 3:So you said you're bewildered. My interpretation is is the crux of the issue. Well, there's maybe two. There is a point a country could go too far where you're not serving the needs of Ireland anymore, but you're now trying to dictate how The US does things Sure. For some good, but also some nefarious reasons.
Speaker 3:And you're discounting the benefit of the citizens for The United States to serve your own needs. It's not it's not we're helping Ireland now. We're directing Ireland is directing us. I think that is the line that people are worried about being crossed. Yeah.
Speaker 3:If it has been or not, I couldn't tell you. That's the concern. And the second point of contention I think there is is because of the history that Jewish people have had to go through, When people say Israel, sometimes people are talking about the Israeli government, and sometimes people are talking about Jews in Israel.
Speaker 2:Yes.
Speaker 3:And it's it's not always clear who's being talked about.
Speaker 2:Yeah. And that's a problem. Yes. I don't
Speaker 3:really I don't tend to remark on x to politicians, but Ted Cruz and I like Ted Cruz for the most part. He said something. He was calling Tucker Carlson a anti Semite because he was because he his quote was he was criticizing the leadership of the IDF. And, again, in one of the rare moments I respond, I I said to senator Cruz, like, I love the American people. I love American citizens.
Speaker 3:I couldn't think much less of the leadership, though. That doesn't mean I hate Americans.
Speaker 2:Right. Right.
Speaker 3:And that that those those that gets conflated. Like, when you say Israel That's the problem. Mean the it doesn't mean the shopkeeper in it doesn't mean the plumber in Israel. It means that the power the people in power, just like I loathe many of the people in power in The United States Yeah. But love American citizens.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 3:That is always kind of a blurred line. But then the other thing, like, again, going back to your question saying about be bewilderment, I think that the issue is it's not ever clear for anyone when is it Israel doing the smart thing like you say versus Israel dictating how we do things that is just because Israel wants to have it's like, you know, high school when you when you if you're the young scrawny guy and you're getting bullied by somebody
Speaker 2:Right.
Speaker 3:There's a difference between paying a guy who's strong to protect you from the bully, that would make perfect sense, than paying a strong guy just to go beat the shit out of somebody you don't like. Yeah. That's a different thing. Sure. And that, I think, is the is is kind of somewhere in there is kind of the heart of the issue.
Speaker 3:That for that's my again, I'm not a poli sci guy. Don't I understand most of the stuff. That's kind of my read on it.
Speaker 2:Well and so let's let's take those two things in order and kinda, you know, ban them around a bit. So the the quest first question is when does it cross the line for their influence to and their influence of us to be inappropriate. Right? For and really, I mean, what you're what you're asking, I think so I think a a more pointed way to ask that in my opinion is when does it cross the line for us to do things that they ask that that we should not do? Right?
Speaker 2:I think that's what what it really comes down to because from from them my
Speaker 3:example of me pay me being the strontic kid in high school paying a guy to go beat the shit out of somebody who doesn't like him. That's something he shouldn't do Right. Versus me giving him my milk, my lunch money to keep me from getting beat up by the bully that's beating me up. Those are very different things.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Totally different things. And so so now so then you gotta I think step back and and break it apart a little bit and say that any country, Israel included, should do what they can within the bounds of the law to get us to do their will again within the bounds of the law. That's what the Chinese do. That's what the Israelis do, that's what Russia does, that's what everybody does.
Speaker 2:So they
Speaker 3:can do places too by
Speaker 2:the way. And that's what win. And we do that. We do that all over the world. Everybody does that to and and with and for Yeah.
Speaker 2:Else. Now when it becomes inappropriate is when people in our country then put the needs of the other country ahead of the needs of our country and behave in that kind of way. So and so then so then you gotta say, okay. Well, that's really the that's the if the answer to your question is that's the definitional question. So then you have to come up with some metric to judge that to say, okay.
Speaker 2:Well, let's do the smart thing, specific measurable achievable relevant time.
Speaker 3:Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 2:When did all of when and how does this take place? And if you then and that's the whole point of FARA of the Foreign Agents Registration Act to prevent people from having undue influence over people in The United States to do will to do their will for their own personal benefit versus the benefit of, you know, what's what's prescribed as appropriate behavior within FARA and within the laws of The United States. So so the first answer to the question is, you gotta look at it very carefully along those lines. You have to look at it along the lines of is anybody violating these things, and can you show a pattern of behavior that on anybody's behalf, on anybody's part, whether it's the president or a congressperson or anybody with any power in The United States, any governmental influence in United States, of doing things that that creates not something not an ambiguous harm to The United States, but an actual harm to The United States. So like in the situation I was talking about, I was talking with somebody who said, well, have you noticed that all of these churches and all these podcasters that are Christian podcasters are are supportive of the Israeli government, not just the Jews, but of the Israeli government, and they're being supported by you know, they're being paid to say these things.
Speaker 2:And I'm like, yeah, I noticed that. And and I'm a marketing guy, so, you know, that's you you pay influencers to influence. That's what you do as as a marketing person. And as a marketing person for any country, that's what you're gonna wanna do. And they have willing recipients in a lot of these quote unquote, you know, religious podcasters because and this is where the whole question gets a little bit convoluted because of the of the history of the Jews and the Bible and, you know, religious connection.
Speaker 2:So, you know and I try to when I think about these things, I try to remove myself from this whole question of of, you know, of I'm a I'm a bible believing person. I'm a person of faith, and, you know, I I believe that God has has a plan for the world. I try to take all of that out of this discussion about supporting Israel and not supporting Israel and all of that. K? I just try because, you know, I I'm not gonna say, well, they should get a pass on anything because after all, they're God's chosen people.
Speaker 2:Well, no. I that that that argument doesn't doesn't fly with me. I don't you know, I I in fact, you know, I I I have a little bit of different theology on that anyway. But I think that's one of the reasons that this whole argument gets convoluted is for that reason. So I think first of all, gotta take a look at your first question and say, is there anything being done by anybody that is harming The United States for the benefit of Israel?
Speaker 2:And harm can't be that, well, you're spending, you know, 2,000,000,000 on Israel versus you're only spending a 100,000 on Ireland. You know? Well, that's that's the judgment call.
Speaker 3:Yeah. No. I don't I don't I'm sure people have that belief. I've not really heard that. I think that the the thing I hear people say the most is not about money.
Speaker 3:It's about, do we really need to go to war with that country? Sure. Is going to war with that country really serving United States, or is it serving Israel and not The United States?
Speaker 2:Right.
Speaker 3:And that would be a line that would again, going back to my example of Yes. Seeing the guy that beat up the other the other kid, like, in high school. Right? I think it's more about now, again, I'm sure a million people say many different things, and they probably do complain about how much money is spent on that just like they complain about how much money is spent on, you know, cleaning up goldfish bowls in aquariums that are owned by the government, whatever it is. Right?
Speaker 3:But the the thing and I agree with you that there's not you can't have a smart metric for this. We elect people presumably to make those judgment calls.
Speaker 2:Right.
Speaker 3:And how you would decide to do a thing in July 1999 would be probably different than how you would do it in July '20 2002. Yeah. The world changed. Like, things changed. Like, the the the the the factors all changed.
Speaker 3:I think it comes down to people just don't trust people in congress.
Speaker 2:Appropriately. Yeah. It's appropriate.
Speaker 3:And there's not ever been conversation where where and then maybe maybe it couldn't be. Maybe this stuff can't be talked about publicly. We're like, hey. This is
Speaker 2:a line we're not willing to
Speaker 3:cross that has been honored. Right?
Speaker 2:Sure.
Speaker 3:We've heard line you know, the red line. None of stuff is ever honored.
Speaker 2:Right.
Speaker 3:And and going back to, like, you and talk a lot about human nature. If I was Ireland again and I'm lobbying the United States government to to show favor to my country and get good trade deals and take care of me in certain ways or whatever and it worked, human nature would dictate that I would do more of that, and eventually, it would be inevitable I would cross that line.
Speaker 2:Right. Right.
Speaker 3:But I think that's the part that is like nobody ever hears or knows about us saying, yeah, that's a line we're not gonna cross that we actually adhere to. Does that make sense?
Speaker 2:Yeah. Well, and that's why in theory, we've got treaties, and in theory, we've got FARA, and in theory, we've got, you know, all of these things that are supposed to, you know, they're supposed to create boundaries and and and things of that nature. Now so so that's totally true, and and I have no disagreement with that at all. And then the question of who should we go to war with a country for some other country? We need to have a pretty doggone good compelling reason to do that.
Speaker 2:Now,
Speaker 3:you know oil is always one so far.
Speaker 2:Well oil to go. Yeah. I mean, so so if you take a look at if you take a look at at compelling reasons for going to war in The Middle East, preserving the global flow of oil is you know, if if that happens, you know, if if oil gets to $300 a barrel, we're in depression. Everybody's in depression. It's it's a nightmare.
Speaker 2:So, you know, and and I don't know, you know, this is where some of that discussion around around Israel is a little odd to me because we haven't gone to war. I mean, we give them lots of I mean, the only thing we could conceivably say that we've done militarily for them other than to rattle the sabres and stuff has been, you know, bombing the bloody heck out of Iran, you know, which was a long time coming. We we should you know, I we we've been you know, they've had that coming for since 1979. We should've blocked the bloody crap out of them, you know, in my estimation.
Speaker 3:So let let me let me let me give you a plausible again, I'm gonna make something completely up that is not true at all. I'm completely making this up. Part of it, anyway. In 2001, I think, or maybe 2002, Colin Powell, a very trusted guy Yes. Arguably, like, one of the most at that time, one of the most trusted people ever to serve in the government, very highly regarded, very well respected, said, we have definitive proof there's weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Speaker 2:Sure.
Speaker 3:And it was a lie. Right? It wasn't true.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 3:If again, I'm making this up. This didn't happen as far as I know. If they said that because Israel wanted to go to war with Iraq, then that would fall in that category. Sure. Oh, yes.
Speaker 3:Absolutely. Enough of these little things like little thing. I don't how how many people died in the Iraq war. So it's not I don't I I take that back. It wasn't a little thing.
Speaker 3:It was a seemingly small thing. Like, well, of course, there's weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but it's a big thing because it's trying to be completely BS. We send people over there. If that if that lie was told because Israel wanted us to, that would that kind of thing would certainly qualify
Speaker 2:Yes.
Speaker 3:For going too far. Now we have no proof of that happening. I made that up completely out of out of nowhere. Sure. But enough of these things happen.
Speaker 3:These lies are told, and we do these things that make no sense in that particular region of the world to to give people a reason to question our our legislators and elected officials who we already don't trust. Does that make sense?
Speaker 2:Yes. However, I would push back on a lot of that, and here's how. One, I I think there's you know, right now, we recognize in with twenty twenty hindsight that Saddam didn't have nukes.
Speaker 3:But Yep.
Speaker 2:Every intelligence service I I hear this all the time now. I hear everybody talking about this, and I it seems there's like a lot of forgetting of history. So we know now that Saddam had lots of yellowcake uranium that got spirited out of the country. Yellowcake uranium is only useful for making nuclear weapons, probably went into Syria. Assad probably had it probably made its way around, so there was there was that.
Speaker 2:There was the fact that, you know, there there was plenty disagreement about, did he have nukes? Did he have not don't have nukes? He said he had nukes. You know, so there's all this stuff. So I think it's too strong to say it was a lie that that happened, that that we thought he had nukes and he didn't have nukes.
Speaker 2:I don't think that was a lie. I think there was some serious deep miscalculation because the French, the Germans, everybody believed he had he was on the verge of nuclear breakout. Right? So that
Speaker 3:was Let's let's pause there for a second. Yeah. This is where it comes down to intent versus outcome.
Speaker 2:Sure.
Speaker 3:Right?
Speaker 2:Yes.
Speaker 3:If all the things you said are true, which, again, you know this stuff way better than I do. So let's let's I'll grant everything you just said is true. Yeah. Still, if they if somebody said they don't actually have them, but we have enough plausible reason to say they do Yeah. And Israel would like us to, we're gonna go ahead and do it anyway.
Speaker 2:Well, yeah. If that last point yes. If that last point was the tipping point, then that is absolutely a 100% inappropriate. Totally wrong. Totally wrong.
Speaker 2:And if that was ever been shown
Speaker 3:My point is, I don't know if any of this stuff has ever happened. I don't think anybody complained about this stuff has ever happened. Right. The situation is ripe for it, and there's never a line that is drawn that is honored. And we politicians do dumb things because it makes them money and gives them power.
Speaker 3:And Yeah. Yeah. I'm just saying, like, how can it go any other way pretty much?
Speaker 2:Politicians do things because they're expedient to do. So as an example, we had an obligation to attack Russia when Russia invaded Crimea in 2014. We had a a legal obligation based on what Bill Clinton signed with Boris Yeltsin with Ukrainians. We had an obligation to do that. Barack Obama did not do that.
Speaker 2:So there was a red line. It was in writing. It wasn't a treaty because, you know, Clinton couldn't get it through as a treat, you know, so there's there's all this stuff that happened. But it was not expedient in Barack Obama's mind to fulfill our obligation to Ukraine and attack Russia because, by the way, we don't behave this way in the twenty first cent, you
Speaker 3:know Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 2:This kind of stuff. So politicians will always do what is expedient for them to do. We so we know that. Secondarily, now the the question about Israel is an interesting one because there would have to be there would have to be some significant evidence to say we've got a pattern of behavior. Now you can have a pattern of suspicion, and there's there's plenty of opportunities for patterns of this.
Speaker 2:This is where like I look at Tucker Carlson and some of the others that well, what about this? Well, what about that? Well, what about this? You know, there's patterns of suspicion, but I'm I'm more convinced by analytics and by patterns of, well, this happened. Here is a statement.
Speaker 2:Here's what happened. You know? Now, of course, smart people that are trying to manipulate you are going to have as much plausible deniability as they possibly can. So are you ever gonna know with
Speaker 3:And don't forget last week, we just talked about how Amelia Earhart's stuff was just declassified after ninety five years or whatever it's been. Well, exactly. And so the government doesn't do itself any favor by by by hiding things like this. So
Speaker 2:Yeah. It's always messy.
Speaker 3:It my point is they could just if they just came clean, which, again, I know politicians can't do because we would never vote for them if they did. Right?
Speaker 2:One second. But
Speaker 3:if they would just come clean, a lot of these problems would go away. So Yeah. Maybe again, we're trying to solve unsolvable problems here. But the the pattern suspicion thing you're talking about Yeah. Generally, I would say, yeah, that's not that's not a good path to go down.
Speaker 3:However, I'm more open to it now as a person. I'm more open to it now than I was ten, fifteen years ago.
Speaker 2:I agree.
Speaker 3:Yes. Because there's this pattern of hiding things unnecessarily. Right. And I just have come to believe as I've gotten older, there's only really one or two reasons you do that, and they're not good.
Speaker 2:Yeah. And I see and I a 100% agree with that. I absolutely agree with that because because of all the things we've talked to you about, because you know, the like all these things are reclassified and government's hiding things and you know, I mean, we we talked about it a couple of weeks ago how the CIA had every reason to believe that nine eleven was gonna happen, but they didn't they miscalculated. There wasn't there was no conspiracy. They just miscalculated and then when they miscalculated and it did happen, they had to cover their butts.
Speaker 2:So Yeah. There there was no evil quote unquote that happened. There was no conspiracy per se, although there was this conspiracy to cover their butts after it did happen. All of those things being the case, I'm very open to saying, well, here's a pattern. Now let's fully investigate this pattern.
Speaker 2:So it's like it's like when we talk about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and so it was wrong. We know now it was wrong. And now was it straight up? So some people will tell you it was straight up a lie for this reason. I don't believe it was straight up a lie at all.
Speaker 2:I believe there's plenty of evidence that was completely botched. They didn't take into account the counterfactuals. They didn't take into account the counter evidence. I don't think Bush and Cheney were some kind of masterminds with the twisting their mustaches and all that kind of stuff. I think they I
Speaker 3:don't think Bush was. I'm not sure about Cheney.
Speaker 2:Well, you know, I mean, you know, yeah. We we maybe in ninety years when we're all dead, the facts will actually come out on this thing. AI will spill the beans by then. But then also if you take let's let's take it back to, like, the Israelis as an example. People will talk about Netanyahu and the things he's done wrong and all of this kind of stuff.
Speaker 2:I am a 100% open to the notion that Netanyahu has manipulated and has connived and has schemed to get things happening both for himself and what he perceives as the best interest of the country. He's done things wrong. I'm a 100% open to that. I'm also a 100% open to he's the only one that could have could have brought the situation to the place it's at right now where things are vastly better in The Middle East for us, for The United States, and for all freedom of the people. Just as I'm open to the notion that FDR was the right president at the exact right time saying the exact right things for World War two at the same time that he was basically a closet socialist that I would have, you know, picketed outside of his mansion, you know, because gone
Speaker 3:with it. You just said something that I think that as you were saying, was like, man, if Dave said if Dave was in Thomas Massey's place and he said that, and and I'll paraphrase, you can repeat it if you want. Yeah. You said something like, I'm completely open to Netanyahu who has manipulated, connived, whatever, to to to get us to do things that are are maybe not good for us, our country. Right.
Speaker 3:That statement would put you squarely in the Marjorie Taylor Greene Thomas Massey camp today. It will certainly. Yeah. Yeah. Right?
Speaker 3:So this is and, you know, and so my my my aim today was not for us to try to figure out what's right with Israel. I don't think we're ever gonna do that No. Or or with any country. It's more to illustrate there is no room for you're either for me or again me, which is a very forth turning thing. Yeah.
Speaker 3:Right? There is not there is not room for a gray area. There's not room for nuance in this.
Speaker 2:It's
Speaker 3:either a 100% for Israel doing what we're doing to them is fine, or if you push back on any piece of it, you're you just hate Israel. You hate the Jews. Like Right. It it's very binary, which I would say is not only unhealthy, but also indicative of the era we're in. And so coming back full circle, we have we have that strong divide now in the in the conservative folks, and you got the strong socialist versus traditional, you know, progressive ideas in the other yet yet four four camps, none of which are gonna be able to do anything.
Speaker 2:Exactly right.
Speaker 3:And so it feels like we're just drifting rudderlessly along in the ocean until we hit something that puts a hole in our boat.
Speaker 2:That's and that is and that is exactly the that's exactly the problem because the the position that I would stake out wouldn't fit in any of the four camps because, you know, and I I intentionally if I if I ever tie I don't talk much about this stuff online anymore, but if I ever do, I I typically will will include something in a post that offends both sides so they don't know what to do with me. It's just kinda fun, honestly. It's, you know
Speaker 3:Yeah. And and I and I do think that this moment is unique much like the Whigs, you know, going away and the Republicans can't coming on. I'm not saying the Democrats are gonna go away. I'm not saying the Republicans are going away. I it does feel like the and you guys said that this two years ago when we first started doing this.
Speaker 3:The center 80% are not represented by anybody.
Speaker 2:Exactly right. That's and that's the problem is
Speaker 3:there's no people change over the next five or ten years. I can that's one assurance I can make. Yes. Not having a crystal ball about anything, that is one assurance I can make is that problem will be resolved.
Speaker 2:Well, and and that's and that's why we have to have these resets periodically because we go so far down these paths that take us away from reality. I mean, the human, you know, we talk a little about about the fourth turnings and the and the pendulum and all that. We talk a lot about human nature. Human nature is always to go to extremes, to to push it to extremes until you know, it's it's kinda like flat earth theory. You get to the end of the you get to you push it so far, you get to the end of the earth and there'd be dragons there and you look over the edge and, you know, collapse happens, and then you can reset the whole thing and start all over again.
Speaker 2:And we repeat the same cycle.
Speaker 3:And and and to be clear, the reason I'm bringing this up is I don't know like, if we when we look at history during the Great Depression and leading up to World War two, a significant piece of the story that I was not taught in school and is lost was how how big of a push there was to an in to put communist practices in place. Like you said, like, you FDR was basically a a closet socialist. Yeah. That that conflict that that was a real conflict within the American populace, like, not politicians, like, people, like everyday people. Should we continue being a capitalistic free market society?
Speaker 3:Should we move to
Speaker 2:Right.
Speaker 3:Well, of course, we should move to social. That piece is is more or less lost to history.
Speaker 2:Right.
Speaker 3:You know? Right. I don't know you know, we're speaking to people gonna live seventy years after you and I are long gone. I don't know if this piece would be represented in the his whatever iteration of the history books are that we don't have two parties anymore. We have we have at least four, maybe maybe six.
Speaker 2:Right.
Speaker 3:Which I again, it it and it's not so much that it's like of course, it's ineffectual, but I just don't think that would make the story because of the other things that are gonna be bigger and more headline ish and newsworthy for history books.
Speaker 2:Well, the the winners and the dominant narrative always writes this history. So the reason that we have we didn't learn when we were growing up about the socialist tendencies of FDR and the great, you know, communist push, the fact that the communist party was big and held huge rallies in The United States, all of that. The reason we don't hear about that is because that philosophy lost. Now, you know, whatever philosophy ends up winning after the reset reset and and the the and the first turning starts in the in the next go around, that philosophy will write the history that will be reported, and hopefully, we'll be out there some digital, you know, out in digital cyberspace that some robot will say, hey, look what I discovered.
Speaker 3:And we even do this with, like, know, like, in our era, everybody the the the the era and the geographic area we're always compared to is Nazi, you know, pre Nazi Germany.
Speaker 2:Right.
Speaker 3:I would imagine there was a lot of friction on the ground between the shopkeepers and whatever about, like Sure. What is going on here, and that's all lost. Like, Germans just became Nazis. Like, that's
Speaker 2:that's the that's the point. Right. It's always over the same thing.
Speaker 3:And and I don't think that's how it actually was, which, again, is why you and I started doing this podcast was to explain that whether you and I become the the bad guys or the heroes of the story, we are certainly anything but aligned. Right. Exactly. Yep. Alright.
Speaker 3:Well, as Dave said in the beginning, if you think there's anything we said especially right or wrong, we'd love to hear your input. We're trying to explain to future generations what this moment and time is like as they will undoubtedly look back and wonder what the hell is wrong with us. But we're just two guys. We don't give our perspective, so we'd love to include yours. You can do that at unsilentpodcast.com.
Speaker 3:Rumble has a great comment section. And until next week, this is Dave and Brian signing off.
Speaker 2:See you
Speaker 3:next week.
Speaker 1:Do you wanna be unsilent? Make your voice heard on our social media channels and share where you think we got it right or wrong. Go to unsilentpodcast.com for social links so you can join the discussion.