Cajun Knight Live 23

Israel Iran conversation. We're gonna bring it up a couple of little things about it, but that seems to be the big talking point that everybody is on right now. We don't know if we are going to go to war by we, I mean America. Trump just yesterday was saying that he was still trying to keep America out

of war. Today he said that he's not sure. I heard a interview with him, and in the same conversation he was saying it's never too late to broke or a deal, thirty seconds later says it's kind of late. I mean, I don't know. I mean, that's the thing. If Trump doesn't know what he's gonna do, there's no.

right off the rip. So, Colombian president candidate recovering from surgery after assassination attempt. I understand that Colombia is not exactly new to the whole political assassination conversation, but still I didn't really hear anything about this until just now, So let's get into it. Colombian Senator Miguel Uribe Turbe.

Sorry if I'm mispronounced it. I speak American English, A possible right wing candidate in the country's presidential election next year, is recovering after successfully undergoing surgery following an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Bogada, Bogata Sure, thirty nine year old RIBAe was speaking two supporters in the capital city when a gunman shot him twice in the head and once in the knee. It's very weird marksmanship, gonna be honest, But however, twice in the head and he

got out of surgery and it was successful. Let's get props for the due either A this guy just got kind of glanced a couple of times, or B he's he doesn't quit. Gotta get the props with they do. He was airlifted to a hospital in critical condition and underwent a neurosurgical and peripheral vascular procedure in Santa Fe Clinic in Boga, Bogata. Told AFP he overcame the first surgical procedure. The mayor, Carlos Fernando Galon told local media.

Eribe's wife, in an audio recording share with the media, said her husband came out well from the surgery. He fought the first battle and fought it well. He is fighting for his life. She is heard saying, So, I guess, yeah, this is the guy in question. The attack took place in a park in the Fontain font Tabond neighborhood, when armed assailant shot him from behind, said the right wing Democratic Leader or Center, which was the party of former

president Alvaro Ribe. The men are not related, okay, I guess Aribe is a common name in Columbia, fair enough. The Attorney General's Office, which is investigating the shooting, said a fifteen year old boy was arrested at the scene with a firearm. Two others, a man and a woman, were also wounded in the shooting. Our hearts are broken Columbia's hurt, Carolina Gomez, a forty one year old businesswoman told AFP. After the shooting, a Reba's Conservative Democratic Center

party released a statement calling it an unacceptable act of violence. Well, yeah, no doubt. Columbia's government said it was offering a reward for the capture of all those responsible. Respect life. That's the red line, the president said in a message posted on his ex account. Shortly after making the post. Petro canceled a planned trip to France due to the seriousness

of the events, according to a presidential statement. In a statement Saturday night, the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the US condemned in the strongest possible terms, the attempted assassination of Senator Miguel Ribe. Rubio called the shooting a direct threat to democracy and the result of violent leftist rhetoric coming from the highest levels of the Colombian government.

Having seen firsthand Columbia's progress over the past few decades to consolidate security and democracy, it can't afford to go back to dark days. Of political violence. President Petro needs to dial back the inflammatory rhetoric and protect Columbia's officials or Colombian officials, excuse me. Ribe Turbe is the son of a journalist who was kidnapped and killed in nineteen

ninety one, during the country's most violent periods. Colombia will hold a presidential election on May thirty first, in twenty twenty six, marking the end of the current term of Petro, Columbia's first leftist president. The senator announced his presidential bid in March. So apparently the left, or at least the left centric type of people, do not want a conservative who is relatively likable from what I could read, to take the presidency. They are liking the first leftist president

in a good long while. They want to see that continue, I suppose. Columbian Police Chief General Carlos Triana said that at the time of the attack, Rebate Turbe was accompanied by councilman Andreas Barrios A and twenty other people. A miner who allegedly participated in the attack was apprehended at the scene and was being treated for a leg injury. He said, I have ordered the Columbia military and police forces and intelligence agencies to deploy all their capabilities to

urgently clarify the facts, said Defense Minister Pedro Sanchez. Sanchez Sanchez again, I speak the Americans English. I don't you know, it is what it is. Reactions poured in from around Latin America, with Chilean President Gabriel Borick saying there is no room or justification for violence in a democracy. So long story short, everybody just says this is a horrible act. But as we're talking about just the global news and things going on around the world, thought we at least

need to bring up something a little closer to our doorstep. Next, let's talk about Germany and what they are currently doing. Ryle, I'm sorry, I'm jumping ahead of myself here. Let's before we get to Germany and how they have just stacked tanks and the forty fifth tank Brigade or Panzer brigade or division excuse me, in Lithuania and this is the first foreign permanently stationed German force since the nazis interesting,

not saying I don't support it. I like this a lot, but also it's worth noting Germany hasn't done anything outside of their borders. Militarily since then, I think it's dope. But why why would they be doing this and in this way? Well, NATO is in a transformation period right now, not just for a good long while. There it was two percent two percent GDP to be a part of NATO. Then they up to three point five. The Americans are trying to push it to five percent GDP. Just so

everyone's cleared. That would bankrupt half of Europe to do it to that level. I think they should step up game. It sounds like a skill issue to me, But hey, what do I know, I'm just an American. Let's read in here. This is from European Union Institute for Security Studies Fit for Purpose, Reforming NATO in the Age of Trump two point zero. Yeah, because it's always Trump's fault. But you know, I guess he's the one that's been pushing for the increase, and then you could see why

it's needed. So to take that with a grain of salt, NATO is in an inflection point, caused by a growing Russian threat to Europe and shifting American strategic priorities, with President Trump demanding steep increases in defense spending and threatening to abandon the alliance, which, speaking on behalf of myself, Perhaps we should, I don't know. European countries are preparing to shoulder a significantly higher share of the Transatlantic burden.

Beyond the headlines, the real test will lie in how NATO translates political commitments into credible military capabilities, chiefly through the NATO Defense planning process the brief. This brief explores how the alliance can be adapted to strengthen the European pa of NATO, address the uncertainty over US commitments and

ensure deterrence. Now spending more is not enough. According to the article, the NATO summit in the Hague is the first attempt Trump since Trump's return to the White House, will have two main objectives. First, allies aim to agree on a new baseline spending figure. Many argue that two percent defense investment pledged agreed at the Whales Summit in twenty fourteen is insufficient to meet the needs of European deterrence. In addition, Trump sees a new spending agreement as a

key component in his transatlantic policy. Hence, the main headline of the Hague summit will be adoption of a new spending goal. The target will likely be above three percent of GDP four defense items, with an additional one point five for a broader security related matter such as infrastructure and resilience. The some of these two items will likely be approximate the five percent figure that Trump has flowed

in the beginning of the second term. So before I can continue reading, just a breakdown of this, and if anybody would like to interject, please, by all means feel free to just unmute yourselves and just dive in here. Two percent is the minimum to be a part of NATO, and there were a few countries that were trying to be a part of NATO and they had to make some things happen in order to reach a two percent

GDP defense budget. That's not so easily accomplished. That being said, this new proposition, they're talking about one point five percent not just going to NATO as a whole, but being designated to increase infrastructure. And that's something that I think all of Europe could benefit from. There are certain countries that are doing better than others as far as that goes. I'm not throwing shade at anybody in particular here. However, I'm pretty sure everybody can agree that the trains need

to be more modified. The electrical grid needs to be updated, Internet security needs to be updated. Highway systems need to be updated and modified. Like it's not to say anything. America has the same issues. Infrastructure needs to be updated and modify for the vast majority of our country. So again, there's enough, there's enough fingers being pointed in all directions here.

That being said, three point five percent or three even just around the three number, that's basically a fifty percent, if not more, increase than what the NATO countries are already paying. Most of them can't even make that happen right now. So for them to do this and be in what's the word I'm looking for in compliance with the new NATO mandates. If this passes realistically, facts and

figures on paper would bankrupt half the continent. That you know, it is what it is, right, So let's continue here. More importantly, need NATO needs to decide what to spend the additional funding on. That is, what forces and what forces and capabilities to raise. That is the purpose of the NATO Defense Planning process. This four year cycle is the central framework to develop the military means that are

needed to defund Europe. In line with the political guidance issued in twenty twenty three, NATO strategic commands identify the minimum capability requirements, that is, the pool of forces and capabilities that are necessary to fulfill operations and missions. The capability targets are then appropriate, approportioned, apportioned. I'm sure that's

a word in some other English speaking country. To allies, the allocation of capability targets is the second deliverance are deliverable of the summit, albeit one that remains largely out of the public eye due to its classified nature. Allies are expected to agree on a thirty percent increase in overall targets necessary to fulfill the requirements of the new

regional Plans for euro Atlantic defense. However, this increase is not going to be equally distributed across the Alliance, since the US has signaled its intention to reduce its commitment to the European Conventional Deterrence, European allies in Canada will carry the bulk of this increase. We've kind of footed the bill for a lot of these things for a long time. Maybe an unpopular opinion, but as far as who has been pushing the lion's share of the NATO budget.

I think it's kind of goes without saying that America's footed the bill for a good long while. I remember just recently Trump threatened to leave and that made at least one country that I can think of, but I think also too up there spending to cover the cost. And then they decided, Okay, we're back in action, we're back in the conversation. But yeah, I could see it going a couple of ways here, Raven, please.

for a lot of what's happening globally. But actually Poland's been pulling their weight more than US over all. In the last few years.

for it. I like Poland. I know that they get shit on a lot by the European countries because they're seen as the dumb ones. You know what. I disagree. The Polish people I've met are always been pretty cool, and I am here for having more weapons and defense in Europe, and not just for the whole Russia thing, although there's a lot of people that believe that that's what they're gonna do next in Russia's totally gonna invade Poland as soon as they get done with Ukraine, and

I don't personally believe that. That being said, more European countries having more defense means that America could use more of its resources for our problems. I like this a lot, So yeah, to your point, you said it was Poland's at four point twelve percent four point one two or something like this. America was the Lion's shareholder up until recently when Trump started pulling back more support from it.

I like it. I like it a lot, honestly. And he's been on this whole kick since he got elected that he will keep America out of new wars again with the whole Iran conversation. We will see how that shakes out. As of time of recording, he is still saying these things. I don't know if they're going to try to strong arm him into this conflict. But I just still hold the opinion that Trump doesn't get strong armed into things. I could be so wrong, and he

is about to be a puppet for somebody. It's very possible. I just have a hard time seeing it, you know. But all things considered, now, let's talk about this here. Standing on weak legs, the function of the Alliance relies on two key assumptions that may no longer be valid. Not addressing them will make it harder to maintain a strong and credible deterrence posture. The first assumption is that the United States will maintain a key role in the

deterrence and defense of Europe. Native's defense mod model relies on the US to provide large numbers of troops and firepower, including eighty four thousand US service members who are stationed across the United States. European Command EUCOM excuse me, responsibility. NATO's command and control structure two relies on a US backbone.

For instance, its highest military authority is also the Yukon Commander. Finally, the US provides some key strategic enablers intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, air to air refueling and strategic airlift, ballistic missile defense, and airborne electromagnetic warfare. So this is all contingent upon America doing more or having the majority of the backbone to it. Don't know how it's gonna look if America is trying to take a step back from the NATO

in europe conversation. So who's to say what the future will hold? Right here, it says a collective dependency capability areas in which NATO is most dependent on the US for strategic airlift. Yeah, I mean, okay, I'm not going to give the whole list here. There's an entire diagram for anybody who would like to see this. It will be on the Cajun Night Ptreon. It's a diagram basically showing every asset that America brings to the table that helps the entirety of the of the NATO conversation. Here,

strategic enablers are akin to collective goods for NATO. While they are provided by one country, their presence significantly enhances the combat effectiveness of all allied forces or of specific regional coalitions. European countries have relied on American enablers for decades, even in non NATO operations, As the continued availability of these assets was largely taken for granted, they had little incentive to invest in alternatives. Well, again, that's kind of

what the current administration has been saying. We've been getting taken advantage of for a while. How that was the entire platform of his tariff conversation, saying that American economy has getten taken advantage of by pretty much everybody. We want to sell in other countries, we have to pay tariffs they want to sell here. No tariffs conversation with

the NATO com You know, I see it as well. Well, we've been footing the bill, and they they NATO, the European countries that are part of it have been benefiting from US having way more of the military tech. Everybody wants to talk shit on America for being the global police. Why do you spend so much on your military bup bup bop. Except they're all living very comfortably on the umbrella,

under the umbrella of the American defensive posture. It's very crazy to me that they would complain while hiding behind our shield. I know might be an unpopular opinion, but hey, it is what it is. However, the new Trump administration has signaled its intentions to significantly reduce its contributions, calling

this long long standing assumption into question. As Secretary head Seth said in February of twenty twenty five, strategic realities prevent the US from taking primary responsibility for European conventional deterrence. The European Command is expected to suffer cuts as part of the Department of Defense's budget reallocation process, which may result in the reduction of American forces in Europe. Even the US provided enablers could be removed from the Euroatlantic theater.

According to the twenty twenty five National Defense Policy Guideline, the Pentagon will shift resources into the Indo Pacific and assume risk in other theaters, and you know it's as China. It's a fine name your reason why we would be putting more of our assets into the Pacific region rather than the Atlantic region, whatever you want to say. That means that Europe is going to be even more on high alert. Could this possibly all be a play to incentivize them to pay their fair share as far as

their own defense is concerned. Possibly also, the way the US coerced Ukraine in early twenty twenty five set's a dangerous precedent. It suggests that Washington could decide to withdraw or withhold certain capabilities from European allies for negotiating purposes. In this context, it is unclear whether the US can be counted upon to maintain its commitments to Europe, the Europe's conventional deterrence, or even that any transition can be

managed gradually. While the current NDPP that's the group that we were talking about here earlier, could deal with a gradual reduction in the US presence, it is unequipped to deal with an unexpected withdrawal. Again, this sounds like a scale issue and a skill issue. If you can't stand on your own, Yeah, now I'm gonna go there right now. The second assumption is that individual countries can make up

for the capability shortfalls. While targets in the NDPP can be appointed individually, multinationally or collectively, in practice the vast majority are allocated to individual countries. This national focus is reflected in the consensus minus one rule. A country cannot veto a capability package assigned to itself. According to this format, the reduction of the US commitments could be offset by setting higher targets for the other thirty one allies. This

solution makes sense for certain forces and capabilities. For example, European countries will need to individually provide the personnel to fulfill the new NATO Force model, which now requires up to five hundred thousand forces at different levels of readiness. Single countries can also provide specific assets. For instance, the UK and Canada possess significant intelligence capabilities as member of

the Five Eyes Alliance. However, even the most militarily advanced European countries will struggle to replace most US provided assets. This is particularly too true for these strategic enablers, which require long term, costly investments for acquisition and procurement. Many go beyond the means of individual countries. For example, most experts believe that Europe will need five to ten years to have sufficient capacity to stop relying on the US for space based ISR. That also makes sense to me.

I don't know if, as someone knows which country has the most satellites in space, I would love to know. I want to say it's US, but I can't. I can't confirm that. I know a bunch of other countries have their own space assets out there for their own reconnaissance and things. But yeah, they're talking just to stop relying on the US for our satellite reconnaissance five to ten years. I think that is an underestimation or an

over whichever one makes it seem like that's ridiculous. It might take twenty maybe twenty five years for them to have enough eyes in the sky of their own to not rely on America. I don't know. Real quick, before I continue, let me go check out the chat. See what all the people have been saying. I'm going to do. Let's see. I kind of like Petro, but my Colombian

friend's dad doesn't. Says he tried to take on Petro once in an airport and the guy was not in the mood to be talked, to take him on like in fisticuffs, or like take him on as in having an impromptu debate in the middle of an era.

up right after this one. As a matter of fact, Tony says military spending and they don't even know what to spend it on yet. NATO sucks and should have been ended after nineteen ninety one. NATO has been aggressive to Yugoslavia and Libya. I can't find any fault in your logic here. NATO's entire purpose of being still up in the first place was to go against the USSR.

Once the USSR collapsed, NATO should have gone by the wayside or if if that was the case in these countries that were allied for this long wanted to maintain those strong alliances. Fine, let it be under a new doctrine, under a new alliance, something that is not completely systemically anti Russia. And once Russia was, now what they are and they're not the USSR anymore. They're a new country, and they tried to get into NATO and could meet all the requirements. Why wouldn't you let them in as

a show of good faith? I me and you have had this conversation before.

talking about bringing Georgia in and Ukraine. Ukraine is definitely off the table for now, but Georgia, that's nowhere even near the Atlantic and Turkey got in somehow, actually pretty early, because I think they sent some troops to the Korean War and they were just begging the US to be let in, and the US said, okay, we'll let you in. Basically, Turkey has always been hostile to Russia until kind of recently, not.

for forever. I don't know if it was traditionally, because that's the Automan Empire, the last remnants thereof, some would suggest, and so maybe they wanted to have that kind of an ally in that section of the world, being a corridor to there are Arabic countries, but like, Turkey's not going to be your homeboy against Arabic countries in the manner at which NATO thinks it would be maybe out loud, face to face talking to them. They would say one thing,

but they'll do another. That's Turkey's got their own problems that they've been dealing with for ever. So yeah, I'm agree with you on that. Let's see here the Pew Research Center twenty twenty three, eighty three percent of Poles express confidence in Joe Biden's leadership in world affairs, which was the highest recorded confidence level for any US president in Poland by Pew Research the Pole of Poles. How but I don't trust polling with opinions. Yeah, you know,

I was just talking them up. I know that people say that there are a bunch of dummies or whatever. I like the Poles, but hmm, eighty three percent of them were liking what Biden was about. That's kind of concerning it's kind of concerning. I do like as I was saying, I love that they are buying so much of the American made weapons. Hell, not just American, any weapons that any country is willing to sell them. Right now, they are just buying up like it's going out of style.

I don't know where exactly they're getting the budget for that, but that is not my problem. That is their economy's problem. Hope it doesn't lead to their collapse. That's all I'm saying. Let's get here, Cody Bob, welcome, Cody Bob. Just want to step in for a sec to say hello and good night. Four OFM comes early, see y'all Tuesday slash Wednesday, Yo. I feel that my boy had absolutely comes early. Thank

you for stopping in. The US has thirty four hundre hundred sets, with China having five hundred and thirty five. And that's what Google says in twenty twenty three, out of the fifty five hundred satellites, only four hundred and twenty four satellites are used for military. Very interesting, Raven. I saw your hand was raised earlier. Was that what you were going to say? Or you got something else as well?

not a flat plane. Although if there are any flat earthers that are part of the Cajun Night community, I would like to know. We are not going to have a flat Earth debate on this pod. However, I would just kind of like to know. Just throw it in the chat. We'll get back to that in a bit. Let's see breaking up out. Though self fulfilling prophecy, European allies in NATO may fear that they could set emotion

the very outcome they seek to avoid. The more they plan to replace the US presence, the more excuses they will give to DC policymakers to leave. This fear is likely holding back the attempts at openly reforming the alliance. After all, maintaining a strong bond between Europe and North America is existential of excuse me is of existential importance to NATO. Yeah, that would make sense. However, it is unlikely that the US will make its disengagement decisions based

on which allies are providing specific capabilities. If anything, defense planners in the Pentagon may view such contributions as a positive step towards fair or burden sharing. Even those who advocate a more restrained US role in Europe and favor a refocus towards the Indo Pacific argue that deterring China would be easier if Europeans possessed alternatives to US capabilities, making them more valuable allies. I can't disagree with that.

It is more likely that other policies, such as restrictions on US companies access to the European defense market, will rattle Trump, but it is unlikely that reforming NATO structures would make him more eager to leave. You know, who's to say, Like Trump said, he didn't know what he's going to do yet, it's pretty much his decision on everything he's ever asked. Overcoming this fear is a necessary step for reform to the Alliance and make it truly

fit for purpose. The alternative is maintaining the current dependency on American assets without any guarantees that Washington will continue to provide them. NATO's planners would need to make some significant changes to the way the Alliance yep, to the way the Alliance decides, and allocates targets. First, they need to analyze which assets the US is most likely to

withdraw from the euro Atlantic theater. US planners should also be more forthcoming and explain their likely plans for redeployment. On that basis, NATO define a prioritiy list of assets and assess how early or excuse me, how easily individual allies can replace them. Second, in allocating capabilities, NATO's planners should shift the balance away from national target allocations, encouraging

European countries to develop, acquire, or procure common assets. NATO commands could directly own some assets, like with the a Wax aircraft or the Alliance Ground surveillance fleet of five RQ four D Phoenix remotely piloted aircraft, but this might not work for all platforms. Allies could also form groupings where higher trust facilities and development of common assets, perhaps following the model and capabilities of the coalitions for Ukraine,

regional groups or other flexible formats. This plan should allow Europeans to provide at least half of the enablers to accomplish NATO's mission, rebalancing the dependency on America. Broader changes in NATO's force structures should also take place the priority to strengthen the European component of the force. One possible solution could be to group NATO's deployment forces in Europe

into larger sized units, from brigrade brigades to divisions. While many countries cannot immediately feel larger forces, merging them with those of other countries will make it easier, will make each command stronger and larger. NATO civilian and military leadership roles can also be restructured to reflect the greater share of the burden that Europeans are expected to bear, gradually moving responsibilities away from the US backbone without completely delinking it.

This could ultimately result in the appointment of a European figure as a Secretary in charge of the European Forces. So that being said, America did just do something with Norway that I just found out about, and it was it was just for a brief moment, I know, but the overarching breakdown of it, we have unmanned and aerial craft, and I don't mean just the drones that you're thinking of with the trench warfare that's going on in Ukraine

right now. It was more like a more modern Predator drone, and we were doing some training over Europe over allies, right, and we all and by we I mean the Royal we I mean the United States Forces allowed Norwegian fighter pilots or drone operators to actually link in and then take control of these crafts for a period of time, and then they delink themselves and we took back control

over it. It's kind of like whenever you're training a new pilot in the sky and you get them up there, and then once you take off, you kind of like let them take over the stick for a little bit and they do some little moves and they test things out and all good things. When it comes time to land, you take over control again. We just did that. I forget what the name of the operation was, Jorgan Johan, something like this, Norwegian and Viking sounding. I don't speak

the language. But this was done in an attempt to show how transferable a lot of these assets could be. And I'm not saying that Norway is really great militarily or really weak, but it was the first step of letting another country pilot our materials and craft like that. This kind of was a big deal, honestly. Now for insurance reasons, And I don't mean insurance like Geico, I

mean like big picture insurance. If that would have crashed while Norwegians were piloting it, who would have been hailed responsible?

that sounds like a good idea to me. Everybody who has used a certain weapons platform, whether it be a rifle, whether it be a javelin with a clue, or whether it be a predator drone, whatever the case would be, if our allies are using the same tech and equipment that we're using, it would only make sense to me that they be adequately trained on the material those on the equipment. It's just me speaking on behalf of myself here, so I don't know. I like the way it's sounding though thus far.

the Future of European Defense. The EU and NATO agencies can also cooperate to develop joint asset buildings on past successful examples, such as the multinational Multi Role Tanker Transport the MRTT aircraft fleet for air to air refueling. I'm not mistaken there's not many countries that can actually field

that kind of capability. But if multiple European nations got together to buy a fleet of these air to air refuel tankers and they're just used in a NATO centric way, I see that as a good asset that can go in so many directions. Makes perfect sense to me. Anyway, Let's see we could wrap this one up here. It

says a full reckoning. The two architects of the current INDPP cycle, Ambassador Angus Lapsi and Admiral Pierre Vandal van Dell, I don't know, argue that it will make the Alliance battle ready in a way that has not been the case since the end of the Cold War. To be truly transformational, the Alliance should take into account all aspects of the new strategic scenario, including the risk of the

US disengagement. Only that will ensure that the necessary ambition changes or ambitious changes take place, such as the development of a genuine European pillar within NATO. Failure to act risks opening gaps into terns, making future aggression more likely. Okay, so I know that was kind of long winded here, but all of that to say here we go all that to say that not just NATO in and of itself, but even the countries and then within it, some of

them are actually stepping up. Let's talk about Germany deploying these two Leopard tanks to reinforce NATO's eastern flank. On May twenty second of this year, Germany officially inaugurated its forty fifth armored Brigade to Lithuania, marking the first long term deployment of German troops on foreign soil since the

end of World War II. As reported by the German Armed Forces, this historical deployment of a mechanized brigade falls under NATO's deterrence and for defense posture specifically within the heavy armor category of land based conventional warfare. The initiative reflects Germany's renewed defense concepts of permanent forward presence in

response to involving evolving threats to NATO's eastern flank. Yes, I understand that inherently they mean Russia, but I mean again, Germany has been on one here recently, and not just in the past couple of weeks. The past few years, they've been trying to build back their military to be a real world class fighting force. This will probably be the first of what I would propose would be many.

I feel like there's gonna be a lot more permanently stationed German troops at multiple bases around the world, very similarly to how America has multiple all over the world. Germany is trying to become a part of that conversation, and honestly, as of this moment, I support it. So this is one of those Panzer divisions right here, the

forty fifth coming into Lithuania. The presence of German soldiers in Lithuania has long been symbolic since Berlin first reinforced NATO's enhanced forward presence mission in the Baltic States following Russia's annexation of Crimea in twenty fourteen. However, this new deployment takes a strategic leap. It is not rotational, temporary, or reactive. It is a permanent, structured brigade designed to stay with three maneuver battalions along with comprehensive combat support

and logistics elements. The brigade is set to reach full operational capacity by twenty twenty seven, hosting up to five thousand German personnel and civilians for Lithuania and its neighbors. This development provides a tangible layer of protection against the possibility of Russia Russian incursions beyond Ukraine. The German forty fifth Armored Brigade permanently de Floyd and Lithuania features some of Bundenwers Bundeswars. Tony help me out here.

thirty millimeters auto cannon, which is pretty sick. I don't know if anybody's ever seen one of those go off, but it's a fully automatic cannon that shoots red bull can sized ammunition. It's beautiful in my opinion. Offering protected

mobility and digital battlefield integration. For artillery support, the brigade relies on PZH two thousand, self propelled howitzers capable of delivering accurate, long range fire, Finnic reconnaissance vehicles enhanced situational awareness, while Boxer armored personnel carriers provide versatile troop transport to support and support functions. The brigade is further protected by

integrated air defense systems, ensuring resilience against aerial threats. Germany's defense posture has undergone a significant transformation since Russia launched its full scale invasion of Ukraine in twenty twenty two. The shift is evident in increasing increased defense spending and Chancellor Friedrich Mayers's re recent state positioning the German Army to become the quote strongest conventional force in Europe end quote. I'm liking it. I'm liking the gaul of the Germans

right now. Honestly, against this backdrop, the brigade in Lithuania is not just a symbol of commitment. It is a message to Moscow, as highlighted by army recognition. Russia is currently reactivating Soviet era military infrastructure near Finland's border, such as the Alakurti Alacurti Alacrity Sure Airbase, reinforcing concerns that future aggression could extend beyond Ukraine and into the Baltic region. This militarization echoes Cold War air attentions and elevates the

strategic importance of forward NATO deployments like Germany's forty fifth Brigade. Yeah, I got a little bit left to read on this. The German Armed Force of Forces presence in Lithuania underscores a recalibration of European security dynamics. It reinforces NATO's Eastern front at a critical time when a military deterrence and infrastructure readiness are being tested by Russian maneuvers and hybrid threats. Lithuania, bordering both Kaliningrad and Belarus, represents a frontline state in

NATO security architecture. Its Defense Minister Dovile Sakalini sure describe Germany's decision as a historic example of leadership, emphasizing the deployment significance not just for the national defense, but for the entire alliance. She affirmed her country's commitment to building the necessary infrastructure and ensuring German troops feel at home, reflecting a shared strategic vision between Berlin and Villinius. Okay, so again, this is a permanent deployment in Lithuania. I

like it. I like it a lot, and I thought that while they absolutely there was a talk that they would eventually be having troops go to Lithuania full time, it is now a reality, and they're saying that it's going to be until twenty twenty six. I think whenever they're gonna have full capabilities. But I don't know exactly what's classified as full capabilities. But yeah, they've got they've got a base, a real brick and mortar base going

on here. Let's see. I put up a Yahoo article that kind of goes back over the things we already discussed as far as NATO set to agree on a five percent GDP defense spending. That's what Marco Rubio said. The Allies are set together for an annual summit at the Hague June twenty four to twenty fifth, amid growing uncertainties of the US's commitment to NATO under President Donald Trump.

There's a direct quote, we are headed for a summit in six weeks, as an older quote, in which virtually every member of NATO will be at or above two percent, but more importantly, many of them will be over four percent, and all will have agreed on a goal of reaching five percent. Over the next decade. It's a bold claim. It's a very very bold claim, and one that I don't know how many European countries will actually be able

to field. I hope that that becomes a reality, I really do, But boy, oh boy, I just have a hard time seeing with some of the country sure, right, with some of the countries in Europe, I have no disbelief in my mind that they will absolutely be able to meet a five percent GDP push. With others, I sincerely doubt that they'll even be able to meet the requirements that are set forth for this year, let alone future commitments. If y'all have anything y'all would like to add,

go for it. At this time, I'm gonna check the chat to see if anybody has dropped anything crazy. Oh yeah, ravenly dropped an article. Let's see this. Yeah, speaking of Yes, indeed, as we're talking about this exact topic, go ahead and share the screen again. So let's talk about this. This is from forcenews dot com Which countries in the NATO

Alliance are paying their fair share on defense? Now, this is from July of last year, but at the same time, as we're talking about all of the advancements and the increases in funding and spending. I don't see going one year back in time as being really outdated information. A record number of NATO nations have met or exceeded the alliance's spending target, but other members are still falling short.

Out of the thirty one NATO members, twenty three are expected to meet NATO's guidelines of spending two percent of their gross domestic product on defense. So real quick, one more time. Thirty one countries are a part of NATO, and twenty three were expected to meet their requirement of two percent. So we're already looking at a little more than two thirds of the countries being able to do what they said they would do at two percent. Now we're talking about increasing that to five How many of

these countries barely met too? Right, let's talk about it here. This is a huge increase from twenty fourteen when only three NATO allies hit the spending target. Wow, ten years ago, well at fifteen has of time of recording, but ten years or excuse me eleven? Wow, my math is not mathing. A little over ten years ago, only three NATO allies

could hit a two percent target. Now I'm glad that everybody is doing better economically or at least, you know, able to pay their bills, so to speak, or meet their commitments, whatever you want to however you want to phrase that, but okay, let's talk about it here. The increase in defense spending means European NATO allies as a whole are collectively spending two percent of their combined GDP worth three hundred and eighty billion dollars US on defense

for the first time. This year's estimates are set to exceed NATO Secretary General Jens Strollenberg's projections in twenty twenty three. He said eighteen nations were expected to spend two percent of the GDP on defense in twenty twenty four eighteen, So we went from eighteen to twenty three, but again that was at a two percent margin. We're talking about overly doubling that. How many of these countries do you actually think are going to be able to make that happen.

So we're looking at the cour at the chart now. In twenty fourteen, only three nations could meet their commitments. Twenty fifteen and sixteen, only five, twenty seventeen, four nations, twenty eighteen, six twenty nineteen seven, twenty twenty the COVID year. Oh my god, world economies are collapsing, all the craziness. Nine countries could meet the actual two percent GDP commitments twenty twenty one. Again, that's like the next year of

the COVID ridiculous shit. Only six countries could meet the requirements twenty twenty two, seven twenty and that twenty twenty two kind of a big year when Russia started their quote unquote three week military special operation twenty twenty three, ten, twenty twenty four, twenty three. Now I have no idea what the current guestimations are. They're meeting at this summit

and they're talking about increasing it to five percent. I have a hard time believing that most of these twenty three countries most will be able to actually do that, But I guess we're gonna see how it goes down. This is a direct quote from mister Strollenberg. He says we are making real progress. European allies are spending more. However, some allies still have a way to go. The latest increases followed the trend of a gradual rise in defense

spending across the Alliance over the last decade. NATO allies in Europe invest only one point four to seven of their collective GDP in defense in twenty fourteen, and Germany's commitment to NATO's target to spend two percent of the GDP on defense marks the first time it has done so since the early nineties. So as I'm boosting and stroking Germany here and talking about how great I think it is, they're finally stepping up in this way. This is a really new thing for them as far as

that's concerned. I mean, within the last three decades, this is the first time they've actually taken this type of a stance. So which nations are not spending two percent on defense? Eight NATO nations are not estimated to reach the target of twenty twenty four Croatia one point eight one, Portugal one point five to five, Italy one point four

to nine. Canada. Just in another article we just read, they were talking about how with America stepping away and not being the backbone of NATO, Canada would have to step up and be the backbone, and all these things that would be a lie. In twenty twenty four, Canada only spent one point three to seven of their GDP on their military. That's I heard a joke. This is a long time ago. I think it was on a

Boy Meets World episode. As a matter of fact, they were installing a new Jacuzie tub in their house and he was like, oh wow, Jacuzzi. He's like, yeh, this baby's got more jets than the Canadian Air Force. That was a joke, but at the same time, not exactly as hilarious as what you might think Canada's military. I've worked with them, as a matter of fact, and a couple of different joint force training missions and things like that. The last time I hung with them was in Yuma, Arizona,

at the air station there. They crashed a helicopter in the middle of the desert. Now, thankfully nobody died or got hurt, but also it's a big desert, bro, what even happened? None of them could give me a straight answer. We had a drinking contest with them and we won, obviously, But yeah, that was They seemed like cool dudes and chicks. I should say that too. The females in the Canadian military seemed like solid, you know, solid soldiers. That being said,

you know nothing. They I did like their speed reloaders to load a mag for an M sixteen or M four there's feed reloaders were way better than ours, so they gave us a few because we won the drinking contest. But anyway, neither here nor there.

point twenty nine and Spain one point two eight. Gotta say, I would think that Spain and Portugal would be a lot heavier with the military spending, but it also makes sense. I can't the only time I've ever seen Italy in the same regard. The only time I've ever seen Italian or Spanish military members was when they would send one to two of them to a schoolhouse in America to get some training. But that was like super specialized training, and it was you know, it could have been a pilot,

It could have been one. I'm getting sent to jump school one. I'm getting sent for a number of reasons. A lot of NATO countries cross training with each other, and I get that, but come to think of it, they didn't realize they had such a small military arm I figured they'd be a little more, a little stronger in that regard. Anyway, However, all the above listed countries, apart from Croatia, are spending more on defense than last year,

bring them closer to the target. There's been a gradual increase in defense spending from NATO members across the board, and in twenty twenty three, eleven nations reached the NATO guideline, up from seven in twenty twenty two. Twenty twenty three, Poland was the alliance's biggest spender as the share of the GDP, contributing three point nine percent spending wow, even more as a share of GDP than the United States at three point four to nine in second, and Greece

at three point zero one the next closest. I did not know that Greece was upping their military spending in this way. That also makes me happy. Okay, I wish they would change their extradition laws, but I do like that they're taking a stronger defensive posture. This year, Poland has retained its place as the biggest spender, contributing four

point one two percent. That is impressive. The US, on the other hand, is spending less this year than the previous year, contributing three point three to eight percent, which is putting it behind Estonia, which is estimated to spend three point four to three. Wow. Estonia is stepping up. One trend scene is that country bordering Ukraine, Russia or its neighbor and ally Belarus, are spending increasingly more following

Russia's full scale invasion in February twenty twenty two. In twenty twenty three, Estonia spent two point seven to three, Lithuania two point five to four, Finland two point four to five, Romania two point four to four, Hungary two point four to three, and Latvia two point two seven all exceeded the Alliance's guidelines for defense expenditure. Okay, look at that. Now we talk about the UK's contribution. Uh

UK did not make the two percent list. The percentage spent by Britain on defense rose from two point one four in twenty twenty four to an estimated two point three three in twenty twenty three. This is an increase from last year, which saw the UK spin two point zero seven of its GDP on defense. In twenty twenty two, the UK was the fourth highest proportional spender within NATO, but it dropped down to tenth in twenty twenty three, just ahead of Slovakia, the nation's falling short of the

alliance's target in twenty thirty three. Where France, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Albania, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Czech Republic, Portugal, Canada, Italy, Slovenia, Turkey, Spain, Belgium and Luxembourg. Iceland, which does not have any armed forces, was not featured on this list. Fair enough, Iceland doesn't have any armed forces. I think they have a national police, but nobody, nobody really messes with Iceland. Fair enough anyway.

Thank you Raven Lee for sharing this article with everybody, So get back to the chat here if anybody would like to chime in on the NATO spending conversation. I think that was all I had to bring to the table on that one this episode. All right, here we go, Tony chimed in here. Based on Google AI Asian country spend one to three percent of GDP on military. Japan and China are both around one point five. South Korea at two point eight. In North Korea unknown but probably high.

Unknown for sure, I would like to think that North Korea is spending the majority of their money on their military. I could be so wrong here. We know they ain't using it to feed their people, that's for sure. But yeah, I'm with you on that. Russia is spending seven percent. Ukraine is spending thirty four percent. Given the current climate that checks out in Israel spends nine percent. In World

War two, I think the US was forty percent. Yeah, countries that are in active conflict, that would make sense they're spending way more for their military strength. Anthony, good evening. Everyone sawry. I'm late. Hey brother, I'm just glad you were able to stop it. My boy. Hell yeah, welcome. Let's see. Okay, Tony, stop it, stop it with the flat earth conversations. We have a whole cult live for these things. Let's see, I'm like that on a lot

of stuff, the moon landing, JFK assassination. I don't want to spend any time to really understand it. Yeah, fair enough. Let's see. I just did my own episode on simulation theory. Oh yeah, that's true. Anthony has launched a podcast, Anthony and matter of fact, if you want to unmute yourself and tell everybody listening to this who's going to be listening to it in the following days, shameless plug your pod brother, please.

believe all these things. I'm a man of science, and I believe in a lot of history all these things with you know, a bit of skepticism and a healthy dose of salt on top of all of it, for sure.

But simulation theory is one of those that when this was early, early, early when me and Jonathan just get when we first joined up to do the cult talking about simulation theory, not just matrix theory, but just overarching what all of this could be would be essentially like some alien kid or some interdimensional being straight up, honey, quit playing with your universe and come to dinner, okay, mom,

And we call that being God right. And it was a mind blow because essentially all of us could be in PCs on the grand scale, that is, like a grand theft auto whatever infinity that is our reality, and we would not know any different because we weren't programmed to know any different. Uh yeah. And the more the more you let your brain cook on that one, the more it could really really jack you up. So it's a very fun one to dive into. Go ahead, Anthony, Well, no.

that could be considered an illusion, a simulation. And then one one thing that in the in the research I did that I thought was super interesting is I believe that Nick Bostrom, he's a physicist, and he essentially posited a trilemma which is either one human civilization or civilization at all, has either a never reached the point of simulation technology, that we destroyed ourselves before we got to that point, or B that an advanced civilization like that

would have no interest in having a virtual simulation of their ancestors, which with the amount of history buffs out there, I find very hard to believe. Like how many guys right now would want to go back and live a simulation of Viking, a Roman gladiator or whatever.

a simulation. And what I didn't tie in there because I would have had to go on a whole Another bit is if you think about a simulation is then that also ties in the whole NPC theory, you know, and the fact that more than likely upwards of ninety percent of the people in this world are copies of an original mind and not an original mind themselves.

drive to achieve something more, there's no ambition there. It's just kind of they're just kind of there, man, and like, yeah, it's just there's my life and there's what I do, and it's like they're satisfied with the mundane and that I personally cannot put those pieces together in my head of like wait, why why is that? Like that's all you want out of life is just to be one of the herd that sounds like a revolving hell to me.

But if you get any of those people one on one and you ask them about who they are, about their life, about how they got to this point and all this, you find a real person with character arcs and flaws and all the stuff. But it's like that, it gets to like a stopping point. And I don't know where that point comes from or what kind of traumas or past makes a person not want to strive for more, be better, or make their mark on this world.

I don't I don't understand it. I would like to believe that most of the people that listen to our show and to this by default are not among that group, right at least the people that tune into these types of programs are at least thinking a little more critically than those types. So, I mean, I know me saying that it's not offending anybody that might be listening to this days or weeks after the fact, But no, I'm with you. That kind of bodes well to play into

the simulation theory for sure. Yeah. Interesting stuff, man. So that was the episode you just released on I haven't listened to it yet, I will, but yeah, so one more time, shameless plug. Tell everybody where they can find it.

Fox nine and Minnesota. Then if you read the actual article, it says oh yeah, seven hundred and ninety six died between the nineteen twenties and nineteen sixty one, and I kind of doubt that all eight hundred of them would end up in a septic tank. But I can see how they just want the headline to look that way. And who knows what happened to them. It sounds like records were lost or there was records of them at some point and the record stopped, so they must have died.

But this Maria character, this is not from recently. If I can just read from the Wikipedia article real quick, it does a good job summing this up. She lived

from eighteen sixteen to eighteen forty nine. Maria Monk was a Canadian woman whose book Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk, or the Hidden Secrets of a Nun's Life and a Convent Exposed, published in eighteen thirty six when she was twenty years old, claimed to exposed systematic sexual abuse of nuns and infanticide of the resulting children by Catholic priests in her convent in Montreal. This was a hoax. She

was never in a convent. She was in a mental institution that was run by nuns and picking and choosing from throughout the Wikipedia article. This was a very influential book. According to the American Protestant Vindicator. By July eighteen thirty six, the book had sold twenty six thousand copies, and it's been described also as probably the mostly widely read contemporary book in the United States before Uncle Tom's Cabin. So that's a book everyone's heard of, and this one was

second place. Wow, but everybody believed it. But investigations, not only by Catholic sources but also a Protestant minister from New York visited the convent and concluded, Okay, it doesn't match her description. She was saying that there were tunnels for people to run through underground. There weren't tunnels. She basically never been there. But it struck a nerve and it sold tons of copies and a lot of people believed it. So this kind of thing happens. It also

reminds me of the whole blood libel thing. And you know, some people, if they hear about Jews murdering kids, they'll automatically believe it, and other people should. You know, people should be skeptical of that kind of thing. And as I was saying, yesterday. There have been people who've murdered babies, for example, the Japanese in Nanjing.

a child one. A possible result of the alleged injury could be that Monk might have been manipulated and might not be able to distinguish between fact and fantasy. Another possible result of the alleged injury could be that Monk had little understanding of the devastating results of her claim. It has been suggested, though not proven, that Monk was manipulated into playing a role for profit by her publisher or her ghostwriters, scholars and consider the book a hoax.

So that being said, I have never heard of this one, But yes, there's all kinds of stories that get sensationalized to Tony's with things like this, especially with anti Catholic sentiments, and the same way that he brought up with anti Jewish sentiments. One story happens where Jewish soldiers are in Gaza and they're just ripping babies apart, and it's like that,

I would like to see the source on that. And you have half of the readers that will believe it instantly with no other reasons in or context, and you have half of the readers that are gonna say that's probably farcical. Right, So all that to be said, I understand why the Irish Nun situation with the babies in the septic tank seems like it could be a hoax. And I'm not saying that it's one hundred percent of fact. I did a little more digging into it today. Doesn't

look fake as of this moment. I I God, for the love of Jesus, I hope it is. I hope that it is an attempt to smear the Catholic Church. And that it is not something that actually took place. As of this moment, it really does look like it's got some some validity to it, but I guess time will tell. We shall see, all right. Now back to the articles that I have prepared. Let's get off the Maria Monk one. So this is interesting. Let's talk a

little bit about bricks and AI. I don't know if anybody has heard about this, but Bricks, for anybody who doesn't know, is a group of countries that are trying to break away from using the USD as the international currency. Right it's comprised the majority of them anyway. The first five were Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa. Bricks that's the acronym. There's more countries that have joined SINS, but not many, and not many like that you would necessarily

worry about. But now Bricks is making the first declaration on AI governance to be adopted organically within the organization. Long story short, Bricks and specifically Russia and specifically India are trying to become the dominant superpower in the AI conversation. Let's dive into it. This is a quick article and then I've got another one about Russia itself. So BRICKS countries will adopt the world's first joint declaration on principles for the governance of AI during the upcoming summit in

Rio de jan Naro in July. The Brick Summit will adopt a declaration on AI governance. It must serve all countries at Brazilian President Louise and Nasio Louise Anasio Lula da Silva. Sorry, that's a lot of names. During a speech broadcast on the government's YouTube channel, the Brazilian leader added that the lack of uniform rules for regulating AI only benefits large corporations. Artificial intelligence is revolutionizing the foundation

of production and education. The opportunities that are opening up are limitless, but the risks are no less, he emphasized. Earlier member of the Federal Senate of Brazil, Omberto Costa A Costa, I'm not sure how they pronounce it with Portuguese, spoke in favor of developing common rules for the governance of AI. He also pointed to the need to reduce the technological dependence of BRICKS members on Western countries. That's

their whole stick, that's their whole thing. Is they're trying to break away from the need of the West and just be something completely independent and free. Even though of those countries just listed, the big dogs of it would be India, China, Russia. Those three couldn't exist without the West. But that's a talk for another day, I suppose. Now that was kind of short sweetened to the point. Now let's talk a little deeper about it. Yeah, So Russia

aims to ride the bricks to AI victory. The United States must firm up its own coalition of AI collaborators. As the AI competition between the United States and China heats up, Vladimir Putin is desperate to have a horse in the race. The Russian president views AI as a core pillar of Moscow's long term plan to challenge Western dominance. After three years of Western sanctions devastating Russia's economy, spurring

a massive brain drain and hindering the country's innovative capacity. Again, there's a reason for that, but neither here nor there. Moscow has turned to the bricks Block, whose founding members include Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, to build a parallel AI ecosystem. Washington must stop viewing bricks as a politically benign organization and recognize that it is a powerful vehicle for Moscow to expand its international influence and

strengthen Russia's AI capabilities. Is a direct quote here. Those who will secure leadership in this domain will become a global master, Putin proclaimed in twenty seventeen. Since then, he has implemented a series of strategic directives intended to catalyze Russia's AI sector. Putin's twenty twenty one National Security Strategy stresses the integration of advanced technologies, including AI to bolster

national defense and economic resilience. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs in twenty twenty three's concept of the Foreign Policy emphasizes the importance of AI industry growth and strategic cooperation within BRICKS, and last year, Russia updated its National Strategy for the Development of Artificial Intelligence through twenty thirty, which outlines the formation of research and development programs to prepare quote Russian

artificial intelligence technologies to occupy a significant share of the global market. For Putin. BRICKS constitutes the ideal route for international collaboration. Over the past year, the group has doubled from five to ten members, adding Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, and the UAE. Again, like I said, none of the countries that you would necessarily be concerned with Iran only as of the past week, But we are about to

get to Iran in a whole other conversation. Trust Me now comprises thirty five percent of the global economy, with an additional dozen nations it has designated as partner countries. These would be the middlemen, all right, not trying to

take this opportunity to shit on bricks. But also why not so whenever all these sanctions went out against these countries, and it wasn't specifically bricks countries, but they were the countries that suffered some of the heaviest tariffs and things in the sanctions, not just from America but from the European powers as well. These countries just started using third party countries to move their material. That's all it was. They just used these other countries as like a fence,

like out of nowhere. Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan were like their economy was booming, and it's like, well, where where did all this new things come from? Because Russia was using them as a middleman to fence their oil because no country could buy Russian oil, but you could take a barrel of Russian oil and slap a Uzbek sticker on it and you could sell Uzbeki oil as much as you want. Uzbek. Yeah, yeah, you could do that. And there was other countries that did the exact same thing.

So again with these fifteen countries that they're having as or sorry a dozen nations that are designated as partner countries, it's their fences. That's about it. But moving on Bricks is involve evolving into a strategic hub for AI development and governance. Bricks has placed AI governance at the top of its agenda, establishing an AI study group to quote develop AI governance frameworks and standards. Yes, that's what they're wanting to do. It's for industry. It's super not for

espionage and military means whatsoever. They would never use super advanced AI for that, of course not. Oh, let's get back to it. A recent analysis from Moscow based consultants Yakov and Partners indicates this prarioritiz of AI innovation is yielding results. One hundred of the largest companies in bricks nations are shifting away from Western models like open AI

toward emerging Chinese, Russian and Immoradi models. Yakov and partners projects AI could generate three hundred and fifty billion to six hundred billion dollars of value for bricks economies by twenty thirty. Putin is positioning Russia to be the leader of the organization's AI push. At a summit in October, Bricks Countries discuss implementing Russian and Chinese AI infrastructure in quote unquote global South nations to yield a more balanced

multipolar world order. A more balanced multipolar world order. Y'all let that one marinate as long as you need. Russia has since led the formation of a Bricks AI Alliance Network, a strategic initiative promoting collaborative, joint research and regulation. SCO has also encouraged Bricks to adopt Russia's Code of AI Ethics, signaling Putin's intent on taking leadership on international AI governance.

The Code has already attracted interest from a large scale professional community, with over two hundred signators of from organizations and countries around the world. After meeting with Putin at the October Bricks summit, Delma Russev, president of Bricks, main financial leader New Development Bank, Yes, they even started their own bank to do this. Also announced support for bricks, new stages of maturation, maturation, maturation, there you go, and

new areas of cooperation. In May, Russeph announced that the bank's plans to fully embrace AI and called Chinese AI company Deep Seek an inspiring case for the global South. Never mind the fact that deep Seek was literally chat GPT that they stole from us, and we know that because we caught them red hand, and they the file that they were using had a digital footprint that could be traced back to I'm not mistaken was the Pentagon And for like a month when you would talk to

deep Seek, it would answer you as chat GPT. So again, it's not like they're super advanced. They're just stealing and jumping ahead of the competition because there's too many people in this country that are just using AI like it is the next greatest things since sliced bread and don't really pay attention to if it's a secure network or not. And they're also using it on phones that have certain apps of the shopping and the social variety that are

all linked to CCP servers. But you know, hey, what do I know? Meanwhile, outside of the bricks structure, Russia is expanding its partnership with other US adversaries. In December, Putin tasked Spurbank spur Bank that is an unfortunate name

Russia with EXPANDINGAI cooperation with China. The following month, the two countries formalize their Joint Declarational Cooperation in AI, which identifies avenues for collaboration, including establishing a working group for AI regulation and application, integrating China's Digital silk Road with

Russia's Eurasian Economic Union digital projects, the developing joint AI models. Likewise, after friendly and constructive discussions at the October summit, Moscow and Tehran unveiled a comprehensive strategic partnership agreement to developed direct contacts between interested educational and scientific institutions for technical and research programs and projects. Iranian President Mussad Possesskin probably butchered that don't care, asserted that the agreement will help

neutralize all the sanctions that the US has imposed against US. Yeah, that whole as breaks for you. It's just going against the West, and by the West they mean just the US. But whatever, bricks is becoming a refuge for all malicious actors to collaborate and rally against Western sanctions. It is no longer a fledgling organization, but rather a growing coalition standing against US interests. So far, America has relied on export controls on advanced semiconductors to hinder the ability of

its main rival China to innovate. Washington must up the ante and apply such expert or export controls to all countries in the Bricks AI Alliance. This could stifle innovations among US adversaries, while also incentivizing more neutrally oriented BRICKS members to partner and partner countries to distance themselves from the organization. Russia is gaining traction in the AI race

because of its AI alliance with Bricks. The United States needs to own AI alliance or it needs its own AI alliance, a global network of like minded democracies if Washington hopes to stay in the lead. In addition to both during R and D capacities, such a coalition can establish comprehensive norms and laws around AI security. Determining a framework for international AI governance is the next frontier in the AI race. Okay, A lot of things to unpack

on that one. I understand. But yeah, before we get into the Iran conversation. Although this kind of bled into that a little bit here. If anybody has any things they would like to join in and add in on this one, please, by all means unmute yourself and let it be heard.

Easier said than done, because America does kind of run shit as far as the world is concerned, and we have for quite some time, and as long as we continue what we're doing, we may in d continue to

do so. But with the advancements in AI that's going on right now, and knowing that so much of America's AI infrastructure has been stolen and you know, back engineered by these countries that are doing it for their own purposes, I know, I know that I have all of the distrust when it comes to AI, and I'm very comfortable dying on that hill. I get it. That being said, all of the countries that were listed, with the exception of India and the UAE, are not necessarily our allies

by any stretch of the imagination. So and I mean India really depends on depends on the day. Right, half the time they hate China, the other half they're getting in real tight with China. Half the time they cannot stand Russia. The other half the time they're trying to make a new trade deal with Russia. So I understand right India is doing what they believe is best for India. No judgment or shade throne from me on that one.

This being said, I don't believe that they are going to be making these AI advancements to better although on paper, like we just read it's for their economy, it's for the new AI industries that are going to be opening up and all these things, and yeah that there will

be a fair amount of that. I don't see that going strictly that way because business and military industrial complex go hand in hand, and most of the countries that were just listed would like to get their slice of the pie as far as a global military industrial complex is concerned. That's just what I see from my angle. Anthony, go ahead, So I'm just I'm.

you one hundred percent on that. But as far as me laying my head on my pillow at night in my country, I want our country to remain at the top of the pecking order in any and all things in this regard, not just defense, not just economy, not just all of it, all of it. I know our government's lying to us, we all do. I'm with you one hundred percent, But again, I also know what to expect from my government. I don't know what to expect from Putin. I don't know what to expect from Mody

or g or any of these other ones. I do know that they don't have good intentions with us, and if they are trying to not only break away from being under our umbrella, if you want to call it that, and they're trying to formulate their own I don't believe that it's doing it. I don't believe any of these countries are doing it just for their own interests. I believe that they are probably doing it with ill intent towards us. That's just my own skepticism towards it all. If that makes sense.

And it's not just because the whole China Taiwan conversation and the same thing with Russia. It's not just because of the Russia Ukraine situation. It is the overarching theme of this is a win loose situation. The entirety of history is written by the winners. I for one, would like to stay within the lines of the winning side. That's just it. Maybe I'm just showing all of my American biases, but that's kind of the point. All these countries are biased in their own regards, and I don't

see what's good for China isn't neutral to America. I see certain things as far as what's good for China being mutually beneficial for America. Sure, certain things, But I also don't want us to have to come to China to make any kind of new advancements in AI happen, because they're the first wants to start making real big changes in restrictions on AI as a whole. That's I would like for us to have our own say in that conversation. That's all. But anyway, good question. By the way,

enough said Steph says she had to bounce early. Good night, Stephanie, glad you could join us for this evening. All right. So while we were talking about Iran, who is by and large an enemy of the United States, I did want to talk about this, the exiled Crown Prince of Iran, who, yeah, he hadn't lived there ever since the revolution, Islamic Republic collapsing in Iran. Okay, this was released today. As a matter of fact, Reza paul LEVI, I'm probably butchering the

name again. I apologize. I speak the American English. The exiled Crown Prince of Iran and Iran and son of the last Persian sa Shah, Yeah, the last Persian sha urged Iranians on Tuesday TI to prepare for the impending fall of the Supreme Leader Ayatola Khamani and the Islamic Republic as the country struggles to fight off attacks from Israel. Is a direct quote. The Islamic Republic has reached its

in and is in the process of collapsing. Kamane, like a frightened rat, has gone into hiding underground and has lost control of the situation. What has begun is irreversible. The future is bright and together we will pass through this sharp turn in history. Now pause two seconds, everybody. This is an exile crown prince who the people have seen. As you know, he's not in the conversation and he hasn't been in the conversation for a good long while.

He's considered irrelevant by most Iranians. Iranians whatever, however, the Ayatola has been slowly but surely losing favor with the people in the past few years, not just it's the Israel Gaza conversation. It's been a slow death by a thousand paper cuts. And I'm not saying that what's happening right now is going to be the final thing that ends it all for him. But from all the reports that I am reading, the Ayatola is not seen as the answer to all the problems like he once was.

The Crown Prince, although he has been exiled for quite some time, he has more of the people's ear now than he has in the last few decades. And I'm not saying it's a majority, like any means, but it only takes eleven percent of a population for a revolution to happen. So keeping that in mind, as he is making these posts, it's very possible that the Crown Prince is making these posts happen and it will just go off into the ether and it will fall short and

he will never return to Iran. It's very possible. But if there was ever a time to dethrone the Ayahtola and retake control of Iran, I would argue that that time is rapidly approaching, so let's continue here. The military conflict between Iran and Israel stretched into its fifth day Tuesday, so this is written on Tuesday, with little signs of slowing as Israel hammers its Middle East rival over Tehran's

nuclear pursuits. President Trump departed the Group of Seventh summit of World leaders in Canada last Monday, a day earlier than expected, to return to Washington to monitor the ongoing conflict. He met with top security officials in the Situation Room on Tuesday to assess the developments. He has not ruled out the possibility of US military involvement. Paulavi, the Pallavi dynasty ruled Iran from nineteen twenty five to nineteen seventy nine,

when it was overthrown in the Islamic Revolution. Polavi, pinning his social media posts in English and Farsi, directed the message to his fellow countrymen and encouraged and uprising. He goes on to say, now is the time to rise, the time to reclaim Iran, he wrote, let us all come forward and bring about the end of this regime. He advised that there is a plan to establish a democratic government in Iran within one hundred days of the

collapse of the Islamic Republic. Also hard pause. I find it interesting that a crown prince says that there is a plan to establish a democratic government. I don't know. Maybe it's going to be something akin to how we have like British royalty and then also the parliament or something along those lines. I don't know what his goals are, but all right. He also urged military, law enforcement, security forces, and state employees to join the effort to topple the

government under Kamani. Do not stand against the Iranian people for the sake of a regime whose fail has begun and is inevitable, he wrote. Do not sacrifice yourselves for a decaying regime. By standing with the people, you can save your lives, play a historic role in the transition from the Islamic Republic, and take part in building the

future of Iran. He added, So again, I don't know if this is just gonna fall on deaf fears and just be one of those Internet posts from a jaded exiled royal family member, or if this may have some legs to it and gain some traction. I think it's going to be very interesting to see and as of this moment, I still don't believe that America is about to actually get involved with this conflict. Israel is more than capable of handling Iran. They're more than capable of

doing so. I actually recently today I reached out to a couple of my buddies that I served with that are still in, just like, hey, have you heard anything about a potential movement into Iran or whatever the case is. None of them have heard anything of the sort. And granted it's not like these are high level, upper fed type guys there. There are ground pounders like most of the guys I served with that are still in. Some of them went Mustang and they're like captains now. Most

of them are in the staff n COO ranked. But still they would at least kind of hear some murmurs being said about possible things. Nothing, nothing to insinuate that America is about to make a move into Iran. So we shall see how it plays out, Tony, go ahead, brother, that's all your hand raised.

support that it could really happen. But this brings up another more philosophical point that democracy is just a word that's used all the time, but there's no country on earth that is perfectly democratic, and there's no country on earth that is completely undemocratic. I think all countries are somewhere in the middle of that spectrum, and every country and every society, whether it's a government or not, has

a different way of deciding. What kinds of decisions get made in a democratic way, and what decisions get made by somebody who's appointed or inherited the role or some other way. And honestly, whenever I have to vote for judges and local elections, I kind of find it annoying. I don't know who these people are, and it's the democratic process, but I don't really trust myself even to make a lot of these decisions. And most people COVID should have shown us that most people just want to

be told what to do. And yeah, democracy, I think is an admirable thing in some ways, and that the population should have some say over how their countries run. But most people don't actually really want that much of a say or know what to do with it if they have it. So that's why you know, countries that are very democratic tend to swing away from it eventually like a pendulum.

dictatorships they aren't really that unaccountable to the people. Would if they spend a lot on propaganda. They care a lot about what the people think if they didn't sure what the people think if they didn't have to act on what the people think at all. They wouldn't spend any money on propaganda, but they do because their population opinion does matter and everything. You know, the power structure

is a pyramid. You may have one at the top, but he depends on the people right beneath him, and they depend on the people right beneath them, and keeping everybody happy is part of the game. And even even North Korea they stayed democratic, and we we know that. Yeah it's not perfect, far for perfect. It's maybe one of the most autocratic places in the world, but it still has some democracy, and you know, everyone's somewhere in the middle of that spectrum.

But the problem with that is it only lasts for that generation or until that guy dies, and typically the person that takes over under him was the spoiled, rotten son who undoes everything that his dad did, or something along these lines. So, yeah, dictators, and ye know, we hear the Duram dictator. And because we living in the year twenty twenty five in America, we think instant evil.

That's got to happen because and I'm not disagreeing with the fact that absolute power corrupts absolutely, I'm with that one hundred percent. But there are examples of a benevolent dictator who truly was a man of his people and did what he needed to do for the betterment of his country and had nobody standing in his way because that's what their government basically said was the way. Whatever he says is the word, and we go with that. And he happened to be a guy who truly gave

a shit about his country. But again, it's usually only one maybe two generations deep if you're lucky, you know. So I'm with you on that most people. And like you said, with the whole voting thing, I wish we had more barriers to entry to vote. I know it's a very unpopular opinion on this, but like, for instance, I used to be an electrician, albeit not a very good one. I electrocue to myself a lot, but neither

here nor there. Okay, if I wanted to pick up some side work and wire up somebody's house, I am not a licensed and bonded electrician. Now I could go and get those those credentials done and pay the extortion fee and take a test and all this stuff. I think I'm more than capable of doing so. But my point is I believe that that should there's a barrier

to entry to do even handyman work. So why don't we have a barrier to entry to vote on the future of the direction our country, or our state, or even your local community will be going in When you're voting for a judge, perfect example, do you know where that judge studied law, how long they were a lawyer, what's some of the bigger cases they worked, what's their

leanings in certain cases? Are they somebody who goes off of jurisprudence or is there somebody who makes it up as they go and they're more of a loose cannon. We have no clue when we actually vote on one of these judges. So I'm with you one hundred percent and it's yeah, that's a microcuism, but look at it on the big picture political scale. The only reason we know anything about the president elect of our next election is because all of the news anchors have told us

their entire life story. But it's a complete farce, right The governor who will be in charge of Louisiana in twenty thirty is probably a person that I couldn't tell you their name right now, and all of a sudden, all of the Louisiana population is going to become quote unquote experts on this person's life in a matter of six months because it's going to be the story that gets perpetuated. So I'm with you one hundred percent on that.

I wish people would do more research before they go vote, But I also believe that the right to vote is something that we really should put more restrictions on in this country. Like even baseline, like just answer five questions. It didn't even have to be political. I'll even take this very bare minimum of baseline restrictions. Answer five random questions. It could be very simple second grade math questions before

you go vote. And if you can't do this, you obviously do not have the cognizant brain power to make an informed decision on anything else from this point forward, and you would have watched.

There was an English Civil War in that sixteen hundreds, and some people did get the right to vote. But you know, I think population was something like fifty forty million at the end of the Napoleonic Wars. But you know how many people had the franchise to vote at that time in eighteen fifteen. I just learned this recently. It was about five hundred thousand, So you know, we're talking maybe three, four or five percent of the British

population had the right to vote. And then they extended it to about four million people in about eighteen sixty or eighteen seventy. Yeah, so still it was only like ten percent of the population. If you were a land owning mail, there was still no guarantee you had a right to vote.

won't be any more war. Because there were these women's committees all over the world in World War One who were opposing the war, and for some reason that just didn't happen in World War Two. So even though women did have the right to vote, we still had a World War two. Anyway, you would think, you know, it would be nice to go back and repeat the experiment. Yeah, we didn't give women the right to vote. What would

have happened. We just don't know. Maybe it would have still happened anyway, But given women the right to vote didn't seem to actually prevent it.

To say that a woman couldn't see the benefit of armed conflict or the inherent doom of armed conflict and make a logical, rational decision just as much as a man can. That flies in the face of traditional feminism. But sure that was a thought that was proposed at one point. Meanwhile, of the people right now on this podcast. One of them is a female veteran. I know it's mind blowing here, but yeah, I agree. I don't know. I feel like most people have said this before, and

I am comfortable dying on the hill. Most people in America they think they want freedom. In reality, they just want the freedom to be comfortable. You know, I don't think they necessarily like being told what to do. But then you also look at the statistics that eighty percent of Americans got vaccinated when there was no evidence that

that was a good idea. So it kind of as much as I think it's just me being a hopeful person being a bit of an optimist, that no American people they if you gave them the chance, they would exceed or succeed. And it's like, but then all evidence to the contrary, because we're no longer in the Greatest Generation time frame. They were hungry for it. They wanted

better for themselves and for their children. The Boomer generation screwed us, and now we're to such a point to where most Americans, I honestly don't believe even know which direction is up anymore. And that's not just to say Republican versus democrat. I'm putting both of them equally on the platform of being ranting retards. But you know, it is what it is for them. I'm talking about for the extremes, not the just left of center or just

right of center. At least more often than not, you can have a decent conversation these people, and they are typically a little more informed than the extremists. But anyway, all right, so we shall see what happens with the whole possible collapse of the Ayahtola. I don't know if that's actually gonna happen as of this moment. I am not keen on believing that that's really within the cards, but one can only hope, one can only be optimistic.

But as we're doing this, and as we're having this conversation, I did want to bring this video up for anybody who doesn't know. This is Colonel Richard Kemp. Okay, now he was giving if anybody doesn't know, Oxford University does this debate on name the topic. I absolutely love tuning in and watching these debates happen. They're always very respectful. It is a black tie affair, and this is true debate.

There was an Islamic side of the conversation that are saying that Palestine is being you know, they need, they need, why they need z Israel is so evil and all these things. Colonel Richard Kemp steps up and essentially shows how the whole Arabian world doesn't actually care about Palestine. It has nothing to do with that. As a matter of fact, they're using Palestine as cannon fodder and have

for decades to further the Islamic overall goals. He name drops a couple of examples, he cites his sources, and I think it is an excellent standpoint. So y'all listening, y'all tell me what y'all think about.

And they have been, these benighted Palestinian people.

How have the Arabs abused the Palestinians well since the the creation of the State of Israel, and before going right the way back to really to the Balfour Declaration, the Arabs and then subsequently the Palestinian leadership when Palestine was invented as a people, as a potential country, the Palestinian leaders have rejected every single opportunity to create a self governing homeland for the Palestinian people within the former

Mandate of Palestine. And that goes right back to their rejection in nineteen seventeen of the Balfour Declaration, and it includes coming right up to date. It includes the not they didn't even reject President Obama's initiative, they simply walked away from it before it got anywhere. And they haven't only rejected the current US administration's initiative, they've rejected it

without even hearing what it is. And this has been the pattern all the way through, a pattern of rejection and denial of any possibility of rights for the Palestinian people beyond what they have now. I want to to illustrate that. I want to just make a read from a couple of quotes really from the Horse's mouth and the first one. This is from Emil Gouri, the secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, who said, I do not want to impugne anyone, but only to help the refugees.

The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequences of the action of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state.

Hamas do not want a two state solution. They're not interested in the two state solution. They're interested in one thing only, and that is the destruction of the Jewish state, the dismantling and the destruction of the Jewish state.

And President Nasa of Egypt said, the Palestinians are useful to the Arab states as they are, we will always see that they do not become too powerful. Can you imagine yet another nation on the shores of the eastern Mediterranean. It has been the pattern, no two states, no liberational freedom. From the current situation that the Palestinians face at any stage,

they have forced conflicts upon the Palestinians. The Arab nations since nineteen forty eight have sent armies into the land to attempt to annihilate the Jewish state, and that of course has brought death and destruction and suffering upon the Palestinians as well. And since then they have imposed and inflicted and supported and funded and directed terrorism against the Jews.

the Palestinian people by Hamas. In effect, guest has a role in this. The West, with its greed and its lust for oil, has appeased the Arab countries and encouraged them. And by supporting this motion today, even though I don't agree with it, I think we are making a statement, and that statement is we will no longer appease and support your retribution against the Palestinians. If this situation continues

any further, then as has happened in the past. The only people to suffer Israel is not going to suffer as well as this. The only people that will suffer are the Palestinians. They will continue to suffer. And I urge you, ladies and gentlemen to get behind this motion and make your voice heard against the continued suffering of the Palestinian people.

Arab nations of having a free Palestine. Ever, they have used these people, like he said, as an open sore to continue the conflict. And I also agree with what he said about the West perpetuating the cycle and propagating it even further through greed and oil and all these things. It's a continuous problem. There's a reason why the Middle East will never have peace. They haven't had peace since long before Israel became a nation, and they're not going

to have peace anytime soon. So as we were talking about everything that's going on with the bricks, with the Ai conversation, with Iran, with everything, I felt like it was kind of cool to have that one brought up. I just found that one this afternoon. I was like, ooh, yeah, we're gonna have to play that one on here. But if anybody has anything to add in, please do.

or ethnicity. It's a little bit of both, but either one is problematic because if you're saying it's a Jewish state, you're either saying it's an ethno state or a theocracy or a little bit of both.

support Israel and its right to exist? And he said, I support its right to exist with equal rights for all its citizens, and he got jumped on for not specifying it has a right to exist as a Jewish state, and RFK Junior has made similar statements. He says, you need to just say that it has a right to exist as a Jewish state. And what do you mean by that, ethno state, theocracy, or a little bit of both both. The US doesn't have the right to exist that way. Western Europe doesn't apparently.

importance of it all. But it's, you know, in its own regarded. Yeah, I'm with you on that. Uh huh.

it doesn't refer to the land. And now you know, it kind of does refer to the land. What do you think Jacob.

correct me if from Rolling Royce. That was whenever the Jews got put into slavery in Babylon and they relisted the land and said they never wanted to hear the term Israel again, and they made it Palestine. That was like a word that he made up on the spot for that purpose. But yeah, I mean, we're talking about one of the most ancient areas on the map. And I don't mean just Israel. I mean the entirety of

the Middle East, very ancient land. So to say that this land was one time called this and then it was this. Let's not forget that Iran was at one time Persia, and everybody there was Zoroastrian. If we're gonna get real, real technical. The true religion of the dirt of Iran is to be following Zoraaster, not the Ayatolahs. So like, where are we really drawing that line from the land in question is considered the land of milk and honey. Right, you'll hear that term get thrown out

about a bunch. And they do give very clear distinct places of where it is supposed to be, even in the Quran. And I know this is gonna be unpopular, but Muslims listening, you tell me, you explain this to me. They literally list by, like from here to here, and from here to here is the area reserved for the Israelites, for the Jews. Even in the Quran they say that that area would be what we would now call Israel.

That's not Jacob's words, that's the Quran's world words. So even within their own religious text, they acknowledge that that land is meant for them, not Palestinians, not Arabs, not Armenians, not or anything close to these conversations. So, yes, do I believe Israel should exist as a state, Yes, as a Jewish state, both ethno and religious. Yes, I believe they should both. But keep in mind, Jewish by race does not necessarily mean everybody that looks like net and Yahoo.

There was a tribe in Nigeria that was found that half of that tribe is from direct Levi descent bloodline.

the Spartas. It's the land for all of the Jews. Now is it being ran that way? Do I like net and Yahoo?

which is not that much better. And you mentioned birthright, but you know when that would apply to people who are actually born in Palestine, if they're Arab, I think they have more of a right to live there than somebody Jewish who's born in New York City, for example. And yet according to the State of Israel, the guy born in New York City has more of a right to move into somebody's home in Palestine than the guy who's descended from you know, great grandparents who lived there.

Israel needs permanent borders with its neighbors, but it doesn't have them, and it doesn't want them. It wants to keep the situation fluid. I think it would be best for both countries to establish permanent borders, and then Israel will exist. It's not going to go out of existence. I think something like the nineteen forty seven or sixty seven borders would have been good, but the Arabs rejected that at the time. In retrospect, it looks like a great idea. It would have been a great idea for

them to accept those boundaries. But the Israel they eight perceived Israel it is driving too heard of a bargain at that time, and that's what Israel does on purpose all the time. They drive a really hard bargain. Nettan Yaho was saying in the nineties that we just want area Sea of Palestine and Area C was like ninety percent of what was left if you take the map of Israel plus West Bank plus Gaza all put together.

Israel already has seventy eight percent of that after nineteen sixty eight, and they were going to get about ninety percent of what was left of the land area after that under net and Yaho's proposal, and the way natan Yah who spun it was to say, well, we just want area sea. It sounds small, but it was actually maybe not ninety percent of what was left, but it

was a huge percent of what was left. So at each step the Israelis drive a really hard bargain, the Palestinians don't accept it, and then the conflict continues in the Palestinians lose more and more and they are just gonna get murdered or shoved off the land. And that's

how it's gonna be. I bet you know in twenty years, Israel is going to own Gaza for sure, based on the way things are going right now, because Gaza is so small and it's the focus of so much attention and there are only two million people there instead of six But they are going to force those people out somehow.

ago lived there. And maybe that's true, but I don't think that's a good territorial claim. They need permanent borders, but they're not going to establish them. Maybe I'm top bucking in circles. They just want to keep this going. One last thing, the Qatar supports Hamas, or they supported Hamas for years and years because Israel asked them to, and Israel actually helped them procure Treasury Department waivers in order to give money to Hamas as much as ten

years ago in twenty fifteen. And the reason for that is that they the Israeli government did not want a partner for peace in Gaza. They wanted Hamas to have power, precisely so that they would have an excuse to keep blockading them. And that's what happened.

the AI conversation. That's an interesting thing as well. We'll see if Putin actually puts real gas on that fire, or if it's gonna be one of those things that just kind of gets talked about a good bit and echoes off into nothingness. Who knows, but uh, either way, I want to thank everybody for coming out and joining me on this edition of The Cajun Night Live once again for anybody who would like to join in this conversation next week. We do this every Wednesday night at

nine pm Central. Come check it out at the Cajun Night on Patreon. The link is in the description below. Only one tier for entry. We are just trying to get this to grow into its own crazy snowball of education and information and exchanging of real ideas. And uh yeah, I have thoroughly enjoyed this episode as I do every Wednesday Night. Once again, I am the Cajun Night Jacob Mook and I thank all of you for joining me on this evening To everybody listening. As always, God bless