PBD Podcast - Nuclear Weapons Expert Dr. Peter Pry - ROUND TWO | PBD Podcast | Ep. 160

Episode Date: June 1, 2022

In this episode, Patrick Bet-David is joined by Adam Sosnick and Dr. Peter Pry to discuss the war in Ukraine, doomsday, weakness in America, mass shootings and much more... TOPICS 0:00 - Start  1:52 - What has changed in Ukraine?   7:19 - How do we know EMP's can wipe out population?   15:33 - How to prepare for 'Doomsday'   19:40 - Doomsday Prepper   28:44 - Nuclear Bunkers   40:56 - Do we need 'Doomsday' shelters?   44:37- Does Dr. Pry feel safe under President Biden?  49:04 - The Opposite if unpredictable   58:28 - Is America in a Proxy war with Russia?   1:06:32 - John Bolton Credibility   1:12:18 - Who Wants America to get weaker?  1:27:51 - Is Russia helping China build nuclear weapons?   1:33:02 - Uvalde shooting   1:39:05 - How can we prevent mass shooting Dr. Pry is the Executive Director of Task Force on National and Homeland Security, a Congressional Advisory Board dedicated to achieving protection of the United States from electromagnetic pulse (EMP), cyber-attack, mass destruction terrorism and other threats to civilian critical infrastructures on an accelerated basis.  Dr. Pry is also the Director of the United States Nuclear Strategy Forum, a Congressional Advisory Board dedicated to developing policies to counter Weapons of Mass Destruction.  In 2015, Dr. Pry testified in Denver on Colorado’s first attempt to pass EMP/GMD legislation. Get Dr. Pry's book 'Blackout Warfare" here: https://amzn.to/3FAUBck Get Dr. Pry's book 'Blackout Wars': https://amzn.to/3L1I0zI Get Dr. Pry's book "The Power and the Light": https://amzn.to/3wcuX9k Get Dr. Pry's book "Will America Be Protected?: https://amzn.to/3ysczw6 Text: PODCAST to 310.340.1132 to get added to the distribution list About Co-Host: Adam “Sos” Sosnick has lived a true rags to riches story. He hasn’t always been an authority on money. Connect with him on his weekly SOSCAST here: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLw4s_zB_R7I0VW88nOW4PJkyREjT7rJic Patrick Bet-David is the founder and CEO of Valuetainment Media. He is the author of the #1 Wall Street Journal bestseller Your Next Five Moves (Simon & Schuster) and a father of 2 boys and 2 girls. He currently resides in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.   To reach the Valuetainment team you can email: [e-mail] --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/pbdpodcast/support

out of your mind. Here's the debate. You're upset. They're saying, believe it. Folks, we are back with episode number. What is it today? 160 months. Six with Dr. Peter Pry, we brought him back. We had a mom, what was it? Two weeks, three weeks ago you were on, two or three weeks ago? Yeah, three weeks ago.

Three weeks ago we had you on. And by the time we were done, I said, I want you back because I don't think two hours was enough. For some of you guys that didn't get a chance to watch the first one, he is one of the world's leading experts in weapons of mass destruction and EMP's executive director of task force on national homeland security, a congressional advisory board dedicated to achieving protection of the United States from electoral magnetic pulse cybertax mass

destruction terrorism and other threats critical civilian infrastructure on an accelerated basis. Last time when we spoke, we talked a lot about the motive for rush of versus Ukraine. We talked about, you know, what can an EMP really do, nuclear bombs, what are they capable of doing, how bad can it get, how paranoid we are, we learned the word suspicious, if you remember last time, that was a new word we edited for vocabulary. We learned in CIA, you don't need to have good eyesight to become a CIA agent.

That's kind of what you whisper to us. The fact that you wanted to go in the military, but your eyesight didn't allow you. We learned a lot of different things. From the last time till today, things are changing very quickly right now. What has changed with Russia and Ukraine that you are, I'm sure you're following the story very closely. What's changed in the last three weeks? Well, as the situation gets worse for the Russians,

I'm afraid it may move us closer and closer to the edge of that nuclear precipice. Putin has getting, even though Russia's in the authoritarian state, he has lots of different advisors from the military, from the intelligence services, the services, the military services compete with each other, and they're probably making recommendations for a wide variety of options, nuclear and non-nuclear options, for Putin to execute. And the longer the conventional war appears to go against Russia, the more likely it becomes that one of these options will be executed. And there's a broad and deep consensus among the

American strategic community, even among people who have been very anti-nuclear. For example, anti-nuclear activists who work for the Middlebury Institute of International Relations in Monterey, who have been pretty notorious for their anti-nuclear views, are saying that while you know the Russians may well execute some kind of a limited nuclear attack in Ukraine and they published an article within the past couple of weeks talking about what those nuclear options are. You know, one of them is an atomic demonstration, a nuclear demonstration of Anolia's

Zomelya, the Russian test site up in the Arctic Ocean, where they would light a nuclear weapon off in the atmosphere, which hasn't been done since the early 1960s, as a demonstration that Russia is serious about going nuclear. Another option, and I was very pleased to see that they mentioned this, was an EMP attack on Ukraine. Even the modern-range to-dant-inuclear left is taking the EMP threat on Ukraine. Even the Monterey Institute anti-Nuclear left is taking the EMP threat seriously, that they would do an EMP attack on Ukraine,

which would fry the electronics across Ukraine, disabeled the Ukrainian army, and that would create conditions where the Russian army could now win. Because the Ukrainian army armed forces would be disabled, as would the whole country of Ukraine, because the electric forces would be disabled, as with the whole country of Ukraine, because the electric grid would be down, all the electronics, all the communications would be down.

And the third option they'd data-scribed was a actual limited use of one or a few tactical nuclear weapons on the Ukrainian army to use blast or thermal effects, you know, to blow holes in the army so their guys could pour through and destroy basically the Ukrainian forces on the ground by means of limited tactical nuclear strikes. And I agree that those are options that are no doubt being proposed to Putin, but I think there are other options that are even more serious that are being proposed to Putin. But I think there are other options that are even more serious that are being proposed to him. You know, I think the one of the options was one of the scenarios the EMP Commission had proposed before there was Ukraine war. And that is to do an EMP

attack, detonate a super EMP weapon, 70 kilometers high over NATO headquarters and Brussels. And this would have the effect of blacking out the European NATO from Ireland all the way to Ukraine. And that would immediately stop any arms going into Ukraine from the Native member countries would paralyze NATO so that we would not be able to intervene in the NATO, in the, in the Ukrainian war. And it would send a signal to the United States that we'd better stay out of it or we'd be next. And there are, there's a faction, you know, I think a very influential and powerful faction with Russia that would advocate that because there are new thinkers who believe and they have codified this in their military doctrine that this

kind of an attack and EMP combined with cyber warfare is the most revolutionary form of warfare that has ever existed in history. Yeah. Because you can at the speed of light basically take down your adversary, paralyze him and win a war almost literally at the speed of light, and the initial attack would kill very few people. So it's a clean, surgical way of paralyzing your enemies and winning, and they have the capability to do that, so why not do it?

And they have been writing in military doctoral assessments for almost two decades about doing that. So that's a faction that would be saying, listen to us, Vladimir, let's do any MP attack that's not just on Ukraine, but on NATO, Europe, because it's going to come. Who's saying this? This is coming from... This would be coming from the Russian General Staff and those people who specialize in electronic and the cyber warriors. Now, let me ask the

cyber. It comes into super-MP. When we were kids, I don't know, if you fooled around with M80s and you'd blow up an M80 and like, oh shit, that's pretty cool. And you would try to put the M80 in this thing. You would try to put it on the ground. I see it would blow up. Anything would happen. Yeah.

You would do all this up with M80s. And then every once in a while, one of the guys would bring something that was bigger than an M80. And you thought the reaction to the M80 was going to be like an M80. You know what an M80 does, right? And then you put the other one that was a bigger thing, more powerful than MAD in La Colise, shit, we were not ready for this, right? And some people could get hurt.

How do we even test super EMPs? Like, I know North Korea has apparently you said North Korea's tested super EMPs, but aren't super EMPs almost one of those things, yeah, I see that article right there, North Korea tested a super EMP weapon that could potentially wipe out nearly the entire United U.S. population. So here's my question.

How the hell do you know? How do you know that could wipe out the entire U.S. population? And how do you not know that maybe it's either worse or weaker than what you think? This is like one of those things that's tough to test. You can test it in one region. That can affect a lot of different people. So how do we really know the true negative impact of EMP, how bad it could be, how big it could be or how small it could be?

Oh, I think we have lots of evidence, you know, during the early 1960s, for example, when we did the test over Johnson Island. In fact, we didn't even know about the EMP phenomenology. We just knew that the Russians knew about something, that some phenomena was happening because they were conducting a series of tests over Kuzokstan. They were detonating nuclear weapons very yield, including very small ones and very big ones in outer space, over their own territory, over Kuzokstan, which was an inhabited part of Russia, Kuzokstan is an enormous area about the size of France.

And so we decided, and they were breaking their headbandia, an agreement, to not do atmospheric testing anymore, and they were breaking the agreement, this thing was considered so important for them to do that. And so we did a test over Johnston Island and I'll let off a nuclear weapon and outer space. And it basically knocked out the lights and Hawaii caused automobiles to fail, knocked out radio transmission stations and things. And Hawaii was 1500 kilometers away. It was just on the very edge of the field, where the field was weakest. And so we could see that that had, you know, profound effects.

And we have built EMP simulators. After we stopped atmospheric nuclear testing and exo-admospheric, because this is actually being tested in outer space when you detonate the weapon. It's not in the atmosphere. But we have these EMP simulators so we can put all kinds of electronics. The commission on which I served is the last or really concerted effort where we did the broadest and most in-depth analysis of the effects of EMP on modern electronic systems by putting all kinds of things into simulators and frying them. Because we know what the EMP fields will look like, you can calculate it from the gamma

ray output of a nuclear warhead. It's called the Compton effect. The gamma rays will come out of the bomb. They'll knock electrons off of atoms and the high atmosphere. The electrons will spin at the speed of light following the Earth's magnetic field to the horizon. And that's what makes the EMP, and it basically creates this pulse that's like a super energetic radar wave or radio wave, you know, for a non, for a normal nuclear weapon.

It's 50,000 volts per meter. That means for every meter of dimension, of the target, it gets 50,000 volts injected into it. So, you know, the wires on this thing here probably are a half a meter, so this thing would get 25,000 volts injected into it at the speed of light. I'm sure it's not designed to survive that. If you had an automobile that was a typical automobile, it might be four meters long, so that's four times 50,000, so 200,000 volts injected into the car's electronics at the speed of light. A super-EMP weapon can generate twice that or more than twice that. And so you're talking about extraordinarily powerful fields. Our electronic civilization, I'm answering your question in my long-winded way about

how do we know? Well we know because our electronic civilization is pretty much almost everything is designed to operate on 120 volts or less. You know, that personal computer that computer setting in front of you is probably operates on 25 volts, you know, it's, it's steps the power down from the, but the outlets in this, in this area put out 120 volts, okay? So, things that are designed to operate on 120 volts

almost certainly are not going to survive when you interject 50,000, 100,000, 200,000 volts at the speed of light into them. And we know they don't survive because we have simulated that for many decades, you know, both the Department of Defense and last, the Commission on which I served, we weren't just a paper commission. You know, we were about actually testing modern electronics to see where the electronics vulnerable. We knew they would be vulnerable, but one of the questions we wanted to know is, are they getting more vulnerable? And they are because micro-ultip technology, which is responsible for the great

prosperity and efficiency of our modern electronics civilization, every decade, it gets 10 times faster, operates on 10 times lower voltages, okay? But that also makes them every decade about 10 times more vulnerable. So we're going in the direction of greater and greater vulnerability. And then we have other things that we can look at. What happens when the lights go out? For example, in hurricanes or tornadoes, ice storms, what happens to society? We have lots of data to show that 24 hours after the lights go out,

about when people miss their third meal, the glue that holds society together starts coming unglued. And when society just very quickly disintegrating. So we do have a lot of data. It's not just theoretical. We have, we can test this stuff through simulators. We have seen it tested and nuclear detonations of the past.

And we have a real world experience every year from hurricanes, hurricane Sandy, hurricane Katrina. You go back and you look at what happens to society. And this is just a small scale thing when you have these blackouts that affect regions and they're only temporary. Imagine if you had, you know, a phenomena that would black out all of North America for a year. That's how we, you know, we tried hard to think, how do you keep 330 million people alive

for a year with no electricity, which means no water, no food, the food supply, we only have enough food in this country to feed 330 million people for 30 days in the big regional food warehouses. And it will immediately begin to spoil when the temperature control systems and refrigerators and stuff stop receiving electricity. You can't get the food to the grocery stores because the trucks and the transfer vehicles would be paralyzed. There's only enough food in the grocery store at normal consumption rates to feed the local population for two or three days.

How do you keep 330 million people alive for a year with no food, no water, no organized government. You can't. I mean, we tried very hard to come up with ways of doing it, including mobilizing the army to air-draft food supplies into the cities. Meals ready to eat. We have a billion meals ready. It's not enough. And it's not practical.

That's why our recommendation was, you know, we can't afford to take an EMP hit and expect to survive. We've got to harden our critical infrastructures. Protect the electric grid. You have kids? Oh, yes. You have grandkids. I do. Okay. So, are you concerned or suspicious that a potential super-EMP could one day be used by an enemy of ours against us in America. That was the option. Next option, I'm thinking the Putin is getting an advice on from some factions because among his cyber warriors, there are others who are going to say, we should go bigger than just attacking European NATO. But a basic fundamental question, do you think, are you suspicious that one day that in an attack like that, with a super MP could be used against America, and that would impact negatively your kids, your

grandkids? Under these circumstances in this Ukrainian war, I'm very fearful that it could happen tomorrow. Okay. So how are you personally prepared for it? Well, we have a little farm that's all set up. We're prepared to live without electricity. And you own a little farm that you're ready for it. Yes.

Got it. And what kind of food do you have that encased that word to happen? You're ready, how many months of supply of food you have? Because some people maybe listen to this. They're also sitting there saying, you know, some who maybe have the ability to do so, you don't buy life insurance policy because you're thinking you're gonna die tomorrow, you buy it because if you do, you want your wife, your husband, your kid. Okay, so what kind of food do you have? How much supply of food do you

have? How prepared are you? Very prepared, you know, while we've got the ability to survive for years. For years? Yes. The location of my farm is, well, I'm not going to talk about where it's located, okay, but it's just a very remote place. It's close enough to Washington so that I can go there when I have to. But it's far enough away. It's one of the least populous counties in Virginia so that if we were to exhaust our canned food

and we've got plenty of that, that's what I would recommend. Stockpiling, high caloric canned food, beans, chocolate, peanuts, spaghetti, all kinds of canned food because that way rodents can't get at it. And canned food will basically last forever. I mean, even though they have expiration dates on the canned food, you know, that's just for quality of appearances. In terms of the hopelessness of the food, because it's in a vacuum, it'll basically last forever. We recovered, there was an Arctic expedition that was lost There was an Arctic expedition that was lost in the early 1800s and nobody knew what had happened to them for many years.

But we eventually found them more than a century after the expedition had failed. They were one of the first expeditions that we bring in canned food with them. The food was still good, you know, years after that. Water is critical, you know, it's best to actually have a natural well, you know, so that you're not dependent upon, you know, the larger water infrastructure, you can make homemade filters quite easily with the garbage can and blankets and charcoal that would refine water, purify, purify, purify water. But it's a good excuse for having a swimming pool, you know, a 20,000 gallon swimming pool, you know, and it can be one of those above ground pools that are very

inexpensive. I mean, this is not the kind of thing you need to be a millionaire to be able to forward. Everybody should be able to, you know, be survivable. That will not only could use and support your family with that, but you could probably provide, have a water supply that would support a whole community. Do all the members of your family have something like this? Yes. And this is something that you encourage them to do, or they've read enough of your books and material that they said, all right, I'm convinced I got to move on with this. Well, in both, either way, that's, yeah, that's, you know, both because they've read my stuff and been around, been around me.

Are you a doomsday prepper? I hear that terminology all the time. I see those commercials, but this is what that sounds like, is that would you categorize yourself as that? I would categorize myself as the remnant of the great generation. That's one of the things, I find it particularly annoying. Modern culture condemns preparedness now

by mocking it and calling people doomsday preppers. Overly paranoia. My mother and father. But that's what they call themselves though. Well, I don't call myself that. I call myself an American. I call myself a person who has the character profile that this country was originally founded by the founders,

people who believe in rugged individualism and self-sufficiency and are jealous of their freedom and don't believe in trusting the government to take care of all of our needs, which is where we have become now. Those who call me a Doomsday Prepar I would say those who don't prepare our sheep, you know, in the kind of mentality that the founders, well, this country wasn't designed for sheep. It was designed for eagles. It was designed for people who believed in freedom and believed in self-sufficiency and not taking handouts. You know, my father's generation, the generation that lived through the Great Depression

and survived World War II, they had never heard of EMP. All of those people, virtually all of them, would be Doomsday Preppers because they didn't believe in trusting the government to take care of them. They had seen government fail and war and peace

that had seen it fail in the Great Depression, that that seemed it failed without break of World War Two. They knew my father and my uncle Joe, for example, who fought in World War Two. You know, against the Nazis, my father was a sergeant, my uncle Joe had been a private. They knew that World War Two was not won by Franklin Roosevelt in General George Pat. World War II was won by tough guys like them, who went up against Nazi tanks that were better than ours, better armed and better led Germans, and defeated them. It was their guts and blood that won World War II. They were, you know, they were not, you know, willing to trust in government. They'd seen government fail in peace during the Great Depression and in war. And they're the ones that got us through War II. And that attitude persisted afterwards. That's why in the 1950s, so many

Americans were digging bomb shelters. You know, we laugh at that today and seemed to mock at today, but they were really concerned that government screw up again and would have a nuclear war. And they wanted to survive and make sure their family would survive. You know, we lived on a quarter acre and, you know, we had orchards, you know, apple trees, a garden. My mother was constantly canning food. They had never heard of EMP, but they were concerned that there would be some disaster, maybe in an atomic war. Was there more common back than then today? Do you think there was more of a common?

Oh, absolutely. Atticut. It was a common value of all Americans, beginning with the founding of this country, because those virtues that we're talking about here, the self-sufficiency, the rugged individualism, the pride, it was an important pride that you wanted to be able to take care of your own family and not depend on a neighbor and certainly not depend on a church or a government to take care of you, you wanted to be able to take care of your

neighbors yourself. I have a slight pushback if I may. Sure. There's something you talk about is something that's great in theory, but that's great in practice. With you 100% on rugged individualism, taking care of yourself, taking care of your family, being self-sufficient, limited government,

1,000% of the same page. However, I also am a personal finance expert. I also know that 80% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. I understand that people have budgets. I understand the inflation is at 8% and it's going all time high. Gas is expensive. Cost of living is expensive.

So if I'm, all right, Dr. Pry, I'm with you. I'm ready to go get a farm in Virginia or a place in the Everglades or something. How do you take that theory and put it into practice if you're making 50 grand a year or you're making 100 grand a year or even if you're a multi-millionaire, what percentage of your budget should you be putting towards getting a bunker or something like that? Because it's great in theory, amazing. Of course, everyone should have a bunker, but who's actually doing it?

And that's what I'm grappling with right now. About 3% of the population is actually doing it right now. And that's a shame, because of what it reflects this passing of what we would call the pioneer values. The values that we're talking about here are what made America great and free in the first place. And most Americans, up until my father's generation, the great generation, had those values and were prepared, and they weren't making 100,000 a year.

My father was making less than 50,000 a year, but they were prepared for anything. And have you ever heard of a victory garden? I mean, that was very common during World War II. And people made them on their own. I remember in my uncle, Joey, owned a bar down in Utica, New York, and he had a tiny little backyard. I mean, it wasn't, you know, it was the size of a living room. What is a victory garden?

It's a cultivated, with captea says a war garden or food gardens for defense were wetched to put, were wetched to put were wetched to those vegetables fruit and urban on planted at private residences and public parks in the United States UK can't and interesting yeah in world war two almost everybody had a victory guard and they and they would grow their own food everybody that's that's in a time where people are living in the suburbs you had all this land now more joining americans are new y New York City, NLA in Chicago, downtown Miami.

My uncle Joe was living in. There's no places like this. My uncle Joe was living in the middle of Utica, New York. Okay. And as I was explaining to you, the backyard behind his bar was maybe the size of a living room. Where's Utica, New York, though? Utica, New York, since upstate New York.

Okay, so what happens if I live in New York City? You know, well, if you live in New York City, you do what you can. You might want to think about, do you have friends who live in the country? Here's what I would say, if I can jump in here. Here's what I would say. Here's what I would say. What percentage of America do you think needs to own a life insurance policy? I mean, anyone with kids or a business.

Okay, only 54% to 46% don't, right? Yeah. Some of them can't do it, some of them cannot do it, right? Okay. What percentage of rich people here live on the water? There's people that are water from property, most of it, a lot of these guys are your friends. Okay, they got houses in Miami, whatever, you know, beachfront, intercostal, whatever maybe.

Okay, great. Those guys are probably not going to have a you know bomb shelter with victory cartons in a backyard where they're living at But when a hurricane happens what did they do? What happens when a hurricane happens? Well, either they leave town. Okay. What happened? I've never been part of a hurricane in South Medea the day the weather was pretty crazy Yeah, but when a hurricane happens what most people doing Florida They put up their shutters and they just buckle down. Or some of them drive up, right?

They get out of dutch. Okay, they get out of dutch. So this isn't for 100% of people. The way I'm processing this, it's not for 100% of people. And to be honest with you, it lets you say you don't have a lot of money as a family. What I would do it in some like this to prepare for it is I would have the family collectively decide to get one. Look, your religion, your faith is what? You grew

up Judaism, right? I'm a Christian, right? I don't know what you grew up with yourself. I grew up around a lot of Mormons. I was in an insurance company, lots of guys there were Mormons. Oh, yes. Yeah. And one of the things that was very fascinating about the Church of Mormonism, okay, is they prepared their people a lot. I don't know how it is with Judaism. But I would go, nobody more suspicious and paranoid than Jews. Okay. So then then just know that. But then, but then, but how far do they take that?

Because at Mormons that I went with many of the people that were leaders, stake presidents, all this other stuff, they had in their homes, they were ready. That was one of the things that was very consistent. Is this in Utah? No, not in Utah. It wasn't, the Lodai California. It wasn't, you know, L.A.

It wasn't. And they were faced with It wasn't, you know, LA. It wasn't. The placements were in Atlanta. They were fully prepared for it. Then in case I'm in Atlanta, like, and I'm talking like in Cummings, Georgia, and not like, you know, they were ready for some like that. And these are not people. These are people that are like, Hey, if something happens, we're ready for it. This doesn't mean you go beat a, you know, a place that's very exotic and all this other

stuff. It's just something you build. By the way, can you pull up what I just sent you? Check this out. Dr. Pradhan, I don't know if you've seen this or not. So these are 11 luxury doomsday bunkers around the world. This is pretty weird, a little bit flamboyant. But one of them was very interesting.

Keep going lower. Keep going lower, these different designs. Okay, so this one's a little bit too much. Fine. This one's in Europe these different designs. Okay, so this one's a little bit too much. Fine, this one's in Europe, fully, okay. Yeah, that looks like that one movie with, what was that one movie with that one comedian years ago? From Encino, man, what's the guy's name? Paulie, sure, bio-dom.

Bio-dom, it looks like the bio-dom. Keep going. Sir, bio-dom, keep going. Watch this one, here. Watch this one here. That's insane. That's insane to me It's going down. It's not going up going down. It's a pen and 15 floors. So the pen house there would be the bottom floor Think about that like the age negative 15 keep going down keep going down keep going down

Trident Lake not familiar with this area, but there you go. That's another spot Las Vegas underground shelter doomsday bunkers. Look at this one. They got a pool there. They got a little house. Keep going down the aristocrat They got game rooms. Keep going lower the safe house. Keep going lower. Keep going lower. Keep going lower Okay, that one that one apparently goes up. So those those gates come up. This almost looks like from the movie purge by the way I am legend or I am legend. Yes. Yes, yes, that's right. Keep going, keep going a little bit more to see a couple other ideas. Okay, this is pretty interesting. This is bunk bed.

So that's like a military model. Keep going lower, keep going lower, it's a point. Lower, lower, lower, lower. Interesting shelters at the bottom. This is in West Virginia, global seat. Wow, that's cool. Go up a little bit. Where's that at?

Where's that at? Global seat vault to Doomsday bunkers. Huh, that's very interesting. Go a little lower and Norway, that makes sense. We got Kai that would be prepared for something like that. So Dr. Pry, to go back to, somebody listen to this and you said 3%, okay. To be in the top 3%, you have to make 250 a year, 200 a year, that's what the 3% okay to be in the top 3% you have to make 250 year 200 year. That's what the 3% makes because 1% are on 450 500

20% in 6 figures 3% you're around 250 year to be able to afford some like this right? What are some places? I follow up with your meeting that we had, I called a few friends, Kim, who are, to see what they would say. One of the guys I called on, who I'm gonna have on the podcast, if he feels comfortable about it, he'll talk about it. He said, yeah, absolutely,

I got a spot myself and I'm ready for it. He says, do you know your favorite podcast you've done all year? You know what you wanted to say? He's asking me, I said, no, who is it? He says, it's Dr. Peter Pry. You know how many people I've shared that with? I said, I don't have. And by the way, this is a guy that's a very well-known guy. The people know with this guy's. He says, that's a podcast. Everybody should watch because most

people are not ready for it. I said, okay, now what to, to, you know, put it in context, he's in his late 60s, early 70s. So he's living in a different phase of his life. But he said he's got a place in South Carolina. What are some of the common places that you're aware that people are buying nuclear shelters or doomsday shelters, whatever they call them? Is it specific or it's generally can be anywhere? I want to push back. Please.

On this idea that the preppers we're talking about, that the 3% that we're talking about are the 3% of the wealthiest Americans, that's not true. The 3% who are preppers, you know, include are probably mostly people of the middle class and even lower income brackets, you know, that do that. I suspect there are more of them because I think there's more common sense among the middle class and working class people more common sense among the middle class and working class people than there is among the millionaires and the billionaires. You know, actually don't disagree with you. I can't see them. It doesn't seem a little more paranoid than someone who's super successful. Common sense. And it doesn't count. Well, also people who live in rural

areas. And you know, there are a lot of Americans who supplement their income by hunting, okay, to get protein, because meat is so expensive. These are people who are still from that. They still have those pioneer virtues, okay, that we were talking about. That used to be virtues and the values that all Americans used to have up until about a generation ago when we started changing and becoming more trusting of the government and expecting government to take care of us.

There are a lot of Americans from working class and middle class backgrounds that still have the old-fashioned virtues that they inherited from their parents' generation. As did I. My father taught us to hunt and fish. He had never heard of the MP. But he did that because he had fed his family through the Great Depression by hunting woodchucks and fishing. And so that was part of preparedness. It's not just recreation. Similarly, now anybody, even people on a modest income can do something to prepare.

Stockpile food, stockpile, it doesn't cost a lot of money to stockpile canned beams are very inexpensive. All kinds of foods that are out there that are very inexpensive. The more you stockpile the better off you are. Have a medicine kit and know how to use it. Exercise some common sense. If you live in the middle of New York City, you might want to think about where are there still places that have the old 1950 civil defense signs? You know, what is the, what building has the deepest basement, you know, so that

if I was concerned about a fallout, and I don't want to stress that, you know, we're so terrified about radioactive fallout, actually, there's probably not going to be a lot of radioactive fallout, and that's probably not as big a threat as people are worried about because the cities are probably not going to be attacked. The adversary would make a counter-force attack. Maybe we should be talking a little about the basics of nuclear strategy, to educate people about what they're going to face. You know, basically the worst case, one of the worst case scenarios.

And this is a scenario I think that is being advocated to Putin right now as well. We didn't really talk about all the factions that are out there, but you know, another faction are people who still believe in, uh, field martial Vladimir, the Suckelovsky's, uh, approach that was written in the 1960s and that, and that any, any war, any begin, uh, you know, any use of nuclear weapons is going to

escalate to an all out war. So you might as well launch a preemptive first strike against all your adversaries, you know, and take out the nuclear forces of Britain and France and the United States to win the nuclear war right off the bat and go big if you're gonna go nuclear you go big And oh, this is the Sucka Lovsky theory and and I'm sure there are still people advocating that that's why they've built up a first strike capability with their strategic rocket forces. And that's one of the reasons Putin has been talking about the Satan II recently, which is their new first strike weapon. Okay, they've still got the Satan I, which is very effective. And you know, it could destroy probably well over 95% of our ICBM silos, but a Russian

counter force attack. There are two kinds of attacks we think of in nuclear strategy. One is a counter force attack, where you're trying to disarm your adversary by destroying his nuclear forces, and then there's the counter value attack, where you go after cities and industrial areas and the population centers. Almost certainly, you know, they would, if, if they went big and the Suckelowski faction, uh, winds out, they would be, they would, they would, uh, execute the counter force attack, uh, you

know, they don't want to attack cities initially in that first wave because you want to hold the city's hostage to force your adversary to surrender. And so what do they need to attack our, to execute a counter-force attack? They can do it with 500 warheads. This is the equivalent to 50 Satan 1. Sight 50 Satan 1 ICBMs could deliver 500 highly accurate nuclear weapons that would destroy the 440 ICBM silos and launch control facilities, the three strategic bomber bases, and the two ballistic missile submarine bases.

And that would destroy almost all of our nuclear weapons, except for those that are on the ballistic missile submarines at sea, you know, on patrol. Typically, we have a third to a half of the submarines at sea on patrol. It's more like a third these days because the Ohio class submarine is so old. You know, and that's about, you know, about 400 weapons that we would have out there at sea, you know, that we would have surviving. Now what are you going to do with those 400 weapons? Go attack empty ICBM silos in Russia, vacant bomber bases, ballistic missile submarines that are no longer

in port on their side, impervious deep underground shelters, and then you'll have no nuclear weapons at all left after you've used up those 400. That will leave our cities open and exposed to attack, and we would have no recourse but to surrender or see our population destroyed. You know, the logical thing, the reason we have the ballistic missile submarines on patrol is they are a secure reserve. They're not supposed to be used except to deter the adversary from attacking our cities. So that attack, you see, that'd basically be able to, if you pull that off and destroy our forces, it would leave them free to commit aggression against our allies and have their way with the rest of the world.

And threaten our adversary cities and conquer the world that way, except the United States would be saving our cities and at least be safe for the time as long as we had those that handful of submarines on patrol out there. So that's how the logic of how nuclear force would work. Because they're trying to limit collateral damage to the civilian population, the survival of our civilian population is an important strategic asset to them. They don't want to maximize casualties. They want to limit the casualties.

Their object is to destroy those ICBMs and their silos, which are all located in very low population areas, by the way. The ballistic, the same thing with the Air Force bases. There's only three of them. And they would do things like, uh, uh, do low altitude bursts when you're using your nuclear weapon, because this maximizes the overpressure, the blast effect, which is what destroys a nice, be upsell or destroys a bomber base. But, and the blast effect, it's called an optimum burst height, okay?

The higher up you go, the bigger that, and more effective, that blast wave is. And this, it happens to be good from a perspective of limiting collateral damage to the civilian population. Because as long as the fireball doesn't touch the ground, you're not going to get any or very little nuclear fallout and radioactivity. So the counter force attack will not generate a lot of fallout and radioactivity. So the counterforce attack will not generate a lot of fallout radioactivity. So people don't have to have nuclear bunkers or even worry about going into some deep basement in New York City, if you happen to live in New York City.

Those are good things to do. It's a good thing to scout that out. I'm not saying you shouldn't have nuclear bunkers. I mean, if you can afford it, that's great. But what I am saying is that for the average person or even people that don't have a lot of money, there is a lot of things you can afford it, that's great. But what I am saying is that for the average person, or even people that don't have a lot of money, there's a lot of things you can do, little inexpensive things that would significantly increase such an...

Such as... Such as... Such as storing food, you know, putting aside maybe 1% of your budget. How many... How much canned food can you put away? Having a water supply, having a medicine kit, knowing how to use it. Do you have friends who have a place in the country so that you might be able to work out a survival plan with them, where you're going to be able to get to them somehow? How big is your shelter that you have? I'm not asking specifics, but it's something that can it fit 15 people of family members

or? I don't have an underground shelter. underground or you don't have an underground shelter. Okay. I used to in my place in Maryland, but this is a new, you know, so you're a little more optimistic right now than you used to be. I wouldn't say that. I'd say I'm less optimistic, but I'm, it's not a question of optimism, but the, then why don't you have one? You know, well, because I think that that's the last thing you really need. You know, I'd rather put the money into stockpiling food, raising chickens.

You know, I don't think Raydo act to fall out, but bunkering yourself. I think this is based on a myth. I just explained how a counter-first attack would work. No, no, I totally get what you said. I get what you said. And you actually, I'm hoping Putin doesn't watch his podcast because your other podcast was translated into Russian and our Russian channel,

that's got a few hundred thousand subscribers. But so what I'm asking you is the following. So you, in your mind This is how I process it feel free to push back if you don't have a shelter at this point of your life And you are probably wealthier today that you can afford it versus when you used to be in Maryland today You could probably get a shelter if you wanted to Is it because you think it's more likely for us to have a? Is it because you think it's more likely for us to have a super EMP attack before a nuclear attack?

Is that kind of how you, I think it's much more likely that we would have a super EMP attack. That's why cyber attack and that that faction is arguing for Vladimir Putin's ear and trying to get him to listen to them instead of going to a nuclear war. Yeah, so okay so but but but my but the reason i don't have my shelter anymore is has not because i'm more optimistic today i don't have my shelter because the abama administration punished me for criticizing their national security policies and cancelled my defense contracts okay so i couldn't afford my farm in meroland and the and the state of Maryland in 2008

Raise the taxes on people who had farms so high The people who had been living there for 300 years had to sell their farms and give them a little reason Well, you don't know that is the reason if I if I had not If I had not had to give up my farm in Maryland I would definitely still have it today. I had a shelter in that farm that could have survived a one megaton attack happening relatively close by. The house was designed to survive that and it was a better setup. But I ended up like a lot of people coming out of that so that i'm not as prosperous today as i used to be thanks to the abomin

administration and uh... you know and financially i never came back to that so i'm doing the best i can i'm not a with rich guy i'm doing the best i can with what i what i've got i'm very uh... i'm satisfied uh... you know with uh... with what i've with what i've done that we's new farm where we're setting up is actually further away from Washington, because I'm less optimistic that Washington isn't going to get nuked than I was before.

I've moved my family to a, what I think is a safer location. So before the closer you are to Washington, safer you are now, you're thinking the further you are from Washington, the safer you are. Yeah. Well, I never thought that the closer you were, the safer you were. I always thought that the closer you were to Washington,

the more in danger you are. You know, that's a, you know, that's what an unbiden doesn't make you feel safe. No, no, no, he doesn't. Nor does the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Miley. You know, I think we've got one of the least competent and most dangerous administrations where nuclear war is concerned that we've ever had.

You know, they genuinely believe that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. And that's patently untrue, but it emboldens them to take risks that previous, more responsible administrations would not take. I think their whole Ukraine policy is based on the fact that there's a lot of people in the Biden administration that really think, oh, Putin agrees with us that a nuclear war cannot be fought and cannot be won and must never be fought.

And therefore, we can go as far as we want in Ukraine. We can push Putin out of power and prevail over Russia at a conventional level of the terrain. And we won't have to worry about a nuclear war because Putin isn't crazy. And he understands that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. That is false. That's a very dangerous assumption. But the people in charge of us now, in charge of our national security, actually believe that.

What did the previous administration under President Trump? How did you feel? You said you don't feel very safe under Biden or General Milley under Trump and his administration? Did you feel any different? Oh yeah, I felt a lot more safe, you know, a whole name because of Trump's personality. You know, he was no fool. He didn't say things like, you know, nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. His nonetheless, even under President Trump, the president would make certain claims that

weren't true. You know, such as what? Well, for example, that America, that our military has never been stronger and we're better prepared now than we ever have been. That's not true. Because he had been increasing defense budgets. It takes a long time. President Trump was doing the right things. I mean, he was investing money in modernizing our nuclear triad, okay? But under President Trump, you know, when we'd get the impression that

we spent all this defense money, that therefore our triad was stronger and better. It wasn't, you know, all of the all of the nuclear submarines and bombers and missiles and all of the warheads on all of those systems are 30, 40 years old. They go back to the Reagan administration and President Trump didn't change that. You know, it's going to take a long time to modernize the triad. And we're not going to get new systems coming online until a decade from now, into the 2030s. Okay. Now, I'm not criticizing President Trump for making those statements. I think as the president, it was important for him to make those statements, because nuclear deterrence in a lot of ways is based on a big bluff You know, you know

By him saying things like that and asserting that and threatening our adversaries They didn't know what to make of him. I actually think that his personality that strong patriotic personality that potential Unpredictability that was a lot to say. Yeah, you know unpredictable. Yeah, that's the word I was about to say. You know, unpredictability. Oh yeah, that's powerful. Detert them, okay? Some people might call it erratic though. Well, when you're facing a situation where the adversary has all these advantages,

you know, anything that deters them and makes them pause, you know, is a good thing, including that erratic behavior. If he's unpredictable, aka erratic, you know, interchangeable, interchangeable, in some capacity, regardless, the enemy doesn't know what to make of it. Is that what you're saying? The enemy could, you know, would have, the enemy would not, was not confident, I think, under President Trump. uh... you know would have the enemy would not was not confident i think under president trump that this

guy might not himself launch a nuclear first strike if he thought yeah america was endangered one you could easily see president trump doing anything necessary to defend the united states will including striking first and that scared that perhaps so that so that they they were on more but that's why they didn't invade Ukraine think about this question what is the opposite of unpredictable give me another word no it's not no type in unpredictable

synonym level headed unpredictable what is so it's a very simple word just take a you and out predict the opposite of unpredictable it's predictable yeah, I mean, and I'm not even American. I mean, I wasn't born here. The opposite of predictable, it's unpredictable. It's predictable. And when it comes down to war, the last thing you wanna be is what, predictable. Here's what's crazy.

Isn't it crazy that the guy that the world thought was gonna start World War III, the world was at peace? And the guy that thought that was gonna bring world peace is created in the world into mayhem. Everybody thought Biden was gonna bring a lot of peace. It's been a shit show when it comes on to safety. And everybody thought Trump was gonna bring war. The only place it was a shit show was on Twitter,

okay, when he was here. To me, okay, so let's, if you have a follow-up, I can go with other questions if you don't have a follow-up form. But you have a follow-up question on that topic or so. On Trump or on what? So then let me continue. So I would go to this with you. So, you know, historically, which political party typically likes war? It's fine. Which political party?

Are you saying the Republicans, the Warhawk, but typically not asking you? What would you say, historicity? I hopefully neither party likes war. No, that's not true though. That's not true historically. The Republican. Okay, so people will typically say,

you know, when it comes down to the Republican party is like, feigning war. Like even if you watch the movie, vice the way they build Dick Cheney and you know what he did to get all those contracts. Okay, cool. So I rack all of that. Now, if you go back, if you go back to Bush,

can somebody say, well, that was true? That was the case, right? There was a lot of war. Okay, if you go to Obama, we have wars during Obama. How was under Obama? What is it? ISIS, a war, like yes. Every day we feared ISIS, right? I mean ISIS was like, I think. A lot of How was under Obama with ISIS? I think ISIS award, I guess.

Every day we feared ISIS, right? I mean ISIS was like, I think. A lot of that was the media though, just like COVID. But no, no, but that the media is on his side that's talking ISIS, that's his side. It's not 99% of the media loved an adored Obama. So if the media is talking about it, it's real because Obama was president,

not because somebody on the opposite side was president. So you can't confuse the two. And then you bring to Trump, the four years is pretty quiet. Nothing really happens. Palestine and, you know, Kushner does what he does. And then you have now Biden. So this is the question I got for you is you're Putin, the guy that you're saying one of his advisors, the general, hey, why don't we do a super EMP on Ukraine and maybe even NATO. You were talking about that earlier, like 40 minutes ago. And you know, but at the same time, again, you know, let's go into the mind of Putin today. Biden just gave Ukraine $40 billion.

It's public, you know, so we're gonna support Ukraine. And Biden's become a friend of Ukraine. A lot of people on the media support that decision. They say that was a good move to be made. NATO is defending anybody against Russia, almost everybody against Russia. How is Putin sitting there saying these guys don't fear me? Because if you look at that picture between these two guys, you got Trump and Putin, okay? What do both of them have in common? Both of them, if there's an area they're competing in, is which man is more unpredictable to impose fear.

Okay? Would you agree with that? Both of them are in a way unpredictable. Right? Now you want the guy that's unpredictable to be on your side. The guy that's unpredictable, that's not on your side. You don't like that. But if the guy is unpredictable and he's on your side, you're good with that. Both of these guys are unpredictable. How is an unpredictable Putin process, $40 billion being given to Ukraine and public humiliation and he's sitting there saying, well, you know, maybe we'll take a little bit more. Maybe they're gonna finally figure out

that I'm a good guy and what do you think he's thinking right now? How much more can he sit there and keep taking all the support that Ukraine is getting rather than leaving that alone? Okay, before I answer that, yeah, I just like to clarify what I said about President Trump before, because I'm a Trump admirer. I don't want that being misconstrued. You know, we had started off, you know, because I don't want to misunderstood that I was criticizing

President Trump when I said, well, he said that our military was the strongest in the world when that was not so. It is the case that if you look at our forces and what was done, there's no way that in the four years of the Trump administration, we could have gone, we could have modernized our nuclear forces so quickly. It wasn't true that we had the strongest military in the world. Nuclear forces certainly were still far behind, and our military forces were not prepared yet to fight a peer competitor at conventional level.

But I support President Trump saying those things because he's the president. What is he supposed to say? Oh, our nuclear forces are far inferior to those of Russia. But I'm spending money and I hope that in 30 years we can catch up with them. That wouldn't be a prudent thing for President to say. Presidents has always got to say we're the strongest, we're the best, we can beat anybody. So from a military technical and analytical point of view, those things weren't literally true.

But in terms of what presidents are supposed to do yes uh... you know i'm i'm glad president trump is saying that he's not just communicating the american people all the bad guys in the world are listening to him and if they had the sense that all this guy is admitting publicly that america's week you know you don't want to do that by the name effect is doing this now uh... when he decides

uh... you know that uh... that we're going to cancel the split over the protests of all of the over the pentagon you know that he's defunded the slick amanda C launched cruise missile nuclear was our only hope to catch up with russia in terms of our tactical nuclear weapons and he's also canceled the b83 nuclear bomb you know which is the only weapon that uh... it's the our last megaton class weapon that had

some kind of a chance of driving a shock wave that could destroy command bunkers. In Russia, he canceled that in the middle of this profound nuclear crisis over Ukraine. What kind of signal is that sent in them? It tells them that he's afraid of nuclear weapons or indifferent to the nuclear balance to such an extent that even in this kind of, he's defunding and canceling some of our best weapons. So, having said that, how does Putin processing $40 billion sent to Ukraine? Well, you know, we know how he's processing it. He's basically telling his people that the war in Ukraine is not just a war against Ukraine, but that Ukraine is a proxy war

being waged by the United States and NATO against Russia. And he's basically saying, you see, I was right to invade Ukraine, even though things aren't going well, I was right because Ukraine, in effect, is a defacto member of NATO. And these guys are planning to use the Ukraine to try to destroy Russia. They're doing it now. You know, all this nonsense that we didn't have to worry about NATO and Ukraine is proven false because they're basically treating Ukraine as a de facto NATO member. Now, they're afraid enough of afraid of us because of our nuclear capabilities that they're not willing to directly engage Russian troops there. But this proves that I was right and that we have to prevail in Ukraine because this

poses an existential threat in effect we're in World War III right now. World War III is being waged against Russia via Ukraine as a proxy war. And the Russian people are listening to this. Putin is far more popular among the Russian people now than Biden is among the American people. He has tremendous support for prosecuting that war and winning it. And I think as I as we discussed in the last program, what is Putin going to do? You know, we don't the fog of war is so thick over Ukraine. You know, we don't really know, you know, just how bad is the situation for Russia and for

Putin internally. We're almost all the information we're getting is coming from the Ukrainians on the battlefield and from a Biden administration that wants to make the Russians look as bad as possible. Because Biden doesn't want the narrative to be about, Biden throwing away 60 years of U.S. national security credibility on the international stage when you drew that line in the sand and told Putin, do not invade Ukraine and then Russian tanks rolled right over it. You know, he doesn't want the conversation Biden administration doesn't want the conversation to be about that. They wanted to be about how badly the Russians are doing allegedly doing maybe in reality

doing so badly, you know, in Ukraine and therefore, you you know the politics are not so bad for videnna from that from that perspective but but go to proxy words aren't proxy words supposed to be like people don't know you're doing a proxy world or also it's not a proxy world if it's public it's no longer proxy you're taking side so you understand what i'm saying when I see? So, let's just say if you are saying US is doing a proxy, we're using Ukraine against Russia. US is Ukraine versus when sometimes they would use Iraq, Iran, they would use these surrounding countries

and behind closed doors, they're supporting one of the countries, but not everybody knows about it. That's the right way to do proxy, not a public proxy war. Well, it depends how you define a proxy war. There have been our proxy wars where a country will want it to be done clandestinely so that it can have plausible deniability. For example, Iran's support of the Houthis in Yemen is a proxy war like that, where they say, we're not supporting the Houthis. All of this stuff is, you know, even though they're supplying arms

and the North Koreans are in there too, helping them with the pivings. Sorry, Arabians. It's good, to scud missiles right against Saudi Arabia. But that's very well known. You're saying that was supposed to be clandestine? At the time though. At the time.

Well, they still. At the words, it's well known. I feel like there's a lot of proxy wars that are out in the open. I mean, look at what's going on in Gaza, Israel, I mean, Well, they still words. It's like there's a lot of proxy words that are out in the open. I mean, look at what's going on in Gaza, Israel, I mean, Palestine, Iran, everyone. I mean, that's very well known. The Vietnam War. Libya, Vietnam. Okay. The Vietnam War, the Soviet Union, the supply. I think the intention is what you're saying is to keep it on the DL. No, but if you're doing it the way we're doing it, we're not just supporting Ukraine.

We're anti-Russia. We are anti, like we are Ukraine. But so is the entire EU. I just, I totally agree, but what I'm saying here is, this is not the proper way of doing the proxy work. Well, just say, we are gonna defend these guys because we're not gonna do anything to work with Russia. We're not gonna have a conversation with Russia to try to figure out a way to eliminate

this war slow down the war or play a synergy just to say listen, can we figure out a way to make this work? No, we don't want to do that. He's the next this and you saw when Biden wanted, we have to get rid of him and then he'd slip up and then they come back and correct him. That was what? Three, four months ago when he said that. He only says that because that's talked about behind closed doors. You don't say that and have a slip up and then they come back and correct them. That was what, three, four months ago when he said that, he only says that because that's talked about behind closed doors. You don't say that and have a slip up if it's not something that's being talked about.

People don't have slip ups like that. So it's no longer proxy in my opinion. I get what you're saying when a proxy is using somebody else to go to it. It's wide open right now and Putin knows it. So if you ever thought about negotiating with Putin and saying Putin, but we're trying to make this work, and we want to figure out a way to compromise, this is not fair. We're losing, you know, people are dying.

Innocent kids are being, you know, you don't want that on your, you know, hands that that's on you. Nope. That argument is down. But Putin's not going to sit down with you and negotiate today because, and if he does, everything you say, he doesn't believe anything that comes out of your mouth am I wrong? I I think you might be wrong okay I hope I'm because we haven't tried to explore that you know before russia invaded Ukraine and I'm not quibble over whether it's a proxy war not I mean I I think one can argue that it is a proxy war in the sense that Russian and US troops are not directly engaged with each other.

And that's what I mean when I'm talking about a proxy war. And that's what most people, yeah, that's a good thing. But I also agree with you that certainly from the Russian perspective and from the NATO perspective in terms of what we're Russian perspective and from the NATO perspective in terms of what we're saying publicly and all the rest, our objective does seem to be to try to achieve regime change in Russia through the Ukraine. I mean, Senator Lindsey Graham, for example, has called for providing no exit for Russia out of this and that we're going to stay in this thing to the end. And there are some analysts expecting extraordinary results, you know, from this, that, for example,

the Putin could fall from power, that we could force the Russians to give a ball of their tactical nuclear weapons, that Russia will have to return all of the conquered territories from Ukraine, which I think is unrealistic and extremely dangerous to expect those outcomes. This from people who before the invasion happened was expecting Russia to run over Ukraine in 72 hours. When your intelligence is so wrong, that ought to give you pause about whether you should be involved in the war when your intelligence is so wrong. Because I think it's wrong wrong again, having these very unrealistic

expectations. But um, the Russians offered a peace treaty, a six point peace treaty before they invaded Ukraine. And I have argued, uh, I think, I think we could, uh, win the new Cold War in Ukraine by negotiating a peace with Russia, offering to negotiate peace with Russia. Are we doing that? No, we're not.

Why are we not doing that? Because the Biden administration claims they did, but they didn't seriously try to negotiate that piece. Okay? negotiate that piece. I think that because the Biden administration is listening to people who think that they can win the new Cold War against Russia by defeating Russia, I think they have a very short sight. Things are going well right now in Ukraine and they want to keep pumping arms in there to make things as bad

for the Russians as possible. And hope that maybe some of these really extraordinary developments that they're hoping for that might be Putin will fall from power, or at least we'll give Russia such a bloody nose in Ukraine that the Chinese will be deterred from trying to invade Taiwan because the same thing will happen to them and and and that and that if we can use Ukraine the proxy if you're crane to really inflict a serious defeat on the Russians that it'll keep the Russians pacified and in their cage

you know for years to come and therefore This is it's worth doing this and it's worth taking these risks to do that. And we're not really taking risks anyway because everyone knows a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. And so Putin's nuclear threats are not going to be acted upon. And I think that that's a very shallow, dangerous policy that we're following that assumes that Russia will not resort to nuclear or EMP or cyber warfare in a large scale against NATO, Europe, or against the United States itself in order to prevail.

It's also based on the premise that Russia is really on the ropes in a deeply serious way, and that might not be true. We don't know that that is true at all. I mean Russia has been fighting this war with one hand, you know, with its left arm and its right arm tied behind its back. You know, they've only committed really a relatively small fraction of their forces despite what's being said in the newspapers and all the rest. You know, they have not fully mobilized to fight this war. Even John Bolton, who wants us to do what the Biden administration is doing and wants to have this war, a big war against Russia.

Even John Bolton is talking about, well, you know, we need to be prepared to fight a war against Russia. He's calling the 30 to 100 years war, Because Putin and not just Putin, but he believes the Russian elites that this isn't just Putin's war, but that the Russian elites who want to restore the Russian Empire, that this is a main, that they consider this essential,

to their long-term geopolitical survival, to reconstitute the old USSR, including taking over Ukraine and that they are going to be willing to fight 30 to 100 years in Ukraine in order to achieve that objective. So we have to be prepared. And I think, for example, you just take that one thing. Are we going to be prepared to fight Russia for 30 to 100 years in order to win the Ukraine

war? I don't think war. I don't think. Credibility does John Bolton have today. Aside from the fact that, you know, anytime he's willing to trash Trump, you know, the media wants to bring him on. But when you make a comment like this, what does the average person think when they read this? How much credibility do you give this guy when somebody like him writes that Putin's 30 or 100 year war for Ukraine? Like that's what we got to do. Who's going to

bind to that? By the way, can you pull up the New York Times article? You know, when he says, you know, Putin's popularity is increasing, you're thinking, well, how do we know that? Go to the one I just texted you. I said, this to one face with no, go to this this to one or no, face with pressure. Is this the one? Yeah, look at that one. Go a little lower. Look what his popularity is if you go a little lower.

Uh, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop. Okay, second paragraph. 83% of Russians said they approve of Mr. Putin's actions up from 69% in January, according to Paul by Lavada Centered and dependent pollster and Moscow, ratings of many other government institutions as well as governing party Have also gone up. This is being written by the most liberal paper in America to say 83% like if there's anything They would need to write a propaganda would be the fact that even the Russian people don't agree with their leader

Which is Putin so It is one of the most pro-Biden papers in America. So, yeah, far, far left. I mean, supporting anything that's, you know, Wall Street Journal would be in the middle. These, maybe, center right. These guys are far left. Why, why aren't the Russian people so supportive of them? Why aren't the Russian people so supportive of them? And at the same time, if these guys at 83%, you know, well, Biden's right now at 39%. Why aren't the Russian people so supportive of them?

And why are so many American people not supportive of Biden? Well, let me go to answer your John Bolton question. First, I didn't want to just pass it by that. Well, who would take John Bolton seriously? You know, most people in Washington would, the establishment Republicans would, you know, the people who didn't like a lot of them who didn't like Trump, even those who did support Trump. I have, I have long been an admirer of John Bolton, although I disagree with him

on a lot of things. You know, he had, he does have a, a keen analytical mind, you know, he had he does have a keen analytical mind, you know, you know, he has deep due strategic insights into into matters, which is why despite his combative personality, uh, right that has, uh, that often gets him in trouble in positions that he's held, uh, held in government that he has been respected with at help held you know high posts like that so there are a lot of people that would take and should take john bolton uh... seriously uh... now i uh... i am i am more of a trump fan that i am of a b-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-a-b-a-b-a-b-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b-a-b- supporter and I fundamentally disagree with Bolton on a lot of things. I think his analysis, for example, his recommendations, his prescription for Ukraine doesn't flow logically from his

own analysis. I mean, I find it impossible to imagine. I mean, I think it's a certainty that if we try to engage in a war for Ukraine for 30 to 100 years, that we would lose, you know, NATO and the United States don't have the political will, or we don't have national tried to engage in a war for Ukraine for 30 to 100 years that we would lose. NATO and the United States don't have the political will, or we don't have national interests invested in Ukraine that are so serious that we would be building to fight with Russia for 30 to 100 years to prevail. But nonetheless, that's what he wants us to do. We didn't have the political will to impose our, the outcome on Afghanistan that we wanted against the Taliban, who are not nearly as formidable and adversary as the Russians are.

So there's a disconnect here. I often see between a lot of what, you know, Bolt and Argus, he would answer me back by saying in this article, he says, we have to prevail in Ukraine because Ukraine is Poland in 1939. And if we don't prevail, you know, there's going to be a World War III that this is going to have, in fact, he does say this in the article that the reverberations of any kind of a Russian victory in Ukraine are going to be so profound that China, North Korea, and Iran and Russia itself will be encouraged to continue aggression and we're going to find ourselves in World War III.

So this is our Polish 1939 moment. We got to step up. We got to stop him for achieving victory. And I say to that, this is not the time and place we can win. If you don't want a World War III, don't go into some situation where you're almost guaranteed to lose. You know, we're guaranteed to lose at a conventional level because we can't fight a 30 to 100 years war.

And Russia is not going to fight for a third of 100 years. They're going to use EMP, cyber, nuclear, you know, to quickly win the war. And we're not prepared for any of that. You know, we need time to rebuild, to really build and modernize our nuclear deterrent. We need time to build our general purpose forces so that we can prevail in a World War 3 if that becomes necessary. And we most especially need time to find competent political and military leadership.

Can you imagine Joe Biden and General Miley leading us into a World War III? We're going to lose just based on the leadership, the terrible leadership we have now. We need competent political and military leadership so that we can prevail. Who wants America to get weaker? Outside of, forget about the enemies. What I'm talking about is the name that comes up often is what are your thoughts about world economic forum in the world health organizations

and these organizations that kind of stand alone and yeah, they're here for the world and you'll hear the name coming up with Klaus Schwab and where he's at and what he's trying to do and you know the new world order. What do you stand with that when you hear that? Well the left and the globalists want America to get weaker. You know that's been a divide. I think that wasn't really appreciated until Trump came along. Okay? You know, with his America First Policy, which is anathema to establishment Washington. That's because these people aren't nationalists.

They're globalists. They want to use American power. They want to use America as an engine to realize a globalist world order, you know, that's dominated by super-national institutions, like the United Nations and the World Corts and World Economic Forums and the elites who run these things will be making the decisions for us. Whenever they try to encourage us, and most of the wars that we've been fighting in recent decades have this globalist agenda, you know, the war in Ukraine, the reason we're there is because we want people to think, we want the nations to think that warfare is obsolete.

That in the 21st century, you can't fight wars and you shouldn't be acting on national interests. The way Russia is, okay, that you need to subordinate your concept of national interests to this larger agenda. The globalists believe and the left that nationalism is evil. You know that it is responsible for the wars of the past and the way of getting to a peaceful, ordered world is by subordinate, subordinate in nationalism. And maybe evolving past it altogether, the concept of the world citizen. That's why our borders are wide open, okay? Because that implies a nationalism that implies, know old fashioned nation states they want open borders uh... they want super

national institutions running everything and uh... a lot of the wars that don't make sense to most americans because most americans are nationalists and are america for our are are are and they say why are we in afghanistan why are we in a rock uh... the rationalization there are rationalizations that are concocted uh... to appeal to them and say well we're in Afghanistan because of the war on terrorism because we don't want the bad guys to come and attack the united states again from Afghanistan and that was the route

rationalization there and the rationalization for going into Ukraine, our involvement to Ukraine is, well, we don't want Russia and China to attack our allies and US interests in World War III. And that makes sense to a lot of America. It makes enough sense so that we've been willing to support wars like that, okay? But is that the real reason the elites are going into these wars? No, that's not the real reason. The real reason is these globalist explanations, the idea that any nation that violates another nation's sovereignty has to be punished.

Therefore America is going to be the world policeman on behalf of these supernatural institutions enforcing, you know, this new globalist world order. And that's why that's why the Biden administration and the European Union and the NATO alliance, that's why they're in Ukraine. It's because of the of these. So we have elites who use nationalist rationalizations to convince the people to try to convince the people, yeah, we need to stay and keep staying in Afghanistan

forever and forever. But you can also see a lot of the agenda there, for example, in Afghanistan. I mean, how was it serving our interests to want to turn Afghanistan Afghanistan not only to quell the Taliban, okay, but we were trying to turn them into a feminist secular democracy, okay? And have the values of the globalists imposed on a country like Afghanistan, which is clearly an impossible thing to do. And, you know, Afghanistan is, you know,

it never went through the enlightenment, it never went through the renaissance, it didn't have an industrial, and none of the historical things happened to make it that happened in Western Europe to make possible a democratic secular feminist democracy, you know, and yet, you know, nation building, you know, the notion of nation building itself is really globalist nation building, you know, building the

nation with value systems that are embraced by the globalists. So you've got to, this is the dilemma. And I think Americans are waking up to it, that their leaders, despite what they say to them about their agenda, you know, in these countries where they appeal to our patriotism, to get involved in a war, that really they have ulterior motives that have to do with globalist interests that are not the same and are oftentimes opposed to what US vital national interests are. And I think Ukraine is a great example of that.

You know, the vital national interest of national interest of the United States right now is to not get in a nuclear war with Russia that could destroy the United States. That's more important than anything. But our policy is acting like that doesn't matter at all. And that we can just keep doing and pushing and why. And that's because American national interests are not first and foremost in Ukraine. It's the globalist agenda.

Russia's got to be punished for trying to protect its national interest. What it perceives is its national interests and its empire building in Ukraine. And they've got to be brought to heel. And what is a solution to just stay out of the way and let them, is a solution, let them do whatever they want to do with Ukraine. And we do nothing.

Is that the solution? Well, in the end, we may not be able to have any control. But my solution, what I think we should do, Biden, I think, should do, you know, by Biden, I think should mobilize US nuclear forces and put them at least on DEF CON3, right? Even though Putin put his nuclear forces on alert back in February 27th, okay? You know, historically, whenever the Russians have done that, we increase, we mobilize our forces so that they're in a more survivable posture.

We have no choice. We're supposed to do that because we don't want them to be able to do nuclear pearl harbor on us. But the Biden administration has broken precedent and has left our forces at DEF CON-5, which is the lowest readiness level. They're saying, well, we don't see an evidence that the Russians have really mobilized their forces, which is a lie because there's actually all kinds of evidence that Putin has mobilized those forces and those forces actually don't even have to be all that mobilized because the Russian

strategic forces are designed to make a surprise attack 24-7 all the time. There's a condition called constant combat readiness. And so when conditions exist where Russia has it may have a reason to launch a surprise nuclear attack, we need to mobilize our forces to a survivable posture. So one of the first things I would do is I would mobilize those forces, at least to Defcon 3, so that it would make it harder for them to do a nuclear pearl harbor. You know, we're offering their next to them right now. And then I would immediately inform Putin and say, we're mobilizing our forces.

You've left us no choice. We've got to do it because you mobilized your forces. And we've exercised great patience. You know, we've been waiting for you to come down with with your forces, but you haven't. So we're not planning to attack you, but you've left us no choice. Okay. And neither of us wants to have a nuclear world war. You know, so let's try to eliminate the problem and negotiate a peace in Ukraine right now and we and and I'm willing to negotiate with you on the basis

of the peace treaty that you had offered to the United States and NATO Europe before you invaded Ukraine. Let's go back and we'll negotiate. I'm not going to say that we're going to give you all your points, but there are many points in that peace treaty that are just as much in our interests as they are in NATO's interests, excuse me, in Russia's interests. For example, not bringing Ukraine into NATO. Yes, we're going to give you that. We're not going to expand NATO further eastward, so all these partnerships for peace countries

that are, because Oxstein, Tajikistan, Kurdistan, you know, all these countries that are on the way to becoming NATO members, you know, because they're in a partnership for peace. We're going to give you that. Those are examples of things that I would readily agree to in the treaty. So there's a lot that could be given up. And I would try to use the negotiations beyond achieving peace in Ukraine. I would try to use the negotiations to hit the reset button with relations with Russia, you know, because our real objective should be to split the Russian Chinese alliance.

You know, we face the most formidable block of military and economic power that we've ever faced in our history, this new access that comprises, not just Russia and China, United, but North Korea and Iran too. They're all part of this anti-Western block. And I don't think we can win a new Cold War or a World War III against that block of power. They have not only do they have the economic and military advantages, but they have the advantage of political will. These are the totalitarian and authoritarian states.

They've been willing to sacrifice millions of their own people, building socialism. They would be willing to sacrifice far more people than we would to win a world war three against us. We don't want to get into that situation. So we need to, we need to, we need to split that Russian Chinese alliance as a way of pulling the world whole world back from the edge of a war and turn it into a new Cold War, a competition that's economic, diplomatic, and political, not a military confrontation.

And so I would use the negotiations over Ukraine to try to hit the reset button with Russia and make them at least neutral, okay, in the new Cold War with China, or even a strategic partner. Because I think Putin was willing to do that during the Trump administration. I think Putin knows that in the long run, China is a bigger threat to Russia than the West, and that he's better off. Putin knows that.

I think he knows that. I think it's obvious when you look at world war four. Or war, exactly. Well, what's obvious is that Russia has a shared border with China as a diminishing population and a diminishing economy. China is greedy for the natural resources, including in Siberia and territory. I think Putin knows that the Russians are chess players, you know, that after World War

3, suppose there is a World War 3 and that defeat us, okay? There's going to be a World War 4 and that's going to be between the new access. Russia and China will confront each other in that World War IV. And I don't think Putin wants that. I think he'd rather be a strategic partner with the West and avoid both a World War III and a World War IV if possible, if he could hit that reset button and have us as a partner to protect Russia against China. And I think Putin, all through the Trump administration, was waiting for Trump to hit the reset button.

That was their plan. That was what General Flynn was advising before he got fired over that nonsense. But Trump was not ever in a position politically we could make it happen the democrat party you know made it impossible for president trump to do this to take this step that was vital to our national security to try to hit the reset button with russia you know their clikki was in a being put in spuppet and uh... and uh... and uh... and uh... and it wasn't politically possible for him to do it.

But we could do it if we were now if we were negotiating over Ukraine, we'd try to protect Ukrainian interests as much as we could. It helps that the Ukraine apparently has been prevailing in a lot of these areas. I don't think that we're gonna be able to to get, you know, the Don Boss back any areas that the Russians actually control, you know, Ukraine might have to resign itself

to become in a rump state. And in the long run, you know, you create, it may not be possible to save Ukraine at all, you know, because Russia is going to consider it a vital geostrategic interest of its but at least temporarily you know uh... you know and uh... uh... at least temporarily uh... because ukraine has had good fortune in the war you know

we would have been able to buy some time for your crane but my concern it's not ukraine you know america has no vital interest in in Ukraine except avoiding the nuclear war with Russia. And gaining, and if we can turn lemons into lemonade and gain a strategic partnership with Russia, our vital interest is avoiding nuclear war with Russia and getting them to be a neutral or a strategic partner in the new Cold War with China so that we can prevail in the new Cold War with China or World War

3 if that becomes necessary. And that's what I would do. And I think people would be surprised that despite all of the rhetoric and all the rest, all the angst over the Ukraine war, I think we might be pleasantly surprised at how quickly Russia is willing to, and they might even be willing to make temporary, very significant concessions over Ukraine in order to have that strategic partnership with the West so that they're not in a doomed partnership with China. Partnership with China is ultimately going to doom Russia even if they win World War

3 because they won't probably win World War Four against China. And by the way, that's why China is rapidly building up its nuclear forces. You know, right now China needs Russia because Russia is the dominant nuclear power in the world by far. But China is building up nuclear capabilities so that by or before 2030, they will be a nuclear challenge to Russia. Those nuclear weapons, I think, are aimed, they are aimed at us, but I think China is thinking about World War 4.2.

Is Russia helping China build nuclear weapons or giving them any supplies? They have been. The whole, and that's just one of the reasons I think we'd be able to do a deal with Putin, because I think he's Russia not just Putin. They're probably disappointed in what they've gotten back from China because China went from pretty much a militarily backward country that we were all that concerned about, but in a couple of decades they've been built into a peer competitor with the United States, both with conventional forces, modern Navy, modern Army, modern Air Force, and now they've got modern nuclear weapon systems, and all of this has been built on technology

that's been stolen from the United States, but also technology that they've gotten from Russia. In fact, some of the most important stuff is Russian supply technology for both conventional and nuclear forces. A great example is the new ICBM, the DF-41 ICBM, which is a, you know, a merged ICBM, it'll carry 10 war, it looks a lot like Russia's SS-18.

In terms of it being a merged warhead, it's a first strike weapon, highly accurate, but unlike the SS-18, it's a first strike weapon, highly accurate, but unlike the S-State team, it's mobile. It's actually a mobile missile, which makes it even better for a surprise attack. And that's all built on Russian technology. And the Russians have got some things back from the strategic partnership, but the relationship has been disproportionately beneficial to China. You know, the Chinese have been cheap partners.

You know, they have, what Russia has built them into a world class competitor that could arguably win World War III against the United States. And Russia has, you know, the economic benefits they've gotten from that relationship are, you know, not nearly as impressive as I think is the Russians would like. And they know that these capabilities will eventually be turned against themselves. P.B. De, how are you processing?

I mean, let me just recap what he just said. And maybe I got, you just went from World War III potentially Russia with China as an ally taking out United States to West. And then somehow got right from there to already World War four, Russia versus China, the remnants of who wins that. I got that part. And then initially before that we talked about globalism and a pat initiated the entire conversation with what changed since three weeks ago while the World Economic Forum was just held in Davos, Switzerland.

If there's anything that I took from that is that the EU is getting closer and stronger. They used to be called the Russian House in Davos. They changed the name to the Russian Warcrimes House located in Davos. I don't know if we have that picture, but it seems like EU is getting stronger. At United States, obviously proxy war with EU, Ukraine. World War three, boom, World War four is already happening. There's the Russian war crimes house.

I'm just kind of processing all that. How are you, what's your biggest takeaway so far? We spent almost four hours on the front. You said something last time. On last time's podcast with Dr. Pry is you said, you know, the difference between America and some of these countries is we don't have to worry about who's on our border.

We don't in Mexico and what is it? Canada, what do we got to worry? My, by the way, did you hear about Canada's story yesterday with Justin Trudeau just announced? The difference is, imagine if US was border to China and China keeps getting stronger and stronger and stronger. What do you think World War IV is going to be? Probably US China. So what he's saying is not that out of... But he's saying World War Four would be Russia, China.

I know I already lost, but I tell you what I'm more concerned about is, is if you, if you World War Four is China and Russia against everybody, that's what you really got to worry about. It's totally, it's a much better situation if World War Four is China against Russia. You don't want World War War 4 is China against Russia. You don't want World War 4 to be China and Russia against everybody else. You don't want that. You want those two guys to, if they're gonna, if there's gonna be a war that's better

to be them to then anybody else, them you're not against everybody else. But what are we worried about? Mexico. I mean, what's going on with Mexico? Who you worried about? Colombia? What were you worried about Argentina, Brazil? Canada? You think Justin Trudeau, you know, with his aggressive stand,

he took yesterday to freeze con sales. We are capping the number of handguns in this country, right? And what he announced, I don't know if you saw what he announced. Did you watch a video yesterday, what he announced? The fact that he stood up there with 20 men standing behind him with masks on extremely responsible people and, you know, what we're going to do is take guns away from people.

Like, the angle he's taken, do you worry about him attacking you? No. What he's doing is an American sister and says, okay, you guys just got weaker. But let me bring it to you on what you're asking with Trudeau. Obviously, I'm sure you're following the Senate on your story very closely. I'm sure you have been following the story closely. What happened with, I'm going to say Salvador Ramos, right? Am I saying the last time correctly, Ramos, right?

And video came out the other day with cops are waiting to go in. We don't have the right tools. And that's led into all this conversation about gun reform. And you know, this one could have been saved people from both sides have come out and said this could have been prevented from happening. There was many mistakes that was made from the, you know, stand, you know, don't don't go in yet. How are you handling the conversations that's being had right now about having gun reform? And if the, you know, stand, you know, don't, don't go in yet. How are you handling the conversations that's being had right now about having gun reform? And if we could have any kind of reform, I'm curious, do you like the way we have it today, or any ideas you would have that you would suggest any kind of reforms from your end?

Well, naturally, the left and the forces of pro-government that wanted to diminish our freedoms are focusing on the guns, okay? And I think that's completely misplaced. You know, the, I don't think gun reform would have prevented any of the measures. Even if they confiscated guns from all law-abiding Americans, this person would have come up with some kind of a weapon to kill children and maybe kill even more people, whether it's an explosives or black market firearms Black market, firearms or machete.

I think the focus needs to be more on mental health. Tucker Carlson had a good, he ran a tape from Charles Crawfimer who had been a psychiatrist and very respected television commentator, but he originally had been a, you know, a, a medical psychiatrist. And that's how he had made his living. And he made the point that, uh, you know, the problem is the way government is handling people who obviously have mental problems. is the way government is handling people who obviously have mental problems. You know, they're not institutionalizing them. They're not bringing them in to when somebody makes a threat as this person did before they killed people that ought to trigger.

Bringing a person, you know, people should report that to the police and the police should then take this person and have them mentally evaluated. And if this person is judged by competent psychiatrists to be a threat, then it should be kept institutionalized. And the perclivity of the medical bureaucracy to just release dangerous people has got to be reversed as well. The bias should be that unless you are yourself willing to maybe accept legal consequences for letting go somebody who later kills people, you know, so that you're not scot-free

if you're a psychiatrist and you say, okay, I'm letting this person out on the streets and then you have a, you're not at legal risk at all yourself, you know, that's just encouraging, emptying out the psychiatric hospitals. You know, that's the direction that we need to be able to take. The, the left wants to protect the privacy rights of these people more than the lives of children, you know, and they would prefer to blame the booogie man of guns when the real boogie man is these, the small, very small percentage of mentally ill and evil people, you know, who are being protected by the left, basically, through privacy laws and tying the hands of both the police

and psychiatric institutions and putting, allowing so many people of these people that we don't keep institutionalized anymore because it costs money. And it's cheaper to let them go off and become homeless and become dangers to society. It's the policies of the left. Conservatives are always fighting on the defensive being put on the back foot by saying, you know, over the gun rights argument when the real argument should be, you know, over mental health policy. And how do we treat, you know, this, this, this portion of the population?

Also, I think, uh, you know, we ought to be more aggressive in protecting our children. You know, there ought to be in every elementary school and public school, you know, an officer, maybe a retired cop, you know, armed, or the principal should be armed, or a parent, you know, who is trained in the use of firearms ought to be vigilantly protecting these schools where their own children are located, you know, on a volunteer basis. We also need to think about more seriously about just the architectural security of these schools. So many windows, multiple entrances that people can get into. The schools ought to be designed with safety doors, for example, once that door is secured, you know, you need, you need, you need hours to get through it. You shouldn't be able to just walk in.

So there are a lot of practical things we can do. Are you for background checks or no? Background checks, certainly, yeah. Okay, are you for them getting rid of, what do you call it? Yesterday, I posted this on Twitter. of what he called it. Yesterday I posted this on Twitter. If you can go to my Twitter account, I just kind of want to share with this last night.

I'm really zooming a little bit more so we can see it. Yeah, go a little lower. So just in true those video, keep going, keep going, keep going, keep going, keep going. So he says this message here, and I tweeted it on, I say, why just guns?

Nearly 1900 fatalities last year from car accidents in Canada while 277 fatalities from guns in the same year. Since you're so concerned about the lives of people, let's get real tough and ban all cars, right? Because at seven times the amount of people that died from cars and they did with guns. So the solution isn't to just say, well, you know, let's ban all guns. Okay, fine. So he's proposal that he proposes limits on size of magazines.

I think it's five rounds. Nobody should have more than five rounds. Harsher criminal penalties for trafficking guns. Fine. A red flag gun law stripping fire armed licenses from people involved in domestic violence. Okay, that's kind of what he wants to do. Then if you go above it and I kind of want to run this by you as well,

go a little higher. So I asked a question. I post a video that we had with Catalina Lauf, if you remember when we talk about what happened in San Antonio, go a little higher, go a little higher, go a little higher. That one right there, click on that one. So I said, okay. So if, because both sides, they're so emotional so emotional You're not gonna take away my guns. You know, you're gonna have to go through my M16 if you want to take my gun you can and it will how can you be so this and you know and there's a no way Do you not understand lives were lost? I said, okay, perfect How would you improve or reform our current gun laws in US comment below and like the ones you you like the most

So I want to wanna kinda read you what some of the people on Twitter said yesterday, just kinda get your feet. So first one says, get them mentally ill people to help they need, kinda like what you just talked about. Make constitutional carry the law in all 50 states. You can tell where that guy leans. Repel the NFA, I think you wanna say NRA,

but maybe saying the NFA. Repel ATF. Okay, go show more replies so we can see it Give everyone BB guns is trying to be funny educating our society first fine mandatory safety training Takes a few hours provides a certificate and send them home with a locking case for the firearm provides a certificate and send them home with a locking case for the firearm. Doesn't seem unreasonable to train people who are buying guns. Psych meds equals no firearms. I kind of agree with that one. Keep going lower. GTA 5 go, okay, morality, what's he with the next one? First and foremost, I would prohibit big pharma to market directly to consumer.

That's a complete different conversation, right? Mental health is the issue, not guns. Goes back to what you to consumer. That's a complete different conversation, right? Mental health is the issue, not guns. Goes back to what you're saying. Mental health are not so much, the problem is the ease of accessibility to buy guns because people with mental health will always be there. So let's find a way to stop these people from acting under evil thoughts.

Okay, six month wait list. That's a long time. Background checks and national register. This kid planned-month waitlist. That's a long time. Background checks and national register. This kid planned this for two years. How does that change your stop anything? Good argument. Counterargument to him. I would say let's revoke every unconstitutional law in 50 states, DC and territories, let as many people as want to any place in America conceal carry seal carry murders and murderers and criminals would soon change their bad habits.

What do you think about that? That's an interesting take. I don't think we have a gun law issue. I think we have a law enforcement issue. Any form of gun control is unconstitutional, abolish all forms of gun laws. And with this keeps going on, somebody said 25 years old, same age as renting the car.

Then the argument back is, well, if an 18-year-old can go to war, why shouldn't 18-year-old be able to carry a gun? Well, then are we more comfortable with an 18-year-old carrying a gun rather than carrying a beer? Because alcohol is 21 years old in many states, right? So the part here is, both sides seem to be screaming off the top of their lungs on what they want No one is really willing to sit down and have a conversation about it Which argument have you seen from the side that is not the conservative side that you've said?

I think they do have some kind of a point. Should we increase the age? Should we do a little bit more training before somebody can just bygone and leave the place? What should we do to improve some of the issues when it's around the guns? I agree with the idea that if you're getting a drug treatment for psychological problems, that that should be automatically prohibitive in terms of going on a ship. I agree with people who are guilty of domestic violence, you know, that that should restrict firearms ownership. And I'm answering your question because you asked me, what solutions have come from

the left, okay, that I would agree with But most solutions from the left I don't agree with My bias is always to give more freedom to people not less I said earlier that I do believe in background checks I do providing they're not abused by government and you always have to suspect government because the inclination in government, like for example, in Washington, D.C., where they abuse background checks in New York City to the point where they are basically rescinding people's second amendment rights. And that's not right. You know, government has proven itself so greedy of power, you know, and most Americans, the population that is all for gun control and all the rest, they don't understand, or maybe they just don't care, you know, that

the Second Amendment is there for a reason. It's not for recreation, it's not for sports and hunting. It's because in the Federalist Papers, when we were convinced, when the colonies were convinced, the form a federal government with a government in Washington, that we needed an armed citizenry to be the last bastion of defense against tyranny. The Constitution and the Second Amendment that's in there was written by a revolutionary generation. The first battle of the American Revolution was a question of overfire arms. You know, the British were going to Lexington and Concord to confiscate the militia's guns and gunpowder

and disarmed the citizenry so they could be oppressed. And the founders knew that. So this business about Second Amendment rights, you know, being for hunting rights and recreational. That's not why we have a second amendment. It's because the people, and we know this not just in our own American Revolution, but, you know, in every tyranny that has arisen in history, they try to disarm the people and make them sheep so that they are powerless against the government. So we need to be extremely protective of the power.

I think people, I think the gun laws are too restrictive in terms of the types of firearms. Not only should this business about limiting magazines, no. You know, I think you can make a good practical and constitutional case that Americans should be allowed to own firearms that are equivalent to military grade firearms. Because of that role.

Now, do you think America needs more guns or less guns? I think it needs more good guns, you know? What does that mean? I think it needs more guns so that if it became necessary to have a second American Revolution, the average American would stand a chance. You know the average sporting rifle or shot gun, do a test sometime and take it out to

a firing range and see how many rounds you can put through it before it starts jamming up. You'll find that a sporting rifle actually can't do sustained fire for very long. But you're saying that americans need more militaristic type weapons in average american hands yeah what reason uh... to fight against the government because i'm increasingly fearful that

we're heading toward a tyranny and uh... and that there's and the reason the government wants to confiscate guns and restrict gun ownership is because they want to, they want to have a tyranny over us. You know, I don't, there's a faction that says we already have way too many guns here in the United States.

I mean, I think we have, Tyler, I think I sent you some of these stats. We have 4% of the world's population. What percentage of the world's guns do you think we have? I don't know, I don't know. Take a guess. You know, 50%. That's exactly right.

We have 4% of the world's population. We have 50% of the world's firearms. You say that we should have more and more... Do you know the characteristic type guns? And swiss or le? I'm just staying facts. I'm not like, I'm just giving... Yeah, I am saying that.

I'm saying that. I see no reason in a constitutional republic where the people are supposed to be in charge. Okay? And I'm not like, I'm just giving, yeah, I am saying that. I'm saying there's, I see no reason in a constitutional republic where the people are supposed to be in charge, okay? And that we don't belong to the government. We're not the property of the government. We're supposed to be free independent people

that we need to have the ability to protect our liberties and protect ourselves from our own government, which has become increasingly intrusive and oppressive, you know, and the trend line is going away from being a constitutional republic to becoming a tyranny. I don't think we're actually a constitutional republic anymore. I think we're currently a tyranny, but we're in the soft faces of tyranny. Isn't the biggest problem right now protecting innocent kids, not so much the government trying to come after you? Well, that's certainly the biggest immediate problem because we've had this issue, but I think thinking people have to take a longer view.

And it's in addition to protecting our children, and our children, by the way, I think, have to be protected from our government too. You know, I am extremely, of course, it's tragic that those children were killed by that person, by that mentally deranged person, but it wasn't the gun that killed those people. It was the public policy that government has followed, that has put lunatics like that out in the street, and government has changed the policies so that our situation

is more dangerous. I'm very concerned about a government that thinks that child abuse, institutionalized child abuse, is okay. That's what we've got when you're teaching kindergarteners through third graders, for example, about transexuality and having converse and expecting teachers to educate our children on matters that when I was growing up if a stranger in a park came up to you and started talking to you about the things that we have our encourage our elementary school teachers to talk to our children about that person would be arrested as a child predator. But we have government sanctioning that and doing that to our children. You know, I'm not really that pervasive of a problem. I get that there's some teachers to do that, but is that is that sort of a straw man approach

that all these no, it's not or be served. Sir, it is not a straw man. It's being done all across the country. Parents all across the country are out of arms and being arrested in school board meetings for trying to protect their children from child abuse. You know, by the way, if I may, there is way more of that happening

than yes, the gun issues that were having, just so you know, there is not even ten times more. There's way more of what issues. There's way more of the teachers trying to influence kids way of thinking, what he's talking about, what transgenderism. There's a hundred times more of that happening than the issue with guns, but the government's not putting their attention, the government's going straight to guns. Let's address guns. It's not think about the long-term ramifications

of shifting away kids' think. We're not thinking about that. We're thinking about the finite war, not the infinite war. There's a big difference between a finite war and an infinite war. So I agree with that part there on what he's saying. Where you're going with this in regards to guns, can you put up that one thing you put up?

By the way, you said 4% and 50% somebody could say, you know, we are 4% of the world's population, but we are 20% the wealth. Okay, then what do you say about that? Right, so where that much freer than the rest of the world because we unlike the rest of the world,

you know, own guns. So the fact that we own 50% of the world's guns, if that's true, I don't know that it is. But let me point out some other things. We got five guys left. Go ahead. All right. In Switzerland, you know, every adult male, you know, who is part of the Swiss militia who can serve in the military is required to have an automatic military grade weapon, an assault rifle, a real assault rifle in their house, you know, with hundreds of rounds of ammunition. So that if they're called up, that's Switzerland, which has some of the lowest gun crime, so-called

gun crime, they phrase it in the world. In the 19th century, before we had the kind of modern gun laws that we have now where carrying firearms was a very commonplace among people. The crime, the murder rates and the rest were much lower than they are today. It isn't the guns that are causing the crime. It's the culture that's causing the crime. And, you know, and I think that a lot of this is correlated with the destruction of our culture because of big government and the role that it plays, which is increasingly, which is increasingly destructive.

Yes, we need to be armed to protect ourselves from an increasingly predatory government. You know, that is, that is frankly not a constitutional republic, as I said before. And why do I say that? That's because in order to not a constitutional republic, as I said before, and why do I say that? That's because in order to have a constitutional republic, you need to at least two political parties, both political parties. Everybody has to obey the law and respect the constitution. We, uh, I think we cease to be a constitutional republic at least from the first year of the Trump administration, with the Democrat party engaged in

unconstitutional and illegal behavior by bringing false charges against President Trump that he was a Russian agent and that he needed to be invest. They knew that was a lie. They abused the law. They abused the Constitution to undermine a political opponent. And I think the twenty elections were also stolen you know by the democrat party i think people anybody who hasn't watched two thousand meals should watch it but i think you don't even have to watch that just common sense would tell you that a guy like biden who has well i don't know how many times you ran for president three to four

times and he never got more than two percent of the vote now we're expected to believe that it got more votes than any president an American history 22 elections were stolen so many will tell you that that's because they Trump was hated that much more people voting against him than voting for him Yeah, well, that's what they that's what they say, but watch 2000 mules Yeah, and see what happened we had the nation before but you so yeah so okay this this article rapia switzerland has won the highest rates of gun ownership in the world but little gun related street crimes opponents uh... some opponents of gun control hail it as a place where firearms play positive

wrong society however swiss gun uh... culture is unique and guns are more tightly regulated than many assume. Okay. For me, the one part where the right has to use a little bit of, I don't know how, for my standpoint, there is nothing wrong with requiring a little bit of training. There's nothing wrong with giving me a one day training, two day training, where I got to get a sign off, where I got to go to something, where I got to go shoot or have somebody that's teaching me to basics, a former vet or former military. I don't know.

I think just sitting around and saying, yeah, it's not a big deal. It's not this is I, I would much rather have a hundred percent of people that on non-meds, non-domestic violence, non-mental issues, 100% of adults have a gun or a weapon that they are trained to use, then have 50% of America that are able to buy guns. And they have no experience to have any kind of weapons, you know, a training or how to use it. I'd much rather drive training. My idea is to drive training, drive education,

drive being in a community to say, do this. Be careful with this. When you're making a left turn with a car, look at this mirror, 10, two, basic stuff that we learned at 16 years old. Those 10, 20 basic things to teach someone with guns that you can also tell them, you know, certain things. I think there are some things we can do to improve in that area.

Anyways, we're at it at a time. This has been a great podcast. Dr. Pry, thank you for coming back. Folks, we're some of you guys that are with us. I'm hosting a webinar tonight about the marquee crash. I think I don't know, 20,000 people have registered for to be a part of it. It'll be a 530. We're going to talk about a lot of different stats and history of what's happened and how to prepare for it. If you haven't, you'd register for it. It's a free webinar.

Tyler, if you can put the link below for people to be a part of it, looking forward to seeing many of you guys there. Who do we have this week? Is this the only podcast we're doing this week? We're doing Thursday with Dr. Ben Carson. Well, Dr. Ben Carson's you disturbed that's not this Thursday. Dude, I don't think that I thought that's the 12 Tim Ballard. Jim's okay, Tim Ballard is the third day.

Tim Ballard is this Thursday. That's a complete different conversation. If you've seen the Nick McKinley podcast that we've done in the past before, this will be a follow with that. Dr. Pry once again, thank you so much for coming out here and speaking with us. And I know the audience loved it. If you like having Dr. Pryon, you want you so much for coming out here and speaking with us. And I know the audience loved it. If you like having Dr. Pryon, you wanna see him come back again, give us a thumbs up too.

Having Dr. Pryon today, we appreciate you for coming out. Truly, this was great as usual. Well, thank you so much for having me. Yes, thank you. Take care everybody, bye bye bye. you