TrueLife - Defence Contractors go Nuclear

Episode Date: May 5, 2022

Can we work with the Military Industrial Complex to create an abundance of energy to help humanity instead of creating weapons to destroy humanity?

Darkness struck, a gut-punched theft, Sun ripped away, her health bereft. I roar at the void. This ain't just fate, a cosmic scam I spit my hate. The games rigged tight, shadows deal, blood on their hands, I'll never kneel. Yet in the rage, a crack ignites, occulted sparks cut through the nights. The scars my key, hermetic and stark. To see, to rise, I hunt in the dark, fumbling, fear. Heirous through ruins maze, lights my war cry, born from the blaze.

The poem is Angels with Rifles. The track, I Am Sorrow, I Am Lust by Codex Seraphini. Check out the entire song at the end of the cast. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to the True Life podcast. I hope your day is filled. with joy. I hope you get a phone call out of the blue telling you how you've just won a million dollars. I hope you get good news that is unexpected that puts a smile on your face and makes the world a better place. What is it we're going to talk about today? It's a great question, my friend. What it is

is this idea of retooling the military industrial complex. I know what you're thinking, George, that's out of control. It'll never. happen, but it may. Let me tell you the idea that I have to do so. Let's think for a minute about the millions, or dare I say billions of dollars that goes into, into the billions of dollars that goes into this giant bohemoth we call the military industrial complex. Eisenhower warned us of it. The generals seem to be constantly. constantly fighting and there's plenty of reasons that we can't debate or talk about. But the truth is, we are a warlike people.

How do we change that? How do we become more efficient and effective with the amount of money that we are spending? Well, here's an idea. Here's an idea that I think is plausible. Let me know what it is that you think. The world we live in today is desperately trying to figure out a more effective and efficient way to utilize energy. Be it coal or gas or natural gas or diesel, solar, wind, wave, geothermal. This tends to be, you could argue that this is the very reason we are at war right now.

Now, whether it is the petro dollar, whether it is the amount of fossil fuels under the ground, the limited resource theory, the strategic implementation of scarcity, probably all of these things connected. The idea for me is why don't we allow, why don't we work with the military industrial complex as a nation? Why don't we use the big brain power of the engineers and the weapons manufacturers to build energy around the world? Why is it that we have to build weapons? Why don't we build energy?

Let's think I live in the great state of Hawaii, and I was recently talking to a candidate for governor, and as we were speaking about the not only bound. but the responsibilities of government for the people, we came across the idea of what does the future of energy look like? For a lot of people, it looks like a hope is that we can turn to green energy. An idea is that we can have solar energy. But the truth is we are sliding down the slippery slope of fossil fuels forever. energy. But it need not be that way. Why don't we have fusion? Why don't we have safe thorium

reactors? These are all possibilities that could allow a population to have abundance, an abundance of energy. It would do away with corruption. It would do away with the backroom deals of corrupt individual's shaking hands. It would do away with crime in some aspects. It would do away with this duopoly of fossil fuels versus green energy. And on some level, I think that those are perpetrated so that money can be grafted off the top. But let's explore this idea a little bit further. Let's say that the government voted on by the people

pairs with, say, Raytheon or Boeing or one of these industrial, military industrial complex companies. There's no reason why we, if they're getting government contracts to

build bombs or bullets or planes, why can't they get a government contract to build safe nuclear power? We're already giving them the money. And let's be clear. It's our money that the defense contractors are using to, quote-unquote, keep us safe. But that particular argument should work in multiple ways.

Isn't free? I don't know if it's going to be free. But wouldn't abundant energy that is cost-effective be better not only for the country and the individuals in that country, but for the relationship between the people and the government and the military industrial complex. I think that this is something that could be lateraled over, moved towards, and it's something that's beneficial.

Right now, people hear the word military industrial complex, and they think of war and death and mayhem, and I'm sure there's plenty of people that think of great technology when you say those words. And there's plenty of school. schools of philosophy that say without war, there can be no ingenuity. Without any invention and ingenuity, there can be no culture. And I understand that particular aspect. But I think it's juvenile. I think it is short-sighted and narrow. I think that the idea that we can roll over our ingenuity

into energy instead of into energy that destroys everybody, why not roll it over into energy that helps everybody. I think that the relationship between the people, the government, and the military industrial complex could be something that everyone benefits from instead of a handful of people benefitingly handsome. Does that make sense? There's no reason why these companies who are definitely leading the way in technology could not provide energy for us. And it would change the way we see ourselves, our nation, and our business. It would allow us to move forward in a world of unlimited possibilities just by retooling, right? Just by changing the a few small key variables. We already have the infrastructure. We already have the technological know-how in place. We have the

corporations, we have the ability to do so. If we can just shift focus a little bit, instead of building these incredible machines to destroy, let's build incredible machines to employ, to build, to create. A small shift in focus can have a radical change on outcome. Imagine if there was an X-Prize for fusion. Imagine if there was an X-priced. Imagine if we got the largest military contractors to compete to build a better source of energy. Why not?

What is wrong with creating instead of destroying? In many parts of the world, it is the same. same God who is responsible for building as it is destroying. I think it was I think it was Oppenheimer who quoted the Bhagavad Gita

now I have become death. Well Mr. Oppenheimer now you have become life. I believe it is the same God. I believe it is Shiva the destroyer of worlds and the bringer of life. Why not become

the scientist who says, now I have become life. If we can have the splitting of the atom that destroys, why can we not have the splitting of the atom that creates? It's a mirror image. Think about the story you tell yourself. Think about the story we tell in history of people creating these giant bombs

that are somehow not talked about. until it's too late. We constantly focus on developing powers that destroy. Those same powers, that same fortitude, that same sacrifice could be used to unite. That same power could be decided upon by governments around the world or even just in one nation or even one state. What if Raytheon just decided, you know what?

We're going to build a love bond. We're going to build this big bomb that doesn't rain down hellfire on people. We're going to build this giant bomb that provides an abundance of energy to everyone. We're going to see what happens. We're going to change the way in which we are viewed through the lens of society. We're going to change the way the world sees military industrial complex as a word. as a company and as an entity. It could be done.

I think it could be done with a simple shifting of gears, just by changing the lens in which we see them through. And I think it would be beneficial. I think it could be done soon. I think it could be done today. I think it could be done with a handful of meetings. What shareholders would not want to see a new business model from an old business? Is that not the nature of profitability?

Is not the nature of change the same as the nature of profitability? When you're green, you grow, when you're ripe, you're rot. this idea of continuing to build bigger, more powerful, and destructive weapons with the same with the same kind of military machine is you know, it's like putting

new wine in old bottles. What if the new technology, the new wine, is put into a new bottle, a new form of energy? must we fight over what kind of energy we're going to have? Why is it a fight between green and fossil? Why is it not a fight between abundance and not abundance? That seems to me to be what we should be arguing about.

We have this false choice of, hey, you can have anything you want for dinner. You can have orange carrots or purple carrots. Hey, you can have any kind of energy you want. You want green or fossil. well i don't want either of those because the same person is in charge of both of them right i don't want carrots for dinner i don't care if they're orange or if they're purple i don't want the same shell general electric green or fossil i don't want any of those dummies running it and if they are going to run it i'd rather have someone like rathion or bowing or one of these colossal

semi governmental agencies do it. I think that there's better technology in these companies. I think the people that work there want to make the world better, but they've been misguided. And I think this is a path forward. What do you guys think? Is it possible? Can we retool

the military industrial complex to create energy instead of bombs? You guys let me know. That's what I got for today. Let's get up and get out of.