PBD - Patrick Bet-David - Nuclear Weapons Expert Dr. Peter Pry - ROUND TWO | PBD Podcast

May 31, 2022 - PBD - Patrick Bet-David

01:56:58

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

FaceTime or Ask Patrick any questions on https://minnect.com/ PBD Podcast Episode 160. In this episode, Patrick Bet-David is joined by Adam Sosnick and Dr. Peter Pry. Join the channel to get exclusive access to perks: https://bit.ly/3Q9rSQL 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 Download the podcasts on all your favorite platforms https://bit.ly/3sFAW4N Text: PODCAST to 310.340.1132 to get added to the distribution list About: 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. 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: booking@valuetainment.com 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 shootings

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Are you out of your mind?
	Here's the debate.
	You're upset.
	They're saying we believe you.
	Folks, we are back with episode number, what is it today, 160?
	160?
	With Dr. Peter Pry.
	We brought him back.
	We had him on, 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 and homeland security, a congressional advisory board dedicated to achieving protection of the United States from electromagnetic pulse cyber attacks, 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 Russia 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 added to the vocabulary.
	We learned in CIA, you don't need to have good eyesight to become a CIA agent.
	That's kind of what you whispered 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 is getting, even though Russia is an 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, well, 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.
	One of them is an atomic demonstration, a nuclear demonstration of a Novia Assembly at 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 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, disable 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 their electric grid would be down.
	All the electronics, all the communications would be down.
	And the third option that they described was an 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 tactical, 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 him.
	You know, I think 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 in Brussels.
	And this would have the effect of blacking out European NATO from Ireland all the way to Ukraine.
	And that would immediately stop any arms going into Ukraine from the NATO member countries.
	It would paralyze NATO so that we would not be able to intervene in the Ukrainian war.
	And it would send a signal to the United States that we had better stay out of it or would be next.
	And there's a faction, I think, a very influential and powerful faction within 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, an EMP combined with cyber warfare, is the most revolutionary form of warfare that has ever existed in history.
	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 doctrinal assessments for almost two decades about doing that.
	So that's a faction that would be saying, you know, listen to us, Vladimir.
	You know, let's do an EMP attack that's not just on Ukraine but on NATO, Europe, because it's going to accomplish.
	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 you when it comes down to super EMP.
	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 underground and see if it would blow up, anything would happen.
	You would do all this stuff 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.
	And you know what an M80 does.
	And then you put the other one that was a bigger thing, more powerful than M80.
	I'm like, holy 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 has tested super EMPs, but aren't super EMPs almost one of those things.
	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 know, 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 Kazakhstan.
	They were detonating nuclear weapons of varying yield, including very small ones and very big ones in outer space over their own territory, over Kazakhstan, which was an inhabited part of Russia.
	Kazakhstan's enormous area, about the size of France.
	And so we decided, and they were breaking the, there had been 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 lit off a nuclear weapon in outer space.
	And it basically knocked out the lights in Hawaii, caused automobiles to fail, knocked out radio transmission stations and things like that.
	And Hawaii was 1,500 kilometers away.
	It was just on the very edge of the field where the field is weakest.
	And so we could see that that had profound effects.
	And we have built EMP simulators after we stopped atmospheric nuclear testing and exo-atmospheric, 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 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.
	You know, 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 in 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.
	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 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 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, that computer sitting in front of you probably operates on 25 volts.
	You know, it steps the power down from the, but the outlets 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 inject 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 were 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 microchip technology, you know, which is responsible for the great prosperity and efficiency of our modern electronic 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 or 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 society just starts very quickly disintegrating.
	So we do have a lot of data.
	It's not just theoretical.
	We can test this stuff through simulators.
	We have seen it tested in nuclear detonations of the past.
	And we have 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 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, you know, because the trucks and transport vehicles would be paralyzed.
	You know, 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 airdrop food supplies into the cities.
	Meals ready to eat.
	We have a billion meals ready to eat.
	It's not enough.
	And it's not practical.
	That's why our recommendation was, 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.
	Do you have kids?
	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 that Putin is getting 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 an attack like that with a super EMP 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?
	You know, well, we have a little farm that's all set up.
	You know, we're prepared to live without electricity.
	And you own a little farm that you're ready for it.
	Yes.
	Okay, got it.
	And what kind of food do you have that in case that were to happen, you know, you're ready?
	How many months of supply of food do 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 a life insurance policy because you're thinking you're going to die tomorrow.
	You buy it because if you do, you want your wife, your husband, your sleep.
	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, we've got the ability to survive for years.
	For years?
	Yes.
	You know, 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, you know, 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.
	You know, stockpiling high-caloric canned food, you know, beans, chocolate, peanuts, you know, 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 wholesomeness of the food, because it's in a vacuum, it'll basically last forever.
	We recovered, there was an Arctic expedition that was lost in the early 1800s, and nobody knew what had happened to them, you know, for many years.
	But we eventually found them, you know, more than a century after the expedition had failed.
	They were one of the first expeditions that were bringing canned food with them.
	And 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 the larger water infrastructure.
	You can make homemade filters quite easily with a garbage can and blankets and charcoal that would refine water, purify water.
	But it's a good excuse for having a swimming pool, a 20,000-gallon swimming pool.
	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 afford.
	Everybody should be able to be survivable.
	Not only could you support your family with that, but you could probably 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, both.
	Either way, that's, yeah, that's 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.
	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 paranoid.
	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 prepper, I would say those who don't prepare are 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 in war and peace.
	They'd seen it fail in the Great Depression.
	They'd seen it fail with the outbreak of World War II.
	They knew my father and my uncle Joe, for example, who fought in World War II, you know, against the Nazis.
	My father was a sergeant.
	My Uncle Joe had been a private.
	They knew that World War II was not won by Franklin Roosevelt and General George Patton.
	World War II was won by tough guys like them, you know, 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.
	And so they were not 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 World War II.
	And that attitude persisted afterwards.
	That's why in the 1950s, so many Americans were digging bomb shelters.
	We laugh at that today and seem to mock it today, but they were really concerned that government would screw up again and would have a nuclear war.
	And they wanted to survive and make sure their family would survive.
	We lived on a quarter acre, and we had orchards, 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 an atomic war.
	Was that more common back then than today?
	Do you think that was more of a common etiquette?
	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 a point of 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.
	Something you talk about is something that's great in theory, but that's great in practice.
	I'm with you 100% on rugged individualism, taking care of yourself, taking care of your family, being self-sufficient, limited government, 1,000% on 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 that inflation is at 8%.
	It's going all-time high.
	Gas is expensive.
	Cost of living is expensive.
	So if I'm, I'm like, all right, Dr. Price, 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, you know, 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, you know, 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 Joe, he 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...
	Wikipedia says it's a war garden or food gardens for defense where vegetables, fruit, and herb gardens are planted at private residences and public parks in the United States, UK, Canada.
	Interesting.
	Yeah, in World War II, almost everybody had a victory garden and they would grow their own food.
	Everybody, anybody.
	That's in a time where people were living in the suburbs.
	You had all this land.
	Now, majority of Americans are in New York City, in L.A., in Chicago, downtown Miami.
	My Uncle Joe was living.
	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 is in upstate New York.
	Okay, so what happens if I lived 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?
	But here's what I was, if I can jump in here.
	Here's what I'm doing.
	You have water.
	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% do.
	46% don't, right?
	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 waterfront property.
	A lot of these guys are your friends.
	Okay, they got houses in Miami, whatever, you know, beachfront, inner coastal, whatever maybe.
	Okay, great.
	Those guys are probably not going to have a nuclear, you know, bomb shelter with victory gardens in a backyard where they're living at.
	But when a hurricane happens, what do they do?
	What happens when a hurricane happens?
	They've got, well, either they leave town.
	Okay.
	What happens?
	I've never been part of a hurricane inside.
	The other day, the weather was pretty crazy.
	What happened?
	But when a hurricane happens, what do most people do in Florida?
	They put up their shutters and they just buckle down.
	Or some of them drive up, right?
	They get out of Dodge.
	Okay, they get out of Dodge.
	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, let's just say you don't have a lot of money as a family.
	What I would do 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 that were Mormons.
	LDS.
	LDS, 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 there's nobody more suspicious and paranoid than jews okay Okay, so 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.
	This is in Utah?
	No, not in Utah.
	It was in Lodi, California.
	It was in, you know, LA.
	In basements, whatever.
	They were fully prepared for it.
	In Atlanta, like, and I'm talking like in Cummings, Georgia, and not like, you know, they were ready for something 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 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 to you?
	Check this out.
	Dr. Pry, I don't know if you've seen this or not.
	So these are 11 luxury doomsday bunkers around the world, right?
	I mean, 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, 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?
	Polly Shore, Biodome.
	It looks like the Biodome.
	Keep going.
	Pat just bust out.
	Survival condo.
	Watch this one.
	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.
	It's going down.
	So the pen house.
	15 floors.
	So the penthouse there would be the bottom floor.
	Think about that.
	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.
	Okay, that one apparently goes up.
	So those gates come up.
	This almost looks like from the movie Purge, by the way.
	Or I am legend.
	Or I am legend.
	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 pet.
	So that's like a military model.
	Keep going lower.
	Keep going lower.
	Vixen point.
	Lower, lower, lower, lower.
	Interesting shelters at the bottom.
	This is in West Virginia.
	Global seat.
	Wow, that's 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 a guy that he would be prepared for something like that.
	So, Dr. Pry, to go back to somebody's listened 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% makes because 1% is around $450, $500.
	20%'s in six figures.
	3%, you're around $250 a year to be able to afford something like this, right?
	What are some places following up with your meeting that we had?
	I called a few friends, okay, who are, you know, to see what they would say.
	One of the guys I called on, who I'm going to have on the podcast, if he feels comfortable about it, he'll talk about it.
	He said, yeah, absolutely.
	I got to spot myself and I'm ready for it.
	He says, do you know your favorite podcast you've done all year?
	You know which one it is?
	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 know.
	And by the way, this is a guy that's a very well-known guy.
	The people know who this guy is.
	He says, that's a podcast everybody should watch because most people are now ready for it.
	I said, okay, now to 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, you know, nuclear shelters or doomsday shelters, whatever they call them?
	Is it specific or it's general?
	It can be anywhere.
	I want to push back 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 include are probably mostly people of the middle class and even lower income brackets 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 than there is among the millionaires and the billionaires.
	I actually don't disagree with you.
	I don't see them being a little more paranoid than someone who's super successful.
	Common sense.
	And it doesn't cost, well, also people who live in rural areas.
	And there are a lot of Americans who supplement their income by hunting to get protein because meat is so expensive.
	These are people who are still from that.
	They still have those pioneer virtues that we were talking about that used to be the 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 EMP, 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 beans 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 1950s civil defense signs.
	What building has the deepest basement?
	So that if I was concerned about a fallout, and I don't want to stress that, we're so terrified about radioactive fallout.
	Actually, is there 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 counterforce attack.
	Maybe we should be talking a little about the basics of nuclear strategy to educate people about what they're going to face.
	Basically, the worst case, one of the worst case scenarios, and one of the, and this is the 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 another faction are people who still believe in Field Marshal Vladimir Sokolovsky's approach that was written in the 1960s and that any war, 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 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 going to go nuclear, you go big.
	This is the Sokolovsky theory.
	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.
	They've still got the Satan I, which is very effective.
	You know, it could destroy probably well over 95% of our ICBM silos.
	But a Russian counterforce attack, there are two kinds of attacks we think of in nuclear strategy.
	One is a counterforce 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 they went big and the Sokolovsky faction wins out, they would execute the counter-force attack.
	You know, they don't want to attack cities initially in that first wave because you want to hold the cities hostage to force your adversary to surrender.
	And so what do they need to attack our, to execute a counterforce attack?
	They can do it with 500 warheads.
	This is the equivalent of 50 Satan 1.
	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.
	And 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, well, 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 be 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 that handful of submarines on patrol out there.
	So that's how the logic of how a nuclear force would work.
	And 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.
	Same thing with the Air Force bases.
	There's only three of them.
	And they would do things like do low altitude bursts when you're using your nuclear weapon, because this maximizes the overpressure, the blast effect, which is what destroys an ICBM silo or destroys a bomber base.
	And the blast effect, it's called an optimum burst height.
	The higher up you go, the bigger that and more effective that blast wave is.
	And this happens to be good from the 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 counterforce attack will not generate a lot of fallout and 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.
	It's a good thing 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 do, little inexpensive things that would significantly increase your survival.
	Such as storing food, putting aside maybe 1% of your budget.
	How much canned food can you put away?
	Having a water supply, having a medicine kit and 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 or family members?
	I don't have an underground shelter.
	Oh, you don't have an underground shelter.
	I used to in my place in Maryland, but this is a new, you know.
	So you're a little bit more optimistic right now than you used to be.
	I wouldn't say that.
	I'd say I'm less optimistic, but it's not a question of optimism.
	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 radioactive fallout, you know, bunkering yourself.
	I think this is based on a myth.
	I just explained how a counterforce attack would work.
	No, no, I totally get what you said.
	get what you said and you you 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 But so what I'm asking you is to follow one.
	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 super EMP attack before a nuclear attack?
	Is that kind of how you put it?
	I think it's much more likely that we would have a super EMP attack 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.
	But the reason I don't have my shelter anymore is not because I'm more optimistic today.
	I don't have my shelter because the Obama administration punished me for criticizing their national security policies and canceled my defense contracts.
	Okay, so I couldn't afford my farm in Maryland and the state of Maryland in 2008 raised the taxes on people who had farms so high that people who had been living there for 300 years had to sell their farms and get them.
	Is that literally the reason why you don't have to?
	That is the reason.
	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.
	You know, the House was designed to survive that, and it was a better setup.
	But, you know, I ended up, like a lot of people, you know, coming out of that so that I'm not as prosperous today as I used to be, thanks to the Obama administration.
	And, you know, and financially, I never came back to that.
	So I'm doing the best I can.
	I'm not a rich guy.
	I'm doing the best I can with what I've got.
	I'm satisfied with what I've done.
	This 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 what I think is a safer location.
	Got it.
	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, 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.
	President Biden doesn't make you feel safe.
	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 in Ukraine.
	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 about 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 because of Trump's personality.
	He was no fool.
	He didn't say things like, you know, a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.
	Nonetheless, even under President Trump, the president would make certain claims that weren't true.
	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, one would get the impression that we spent all this defense money, that therefore our triad was stronger and better.
	It wasn't.
	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.
	It's going to take a long time to modernize the triad.
	We're not going to get new systems coming online until a decade from now into the 2030s.
	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.
	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 deterred them.
	Some people might call it erratic, though.
	Well, when you're facing a situation where the adversary has all these advantages, anything that deters them and makes them pause is a good thing, including that erratic behavior.
	If he's unpredictable, aka erratic, interchangeable words.
	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 was not confident, I think, under President Trump that this guy might not himself launch a nuclear first strike if he thought that America was endangered.
	He could easily see President Trump doing anything necessary to defend the United States, including striking first.
	And that scared them.
	So that they were more.
	That's why they didn't invade Ukraine.
	Think about this question.
	What is the opposite of unpredictable?
	Give me another word.
	Level-headed.
	No, it's not.
	No, type in unpredictable synonym, level-headed.
	Unpredictable?
	So it's a very simple word.
	Just take the UN out.
	The opposite of unpredictable.
	It's predictable.
	I mean, and I'm not even American.
	I wasn't born here.
	The opposite of predictable is unpredictable.
	It's predictable.
	And when it comes down to war, the last thing you want to be is what?
	Predictable.
	Here's what's crazy.
	Isn't it crazy that the guy that the world thought was going to start World War III, the world was at peace, and the guy that thought it was going to bring world peace is created a world into mayhem.
	Everybody thought Biden was going to bring a lot of peace.
	It's been a shit show when it comes down to safety.
	And everybody thought Trump was going to 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 for him.
	Did you have a follow-up question on that topic?
	Or Trump or on what?
	So 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 Warhawks?
	I'm asking you.
	What would you say historically?
	Hopefully, neither party likes war.
	No, that's not true, though.
	That's not true.
	Historically.
	Republicans.
	Okay, so people will typically say, you know, when it comes down to the Republican Party is like fiending war.
	Like even if you watch the movie Vice, the way they build Dick Cheney and what he did to get all those contracts.
	Okay, cool.
	So Iraq, 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, well, if you go to Obama, do we have wars during Obama?
	How was under Obama when III?
	Why is ISIS a war?
	Every day we feared ISIS, right?
	I mean, ISIS was like a thing.
	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 and 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 a 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.
	But at the same time, again, let's go into the mind of Putin today.
	Biden just gave Ukraine $40 billion.
	It's public, you know, so we're going to 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 going to 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 question, I'd 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 it 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.
	Okay.
	It is the case that if you look at our forces and what was done, you know, 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.
	You know, it wasn't true that we had the strongest military in the world.
	Our 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 a president to say.
	A president has always got to say, we're the strongest.
	We're the best.
	We can beat anybody.
	So, you know, from a military technical analytical point of view, those things weren't literally true.
	But in terms of what presidents are supposed to do, yes, I'm glad President Trump was saying that.
	He's not just communicating to the American people.
	All the bad guys in the world are listening to him.
	And if they had the sense that, oh, this guy is admitting publicly that America is weak, you know, you don't want to do that.
	Biden, in effect, is doing this now when he decides that we're going to cancel the spot over the protests over the Pentagon, that he's defunded the slick amend, the sea-launched cruise missile nuclear.
	It was our only hope to catch up with Russia in terms of our tactical nuclear weapons.
	And he's also canceled the B-83 nuclear bomb, which is the only weapon that it's our last megaton-class weapon that had some kind of a chance of driving a shockwave that could destroy command bunkers in Russia.
	And he canceled that in the middle of this profound nuclear crisis over Ukraine.
	What kind of signal is that sending them?
	It tells them that he's afraid of nuclear weapons or indifferent to the nuclear balance to such an extent that even this, you know, he's defunding and canceling some of our best weapons.
	So, having said that, how does Putin processing $40 billion sent to Ukraine?
	Well, 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 de facto member of NATO.
	And these guys are planning to use Ukraine to try to destroy Russia.
	They're doing it now.
	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 still enough 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 we discussed in the last program, what is Putin going to do?
	The fog of war is so thick over Ukraine.
	We don't really know just how bad is the situation for Russia and for Putin internally.
	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 he drew that line in the sand and told Putin, do not invade Ukraine, and then Russian tanks rolled right over it.
	He doesn't want the conversation, the Biden administration doesn't want the conversation to be about that.
	They want it to be about how badly the Russians are doing, allegedly doing, maybe in reality doing so badly, in Ukraine, and therefore the politics are not so bad for Biden from that perspective.
	But go to proxy words.
	Aren't proxy wars supposed to be like people don't know you're doing a proxy war or else it's not a proxy war?
	If it's public, it's no longer proxy.
	You're taking sides.
	So do you understand what I'm saying when I say so?
	So let's just say if you are saying U.S. is doing a proxy, we're using Ukraine against Russia.
	U.S. 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 are proxy wars where a country will want it to be done clandestinely so that it will 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 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 were.
	Well, 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, Palestine, Iran.
	I mean, that's very well known.
	The Vietnam War.
	Libya, Vietnam, the Vietnam War, the Soviet Union.
	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 like just supporting Ukraine.
	We're anti-Russia.
	We are anti-like we are Ukraine.
	But so is the entire EU.
	It's not just United States.
	I totally agree, but what I'm saying here is this is not the proper way of doing a proxy war.
	Just say we are going to defend these guys because we're not going to do anything to work with Russia.
	We're not going to have a conversation with Russia to try to figure out a way to eliminate this war, slow down the war, or play synergist to say, listen, can we figure out a way to make this work?
	No, we don't even want to do that.
	You know, he's the next this, and you saw when Biden won time, we have to get rid of him, and then he slip up, and then they come back and correct him.
	That was what, three, four months ago when he said that?
	I remember.
	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.
	People are dying.
	Innocent kids are being, you know, you don't want that on your hands.
	That's on you.
	Nope.
	That argument is done with.
	Putin's not going to sit down with you and negotiate today.
	And if he does, everything you say, he doesn't believe anything that comes out of your mouth.
	Am I wrong?
	I think you might be wrong.
	I hope I'll be.
	Because we haven't tried to explore that.
	Before Russia invaded Ukraine, and I won't quibble over whether it's a proxy war or not.
	I mean, I think one can argue that it is a proxy war in the sense that Russian and U.S. troops are not directly engaged with each other.
	And that's what I mean when I'm talking about a proxy war.
	That's a good thing.
	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 saying publicly and all the rest, our objective does seem to be to try to achieve regime change in Russia through 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 from this, that, for example, that Putin could fall from power, that we could force the Russians to give up all 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.
	And 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.
	And because I think it's wrong, again, having these very unrealistic expectations.
	But the Russians offered a peace treaty, a six-point peace treaty, before they invaded Ukraine.
	And I have argued, I think we could 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 peace, okay?
	You know, 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 will 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 that if we can use Ukraine, the proxy of Ukraine, to really inflict a serious defeat on the Russians, that it'll keep the Russians pacified and in their cage for years to come.
	And therefore, 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 on 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 it the 30 to 100 years war.
	You know, because this is 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,
	you know, 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.
	And 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?
	How much credibility does John Bolton have today?
	Aside from the fact that anytime he's willing to trash Trump, 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 buy into 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, is this the one?
	Face with.
	No, go to, is this the 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.
	Okay, second paragraph.
	83% of Russians said they approve of Mr. Putin's actions, up from 69% in January.
	According to a poll by Levada Center, an independent pollster in 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 that would need to write a propaganda would be the fact that even the Russian people don't agree with their leader, which is Putin.
	And it is one of the most pro-Biden papers in America as well.
	Yeah, far, far left.
	I mean, supporting anything that's, you know, Wall Street Journal would be in the middle.
	Maybe center-right.
	These guys are far left.
	Why are the Russian people so supportive of him?
	Why are the Russian people so supportive of him?
	And at the same time, if this guy's at 83%, you know, well, Biden's right now at 39%.
	Why are the Russian people so supportive of him?
	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 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 long been an admirer of John Bolton, although I disagree with him on a lot of things.
	You know, he does have a keen analytical mind.
	You know, he has deep geo-strategic insights into matters, which is why, despite his combative personality, that often gets him in trouble in positions that he's held in government, that he has been respected high posts like that.
	So there are a lot of people that would take and should take John Bolton seriously.
	Now, I am more of a Trump fan than I am of a Bolton 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 tried 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 interests invested in Ukraine that are so serious that we would be willing 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 the outcome on Afghanistan that we wanted against the Taliban, who are not nearly as formidable an adversary as the Russians are.
	So there's a disconnect here.
	I often see between a lot of what Bolton argues.
	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,
	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 and 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've got to step up.
	We've got to stop him from 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's not going to fight for a third to 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 III 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 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, you know, and the World Health Organizations and these organizations that kind of stand alone and 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 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 that's dominated by supranational institutions like the United Nations and the world courts and world economic forums and the elites who run these things will be making the decisions for us.
	And whenever they try to encourage us, and most of the wars that we've been fighting in recent decades have this globalist agenda, 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, that it is responsible for the wars of the past and the way of getting to a peaceful, ordered world is by subordinating 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 old-fashioned nation states.
	They want open borders.
	They want supranational institutions running everything.
	And a lot of the wars that don't make sense to most Americans, because most Americans are nationalists and are America first.
	And they say, why are we in Afghanistan?
	Why are we in Iraq?
	There are rationalizations that are concocted 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 rationalization there.
	And the rationalization for going into Ukraine, our involvement in Ukraine is, well, we don't want Russia and China to attack our allies and U.S. interests in World War III.
	And that makes sense to a lot of Americans.
	It makes enough sense so that we've been willing to support wars like that.
	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.
	And therefore, America is going to be the world policeman on behalf of these supranational institutions, enforcing this new globalist world order.
	And 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 these.
	So we have elites who use nationalist rationalizations to convince the people, to try to convince the people, yeah, we need to 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, 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.
	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 a, 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 oftentimes are opposed to what U.S. 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 it'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 as its national interests and its empire building in Ukraine.
	And they've got to be brought to heal.
	What is the solution, though?
	To just stay out of the way and let them Is the 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, you know, what I think we should do, you know, Biden, I think, should mobilize U.S. nuclear forces and put them at least on DEF CON 3, right?
	Even though Putin put his nuclear forces on alert back on 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.
	You know, we have no choice.
	We're supposed to do that because we don't want them to be able to do a 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.
	And they're saying, well, we don't see any 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.
	They're on a condition called constant combat readiness.
	And so when conditions exist where Russia 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, go at least to DEF CON 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.
	We've been waiting for you to come down with your forces, but you haven't.
	So we're not planning to attack you, but you've left us no choice.
	And neither of us wants to have a nuclear world war.
	So let's try to eliminate the problem and negotiate a peace in Ukraine right now.
	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 partnership for peace countries, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kurdistan, Southeast Asia, all these countries that are on the way to becoming NATO members, because they're in the 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 the relations with Russia, because our real objective should be to split the Russian-Chinese alliance.
	We face the most formidable block of military and economic power that we've ever faced in our history, this new axis that comprises not just Russia and China united, but North Korea and Iran, too.
	They're all part of this anti-Western bloc.
	And I don't think we can win a new Cold War or a World War III against that block of power.
	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 many more people than we would to win a World War III against us.
	We don't want to get into that situation.
	So we need to split that Russian-Chinese alliance as a way of pulling the whole world back from the edge of a war and turn it into a new Cold War, a competition that's economic and 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 war.
	Exactly.
	Well, what's obvious is that Russia has a shared border with China, has 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, that after World War III, suppose there is a World War III and to defeat us, okay?
	There's going to be a World War IV.
	And that's going to be between the new Axis.
	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, you know, got fired over that nonsense.
	And, you know, but Trump was not ever in a position politically where he could make it happen.
	The Democrat Party 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, they're accusing him of being Putin's puppet and it wasn't politically possible for him to do it.
	But we could do it now, if we were negotiating over Ukraine.
	You know, 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 going to be able to get the Donbass back, any areas that the Russians actually control.
	Ukraine might have to resign itself to becoming a rump state.
	And in the long run, 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, at least temporarily, because Ukraine has had good fortune in the war, you know, we would have been able to buy some time for Ukraine.
	But my concern is not Ukraine.
	You know, America has no vital interest in Ukraine except avoiding a 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 III 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,
	a partnership with China that's ultimately going to doom Russia, even if they win World War III, because they won't probably win World War IV against China.
	And by the way, that's why China is rapidly building up its nuclear forces.
	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 IV too.
	Is Russia helping China build nuclear weapons or giving them any supplies?
	They have been.
	The whole, and this is 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, you know, that we weren't 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 supplied technology for both conventional and nuclear forces.
	A great example is the new ICBM, the DF-41 ICBM, which is a MIRVed ICBM able to carry 10 warheads.
	It looks a lot like Russia's SS-18 in terms of it being a MIRV warhead.
	It's a first-strike weapon, highly accurate.
	But unlike the SS-18, 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 this strategic partnership, but the relationship has been disproportionately beneficial to China.
	The Chinese have been cheap partners.
	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, the economic benefits they've gotten from that relationship are not nearly as impressive as I think as the Russians would like.
	And they know that these capabilities will eventually be turned against themselves.
	PBD, how are you processing?
	I mean, let me just recap what he just said.
	And maybe I got it.
	You just went from World War III, potentially Russia with China as an ally, taking out the United States, the West, and then somehow got right from there to already World War IV, Russia versus China, the remnants of who wins that.
	I got that part.
	And then initially before that, we talked about globalism.
	And Pat initiated the entire conversation with what's changed since three weeks ago.
	Well, 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 war crimes house located in Davos.
	I don't know if we have that picture, but it seems like EU is getting stronger.
	United States, obviously, proxy war with EU, Ukraine.
	World War III, boom, World War IV 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.
	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 want Mexico and what is it?
	Canada?
	What do we got to worry about?
	By the way, did you hear about Canada's story yesterday, what Justin Trudeau just announced?
	The difference is imagine if U.S. 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 U.S.-China.
	So what he's saying is not that out of— But he's saying World War IV would be Russia-China would— I know.
	But I tell you, what I'm more concerned about is if U.S., if World War IV 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 IV is China against Russia.
	You don't want World War IV to be China and Russia against everybody else.
	You don't want that.
	You want those two guys to, if there's going to be a war, that's better to be them two than anybody else, them uniting against everybody else.
	But what are we worried about?
	Mexico?
	I mean, what's going on with Mexico?
	Who are 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 gun 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.
	The angle he's taken, do you worry about him attacking you?
	No.
	What he's doing is, and America sits there and says, oh, 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 San Antonio story very closely.
	I'm sure you have been following the story closely.
	What happened with, I want 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 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 want to diminish our freedoms are focusing on the guns, okay?
	And I think that's completely misplaced.
	You know, 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, you know, to kill children and maybe kill even more people, whether it's an explosives or black market firearms or a machete.
	You know, I think the focus needs to be more on mental health.
	Tucker Carlson had a good, he ran a tape from Charles Krothheimer, who had been a psychiatrist and very respected television commentator, but originally had been a medical psychiatrist, and that's how he had made his living.
	And he made the point that the problem is the way government is handling people who obviously have mental problems.
	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 bring in a person.
	People should report that to the police, and the police should then take this person, have them mentally evaluated.
	And if this person is judged by competent psychiatrists to be a threat, they should be kept institutionalized.
	And the proclivity 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, 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 are not at legal risk at all yourself, that's just encouraging, emptying out the psychiatric hospitals.
	That's the direction that we need to be able to take.
	The left wants to protect the privacy rights of these people more than the lives of children.
	And they would prefer to blame the boogeyman of guns when the real boogeyman is the small, very small percentage of mentally ill and evil people who are being protected by the left, basically,
	through privacy laws and by tying the hands of both the police and psychiatric institutions and allowing so many 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.
	And conservatives are always fighting on the defense of being put on the back foot by saying, over the gun rights argument, when the real argument should be over mental health policy and how do we treat this portion of the population.
	Also, I think we ought to be more aggressive in protecting our children.
	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.
	You know, so many windows, you know, and multiple entrances that people can get into.
	You know, the schools ought to be designed with safety doors, for example.
	Once that door is secured, you know, you'd need a, you know, you'd need, should 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 the, what do you call 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 Justin Trudeau's video, keep going, keep going, keep going, keep going.
	So he says this message here, and I tweeted it out and I say, why just guns?
	Nearly 1,900 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 that's seven times the amount of people that died from cars than they did with guns.
	Sure.
	So the solution isn't to just say, well, you know, let's ban all guns.
	Okay, fine.
	So his proposal that he proposed is 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 firearm 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 the question.
	I post a video that we had with Catalina Lauf, if you remember when we talked 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.
	You're not going to take away my guns.
	You know, you're going to have to go through my M16 if you want to take my gun.
	How can you be so this?
	And there's no way you're not understanding lives were lost.
	So I said, okay, perfect.
	How would you improve or reform our current gun laws in U.S.?
	Comment below and like the ones you like the most.
	So I want to kind of read you what some of the people on Twitter said yesterday.
	Just kind of get your feet.
	So first one says, get the mentally ill people the help they need, kind of like what you just talked about.
	Make constitutional carry the law in all 50 states.
	You can tell where that guy leans.
	Repeal the NFA.
	I think you want to say NRA, but maybe he's saying the NFA.
	Repeal ATF.
	Okay, go show more replies so we can see it.
	Give everyone BB guns.
	He's 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.
	Doesn't seem unreasonable to train people who are buying guns.
	PsychMeds equals no firearms.
	I kind of agree with that one.
	Keep going lower.
	GTA 5k, okay, well, morality, let's see what the next one.
	First and foremost, I would prohibit big pharma to market directly to consumer.
	That's a completely different conversation, right?
	Mental health is the issue, not guns.
	Goes back to what you're saying.
	Mental health, 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 on their evil thoughts.
	Okay.
	Six-month wait list.
	That's a long time.
	Background checks and national register.
	This kid planned this for two years.
	How does that change or stop anything?
	Good argument.
	Counter-argument to him.
	I would say let's revoke every unconstitutional law in 50 states, D.C., and territories.
	Let as many people as want to any place in America conceal 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.
	Anyways, this keeps going on.
	Somebody said 25 years old, same age as renting a car.
	Then the argument back is: well, if an 18-year-old can go to war, why shouldn't an 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 buy a gun and leave the place?
	What should we do to improve some of the issues surrounding guns?
	I agree with the idea that if you're getting drug treatment for psychological problems, that that should be automatically prohibitive in terms of gun ownership.
	I agree with people who are guilty of domestic violence, 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 to form a federal government with a government in Washington, that we needed an armed citizenry to be the last bastion of defense against tyranny.
	You know, 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 over firearms.
	You know, the British were going to Lexington and Concord to confiscate the militia's guns and gunpowder and disarm 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 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.
	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.
	Really?
	Yeah, because of that role.
	Now.
	Do you think America needs more guns or less guns?
	I think it needs more good guns.
	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.
	The average sporting rifle or shotgun, 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?
	For what reason?
	To fight against the government?
	Because I'm increasingly fearful that we're heading toward a tyranny.
	And the reason the government wants to confiscate guns and restrict gun ownership is because they want to have a tyranny over us.
	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 militaristic type guns.
	And Switzerland.
	I'm just saying facts.
	I'm not like just giving.
	I am saying that.
	I'm saying I see no reason in a constitutional republic where the people are supposed to be in charge, 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.
	And the trend, 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 phases of tyranny.
	But 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 the 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.
	And that's what we've got when you're teaching kindergartners through third graders, for example, about transsexuality and having conversation 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.
	Is that really that pervasive of a problem?
	I get that there's some teachers that do that, but is that sort of a straw man approach that all these people are doing?
	No, it's not being a problem.
	Sir, it is not a straw man.
	It's being done all across the country.
	Parents all across the country are up in arms and being arrested in school board meetings for trying to protect their children from child abuse.
	By the way, if I may, there is way more of that happening than the gun issues that were having, just so you know.
	There is not even 10 times more.
	There's way more what issues.
	There's way more of the teachers trying to influence kids' way of thinking with what he's talking about with transgenderism.
	There's 100 times more of that happening than the issue with guns.
	But the government's not putting their attention there.
	The government's going straight to guns.
	Let's address guns.
	Let's not think about the long-term ramifications of shifting the way 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% of wealth.
	Okay, then what do you say about that?
	So we're that much freer than the rest of the world because we, unlike the rest of the world, 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've got five minutes left.
	Go ahead.
	All right.
	In Switzerland, 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, 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 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 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 frankly not a constitutional republic, as I said before.
	And why did I say that?
	That's because in order to have a constitutional republic, you need at least two political parties, both political parties.
	Everybody has to obey the law and respect the Constitution.
	I think we ceased to be a constitutional republic at least from the first year of the Trump administration where 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 invested.
	They knew that was a lie.
	They abused the law.
	They abused the Constitution to undermine a political opponent.
	And I think the 2020 elections were also stolen by the Democrat Party.
	I think people, anybody who hasn't watched 2,000 Mules 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, I don't know how many times he ran for president, three, four times, and he never got more than 2% of the vote.
	Now we're expected to believe that he got more votes than any president in American history.
	The 2020 elections were stolen.
	And many will tell you that that's because Trump was hated that much.
	Were people voting against him than voting for him?
	Yeah.
	Well, that's what they say.
	But watch 2,000 Mules and see what happened.
	We had Dineshan before.
	So, okay, this article, Ruby, Switzerland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world, but little gun-related street crime.
	So opponents, some opponents of gun control hail it as a place where firearms play a positive role in society.
	However, Swiss gun 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, from 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 the 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.
	I would much rather have 100% of people that are on non-mets, non-domestic violence, non-mental issues, 100% of adults have a gun or a weapon that they are trained to use than have 50% of America that are able to buy guns and they have no experience to have any kind of weapons, you know, 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.
	10-2 basic stuff that we learned at 16 years old.
	Those 10, 20 basic things to teach somebody 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 ran out of time.
	This has been a great podcast.
	Dr. Pry, thank you for coming back.
	Folks, for some of you guys that are with us, I'm hosting a webinar tonight about the market crash.
	I think, I don't know, 20,000 people have registered for to be a part of it.
	It'll be at 5.30.
	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 yet registered 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?
	Did you do this Thursday with Dr. Ben Carson?
	Oh, Dr. Ben Carson's here this Thursday.
	That's not this Thursday, dude.
	I don't think that's, I thought that's the 2012.
	Tim Ballard, Jim Ballard.
	Okay, Tim Ballard is this Thursday.
	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-up 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. Prye on, you want to see him come back again, give us a sub and give us a thumbs up to having Dr. Pry on today.
	But appreciate you for coming out.
	Truly, this was great, as usual.
	Well, thank you so much for having me.
	Appreciate it.
	Thank you.
	Take care, everybody.

▲