Shawn Ryan Show - #52 Andrew Bustamante - CIA Spy / U.S. vs China - The New Cold War | Part 2

Episode Date: April 3, 2023

Andrew Bustamante is back in Part Two of this two-part series to discuss the "sleeping dragon," China. Bustamante tells us how a 5,000 year old country like China moves slowly and quietly with little known initiatives like the "Belt Way," and how he believes a move to take Taiwan is an imminent threat.  We dive deep into the recent Spy Balloon phenomenon over US airspace and growing Chinese influence and capability across the globe through social media and shadow propaganda. We wrap up with a realistic look at the severity of different types of threats like EMPs and China's financial stakes on land and resource here at home. Shawn Ryan Show Sponsors: https://learshawn.com Information contained within Lear Capital’s website is for general educational purposes and is not investment, tax, or legal advice. Past performance may not be indicative of future results. Consult with your tax attorney or financial professional before making an investment decision. https://hvmn.com - USE CODE "SHAWN" https://betterhelp.com/shawn https://mudwtr.com/shawn - USE CODE "SHAWNMUD" Andrew Bustamante Links: Find your spy superpower: https://everydayspy.com/quiz/ Learn more from Andy: https://everydayspy.com/ Follow Andy's Podcast: https://everydayspy.com/podcast/ Please leave us a review on Apple & Spotify Podcasts. Vigilance Elite/Shawn Ryan Links: Website | Patreon | TikTok | Instagram Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hey, so what's Topgolf? Well, it's golf, but it's also not golf. Not golf? Yeah, not golf, but still golf. And not golf? Yes. With the golf. Exactly.

So you're saying it's golf? And not golf. Just to be clear, Topgolf is 100% golf. And also 100% not golf. But that's 200%. Right, but it's like a million percent fun, so can we stop doing math and just go play? It's golf.

It's not golf. It's top golf. Download the app, book a bay, and come play around. This episode is brought to you by Dr. Teals. When you need to relax and recharge, take a bath with Dr. Teals' pure epsom salt. It helps relax the body while the natural essential oils help calm your mind. Enhance yourself care ritual with Dr. Teal's foaming bath for long-lasting bubbles, and Dr. Teal's shea sugar scrubs for smooth glowing skin.

Soak in Dr. Teal's to recharge the body, mind, and spirit so you can soak in life's important moments. Find it at a Walmart near you, now available with a fresh new look. Hey everybody, welcome back to the two-part series. Last week we talked all about the Russia-Ukraine conflict and how the United States is so heavily involved in that and why. This week we cover one of the most terrifying topics I think of today. And that is the China threat. We're going to go over all the things that they have their hands in, how they may

or may not be controlling the United States and the rest of the globe and what it looks like if these certain scenarios play out. Extremely informative, very, very factual. We brought in the resident expert on the topic, Andrew Bustamonte, the guy is a wealth of knowledge when it comes to China. I think you guys are really going to enjoy this. Ladies and gentlemen, let's get to the show. Please like, comment, subscribe, go over to Apple Podcasts and Spotify, leave us a review, tell us how we're doing, and if you get anything out of these shows, anything at all, share it. Share it with everyone you know. This is real stuff. It's very important. I think everybody needs to be educated on this topic. It becomes more and more of a threat every day. All

right. Put that being said, let's keep it positive. I love you all. Thank you for being here. Enjoy the show. Cheers. Previously on the Sean Ryan show, what is it about you that you think Thank you for being here and enjoy the show. Cheers. Previously on the Sean Ryan show, what is it about you that you think they found interesting? I think they knew that I was an Air Force Academy graduate from the time that I turned 17. My entire life has been in service to the federal government. Conflict seems to be all around us these days. The real reason the United States is involved in Ukraine is because as long as we keep a proxy war happening in a third world country like Ukraine, we're wasting Russian resources.

If the war in Ukraine ends, Russia starts to rebuild in concert with China and now we have two enemies. And as we waste and deplete Russian resources, we only have to compete against one other country in the world, China. In the United States, we might be like, Russia is destroyed. That's awesome. Paris took a bomb. That sucks. Americans are still safe, high five, right?

That's how we think here. That's how we have to think here. If we're really thinking about a world that is led by the United States as their economic superpower, that's how we think. I'm gonna split this into a two-part series. Let's take a break, and then when we come back, we'll pick up the China. Alright Andrew, we're back from the break and we're getting into China. So we have a ton

to cover with China. So I I'm just gonna kick it off. I don't even know where to start. I know, that's how it feels, right? Right. That's exactly how it feels. But it seems like China's goal is global domination or at least they want to become the next superpower, the next global superpower. I think a good place to start is recently in the news. It's been everywhere. Have you heard

this? Lab leak most likely caused pandemic energy department says. That's from the New York Times. Yeah, I know you're I mean, this is a fantastic example of it's a fantastic example of how bad the government is sometimes at doing their own job. Right? So the Department of Energy basically ran a study and then they weren't careful enough in the use of their terminology and then this, this, a line out of place essentially turns into this gigantic media frenzy that is essentially trying to say that the government is confirming that the coronavirus came from a lab in China. So this is a fantastic place to start because multiple government agencies have looked into this and have reviewed the findings that the Department of Energy used to make their statement. And they've all confirmed that there is not enough evidence to be able to refute or deny that coronavirus is either natural or man-made from a lab.

But the Department of Energy did their own thing, right? Didn't properly but it didn't properly communicate it. So we've got this open question now about, is the government trying to hide something? Can we say that it was developed in a lab, whatever else it might be? It's important to me because there's a lot of, rightfully so, there's a lot of very concerned and upset people about COVID, right?

About coronavirus or the novel coronavirus that became COVID-19's, you know, causing factor. And it's been a core facet of our lives, whether we like it or not, for the better part of what, 45 months, I think, like it's a long time. It's been a long time. Real quick, before we dive into this, because I wanna hit coronavirus. So, we've been talking about, I've talked about it, you've talked about it, I've heard it on interviews,

how the media is essentially just a bunch of bullshit nowadays. And so, this is just one article that I pulled up, I pulled up New York Times. And like I said, the headline is, lab leak most likely caused pandemic energy departments. As then if we read here, new intelligence has prompted energy department to conclude that an accidental laboratory leak in China most likely caused the coronavirus pandemic through US spy agencies remained divided over the origins of the virus. American officials said on Sunday, the conclusion was a change from the department's earlier

position that it was undecided on how the virus emerged. Then this is where it gets interesting. Some officials, briefed on the intelligence, said that it was a relatively weak, or I'm sorry, said that it was relatively weak and that the energy department's conclusion was made with low confidence, suggesting its level of certainty was not high. While the department shared the information

with other agencies, none of them changed their conclusion official said. So I'm not gonna read the entire article, but that just goes to show you that you can't just read the headlines. Exactly right, especially not when it comes to intelligence or anything based on intelligence. So you heard a couple of words in that, right? We heard the word likely, and then we heard the word confidence. There's a grid when when in professional intelligence agencies collect intelligence,

they have to run that intelligence through a grid, like a vetting process, so that when they communicate to somebody else, they can communicate using the same terminology. So if your NSA, I'm CIA, somebody else is DIA, we all have our own language inside our departments. I mean, you know as well as I do, the military has its own language. CIA has its own language. You can't, it's really hard for two people from different agencies to have a straightforward conversation.

So when you talk about intelligence, they create tools so that we can communicate in common terms. Likeliness and confidence are two of those terms that are pretty well structured so that all the different agencies can communicate transparently with each other. Problem is it only works with each other. It doesn't work with the media. So, likeliness has to do with how probable something is.

Confidence has to do with your, the way you've vetted the information itself. So something can be high likely, like highly likely, and high confidence. That means it's a high probability, and we have strong faith in the information. Something can also be very likely, but we have low confidence in the information. So it means we do believe that there's a high probability, this is what happened, but the information that we have to support that conclusion is very weak. We can also have situations where something is not likely,

and we have high confidence in the information. All that changes the probabilities. So when agencies speak to each other, which is what you were just reading, DOE was talking to other intelligence agencies, and they're all divided because some say that it had high likelihood and some say that it was low confidence. That's them speaking a language that the average person doesn't understand. And then you throw in the New York Times, they just want to get you to click on the headline.

And then the conclusion is, the conclusion is bogus. The conclusion on the headline isn't actually supported by the context of the article. How is that legal? I know, right? People need to get over the fact that they're just reading bumper stickers. All the time. It's all it is. It's a fantastic way of putting it. You know, but back to China. What are your thoughts? Was it in a lab? So was this an act of war? I will say no. I do not think it was an act of war.

Good. Yeah, very good, right? My understanding from my own education and my own experience with the Chinese is that culturally, the Chinese are completely different than Americans, right? Americans and Chinese alike, we think like our culture. It doesn't matter whether you're gender specific, whether you're gender neutral, whether you're old, young, educated, uneducated, doesn't matter the color of your skin, Americans think like Americans. We think through

a lens of capitalism and opportunity and equality and fairness and freedom. We all think through that. We just might disagree on exactly what it looks like. Chinese people also all think through a Chinese lens. And the part of that Chinese lens is a 5,000 year history of being Chinese. A big part of that lens is bringing honor to your family name. Being the person who protects the honor that your parents and your grandparents and your great grandparents have put into protecting your family name and not being the one to ruin it. In the United States, we love change. put into protecting your family name and not being the one to ruin it. In the United States, we love change.

I love the fact that I am changing the future of my last name. That's not the same to a Chinese person. They, many ways, if they're gonna change, or they're gonna take a risk to change their family heritage, they're also risking failing. And if they fail their endeavor, it's gonna bring dishonor to their family name.

So they're a completely different mindset than Americans, right? Another part of that Chinese lens is this idea that China, in Chinese, the word for China is jungle, which means the center kingdom. So everything the Chinese do, everything the Politburo does, everything senior Chinese officials think of is all through this lens of China being the center kingdom. It doesn't mean they have to be, it doesn't mean they have to be rulers of the world, but they do have to be the biggest kingdom.

So superpower, the modern day superpower idea, fits them culturally very, very well. There can be other powers, but they are the most powerful. There can be other countries, but they're in the center of everything. When you think about how they set up their model of supply chain management, when you think about how they've consolidated rare earth minerals, when you think about how they've consolidated

rare earth minerals and you think about how they've consolidated intellectual property from all over Europe and Latin America and the United States. You can see they centralize everything. It's called the central party. They centralize. They want to put themselves at the center of the hub and spoke. That's very different than the United States, right? We want to be the thing that breaks the wheel. So culturally, they have this need to, this predisposition to being the center of it all, being the most powerful, but not the world police. They don't want everybody to be a communist party. We want every other country to be a democracy.

That's failed as I don't know how many times. How many Gulf Wars did it be go through because we couldn't make that happen? They don't want everybody to be a communist country, but they do want to be the most powerful country and be communist themselves. Why do you think... I love everything you just said,

but it doesn't answer my question. Why do you think that what makes you believe that the coronavirus was not released and was not an act of war? With everything else that they have going on, I'm just gonna run through some stuff. These are all categories I wanna talk about. But, you know, to me, on top of all this stuff,

I'll get to it. So, I mean, they own the supply chain. There's the fentanyl crisis. They're aiding the cartels with the fentanyl crisis. They're buying up our farmland. They're influencing our politicians. They're influencing big tech. Then we have the TikTok debacle.

We have the spy balloons that have been flying over the US. We got the propaganda war. They're trying to take Taiwan. They're settling Africa. They were there to negotiate with Afghanistan before we ever even pulled out. Then there's the lab leak, supposedly. So it seems like, and I'm sure there's more than I'm not thinking of, but with all these things happening, there's the race to AI, which he's already said, the person that wins the race to AI is

going to achieve global domination, with all these things that they have in place and they're winning on. Why do you, what makes you think that the coronavirus was not an active war. On top of that, why they were never held accountable, ever, by anybody in the world. It was like the Chinese just got a free pass and they just, I mean, the world is a complete disaster right now. Yeah, no, I get it. So I would say there's, there's three reasons I don't think it was an act of war. The first is that China, their strategic MO is to do things quietly, not to do things loud and noisy. Coronavirus, the way it happened was loud and noisy. It broke out in their country first

and then they tried to get it under control. And they were, I mean, the world knew there was a was loud and noisy. It broke out in their country first, and then they tried to get it under control. And they were, I mean, the world knew there was a virus in China that they were trying to control. That's not quiet, right? Everything else on that list, from hypersonic missiles to the AI war, to COTSA, to growing infrastructure in Africa,

that's all quiet. You have to look to find that. You didn't have to look to find out about the coronavirus outbreak. The second reason I don't think it was an intentional act of war is because where did swine flu come from? China, where did bird flu come from?

China, China has a history of unsanitary, experimental conditions where novel, natural viruses are born and spread. And I don't mean this is a 50-year history. I mean, this is like a 15-year history. Bird flu, swine flu, coronavirus, which was another, a coronavirus is a type of flu virus, right? These were all novel viruses originating in China that spread around the world. China was never held accountable for any of them, but at the same time, it's a pattern of behavior. It's a pattern that shows disgusting, unsanitary conditions. If you've ever gotten a chance to see

even just a Chinese restaurant in China, it's filthy. They do not have the health and sanitation standards we have in the United States. They don't have to. Their population is different, their culture is different, everything's different. So it's a petri dish for discussing things to happen and for new natural evolutions of viruses to take place. So because of that track record,

coronavirus behaved exactly the same way as the other viruses, a breakout in China that spread throughout the world. And then the third reason that I don't believe it was an active war is because China will pull the trigger when they want something, but they pull that trigger at a strategically beneficial point, like they did in Hong Kong, right? When they took Hong Kong, China took Hong Kong in weeks. They pulled the trigger when everything was

lined up and everything was ready. They made a decisive action and they took it and the world had nothing to say about it, right? When China moves on Taiwan, and I fully expect China will move on Taiwan before we've identified our next president, right? I, I, I 100% agree with that. They will make that move. It will be decisive. It will be fast. It will be backed by multiple secondary and tertiary support efforts.

It will not be a debacle like COVID was. These are all the reasons why I don't believe it was an active war. Could they have been developing biological antigens, biological weapons or biological defense? They could have been possibly everything's a possibility, right? I would even say that that could be, like that could be in the place of like 40% to 70% probable,

but we don't have any information to support that. Maybe it's out there and we just haven't seen it. But for me, when I take a look at all the data that I do have, I see the history of swine flu bird flu. I see the history of how they operate in Hong Kong. And I see the fact that coronavirus was handled like a freaking disaster. That does not strike me as an intentional act of war.

Why do you think there was no repercussions? So my guess is that the reason that we haven't seen repercussions is because of what happened when it hit the democratic world. You can't, let's just look at the United States. It's easy for us to remember the United States. It first hit the United States when Donald Trump was president.

And Trump made a big deal out of saying, it's, we don't know what it is. It's a virus, don't panic, right? It was don't panic, don't panic, don't panic as liberal media and the opposite viewpoint to the Republican Party was panicking. Counting, once you start counting sick people and counting beds and counting dead, it didn't service in Vietnam.

It didn't service in Afghanistan or Iraq. Why would we think it's going to service during the coronavirus outbreak? Right? So now, everybody's worried about numbers without having any context for those numbers, without actually doing the deep research. If you remember how many bad medical journal articles came out, how much, what was it? It was like the American Center for Disease Control.

The CDC came out and said early on that there's no evidence the coronavirus can spread from human to human. Do you remember that? They made a freaking meme out of it with like a little boy on his grandpa's shoulders or some garbage. They were so wrong. So in the middle of all this, then we have an election year and a change in president. And then once coronavirus was deemed not a super bug, then it became a political issue.

Once it became a political issue, somebody had to run on a platform about coronavirus. Biden won. He had to do something about coronavirus because he had just won on that platform. So he pours money into vaccines and he pours any forces of vaccine among government employees. We all know what happened from there. The average on-farm income in the United States was a loss of $1,100. 60% of US pork comes from one company wholly owned by the Chinese. And farmers are more likely to commit suicide than veterans.

Folks, we got a problem. I'm Lucinda, a generation farmer and founder of Moink. Moo-plus-oink! We offer grass-fed and grass-fin finished beef and lamb, pastured pork and chicken, and wild caught Alaskan salmon, shipped straight from the heart of rural America. Come stand shoulder to shoulder with us by putting the family farm at the center of your supper table. What's in it for you?

You mean besides saving the family farm and enjoying the highest quality meat on God's green earth? Geez, won't we hang the moon for you too? I'd love to. Go to MonkBox.com slash Yum right now and get a free gift in your first order. Get to get in my the get in is good. Go to MonkBox.com slash Yum. MonkBox.com slash Yum.

I guarantee you're fixing to say, oink oink, I'm just so happy I got moinked. This episode is brought to you by Sold the Genero. As Sold the Genero, touch isn't just for screens. Physical connection is so essential to how we communicate. It's infused in everything we offer. Since so irresistible, PDA is guaranteed. Textures are so luscious, skin is huggable.

Get into a Sold the Genero state of mind. Receive 10% off on your first order on Soldiginero.com. Plus free shipping with the code Soldiginero10. Essentially, the United States government got behind the idea that coronavirus was a major issue. And every other first world country followed our lead. There's no walking that back. There's no, you can't fund research

for a vaccination on short notice. You can't, you can't create policy around a virus that you then later on say, my mistake, you guys, it really wasn't as bad as we thought it was going to be. We have a pretty solid plan to take care of the high risk individuals. Maybe we shouldn't have put so much money into a race for a vaccine. Maybe we did some things wrong. The government can't say that. They can't admit their mistakes. But what they can do is try to push to focus us, the American public, on something else. That's why I think they were never held accountable. Because if the United States government was to say, China, you, your bad health practices made this happen, that just opens the door to China being like, well, your bad decision about these health practices made it into something that it wasn't.

Right? Did we, did our labs potentially leak a virus? Yes. Well, I'm saying a virus. If you rewind, if you do rewind, they're China had an overreaction. If we had an overreaction, then they definitely had an overreaction because they were welding apartment door shut. You know what I mean? And they were arresting people, had people in mobsuits, they were disinfecting factories. And so, is severe as the response was here in the US, it was more severe there.

So I don't... The difference is how... How could they claim that? Nobody followed China. China did what China did. Nobody took action until we took action. After the United States started locking people up and or locking people, locking up businesses and forcing people to work from home and shutting down travel.

After that, that's when you saw everybody else start to take, start to really apply the policies. I remember I was in the Middle East at the time, I was in the UAE at the time. Things went crazy in China and the UAE was undecided how it was going to respond. Lots of Chinese were coming to and from Dubai and through and from Abu Dhabi, but the Emirates didn't want to shut down all of their economy until they knew something was significant. Plus, they have a very small population and a really high level of medical technician. So they didn't run into the risk, the over-saturation

of hospitals, like we had in the United States. But once the US president made an issue out of it, then the Emirates made an issue out of it. And that's how things kind of tumbled. So China, you're right, China overreacted by our standards, but they reacted in exactly the way you would expect a surveillance, police state, you know, to behave, welding people into buildings and doing other inhumane things. Yeah, and then, you know, on top of that, one of your responses when I asked,

why don't you think this was an act of wars because they released on their own people, but we know they don't treat their people like we treat our people. They have slavery still. Your shoes are probably made from it. Our phones are made from everything's made from it. And they have an overpopulation problem.

So I don't think it would be out of the realm to say maybe this was some type of a population control thing for China, or maybe they did release it, you know, upon the world to create everything that happened. I mean, you're, again, considering that everything is a possibility. It becomes a question of probability. In my estimate of China, they don't often make moves that have more loss than benefit. And they've lost significantly since COVID came out. We all got smart to their role in supply chain management or supply chain control.

We all got smart to their lack of human rights, their control of movement. I mean, those are human rights abuses, right? They could have done that for decades, both of those for decades, without us ever even noticing it. Coronavirus, it pulled the veil back. Not to mention the fact that then after the United States

laid off of COVID policy in Europe, started pulling back COVID policy. The Chinese continued a very strict zero tolerance policy. Why would they do that? Is there the potential that they were trying to essentially kill off their older generation and kill off their weaker, sicker generation

because we know the targets immunocompromised individuals. Of course, there's a possibility, but probability wise, they lost much more coming out of COVID than they gained. That doesn't strike me as a calculated, intentional move. Okay. I mean, it's just, you know, it's just, it's hard for me to believe it wasn't when, when all these other things, you know, to me, and lead to their end game, their goal. So I don't think that, I think you're dead on about their end game. I think you're dead on about all of the multi-faceted things that China's doing, for sure. The only place where I'm divergent is in thinking that COVID was intentional. For all we know, it was a biological weapon

that they were planning to release when they executed their end game. Perhaps that's true. We don't know. All I'm saying is that I have a, I am feeling like the higher probability reason that my, I am saying that it is low probability that they intentionally released it in 2019

in Wuhan among their own people for some strategic benefit. I feel like that was a mistake. Either a mistake that happened naturally or a mistake that was fabricated in the lab, it was still a mistake. That's all I'm saying, because all this stuff is legit.

Okay, well where would you like to start? Well, now that we've covered COVID, because there's so many, there is so many different areas. Where do you want to start? Or I could pick? Man, let's start with whatever you think is most interesting. Well, let's start with, let's start with all of the areas of the world where they're pumping influence into Africa,

building massive infrastructure in Africa. These, we're not talking, you know, little bitty Chinese villages, we're talking four lane highways, skyscrapers, and putting all that infrastructure in place for all of the natural resources that are going on there. Then we have, they're taking the lithium mines in Mexico. They're buying the lithium mines in Afghanistan.

And so what you're talking about, and this is a great place to start, what you're talking about is something that's known as the Belt and Road Initiative, the BRI, right? The Belt and Road Initiative was something that she didn't ping-ponged in motion back in, I think, 2017, possibly somewhere around there.

And it's the idea that you can basically build a belt, a supply chain, and resource belt all the way around the world, just like the old silk road that puts China at the center of it all. So now China can export along that entire B.O. that whole belt road, and they can also import along that whole belt road, with the idea being that they'll import raw materials

and export finished products. That's the BRI. It's also has a secondary benefit. On top of an economic benefit to China, it has a secondary benefit where it's a chance for China to build what's known as soft power or influence, soft power in these third-world countries. That's why the Belt and Road Initiative is almost all poor poverty-stricken corrupt

third-world countries. Because China is an autocracy, not a democracy, they don't need approval to do business with anybody. They don't need a majority vote in Congress before they seal a deal with a warlord in Niger. They don't need it. They just go in a Niger and they sign a deal. Boom, good to go. Representative of the government, done. 15 minutes and you've got a deal in Africa or Southeast Asia.

So that's been their strategy. They want that influence because what they're actually doing is they're leasing for long periods of time, access to the mineral and the locations that they're building. So they go in, build an airport, build a road, build water, build everything. They take Chinese employees in to give those Chinese employees jobs. They work, they create all this infrastructure, and the local country signs a lease that says the Chinese government can use this for their own purposes.

So now China just built 10 military bases all around the globe. They just call them airports. Until the time comes, the China calls in the favor on their lease and says, hey, we're going to move military transports and military troops. And is the country going to push back? No, because the country's poor and poverty-stricken. It has no standing military. It needs the Chinese dollars.

It has no relationship with the United States, because what does the United States do to any corrupt country out there? Stiff arm. And doesn't have any relationship with Europe? Why? Because Europe does the same thing, because that's what the United States says.

You can't do business with countries that have human rights abuses, corruption, or whatever else, right? So all these countries are being ignored. China can go in for a song and get their support. I mean, why are we changing policy? So they just, they win in so many ways. They win in so many ways. I mean, they're going to own our power structure, our power grid. Yeah. You know, I mean, there's this huge green initiative happening right now in Europe and the US. We've got one, they're getting all these strategic points all over the world. They're settling all the places that I mentioned. Then, on top of that, they're gonna be the sole provider

of these batteries that power all the solar equipment for the green energy. Yeah. So that's how the Chinese move. A 5,000 year old country moves slow, right? They move slow, and then by the time you realize you're part of the mudslide, it's too late. Well, how, how, why are we not shifting focus here? I mean, if we have

this big green initiative, why the hell are we allowing China to take all of the lithium mines to to make all of the batteries, all of the panels, all of the wind turbines, are all everything is coming from China. So this is, so we aren't energy independent, we're dependent on our enemy. Which is assinine. You hear all these people that are in their right, you know? They go back and they talk about how Trump basically had told the German Chancellor,

hey, you might want to get your natural gas from somewhere besides Russia, that's your enemy. Now we're doing, we sit there and we criticize Europe for getting their energy from Russia and then we do the exact same thing and get our energy from China. How is this getting dropped? Or is it on purpose? No, so there's hypocrisy, absolutely. This is the teapot calling the kettle black

or whatever version of hypocrisy you want to, right? For sure, that's happening. The other thing to keep in mind is we're a democracy, so we move at the speed of bureaucracy. If you recall under Obama, Obama in his second term coined something known as the Asia pivot, right? Where he pivoted, he started working to pivot through policy, all of our attention away from counterterrorism and into China, right? He just called it the Asia pivot. We need to focus strategically on winning hearts and minds in Southeast Asia because China is our next big threat.

And we've lost track of that threat as we've been chasing down terrorism. We used to have close relationships with the Philippines and Malaysia and Thailand and Cambodia and Vietnam. We used to be part of ASEAN, that network of countries. Well, then we focused on the Middle East, China swooped in and replaced us in their severe influence in Asia. So Obama started trying to move the ship in that direction.

But then, like we were talking about earlier, we became a very polarized country. So if you wanted to focus on China, but you also wanted to be elected on a conservative platform, you couldn't agree with Obama. You had to disagree with Obama, because the only way that you were going to get the conservative vote is if you took a hard line stance against everything that Obama stood for. So then we lost that China thread. Not you and I, the frickin' congressmen and senators that were trying to get elected.

They dropped the ball on the strategic thread in order to gain the short-term victory. And then every two years or every six years, they have to go up for re-election. And then Trump comes into office and guess what? You can't be a liberal and support any Trump policy. We just became frickin' different, different, like, it's just insane. It's insane how divided we've let ourselves become.

And in those cracks in between, we're losing track of the common long-term threats to the United States. Because we're too busy bitching about green energy and melting polar ice caps and, you know, and Medicare for Old People. We're completely losing the fact that China is the biggest threat that's posed to you're and my children, right? My parents on Medicaid and Medicaid,

they can take care of themselves. But what about someone needs to protect the next generation? We've lost track of that. I'm really worried about the next generation. What about the fentanyl stuff? I mean, that's another, I mean, they just have so many angles. It seems I can't think of anything left. You know, I mean, they're just hitting us from every direction.

And so with the fentanyl stuff, they're shipping all the supplies into Mexico to make the fentanyl to these cartels. Not only are they doing that, they're sending in chemists to teach the cartels how to make the the world's most potent fentanyl. Now they're already teaching these guys what the next drug is. So we went through heroin, now we're in fentanyl and now they're now they're teaching the cartels how to make the next the next most deadliest drug, which is going to be worse than fentanyl, if he can even believe that. Yeah, right. So this is one of those areas where it's important to understand that autocracies, autocratic nations, Russia, Iran, China.

Anything's possible based on who you know. So organized crime, organized crime in an autocracy looks very different than organized crime in a democracy. Because organized crime in a democracy has to learn to operate under multiple layers of police enforcement, municipal police, district police, state police, state police, federal police, right? All these different layers they have to operate under. So they have to,

they generally can't do big operations and they generally don't get to move large amounts of money because it's very hard. In an autocracy, they don't have multiple layers of police force. They basically have one, one main police chief or one main police governing agent who is in charge of multiple pre-saints. So they just have to have that one person on the payroll or they just have to be an old friend from school or they just have to have some way of basically bypassing that one

level of police enforcement. And then once they've got that, they can do pretty much anything they want. They can move large quantities of goods. They can, they can deal with large quantities of money. And they can do it all because it's essentially sanctioned by the state because of the corruption that exists because of the way that the Communistocratic Party is organized, oligarchs, governors, commissioners, that kind of thing. So the fact that there is, or maybe, Chinese scientists and Chinese individuals supporting the drug trade in South America doesn't necessarily mean that the Chinese Communist Party, the CCP, is enabling that to happen or encouraging or directing that that happens,

as much as it could just mean that an organized crime syndicate is able to manage that level of operation because they don't have to go through a democracy to get there. Do you think it's an organized crime entity? I would imagine that that is more, it makes, I feel like it's higher probability that that's a criminal effort

than an organized state effort. If it was an organized state effort, I wouldn't see them doing it in with Chinese people in South America. I would see a cutout nation in between, right? They would have Chinese scientists working with Cambodians or Chinese scientists working with Cambodians or Chinese scientists working with Mali to pass the knowledge through a third location so that by the time they actually

get close to the United States, we're not looking at Chinese scientists, we're looking at scientists of some other nationality. It's a cutout, like a shell, to protect and give plausible deniability to the Chinese. If it was national sanctioned or sanctioned by the government, that's how they would go through hiding their hand. That's what I would do again. If you or I was going to run an underground criminal network, we would put layers in place to protect our involvement.

That's just how mature operations work. Everything happening here does not sound like a mature operation. It sounds criminal. Interesting. I mean, I don't know what to believe at this point. You know, it's everything happens. It seems like nowadays, everything just happens right in broad daylight.

It does. Nobody's hiding anything anymore. It's just right out in broad daylight. It does. Nobody's hiding anything anymore. It's just right down the open. And it frustrates me because things have always happened, but we used to be able to count on certain professions to give us vetted information. Journalistic information was supposed to be one of those areas that we could rely on.

But the journalistic, the professional journalistic practice has almost all but died right now. So the articles that you and I read on a day to day basis, they aren't written by journalists. They might be written by individuals who went to school for journalism, but they're not being written by individuals who have had the time to apply journalistic principles to the story that they're writing. They have to get something out, they have to get it out now, they need people to click on it so that their editor and chief can see that people are clicking on their story and they can keep their job.

This episode is brought to you by Rebel Ice Cream. With less than one gram of sugar in most pints, a delicious scoop of Rebel can help you feel better about almost anything. Like ignoring your mom's friend request for months, then pretending you never got it when she confronts you. Rebel ice cream. Feel better. Visit rebelcremery.com to find a store near you.

Rysline presents, go to your happy price. What's up? It's Kayleigh Quoco. When it comes to travel, we all have a happy place. You can see yourself already there. It's up? It's Kayleigh Quokum. When it comes to travel, we all have a happy place. You can see yourself already there. It's beautiful. It might be sunny and sandy for some, neon and urban for others, deserts or rain forests or hiking trails. With price line, you can get to your happy place for a happy price. With deals you really can't find anywhere else. Like up to 60% off select

hotels to coast to Rika or five star hotels for two star prices in Cuba. Go to priceline.com and travel to your happy place for a happy price. All right, see ya, I'm off to Miami. No, actually, wow, look at that. No, I'm going to Hawaii now. Ooh, can Coon look nice?

You know what? Belize looks pretty nice this time of year. Or, hmm, Palm Springs. -♪ Go to your happy place for a happy prize. Go to your happy prize, priceless line. That's what we're looking at now. So these headlines get spread when the content in the article doesn't even support the headline.

These speculative accusations get spread, and you and I don't know any better. We grew up in a house, I remember my dad saying, you could trust the newspaper. You can't trust the newspaper anymore. You know what I mean? I read this awesome article recently,

talking about the difference between print journalism and our print news media and digital news media, meaning print media is all media, all news media that exists in print. It may also exist digitally, but it exists in print. And the difference between that and news that exists only in a digital format. And the article was talking about how

journalistic behaviors, journalistic discipline is starting to be applied more rigorously in digital products only, vice print products only. Because if you make a mistake in a print product, you can't retract it. If you do, it makes a big public mess because the whole world knows that the Wall Street Journal has to retract that article and change it. If you do, it makes a big public mess because the whole world knows that the Wall Street Journal has to retract that article and change it.

Digital, they just update the file, right? Today it says 41 people dead. As soon as better information comes in, they update it. 11 people dead. You can't do that with print media. So as a result, there's more digital news providers, exclusively digital news providers, who are starting to actually apply proper journalistic practice because they get the best of both worlds. They get the story out fast, but they can also continue to vet the facts and update the story for two weeks, three weeks, four weeks, so that what goes on to live in permanent record is finished accurate journalistic content.

Okay. What about all the influence coming into this country, all the farmland that they're buying, all of the residential that they're buying? I mean, from what I know, I mean, look at California. There is a massive migration coming out of California into red states. Tennessee being one of them, Texas, Florida,

you're seeing this massive migration of Californians moving out of the state. Now, the funny thing is, with the amount of Californians leaving that state, you would think their real estate prices would plummet. But they're not, because the Chinese and BlackRock are buying up all of the residential. And on top of that, they're buying, I don't know this to be fact, but it may be you do. Do they own more farmland in the US than any one person or business entity?

I don't know. I don't know the answer to that. What's my understanding of what's happening when it comes to property ownership in the United States, specifically property rights that are in our country but belong to foreign nationals from China. This is a situation where they understand our legal system better than we do. We built our real estate structure in the 1950s. On the idea that there was only one superpower, only one country wealthy enough to be able to own property in the United States.

And that was us. And then as the 1970s came and oil was discovered in the Middle East and oil was discovered in Latin America, and a few drug kingpins became, you know, uber wealthy. People, uh, other foreign nationals started realizing that they could take advantage of the same US tax code to shelter their money. So property has always been something that the wealthy have been able to use to tax, protect their assets. But now instead of only Americans being able to buy American property, our law made it so that foreign nationals could also buy our property. And it makes sense, because for a foreign national to buy an American property, they bring, they're being outside

money into the US economy. We want that. And then the United States always has the right to basically take imminent domain or some other you know policy or government structure to pull back the property and make it hours and take ownership away from a foreign national. So we've always had that that kind of clause where we could just take it back if we wanted to and keep their money. We don't want to do that because then people are going to stop investing, but as long as people are investing, if they have the money, let them bring their money into our economy. That was all well and good when the United States was the most significant superpower in the world. Well, then enter 2000s, and now

you've got China and their growing middle class, their center of manufacturing, they're not pouring money into the military industrial complex to fight the global war on terror, like we were. Instead, they can just develop new technology, the birth of Huawei, the birth of cellular technology, advancements in China, and the multitude of technologies that they're stealing from Europe and Latin America and making a fortune off of. Not to mention all of their shipping money and everything else. Now you've got all these wealthy Chinese people. They're not going to buy property in China because they already know they won't own it. The Chinese

party will own it. They could lose it at any time. So the safer option for their investment is to actually buy property in the United States, where there's some sort of legal protection of the investment and the United States is naturally incentivized not to take that property back from them, because to do that would be to essentially forfeit all foreign investors in investing in property in the United States. We didn't anticipate that happening, and we couldn't change policy fast enough

to stop it from happening, because what was happening from 2000 to 2020, the biggest economic boon for the United States that we had seen in like 50 years. Like, there's the kind of the running saying is that it was impossible not to make money in the United States between like 2005 and 2019. That so significant was our economic boon cycle that you could throw money at a wall and you would get a return on investment.

So we got caught. We got caught with our pants down. Somebody used our policy against us and now huge tracks of farmland and industrial properties. I mean, it's not just industrial properties. Man, there are mineral mines on US soil that are majoritively owned and controlled by Chinese companies. Think about that. It doesn't surprise me. I mean, I've read somewhere that

the Chinese only power plant that powers the biggest military base in Texas. Through a shell company, of a shell company, of a shell company. Again, we taught them how to do that. That's American business practice. In the United States, you can open a business and your business is seen in the eyes of the law

as a person. It has rights and protections like a person. We created that. They just take advantage of it. Mm-hmm. I mean, don't... I also read that one of the only loans that Chinese can apply for is real estate loans to buy property here in the US.

So while you say it's individuals, China's obviously influencing its population to invest their money here in the United States. And then we go to Chinese law, which I'm not familiar with, but what, I mean, if they can just pull a business like that, you know, couldn't they just pull somebody's property that was owned in a foreign country, just like that. It's harder to cross international lines like that. That's true. But the other thing is, we're not talking about normal Chinese, right? The average annual income in the United States is like $45,000 a year.

The average annual income inside China is like $21,000 a year. So there are, by American standards, especially, there are just tons of poverty, strict, and Chinese. So in order to be a Chinese person that could actually afford to qualify for real estate loan by American standards in the United States, you'd have to be a very wealthy Chinese person to even be able to do that. So it's not like they're incentivizing or encouraging their general population to buy property here. Instead, it's a wealthy subcomponent or a wealthy subsector of Chinese business people and elites that want to make a wise investment of their capital, their excess capital, so they put it into a US property.

And they put it into a US bank and they put it into a US loan, which generates interest for Americans and boost the American economy, right? We have to come to terms as a country with accepting that we are an economy first capitalist country. And that's a good thing. I like that we're a capitalist country.

I like that we put money first. I like that we drive economy as a core value. I like that. That's what we should do. But we should also have like a bubble of protection around that, where we can limit it to just American citizens. We can limit it to just American citizens. We can limit it to just individuals vetted by certain government departments as viable

candidates to take alone from a US bank. We don't have to have the frickin' doors wide open to God and everybody and have, you know, drug kingpins and human smugglers and oligarchs from Russia. We don't need to just let everybody buy our property. We can insulate ourselves. We just never took the steps to do it before. Partly because we don't grow very fast. We're, I mean, you were military, I'm military.

There's a certain element in military where we call ourselves too dumb to quit. I'm sure you've heard that before. The United States is so punch drunk on wealth, we're kind of too dumb to quit. I'm sure you've heard that before. The United States is so punch drunk on wealth, we're kind of too dumb to quit. It takes a little bit of time, a little bit of reflection, a little bit of work for us to go back, review, and change our policies. And oh, absolutely, we'd have to shake hands across the aisles in the Senate and the House to be able to agree to make some changes. China is gambling on the fact that we're too dumb to ever change our policies.

We'll be too busy arguing with each other over the next president, the next who controls the next House. What do you think they're influencing the division? Oh, for sure. But it's not just them. I mean, think about every election in the world that we try to influence. Every one of those countries is going to try to influence our election too. What I never understood, what people got so upset in 2016, when there was evidence of Russian tampering in the presidential election, what the hell do people think happens in every election? There's tampering in every single election. All we saw in 2016 was that FBI got smart enough

to catch the Russians doing it. That doesn't mean it didn't happen in 2012. That doesn't mean it didn't happen in 2020. That doesn't mean it's not gonna happen in 2024. It happens every cycle. And it happens every midterm and it happens at local levels too. The Chinese, the Russians, the North Koreans, the Iranians, they are all very, very heavily

invested in shaping American politics. Not shaping American politics for a specific winner, but shaping American politics so it causes chaos. It's a core fundamental belief, it's a concept, a core concept in covert influence, that influence doesn't always mean that you're influencing a specific outcome. It just means that you're influencing the process. Causing chaos and division and infighting is 100% a planned outcome of covert influence. We're seeing it every day.

We just don't call it that. We refuse to accept the idea that maybe our vote isn't only being influenced by American decision-making or even our own judgment, maybe some of those TV ads that we're seeing, maybe some of those Facebook ads that we're seeing, maybe some of the articles that are being sponsored and put in front of us are not paid for by Americans.

Yeah. You want to go into a little more detail on how they're influencing all this? Absolutely. So, covert influence, what many people call propaganda. Propaganda, and I think we were mentioning this earlier, it's here, propaganda is kind of an unsophisticated term that's used in countries where information is controlled. So the Russians use propaganda. The Nazis used propaganda. The Chinese still have an office of propaganda. Propaganda is essentially when you block true information and you flood controlled false information,

intentionally false information, what's known as dis information. Do you think we do that? I think in our own country to our own people. It's different for us. We don't have the ability to make propaganda because we can't control the flow of accurate information. What we do have the ability to do is use the tenants of COVID influence and misinformation, which is air int or wrong information, we do allow those things to take root.

So, for example, let's just look at the spy balloon. That was another thing on your list. What was it four weeks ago? A Chinese spy balloon was suspected over Montana, over Malamstrom Air Force Base in Montana. Four days later, it was shot down in the Atlantic Ocean. The world went, the United States went crazy, right? A Chinese balloon with a satellite hanging from underneath it,

actively spying on us in our own airspace, like the American public went nuts. And then the next three things that got shot down, what did they call them? U-A-P's. Unidentified flying objects, UFOs, or unidentified aerial phenomenon, right? They did not want to call them balloons because the government realized that by calling so

much attention to the fact that this first balloon was a Chinese balloon and a spy satellite, they had painted themselves into a corner. Now they had an international incident, they had to manage because they gave too much information to the American public. Simply by having the same thing happen again, and it wasn't even the same thing. It wasn't, I mean, it wasn't a Chinese spy balloon at all. It was a frickin' Idaho University research balloon

that they shot down over the Great Lakes, right? They didn't want to run the risk of calling it a balloon, even though it was reported as a spherical object or whatever they call it, right? They didn't want to run the risk of calling it a balloon, even though it was reported as a spherical object or whatever they call it, right? They would prefer to call it a UFO. Because China's spy balloon, everybody pays attention. UFO shot down, nobody really pays attention. So inside the United States, what we end up happening, what ends up happening is governments, government, military, federal government, you name it, administration. They pick words that are less alarmist, and that's the words that they choose to use when they brief the media at the White House.

Hey, we found an unidentified flying object over Idaho, or whatever else it might be, right? Somebody writes that story up. All the UFO people in the world get excited. Nobody cares anymore from the China spy balloon stuff, right? And the US government, probably rightfully so, is assuming that the average American isn't smart enough to connect the two. Spy balloon here, UFO there.

But what if that UFO is actually a balloon? So then we have two more incidents over the next week and a half. Two more balloons shot down by F-35s and F-16s. Again, balloons, but they don't call them balloons, they call them UFOs. And then what happens? Now the US, now the federal government has just said that they shot down three UFOs. Now all of a sudden it's freaking headline news again. And they're like, oh shit, we shouldn't have called them UFOs.

Or at least we shouldn't have called all three of them UFOs because now the whole world thinks that we are shooting down UFOs. We've got to back this up. So the government does a very bad job of controlling the information flow because they know they can't. It's difficult for them to do so. But they can control classified information. So they will overclassify.

You've seen that, I'm sure, in your days at CIA and in the SEALs, in the SEAL teams, we overclassify all the time as a stopgap to making sure that we don't accidentally overshare. So that's how we handle misinformation. We make the information unavailable knowing full well that journalists and bloggers and whoever else are going to jump onto the story without all the facts and make mistakes. If it benefits American security, national security, they have no problem with that. Sometimes they even seed intentional information just so that they

can send a message like you saw in the beginning part of Ukraine. Like you saw with all the soldier counts in Ukraine. I remember in the first three or four months, the US government was allowing, was, was confirming reports from Ukrainian generals about 50,000 dead Russian soldiers compared to 1500 dead Ukrainian soldiers. Remember when they used to do the body counts? That was just them acknowledging information that they knew was wrong and letting the newspapers run with it anyways. That's how the federal government handles misinformation to the American public. If it benefits national security, let them eat cake. What do you think that's Bible-one was?

What do I think it was? So my suspicion is that the whole Spi-Baloon concept is decades old. Everybody uses them because it makes sense. A satellite, when you try to spy from a satellite, you have a very narrow window of time when the satellite is on target, right? Because the satellite is going around the earth and the earth is here. So when the satellite is over where you need it to be, that's your only window to capture. And then you don't get another capture window until they come back around again. So if there's cloud cover, if it's night time, if there's anything wrong, they don't get the image, right? So you're blind for most of the cycles of that satellite.

A balloon has a long, loiter time and it moves with predominant winds. So you can basically predict when a balloon is going to be in a certain part of the planet based on predominant wind patterns, altitude, et cetera. And it will loiter there moving. That's what 70 knots, like that's slow. So it'll just stay there forever, taking pictures and sending information. They're moving at what 70 knots, like that's slow. So it'll just stay there forever, taking pictures and sending information.

For sure, we use balloons. I've never seen one, I've never heard of one. It just makes technical sense. High probability, low confidence, right? We would use balloons all over the world because you can fly them at 70,000 feet. Nobody really cares that they're there. They don't know if it's a spy balloon or a research balloon or a weather balloon. They don't have

a big radar cross-section. So it makes perfect sense to me that Russia's got balloons out there, Iran's got balloons out there, China's got balloons out there, Germany, France, the UK, Italy, they all have balloons out there. And there would be poor or little to no national or international tracking of these balloons. So they're out there. We've always known that they're out there, but we never really saw it as an issue until for whatever reason that first Chinese spy balloon broke into American airspace and kind of woke up the administration to say, hey, maybe we should think about this.

Maybe we should do something about this. And if you recall, it was like five or this. Maybe we should do something about this. And if you recall, it was like five or seven days before they decided to shoot it down. And then for the next three, they shot it down the next day. Yeah. I mean, I'm sure we hit it, hopefully, with some type of energy weapon, a EWA or whatever before it came into or borders. But you know, as far as the capabilities of what was on there, I mean, do you think that it was only just imagery? Oh, no, no way. Because I did a little segment on this while back and what I realized was these people have no idea what kind of capabilities

are out there. And they think this thing is, they think this thing isn't collecting anything that Google Earth hasn't collected yet. And when I saw that in the comments, I was like, oh man. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's like, you know, what are they gonna get that they can't get off Google Earth? And it's like, I just don't know.

That's exactly what they want you to think. Yeah, I don't know how, I mean, let's go over some of the capabilities that could have been on there. For sure, okay, so if you think of just the first balloon, if you look at pictures of the first balloon, which is a great place to start, just if you Google pictures of this Chinese spy balloon,

and you'll see pictures of it, it was a box. Some say it was a size of a bus. Some say it was a size of a suitcase. The box itself was most likely the size of a suitcase, maybe two suitcases, right? The size of a satellite, essentially. And then it had these two large solar arrays off to the side, collecting energy from the sun

to power all the functions on the box. And then it had at least two, possibly four dishes that were directional dishes that were mounted to the main box. Just by looking at that, there's a couple things that you know for a fact, right? First, you know that it had to be powered externally. So it wasn't a battery that it was carrying.

If it was a battery, it would be designed to run until the battery died. It needed solar power for continuous operations. So that takes money, that takes engineering, that takes time, that takes effort. That's not a weather balloon. University of Michigan is not putting up a weather balloon, it looks like that. You know what I mean? Second, it had those directional dishes. Directional dishes are

designed to pick up localized transmissions and transmit focused transmissions. That's what the shape of the dish is for. Right? So if you have dish TV, it's there so that you can send and receive a very narrow band message. So four dishes gives it the opportunity to collect four different targets at one time or potentially collect three different targets at one time and transmit on a fourth, but there's a two-way transmission and reception mode there. So, and this is just what we see on the outside. If there were, and they were very likely to be signals intelligence collection applications inside, right, small antenna, round bulbous antenna on the underside

or on the backside of the satellite dish or on the backside of the spy balloon, those would be used for wide spectrum signals collection. So they could be collecting signals that were being encrypted and transmitted from one military base to another, from one CIA base to another.

They could be signals connected. They're pretty much anything you mean. Like they could be signals collecting on a certain frequency in the Wi-Fi network that they know is being used by the president or that they know is being used by senators or business people or who knows what. So essentially that satellite, that balloon, was a giant sponge. Collecting signals, radio waves, cellular waves, imagery, thermal imagery, infrared imagery, day and night time, right? And then also having the real-time ability to transmit that information back to another location, potentially even to another balloon.

Also, the balloons could have been transmitting signals to each other, acting as a series of relays back to a main home base. So a balloon over the United States, a balloon over Canada, a balloon over Mexico, all carrying and transmitting signals between each other, hopscatching back to mainland China. That's how satellites work.

That's how anybody with a walkie-talkie can do the same thing, right? When you look at that balloon, all of those capabilities were very likely and housed encased in that one, Spibulum. If you heard of about, do you know anything about quantum entanglement by chance? I know a little bit. I don't know it on a scientific level, but I know the concept. Do you know that the Chinese are claiming to be able to

communicate with their satellites by using quantum entanglement? You don't believe it? It's, I don't, I have yet to know, I have yet to hear about anybody being able to actually replicate or measure the effectiveness of their own quantum entanglement. I think that they've proven that quantum entanglement can happen. I don't know that anyone's been able to measure control it. Good. For the audience, I'll run through it and I'm not a physicist. I'm not your man. I don't know that anyone's been able to measure control it. Good.

For the audience, I'll run through it and I'm not a physicist. I'm not a human, so we're speaking the same language. I'll break it down the best I can. Quantum entanglement is basically saying that all particles, atoms, are connected one way or another through a field of energy. And if you split an atom and you manipulate one half of the atom, no matter where in space the other half of the atom is, it will replicate what you're doing to this part of the atom. So if you were to put, and that, and from what I've read,

and there's some great articles on space.com, then I've read, there's a lot of different articles talking about this, but, but there's no, there is no distance that it doesn't matter the distance. You can manipulate this half of the particle, and this half of the particle is gonna replicate exactly what that one does,

through all of the connectedness of particles. And so if you put something, say like Morse code on this atom, on this half, and this half is going to replicate that. And there's nothing that could intercept these communications. And so that's another thing I heard is, oh, I'm sure we were jamming.

I'm sure we were jamming the transmissions. Yeah, I know we jam things. And I mean, we both spend a lot of time overseas. I'm sure you've seen a lot of the two. Jamers don't even work all the time. You know, and so if they have the capability of quantum entanglement communications, we have no idea what they collected and what got transmitted back to China. Right. I mean, you're even without quantum entanglement, depending on the frequency, the encryption techniques, how we classify the balloon, we may still have no idea what they were transmitting.

They may have been transmitting in the open. And if we weren't intentionally trying to intercept that balloon's transmission, they could have sent an open signal, like a hammer radio signal for crying out loud. And we wouldn't have been able to collect it, right? Because if it's not something we're listening to or looking for, we're not gonna get it.

Yeah. So you bring up a really good point. I can't, I don't know enough about quantum entanglement and Chinese capabilities to speak to that, but we did just yesterday, the US State Department released a report confirming that of the 41 technologies that have been deemed as critical

next generation technologies, I think that's what it was, 41 technologies. China is ahead of the United States in 33 of the 41 technologies. And on that list was advanced communication, artificial intelligence, hypersonic missiles, next generation drones, like a huge list where we are being trounced by Chinese investment

and Chinese discoveries in these advanced tech. So I think that that just further corroborates what you were just talking about with the potentiality of Chinese using quantum entanglement as some sort of communication tool. Have you noticed that most ice creams now come in smaller cartons, not blue bell. Blue bell takes pride in providing our customers with full half gallons and full pints of our delicious ice cream. We would never want to deny any one of all the rich and creamy goodness found in every carton. Blue bell wouldn't have it any other way. You know, moving into tech, I mean, so what they're doing with these tech companies, I interviewed this guy Peter Switzer,

we were just talking about him at lunch, he wrote that book, red handed. So what China's doing with these tech companies? And maybe you know more about this than me, because I just read a book, but, um, but, um, they're basically bringing in all big tech into China because in big tech is, they like it

because they don't have all the red tape to deal with like they do here in the US. So they build them a big chip factory, they build them, I don't know, whatever iPhone factory doesn't matter whatever it is. And so all these big tech companies, Google, Tesla, Apple, all of them are going over there. Well, under Chinese law,

if they develop any new tech that China thinks might benefit their military, artificial intelligence, I don't know, quantum entanglement, that has to be shared with the Chinese government. So all of our tech companies are over there developing new tech and China gets, they get the information first. And so of course we're behind because we've allowed all of that to happen.

Right, that's the downside of globalization. Right? If you're going to take the economic advantage, if you're going to take the economic incentive of manufacturing in a cheap country, then you're forfeiting your rights to the overarching law of the land in that foreign country. We weren't thinking about that, right? We weren't thinking about that, or again, going back to 2010 to 2018, think about the tech boom in that period of time. There was so much money, so much venture capital money going into new, crazy, tech innovations

that half of them didn't even make sense. Right? But there was such an abundance of money people just wanted to be able to act quickly and act at scale. You can't do either of those things in the United States. You have to go to a third country to do that. It's too expensive. There's too much red tape, there's too many legal barriers,

when you try to move fast and scale inside the United States. Let's move back to the division and how China's influencing our division. Do you think they're behind some of this world culture stuff? It's a good question. Like, because that's a very divisive time. It really is. It's, wolf America is, it's, it's, I mean, frankly, it feels like a waste of resources.

It all started with ESG. When ESG first happened, I loved ESG. I still love ESG. ESG is exactly the kind of discovery that makes America great. We found a way to create something that requires no resources, but increases the value so that it increases the economic displacement, right? It costs more money because it brings more value. That's what ESG was, what ESG is. That's what I love about ESG.

We're gonna reduce our carbon footprint. We're going to plant more trees, we're gonna bring more women into executive positions. We're going to appreciate diversity and culture and race. That's awesome. There are people who are getting paid more money. There is more economic stimulus. There are companies who stock prices increasing only because they're practicing ESG.

That's excellent. That brings more economic power to the United States. Well, then that kind of some bastardized niche of that turns into this idea of woke culture. That somehow, I mean, everything from the fact that white people are so racist, they don't even know their racist, to this idea that we have to respect the gender identity of the individual and their pronouns and all this other stuff.

That's the opposite of ESG. That's a bunch of work that doesn't add value to anything. When something is a lot of work and it doesn't add value, it's a drain on resources. So here ESG is this boost economically and then incomes woke culture, which is this drag economically. Do I think that the Chinese are behind it? I don't think that some frickin Chinese covert influence expert invented the idea of woke. Instead, again, following the laws of covert influence, you just find a divisive topic and then you pour fuel onto that divisive topic.

So I do think that it's very likely once woke culture was born, then the Chinese started creating their own pots of money to fuel the fight. So how exactly do you think they're doing that? I mean, I know we know about the bots. We know that there are, what do they call them? Bot farms or something where there's just

thousands and thousands of people. Social media ads. So social media ads is an easy way to fervent more of that culture. TikTok, as popular as TikTok is, who controls TikTok's algorithm? China. Who controls TikTok's algorithm in the United States?

China. They can actually create different algorithms for different geographical regions, right? So now, if you know that low culture is active among a certain demographic, and you know that TikTok is the most popular tool in that demographic, you can just shape that TikTok. You can even create algorithms that target specific age groups inside of the algorithm.

So mom and dad don't even see that their 18 and 19 and 17 year old child is getting this kind of content delivered to them, right? So there's lots of ways that a sophisticated technological country can seed and cultivate conflicts like disagreements over culture or woke culture or any other topic that you can imagine, whether it's whether President Biden is pro-Chinese or whether his son's laptop was this or whether Trump was put in power by Trump was, you know, put in power by the Russians, you can basically control any information you want to if you control the algorithm that sits on the platform.

What are some other ways I could do it other than social media? So there's mainstream media. Most of what we find on Google search, most of what you find, even in like a newspaper or a magazine, is content that is sponsored in some way. Somebody wants an article written, somebody lobbies to have an article written, whatever it might be. And that may not be true for your mainstream media like your Washington Post and your economist and your CNN, they just want clicks. They'll create their own garbage.

They just want clicks, right? But when you're talking about magazines that you find on bookshelves, magazines that you find in airplanes, magazines that you find, on coffee tables at wherever around the world, a lot of that content is sponsored. Somebody wants you to write about something, so they pay the magazine to write about something

and through a cutout of a cutout, the Chinese can just funnel money into certain content that they want to have created, not just the Chinese. The Russians can do it, the Iranians can do it, the North Koreans can do it, the Colombians can do it if they choose, right? We do it just as well, right? We can direct and drive content creation in all sorts of medians all across the world. When you talk about things like YouTube, when you talk about things like Instagram, when you talk about, you know, any popular

tool out there is a potential avenue for a paid sponsor or paid ad or content that is intentionally created and then optimized to reach a certain audience. It's a difficult, challenging world that we live in because content can be crafted and tailored and targeted so well. It's also an area where we tap into some of the best freedom and the best information that we can get because conversations like this are very real. The only reason this real conversation can happen is because of the same tools that other people use to pervert true information. Out of all the stuff that we've talked about so far, I mean, what do you think is the most

concerning? Or do you have anything to add? Do you have any other? The most concerning thing to me is definitely the fact that China has gotten to a place specifically with China. The most significant thing about China is that it's gotten to a place where it has the potential to direct next steps in Europe. Hypersonic missiles, Huawei, rare earth minerals, belt road initiative, they're involved in all sorts of stuff. That one thing to me is the most imminent pressing concern. Because if they figure out how to do that, there's no way we're touching Taiwan or keeping Taiwan safe. If they figure out how to negotiate peace between Ukraine and Russia,

for sure they're going to win Taiwan. And when we're all going to be sitting around wondering how it happened. Do I miss anything? Are there any angles out of the, I don't know, 10 topics that we've brought up? I mean, there's, that's just like you said. I mean, China in and of itself is this massive conversation. So, I mean, what we've covered today is the highlights, the most critical pieces that people need to be paying attention to. And frankly, what you brought up about China,

I mean, there's only a small population paying attention to this stuff. I know. Most people are letting themselves get distracted by what their coworkers are talking about, by what's playing on primetime television, by what the mainstream media is telling them, they're not paying attention to this yet.

And they should be, but they won't be. But I'm glad that the people listening to this yet. And they should be, but they won't be. But I'm glad that people will listening to you are. Yeah, well, it's, I mean, this stuff, this stuff scares these shit out of me. All of it, especially, especially the supply chain with the green energy. That if we're headed down that road, and we're gonna call this, it's just anything but energy independence. I mean, not to mention all the spy where they're gonna put in all this stuff.

So we don't have a great track record of energy independence. Remember when we got all upset about OPEC in the 80s, and yet here we are still dealing with Saudi Arabia and UAE and Oman and Bahrain to get all of our oil. Yeah. We just, we don't. Do you feel like we're taking any measures

to counter any of this stuff? Because I don't, our border isn't locked down. What's the fentanyll is just counting in. You know, I don't see a whole... Everything I buy still says made in China on it. You know, so I mean, unfortunately, I try to wise up to it, but I mean, you can't. You can't.

Everything is made there. I bought my daughter. I bought my daughter a little stuffed puppy the other day. I tried so hard to get a made in America puppy. I mean, I mean, just to give you a little extra backstory, right? My gift to my wife and I for our anniversary this year, which will be 13 years in A month and five days, right or two months and five days, right? Or two months and five days. On my gift to us is gonna be a poodle puppy. We're gonna get our first family dog.

I already know I wanted to be a poodle. I have all my vision for what this poodle's gonna be. So I bought my daughter a stuffed poodle puppy so that she could practice taking care of a dog, right? And I went out of my way to find a puppy that was made in the United States, and I found one. It said, designed in Georgia.

And I forget the name of the city in Georgia, but I've driven through there right outside of Atlanta. And I was like, hell yes, it's a nice high quality, stuffed poodle puppy, it's exactly what I want. I order it, I buy it, it comes in, I pull it out, I look at the tag, proud the design of the United States. I flip the tag over, made in China. Everybody's doing it.

Even, I don't do much merch, but even in the merch world, you know, you buy, you support somebody, and I don't blame them. You don't mean, I mean, you can't blame them. There's, there's only so many options. And unfortunately 99 out of 100 are made in China. And if you want something made in the here, here in the US, be prepared to pay double, maybe triple, right?

Yeah. But, you know, now the big thing is printed in the USA, made in China, you know, printed in the USA. But there were policies in place. USA, made in China, printed in the USA. But there were policies in place. I have to give credit where credit is due, right? Donald Trump put in motion a policy that was very anti-China, right? He put in a program that was called something

like the, whatever, the countering Chinese influence something. It was a very controversial program whatever, the countering Chinese influence something. It was a very controversial program because the liberal voters and liberal media saw it as being racist, targeting Chinese people. Ah, you can't say that, it's a very racist and an anti-Chinese program. So when Trump left office, one of the first things that Biden did was cancel that program. And the news media talked about him canceling that program.

What nobody talked about was that he took the same concepts of that program and moved it into a newly named program called something like the American Independence for me, East Asia after something like that, right? Same program, same same same everything moved into a different name. So at the White House at the administrative level they understand that the fight against China is very real. It is during Obama during Biden's most recent state of the union. He talked about a number of initiatives to bring more domestic manufacturing of high tech projects, medical devices, weapons development,

electric vehicles bringing it back to the United States. The problem is they have to spend a year drafting it, spend a year voting it in, and then they can't actually start to apply it until three to five years out. So he announced it in 2023 during a state of the union address to take effect in 2027, 2028. Well, it would have been nice if they would have just,

I don't know, taken the agenda and ran with it rather than deconstruct the entire thing just to try to construct it again. And the bigger question becomes, if we know that those policies are taking place in four years, what are we gonna do right now? You and I are very tactical. What are we gonna do now?

I appreciate the strategy, but what are we gonna do right now? You can't do anything because you're gonna offend somebody. That's the concern, right? That's the thing that's the game that's being played at a geopolitical level, right? What are we gonna do in Ukraine to counter Russia? What are we gonna do in Europe to counter Chinese influence and Chinese involvement supporting Russia and Ukraine? What are we gonna do to woo India

back to our side of the fence so they stop supporting and partnering with China and Russia? Right? What are we gonna do and how are we gonna do it? And as long as we have political infighting about woke culture, we're just distracting ourselves from the larger question, the threat that looms over the heads of our children,

and our children's children. The last thing I want to talk about with you, and I think you're going to have a lot of knowledge on this because of your Air Force time in the nuclear program as an EMP threat. What's the probability of that happening? So EMPs are rough, right? Well, I don't know if it's common knowledge, it might be.

I can't say that I really know what people do and don't know about EMPs. They don't know much. If they think that the Chinese spy balloon which is doing Google Earth's job, then we really got to break it down here. So an EMP is, it can be the end goal of an explosive device, right?

You can create an EMP. You can't create it like in a movie where it's like a little electrical battery that just sends out a pulse. It has to be something of a larger, a most explosive character trait. EMPs are also the natural byproduct in a nuclear detonation.

Most people when they think of a nuclear bomb, they think of a nuclear bomb that comes and is delivered by a rocket, hits the earth and then explodes, creates a mushroom cloud and a fireball. What they don't realize is that a nuclear warhead can be detonated at any altitude. It can be detonated one foot off the ground,

a thousand feet off the ground, 10 miles off the ground. It could be detonated any altitude, and that the first wave of energy that comes off of a nuclear explosion is an electromagnetic pulse. So when we studied nuclear weapons in the Air Force, when we went to war college about how to apply and deploy them in combat, the first way that we would use a nuclear weapon is as an EMP. So you would send it, you'd launch it, the whole world would see it coming, right? But then you would actually detonate at altitude, and you would detonate at altitude

so that it would send a very large, wide-spread, conical EMP that would short the fuses and communication devices of everything within its reach, right? So two miles off the ground, you might be able to neutralize 15 square miles of landmass, right? Four miles off the ground, you could neutralize 50 miles of landmass. So are these accurate numbers? They're rough numbers. There's an exponential Benefit to how far you could neutralize based on the altitude above ground. Right?

What's the widest area that a M.P. a capability that you know of? Hmm. How much land mass are we talking about? It would all depend on the yield of the warhead. So I don't remember how big our largest warheads are. That number might be classified still for all I know. But if you were to detonate a large warhead at a high altitude,

you would have a huge EMP. You also have to keep in mind that the intensity of the EMP is also related to correlated to how far the devices are from the explosion. So something with shielding might survive the EMP. Something with no shielding might not survive an EMP blast that's done in the atmosphere. You know what I mean? So that's what we have to think about. When you talk about EMPs, the main thing we have to consider is that there has to be some kind of blast

to neutralize everything. Unless you're talking about a focused energy weapon, which could also do the same thing short, short something out, right? And we would absolutely expect in a large scale conflict, a modern day conflict, you would expect to see cyber warfare to help jam signals followed by some kind of EMP blast to destroy the software and to destroy the hardware that would carry the software, assuming they could ever fix the cyber attack. And then you'd basically have neutralized command communications and relay capabilities. And then you would move in with your attacking force.

I mean, it's all energy. All directed energy. No vehicles. No, no, no, anything. Not needed. Yeah. A vehicle could potentially deliver a weapon. So this is another thing to keep in mind, too. It would take, it could, you could use a low yield nuclear weapon, no mushroom cloud, no way to even identify that it was a nuclear weapon. You could potentially drive it in a truck. And no kidding, just like pop it up from the back

better the truck, it goes up 500 feet, half a mile, explodes, neutralizes the entire area. I guess what I meant is if we got hit with an EMP, there would be no vehicles, no electric, no communications, no radio, no nothing. Not if it's modern, you're exactly right. Because an EMP would short the circuitry. So anything that's got a smart chip, modern day cars, cell phones,

all that stuff would be neutralized. Your old school, Chevelle, should still be good to go. But your Tesla would not go anywhere, it'd be a brick, right? Yeah, if we were to be hit by any EMP, that's essentially how it would work. And the, again, the more likely way that we would see anything like this happen is we would first see a cyber attack that would neutralize our ability to identify the incoming

weapon that would discharge the EMP. So we would see some kind of mass attack that distracts us and blinds us to the incoming attack that launches the MP and destroys everything. Do you think that this is a realistic scenario? Not for us, not for the United States. Why so? Because for someone to, first of all, the United States is so large, it would be very difficult

to successfully coordinate an attack against the United States that does both of those things, right? And we've got lots of shielding on our most sensitive equipment. So if someone were to try, I mean, think of the cities you'd have to cover at one time. Miami, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Houston, Dallas, Nashville, like you'd have to cover tons of cities with a coordinated cyber attack and coordinated EMPs to neutralize the United States.

In the hopes that the shielding that's on military bases would be penetrated by the EMP, it's really unlikely, right? Because if you made one mistake, we'd have command and control centralized, and we'd be able to respond with the forces that we have through, since through backup lines, your telephone lines wouldn't go down, right? Because they're not reliant on conducting chips. They're reliant on fiber optic cables and, and sometimes just old-school ethernet cables, right? Like there'd be a lot of infrastructure still in place in the United States, but that's exactly the kind of attack that I would expect to see in an assault on Taiwan.

That's exactly the kind of attack that I would expect to see. The next time Russia tries to take one of their former satellite states. I mean, maybe it wouldn't affect the military bases, but it definitely would affect the civilian population. Sure. And with no electricity, there's no food, there's no water, there's no heat.

Right. There's no cooling. Right. There's no cooling. You know, and so I think that alone, I mean, what are the, it's estimated what you have three days, if something like that were to happen before, before everything comes unglued and it becomes every man for himself. So, really, they wouldn't have to, they wouldn't have to take the military out because the civilian

population would just basically eat itself alive. There's the X factor that we're not considering is what happens when there's an attack. Ukraine is a fantastic real-world example of this right now. President Zelensky's approval rating on February 21st, 2022 was 30%. 30%. 30%. President Zelinsky's approval rating on February 22nd, 2023, was 90%. Now, why am I saying that? Did the guy suddenly become an amazing president in one year? He's the same guy, right? That 90% approval rating came from a mix of Gung Ho

hyper nationalistic Ukrainians who are still in the country because remember they've had tens of millions of refugees leave the country Plus only a fraction of those Gung Ho people can even get to a computer to take a survey So it's a small sample size of a limited population that all answer 90% approval rating, right? But the thing that that demonstrates is that when there's a common aggressor, everything changes. You and I are sitting here talking about the potential negative impact of woke culture. As soon as somebody pulls a gun on any of us, on you, me, or some person who self-identifies

as they or them, we've got a common enemy. All of a sudden, we don't care about their pronouns. We care about the enemy. So if somebody were to attack the United States, we wouldn't eat ourselves from within. We'd sit there, we'd probably lock arms, pick up weapons, and fight the enemy. That's what we did after 9-11. I know you remember what 9-11 was like. I definitely remember that. That was a different time. It was a different time. It was a different time. Near as divided as we are today. We weren't, but some of the most contentious activity

we saw was coming from the bore, the g the gore and bush elections just prior to that. Yeah. I don't know. I want to believe you. I really do. I just don't see. I don't see Americans locking arms. I just don't see it today. We need a common enemy. What scares me to be very honest with you, what scares me is the fact that the administration also knows we need a common enemy. Yeah.

So pardon me. I don't feel like, pardon me, I mean, I don't feel like the Trump administration did it. I don't feel like the Biden administration. I don't think unity is on anybody's agenda. You know, and while I do agree that we need a common enemy to unite, I mean, the actions of both administrations are, in my opinion, extremely divisive.

I agree. But what we're seeing, what I'm seeing at least, is that the Biden administration has wised up to the fact that Russia is not our common enemy. They've been preaching that for a year, right? Stand with Ukraine, Russia's the aggressor, Putin's illegal war, Putin's illegal invasion, Putin is Putin that Putin's dying of cancer, Putin's gonna be just, you know, pulled off, pulled out of power by the oligarchs within, how many times have they been wrong, trying to tell us what's gonna happen to Putin? I think they're waking up to the fact that Putin

is not the common enemy America's looking for. Some of us have even like gone as far as to say, maybe we're doing the wrong thing by supporting Ukraine, right? Even I have said that it's not a good idea to provoke Russia because what we're doing now is playing into Russia's hands. Like, when this whole thing started, it was about countering Nazism in Ukraine. Putin didn't have a totes stand on when that was his claim. Now he has a very just claim saying that Ukraine is a proxy war of the West trying to eradicate Russia. He actually has an argument now. We gave him that argument, but my point is that the administration is realizing that the common enemy may actually be China. So now as we turn

our attention towards this conflict with China, and talking about chip wars, and talking about lethal aid to Russia, and talking about China bypassing international laws and whatever else, now all of a sudden, like both sides of the aisle can get behind supporting Ukraine because it's an economic benefit. Both sides of the aisle can get behind putting our targets on China because we all see them

as a true challenge and a true threat to our long-term role as a superpower. I mean, in theory, I mean, can they actually do that though when, what, two years ago, anything bad you said about China, you were a painted racist? Well, to figure that out. Nobody's saying that now. It's interesting, isn't it? It's funny, right? I mean, they're going to be having the whole conversation about China right now and we're not worried about anybody calling us racist.

Yeah. Why gave up on that stuff? Oh, I don't know. I, uh, yeah, I just, you get canceled for anything nowadays. So it's, it's, we'll see what happens. We'll see what the, what the woke internet has to think about our conversation. I don't think we're gonna be paying it as racist,

but two years ago we would have been, you know, maybe a year ago we would have been. And so it's, I mean, they're gonna have to re-indct ornate half of the population and to think in that that's not racist again. Or half the population won't be smart enough to keep up with it anyways. They'll be too busy scrolling through TikTok or giving up their time some other way. Very true. Is there anything else you want to cover with China? No, man. I think we've, I think, especially for what could be

a first conversation, to bring people up to date where we are today with China. I think we totally nailed it. Who knows what it'll look like six months from now? But right now, we've got a very accurate idea of China's role in China's implication as it stands today. Perfect. Let's take a break.

When we come back. We'll lightly cover some UFO, UAP, and energy stuff. Sounds perfect, man. All right. I want to take a minute to tell you about vigilance elite Patreon. Patreon support is what makes this show possible and gives me the ability to bring these one-of-a-kind stories to the public.

Go to patreon.com, slash vigilance, elite, and support the Sean Ryan Show today. Thank you for listening to the Sean Ryan Show. If you haven't already, please take a minute, head over to iTunes, and leave the Sean Ryan show review. We read every review that comes through, and we really appreciate the support. Thank you. Let's get back to the show. All right, Andy. We're back from the break, the final break. We're gonna cover the weaponization of space,

our weaponizing space, and UFO, UAP, maybe some free energy stuff. Yeah. What do you wanna kick it off with? Dude, weaponizing space is a super interesting topic. Let's go there. Yeah, so the couple things, so just recently, Russia announced

that it's gonna pull out a start treaty, right? What is the start treaty? The start treaty was a treaty that was put in place during the Obama years to basically limit and downsize the total number of nuclear weapons that existed between the United States and the Russian arsenals. So a downsizing and modernization

and safety protocols, right, for our two different nuclear weapon arsenals. So a downsizing and modernization and safety like protocols, right, for for our two different nuclear weapon arsenals. I mean, they was set to expire in 2025. Most people thought it was going to renew, but now Putin just announced he's not going to renew it, right? That came on the heels of Biden showing up in Kiev on Presidents Day, which in and of itself is kind of ridiculous. I don't know why the US president would spend American president's day in Kiev. It just doesn't, it doesn't honor our history of presidents. Well, some people claim he's not all there. Well, but either way, so it's a counter that kind of snub in the face of Russia.

Putin announced he's going to pull out of the star treaty. Now nuclear weapons, there is a treaty in place, the non-weaponization of space is a treaty that's existed since the 70s. Nuclear weapons actually work the way they work, specifically because they're supposed to fit within the guidelines of a treaty. So the treaty basically says you cannot put a weapon into orbit around earth. Nuclear weapons follow that rule because they actually launch in a elliptical pattern to reengage or re-enter earth's atmosphere. So they leave from one part of earth and they enter another part of earth. They do not make a full rotation around the Earth, so they do not make an orbit.

With the idea of weaponizing space, it becomes scary because now there are so many more people involved that were never part of that treaty. China's putting things in space. They were never part of the original treaty. We've got commercial entities putting things in space, right? You've got freaking Elon Musk is launching Teslas into orbit. So there's all this stuff now going into space that was never part of the original treaty not to weaponize space.

And all you would basically have to do is essentially put something into space that's carrying a laser, carrying a... Even a dumb bomb, a dumb explosive, right? All you need is gravity. You can just drop something out of a vehicle in space, and as long as it can withstand reentry into the atmosphere, essentially, you have a space-based weapons platform. So it is scary to think about the future. Modern-day weapons, smart weapons, energy-directed weapons, or directed energy weapons, laser weapons,

being based in orbit around the Earth. How many countries do you know of that are putting weapons into space? I don't know of anyone currently putting weapons into space, but the countries that we know have the infrastructure to put satellites and to put large vehicles into space. I mean, that's got to be pushing up towards 25 or 30 countries. I mean, just some of the ones that jumped to mind that I'm not comfortable with putting items into space. Pakistan can launch into space.

India can launch into space. Turkey can launch into space. Iran. Iran can probably launch into space. I mean, if they can't do it themselves, they'd be able to get the the know how from the Russians or the Chinese to be able to do it, right? North Korea might be able to launch into space. They have missile platforms that carry nuclear weapons. So there's a lot of very intense applied mathematics that goes into getting something into orbit and making it stay there. But I mean, these are all countries that have a grudge with someone else that they might consider putting a weapon into space.

At least the United States and like Russia, for example like we have this contentious relationship. Remember in World War II we were allies and then there was the Cold War and then coming out of the Cold War and in the early 90s we kind of became friendly again and then that has slowly kind of dissolved into what it is now. Obviously exacerbated significantly in the last year.

But there's a weird relationship where both of us are really fairly responsible nuclear partners, at least until we see otherwise. What do you think about all this UAP, UFO stuff? It's being brought up more and more and more It's, it's being brought up more and more and more. And there's all these conspiracies around it. Everything from, well, if you heard about the false flag alien invasion, no, you haven't. No, I haven't heard about this yet. Well, some people think that the globalization is gonna occur

after a false flag alien invasion, and that's why all these UAP and UFOs are coming up in the media because they're gonna falsify something that's gonna create enough fear to where we all listen to the one world government. A false flag alien invasion, meaning some deep shadow government is making us think there's UFOs? Yes, yes.

That's convoluted. Yeah, but why do you think this is all of a sudden, you just hit in the mainstream? So more and more and more. Yeah, yeah, yeah, so I think, is an excellent question. UFOs have been something people have been interested in a long time, right? As long as we can remember seeing things in the sky

that we can't immediately identify, that was the birth of the UFO. UFOs and aliens, I think if you take a look closely, there are two different things. UFOs are just what's in the sky. Aliens are life outside of our planet. It's a nuanced difference, but it's still a difference. The reason people are obsessed with UFOs is because people don't like cognitively human beings don't like an open loop in their reasoning process. You don't like it.

I don't like it. It's the reason that television series always end on a cliffhanger. It's the reason that books end on cliffhangers. It's the reason that you read emails from email marketers and they always tell you what they're going to tell you on the next email, right? The human the human brain doesn't like an open loop. We like a closed loop. We like we like closure So when there's an open loop we get fixated on it So the idea of this mystery of what's in the sky we get naturally fixated on what could that be?

Whether we want to or not we start theorizing could it be this could it be that could that be? Whether we want to or not, we start theorizing, could it be this, could it be that? Could it be this? We're trying to close the loop cognitively. That's what drives us compulsively with UFOs. What drives us compulsively with aliens is actually a question of how human beings how we relate to mortality. You're going to die someday. I'm going to die someday. Right now in our 40s, it's more real to us than it was in our 20s when we probably both out we were impervious. But imagine how we're going to feel when we're 60.

Imagine how we're going to feel when we're 80. The closer you get to death, the more intense your question starts to become about, is their life after death? Is there more after death? Am I really just a pile of a functioning, like biological system and then I'm going to die, my system's going to stop working and I'm just going to be dust? Is that really all there is to it? Or is there more?

And that question of, is there more? And that question of is there more is what really drives our fixation with alien life? Because what if there is life outside of earth? What if when we die, our spirits go somewhere outside of earth? What if there's some technology out there that these advanced creatures may have that could help me prolong my life? Right? What if there's something, some great mystery that could help me prolong my life, right? What if there's something, some great mystery

that I haven't discovered in my 65 years of existence because I'm bored with everything of life, and now the only thing that's new and unknown to me is this idea of alien life. So the question of aliens is really intricately connected with the human existence, with a mortality. You can see that you can separate these two things. One is a question of mortality, one is an open loop of the mysteries of what's going on

in the sky. The reason that these two things have always been around, but they've become so intensely mainstream, is because of the UAP report that the government released, what is it, two years ago now, 2021, possibly 2022, the federal government finally released that they had been collecting information about UFOs and UAPs since the 1950s. Once we heard that the federal government, the CIA, the DIA, NSA, had been collectively collecting, running intelligence operations against Russia

for crying out loud to try to collect information about UFOs and UAPs. Now, all of a sudden, what that did is it lended government credibility to these two open loops that we've been suffering from for so long, which now made it so that maybe in secret, you thought there were aliens, but you never talked about it with your friends,

or maybe in secret, you thought there were UFOs, but you never mentioned it to your wife. Now all of a sudden, the government's talking about it. So now everybody can talk about it, which opens up the conversation to everybody who has an opinion, right? And there is real evidence out there that speaks to unidentified aerial phenomenon, and that speaks to things

in the sky that nobody can describe. And then you've got the footage from the 2007, the Nimitz and the F-18s that were tracking multiple aerial vehicles that they couldn't describe and they couldn't define. Like, there's a lot of moving parts here that have now made it so that these two natural questions that all human beings have have now become so mainstream, we can talk and speculate all we want openly now without having to worry about anybody calling us crazy. Do you have any theories on what these are? So I do actually, I was mentioning to you, I actually just finished shooting on a new television

show. And I can't speak about many details, but the show was for a mainstream cable channel, and it was an investigation into the relationship between potential government cover-ups, potential government secrets, and what is going on that could help describe or explain some of these phenomenon that people have been seeing, whether it's phenomenon in the sky or phenomenon on the ground, or phenomenon that people experience physiologically, is there a connection there? And when I get releases to talk about the show, I'll happy to share it all with you. But the point was we got to actually investigate these questions. We got to look at data,

we got to travel, we got to do some experiments to see if we could understand more about what what is actually happening with UAP, UFO, phenomenon, and how does it relate to the government, right? The US government specifically. What I've landed on is a couple of things. So first, there is absolutely classified information that we're not being shared, that's not being shared with us. And that sucks because without that information,

we don't have all the information. We can't make a sound conclusion for ourselves. So there's absolutely some element that's being controlled by the government. That doesn't mean that it's alien tech being protect, being controlled by the government. It just means that some, some being counter somewhere has chosen these 15 reports to not be shared publicly. Who knows what they say. But for sure, there's some element where we're not being told all the facts the government has. On top of that, you've got real national security concerns. We are

trying to develop new weapons all the time, new aircraft, new missile delivery systems, technology that we can't even fathom yet, right? Maybe there's hovercraft technology, maybe there's, maybe there's, who knows, teleporting technology. There's actual national security secrets that should be protected, which is different than the information that doesn't need to be protected, but they're protecting it anyways. But between the government secrets that should be there and the government secrets that don't need to be there, there's a lot of empty holes in our understanding. So in my experience, I've seen strange lights in the sky. We've gone to some of the areas out there where people

have reported UFO sightings, historic repeat UFO sightings. I've seen some very strange lights in the sky. I've seen triangle patterns. I've seen lights that jump from place to place. I mean, I've literally traveled investigated and seen these things, and I have no explanation for what they are, but they're happening in the sky in certain places at high altitude. Where are you seeing these at? The Southwest primarily.

If you're looking in those skies over Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, that's a really concentrated area there at the four corners. Utah, that's an area where there's a ton of concentrated just strangeness, right? That's also an area that's rife with government experimentation. That's where we have all of our experimental flight zones. That's where we have huge areas of commercial air traffic that go through there.

Plus, it's wide open, beautiful, clear sky. You can actually see satellites from Earth when you look up in an empty dark sky. It's incredible what you can see in a normal sky. Most people don't take the time to look up. Most people who do look up, they don't get that kind in a normal sky. Most people don't take the time to look up. Most people who do look up, they don't get that kind of a dark sky. They get a sky with a lot of light pollution

because they live in or near a city. So you might see 15 or 50 stars, but you don't see the Milky Way. When you see the Milky Way, you see all sorts of things moving in the sky that you never would have imagined you would see. And part of the reason is because so many more people are putting up satellites now. You've got SpaceX puts up satellites, governments put up satellites, commercial entities across

the world put up satellites. I mean, for crying out loud, a Tessie lot, which is a French communications company, a T a Tesla lot puts up satellites on an almost monthly basis building a network of satellite-based cellular communication that they use around the world commercially, right? So there's so much in the sky, people see it all the time. And we don't know what we're looking at.

It doesn't pop up on a flight tracker. Nobody announced that they're going to put something in the sky. You just start to see it. Now a satellite looks pretty clear, right? It's a straight line. It moves at a steady speed. Starts in one place, ends in another place. But the stuff that's up there isn't always a satellite.

I've seen strange glowing orbs, like balls of light, that change direction. I have no idea what that is. Is that an airplane that had seen that? Oh yeah. How many times? Maybe three. And only in the last two months

will I've been shooting this show. Wow. But what is it? Could it be, could it be like an alien aircraft maybe? It could also be a domestic aircraft that forgot to turn off its headlight, probably not, but it could be. It could also be a natural phenomenon. I've learned about things like ball lightning. Have you ever heard of ball lightning? No. And the environmental conditions that create lightning can actually be created on a small microcosm and in a ball.

So it's lightning in a ball. It just looks like a light in the middle of nowhere floating. There's also indicators, pre-indicators of earthquakes. There's geological effects that happen that release electromagnetic energy in the atmosphere. When the energy comes up from a fault line and comes in contact with certain conditions in the atmosphere, it creates lights in clouds,

almost like a light switch in a cloud. And all of a sudden, the cloud is a light and floating. Right? We know these things exist. They've been studied, they've been talked about, but they're not mainstream. So how many of the lights that people are seeing that are strange are these true geological

or aerial phenomenon that can be explained, right? Unknown aerial phenomenon, UAP versus known aerial phenomenon on KAP. Unless you know the ball lightning exists, you're not going to know what it looks like when you see it. So there's this subset of celestial things, satellites that we understand. Then there's a subset of just unidentified domestic or unidentified commercial things like aircraft. And then you've got these natural phenomenon,

like ball lightning. Only after you've gotten through all three of those, do you get to the really, really strange stuff? And I mean, that is stuff that I don't know whether or not I've even seen really, really strange stuff because there's so much going on in the sky. Yeah. What do you think about free energy?

A lot of people think that the government is hiding free energy from us. Do you think that? You know, it's interesting. I know that, I mean, back when Nicola Tesla was experimenting with a way to create energy and transfer it across large distances, it was always with an eye towards having it be free and accessible by all people. Some of the places, interestingly enough, some of the places where there are large amounts of UFO and UAP sightings are actually also the same locations where Nikola Tesla had scoped them out as a

transfer point for free energy. Really? Because of the geology in those locations. What I have come to confidently land on is that there is absolutely a connection between the geology of a location and the energetics of that location and how they impact UFOs and UAPs. And let me just give you a real quick example. There are parts of the country where the soil are parts of the country where the soil underground, the geological conditions underground, are heavy in metals like iron ore or copper ore and quartz, which is a rock. Most of us know it quartz is, right? When those two conditions exist, a heavy metal ore paired with quartz,

you're essentially creating a scenario in which the molten core of the earth can charge an artificial battery or a natural battery. Because the metal mashed with the quartz creates a type of reaction where the energy from the core of the earth is stored in the quartz and then it's released to the surface through the quartz, not through the actual core of the earth. In areas that don't have a layer of quartz like that, energy is free flowing. But in areas where there is a heavy focus or a heavy concentration of quartz, that battery power charges and then you actually see higher electromagnetic

energy fields. Okay. Right? Sedona, Arizona, someplace we were talking about recently. There is a fantastic report online. If you just do a quick Google search for Sedona or look for Sedona, Arizona, Magnetic anomalies, right? Or US Geological Survey, USGS, Sedona, Arizona, magnetic anomalies.

Look up that and you're going to come across a report from 2005 that the US Geological Service did that talks all about how the ground underneath the city of Sedona is unique, specifically because of this ability to capture and store energy from the core of the Earth. It's a fascinating thing. Sedona Arizona is also one of those areas where people report saying lots of strange UFOs, sightings of things that can't explain energy vortexes that change and alter their psychology and their mental state.

I mean, and could it all be related to the energy that's happening underground? I would say yes, it absolutely could be related. It even maybe like high probability medium confidence that it's related to the energy underground because it just all of those things scientifically, they all make sense, they all match up. The difference that we have in a place like Sedona versus other parts of Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, is that we don't know if those areas have the same kind of magnetic geology like we see in Sedona. So I mean, it's all my way of saying that in my experience, what we see in Sedona. So, I mean, it's all my way of saying

that in my experience, what we see in the sky is a real, and they're really unexplained. But we may not, we may be reaching a little bit too far when we associate what we see in the sky with intelligent life. What we see in the sky could, could and is scientifically proven to be

related to what happens underground. So maybe we should be looking underground first and then considering life at altitude, right? Because if, again, I like to put you and I in the position where what would we do? If you were in charge of researching another planet and you were studying another planet and you saw in your studies that there's a natural energy source in a certain area of that planet, that's probably the first place that you would go. So when I think of the fact that there's a natural energy source under a place like Sedona, Arizona. If I was a visiting intelligent life form, that's one of the first places I would go. Why would I check out Arkansas?

Why would I go check out Wisconsin when I could check out what is this strange energy signature coming underground at this location in Arizona? Interesting, very interesting. You know what else is interesting is all of these wonders of the world, the pyramid, stonehenge, Macho Pitu, is the Easter Island. These are all on fault lines. Oh, I didn't know that. Did you not know that? No. All of those are

on top of fault lines. Wow. What frequency and vibration. Yep. And a crack in the crust that would allow energy to come out. That's really interesting. I did not, I may ever make that connection. Yeah. Yeah, that's it. And then I don't know how many of them are connected this way, but if you drew a line, you know, from, let's say, Monopiece, Monopiece you to the pyramids, everything in between, it's a, you can take a line and go all the way around the earth.

And I can't remember how wide it is a couple hundred miles. I think all of these places exist in that belt. Yes. See, that's the kind of stuff that really makes me just so curious about what explains it all. It's too coincidental to be coincidence. It just reeks of some kind of intelligent design, but what is that intelligent design, right? Is that evidence of some kind of heaven

and some kind of God? Is it evidence of something like our planet was manufactured or created? Is it evidence of the fact that we were once colonized in the past and then that civilization died and was replaced by dinosaurs and then died and was replaced by us? Like, there's so many questions there. Yeah, there's a lot of questions all right. But, um, but, um, yeah, we could, we could spend all day diving into this, but, um, but I think, I think this is a good place to, to end our conversation, um, because we're getting into, we're getting into things that we don't know about.

Everything up to this point has been very factual. So Andy, thank you for all the knowledge. I learned a lot about China and a lot about the Ukraine, Russia conflict that I didn't know before. And it, you've actually shifted my perspective on a little bit and I have a little bit more confidence than Americans might lock arms one day. Yeah. So I hope you're right.

I, man, I hope I'm right too. It's been an awesome, awesome experience sitting here with Yushan. I mean, this is, these are the kind of conversations I love having. And I mean, if are the kind of conversations I love having. And I mean, if you're anything like me, we just don't get to have them very often. Yeah.

Right? There's a lot of conversation that goes into daily chores and keeping the kids fed and happy and making work happen and making careers happen. And it's not often we get to just jump into this stuff we care about and tease it out. Well, I really appreciate you coming. And all of your links will be down in the description there.

And we'll be promoting this episode on all of our social media channels. And I just, I really hope to see you again. Oh, I'll be back, brother. Thank you for coming. My pleasure. Cheers. Thanks for sharing. My pleasure, cheers. The Bullwork Podcast focuses on political analysis and reporting without partisan loyalties. Real sense of day job is sprinkled on our PTSD.

So things are going well, I guess. Every Monday through Friday, Charlie Sykes speaks with guests about the latest stories from inside Washington and around the world. You document in a very compelling way. All of the positive things have come out of this, but it also feels like we have this massive hangover. No shouting or grandstanding. Principles over partisanship.

The Bullwalk Podcast, wherever you listen. podcast wherever you listen.