Frame of Reference - Profiles in Leadership
"Frame of Reference - Profiles in Leadership" and "Frame of Reference - Coming together" are conversational style shows with local, national, and global experts about issues that affect all of us in some way. I’m, at heart, a “theatre person”. I was drawn to theatre in Junior High School and studied it long enough to get a Master of Fine Arts in Stage Direction. It’s the one thing that I’m REALLY passionate about it because as Shakespeare noted, “all the world’s a stage and all the men and women merely players”. Think about the universality of that line for just a moment. Think about the types of “theatre” that play out around us every day in today’s world. The dramatic, the comedic, the absurd, the existential, the gorilla theatre (it’s a thing, look it up) that is pumped into our Smart Phones, TV’s, Radios, and PC’s every minute of every day.
Think about the tremendous forces that “play” upon us - trying to first discover, then channel, feed, nurture, and finally harvest our will power and biases in order to move forward the agendas of leaders we will likely never meet. Think of all these forces (behind the scenes of course) and how they use the basic tools of theatre to work their “magic” on the course of humanity. Emotionally charged content matched to carefully measured and controlled presentations.
With that in mind (and to hopefully counter the more insidious agendas), I bring you the Frame of Reference "Family" of podcasts, where the voices of our local and global leadership can share their passion for why and how they are leaders in their community and in many cases, the world. Real players with real roles in a world of real problems. No special effects, no hidden agenda, just the facts and anecdotes that make a leader.
And at the risk of sounding trite, I sincerely thank my wife Ann and my two children Elisabeth and Josiah for continually teaching me what leadership SHOULD look like.
Frame of Reference - Profiles in Leadership
Bombs, Distractions, and the Death of Diplomacy
When global tensions flare, it's often what's happening behind the scenes that matters most. In this thought-provoking episode, we dig into the complex relationship between domestic politics and international conflicts, focusing on the recent escalation between Israel and Iran.
We begin by examining the abandoned Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – the Iran Nuclear Deal that once provided structure and accountability in the region. The systematic dismantling of this diplomatic achievement wasn't because it failed, but seemingly because it succeeded under a previous administration. This shortsighted political revenge has created the very vacuum that breeds today's instability.
The timing of Israel's strikes against Iran raises serious questions. With both Netanyahu's government and Trump's administration facing significant domestic challenges and approval ratings in free fall, these military actions appear suspiciously convenient. Are we witnessing genuine security operations, or calculated distractions from internal political crises?
We don't shy away from uncomfortable truths: the celebratory declarations of "obliterating" targets lack credibility given the limitations of the weapons systems used and reports of material being removed before strikes. Meanwhile, the potential for wider conflict looms with Iran's BRICS alliance (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates) functioning as a NATO-like mutual defense pact.
Beyond geopolitics, we explore why reasoned discourse seems increasingly impossible in America. We suggest that appealing to rational arguments misses the point – we must address the emotional foundations driving political positions. Understanding fears, acknowledging concerns, and approaching dialogue with genuine empathy may be the only path forward in our divided nation.
Have you found yourself distracted by headline news while deeper issues go unaddressed? Listen now and join our community of critical thinkers who refuse to accept simple narratives about complex problems.
Thanks for listening. Please check out our website at www.forsauk.com to hear great conversations on topics that need to be talked about. In these times of intense polarization we all need to find time to expand our Frame of Reference.
let's have it let's have it.
Speaker 2:What is it, my friend anton? What is? What is the it that we're having? The it is the hard part, that is the term, you know, the opening of eyes and ears and the opening of the dialogue.
Speaker 2:It is. It is you and I have over the past gosh, I was looking at it, I think it was February of, or January of, 2023 was the first time we talked. So you know, we're already past the two-year mark and one of the things I've appreciated is we can have hard talks. You know, I think I've just about gotten past the point where I can say you know what I'm going to ask Antoine. He's going to know where this is coming from my heart. This isn't me being anything other than stupid, you know, and I hope you feel the same way.
Speaker 2:You know, I mean, you've challenged me on some things. You've always been super supportive of things, but I think about what you know we've talked about a number of times is, you know, anyone that's listening? We talk about real issues that, uh, whites and people of color have in this country and we got to figure out a way to get by it and that's going to take some open dialogue and, frankly, uh, on our side of the equation, I can speak as a white guy. See, um need to listen, we need to listen and we need to listen good and not get, all you know, caught up in the guilt thing that people try to tell us it's about, and today's a little bit off of that. You know, I think in some ways, because we're talking about Iran. It was your idea. Let's talk about what's going on in the Middle East right now and how is that impacting our culture. So where do you think we're at, man, with all that?
Speaker 1:Well, you know, to start with the Israel-Iran, we have to go back to US and Iran, we have to go back to us and iran. We have to go back, uh, to the obama area, the obama era, where, you know, the jcpoa was uh instilled, and I'm just going to read a quick excerpt from what that actually was. You know, of course, uh in this uh article reads the joint, the jcpoa uh joint comprehensive plan of action, commonly referred to as the Iran Nuclear Deal, was signed in 2015 between Iran and six world powers the US, the UK, france, russia, china and Germany. Under President Barack Obama's administration. The core objective of this agreement was to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon while providing a structured path for sanctions relief. Under the deal, iran agreed to significantly reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium, limit the number of centrifuges used for enrichment and allow comprehensive international inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. In exchange, billions of dollars in economic sanctions were lifted, unlocking Iranian assets abroad and the country with global markets. The deal was designed not only as a nuclear safeguard, but also as a diplomatic bridge to de-escalate US-Iran tensions and integrate Iran more constructively into the international community.
Speaker 1:Now, reading that and talking about where we are now. We have to go back to when, in the first in 45 administration, he actually pulled us from this deal. He actually pulled us from this deal and basically, and again, the pure hate in the person's heart, not knowing fully what he was doing, he basically did set on reversing everything that President Barack Obama had instilled, however not fully knowing the repercussions, or even understanding what frameworks, what programs and systems were in place for our national security, or caring ultimately, right, exactly, and it's just this deal that was already in place. If you notice, those six world powers did not include Israel. However, israel is an ally.
Speaker 1:Quote, quote. It was a safeguard. You know, of course, like, in addition to all the internal conflicts, you know, this was one of those things that de-escalated external conflicts, internal conflicts. However, in, uh, I believe I believe personal opinion here I believe that in in a, a move to bolster oneself and to uh make oneself appear strong, you cause a problem and then you say, oh, I'm going to fix the problem that you caused. And with that kind of rhetoric, you know we are where we are right now.
Speaker 2:It's amazing to me too that there's a couple of timing issues with this that I've been thinking about. One is, you know, go back in history even further. Right, we back in the 70s had the Shah of Iran ran that country for I forget how many years, a significant amount of time since the 50s or something. So historians out there check my facts, but he was arguably one of the most corrupt leaders and we've had a history of that In Vietnam. There was a problem with you know, years and years before vietnam war started, we had an opportunity with ho chi minh himself to negotiate and had came close to negotiating a deal there where we would have maintained positive relationship with. You know, on the shah of iran side he was, he was happy to kind of do our bidding to some extent at the expense of his people. So you end up with a person that is ultimately deposed by the people for a religious fanatic is you know what came with Ayatollah Khomeini? So we caused that to some extent. I mean, we can't take direct responsibility, but we certainly had indirect responsibility for not only damaging the relationship as time went on with the Shah and his people and, you know, appearing to actually, I believe, supporting and, you know, appearing, appearing to actually, I believe, supporting him, you know, and were at least a factor in that regime being overthrown and replaced with arguably a worse regime in some respects, because if you, you know, do any of the research on the common people, they're not much happier with the current regime than they were with the Shah. It's just a different kind of pain when it comes down to it. But neither one of them are concerned about the common folks. So here you have, this environment that's set up for not a good relationship, like walking into a family reunion where you pissed off everybody for a long period and then coming in and supposedly having the solution. So for Barack Obama to even negotiate anything was something, but there is so much hatred towards him by the current administration that anything that he did that was at all positive had to be trashed. So now you've got a situation where not only is that bridge or that you know at least steps towards a workable solution is, you know, destroyed because of malice, a desire for revenge. And exactly right, I mean to your point, he desire for revenge. And exactly right, I mean to your point, he doesn't understand, he doesn't have people. I think that can advise him that understand, and then on top of it, the whole method of it you know, to come out and you know, declare that we've obliterated the problem. You know when you know.
Speaker 2:Now, you know evidence is suggested that all of the nuclear fissile material had already been taken out of there. So even if they did do damage to the centrifuges that were there, it wouldn't significantly impact what they're capable of right now. If they have enough, you know, purified uranium that you know, they just need to take it up to another. I forget what it is, it's like 10 or 20% further of enrichment and then it's nuclear material. So, and that doesn't require the same kind of facility that they had. So, and then you know, so they didn't even wait until they had conclusive evidence that that thing had been destroyed or conclusive evidence that the uranium was or was not taken out.
Speaker 2:And then, on top of it, they did some research on these bunker buster bombs that we used.
Speaker 2:They are known to be successful for up to 60 or potentially as far as 80 feet deep under certain conditions, under the proper conditions.
Speaker 2:So you really have to think about the soil, the amount of concrete that's. You know it played in there. And these facilities were known to be more than 100 feet deep, be more than 100 feet deep. So if you think about, even if it was the best possible situation and they went to 80 feet, there was still a two-story building, essentially the equivalent of a two-story building in between the maximum impact of destructiveness for those bombs and where the shelter was. So, okay, let's assume that maybe these bombs are a newer breed of it that you know, no one really knows what the specs are on it and it was better than that. But still to claim that it's obliterated with one report and then to have that report leaked and to find that there really isn't conclusive evidence yet, they have still quite a bit of, you know, recognizance that they need to do to figure it out. So here's a guy that has to immediately come out and say we obliterated it.
Speaker 2:I'm a hero. We took care of this problem. You know, for years these guys didn't know what the blankety blank they were doing and we took care of it. And it is indicative of a person that is very insecure to want to come out and sound ultra strong before they even know the whole picture. Because I think a previous administration they would have been much more cognizant of the impact of what they were doing, the significance of what they were doing, and they sure as hell would have been, you know, very cautious about what they reported as fact until they knew the real facts.
Speaker 2:This is not a person. The current administration is not concerned with facts. They're concerned with looking good. You know, it's like the old Saturday Night Live skit, right, fernando Lamas. I always say I'd rather look good than feel good, you know, or be good. You know, it's just a really, really interesting dynamic on the world stage. And you know the fact that Benjamin, you know, nathin, yahoo, bb, you know, came out immediately and was so, oh, it's wonderful, he's a great guy. He's finally doing this thing, you know, and if you look at Bibi, 70% of his population isn't too thrilled with him. So you know what's the common denominator here. You know the current right. I mean, what's the deal?
Speaker 1:It's like I believe we're going in the same direction with this. The common denominator is you know, both leaders of Israel and the United States are in, their administrations are in disarray, there's a lot of mistrust, there's a lot of things going on under the cap, so to speak, that they are trying to deflect from and of course, you know like, according to BBC News, they were. You know, they called this very suspect. You know this bombing by Israel on Iran very suspect. You know, because you know, like you were just saying, like how 70 plus percent of Israelis are not happy with the current regime. You know there was, you know, all sorts of political unrest and tensions. You know, around this party that he has formed and it's very unpopular. And of course, you know, I guess in our constitution that I'm not exactly sure about is really constitution, quote unquote. But you know, when there is a war you can't have an election. And of course we knew that Israel was about to start having some preliminary elections on some things and so this actually stops that. And however, on the American front, you know we look at it this way. You know, of course he starts we get involved in a Middle Eastern conflict seven months into his administration. This greatly affects the 2026 elections as well as the 2028 elections and you know, and again both of these gentlemen, is just very suspect that why they do this now.
Speaker 1:And like when you were saying how you know, over the course of Fox News, newsmax, etc. All these, they kept using that word obliterated, obliterated, obliterated. You kept hearing that and of course I would challenge the audience when you start hearing a word over and over again, you better look into that word and what context is being used in. And you made a great point that you know it can't even be confirmed that they the goal was accomplished of eliminating these nuclear sites. Of course news shows that there were, like what, 16 trucks outside of one, like a day or so before the bombing even took place. And so it's like we, and again, in an effort to save face, you know you have the defense secretary, attack the media and go on this Roy rage kind of thing. You know, just again he was deflecting from the fact that you know, one, we got involved in something that we should not have. And two, you know the fact that, again, they didn't accomplish the goal. And so here we are. You know, united States is now, in a space where we are known, we are supposed to be the ones that deescalate situations and be that global example. However, over the last six months seven months, you know we have shown as a country. We have shown that we are actually oblivious and illiterate to certain international facts.
Speaker 1:I don't know if you remember going back to one of our first episodes, maybe like a year plus. We've been in business together for like two plus years now but in earlier episodes we were talking about race and those things and I was saying, even above those things, one of my biggest concerns was our international relationships. Now this is where it is bothersome, because Israel bombed Iran knowing it does not have a military stockpile to sustain a war with Iran. They know this, and so what do they do? They rely on the defend our ally quote in our ally agreements. That US will come and I just believe that Trump jumped the gun too fast. Now I want to say this and be clear I am not against Israel defending itself. Going back to October 7th and even in current states, I'm not against Israel defending itself. I am against being not Yahoo Antagonizing and initiating things to stay in power, antagonizing and initiating things to stay in power. So I just want to be clear on that I'm not against israel, but I am against this current uh, whatever you want to call him prime minister, president, whatever and you know. So I just want to make that point clear.
Speaker 1:And going back to what we were talking about with the jcpoa, you know, with that deal in place, it would have, you know, minimized all the unknowns, you know, when it comes to military strategy and decision making. But now, without that deal in place, you know we don't know what Iran is doing, we can't inspect them, we can't do anything. It just destabilized every single thing that was done. Do anything. It just destabilized every single thing that was done. And, of course, it just opens the door to mistrust. Uh, now you got these regional armed races coming along and us has to be clear and has to have their eyes open, much uh, I'm just gonna say it much butt kissing, as trump has done to putin. Putin in russia is known to say that hey, if Iran gets in trouble, we're coming to their defense, and so does China. So we this thing has a very yeah, it just has way bigger repercussions than we know or what is not being said. So I just encourage our listeners to really research these things that we're talking about.
Speaker 2:On, their own. But yeah, great, yeah, I mean we have the NATO agreement, right where we're, you know, allied with people that if one country goes to war, it's assumed that they are all at war. So, you know, we've been kind of skirting the issue of are we at war or not? But remember they have a BRICS agreement. You know what is it, are we at war or not, but remember, they have a BRICS agreement. You know what is it? Brazil, russia, iran, china and I think South Africa is part of that as well. I'm not an expert in that, but I know that there is a coalition similar to NATO, that is essentially all of the oh, it's Korea, north Korea, so when you have that, and then now it's BRICS, because it's South Africa as well. So you have this coalition of, you know, essentially the axis of evil, if you will, or at least that's how we would portray them. And it's interesting to me that there's this whole, you know sense that it doesn't matter what we do, because we're the strongest, we're the best, we've got the most sophisticated weapons, yada, yada, yada.
Speaker 2:Well, you know, you talk about stockpiles of weapons. We don't have an infinite supply of weapons either. What did they say? We have something like 18 of these bunker busters and we supposedly just used 12 of them. So how long is it going to take to replenish those 12? And the other thing that is, I don't see this in the media at all, but they do. They talk about the fact that there were these 16 or 17, a significant number of trucks that were observed pulling stuff out of there before the bombs hit. How in the world did they know that they needed to move those out? And if you can figure out where that leak was and where their reconnaissance was, that they could know that leak was and where their you know reconnaissance was, that they could know that this was going to happen. You know where they were made, tied in to the same. You know snapchat things that you know the department of defense has been using. I, you know, I that's I'm being facetious or I have no clue, but somehow they, they had to know.
Speaker 2:And then you ask yourself too, if you really wanted to be effective and make sure that you were going to neutralize the problem and we knew that this was happening where the heck were the jets that we could have scrambled and taken out all those trucks? You know? Wouldn't you think that if you're really going to try to make this a significant impact and, you know, debilitation of their war-making capabilities, I mean, if you're going to take heat, take heat for that, at least you're going to be consistent with what you're trying to accomplish. You know doing that whole thing. And then there's the whole issue of isn't it interesting that we've got all this stuff going on in LA and we've got all this stuff that's going on in terms of the court battles that are happening, you know, challenging all of the different things on deportations and do props for these people that are being just, you know, picked up off the streets and taken where God knows, where you know, or these you know, detention centers that are being, you know, housing. I think they're saying thousands of people right as they wait for, you know, final deportation.
Speaker 2:Isn't it interesting, when all that stuff is actually getting a lot of coverage, that all of a sudden there's this distraction, because we've talked about the before right, pay no attention to the man behind the curtains, kind of philosophy. Whenever there's you know too much heat starts getting applied, or we start, you know, noticing things that they don't want us to notice. They don't want to just spend a lot of time talking about it. There's some major distraction that happens, and I blame I honestly blame the Democrats and the progressives that are out there, the people that are trying to, you know, get the truth out there. Shame on you for getting distracted. I mean, not that the Iran thing isn't, you know, newsworthy. It needs to be reported on what's happening there.
Speaker 2:But you don't take all your resources and just do that. All of a sudden you keep your eyes on the target. You've already established as a weak point, a vulnerability, and let's see more about this gentleman that now was abducted and beaten physically. There's video of the guy being beaten pretty savagely by the ICE agents that are taking him down, and it turns out he's a father of three Marines. I mean, here's a guy that, for whatever reason he's being taken into custody, obviously has some significant patriotism if he's raised three boys that want to be US Marines. I mean, you know, at least there ought to be some, you know, inquiry into that. You know the Australian reporter that was fired upon and hit with rubber bullets.
Speaker 2:You know, I mean, the number of things that have been going on that the media ought to be able to cover, but they're not. They're, you know, relinquishing the capability of doing that. I mean, can you imagine if Biden had done these things? Can you imagine if any Democrat in recent times would have done these things? What kind of you know media circus would be going on to keep people's attention focused on this? There's so much worse than Watergate, so much worse than Watergate in terms of the impact not only nationally but globally.
Speaker 2:And you know why aren't we doing more to? You know, examine Peter Thiel's relationship with JD Vance and you know other folks. Why aren't we doing more to? You know? Figure out why is a known, you know, ketamine addict, you know, put into a key government position. You know, when you talk to people that are close to him they talk about sometimes he is just so whacked out on the drug compliment. He literally had like a box, you know, a carrying case that just had his drugs in it, for goodness sakes, and he was taking to places. You know, all this stuff is reported out there and if it was real journalism, people would be trying to verify that stuff.
Speaker 2:But this is the quality of the people that are surrounding and influencing these decisions and, at the end of the day, trump doesn't even have to listen to it. He doesn't necessarily want to. He's going to make the decisions that he's going to make. So even when you know Gabbard tries to say you know something about what was going on. He said you know that they may not have had the nuclear capabilities. He says I don't care what she says, I think there were. This is Trump talking. I don't care what she says. What is she? The secretary of the Department of Security? I forget what. The name of that part of our cabinet that's responsible for national security, international security issues, and you know she's. You know I don't care what she says.
Speaker 2:I believe they were. Well, you would believe that if that person was giving you you know information, but you don't believe her because she obviously doesn't know as much as you know, I, I, I don't know. Why isn't that seen as as crazy? I mean, this is just the crazy talk out of your butt, thinking and you know speaking, and yet you know, no one seems to care. And I, honestly this is where I come back to the democrats again and the progressives, because we aren't staying on tack. We, you know you got to. If you're going to try to dismantle someone like this, if you're really going to try to hit him where it hurts, you stay on TAC. You have your points that you're going to do, and I mean we already.
Speaker 2:Oh, trump, and making a farce out of it, you know, or taking the what is it? The super callous, fascist, racist, sexist, nazi POTUS? So it's supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, that lyric. Why isn't somebody taking that and turning that into a you know Broadway tune with choreography and do it right, freaking in front of the White House? You know and have you know one o'clock, two o'clock, three o'clock, four o'clock, five o'clock performances of it. I mean, I am sure you could get more than enough very competent actors, actresses and dancers that would do something like that and that would just there would be, you know, bullets being fired at these people, and make sure you've got lots of cameras on roofs and all kinds of things to take shots of that. I mean, there's got to be something somehow that gets enough people to recognize what this is that, and there's got to be something so awful like the civil rights movement. You know, when we were seeing TV of kids getting attacked by German shepherds, by fire hoses being turned on to people, that anyone that's been around a fire hose knows how hard that PSI comes out. It wasn't until we saw the brutality of Bull and his people you know down in what, mobile Alabama that a lot of that really horrible stuff happened. Then enough of the populace was like that's horrible. I'm afraid there isn't anything. Anything that's horrible enough right now to wake up. White, moderate America, all the people that have just been going oh, this is awful to get them off of their freaking fat asses and start doing stuff to just inundate and hit that. What do they say? Three and a half percent is what you have to hit for a population in order for it to really start implementing a change, and I can't believe there isn't, you know, 50% or 60% of the people that are enraged by this. Enough to say enough, and you know, quite frankly, it might require some of us dying, giving the ultimate sacrifice, if we're really serious about wanting to protect this democracy. Because I don't think.
Speaker 2:The people, these ICE agents, ice agents that don't have any identification, they're all masked, you know, and they're not masked with like real military masks. They've got bandanas around their faces sometimes. So, you know, and they're not masked with like real military masks. They've got bandanas around their faces sometimes. So, you know, are these guys really ICE agents? Or are they just thugs that have been hired that you know? They were at a Nazi rally. So they said hey, how many of you guys want to come? We're going to give you a bulletproof vest and have you come and round up people.
Speaker 2:We don't know, but it sure doesn't seem like a real thing that any other government would be allowed to do without intensive scrutiny by the media and intensive incest. No, not it getting people so riled up that we would actually want to do something about it. There just aren't enough people that understand anymore what beyond the pale means, and I'm afraid it's because there are so many folks that are dumbed down and really appreciate the fact that they've got the king of dummies now leading the country is. It is just amazing to me, that relatively small minority of people that in the old days, in my generation, we said that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You. Why don't you go learn something and then you can contribute to this discussion? But you know, now we're some scientist comes and tells you know, now we're we're some scientist comes and tells it, you know, this measles uh uh, uh. You know outbreak is serious. We need to concern that. Instead of we've got you know somebody that's just saying, nah, vaccinations are worthless, we're not and we're not. If any of you people in the CDC even report this stuff, you will be fired. There's documentation that that's happening and you're like okay.
Speaker 2:So somewhere along the line we decided that a guy with no medical background should be the secretary of the department of health and human services and be able to shut down something as integral to the safety, the medical safety of america should be able to shut them down, silence them, keep them from doing their freaking jobs because he doesn't believe. It's true. I'm like that. All the guys say I should do oil changes on my car, but Carl, who's been working on cars for 20 years? Carl says you don't have to do oil changes. What, excuse me, what You're going to go with what Carl says, instead of the guys that have actually studied viscosity and how quickly oil breaks down and what happens to your engine when it breaks down and loses its lubricative abilities? Seriously, you're that dumb and we are letting that kind of dumbness drive discussions and decisions and elections. I mean it's no wonder we have the kind of idiocy that's going on on the global stage. It's no wonder that Canada is now saying you know what? We're going to fire up our aviation industry, which we dismantled back in the 60s because we were pressured by the American aviation industry to stop doing our own stuff and buy it from us instead. And there's so much of that going on that if people would read or if people would just be willing to say you know what? Well, I don't want to just believe anybody. I really would like to hear from people that study this stuff all the time I work with it.
Speaker 2:During COVID I had guys that were saying a nurse that came in and said this COVID thing, don't worry about it. Over the thing, don't worry about it. I'd rather listen to her, somebody that I see and know and have talked to personally, than some virologist that sits behind a desk all day for 15 years. I'm like, wait, you are not that stupid. Number one, I know these people. You cannot possibly be that stupid that you think that a nurse with a four-year degree knows more than a guy that studied not only that four-year degree but then, you know, went to medical school, went to post-medical school or, you know, went to just you know, get a doctorate in researching these things that are incredibly complex and has now studied them for 15 years. You think that she's on the same level as he is or she is, that she's on the same level as he is or she is, then what, what, what?
Speaker 2:I do not get why people are not incensed that's the word I was looking for Incensed with a sense of how stupid this is. And why aren't we doing something? Those of you that get that it's stupid. You know, I'm not talking about violence. I'm talking about let's use our heads and let's stay on tack with just how stupid this is. Call Trump stupid.
Speaker 2:Do a musical about Trump is stupid. You know, and do that as a commercial. You know, if you pay the right amount of money to the right stations, you could be playing that regularly. You know, come up with something that is so blatantly in his face and gets him so irate that he does more stupid things. And you know, god help us. I don't know what the penultimate stupid thing is, but you would think at some point white moderate America the part that really is the part you need to energize in these things would sit up finally and go.
Speaker 2:I got to do something about this. Where's Ron Johnson's phone number? You know how do I get a hold of him? Oh, this is just not. You better start standing up to this guy when votes come up, unless you don't want to be a senator anymore, and I'm afraid these guys act like that's never going to happen, because they've already taken steps to keep it from happening. Heck Trump himself said before the election vote this time and you won't have to vote ever again. Why is that chilling people's bones when somebody makes a comment like that?
Speaker 1:In the same way. You know that you're, you're you hit it on the head, where people should be more involved but also more enraged as to what's going on. And again I and this is where again people know these two governments Iran I mean the Israel and U? S they use these, that this is being used, as far as I'm concerned, as a political distraction because, again, both of us, both of our countries, have this political unrest. You know, we are not happy with the way things are going now. Support they uh, have provided support to the hespelahs and the hamas and other regional actors over there that actually pose a threat to israel's security interests. You know, and, of course, and the same thing is like again, I just can't help but feel that they, actually the us, wanted to come into this.
Speaker 1:I believe, I strongly believe that we this is only speculation, but I can't help but believe that this was a back room conversation between Israel and, well, I'll say, not Yahoo and Trump, not Israel and the US, but those two characters and saying do this and we'll be there. And, of course, you know, with the NATO clause, defend our allies. You know, of course, we could create this problem which, and then which kind of initiates that, uh, you know, kind of like that 9-11 rally around the flag effect, right where it's like, okay, we're gonna, this thing is so great now that we have the us has to come to the support of, but but at the same time it's just a political play that this thing has been done repeatedly. They know that with Israel dominating and US dominating the headlines with this war, it takes away from the policymaking, the political unrest and, of course, that no king it takes away from those things. But again we have to just america. Well, like you were saying, like am I?
Speaker 1:I have a disdain for the democratic party right now because, like you say, it's so many under the democratic tent, is so many opinions and things like that going on. It's like with the republicans, whether they disagree with the racism and the hatred and all these things or not, they're all in unison. They're either afraid to speak up or they are actually for it. And we were talking about this in a previous podcast where the democrats, they got to get to a space where they everybody, whether you're moderate, progressive, progressive, whatever you get, it needs to be one or two talking points and of course I suggested that. You know, the Democrats make you know the law. What are their sticking points? Just know the law and world peace, or something like that. Or, you know, just reestablishing our foreign relationships. No, if they can just focus on those two things for right now, that could be a winning ticket. Well, you know and get your own shit together, right?
Speaker 2:I mean exactly you can't. You can't have these situations where we're saying we want rule of law and then put people up there that I mean we tried with Kamala Harris, right, we tried to put somebody that has been a prosecutor, that was, in fact, you know someone that was used to, you know, upholding the law, that had you know background in persecuting sexual predators. You know she would. She would say you know, I know Trump's kind, I know those people, I know how they operate and this is how this guy operates. But we didn't stay on tack with that when he started attacking you know, she's the dumbest thing ever. It's like dumbest degree person ever. Here's her transcripts from college. Here's her transcripts from law school. Here's her capabilities as a. You know someone that's prosecuted. Who's the dummy? Here's her capabilities as someone that is prosecuted. Who's the dummy? Here's Donald Trump at Wharton School in Pennsylvania who had professors that called him the dumbest kid that ever came through his class.
Speaker 2:We were trying to stay on tack with the arguments that were civil, but at some point someone forgot that when you're fighting a junkyard dog, when you're fighting a junkyard dog, when you're fighting a junkyard dog, you don't try to say okay, doggy, let go. Doggy, it's okay, I'm not here to threaten you. You get out a gun, you know? You shoot at that doggy's feet and make him understand that. Okay, you want to attack me? I, I'm not going to do the same thing, I'm not going to bite you, but I'm sure as hell gonna let you know that there will be consequences to you biting me.
Speaker 1:So you decide doggy, you decide yeah and you know, and, of course, again, like uh, you know, when you're looking at, like uh, I tend to watch a lot of bbc news and things like that. Just again, I try to, you know, keep my perspective open and, like I said, I listen to newsmax as well as fox, I listen to them all. And just to really try to keep my perspective open and, like I said, I listen to Newsmax as well as Fox, I listen to them all. And just to really try to get both sides. But it comes back to the same thing. You know, we know who Trump is and what he stands for, and you know, and again, just like these, this war, or this preemptive strike, so to speak, or this preemptive strike, so to speak, it's just suspect because it comes right with Israel. It comes right before parliamentary debates coming up. This draws us in. And then, of course, this whole thing when it comes to not Yahoo and Donald Trump. This war thing offers a platform to reset public narratives right. It tries to portray them as defenders of the nation rather than the persecutors and people that they are. And it's not even about, you know, saving countries. It's more about saving political careers. And this is where you know, all looking like a strong guy and in the narrative of protecting Israel. You know it boosts the popularity amongst the right wing people, you know, allowing them to shout this so we protect Israel, we guard Israelrael. You know, israel is a good ally, however, not yahoo is not a good leader. And and of course not yahoo knew that if kamala harris would have won this election which I believe she did, but you know, with, uh, the bomb threats and all these things that happened on election day, you know know, if she had won, there would be sanctions on Israel. Actually there would be. You know he would not be able to do or say half the things that he's doing and Israel will have more accountability, not dismissing the threat against them, like you know, like I said earlier, like you know, because Iran does support, you know, hezbollah, hamas and all these other characters, but she would have implemented some restrictions on what can be done and, at the same time, she would have been more preemptive in their protection, to begin with, by having peaceful things in place to actually guard these things.
Speaker 1:And again, if you know, we, as an American people, like you said a second ago, we no, what was his name? Steve Bannon said this thing and we keep repeating it that his out of words, out of his own mouth, was hey, let's, every day, let's call three new problems. Let's throw three new things and one will get through. They'll get distracted with the other two. One will get through. And here we are, you know, like the dog chasing the tail, or just the wandering eye, whatever the case may be. Oh, look at that, and that's where we are, and you know we're.
Speaker 1:It's taken away from the fact that we have a president in office that has no idea about foreign relations. He has no idea about economics, he has no desire for anything when it comes to DEI, or inclusion, or making America a great country. You know, he has no desire, he has no clue. And of course, this is one of those things where it's like it's a big distraction. And then, of course, all the news sources talk about how we should not have gotten involved with this. We find ourselves now we are under the threat of Iran's sales here within the US, and then, of course, you got to think about where all of our, all of our army base, our military bases, are in, like, say, lebanon, iraq, syria and even Yemen. No, those places are just like come sitting ducks. Now you know, of course. And the thing is, we can't fight a war in Iran. It's too hilly, it's so many hills and valleys. It'd be like going into Vietnam, just in the desert. Yeah, that was really successful.
Speaker 1:And really start to research for yourself. You know, when we talk about love and how love is to be demonstrated, how love is going to cost us resources, is going to cost us time, is going to know. The resource that love will cost you is research. It's going to take you time to research. It's going to hurt to learn some of the things that you have believed may not have been true all along, but that's what love is and that's what that kind of love is, what's going to have to take to save America right now. We're going to have to really start to love people and get to that love. And again, love is going to cost us time, meaning we have to research some things. Love is going to cost us money, meaning lift up the poor. You know love is going to cost us. You know it's going to cost. It's going to cost some pain, again, knowing that what I believe all along may not have been true.
Speaker 1:And that's why you and I, raul, we created this space frame of reference coming together that people that may have said, you know, wow, I've been wrong about this thing and now I need a place to discuss how and why I got to this point. Like, you made an amazing speech at Juneteenth in Baraboo man, we, again, we greatly appreciate your speech in regards to what white people need to be doing and how their eyes need to be open to the internal conflicts as well as the external conflicts. So, man, it was great to hear you speak on those things. And then again, this is where we are and but now it's like what do we do going forward? Yeah, you know, how can? No, we, because we haven't even talked about the consequences of this thing.
Speaker 1:You know, right, you know, of course, we're about to see a hike in oil prices. You know it's going to put a whole lot of pressure on the us. Energy costs uh, heating bills, fuel, uh, it's going to cost. It's going to cost us a whole lot of things and not only that. The biggest part is mental stress. You know, the fear of casualties. You know, because we're gonna have to start sending our men and women over there to be on guard, you know, with minimal sleep, and it's just the long-term consequences, the short-term consequences, uh, you know. Of course, again, it's like the us has lost all credibility over there right now. And how do we get that back, you know?
Speaker 2:do we get that back? You know, I'm and that's, yeah, I'm, I'm just thinking we're, we're at that 45 minute mark. So we talked about um I. I would like to just make one other point, something that I read earlier this week and I think has to drive the nature in which we have these discussions with magas with people that are, you know, pro-trump supporters. We have these discussions with magas with people that are pro-Trump supporters. We have to remember a core thing that this author was talking about, and it was that we keep thinking that we're going to argue.
Speaker 2:Imagine that the maga movement is, or people's brains that are caught in any kind of cult-like behavior, or just followed a leader blindly down a pathway.
Speaker 2:Imagine it's like an elephant with a rider. Okay, a rider that is normally, you know, takes the elephant wherever he wants the elephant to go, which would be our rational brain, right? That's the part that we try to argue with and that's the part that people I see that are, you know, progressive trying to argue with MAGA folks is that they try to argue with the rational mind and they get so frustrated and they think these people are stupid. You know, they just, you know, call them effing idiots and, you know, get all bent out of shape, which is, you know, a problem in and of itself. Because when you, you know, descend to that level to make an argument with an irrational person, I mean this, this this is not when people are that into following a leader blindly down whatever street they go. Rational brain is not where you argue. You have to talk with the elephant, you know you have to play well, with reason, right?
Speaker 2:yeah, I mean, you have to get at the elephant, and that's the part that trump is brilliant at. He knows how to talk to elephants. He knows how to get. He knows exactly the things that get elephants enraged and will cause an elephant to storm through a nursing house window, regardless of what the elephant rider is trying to do. And anyone that's ridden any kind of animal like that, or a tiger tamer, whatever lion tamers, will tell you that when an animal, a beast like that, gets enraged, gets to a certain point in their threat factor. You know and what they perceive as a threat. There's no reasoning with them anymore. That's where we need to focus that if we're going to stay on tack with the MAGA movement. We need to figure out why were they so upset and what is he tying into? What fears is he tying into? What you know concerns that people were not feeling like they were being listened to, because that's the other side of the equation.
Speaker 2:Educated people can very easily get into the well. You don't have a degree like I have. I have a PhD in virology and you don't know anything. You idiot going to receive that well? You know who who is going to receive that kind of nature and that kind of argument well, but if you instead talk to the person from, yeah, you know people, people of all kinds of training. You know, I went to get my phd in studying virology and because I was really interested in it. But you know, you, you just went to high school, right, and I don't know how you feel about that. But God, you're doing now work as a mechanic. No one would be able to get to work if there weren't mechanics like you that are fixing things that they need to go to work. I mean, I really I don't know anything about. You know a car engine or welding or any of the things that are integral to our society today.
Speaker 2:I need to be able to address the elephant, the emotional quality of any human being, with respect and dignity. And as long as we continue to be the kinds of people that are treating folks that we don't agree with and that we think are just holy cow, how can you be this dumb? As long as we let that be the operant behavior instead of man, how, what? Why are you so angry about this? Why? Why are you so scared of immigrants? What? What happened to you? Did you have some experience. I mean, do you have someone in your family that was hurt by you know criminal that you know turned out that they were illegal? And I help me understand that. I want to, because I don't. I don't get why people are so afraid of this. Because I don't get why people are so afraid of this. I don't get why people are okay with the things that are going on.
Speaker 2:What happened to you that you don't trust news anymore? Why are you, I'm curious, why do you think that Fox is wonderful or Newsmax is wonderful, but you don't think CNN is doing things? How are you judging that? I want to understand that process. Or, you know just where are you coming from? Because, I mean, everybody's capable of lying, right. I mean, everybody is depending on what's at stake. The lies get bigger. You know if your wife's about to find out that you're having an illicit affair. You know people that have that on the line and what it would do to their career or whatnot. We'll go to all kinds of you know things that they will do to keep that under wraps. So that's, that's the thing I mean.
Speaker 2:We talk about being on tack. To me, the thing that has to be on tack is that we start addressing the elephants in this equation and you know, know and keep it at the elephant level, which is an empathic, a loving one. You know, you've talked about that over and over again. You know we have to be able to love people enough to say I'm not willing to just surrender you to these forces of darkness. When it comes down to it, I'm not willing to surrender these people because they're not there, because they're well, with exceptions. I believe there are some truly evil people in this whole thing, but a lot of them are just. They've been told things that capitalize on things that are real. Fears and real really do anger them for so long that they just don't have the ability to think about it anymore.
Speaker 1:And that's the thing that concerns me, yes, and wow, brother, that is profound. And of course, you know, we were talking about this a couple of weeks ago, where we're talking about, like you know, why people think the way they think. And you know, again, I was led to a dark psychology book and I encourage people to really grasp a hold of those tactics. You know, the gas lighting, the deflection projection, the illusory truth techniques and all these different kind of things that have been used to manipulate and sway people's frame of thought, frame of thought, you know, and it puts them in places where they may not necessarily agree, but they will. They have received the marching orders and will walk, you know. And of course, uh, he, like you said, it's like it's hard to say what point did he touch to make them think and feel the way they do?
Speaker 1:You know, some may be race and some is that anti-white sentiment, some is they use now the biggest thing, that strange fire, I like to call it, where people are mixing religion and politics. Yeah, you know, and that's where, you know, it's like we have to be aware of the tactics that are being used to play mind games with us. And, of course, as I continuously look through this dark psychology book. I'm like, wow, I've even I've been duped by a lot of this on a lot of occasions and it's just like really again coming to grasp it. Like you know, we take that internal look and, like you said, instead of judging people, calling them stupid or idiots because they feel a certain way, we have to get to the core matter and remember I'm actually going to get in that book that we were talking about, you know, dying of Whiteness.
Speaker 1:I'm going to end up having to get that book sooner rather than later, because, again, that describes a mindset of why people do the things they do. So I'm in 100% agreement with everything you're just saying, brother, and I hope that we can actually continue this conversation next week.
Speaker 2:Amen to that. And, as Walter Cronkite used to say, that's the way it is. June 29th, is it? Yeah, is it the 29th 29th? Yeah, something like that In 2025, here in Sloughbury and Green Bay, wisconsin.
Speaker 2:Now, hey brother, always always so good to get to vent. That's the thing I enjoy. We get to vent with each other about just the state of the world and how much you know whether we believe in Jesus Christ or not. You know some of the basic precepts. You know whether we believe in Jesus Christ or not. You know some of the basic precepts. You know love one another. You know, when asked what are the greatest commandments of all, love the Lord, our God, with all your heart and all your strength, all your soul. You know all your might. And love your neighbor as you love yourself. You know if we would do just those things, regardless of whether or not you're a Christ follower or not. Just do those two things. And you know even do number two. Start with number two.
Speaker 2:But you know the song by Danny O'Keefe. What is Danny O'Keefe Gosh? Why can't it be his name, danny O'Keefe? I want to say that's not right. Anyway, dan, as the Christian singer has a song that says you've got to love God to love people, so I don't know. There it is. Talk to you next week, dude, all right, all right.
Speaker 2:Take care. Thanks for listening here on Frame of Reference Coming Together. Hope you learned something and by all means go to of reference SOCcom. Leave a comment in there if you'd like. You know, hopefully not with a lot of expletives, but you know, sometimes an expletive is the best word for what you need to say. So just speak from your heart and we'll do the same. Take care, folks.
