Royal House of Goose
Let's not be dumb together.
Royal House of Goose
Overreach and Interrogation
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
A conversation about national security.
Guest opinions on the Royal House of Goose are their own and we will not censor them. Our non-canonical episodes are for viewing at your own discretion, with additional maturity warnings provided for less formalized conversations.
Hello and welcome back to the Royal House of Goose. Today we will be discussing matters of national security. And as always, you can find the Codex Politica on Amazon, subscribe to the Royal House of Goose on X, and submit feedback, commentary, suggestions, and questions at goose at the Royal House of Goose.com. With that said, let's get into it. Today we're going to be talking about a petition effort that me and two of my associates went into pertaining to some of the overreach beginning with the NDAA of 2026. If you'd like to know more about the physical details, you can go to overreach.info. And we have collectively coined it the three random bewigged fuckheads v the 119th Congress. I'm on with one of my close friends, Mavie, who is in fact one of said bewigged fuckheads. Mavy, how are you today? Oh, absolutely phenomenal. So you want to start with a bit of an introduction about who you are, what you do, and why you got vested in this cluster fact astrophe.
SPEAKER_01Absolutely. I served in the United States military for 12 years in Intel. Now I am an employee of the government, just out here wasting tax dollars. And the importance of the NDA of 2026 was a huge infringement on the capabilities of our agencies in the military to conflare their work. And Congress was trying to overreach into those said legal, which they're not entitled to know of. So that's why I got involved that we need to protect our agencies that protect our homeland. Protect the very people that could just sleep in slushy beds at night.
SPEAKER_00It's a valid point. I do have to ask though, a lot of people seem to be under the impression that Congress has access to a lot of these clearance databases and this type of information, like 6938, which gave them oversight of the Department of Energy. Within operational security, can you tell the good people what the Department of Energy more or less actually does, what the clearance levels are with a broad scope, and then where Congress falls on that for us?
SPEAKER_01Sure. The Department of Energy has top secret clearances. They deal with fusion and nuclear technologies and developments and initiatives for the military, as well as developed structures around the world, especially places in the Middle East that report back to SEMCON. They also handle a lot of things outside of the state of Colorado, which again include a top secret clearance. The legislative branch is not entitled to a top secret clearance. There are a need to know basis. They're only involved and more specifically charted into the Department of Energy. They're only on a need to know, and the only time they break the barrier of top secret clearance is when it needs additional congressional approval for budgeting.
SPEAKER_00All right. So what does the general ladder for your layman American and clearances look like from, you know, let's say bottom to top?
SPEAKER_01So you have your TSCR clearance, which most government contractors have. It just gives they the ability to enter governing facilities such as military bases, where they don't require an escort provided to them by the military base, which is usually a sergeant or a tech sergeant that will walk around with them, or a third-party security company that has a TS clearance. So what they'll do is they'll, you know, stirring contractors will not need to have the lowest level of clearance you can have is a D bids, which just gives you active access to what you require an escort, even in government buildings. And that's essentially what Congress has. That's the level of current clearance that they have. They don't have TS clearances. They're not entitled to it. They're not the executive branch. I remember in the executive branch has a top secret clearance that is as high as you can go. But your D bids again is what gives you access to sites, and that's what most government employees have that don't have a TS.
SPEAKER_00So kind of like a field trip pass in simple terms.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, it's like a signed field trip that in order to obtain a DBIT, you have to go to a military base or a government building. They just stay in your driver's license to make sure you're not a felon. And then they give you a piece of paper that gives you an allotted certain amount of dates or administrative areas of the base or of the harm building.
SPEAKER_00Cool. So I'm just gonna throw us out there real quick because I've been told I have to with every podcast. There is a general technical manual on a lot of these things, including basic clearance breakdowns, some places you can go for open source information, military information, and the like. It's called the Codex Politica. You can find it on Amazon and it should be linked on the X for the House of Goose. That to the side, because everyone, of course, loves promotional things in the middle of a good conversation. Mavie's role, by and large, one of the reasons that this was made doable at all is because she tore through what was it at the time, Matt? 3,089 or 98 pages?
SPEAKER_01Oh, it was 3,089 pages of the end uh the 1071 bill.
SPEAKER_00And did the uh congressional research summary or the AI overview show any of the, for lack of a better term, fuck fuck shit they're in?
SPEAKER_01No, quite frankly, it did not. It couldn't. When I to test the theory, I dropped the bill into AI and asked a very specific questions in certain subsections, and AI just kept replying that there was no congressional overreach and no constitutional violations in the 1071 bill.
SPEAKER_00Fantastic. There's also a congressional, what is it, constitutional authority summary where they do two truths and a lie, I believe it is. You were also responsible for teaching me what two truths and a lie is. Could you go into what that is for everyone else?
SPEAKER_01Oh, so two truths and a lie when when you're trained specifically in different variables in the government, is being able to tell two truths within one sentence with the lie, usually the truths lie between the middle of the sentence and the lie starts at the beginning of the sentence, which confuses people because the lie is actually more believable than the true truths inside of the statement itself.
SPEAKER_00Is it usually more of a lie by omission or just a direct grain of truth lie?
SPEAKER_01It's a direct grain of truth lie.
SPEAKER_00That's some nasty business.
SPEAKER_01It is. If you're really talented, you're able to separate the two truths in one sentence and then delivering the lie with a ad-hoc, basically.
SPEAKER_00Lovely. If you don't have a friend with uh if you don't have a friend with clearances, I'd highly encourage everyone to get one because you can harass them on a constant basis with open source information, and when they tell you they can't comment, just hit it from a different direction until you have a friend who tells you they can't comment, and then you'll have some fun. They won't, you will.
SPEAKER_01Oh, and you're very, very good at it, guys.
SPEAKER_00Only on Tuesdays when it's raining. So there were six bills in the origin the original grievance that we set up as the petition on overreach.info. They were 5167, 5371, 6938, 56, I'm sorry, 5962, and 7006. 7006 to date is the only one that has not passed and it attempted to allow Congress unconstitutional matters and grievances that you found in this compendium of Audacity.
SPEAKER_01They wanted us to report to them all activity of maneuvering military forces abroad, which is a direct violation of Article II, Section Two. They also wanted to infringe on operations via our Department of Homeland Security and FBI. They wanted to be able to access information to, again, operations and investigations that were ongoing, which they are not privy to because they don't have the clearance for it. That's a very scary factor when our own Congress, our legislative branch is basically just there to write laws. They're not there to dictate foreign policy or how we defend our nation. They're just there if we need money. That's about it. The executive branch has the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, which are the two biggest components in the cabinet that will enforce anything through the executive power for our foreign policy as well as our foreign defense.
SPEAKER_00Makes sense. I mean, for me, I think one of the bigger concerns is that you know Congress isn't exactly under a complete, there's there's no polite way to say this. If you read this shut your whore mouth on it type of agreement when it comes to some of this information, uh one of the things that really stuck out to me with this, and if you guys have been around me on on TikTok or Mavy or any of this, we're a big proponent of replacing all 535, which unfortunately does include Senator John Kennedy, who we both adore, because regardless of whether you voted no or yes on these bills, nobody said a damn thing. And I think that's bizarre when you consider that, God forbid Jasmine Crockett gets a new pair of Cumbrellas, right? Everyone knows, right? All the way down to the little minutia. They make political games of it, they take jabs at the spending, this, that, the other thing. On all of these bills, not only did the AI and the congressional research summary not cover what was in it, but all 535 were quiet about it, especially the screwy national security things, right? The parliamentarian was quiet about it. And all of those staffers, including the Nepo babies who don't give a crap all the way down to, you know, filming for OnlyFans in the congressional conference offices, which still can't believe that that happened in front of the world stage, have managed to say absolutely nothing on this good, bad, or otherwise, even after we got Trump's release, what, three memorandums on it?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, it was three memorandums. The last one being December 18th of 2025, where he outlined specifically the areas of the NDAA that were a violation of his executive powers through the Constitution.
SPEAKER_00You know, there's there's a point to be had here too, that we we talk about a Democrat or Republican Congress, but we're really basically cycling the same 30-year congressional veterans. Yeah, and and people expect it's gonna make a difference. It's not if you don't put new people in there. You know what I mean? Like, oh wow, yeah, no, the the same people with a different letter, they're gonna do something different, and then they just don't. You think they're burning the ship down on their way to retirement?
SPEAKER_01More than likely, yes. But what really draws me, Doc, is you have 535 members of Congress who essentially all have gone to law school and obtained a law degree. And the constitution is the law of the land. And the fact that they don't know that they are violating the constitution as well as our separation of powers really makes me question if if all 535 members actually know the constitution.
SPEAKER_00Which is four pages, and the tragedy that they probably don't. What they're not gonna use their 71st article right to na-uh?
SPEAKER_01You think there's 28 amendments, just ask AOC.
SPEAKER_00I mean, there's a couple reasons why Congress, especially doing this, is is concerning to me, right? These career bureaucrats. And that's number one, they can no longer be subpoenaed after that continuing resolution, which the House was supposed to strike or specify, and they covered it to extend themselves. They can't be recalled after the 17th Amendment. They can take campaign funding and dark money and super PAC money from foreign nations, which we'll get into very shortly. And, you know, it it's almost impossible to compete they pulled almost 100 years ago. They can only be expelled, which requires the majority to agree to expel them. And who's gonna do that when they have a black book on each other, you know?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, it's political theater at this point.
SPEAKER_00And one of the things I always talk about, and I know one of these four countries happens to be your version of my France, is that in descending order of all that else, top four will consistently be Germany, then France, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and you know, of course, the Holy Seas lagging behind, but no one really knows what that is. What's what's your stance on the United Kingdom?
SPEAKER_01The United Kingdom has single-handedly been performing atrocities across the world since inception. They aligned themselves with the monarchy, which would put them in the forefront of following religious practices as religious law. However, in that same essence, they destroyed empires, created their own borders and empires, all while diminishing the very fact that this would all lead to where we are today. So when people call America colonizers, I point them in the direction of England, as England and France, by the way, the British and the French Empire back in the 1700s, they are the ones who created the borders in the Middle East while also creating, we are specifically targeted to Britain, trading a CIR in Iran and Iraq and Ladio. And then they needed it to be destroyed and used America to do it for them. Single-handedly, England and France are the very reason why the world is as unstable as it is down to Africa.
SPEAKER_00So when people say the West, do you believe that we are in any capacity culturally, legally, or constitutionally aligned with Europe these days? Just the collective Europe. I know there's case by case with different countries that is 44 and a couple unrecognized, but like, are are we still part of the West or were we ever?
SPEAKER_01I don't believe that we ever were. I just believe we had a stronghold from, again, foreign governments that wanted to control the ability for the United States to grow. They knew it was a nation that would flourish, but they needed a scapegoat. And America has been pointed at all of this time as, you know, the country that has done the most damage. And, you know, we're evil and we're colonizers and we're invaders and we do all of these things. However, America has spent the past, I would say, 80 years trying to break those ties so that we no longer have to be, you know, the the big brother or little brother for England and France to perform their atrocities.
SPEAKER_00So I take it you're not a fan of NATO.
SPEAKER_01I am absolutely not a fan of NATO. I stand firm with George Washington in 1796 that foreign entanglements lead America to its own demise.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, he said a lot in that exit speech, didn't he? Kind of predicted everything today, down to the parties.
SPEAKER_01Down to the political party affiliation, party over people, and not a government for the people by the people. He said it all in 1796.
SPEAKER_00So here's here's a fun topic that I usually don't get to kick around with many people, excepting, you know, yourself and and Harris, the other bewigged fuckhead and a few other people. But do you still think, given the current climate, with everything that's going on? I understand we're limited on what we can and can't say about that, and obviously what I can and can't know as a civilian. But do you do you think that it's still worth trying to pursue some type of bilateral with Russia? Or do you think we should let them decentralize and back China?
SPEAKER_01I think we need Russia to continue doing what they do in order for us to be able to reestablish our own hemisphere. And I do believe that America should seek some sort of alliance with Russia.
SPEAKER_00What are your main reasons for that?
SPEAKER_01My main reason is because Russia has a bit of a better stronghold when it comes to the Middle East. They're able to negotiate and reason with countries like Iran. They're able to negotiate with not just Iran, but they're able to speak with Syria and they're able to speak with Libya and kind of contain everything so that the Gulf states could come to an agreement for peace. And I think Russia is the biggest component that we need to play in that sector. Yeah. We also spoke also agrees that the petrol dollar needs to disappear, as does America right now. So I believe that we really need the influence of Russia to make that happen.
SPEAKER_00Plus, they're sitting on what $72 trillion worth of varied minerals?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, Russia is number one with minerals, $75 trillion, and America comes in at $73 trillion.
SPEAKER_00So if you were gonna give people a resource to go to a primary source update on, let's say, military, intel, overviews, risk assessments, strategy reports, things that have been uh simplified and and unclassifiable, where would you send them for open source information?
SPEAKER_01I would direct everyone to CentCon. And I would meet I would also suggest going to the Department of Defense's website. There's a specific drop-down with foreign aid and foreign policy that they could review where our troops are and what our cabinet members are looking to accomplish in this administration. And future ones if they choose to.
SPEAKER_00Can you get into what CENTCOM is and and the other unified combat commands, how they operate?
SPEAKER_01So CENTCOM is where we report information that comes in from the Middle East. CENTCOM also reviews and declassifies military operations that can be reviewed by the public and more specifically by Congress. So there you'll see military operations, where they currently stand, any issues we're having, as well as the forefront of learning investigations, even such as like the recent one with the tomahawks over in Iran that quote unquote were sent by us to unalive school children. And even the Department of Defense's website, you could break down, you know, most of where a lot of our troops and even Department Security and FDI on any records that they're currently working on that are declassified to the public.
SPEAKER_00So what are the other unified combat commands outside of CentCon?
SPEAKER_01You have my favorite is AFRICOM. You want me to go into all of them, Goose, or just a general overview.
SPEAKER_00Specifically, let's say, because you know, Indopacom, Centcom, UCOM, they're all very much geographically based. But how do the non-geographically based ones work? Like Transcom and all the logistics commands. Like how do they put a Burger King anywhere in 24 hours?
SPEAKER_01I mean, the the biggest one that does it is the European commands. That's the one that will be the front runner for how quickly we set up a McDonald's in another country. It goes through them. We basically send uh contractors to those locations and they will build whatever we tell them to build and then they leave. And that usually will come from operational commands. Either if it's specific command or central commands, it'll it'll they all come from that command. They'll establish a strategic territory where let's just say a training facility, a tarmac, a hangar, anything needs to be built. It'll usually be built. The Navy has their own contractors, so does the Army, so does the Air Force. So they'll usually build whatever is needed. And for the Marine Corps, those are those are more targeted to Southern Command. Usually the Marine Corps makes decisions there.
SPEAKER_00All right. Actually, you would be exactly the right person to talk to about South Command, which uh covers the majority of Latin America, which has been you know degraded over the last couple of decades, that we're finally rebuilding since it was manned by special ops and they're free to go, you know, uh laterally again. What what type of efforts are we making in in South America that people might not be paying attention to?
SPEAKER_01So we have done successful operations in Ecuador. Secretary Rubio made sure that he completed the mission that the Biden administration originally started. Originally, through the Biden administration, they were making a deal with Ecuador to combat some of the cartel and Form a very specific operation, which has currently happened in Ecuador, which is now being moved to Honduras and Nicaragua. Those operations are running through the Secretary of State, again, Marco Rubio and SOCOM has been making sure that they provide all of the information back up to the president with the secretary. Those operations by technicality are orange operations. That's it's the United States fighting against the cartels that are smuggling children and people through those borders to assist them getting through Mexico into the United States. So all of those cartel operations are being performed by the Marine Corps and our Delta Forces and all through the direction of SOCOM and the Secretary of State.
SPEAKER_00What would you say to the people who are concerned about international law?
SPEAKER_01I think you should be more concerned if America decides to recognize international law.
SPEAKER_00Why is that?
SPEAKER_01It would absolutely assassinate our sovereignty. America does not confine itself to or recognize international law for a reason, as we all know that that would be the diminishing factor of our sovereignty, and it would change the way our constitution is upheld within our own country.
SPEAKER_00And what is it, 12 clauses in the constitution that more or less directly prohibit external influence? Correct. It's a hell of a four-page read. So tell us about this podcast that you're starting up.
SPEAKER_01Well, so I started a podcast with a young lady, Danny. She's an army veteran. She was a 92 Drabo. We started an outpost, a podcast named Outpost One. Right now we're delivering very unconventional conversations, but we're leading up to gear up to really reach out to veterans and have veterans tell their stories as well as assist those veterans and put them with the proper channels to be able to have the resources they need or have the voices that they need. And potentially if it's a veteran that's having substance abuse issues or just mental health issues, just putting them in the right direction with the right connections to be able to receive the help that they need. We do have a YouTube channel. We just have not uploaded anything to it, but the main direction is to have random conversations and all of the proceeds that we make from TikTok, we send it to different charities for the veteran community. But we're also interviewing Patrick Young of District 42 at Maryland. He's a huge advocate for the Veterans Association on the East Coast out of the state of Maryland. And uh so he's going to be on our podcast as well to reach out to veterans and really teach veterans where the resources are that they may need. And also, you know, really enforce the fact that as much as we talk about veterans and how much we care about them, veterans are only a token in the political sphere for voting. And then that's it. Then they're dropped and not needed until the next election.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, it's pretty nasty business. We will have Kim on here at some point. Uh, we've talked about her in a few other episodes. She's kind of the bastion in Texas form.
SPEAKER_01She's incredible. She's out there fighting the good fight for veterans. She lobbied incredible bills for the Veterans Association. She's exposed the corruption inside of the veteran affairs. I would say Ken is just an outstanding human being. And if we can be a villager, you know, somehow help her with her pillar to where she needs to go, we're we're more than happy to do that as well.
SPEAKER_00No, I've always wondered because a lot of the difficulties you see is, you know, veterans transitioning into civilian society and a lot of just the audacity that we put up on a daily basis. Do you think that putting veterans in every HR would maybe cut the bullshit to the civilians and just make life easier for everybody?
SPEAKER_01Oh, 100%. A couple of the best Fortune 500 companies all have veterans either involved in operational management positions or HR positions. And that's how a lot of these Fortune 500 companies started, you know, moving in the right direction. With the military, you want to structure procedure and urgency versus priority. So I think putting military, you know, veterans inside of roles such as like human resources or operational management, you know, would it make the most sense because they're mission-based trained, and that programming is is hard to come away from, especially in the transition to civilian. Most veterans miss the chaos, even though during the chaos they pushed for the silence, if that makes sense.
SPEAKER_00Sure. And of course, with Space Force having come out of the Air Force, which sure as an Air Force vet you're thrilled about, have you had a chance to listen to the new Space Force anthem? And do you believe that it is where it needs to be? I'm not allowed to laugh at that, by the way. I didn't serve.
SPEAKER_01I laugh because I think the Space Force, I'll call it the field song, because that's as much as I could make it to be politically correct, is as good as a Barney theme song. However, the Space Force, they're kind of now the central command for Intel. Also, I'll give them credit words too. Most people that serve in the Space Force, although they probably play with potatoes when they go home, they're very smart individuals, they're very capable individuals, and they've proven uh since inception that they're better at Intel collection than even the CIA.
SPEAKER_00Are you a fan of John Ratcliffe? I'm sure you know my stance on him since the fact book happened.
SPEAKER_01I'm not a fan of his, but I respect the direction that he's taking things into. As a person, I dislike him. I think that he's just a pawn in the Trump administration. I think Trump is testing him more specifically. Because I think if Trump would have had the ability to run for a second term, I believe that Donald Trump would have been the president to absolutely demolish the CIA. So I believe that he's just using Radcliffe as like a pawn to see how far he can push the CIA. But like I said, uh, you know, records indicating that the Space Force is a lot better at gathering intel, even so much as the CIA and Israel combined. A lot of the intel that was needed and the planning and assorting that we needed in Iran came from the Space Force, not our intelligence agencies.
SPEAKER_00Is it fair to say that, you know, more than 1% of the CIA probably speaks Chinese or Russian and it's not by their training?
SPEAKER_01I think it's higher than 1%. We've also proven that with Chinese nationals in Texas sorting elections to go in a certain direction. So I believe that the CIA is probably more like 6% speaking Chinese, and that that that should be that should be a risk factor that needs to be mitigated right away.
SPEAKER_00I am still willing to reverse fang fang for the good of my nation and no other reason, probably. So I guess the the other thing I wanted to ask you about is, you know, when we talk about, for example, fusion centers for local intelligence and and lawfully gained data and these things, a lot of people are mixing them up with the private sector flock cams. What's what's your stance on this whole flock epidemic and the robot dogs and all this whatnot that's going on?
SPEAKER_01I think it's overdue. I think the regular people, not regular people, I should say civilians, obviously wouldn't understand that concept. Fusion centers are absolutely needed, especially because we need to start in-housing our information instead of having components in countries like England and France and Germany, Hungary, Australia. Australia is a big one in this. I would say that centralizing everything to home is is absolutely imminent, especially if we're going to continue protecting, you know, our nation. And anybody who argues against it doesn't understand the complexity of the issue.
SPEAKER_00Right. And I can understand that from a fusion center perspective, because it is, you know, the government, it's under certain government regulations and limiters, but the flock cameras have been a major concern, largely because it's a private company that's putting them everywhere and gathering all this data, arguably against people's Fourth Amendment rights, and it's not regulated by the government. Do you think that they'll become a problem in the future?
SPEAKER_01It wouldn't become a problem because all of the, how do I how do I put this? Let me choose my words carefully. All of the information that's gathered through these camera systems goes through a substation of where the information lands. While it's not oversight by the government, all of the equipment is made specifically by government um contractors. So what happens is it's to put it in a perspective, it's like if you call a tip line, right? Everybody knows what a tip line is. You call a tip line, that tip line can be hacked, right? And then someone could download that information you provided through that tip line, and then they'll run it through an AI system because now they've downloaded this, you know, your voice frequency, and they could change your words. Right? They could do the same thing with camera systems that are at Walmart, Target, Kroger's, wherever you go, right? All of those downloaded images and information can be hacked and they can be taken by AI and redefined what the actual situation was. Where these cameras, they go into a substation that has a direct link attached to all of that information that is unable to be hacked. Then it would be asked by agencies like let's just say the FBI, the CIA, NSA. NSA would be the only ones that could be like, yeah, that information is good. And it would only come out through one link that is downloadable to someone with a specific level of clearance. So it's not government oversight. However, there's a portion of it that is absolutely government run by a lot of the USB stations, the UPS stations that the government has, most people don't understand that even companies like TSMC, all of their network was provided to them by equipment from the government.
SPEAKER_00Okay.
SPEAKER_01So that's how it works. If the government requests information to come out of that, let's just say a little information bucket, that bucket will give the government a specific link that is only translatable by someone with a security clearance and a password. And then they have to download that link into a government link and then it's you know rooted. That way it's unhackable. Essentially, that's what they're looking towards, especially with the, you know, with the current environment of AI and the components that AI is capable of, that Sam Ottman warned us about back in 2014.
SPEAKER_00Right. I I love that instead of investing in, you know, zoology and and biochemistry and gene splicing, so that we could literally have like pot-bellied minotaurs and crazy whimsical shit. We have metaglasses from WALL-E and mass surveillance. This wasn't a problem with carrier pigeons, by the way. Still kind of cheered about that. I mean, even now you can send a text to someone that you dislike and it'll crap on the floor and knock over their bookcase. A text isn't gonna do that if they're on block. All right, there was uh one more thing I wanted to ask you about on a more professional individual level. And I know you went a little bit into this, if you wouldn't mind, and it's it's entirely up to you. Would you mind giving a couple tips for you know body language frequency, how to tell if someone's in general two truths in a lying or lying you at all?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, absolutely. I I think that I think that they should be teaching this in school, honestly. It helps people navigate deception. And and I think that that's one of the biggest components that most civilians face on a daily basis, whether it's through friendships, relationships, colleagues, associates, whatever you want to call it, right? So the biggest component, I mean, everybody knows this, the way if a person looks to the left or looks up to the right, you know, they're either looking for a story or trying to remember what they were told to say. Body language, if someone, if you're sitting, you can always tell through someone's chest how many breaths, how many breaths they took to compose that sentence. Whether it's a flare of the nose or you watch the chest muscles, that will tell you if someone is repetitively taking breaths to to speak, it means that they're lying. Crossing of the arms means that they're not willing to have an engaged full conversation. Um consistently having hands flare. I know it's an Italian thing, don't come for me. But more expressive language with the hands and gestures and even if a curl to the lips will usually generally let you know that that person is being truthful. Because they're instead of their anxiety coming out with how fast they're speaking or how they're stuttering or how they're booking and searching for words, typically people who are more honest, you know, they'll have some sort of characteristic of maneuvering their hands to explain something. However, when it's more than a certain amount of gestures per minute, it it could essentially be a lie. So there is that.
SPEAKER_00Is that why it was so hard to pinch Al Capone back in the day and you had to use the tax corps, all that Italian hand language?
SPEAKER_01Yeah. That's part of it. But again, it's some of them are very simple. Someone who has their arms crossed in front of them while they're having a conversation is just someone who's not engaging and they're trying to rush through the conversation because either A, they're uncomfortable, or B, you're just not willing to engage or provide any information. If someone is speaking while they're standing up and their hands are behind their back, it means that they're trying to control any jitters in their body because they're getting ready to possibly lie. Crossing of the legs, there's different things that you could look at, but the base body language that I tell people is if you're not making direct eye contact with the person while having the conversation, it means that they're they're they're lying.
SPEAKER_00Good to know.
SPEAKER_01Then you can tell when someone's forcing to like they're forcing themselves to make eye contact because their their face muscles are more restricted, right? So it's it's like people like, oh, well, they were looking at me in the eye while they were speaking. And I was like, Did you notice their face? Did you focus on their face? Because every time they were forcing themselves to look at you, they didn't blink normally. That's a big factor, too.
SPEAKER_00So before we send the audience out to uh, you know, deeply analyze and possibly stare in an uncomfortable manner at their neighbors and see where they really stand. Are there any other things you'd like to grant us some advice or guidance to the uh the fine people of the Royal House of Goose?
SPEAKER_01I would question everything and don't give out your trust that easily. It's okay to to study the person you're engaging with. I study their behaviors in order to gain that uh sense of I don't know, trust or something. I think that people are very quick to listen to something and automatically emotionally react. So I would tell people be more rational, be more logistic, you know, logistic-based when you're seeking relationships or even friendships. It's just very important. I think that the nation has seared away in the knowledge of just knowing that they could make friends on the internet, and then in real life, they have no idea what they're doing, or they have no idea how to engage with people. Get out there and and meet people, have a conversation with the guy at the gas station, do those things. But make sure you're studying the people in the company that you're keeping around you.
SPEAKER_00Absolutely brilliant as always, Mavin. Is there a social where they could find you or or tune into these TikTok lives and maybe an X or anything like that?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, I do the TikTok lives for the podcast every Saturday, 7 p.m. Pacific. You can find me on TikTok as Tired Millennial, not older millennial. I'm not that racist fuck. I'm tired millennial. You could find me on TikTok and uh or you could search outpost one and post will come up for outpost one. It's in my bio on TikTok, and that's about the only social tangle that I have.
SPEAKER_00Thank you, Mavy. As always, we adore you and have a good day.
SPEAKER_01You too, Deuce. Thank you for having me.
