And now that the show has actually started, then I guess what we can do is, well actually what we'll do is actually, we'll go over here and we'll start the local recording. You know why we need to start the local recording? Because Odyssey isn't saving my streams because they're a bunch of incompetence and they don't care if their system works. And so now I have started the local recording and with the local recording having begun, why don't I just go have a place to mention music? LAUGHTER All right, welcome to surreal politics. The 62nd episode of Stage 1 today is June 10th, 2024 being the current year. It's a Monday as usual, of course. And it's just after 9.30 pm, that's when we do the shows. Monday's at 9.30. So if you're listening on some other platform and some other time, I'd invite you to join us for a live program, I'd love to hear from you, 217-688-1433, and then what you told the less I have to, so please give us a call. Speaking of which, let's, uh, real quick, uh, I had a different, you know, there's always something, there's always something. And so something was something, and I, and I need to get the phones online still. So bear with me for just a second here, ladies and gentlemen. Why don't you just go ahead and do that. Why don't you just go ahead and do that, okay? You do that? Okay, come on. Yeah, let's go ahead, get the thing online instead of just sitting there, okay? Go ahead, dial the phone. And then thank you for calling Colin Studio, post and call screener line. Please enter your show. Well, I don't want to give, um, I don't want to give these guys all that information. So I'll just do this thing and I'll go over here and I'll, uh, blah, blah, blah, blah, you know, come on. Yeah. Through your six did. Yeah. And then I'll do the other thing, and I know that one now, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, yeah. Welcome host. You are now in the host room and commanding your colors. Exactly. Colin Studio. And you know what? Call recording audio recording on dual channel. Yeah, dual channel all over recording, because we got high tech stuff here, okay? Now anyway, I was the same, uh, on a recent episode of the Uncensored production, a theoretical agenda, episode 72 of stage six, um, I penned and pronounced a defensive, one Walter block after he's stripped of his titles at the Bees Institute and the Ron Paul Institute, both of which are libertarian think tanks. And on account of that, I was contacted by Mr. Block. I'm not going to share with you his words. What I've got, what I'm going to read to you momentarily is, is, is emails that I sent to Mr. Block adapted, adapted. Yeah. Something to that effect for the purposes of this show. And I titled this against libertarianism. Okay. Now if you've been following me for any period of time, you know that that's kind of like where I made my name with the libertarians. I was involved with that stuff for a lot of years. I ran for Congress. I was like a party committee, man. I did all this stuff got involved with like the anarchist and, you know, it was, uh, before I was my own podcast, I was a co-host of an Ashley syndicated broadcast talk radio show called free talk live. And you know, after time, I just realized that that wasn't tentable, you know. And so as Mr. Block was stripped of his titles at these institutions, uh, you know, I, you know, Mr. Block's a Jewish fellow and he's going about for the state of Israel. I, you know, if you know anything about me, I'm not a huge fan of that, that, uh, that government. But I didn't like the way that it was handled on the libertarian side and the way that they specifically went after him. I thought it was pretty intellectually disingenuous, frankly. So when Mr. Block reached out to me, subsequent that episode, I was very happy to hear from it as a matter of fact. Um, and again, I'm not going to share you with you his words because I haven't asked him about it, but I'll tell you what I had to say to him. It's not lost on me that I could be credibly accused of using this defensive view. It's more of a way to push my own agenda, but the title of the episode does convey an accurate sentiment. I've always been very fond of you and I have a long admired your intellect. I have never observed you behaving dishonestly, which is more than I can say for your detractors. When I saw Hoppa come after you, I thought it's just a disagreement on which many reasonable people have these days as you surely know too well. When I saw they pushed you out of the Measants Institute, that I genuinely got mad about. The Hoppa piece had been brought to my attention during a live show by a caller and I read Hoppa's piece on air, along with some unprepared commentary based on what I had just read. The episode number escapes me at the moment or I type, or I point you toward the recording. The gist of what I said then and currently believe is I don't think it is at all unreasonable to say that an identifiable group has a collective right to something. Whether one claim or another is legitimate is a different story, but conceptually this is the nature of the human condition. Those who resisted do violence to the peace and happiness of mankind. Trying to conceptualize things in this atomized legalistic way libertarians are predisposed to doing simply does not work in real life. They actually know this as evidenced by their abhorrence of genocide. They see it as much worse to kill a race of people that just simply kill some equal number of a heterogeneous population with little in common. This disparity of moral sentiment stems from a recognition that the race of people has a collective right to exist, which is actually of a higher order than that of any individual member. They refuse to say this out loud, but is an obvious inference from their other statements and behaviors. The following paragraph from Hoppa's open letter to you really got to me. He says, for the potential problem of restitution or compensation that implies in every case of conflicting property claims brought to trial for judgment, the presumption is always in favor of the current possessor of the resource under consideration, and the burden of a proof to a, and the burden of a proof to contrary is always on the opponent of the current state of affairs and current possessions. The opponent must demonstrate that he contrary to prima fascia evidence has a better claim because he has an older title to some specified piece of property that it's current owner and whose ownership is hence unlawful. If an only if an opponent can successfully demonstrate this must the questionable possession be restored to as property to him, on the other hand, the opponent fails to make this case matters stay the way they are. Now that is a perfectly fine legal standard to apply to individuals under a common legal system. It is completely unsuited to an explicitly ethnic conflict over territory. If one race of people attacks another race of people on the basis of that ethnic conflict, the libertarians assert that the race being attacked simply cannot defend itself as a race. They are supposed to treat this like some kind of cross-border homicide investigation and bring the perps to trial, even as all the perpetrators' neighbors call them heroes and martyrs and provide them with aid and comfort. If they cannot bring about a resolution by libertarian standards, then the libertarians assert that the attack must simply go unanswered. Well, pardon my language, but forget that nonsense. Where are all the libertarians attacking pro-Palestine advocates on the basis that they must individually prove their claims to property? Maybe they exist, but they're not coming across my radar for sure. I don't hear about any pro-Palestine advocates being thrown out of libertarian institutions, numerous though they certainly are. They all throw in the obligatory, I don't agree with Hamasla, I call them animals, terrorists, whatever, but then they act like Hamas is some kind of rogue criminal enterprise rather than the popularly supported military and espionage service for the Palestinian authorities. But the best thing that can be said about this is that those commentators speak in willful ignorance of the facts. The more likely interpretation is that they are being intellectually dishonest, they know exactly what they're talking about, and they are applying the left-wing white oppressor colonizer narrative to the Jews and they're supposedly oppressed proud neighbors. That line of thinking is an enemy of mankind, and those who adopt it discredit themselves much more than those whom they attack. It is a sad loss for the Beases and Ron's Paul institutes to lose the generosity of Walter Bloch's contributions over this, but I have no doubt that he will continue his service to peace and freedom for as long as he is able, and I do hope nothing else gets in the way of that honorable service. Now I recall years back, I got into a spat with a left-winger who had tried to cozy up to the libertarians by the name of Antonio Bueller, as I suspect a lot of you will recognize that name. He had gone around dishonestly, trashing my reputation, including making false reports to Facebook. Those reports had the effect of getting me blocked from posting to Facebook for a month at a time, and this happened more than once, and Facebook was my single biggest driver of traffic back then. And so this was tremendously costly to me, and I had asserted that Mr. Bueller, fortunately, deprived me of value and therefore had acted in an unlibertarian manner. Bella by the name of Stephen Cancella chimed in to say that one has no right to a reputation, and that libertarianism only protects, quote, scarce physical resources. So by this standard, Mr. Bueller was free to slander me day in and day out, and cost me as much money as his lying lips and fingers couldn't dever to destroy. I was entirely without recourse, other than to discourage others from associating with him, and with my now diminished voice, because in this interpretation libertarianism does not protect value as such, only scarce physical resources. Well, Mr. Cancella, some of you may know, he's a big on intellectual property, thinks intellectual properties of that idea, and so this conception of what rights are protected may serve his vendetta against intellectual property quite well, but it does nothing to advance the peace and happiness of mankind. If people run around destroying those things we value be they tangible or entirely within the mind, then we naturally feel compelled to defend those things, trying to train mankind out of that impulse is an absurd and futile exercise. What does any man have more valuable than his reputation? Interestingly, when I published the chat transcript between myself and Mr. Cancella, he accused me of behaving disreputeably, though we had no contractual obligation to keep the conversation between us. Some obligations are just implied, so goes the thinking, but according to Mr. Cancella apparently telling the truth is not among those implied obligations. Met with these obvious problems, some libertarians respond to say that in a libertarian social order, we could have some contractual agreement where it is agreed upon that we do not slander one another, or in the Hoppy and Covenant community model, this would be a standard set by the landlord or monarch, and to breach it would be a breach of the Covenant and thus penalty would ensue. All fine and well, but that provides us with absolutely no guidance on how to deal with things as they are in the world today, and thus we are compelled to seek recourse either through the arbitration services of the state, or to take the law into our own hands and apply force ourselves to stop the destruction of those things that we value. On top of recognizes this much when it comes to immigration, be though it may, that a libertarian asserts that the government's purported ownership of those things we call borders as illegitimate, this does not mean that the border should be left open for all who care to traipse across it. In the event the border were privately owned, we know that no private owner would permit entire nations of people to cross his land free of cost and destroy his way of life in the process. Thus, so long as immigration control as a government monopoly, Hoppy recognizes that it is a wholly appropriate application of physical force and expenditure, of course, of the collected taxation, to repel the invading migrants. They must be physically removed, after all. So on what point does this line of atomistic legalism become the libertarian standard of conduct in the world we now live? The answer is clearly not so well defined as so many bold assertions would have us believe. Tom Woods touched on a similar concept sometime in, I think it was 2016, I want to say during that episode of his show, the guest name escapes me, but it really influenced my thinking, my politics were never the same, subsequent. The gist of the conversation was that, whether it's a religious idea or a cultural norm or anything of that nature, human beings place a great deal of value on what could be described as concepts. The left asserts that all matter of things such as gender, race, or social constructs and by this standard declares them to be illegitimate fictions, even as they hold up many other, much more absurd concepts as absolute fact that objective truth such as transgenderism or equality, now equity, of course. It is absurd to suggest that these constructs and values are exempt from economic analysis. Does anybody actually think that the ideas we all base our lives around have no impact on the economy? Does anybody really think that GDP will be unaffected if we chemically castrate every child who responds to classroom teachings about gender ideology? If people wage war against your culture and religion in way of life without actually laying their hands upon personal property, are we to declare that this form of warfare cannot be defended against? If the libertarians want to make such assertions, they do so at the peril of their own ideas. Nobody in their right mind is ever going to accept that standard. And for a long time, as I got more involved with the alt-right, I still told people I'm a libertarian at heart. I eventually stopped saying that because these contradictions were popping up all over the place and qualifying ran, contradictions do not exist whenever you think you're facing a contradiction, check your premises, you will find that one of them is wrong. And so what I came to conclude could be summarized as follows. There is no substitution for decent honest people running a government with coercive powers and service to the interests of its citizenry. There are no axiomatic formulas that free us of life's uncertainties of the trust that civilization requires. The best that we can hope for is wise and responsible leaders who will make the best decisions they can based on the circumstances of the moment and given what we know about mankind, even this is quite the aspirational hope. It's all fine and well that people have different views and ways of life, but when those views reach a certain degree of difference, these people can no longer share a common territory of system of government. The outcome of that proximity is inevitably hostility escalating into lethal violence and warfare until one way of life prevails over the other or they go their separate ways to lick their wounds and live apart. And I did not come to that conclusion lightly. I did not want to be branded a hateful bigot in a violent criminal. I did not want to upset all of my non-white and Jewish friends. I did not want to be uninvited for my family holiday gatherings over the certainty that my presence would upset members of my family who had intermarried with other cultures and ethnicities. I certainly was not prepared for the black woman who had briefly carried my child to text me scared out of her mind while I was hiding from law enforcement in Virginia because she's so be on the news and thought I was a threat to her safety. It was not among my goals for the joint terrorist task force to spend years investigating me to throw me in prison for three years with a summary, ridiculous instant messenger alpers. But I would do all of those things again and again and again if it meant even the slightest top of having some impact on changing our current political trajectory because my most sincere belief is that we are racing towards nuclear warfare and political outcomes that will make the Soviet Union look like a Rothbardian utopia by comparison. It's totally fine with me if that bars me from being a libertarian because who cares if I'm a libertarian? What I liked about libertarianism was the promise that it made that people if they adopted this standard would live peaceful, orderly, productive and fulfilling lives. Once it became obvious to me that this promise would not be fulfilled, I went on in search of something that would and my search net continues. 217-688-1433 you like to be on the program and the more you talk less I have to. So please do give us a call, I'll play a clip and we'll come right back. You know I'm going to do this, I played this a couple of days ago as a matter of fact, but I'm just going to do it again anyway. And I'm warning, I don't know if there's F's in here, there might be. This is fascist little real libertarian's that conversation between me and a guy by the name Matthew Drake. Like foundationally, I still consider myself a libertarian, I think everything should be done through, you know, property rights and contracts. It's just I came to a conclusion that the idea that most of the people that we live around today would be property owners in the absence of the state is is hysterically obnoxiously stupid. You look at like portfest you went there and they have these polyamory panels and people read what I want to talk about, transgenders and homosexuals like like that's the most important issue of the day and those people are not fit for survival in the absence of the state. And so, you know, I don't argue with people who call me a fascist anymore because essentially these people are products of the democratic state, they were born and bred for it and it's no surprise that they invade everything that they can get their hands on, especially something that's an actual threat to an institution like the state, such as libertarianism. And so they they try to destroy everything that is good and decent in the world. Libertarianism chief amongst them. And so I've come to the conclusion that as a result of people like this, state action is not something that can be ignored that as long as the state exists, most people involved, most of the people that you would meet at a place like portfest would basically essentially tell you that so long as the state is in control of something, it should promote egalitarianism in degeneracy. And that is ridiculous in my opinion because property owners wouldn't do that. And so I've come to the opinion that should reflect, I hesitate to use the term eugenics program, but I don't really shy away from that either. Basically, you have to start making better people in the society and that might involve doing things like chucking tre� tre� tre�s out of helicopters, for example. Yes, yes. Hansen and Cheyck, that's just sort of a meme that I've run with. Right. So I guess there was a point where you you realized that it's not about principles anymore. It's it's about winning, right? It's principles you got to pick your enemy principles are a luxury afforded to winners. Right. You can't you can't have principles, you know, with a fucking bullet in your skull, you know, you can't you can't have principles while Hillary Clinton is stripping your goddamn carcass and giving everything you have to, you know, Jamal's eight gonna fondle his children. Yeah. And you can't have, you know, the self-ownership principle when some people are objectively much much worse at owning themselves than other people and they can, Lord, this huge mass mass inclusive democracy onto other people. Well, yeah, if everybody is, you know, the nature of a hyper inclusive mass democracy, as I like to call it, is that the people participating in that institution, you know, all it claims some ownership over everyone else and basically simultaneously abdicate all responsibility for their own behaviors. And so that's not, I would like to think that that's not, you know, factually true in a sense. I don't think that that's like an objectively moral premise or something, but it is the functionality of the thing. And so like, for example, the idea that you can't use violence against someone just because they have different political ideas than you run's pretty common throughout our society and especially in libertarian circles. But I don't I don't believe that freedom of speech is possible in a in a place where your advocacy results in me being imprisoned, robbed and murdered. Yeah. Now, okay, so if I could push back on that a little bit, I don't have a problem with limiting freedom of speech just because, oh, that's the principle, but my fear would be that if you, if you do a bad job of lifting freedom of speech, then what's going to happen is exactly what happened with the alt-right, but for the left, you know, like they're going to go underground and they're going to buy their time. Just some degree, this is what happened, you know, like in the 50s and 60s. And they're going to go underground and they're going to, you know, build their base and they're going to they're going to have that resistance and they're going to be the the revolutionary ones. And there is some kind of power in that, I think. So I think you have to be careful if you're, you know, throwing around this like this zipper on people's lips and and, I would go so far as to say, I don't take it lightly, right? But I would go so far as to say that they are at the very least larping as precisely what you're describing what they might be in the future. Donald Trump won the election and you had people running around streaming. There will be casualties on both sides. We need a revolution of illegal immigrants in the United States. You just had Jorge Ramos on Tucker Carlson, like a week or two ago, talking about a demographic revolution, a Latino revolution, a foreigner's coming into the United States, so for the government of the United States, and then telling me that I'm a racist if I call that an invasion. This is already happening, you know, and so, you know, if Hillary Clinton had become president of the United States in 2017, you could be certain that if she had a Democratic Congress to help her do it, and perhaps even if she didn't, they would do everything in their power to regulate things like hate speech, right? And that is that is the problem, right? So, so you have on one side, you have the Democrats want to start, you know, legislating against things like hate speech. Now, of course, that is already case in Germany and Sweden. You can't criticize immigration policy without suffering the consequences of the Democratic State. In the United States, the next time Democrats gain control of the levers of the federal apparatus, they will certainly impose this on us as well. And of course, the way that that is done is intentionally, ridiculously vague as anybody who's ever been denied an advertising deal for that reason can tell you. And so, they are purposely creating a scenario where there's just this boogie man who will run around and crush you if you say something that the Democratic Party disagrees with is what hate speech laws are. And so, basically, you know, in terms of the freedom of speech thing, it's just that we don't have, right? It's already been decided that there's no freedom of speech. And so, it's just a matter of who's going to ban what? And I would say that if there was, if it was politically, I don't think it is, but if it was politically feasible to ban communist propaganda with all the looseness and vagary that existing hate speech laws have, just to terrorize leftists to make it a scary world for them that the government will just come and destroy them the way they've been doing to us for, you know, for a century, I think it'd be positive, frankly. All right, so welcome back to us, real politics. Sorry about the apps in there, not too many of them, but, you know, I think it was worth it. You know, libertarianism, as I said on the on the uncensored show, it's like, you know, I think that there's a lot of good comes out of it in the sense that, you know, it produces some pretty impressive thinkers. It's an interesting thought exercise, say like, you know, how would the world operate if we tried to do it through property and contracts? And then that can teach us important things about how best to govern. And I believe that that's accurate. I try to think about things in those terms now, like what is the government doing to distort the market forces? And then how does it compensate for that to try to make things more orderly? And not enough people do that. I don't think. And I think that if more people did, that, you know, we'd have much more sane, you know, sane political discussions, but that's not what's happening. And it's partly because the libertarians don't treat this as a thought exercise, right? They want to, they want, they act as though they're, they behave like it's a religious element that like the faith is what's important. Like if you believe in it hard enough and you demonstrate your faith that that will make it true. And that's not accurate. Nothing actually works that way. You know, there are plenty of things that you know, without belief they can't work. Yeah, that's true. But there are a few things that unbelief alone function say. And so like that idea that, you know, you're just going to have this like, you know, you just keep on weeding out anybody who's straced in the script and therefore your radical ideology is going to take hold is actually not, that's never worked for any ideology ever as a matter of fact. That's a cold, that's a totally ridiculous absurd fiction. And so 2176881433 if you'd like to be on the program and the more you tell the less I have to just please give us a call. And you better call now. Like I'll end the show before an hour if we don't have callers. I, you know, I don't know why I'm not going to make a hell of a lot of, you know, the show relies on callers and if you guys aren't going to call in, then I just want to show the Biden administration is considering bringing certain Palestinians to the US as refugees a move that would offer a permanent safe haven to some of those fleeing the war torn Gaza, according to an internal federal government document obtained by CBS news. In recent weeks, the documents show senior officials across several federal US agencies have discussed the practicality of different options to resettle Palestinians from Gaza who have immediate family members or who are, who are American citizens or permanent residents. One of those proposals involved using the decades old United States refugee admissions program to welcome Palestinians with US ties who have managed to escape Gaza and enter neighboring Egypt according to the interagency planning documents. Top US officials have also discussed getting additional Palestinians out of Gaza and processing them as refugees if they have American relatives of documents show. The plans would require coordination with Egypt, which is so far refused to welcome large numbers of people from Gaza. Because the Egyptians are like, yeah, you're our fellow Muslims, whatever, and we talk all about brotherhood between Muslims. I think we were governed by the Muslim brotherhood for a period of time. But yeah, we're not taking you in here because you suck. Go to America and destroy their country, please. Thanks. Those who pass a series of eligibility, medical and security screenings would qualify to fly to the US with refugee status, which offers beneficiaries permanent residency, resettlement benefits like housing assistance and a path to American citizenship. While the eligible population is expected to be relatively small, the plans being discussed by US officials could offer a lifeline to some Palestinians fleeing the Israel-Hamas war, which local public health authorities say has already claimed the lives of more than 34,000 people and displaced hundreds of thousands of civilians in Gaza. In a statement provided to CBS News Lake Tuesday, a White House spokesperson said that the US has helped more than 1800 American citizens and their families leave Gaza, many of whom have come to the United States. At President Biden's direction, we have also helped and will continue to help some particularly vulnerable individuals such as children with serious health problems and children who are receiving treatment for cancer get out of harm's way and receive care at nearby hospitals in the region. Yeah, give us all your sick people. This is going to be great. Oh, you have like a bunch of retard kids who are developmentally disabled. Give us all your retards. Let's get them a white wife. The statement went on to say that the US categorically rejects any actions leading to the forced relocation of Palestinians from Gaza, the West Bank or the redrawing of the borders of Gaza. The best path forward is to achieve a sustainable ceasefire through a hostage deal that will stabilize the situation and pave the way to a two state solution. The Israeli government launched a, yeah, we know all about that shut up. And so that's, you know, they're going to bring them here. That's the idea. We're going to, we'll basically, we'll just instead of having instead of the Jews killing all the Palestinians, they'll just deport them to America and then they'll take their land that way. That's a good idea. I think some people believe that it's a good idea. I don't think so. Two on seven six eight eight one four three three. If you would like to be on the program and the more you'd so the less I have to so please do give us a call three Russian Navy ships and a nuclear powered submarine will arrive at the port of Havana for an official visit next week. The Cuban armed forces said in a statement Thursday confirming the military exercises first as closed by US officials on Wednesday. The Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces said Russian missile frigate Admiral Gorshkov the nuclear sub-Kazan the oil tanker passion and the salvaged tug Nikolay Chiker will arrive on June 12th and stay for a week. The Cuban military said the visit by the Russian Navy ships is part of friendly relations between the two countries complies an international law and does not pose a security threat to the region because quote none of the ships carry nuclear weapons. Wasn't that a relief? A US official told McClatchee and the Miami Herald on Wednesday that the exercises are expected to include heightened naval and air activity near the United States including both Russian aircraft and combat naval vessels. The first coordinated air and sea exercise by Russian the Western hemisphere in five years. While we are disappointed the Cuba has likely agreed to host visiting Russian ships. We are not surprised the officials said Thursday while one of the ships is a nuclear powered submarine. The official said the US intelligence community assesses it is not carrying nuclear weapons. It poses no direct threat to the national security of the United States. The administration officials suspect that Cuba approved the Russian port call at least in part over an incident last year in which a US nuclear submarine docked a Guantanamo naval base angering the Cubans. The US officials said we are not surprised by it given Russians long, Russia's long history of Cuban port calls. The official said these are routine naval visits that are part of the Russian military exercises which have ratcheted up because US support to Ukraine and exercise in support and exercise activity in support of our NATO allies. The warships are part of the Russian Navy northern fleet and departed on May 17th on a long voyage to demonstrate the Russian flag and ensure naval presence in important areas of the distant oceanic zone. The Russian government news agency TAS reported on Thursday. According to the TAS report the Admiral Gorskhov frigate held an artillery fire exercise at an air target in the Atlantic Ocean. The ship fired AK-192M artillery complex and pelage anti-aircraft missiles at an imitated air target. The report said the warship joined the Navy in 2018. It was updated to carry hypersonic Zircon cruise missiles a new complex and expensive billisant missile recently developed by Russia because on submarine also joined the fleet recently in 2021. It can carry long range persistent missiles capable of destroying land sea and underwater targets. TAS reported in April. The Cuban government did not mention military exercises in its statement but highlighted cultural activities. During their stay the Russian sailors will carry out a program of activities that includes courtesy visits to the chief of the Revolutionary War Navy and the governor of Havana. They will also visit places of historical and cultural interests. According to the US Naval Institute Russian submarines have been visiting Cuban ports since 1969. Russian spy ships have been spotted unannounced at the port of Havana on several occasions including ahead of Russia's invasion of Crimea in 2014 days before US Cuban talks in Havana in 2015 and on March 8, 2018. The Russian Navy's training class ship Perikop sailed into Havana in July of last year. And so somebody had sent me a text message. Did you hear that we're about to go into the Cuban missile crisis again? I said no I didn't hear about that. What are you talking about? Then I went and I saw oh my god these people are out of their minds. Two on seven six eight eight one four three three you like to be on the program. So under Biden's on trial the jury has it now they're deliberating and one of the things that they brought in his evidence was that that Russian disinformation stuff that Russian disinformation is a big problem. You know that laptop was Russian disinformation. They told us that those ex-intell officials they said at 51 of them. And now that we know that that's a lie you're like yeah well do you guys regret that and they're like well no like lying is what we do or spies is basically what happens. So not a single one of the signatories of the infamous spy letter that called reporting on Hunter Biden's laptop. Russian disinformation had the 2020 election has retracted their made up claim according to report. The signatory is numbering 51 in total. Apparently knew the claim was false at the time because the FBI was in possession of Hunter's laptop. Current Secretary of State Antony Blinken allegedly coordinated the story for political purposes. FBI agent Erica Janssen Jensen I should say a witness in Hunter's gun trial told the court last week the laptop was real and no tampering occurred with the machine. Jensen's testimony debunk claims of laptop's data was subjected to hacking and manipulation or was somehow a Russian information plot to help former president Donald Trump's 2020 campaign. Shortly after Breitbart News and Breitbart News is Emma Joe Morris formerly of the New York Post first reported the laptop from Hellstory in October 2020. CNN reporter Natasha Bertrand wrote the infamous and now discredited political story that used dozens of former intel officials to push a false narrative. Falson misleading narrative about the origins of Hunter's laptop. President Joe Biden cited the story during a presidential debate with Trump to discredit the contents of the laptop. The story had reportedly been planted by Secretary of State Antony Blinken for Biden to use during the event. CNN and many in the media who largely accepted the political story is true. Finally admitted the story was false more than 500 days afterwards. Well, it's not bad. It's better than they usually do. They usually don't admit it at all. They're like, no, what are you talking about? Don't you dare? Don't you dare call our lies into question. Our lies are the truth. That's why we tell them. I'm going to call it an eye-foot tonight. Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be back Wednesday for the members show. Friday, cursing up a storm and back here again next week. I'm sorry to cut a little short, but between you guys not calling in and I actually like, I'm not going to complain to you too much about my problems. I got like a bit of a dental problem. It's making a little difficult to talk. So I'm going to go, give me some money. Why don't you? Maybe I'll go get my teeth fixed. Srilpoltics.com slash donate will give you lots of information on that. You can become a member Srilpoltics.com slash join. You can just fork over the money. Gipsengo.com slash SPM cash cash app is my cash tag. It's edgy. Chris, I take that cryptocurrency. Love that crypto stuff. If you guys got Monero, you're all rich now. By the way, it's like what is like $180 a unit now? Just a few weeks ago, Monero was 120 bucks. So this is a fine time for you to give your money away. You've been waiting to find a good reason to spend it now that it's up and you love me so much. You just fork over that crypto. Srilpoltics.com slash donate has all my crypto keys. If you want to send me crypto, I don't have the crypto key up that you need or you want to send them more private contribution. You send me an email. Srilpoltics.com slash contact will make that easy enough to do. Okay, so we'll be back real soon. Thanks for tuning in. Hopefully you guys are done with Libertarianism, but you know, it's cool. You can have Libertarian friends. They're not bad guys a lot of time. They figure it out eventually. See you soon.