Guest: Jeremiah Harding - The Libertarian Dilemma & The Paradox of State Solutions

Welcome, welcome, welcome, free time manager.

I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to ride. I don't want you to write to your congressman because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians. Music. And the crime in the street. All I know is that first, you've got to get mad. You've got to say, I'm a human being. God damn it. My life has value. You want answers? I think I'm entitled to you. Why? I want the truth! You can't handle the truth!

Hello again free thinkers welcome back to the free thought project podcast my name is jason bassler and joining me today is the free thought project contributor don vi jr well guys it's thanksgiving this week we're still a couple days away from it but by the time this episode comes out it will be thanksgiving and uh geez guys we have a lot to talk about this week week. Now, unfortunately, Mr. Matt Agaris couldn't join us today.

He had some family coming into town. But I do have Don Vi Jr. with me today. So yeah, thanks for coming on to hash this out today, Don. I always appreciate you being flexible and joining us on the show. How are you doing today, brother? Pretty good, man. I always love popping in. So I think today's going to be a really good conversation. Yeah, I agree.

And before we get started today, I did just want to remind our listeners that earlier this year, we did publish a children's book entitled Little Free Thinkers Know Your Rights. It did take us quite a while to put it together as we're first-time children's book authors, but we are proud of it. And even more so, we're proud of what it stands for. It was created to give children an education of their rights, including freedom of speech, probable cause, due process, and a lot more.

And the book is actually based off of a real-life police officer who was actually fired for blowing the whistle in her department, Officer Jody. Now, the holidays are coming up here, guys, sooner than we expect, so definitely consider buying. Anybody who has children, whether it be friends or family, they would probably love this book. It definitely is educational and it gives them a foundation of liberty.

So you can find it at littlefreethinkers.com. And of course, we greatly appreciate your support. Also, guys, just take a moment to subscribe to this podcast, rate and review it. It helps us out greatly. And if you're on Instagram, check out the Freethought Project podcast we have over there and join the community of 22,000 other free thinkers.

All right, so let's go ahead and get into it today. Well, today's podcast will be a bit different from our usual structure and flow.

So today we're going to go into what some might call inside baseball, the Libertarian Party, and beyond that, really. You know, the Libertarian Party is more or less just the template we'll be using to discuss strategy, morals, and intellectual consistency. But at the core of this conversation is about something deeper. It's about how we apply ourselves to actually create a more free society. So joining us today is Jeremiah Harding.

Jeremiah has contributed to the free thought project in the past in various ways and uh even though it's been a little while since we spoke you know it it feels jeremiah like we've been inadvertently pushed into a corner with uh some of our stances you know making us an ally, in this this current fight and um you know i don't want to let's put it this way i don't know how many of you guys spend too much time on twitter but i spent a lot of time over there I think Jeremiah does as well.

Some people say I'm maybe overly critical and, I don't know, borderline disgruntled. And maybe at times that might be true. But I think Jeremiah probably takes the cake when it comes to more detailed objections to liberty influencers around us. And because of that and his ability to see beyond some of this trending bandwagon. Positions, it's made him a critical voice of reason, in my opinion.

So I welcome to the show. And today I'm going to be as fair and objective as I can, because obviously nobody just wants to hear, three people just bitch and complain. But there's a lot of nuance to this in this conversation. And I'm also open to being incorrect with my position. And I'm certainly open to hearing more about this. And that's why we're having the conversation today.

And unlike some of the libertarian Trump supporters who call anyone critical of Trump, blackpilled, I'm open to the idea that there's simply a part of their argument that I just don't understand. And I want to try to highlight some positives today as well, if possible. So, you know, I also wanted to talk about Trump's cabinet picks, which might be a product of, you know, some of the other drama.

But first and foremost, thank you for joining us today, Jeremiah. And why don't you take a moment to introduce yourself to our audience and those who aren't familiar with you, and we could go ahead and get started with all this today. Yeah. So I guess a good way to introduce myself is I've got mental illness and I take that out on the state. I've been involved in libertarian circles for, I think one and a half decades now, but I've been doing active libertarian stuff for probably 12 or 13 years.

I used to table with Young Americans for Liberty. I used to be heavily involved in the ron paul campaign and then all of that sort of like it was it was it was a slide i i used to be and this is one of the ways that i recognize a lot of these signs.

Basically a fascist in high school i wanted like basically ethnostatism i wanted cleansing of the middle east i wanted a bunch of terrible things and effectively like i know how to now recognize a lot of those signs in other people because I started to become disillusioned with those positions, especially since I basically had them in high school to appease certain conservative elements where I come from. It played well with that crowd to say, let's put automated turrets on the border.

So I was very much just doing it because it felt like I would get better received. And ultimately... The sort of transition started when I was later on in high school realizing a lot of this was bullshit, actually starting to read. And I eventually decided I didn't like either the Republicans or the Democrats. My mother then told me when I asked her, you know, I don't like either of these people. What should I be? She said, you know, I mean, have you considered the Libertarian

Party? I had not. I looked into it. All that seemed to resonate with me on their platform at the time. And so I started my dissent and it was like very short stint in like the sort of more Gary Johnson minded mentality. And very quickly, I started to look into Ron Paul and more like, you know, anarchist leaning figures. Tumblr at the time, I was part of a bunch of libertarian spheres, and I was finding more and more alignment with anarcho-capitalism.

But then, I started to look into quite a bit more of the history at the prompting of a lot of other people, places like Tumblr. And as a result of that and a bunch of other things, basically. I started to realize that libertarianism has a lot more complex history than just these, you know, capitalists in the 60s and 70s decided that they were going to start, you know, being supporters of classical liberalism, etc., etc., social, economic freedom, blah, blah. And so I looked into it.

I found people like Bakunin. I found people like Makhno and Proudhon and Spooner. And all of these people were basically aligned with the left. And so I started about, I want to say a decade ago, really starting to push for libertarian unity. And because of this, let's just say a lot of people who want silos, who want the left and right constantly fighting each other, didn't take kindly to that.

And so I've been through the ringer of a whole lot of people who either called me a Nazi because I was supporting certain right-wingers or called me a commie because I was supporting certain left-wingers, when I am neither of those things except I do support anarcho-communism. And the whole idea is, I think that if we don't unite at the bottom of the political compass, if we don't recognize that the real enemy is the state, we're basically fucked.

Well said, my friend. And boy, we sure have some overlap when it comes to our ideological upbringing. I too got into this about 10, 12, 13 years ago. I too was very much inspired by Ron Paul. And I also, I think my very first social media account was actually a Tumblr account. So man, that's too funny. Now, we probably diverged a little bit. I didn't go as heavy into some of the left-wing anarchists.

But that's fine, man. I think that actually provides some balance because I think there are some attributes to the maybe individualist, right-leaning anarchists that you simply can't deny. And once you learn them, there's no way of unlearning some of the truths. But I think that, like you were pointing out there, there is a lot of dogmatic belief. There's people who want to see things, everything in this black and white terms, and there's not a lot of nuance.

So I think if anything, maybe that left-wing anarchism influence probably rounds you out a little bit more, kind of balances the force, if you will. And so glad that you were able to break free from that, I guess, the people that you're surrounding yourselves with. In fact, it reminded me of a very poignant Stefan Molyneux quote that he said a long time ago. He said, the vast majority of people do not think about their beliefs from a logical start.

What they do is they say, what will cause me the least amount of grief and get me the most acceptance? And boy, doesn't that just define, Jesus, I don't know, it's 98% of people in America and let alone politics. But I do appreciate you giving a little history and background there as to your own ideological upbringing.

I did want to start getting into some of the meat and potatoes here about, yeah, what we're talking about. And just because there's so much to talk about today and we had to have a little bit of a limited timeframe, but why don't we go ahead and start off this the right way and maybe provide some context for our listeners.

So here's basically the framework, Dave Smith, arguably one of the most well-known libertarians, held a Twitter space a couple of nights ago entitled, Did I Sell My Principles by Supporting Trump? Did I sell our, is it our principles or is it my principle? I can't remember.

Either way, it's kind of pointing to the same thing in which he basically discussed, along with other prominent libertarians, he discussed if the Libertarian Party chair and other liberty influencers, if their endorsement and participation voting for Trump was a bad choice to promote liberty. And I think ultimately, the argument just comes down to it was like strategic defensive voting.

But Dave Smith did tweet yesterday that, quote, my biggest takeaway is the inability or unwillingness of anyone to address the arguments that we are making. It's especially surprising given that this strategy is undeniably debatable. And I'll be the first to admit, still, I don't think anyone landed a single blow strictly due to refusal to engage with the arguments for this strategy.

So why don't we just do that? Why don't we go ahead and present a steel man argument of Dave's position and go from there? So the first thing I'll say is I was in that space and I have a video coming out soon. That's like sort of my segment of it recorded with my face. And you can see my sort of live reaction to that. And also there were some things that he brought up that I thought I have a lot of contention with, but I didn't want to get like lost in the weeds.

I had a limited time to make my case. One of the things that people said, in fact, was that I was very much like I had too many points that I was trying to make. And I think that that's the real thing. I very much went point for point against what he was saying. And I took notes while people were saying certain things and really concisely, I think, made the case for the other position. because the false dichotomy.

Of like, is Trump better or worse than Kamala because we have two options does not account for the third option or the fourth options. And I directly went against what he was saying by presenting some of those other options, not the least of which is mutual aid and direct action. But the steel man of the position is that basically those are the options and that if you can move the needle in the favor of liberty based on the choice to support one of them over the other.

And if you can use that support as a way to sort of get a presidency that we would not have had otherwise, then it's a calculus of the lesser of two evils, the more libertarian of anything. And one of the ways that that he described this possibility is by saying that, like, even if he frees Ross Ulbricht and does that alone, that's a win. Now, here's here's the thing that I can say about that.

The first thing is that Trump himself and his Project 2025, which everybody on his side lied about that for a significant period of time, claiming that that wasn't going to be a thing.

But now he has Stephen Miller in his cabinet and it's relatively clear that that's exactly what he's going for with all of his cabinet picks and that sort of thing and that's a whole nother ball of wax like that's that that's I did a multi-part series on my own YouTube channel about Project 2025 and we didn't even cover everything over like I think six or seven hours of coverage. So it's got a lot of problems with it. And it's a massive statist program of authoritarian right-wing policies.

White-wing as well, but that's a separate subject. The whole thing there is that, yeah, I mean, maybe if we free Ross Ulbricht, that'll be a win for that particular part of his family's liberty, etc. But the first thing is, Free is such an ambiguous term. They're freeing Assange. He's out. But he did it based on a guilty plea that makes it harder for journalists everywhere to do their job.

Because now that this is on the record and somebody has been convicted as guilty for doing what he did, press freedom is worse. They can use that as precedent to say in the future, see, they did exactly what he did, and so they're guilty as well. That's authentically bad. And it's the kind of thing where the state will torture somebody for long enough that when the torture has a chance of alleviation. Maybe that person can be used as a way to use that alleviation to sort of force

compliance in other areas. And that's exactly what happened. And that's exactly what could happen again with Ross Ulbricht, because here's the thing, like, if you don't pardon, if it's not a full pardon for all of it, then it sets the precedent that you can use that sort of conviction to get somebody like that for running a website, which is what it was. Like, so I put on Twitter at one point, I said, easy guide to libertarianism. Do free Ross Ulbricht. Do not continue the war on drugs.

Set up concentration camps. Push gun control. Lock down the country. Call for police abuse. Claim crime is genetic. Cage many more like Ross. Support someone who does. That's it. Like, you can't do any of that stuff and be a libertarian. Like, any of it.

So the idea that freeing Ross is a good enough exchange is absurd when there's going to be so many more people like Ross under a Trump administration, and those people will not get the same level of attention from libertarians who have been making it a banner issue for such a long time that they can be appeased by little breadcrumbs like that falling off the table of a Trump administration that is guaranteed to be fascist and corrupt.

That seems like a good place to stop. And I do appreciate you. I feel like that steel man was 100% correct. I feel like that was pretty much their exact argument. So let's go ahead and hand it over to Don if you're what he has to say. Yeah, I was just going to say, first of all, agree with Jason. That's a really great steel man to sort of boil it down.

And just sort of on that point, so we've seen this, as you put it, this breadcrumb appeasement has been essentially standard operating procedure for both sides of the status paradigm for, God, we can say decades now.

But if we just look back at just the past 10 years, for example, the way that they were able to use their CIA assets in the media and kick up all of this racial hatred back and forth and foment some of these essentially controlled opposition protests that are sort of in the same vein as COINTELPRO meant to sort of shut down the actual Black Lives Matter movement of, hey. Stop killing people for the color of their skin.

And actually, you know, address the systemic issues of the structure of policing in the United States. And the media is able to twist it and turn it around when we have, oh, now we're going to take down, you know, the, you know, these Confederate statues and everybody cheers like something actually happened to reform the system that's murdering black people when no, nothing fucking happened to reform the system that's murdering black people.

And so we see this again and again, and it's essentially the same thing that we're seeing as Jeremy was describing now on the right with the sort of breadcrumb appeasement. Oh, we're going to free Ross, but now we're going to use that precedent to continue to harm journalism and press freedom and all these other sorts of things. And just on the overall subject of the matter, I did want to make two points.

First of all, when it comes to just, Obviously, we've all been in these circles for quite some time now, and I've been, ever since it was made very obviously clear that Trump was going to run for a second term, essentially banging my head against a wall trying to get people to wake up like this guy spent four years not living up to any of his promises.

He literally did none of it, and there's clear evidence, proof of it, and yet we're back in this statist cycle of, oh, we got to give the guy a chance and see what he's going to do this go around.

Well, it's like you know what he's going to do this go around. We have evidence of it. The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over again and expecting different results, and it's been so saddening to see the Liberty Circle particularly basically say, oh, he's going to eat. Promised to put libertarians in his cabinet.

And my colleague and co-host of the Rundown Live, Kriston Harris, posted just two days ago and said, well, zero cabinet members, Donald J. Trump not keeping his promises from the get-go. And I'm like, yeah, as expected.

We should not have expected anything differently. And then with regard to the Dave Smith thing, I saw a really profound comment by our colleague, Derek Brose, actually underneath it, where Derek says in response to Dave's Twitter spaces, he says, this conversation is convincing me that the normal libertarians like Dave, Clint, Angela are not awake to the technocratic agenda. They're celebrating Elon Musk as if he's some sort of hero with no awareness of his transhumanist technocratic agenda.

They're choosing to ignore Zionism and the connection saying, well, maybe he'll get ross freed and then while they acknowledge that he trump might not keep his promises they claim that he's going that they are going to hold his feet to the fire how by posting on twitter these people overestimate their influence and cannot see how they're being played it's truly sad af do not follow these people if you want principles yes dave being pragmatic is selling out your principles

and i thought that was a really good point from derek well yeah and and the worst part is. So in terms of the libertarian sort of flaw here, a lot of libertarians for a long time have sort of inched closer to the authoritarian side and done it because they. Like I always say, if you hate the left more than you love liberty, you're not a libertarian.

You'll always trend toward the authoritarian right because it's the way that you believe you can get your short term gains in terms of opposing the left. And this has happened since the start, like Samuel Edward Konkin, the third, the guy who wrote the foundational documents for agorism, he he in his like new libertarian manifesto, which, by the way, I wrote a bunch.

And this was one of the fun things about that exchange with Dave is that he assumed I was one of the people who bought the COVID propaganda. And so I could directly link him to multiple articles that I wrote for the Agoras Nexus, where like the 2019 position of like, we have to mask up and lock down in the country's, you know, fundamental risk and everything has to be shut down.

I was relatively like effective at criticizing that early on and had already been criticizing it on social media before a March 2020 article where I completely exposed the whole thing as a CBDC trap in an AI surveillance state trap. And like doing all of that meant that like I could succinctly prove that like I've been on the same sort of wavelength like and was never sold out in terms of that or anything else.

But the reason I brought up the agorism thing is in the foundational document to agorism, the New Libertarian Manifesto. It goes into some detail. It says, Thus did libertarians become a movement. The libertarian movement looked around and saw the challenge everywhere. Our enemy, the state, from the ocean's depth past arid outposts to the lunar surface in every land, people, tribe, nation, and individual mind.

Some sought immediate alliance with other opponents of the power elite to overthrow the state's present rulers. Some sought immediate confrontation with the state's agents. Some pursued collaboration with those in power who offered less oppression for votes, and some dug in for long-term enlightenment of the populace to build and develop the movement. Everywhere, a libertarian alliance of activists sprang up. The state's higher circles were not about to yield their plunder and restore

property to the victims at the first sign of opposition. The first counterattack came from anti-principles already planted by the corrupt intellectual caste. Defeatism, retreatism, minarchy, collaborationism, gradualism, monocentrist, and reformism, including accepting state office to improve statism. All of these anti-principles, deviations, heresies, self-destructive, contradictory tenets will be dealt with later.

Worst of all is partyarchy, the anti-concept of pursuing libertarian ends through statist means, especially political parties. A libertarian party was the second counterattack of the state unleashed on the fledgling libertarians, first as a ludicrous oxymoron, then as an invading army.

The third counterattack was an attempt by one of the 10 richest capitalists in the United States to buy the major libertarian institutions, not just the party, and run the movement as other plutocrats run all other political parties in capitalist states.

And then he goes into how he started to form the movement for the libertarian left, working with all these fledgling leftist libertarian organizations to try and move against this mentality that we need a state to achieve liberty, that we need to participate in the electoral process or we'll never get it. And this was in like the 70s that he was coming to these conclusions. And so this is a problem that traces way back.

And it's a problem that existed like half a century ago. And libertarians to this day still have not learned their lesson from selling out to billionaires, to people who have like, you know, the the biggest interest in the world to maintain the status quo. And who got their riches by being part of the reason that status quo exists and saying that these people are going to save us. And now they're cucked out to state capitalists like Elon Musk and Donald Trump and Peter Thiel.

And to some extent, media figures like Joe Rogan, who will only have authoritarian right-wingers on basically now. It's a sad state of affairs when the libertarian message is being puppeteered by some of the same sorts of right-wing figures that are creating an anti-libertarian future in so many places, even when they have a record, like being a gun-grabbing, lockdowning, big pharma, big government, anti-anarchist person like Donald Trump is.

Yeah, it does seem like a lot of the great intellectual thinkers of the past. Have already warned about this. I mean, you just mentioned Konkin. I know there was a gentleman, I think by the name of Mon Hop, who was on the Twitter spaces. He read a passage from Hans Hermann Hoppe, which was basically saying the same thing. And yet here we are kind of ignoring their warnings. And it is concerning to me as well.

Backing up just a little bit to the Ross Albrecht stuff. I just really have a quick caveat here. And boy, yeah, Trump did absolutely pander to libertarians as far as the claim he was going to free Ross Albrecht. If he'll keep his word, obviously, we're all kind of scratching our heads wondering if that's going to happen. And don't get me wrong, I would be right there on the front lines cheering if Ross did get free. I think that's huge. I think that would be definitely significant.

I've been writing to Ross for years now. I've been making memes and trying to help expose and create awareness to a situation for years. If anybody's unjustly caged, it's him.

But on the flip side of that, Michael Tracy was also on, the journalist Michael Tracy was also on The Spaces, and he kind of pointed out like, okay, this is big. This is huge. But who is it really huge to that we would free Ross? It's, I think, significant. Don't get me wrong. I think there would be a portion of the population that would find it to be something that is worthy of Trump's time and attention. But I would also make the argument that there's a large part of the population

that have no clue who Ross is. And so this is ultimately kind of just hyper niche pandering and more of a symbolic gesture, as Don was kind of pointing out. So, you know, I want to be on, you know, right there with everybody on the bandwagon sharing about this. But if you back up a little bit, you zoom out, it doesn't seem quite as significant as it does to libertarians, maybe to the rest of the population. So, you know, again, that's a win for us.

That's a win for us. But, you know, does that really move the ball towards liberty for everybody else who's viewing this from the outside? I don't think it does. Yeah. And like, here's the thing. If I had spent the last like 800 years being called a friend of Putin and a terrible, you know, like a national security threat, somebody who should be impeached because he shakes hands with dictators and shit, shit, shit like that.

I might, if I wanted to really send a powerful message to the people who have said that to me and tried to malign and tar my reputation, I might just flip them all the bird and pardon Edward Snowden because Edward Snowden has had to seek political asylum in Russia. And there are so many people, especially in the establishment Democrat-like press, and I say establishment Democrat and not left because Democrats are authoritarian rightists as well.

But like the establishment Democrat press has absolutely slobbed up that story, saying that Edward Snowden is now an asset for Russia and been like, you know, very sort of neocon war hockey about like, you know, now we can never trust him again. And it's like, first off, go fuck yourself. And second off, he has done more for the press than any of you have combined.

And third off, if you pardon him, give a full pardon, that would be so good for whistleblower protection, because it would mean that like all the stuff that he was convicted for could then be relitigated.

And we might get some transparency up in this motherfucker. But we don't have that because people like Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning were put through the legal ringer rather than like, you know, having their sentences, you know, commuted and they're like their their their charges pardoned because, you know. They revealed illegal shit, murders like mass surveillance.

Those things are things that shouldn't you know happen and the fact that they did is a problem i don't care if you're like you know the most dyed in the wool red-blooded red steak merkin i don't give a shit if you don't like the idea of somebody revealing murder and illegal surveillance you are anti-freedom parasite yeah i absolutely agree and that's one of the interesting things that we see when it comes to this faux rhetoric of supposed liberty coming from the Trump camp and all of them.

And right quickly, a small caveat to the other point that I was going to make is for, because I just love to sort of plug this because it is a really good explainer for people that might still be on the outside of it.

Once again, our colleague Derek Brose has this great explainer essentially called what is the great inversion and this concept of what the great inversion is is essentially what we're talking about today the fact that the whole trump musk feel pseudo libertarian cabal is essentially being utilized as this trojan horse to hijack the liberty movement to you know get everybody back in their little you know statist camps to actually, you know, subverts actual movements towards liberty.

So given that I'm now also a contributor for the Conscious Resistance Network, I would absolutely advise people go over there, just type in the little search bar, the great inversion, and you'll see all of Derek's pieces sort of explaining that stuff more in depth. But anyway, pivoting back to my previous point before pimping that is the fact that we're seeing this sort of rhetoric, you know, being utilized.

And as I was talking about in my previous point, just a few minutes ago, we have the evidence showing that, you know. Trump does not live up to his word. If he did, then Hillary Clinton would be in prison and his base literally spent years like, hey, Trump, why is Hillary not locked up? And then finally, when they're able to put his ass to the fire and he's like, oh, I think she's been through enough. Don't you think she's been through enough? We don't need to put her.

It's like, what are you talking about? You campaigned on locking up this parasite for all the terrible things that she's done. And then on the flip side of that, of course, we get, oh, I love the WikiLeaks. Aren't the WikiLeaks great? And then his DOJ spearheads putting pressure on Ecuador to revoke Julian's asylum and essentially is the reason why Julian spent that many years being tortured. Basically treated as a terrorist in Britain's supermax prison until eventually the Biden administration.

In my view, I think the reason why they ended up letting Julian out, which I was absolutely celebrated, my opinion as to why they ended up letting him out is essentially because if they did get in their way and get him over here to the U.S. And begin his legal proceedings in Alexandria, his legal team did a good enough job of preventing that from happening for long enough to the point where it got so close to the election.

And Biden's puppeteers were like, okay, we'll see. We bring him over here now and we start these legal proceedings. It's going to create an absolute shit show for the election. So we might as well just cut a deal and let his ass go back to Australia. That's sort of my view on why that happened. Right. And it's a it's a guilty plea deal, which means that it's going to negatively impact press freedom because now we've got somebody on record as guilty for that shit.

It's really bad. And like, you know, you bring up the basically the new cabal, and that's absolutely true. So, like, I think first thing that people need to understand is Susie Wiles. Pfizer, Scott Besant, Soros, Marco Rubio, all need I say more?

Like right hook steven miller illy stefanik tom homan literally gave a nazi speech at a nazi rally led by nick fuentes makan del rahim military industrial mike waltz like even if nobody else was in like in any of these positions like those people would condemn this cabinet this administration to a future of neoliberal and neoconservative, like, statist, like, goalpost-moving agendas.

And, like, the three people here, like, Teal helping Musk buy Twitter, he's on the steering committee of the Bilderberg Group. And he's also, like, the guy behind Palantir, a massive, like, military intelligence industrial complex firm. And people falsely call him a libertarian because he sucks their cock on capitalism. That's it. Musk does the same shit. And they claim, oh, he's free speech. I know people who got censored yesterday.

I know people who had their accounts banned under the old regime, the Free Thought Project being fucking one of them, and those people still don't have their accounts back. Get Reverb Press back on here. Get fucking, like, the Free Thought Project. Get the old, like, Police the Police accounts. Don't feed us lip service about free speech because you unbanned fucking, like, Andrew Anglin of Stormfront or Nick Fuentes of Nazi America First Pack.

And tell us that you're for free speech. That's not for free speech. That's for stoking division. That's the divide and conquer agenda that the elites love. The elites love to create ordo ab keo, order from chaos. That's what they do all the time. And Trump, oh yeah, we want to put pedophiles and wood chippers. It's the Democrat elite. They've got all this thing.

Jeffrey Epstein's plane. He was on it twice at least. And he was a good friend of him saying he was a lot of fun to be around with similar taste in young women. And this was all while Trump was making weirdly sexual comments about his own fucking daughter. Shut the fuck up. If you say you don't like Epstein, but do like Trump, you are not in a position to negotiate. And so like there are so many of these people who claim that, oh, this is all just part of this giant interconnected network.

And they'll like briefly cite One Nation under blackmail or some shit like that which is a very good read by the way but like they'll do that and then they'll. Like refuse to acknowledge the connection of their own leaders, their own chosen scions of Liberty, because those people are like popular. And they think that that popularity is going to lend it to, you know, a libertarian outcome because now we have a seat at the table. We're getting relevance.

And anybody who disagrees with us is demon possessed. That's what Angela and Dave were saying. So fucking hilarious. Fuck. Yeah. If I'm demon, you know what? If I'm demon possessed, so be it. I'll take it fuck you start calling you zuul right ghostbusters reference there.

You know what's ironic is that elon musk actually follows the free thought project 2.0 now like i don't even know how that happened we've been so critical of him over the years i mean it just doesn't make any sense but and we shouldn't also forget that you know that trump even claimed after he you know a few years prior he said i love wiki leaks and then what was it like a year and a half two years later, he said he had no idea who Julian Assange was.

Yeah. And though someone in his administration, I can't remember the exact official who it was, but they wanted to drone strike him. Like that was part of the equation at one point, you know, I mean, no, it sounds hyperbolic guys. You could look all this up. It's absolutely insane. And yeah, you're mentioning the cabinet picks, but I mean, we can't also forget his technocratic funders. You know, I mean, obviously that Miriam Adelson dropped, you know,

millions of dollars, David Sachs, Timothy Mellon. And I mean, all these people are significant. Are you ready for Zionism? But this guy is his fucking liberty. Vote Trump. Right, right. I mean, oh, go ahead. No, I was going to say, you know, so like one of the. Because there's so many facets to this, like it's a false dichotomy connected to another false dichotomy connected to another false dichotomy, really, once you really start getting into the weeds of these things.

And that's why, like, I can understand in a way or at the very least comprehend, like from the normie perspective, like it's so overwhelming to like be inundated with all this information.

But that's precisely why it's so important for conversations like these to happen, to sort of try to, you know, boil these things down to layman terms so that the normie that's not obsessive compulsive about this stuff like we are and spend every waking hour of our days being involved in this can actually like they come home from work and they prop their feet up and they can put on a podcast like this for an hour or so and actually start to sort

of understand some of these things and we're seeing like jeremy like you mentioned earlier the ways in which you know going back to the 70s and even beforehand like the the capitalistic sort of elite you know being involved in the foundations of the liberty movement or the libertarian party specifically and i think that you know goes to pointing out another one of the big false dichotomies that i've been seeing for many

years now and it's this the economic what i refer to as an economic false dichotomy where it's like this the the split thinking of oh it's only you know an anarcho capitalism or you know commie socialist kakistan sort of nonsense and we've. One of my favorite essays ever written, which I actually learned from you, Jeremy, a few years ago when you first brought it up in the comments of one of the posts that you made, it was called Capitalism vs.

Statism. It was written by Murray Rothbard back in 72. And Rothbard, whom anyone who has actually studied libertarian monetary theory should be familiar with. Specifically points out back in 72, says, quote, if we are to keep the term capitalism at all, then we must distinguish between free market capitalism on the one hand and state capitalism on the other hand. The two are as different as night and day in their nature and consequences.

Free market capitalism is a network of free and voluntary exchanges in which products work, produce, and exchange their products for the products of others through prices voluntarily arrived at. State capitalism consists of one or more groups making use of the coercive apparatus of government, the state, to accumulate capital for themselves by expropriating the production of others by force and violence.

And so I think one of the biggest traps that the libertarian, the mainstream libertarian movement has fallen into is this love affair with state capitalism, which anyone who's actually bothered to study the history of economic theory understands that state capitalism, quote unquote, is literally just corporatism, which as Benito Mussolini correctly described, it is just fascism by any other name.

And we're seeing that misunderstanding or that ignorance take place here, lending to this cacophony of nonsense among the, and now I guess what we can refer to as the pseudo libertarian crowd falling for statist bullshit. Yeah. Well, and to be clear, Here's a real zinger. So Rothbard, like, he helped start the Cato Institute. And pretty immediately, they kicked him out because he wanted it to be an institute where people could discuss more radical ideas.

And those radical ideas, let's just say, didn't play too well with the Koch brothers. The place was initially called the Koch Institute, I believe, and eventually got called the Cato Institute. and Rothbard was involved, but they kicked him out because he wasn't good enough for the status billionaire class. And the reason that matters is because they kicked him out in like the beginning of the seventies.

And then like 20 years later in the, the like fallout of long series of sort of libertarian political losses, because he was involved in the initiation of the LP. He was involved in all these political attempts at libertarianism, which was why Konkin had a long series of arguments with him about the best strategies going forward, arguments like the ones that I had with Dave Smith for like, I don't know, 20 minutes the other day.

And Rothbard was involved in that and watched as immediately things started to erode when trusting billionaires, at least, you know, when trusting rich people. And then eventually, two decades later, he numbs himself enough to what had happened to him and the liberty movement in general that he eventually writes this piece for the Rothbard-Rockwell report where he says that we need right-wing populism, a strategy for the paleo movement. And he starts the piece by praising David fucking Duke.

And also, this was part of his push to have people like Pat Buchanan involved as a sort of bulwark of libertarianism. An authoritarian right wing populist who has a whole lot of money and a relatively big platform making big promises to do like vaguely libertarian things, but only in service of the right wing. Pat Buchanan was that era's version of this libertarian alliance with Donald Trump.

And David Duke was sort of more of the kind of Elon Musk guy, constantly concerned about, you know, like gender and race and immigration and borders. And we've got to keep this country, pure and to its roots. One might say blood and soil. We've got to keep this place exactly the way that it was originally. We've got to make it great again and be America first. Those were the kinds of things that Pat Buchanan and David Duke were saying.

Rothbard said, we can work with this because there's enough overlap that maybe we can get certain concessions. And did that work? But no, it didn't. And now we're doing it again. It's been 30 years since that strategy was started and thought up. And it's been around condemnation of two decades of failure of the right to be anything less than authoritarian, especially after the worst day in history ever.

There's never been anything worse. 9-11 happened where we get to ignore like the 30,000 Sudanese people that, you know, Clinton murdered by destroying the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory. We get to ignore the thousands of people murdered by George H.W. Bush under the like, you know, sort of before global war on terror, global war on terror and the highway of death and shit.

And we get to ignore like the Al-Qaeda funding from Jimmy Carter, and we get to ignore, you know, all of these, like the Vietnam atrocities, like thousands and thousands and thousands of civilians killed by the US so fucking routinely. But as soon as thousands die here, like, well, well, you know, even if this wasn't an inside job, which I think it was. Like even if that's not the case, this attack was like a drop in the bucket compared to either U.S.

Committed or U.S. sanctioned violence. And so like the right wing used that as a as a firebrand effect. They used it as a way to rally around the flag and get us all like cocked to their platform. And it worked because that's what the authoritarian right does. They use various, you know, allegedly terrible things that happen. And this was terrible. That wasn't allegedly. I don't mean to imply, hey, 9-11 wasn't that bad, folks.

But like, sorry, what? But in the context of everything you're speaking of. Yeah, yeah. Right. Yeah. And so and then like immediately in the wake of all of this, like a few years after 9-11 happened and all these authoritarian right wing things happened, suddenly the Libertarian Party is like, you know what? We were being too radical. We had 61 planks in our platform.

We could shave that down to 14 and like the the the the platform basically barely like survived with the non-aggression principle intact that's that's how that's how gutted it was compared to what it was if somebody wants to read it it's it's available in like the wayback machine you can still look at their old 61 planks and you can find the the link to do that to look up in articles on reason called the portland plank massacre of 2006 by brian doherty and it

was directly referenced by the scott horton show in like july 20 like 2006 about the portland plank massacre of 2006 and so like this this was considered terrible and karen ann harlows who they're purging now because she told them to do their fucking jobs like she was like all about like looking into this. Like, let's be super clear, this purge removed a significant amount of ideological consistency that the libertarian platform used to have.

It was responsible for a significant amount of problems, and what we have now is a watered-down libertarian party, a watered-down libertarian movement, and all of this is now culminating in what we have, which is that the libertarian party has dramatically sold out to the authoritarian right for that little drip of relevance or seat to the table.

If you want to be disgusted with the modern libertarian movement, there's a picture floating around of Angela McArdle with her head on her hand, looking almost swooningly at Donald Trump in a meeting. It's so fucking gross. And this is where we are now. We're at this level where the libertarian movement itself has backed itself into a corner by being so against coalitioning with the left that they are now coalitioning upward.

They are now coalitioning higher up in the authoritarian axis on the political compass rather than getting some body immunity up in this bitch. And yeah, well, I'm just gonna cut you off there, man. I mean, we only have so much time left, but I think those are some great points. And, you know, it's no secret, you know, during the 2000s and even part of the 2010s, you know, American sexualism was all the rage and the media certainly put that front and center, Christian nationality.

I mean, all this stuff, it went hand in hand with the war on terror. And it was much easier to sell the concepts of killing a million Iraqis, you know, once you have that type of fervor behind you. And that's actually a perfect segue because I know Don already touched on this a little bit, but. There is a false hope in a savior complex with Trump, and it aligns specifically with the gradual, like what you were just saying, Jeremiah, the gradual push and leaning towards more of the right.

And I don't think that's something that was by accident. I think a lot of people realize that, hey, we're not getting a lot of traction talking about this voluntarism stuff. We're not getting a lot of traction talking about not voting, not participating with the system. hell. Most people think that's completely wacky. They think that's foreign and a goofy idea. Well, what if we maybe coalesce with the right? Maybe we start to adopt some of their ideas, some of their platforms.

We trade in some of our principles for pragmatism, and we call it defensive voting. To me, and this is my argument, politically achieved liberty is always, always, always a compromise. It should be viewed as a band-aid, not a solution. Our work should always focus on the non-political solutions, or we're just playing the game, you know, that we can't win.

And imagine if all that effort that Dave Smith and Angela McArdle and all these people, I mean, I know to a certain extent that they are playing the game, right? Especially Angela and the LP, because that's what they do. This is the politics realm of liberty. But imagine if instead of pushing all this energy towards Trump, we funnel all that action and education into volunteerism, you know, the real framework for liberty, you know? So to me, I've brought this up. I've been having back and forth.

I've been talking with pretty much everybody. Mike Heiss said to me this morning, we might as well minimize damage while we're doing the other work like education and parallel institutions. This is the duress effect of government force. I'm not claiming politics is the only path, but it's definitely a piece of the puzzle. So what would you guys say is incorrect about that argument. Well, okay. I'll start by saying that the incorrect thing is to assume that

this is going to lead to a more libertarian direction. Accurate. Yeah. Like the first, like when people tell you who they are, believe them. When the libertarian party consistently cucks to authoritarian right-wing figures, believe them. They're probably just more authoritarian right-wing than they would have you believe while they're doing bullshit rallies with the People's Party and other sorts of vaguely right-wing left organizations.

They're probably just doing that because they want to get people looking at their people.

And if your People's Party does a rally in the same square right before another rally that's directly just a Trump rally, it's probably not that serious about communism so like they they had two rallies this year they had a rage against they have more rallies than that but they had rage against the war machine again which was affiliated with a bunch of socialist organizations or at least organizations that claim to be socialist and and that got like i think like not even 50 attendees it

was fucking sad like jordan page was singing to an echoing like cement slab. I went to the first one and it was very low attendance too. I'd say maybe a little over a thousand people, if that. Yeah. And so like, and like so many Russian flags and so many like, you know, obvious Vatniks, like it's, it's a problem.

It's a problem for optics when you're trying to say that we don't support, you know, any form of authoritarianism to be right there alongside people who say that like, like Ukraine should be put down like a rabid dog. That's what Scott Ritter said when he wasn't also a twice-convicted child predator, which should have been a disqualifying offense on its own.

And, like, the general vibe of a lot of these people is MAGA communism, and they claim that as long as we get Trump, he's going to subvert the structure and he's going to go against the industrial complexes, and no, he didn't.

And now Jackson Hinkle, the guy behind MAGA communism and all of his little MAGA communist flunky fucks are like very explicitly freaking out publicly saying, you know, who are all these neocons and, you know, authoritarians and Zionists you're putting in your in your cabinet? Well, yeah, we all warned you about that. And so there's that element. And then there's the element where these are potentially going to give us slightly more libertarian futures in certain aspects.

Potentially. I will grant a potential. But what that means is that if they do, first off, these will be tiny little breadcrumbs while they overall do more authoritarianism. And what that means is that like these tiny little breadcrumbs will be all the excuse people need to say that like, oh, if you don't get involved in politics, if you don't work within the system, you're not doing anything because look at what we got. We got Ross Ulbricht free.

We got the cock pulled out of our ass exactly a millimeter. You want the cock in your ass, don't you? No, I kind of... And so it's like all of this stuff is... It's generally... Appeasement. It's breadcrumbs from the table. That's all they give us. And you know, hey, if you want the cock in your ass, that is absolutely up to you. I am literally pro-LGBT. I'm one of those evil social justice types who wants individuals to be able to be themselves and express themselves.

So feel free to admit that that's exactly who you are, but specifically for Donald Trump. Pink Guy has a song for you. It's called Gays for Donald. But like the general vibe that I want to give off here is these are appeasement breadcrumbs. These are pacifiers. These are ways that they can make like, you know, their little agendas very, very, very piecemeal appeased while getting mostly railed. And this is the way forward for the authoritarian regime.

They always have to get us like, you know, somewhat pacified so that we don't rebel and invested in the system so that if anybody goes against our system, they will then be attacked. I have had, since the Dave Smith appearance, hundreds of Trump supporters in my mentions, hundreds of Trump supporters and, you know, a similar level of like the vague RFK blah, blah, blah, blah in my mentions, crawling around like little slugs and parasites.

They are, you know, being angry that I would have the audacity to say shit like against their guys. The Vivek people even posted in their little circle jerk chamber on Twitter, their community there, so that I couldn't reply and so that it would be sent to a very specific ideologically focused group of people. Oh, he is a fraud. He posted a hoax about Vivek being like scrubbing the record from his Wikipedia about his Soros money and his COVID-19 response stuff.

But then the source that they included there proved me right. And it said that he literally did that. But it's because people would be mean to him if they found out about it. And he can't have that. Well, cry about it. And then the Libertarian Party seeded all of this.

They could have had chase and they claimed falsely and i mean falsely that he had different positions to trump because like in terms of like trans stuff he said that like he didn't even support surgery until they're full adults trump said he supports surgery on minors as long as they have parents consent this is on video record he said that and like look i'm pro-trans and i'm saying that right here on the record like I think that the anti-woke thing is largely

a grift by a lot of these same sorts of people who want to force an authoritarian right wing agenda. But if somebody is going to say that they aren't because my children mutilation and then support a president who literally does that and then say that you can't support Chase because, you know, like he allegedly said that when he said an even more extreme position than Donald Trump did, then it's just not honest. It's just not honest. And that's what a lot of these people aren't, is honest.

They're not willing to be consistent. And every time you call them out on one thing or another, they will immediately retreat into like slurs and attacks and dismissals of evidence. And I'm not reading all that. Well, maybe it should.

And maybe people who aren't willing to actually look into things should shut the fuck up instead of trying to ruin like a perfectly good viable strategy for nonpolitical like, you know, change that is libertarianism by first making it political and then selling out to the authoritarian right so that they can like do their anti-libertarian agenda. but maybe they'll free Ross. Like, yeah, maybe, but they'll make a whole lot more people like Ross.

They'll put a whole lot more people in jails or in the case of Project 2025 and Agenda 47 and a bunch of the stuff that he said, crack down with the police. He wants an hour of police violence. He wants to like make police immune. He wants police immunity. And this is our libertarian guy. He wants to put homeless people and legal migrants in like internment camps on the border so that they're no longer in the cities. And like, he's literally doing the paleo strategy element of like,

you know, who will they go? Who cares? This is the, the way it actually goes. It actually just results in a lack of freedom. He and his campaign lied about Haitians eating pets. They weren't doing that. That was propaganda. They lied about that so that they could justify deporting legal immigrants. He's literally bringing up an act that he's going to use, the Alien and Sedition Act. And that act is explicitly usable to strip somebody of their citizenship. And he was saying that before.

Like the the the campaign finished and he you know was selected and now after it he's literally talking with steven miller and a bunch of other people about reinstating his denaturalization process imagine if you like really thought the american dream was real and you thought you could go to this land of freedom where if you worked hard and you did what you should you got the opportunity to have a life of freedom and respect and dignity and like maybe avoiding

one of the proxy wars the u.s started maybe like rebuilding your life after one of the cartels they funded destroyed your house or you know maybe after one of the corporations that's directly working with them poisoned your land like texaco did you know like maybe you'll have some shot at this freedom and this bootstraps, lift yourself up, individual independence that you've been told about. And you do that.

You make the perilous journey to this place. You go through the entire legal immigration process. You do everything right. You become a hard worker who is contributing tax funds, and you become a person who can be here as an example, a shining beacon of what the American experiment, the melting pot is supposed to be. And then you get denaturalized and deported.

Your family is broken up. You're ushered out of the country, but first stuck in internment camps by a bunch of thugs who are fascist, racist pieces of shit working for an authoritarian right wing regime.

This is libertarianism no it's fucking not and ludwig von mises here's the real kicker the libertarian party had a recent takeover the mises caucus seemed like a maybe good idea at the time because there was some corruption there was a lot of milquetoast sort of waffling about who who would have thought that would have been the result if you reduce your platform from 61 extremely good planks to 14.

But if like the Mises caucus was a reasonable concept in theory, we'll get people who actually understand libertarian theory, we'll get people who are in this for like extreme and radical positions, we'll push for something better. And then what happened?

Well, the Mises caucus sold out Mises himself and eventually, like completely, so completely went against his principles that when Justin Amash read them quotes, barely modified and in no way changing substance at from Ludwig von Mises at their convention, but didn't tell them who it was. They booed the guy they named their caucus after. Because they didn't know that he believed these things because they were never Misesian to begin with.

And those same people would later on go ahead to support this authoritarian right winger who went against so many of Mises's policies. And like one of the prime things that I thought was fucking hilarious was when all of these people who were brought in by the Mises caucus propaganda started to be like, yo, there are a whole lot of people who support open borders in this party. And then those people were just posting the libertarian platform plank about

open borders. And what did they do? Did they self-reflect? Did they realize that maybe that was the way libertarians should be? And they signed up to be that way? No. They said, Angela said, please come back. We're not all like this, I promise.

And then while she did that, like all of these like Mises caucus fucks pushed for platform changes because you can't have these platform planks be even the way they were after they were gutted you've got to gut them even more and make them even less like amenable to liberty to the point where a caucus that started off by saying it didn't like support the culture war and it would actively avoid it that caucus would later on send an email

out saying that like trans people are part of a cultural marxist subversive agenda and we oppose them. And this was from secret convention instructions on how Mises caucus people were supposed to vote at the convention this last year. And then after all of that, I'll be done with this rant relatively soon. They throw their own candidate under the bus, run fundraisers and multi-million dollar rallies for the opposition. And this is the way that libertarians only got 0.04% of the vote this year.

It was not because communism. It was because they refused to acknowledge their own principles and routinely sold out enough that they eventually had to fully capitulate to an authoritarian right-wing agenda, or they would lose everything. And so they kept their sunk cost fallacy. They kept their authoritarianism. And here we are with a Libertarian Party that will call you a communist cuck if you don't support Trump. Yeah, well, I certainly appreciate you sharing all that. There's a lot there.

And we still have a lot to talk about. Unfortunately, we do only have a couple minutes left on the podcast. As I mentioned, I have a meeting here coming up in a couple minutes.

Absolutely. But yeah, I did want to give Don, if you have like a minute or two that you want to wrap up, any last words, feel free, and we can go ahead and close this out. Yeah, sure. My point, you know, being just a full fledged anarchist and with my economic principles being an agorist, you know, sort of using agorism as that bulwark to escape out of the, as I mentioned earlier, the fake, you know, communism versus capitalism paradigm.

And, you know, being a student of so many of these thinkers, you know, such as Lysander Spooner and whatnot, my position is pretty, you know, bare bones, basic power taken will never be relinquished.

We cannot in any capacity look towards the state to respect the rights of the individual because the state inherently over the past 6,000 plus years of human societal development has proven itself to be nothing but a collectivist monster of authoritarianism that will always prioritize the power structure over the people.

We cannot look to the state for solutions and therefore any solution that attempts to compromise or be pragmatic by appeasing to the state becomes an oxymoron of itself and therefore delegitimizes itself completely. Well said, my friend. That's pretty much my point of view at this point as well. And you know, with the cheese, I wanted to talk about RFK. I wanted to talk about how Chase Oliver fit into all of this, which I think you kind of touched on a little bit there at the end, Jeremiah.

And God, there's just so much more to talk about. But yeah, we'll do another one. Yeah. As I was about to say, we'll have to have you back on sometime soon because I feel like we have to strike while the iron's hot. This is a very important topic right now. In fact, I posted just Trump's quote. I just posted this quote, a meme quote about him and his promise to put a libertarian in the cabinet. And that almost reached 200,000 people because everybody was arguing about it.

God, there's just so much. It's such a mess right now. But I don't know. I've always steered clear of what people call libertarian infighting. And of course, on its face, it's certainly obnoxious without a doubt. But I think there's more to it. I think that discussing these different theories and strategies is also what makes libertarians and anarchists is different to other political factions, you know, which tend to just go along to get along.

And I think the left and the right are kind of perfect examples of that. And, you know, dare I say, we have more critical thinkers maybe than any other political ideology. And, you know, we champion the concept of individualism. So of course, of course, there's going to be disagreements and infighting and bickering. But with all that said, I do think that this conversation was productive. I certainly have strong opinions of what's transpired over the last month or so.

But I also have enough integrity to understand that there's possibly points I just don't understand. And unlike some people like Dave, I don't think Dave Smith has the capability to actually admit that he's wrong for various reasons. And unfortunately, we didn't have a chance to get into that today. But I'm not opposed personally to ever talking about these types of things. If anyone wants to come on our show to discuss these topics, even if we don't completely align, welcome it.

Send me a message, let's get you on. But I think objecting to people's opinions while still holding respect for their position is how we grow and evolve intellectually. And the opposite of that is largely what other political factions engage in and, you know, when they don't meet some type of certain standard of approval of thought. And, To me, that's not integrity. That's a social club. We're trying to be better than that and actually discuss these ideas that don't just matter to us,

right? But they matter to all people. It's not about just our version of liberty. It's about liberty for all. All right, Freethinkers, this episode is nearing the end. We wanted to take this time to remind you, if you found value in this conversation, please consider hitting that like button and subscribing to the Freethought Project podcast on your preferred platform of choice. It's an easy, no-cost way to support us and ensure you never miss an episode.

Also, the Freethought Project operates primarily on the generosity of our listeners. If you believe in our mission and support our cause, please consider donating or subscribing by going to the Membership tab at the top of our website. Your contributions ensure we are able to continue our important work, having these important conversations, and your donations help us do just that.

Lastly, if you're part of an organization or own a business that aligns with our mission and values, we are currently inviting sponsorships for our podcast. This is a fantastic opportunity to promote your product or make your brand visible to our engaged audience while supporting meaningful discourse. Thank you for your support, Freethinkers, and as always, thank you for listening.

Thank you for joining us today jeremiah why don't you go ahead and let people know where they could find more of your work and support you and anything else you'd like to share so you can find me at insanity is free pretty much everywhere lately i've even been doing like twitch gaming streams to try and capture some elements of the culture so you can find me at insanity is free over there i'm also on agoras nexus about to launch there's going to be a book coming up soon that people here should

be interested in but i'm not going to say too much about that but the general like just over there lots of content about you know how to best escape the state constantly looking for new people who might want to contribute there as well so can consider asking about that but like all that i do jeremiah talks on youtube i do i'm on facebook jeremy harding basically anywhere i'm i'm everywhere as a demon possessed man you have to be you have to be where you can go you know they'll

kick you out of so many places so you know i mean how about that yeah like that that's one of the fun parts i can pull out that voice at any point because i've.

Got this wide german throat anyway october mcarnold that way at one point man that would have been amazing if you just i should have but i thought it might have been like you know i i wanted to make sure that i got as much of the actual points out that's that's one of the frustrating things dave wanted to pretend his points weren't contended with yeah they were they were i contended an eight point platform and then i also went into great detail in

the follow-up conversation he just wants to pretend that there was nothing said against what he was saying because it makes it easier to be what he was doing. I i'd have to agree man and yeah that's that's a whole nother can of worms that I'd love to get into. In fact, I had a few thoughts noted here about that exact point, but we'll have to wait on that one. Don, yeah, exactly. Don, thank you so much for joining us. Jeremiah, thank you so much for joining us. And yeah. Music.