Former Polish Defense Minister Radek Sikorski (husband of US neocon Anne Applebaum) publicly thanked the US government for blowing up NordStream I and II on Twitter yesterday, a move that made even his own fellow countrymen feel awkward. The seeming terrorist attack was less a move against Russia than against Germany. So who did it? Why? Also today, Sen. McConnell rolls over on even more billions to Ukraine. And...is Elon turning his eyes toward Rumble?
Hello everybody and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today is Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to see you.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you this morning?
Good.
Still trying to figure out all the answers.
Who did it?
There's strong suspicion that it's narrowing down the possibilities.
But time will tell.
When I get up in the morning, I look, I do look at the news.
I look at my computer and I want to know what kind of damage has been done to Liberty.
Usually you can find quite a few things that have been done and damage to people.
And the markets say a lot.
So when something happens in the markets, and there's a response, it tells us something.
But this morning, it was interesting.
I got up and I look, well, I wonder how's gold reacting to what's going on in the pipeline business.
And gold was pretty low early in the morning.
And then quickly, within a couple hours, it went up $35.
And I thought, oh, boy, they're really getting worried about this pipeline stuff.
But it turns out that that really wasn't the reason that there was a rush to the haven of gold.
That had to do with something the Bank of England did.
And that is they had thrown it in the towel and they say, oh, this raise interest rates and turn off the inflation with us participating.
They threw in the towel and they say, QE, QE, QE, which means, I think, to a lot of people, and I've always predicted today we're not going to stick with raising interest rates up to the point of being equal to our cost of living, the CPI.
So anyway, that's what the response was.
But the markets can't be totally complacent either about what's happening over there because it is so dangerous.
And this happened, you know, really out of the clear blue, you know, and people still don't know exactly.
But, you know, it just looks like our government, we've been involved a long time in that.
We don't miss out.
When there's a coup party, we like to join in on it.
And the one headline that caught my attention because it doesn't surprise me at all.
CIA warned Germany of a possible Nord Stream pipeline.
You mean our CIA might have known this was happening?
So anyway, that invites more, but we have to be careful.
Right now, that might be conspiratorial, and you can't do anything conspiracy.
But somebody told me long ago, don't sweat it about being conspiracy-minded.
Just find out, is your conspiracy truthful?
So that's what you have to work on, working on truth.
And what they name it doesn't mean much on the long run.
But anyway, they're still working hard at it.
It's still very dangerous.
And there will be a lot of blame going on.
Poland has to sort it out.
Polish allies and Germany has to sort out.
And what are they going to do?
And to protect themselves and protect the international community.
And right now, I'd say they're coming up short.
I always argue for more independence and self-reliance.
And that would have gone a long way if that's what Germany had done after World War II.
Yeah, it's, you know, right after our show yesterday, when we were sort of pondering, it was early on.
There was not a lot of information coming out, but there was a bombshell dropped.
Not literally.
That's already been dropped.
But put up that first clip.
It's Radek Sikorsky.
Now, he's not just some dude on Twitter.
He was the defense minister of Poland and the foreign minister, and he's very, very heavily involved in the Atlantic Council, which is close with NATO and rumored to have close CIA ties.
He tweeted a picture of the gas bubbles in the Baltic with just three words, thank you, USA.
That is obviously Sikorsky saying the USA did it.
Now, on one hand, you could say, well, what's his motive here?
First of all, he's rabidly russophobic.
He hates Russia with this passion.
He's married to Ann Applebaum, who's a U.S. neocon, who hates Russia probably almost as much as Victoria Newland hates Russia.
So a family of rabid Russia haters saying basically that the U.S. did it.
Now, that puts the U.S. in an awkward position because if they did do it, they want to have plausible deniability because it is objectively a terrorist act to blow up another country's pipeline.
It's an act of war.
So the U.S. definitely doesn't want to have made in the USA on this operation.
So you almost wonder, if you start thinking in that way, does Sikorsky know something about his own government and he's trying to deflect and say thanks, U.S., wink, wink.
So we don't know.
But here's a couple things that we do know, Dr. Paul.
I'm going to go through a few clips, and most of these are thanks to a great piece on Moon of Alabama and also some tweets.
The U.S. military was involved very, very close to where the attack happened on the pipelines over the summer.
Let's put on this next clip.
Bolt Ops 22, a perfect opportunity for research and wresting new technology.
This is from Sea Power Magazine that follows this sort of thing.
So this is back in June.
Bolt Ops is a U.S. military operation in the Baltic Sea.
Turn on the next one, please.
In support of Balt Ops, the U.S. Navy Fleet partnered with U.S. Navy Research and Warfare Centers to bring the latest advancements in unmanned underwater vehicle mine hunting technology to the Baltic Sea to demonstrate the vehicle's effectiveness in operational scenarios.
Experimentation was conducted off the coast of Bornholm, Denmark.
Remember that, Bornholm, Denmark, with participants from the Naval Information Warfare Center Pacific, Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport, and mine warfare reading and effectiveness measuring under the direction of U.S. 6th Fleet Task Force 68.
So where exactly is Bornholm where the U.S. military was conducting these operations?
Well, let's have a look at the next clip.
Bornholm just happens to be literally right between the two explosions that happened and blew up the pipeline.
Again, it could be a coincidence.
Very, very, very suspicious.
Well, that's for sure.
So there's still a lot to be sorted out and who's going to get the blame, but sometimes it becomes irrelevant because if they can perpetuate a lie, they're conditioned to lying, and that's not a problem for them.
So if the lies prevail, and you know, the greatest enemy then is accused of, but there seems like there's competition on who's the enemy and to sorting all this out.
So it to me, I can't help but repeating, and we've done this so often, that we have, no matter what we have done specifically on these bombs, we have contributed tremendously to the chaos there.
And you can't ignore the fact that 2014 was a big year, you know, with the coup and with us getting rid of it.
And when we went along and changed the government, and the chaos has pursued since.
But they never said, I don't know, nobody still looks at that war and say, well, it's very precise.
There's a new war going on right now.
The war is between NATO and Russia.
And they're the number one enemies.
And then all of a sudden, well, you have pipelines to deal with.
We have Germany to deal with, Eastern Europe.
We have America's empire to deal with.
It gets very, very complex.
And, you know, it's practically, you know, it's based on so much deceit and dishonesty and aggression and greed that it just doesn't look like, you know, well, let's have a commission look into it.
Let's have a meeting.
Let's have a peace commission settle this.
I don't see that.
And tragically, I just see more violence over there.
And let's just hope that some idiot doesn't think that the nuclear weapon is the use.
But both sides threaten with nuclear weapons, you know.
And that is very, very dangerous.
Well, there's a couple more things about U.S. activity in the region that is interesting, Dr. Paul.
And if you can put up this next tweet, you can easily track U.S. naval vessels.
You can't really hide a carrier group, right?
And this is a tweet from AZ Military.
An expeditionary detachment of U.S. Navy ships led by the Universal Amphibious Assault Ship, USS Kearsarge, days ago was in the Baltic Sea.
It was 30 kilometers from the site of the alleged sabotage on Nord Stream 1 pipeline and 50 kilometers from Nord Stream 2.
And you can see that.
It says open source material of where this vessel was, and it was a naval warfare ship.
Let's do the next one.
Here's where U.S. military surveillance aircraft, one was a helicopter and one was a plane, were active over the past several days around the time of the sabotage, apparent sabotage, literally flying around the two points where the sabotage took place.
So definitely the U.S. was there.
You can't hide these things.
This is all open source material.
So the question is, did Washington do it?
And if so, what are the implications?
And we can talk about, I think, next, whether Poland or Russia did it, because those are the other two, I think, top contenders.
But let's listen.
When I got in, you first mentioned this, that you were really blown away by Tucker Carlson's monologue last night.
So let's watch just a minute of him, I think, making a very good rundown of the implications if the U.S. did this.
If we can play that, there we go.
What will be the effect of this?
Every action has a reaction, equal and opposite.
Blow up the Nord Stream pipelines?
Okay, we've entered a new phase.
One in which the United States is directly at war with the largest nuclear power in the world.
Doesn't mean it'll go nuclear immediately, but it does suggest there could be consequences.
If we actually blew up the Nord Stream pipelines, why wouldn't Russia sever undersea internet cables?
What would happen if they did that?
What would happen if banks in London couldn't communicate with banks in New York?
Just that one piece of it, leaving aside its potential effects on our power grid.
Potential Grid Collapse00:02:50
But let's just say the banks couldn't communicate with each other for one day.
What would the economic effect of that be?
Oh, it would cascade downward into your house.
We could have an actual collapse.
We could wind up very quickly in third world conditions.
Those are the stakes.
It reminds me of that old saying, Dr. Paul, sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
Boy, that wonder.
Makes you want to not watch the news.
Of course, that's what we're in a business, trying to look at it and analyze it and try to make some sense out of it.
But it's certainly the dangers are building.
And that's, I guess, the one thing that we have to be concerned about.
But the toughest part, I think, for everybody, if they're serious about this, is who's telling the truth?
Who can you believe anymore?
Who do you believe in when there's a dispute over an election like in 2016 and 2020?
There's an argument over there.
Oh, well, we have a process for that.
We have rules about recounts, and we work this out.
But, you know, that system is real bad, but Texas has been known to cheat and steal a long time.
So this is the problem of sorting this out.
Just who will it be that we believe?
So in a way, you can't trust anybody because everybody has an agenda.
And well, what motivates their agenda?
And most of the time, it's power and money.
And then the politicians just like to be important people.
So you throw that mix in there, and everybody will take a little bit of money.
I mean, it looks like the Biden family was involved with money, and the Clinton family was involved with money.
And yet they have to portray themselves as being very, very serious people who have a deep philosophy.
And I guess I get really sick to my stomach when I hear some of our people in Washington that I know quite well saying, well, we need to go and do some diplomatic work in Taiwan because we want to spread our message of liberty and our Constitution.
You know, that is just sickening, you know, listening to that stuff.
And it is, it's really a contest in society between, you know, truth and lying.
And I guess in periods of times, it must vary because it was much more, even though the founders recognized this, you know, that making their clear statement that if you don't have a moral people, you can't expect a free society to work.
Russian Claims and Warm Weather00:07:32
And that was a saying that people back then understood it.
They might not have been angels, but the founders had a basic understanding of what that meant.
But today, what would people, they would just, what is he talking about?
The best liar.
And then we're told that the CIA actually teaches people how to lie, cheat, and steal.
That's a pretty blunt statement, too.
So can we go to the FBI and say, why did you warn Germany?
I want to know what you knew.
And what did you tell them?
Well, let's have you come before our committee.
Good luck with that, right?
Well, the other possibility is Poland.
And this is interesting.
This is from the Moon of Alabama website.
And put the next clip up, Dr. Paul.
You'll be interested in this.
The U.S. military is not the only force near the area of the pipeline.
Damage.
Just a 100 kilometers south is the Polish naval base, Kolasbreg, the former German Kohlberg, which harbors mine-laying ships and the 8th Kohlbrig Naval Combat Engineer Battalion.
Naval combat engineers are experts in blowing up anything that's underwater, be it mines or pipelines.
So the Poles obviously are in the neighborhood, and they have the expertise if they want to do it.
It's hard to believe that they would do it without at least the U.S. knowing and giving a nod.
One thing that I didn't know that's interesting, I should have known this, but you know who the U.S. ambassador to Poland is right now?
The son of Zbigniew Brzezinski.
That's the current U.S. ambassador.
We all know about his father, who basically created the Mujahideen in Al-Qaeda as a way to get back at the Soviets and the Russians.
That's how much he hates them.
I'm sure not everyone is like father-and-like son, but I do wonder about the active role because we know ambassadors play very active roles in these sorts of things.
You know, there's a lot of confusion here.
But the one thing that came up that seems silly to have to say it.
And why did they say it?
And that is, our mainstream media says, you know, Russia, Russia claims they didn't do it.
Yeah, that's how they frame it.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
They claim they didn't do it.
Like, that introduces a whole new notion.
Oh, we hate Russia.
You know, that's another reason that we have to really hate Russia.
And I don't think that adds up.
I think if you're dealing with a little bit of logic and an understanding that there's a lot of lying going on, I would think it would sort of exempt the Russians for blowing up this pipeline.
That doesn't make much sense.
But, you know, we don't know that they didn't do it.
Anything is possible.
We don't know.
We know where the signs point to.
We know who had motive and who had opportunity.
I mean, if we're going to pretend like what Praro, those are two things that we would look at.
But there is an argument that, hey, Russia didn't deny doing it.
Here are a couple of tweets that I dug up that I think make a pretty good case for why Russia wouldn't have done it.
If we can look at the next one, and he makes a great point.
So Russia pays billions of dollars to get Nord Stream II pipeline pumping gas to Europe so it will no longer have to pay those transit fees to Ukraine and Poland.
Then it blows it up so it can keep paying the transit fees of billions of dollars.
Thanks, Western media, for relieving us of critical thinking skills.
That's a good point.
They could finally get rid of those transit fees and now they're going to blow it up.
Let's look at the next one if we can.
This is another good counter argument, I would say.
Why would Russia blow up a pipeline they could just switch off?
Why would they blow something up which is a point of leverage on the German political leadership?
Why would they blow something up which mass demonstrations in Germany are demanding is turned back on?
And that's a good point.
And that second point that he makes, I think, is particularly salient because it's a great leverage point for Russia on Germany to keep that there.
Hey, we got the gas.
You guys getting cold yet?
We got the gas.
Why don't you lift those sanctions?
It doesn't make sense to completely remove that.
Now, if they want to turn it off, that's one thing.
They can do that.
I think you have to presuppose, which they do every time the U.S. has an enemy, that that enemy is crazy.
Oh, that crazy Saddam Hussein, that crazy Gaddafi.
So you have to assume then that Russian leadership is literally insane to do this.
Now, they may be evil.
You may think they're evil.
But they haven't demonstrated to this point that they're just flat out nuts.
They've been pretty rational and pretty methodical in what they've done.
You may not like what they've done.
You may not agree with it, but they have been pretty methodical.
So to all of a sudden out of the blue, do something totally loopy, like blow up a multi-billion dollar pipeline, it's possible, but it doesn't seem that rational to me.
Yeah, right now, you know, the people in Florida and elsewhere are suffering from a huge hurricane.
Of course, that came from people who didn't follow the environmentalists.
That's what caused the hurricane, so they claim.
But this winter could be one cold winter in many ways.
It could be a temperature thing, but it doesn't have to be a temperature thing.
There's going to be a problem.
And, you know, in spite of the fact that we had to worry for a couple decades about this significant total increase in the temperature, we're going to have too much warm weather.
But now, they don't talk about warm weather.
They're probably praying for a little bit of warm weather.
But that'll be an additional thing.
But, you know, that'll be another excuse.
You know, oh, yeah, it was the weather that helped cause our problems.
On and on.
You know, our friend Larry Johnson, who spoke at our conference, he was a CIA analyst, and he has a good piece, and I think you read it too.
It's called What a Coincidence.
And he points out, again, when you talk about coincidence, the day the pipeline was blown up, Nord Stream 1 and 2, was the very day that a new pipeline opened from Norway through Poland.
It's a Norway-Poland-Sweden pipeline bringing Norwegian gas to Europe.
And you'd say, well, that's, I'm sure, just a coincidence.
Could be true, but the other fact is, and I think Larry points it out, is that pipeline only has a 10% capacity of what Nord Stream 1 and 2 have together.
So even if that puts out of commission, this gas coming from Norway is not going to be sufficient for Europe.
And really, I would say this attack on the pipeline, yeah, it messes up the Russian pipeline.
It's probably it'll never come back because from what I understood, when the seawater gets in, it corrodes that steel and it's just unusable.
But what it really is, is a war against Germany because Germany is going to suffer deindustrialization, economic collapse.
You say, well, why would Poland want to do that to Germany?
Well, Poland just got done saying we need some reparations for World War II.
Poland is not only very anti-Russian, but very anti-Germany.
So it's just an interesting people, including our friend Doug McGregor, wrote me something this morning about how this is really a death blow to Germany more than anyone else.
Yeah.
And there doesn't seem to be common sense on the horizon.
So I'm sure this problem is going to be around.
But there's going to be another explosion.
I'm not talking about there's going to be an explosion with another event of some sort.
Maybe Musk's Rumble00:15:10
And of course, you know, Tucker brought up the subject.
Well, if they cut the line on the communications between our countries, that is a big deal.
And I mean, he didn't mention the numbers.
Excuse me.
He wasn't mentioning the numbers.
But they're talking about trillions of dollars in a day.
You can't believe how much goes back and forth.
It's pretty frightening.
It'll be there.
Speaking of trillions of dollars, Dr. Paul, let's look at our second topic for the day.
We're going kind of long-winded on this, but it's an important topic.
This is Stephen Miller.
He was, I think, a former Trump aide.
He said the Senate just passed, without even the pretense of a fight, a continuing resolution authorizing $12 billion to defend Ukraine, $3 billion to resettle Afghans, and a blank check for Biden to keep mass-releasing illegal aliens.
Don't worry, GOP.
But don't worry.
The GOP bravely held the line on permitting reform.
So basically, what Miller is saying is that McConnell did not put up a fight on this mass spending again.
I suspect that this is a good example of a theme that I follow.
That is, when a push comes to shove, there's bipartisanship.
Yeah, of course.
So this was, what do they call it?
A must-pass bill.
Put it together.
And so something very, very controversial is a must-pass bill.
And that would be to keep the government open.
That would be the biggest crime in the world.
It might be a pretty good lesson to teach.
But you know what?
We've been there.
We've been in there.
They'll close the Washington Monument.
Yeah, that's what they do.
Seriously goes to Washington Monument, and people can't go there.
So that's a trend.
And all the employees go home for a paid vacation.
Now, they may have a delay, but they'll get their money eventually.
Nobody's ever suffered.
The only way they try to do it is get the politician to suffer.
But I think they're overly sensitive and they are easily scared and they overreact to it because most people know how I voted out there.
And I never came home here in Texas.
And people say, why didn't you vote to keep the government open?
Yeah, exactly.
That's one thing that I think the politician underestimates, is that they're totally terrified that when they know they're doing something wrong, the people are going to know they did something wrong, not realizing that if they did something that really was right and they just thought politically it was wrong, that they didn't think that you can get away with it, but you might explain to them what's going on.
So I think they're sort of mixed up on their values.
Could that be possible?
No.
Well, here's the thing, though, Dr. Paul.
So Republicans rolled over.
There were a few no votes, but they basically rolled over, at least the leadership, on sending yet another chunk of money to Ukraine.
But here's an interesting poll that I dug up toward the last minute that the Quincy Institute put out.
If we can put this up, this spells trouble, I think, for Republicans going along with the spending.
They found that a majority of voters support the U.S. pursuing diplomatic negotiations to end the war, even if Ukraine must make some compromises with Russia.
This is a, of all likely voters, 57% said the U.S. needs to start figuring out how to look at this ending diplomatically, need to start talking.
And that 57% is interesting because if you look at Democrats, let me put that back up just for a second actually.
If you look at Democrats, it's actually 62.
More Democrats than Republicans want the U.S. government to start facilitating or at least encouraging some diplomacy, some negotiations, even if Ukraine ends up losing some territory.
So if I were a politician, as they do, putting their finger to the wind to see which way it's blowing, I would not be betting on sending more billions of dollars to Ukraine.
Yeah, you know, and one thing that's different here, and maybe this is encouraging, is that the American people do wake up.
They got sick and tired of the Vietnam War.
They get tired of war and they want it to end.
And they even got tired of that war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
10, 20 years that we're here.
This is not even a year yet.
And you were hearing from the people.
I think that is a demonstration on the fact that our economy is in worse shape than most people realize and people are hurting.
So you could probably come up with a pretty good ad of showing the 67, they're up to about 67 billion dollars.
That's all.
We could get a picture how $67 billion was sent to the military industrial complex in Virginia, and we can show these wonderful little ships here and say, and then show what our inner cities look like.
Yeah.
You know, and compare where's the money going or, you know, you know, what are they doing?
Why are people suffering?
They're homelessness.
In America, they're sleeping on the streets.
Horrible.
But I don't know whether they'll follow through on that.
You do hear a lot more of this and maybe things will move along quicker.
But it still means that the people who talk about the election, I think it would be hard to argue that this election is totally irrelevant.
And most of the time I'm close to that.
On some issues, I'm still close to that because this vote is, we think people are waking up, but here they do.
They go out of their way and make sure we send another billion or $2 billion to Ukraine.
I think you make a great point about the politics of this.
I mean, I think there's an open door to a Tulsi Gabbard-like progressive to do exactly what you said.
Talk about $67 billion, talk about people can't get treatment for addictions, the cities are an absolute disaster and a dump.
The roads are trash.
Even if we don't love spending money on that, that's still money that's taken out of the possibility of spending on it.
Someone like Tulsi Gabbard, someone, a real progressive Kucinich type, could come through and I think make a lot of headway on this.
Yeah, but that's so logical.
Yeah.
It'll never happen.
Be cautious.
Well, it is a nice little quirky story to end the day.
And we saw this in the post-millennial.
I sent it over to you last night.
This is kind of an interesting little tidbit.
If we can put up that next clip, Breaking, Elon Musk expresses interest in doing business with Rumble.
And it's a little bit, in a way, goofy because it's a series of tweets, but tweets are public statements these days.
And we won't go through the whole series of it, but Chris Pavlovsky is the CEO of Rumble.
And let's put up this next tweet.
He sent this tweet out saying, Elon, I founded Rumble and forever wanted to work with you.
Below is from 2010 when I visited SpaceX.
I was ready 12 years ago and I'm ready 12 years from now.
Whenever you're ready, in the meantime, let's peer our data centers with Starlink to secure free speech.
And Elon Musk actually responded, let's put that up.
Pretty interesting if we can do that.
He responded, maybe worth talking at some point.
So some people love him.
Some people hate Musk.
I don't know if he's dedicated to free speech.
That's good enough for me.
There's still some unknowns there.
His communications and negotiations with Twitter didn't work out so well.
And yet there were hopes at the beginning of that maybe there would be an improvement.
Yeah, I would love to see something in a positive way, but I'd sure like to see Rumble stay in charge of the CEO and the theme and the First Amendment issue.
And I'd be optimistic enough that Musk would go along with it.
I'm not saying, oh, he's bad news and we really have to watch.
But Rumble's doing such a good job.
And we've been with him, what, a month?
A month and a half, yeah.
And we're pretty pleased with that.
And, you know, we are all skeptics at times because there was a time when that other company that we had at the beginning, they were going to, you know, treat us fairly and protect our First Amendment rights.
What are they?
An arm of the government?
Yeah.
And they can't.
They had the nerve to cancel us at times.
Three times, yeah.
That's almost like a violation of the First Amendment.
And you're right to bring up the subject.
The big deal would be what does Elon Musk really believe about the First Amendment?
Yeah, it would be interesting.
But as you say, Rumble's been pretty good to us, and we're happy so far.
They're pumping a ton of money into programming.
I read another article about it.
They brought Russell Brand over there, who's a huge name, and someone not associated with the right.
The same with people like Glenn Greenwald, not associated with the right, who are being brought over.
So they don't want to become just a right-wing YouTube.
So they're bringing over their point tons of money.
Wouldn't mind if they poured a little bit of money into the show, right?
As long as they're spreading some around.
We're doing our best.
But I think it's a good thing.
I think it's good that they recognize that the market works.
People want free speech.
They want to decide for themselves.
If it's something I think is bogus, I'll switch it off.
But let me decide.
And hopefully they keep this up because it's quite encouraging so far.
Well, I'd like to think, and there's no way of us knowing, that when we schedule our program early in the morning and sometimes five minutes before our program starts, we get a bit of news and we get it out there.
And I guess it's just, you know, I'm probably daydreaming this, but it's probably not true because when I look at the evening regular news MSM, my goodness, maybe it's just coincidental.
But all of a sudden, they don't say, oh, yeah, we saw in the Liberty Report today.
But all of a sudden, there's some similarities there.
And that might mean that we just are thinking along the same lines of an event.
It is important.
But anyway, it's pretty interesting that we can participate.
And, you know, one of the philosophies that I have followed, and a lot of libertarians do it, we believe in the market system.
We believe that you can earn a living and do a good job and be rewarded by your consumers.
But then there's an element once you just go over to promoting the ideas that you can't, it's not worthwhile.
You can.
You're allowed to do that.
You can't gouge people.
That's the whole purpose is to see how many bucks you can make off it.
It sort of loses esteem.
So that's why I think when things are presented out there and it's not so oriented to how much is made, it's available to people.
And I think the strength of the message is so important, you know, that will spread it.
And I am really into that old saying about how ideas are spread.
It isn't how many ads you get on MSM.
That is not the final point.
It's how valuable the message is.
And when the time has come when the people are ready for the message of liberty, I think it's going to burst forth.
Yeah, and we're doing our best to help it along.
I'm going to close out with a couple things.
First, I want to follow up because earlier this week we talked about an earthquake, political earthquake in Italy, and we were cautiously optimistic.
Well, the first sign is not that awfully great from Georgia Maloney.
This is a tweet that she put out.
Dear Vladimir Zelensky, you know you can count on our loyal support for the cause of freedom and Ukrainian people.
Stay strong and keep your faith steadfast.
So unfortunately, the Italians have elected, at least in terms of foreign policy, someone very much like the previous party that they kicked out.
Final word, put up again our conference, Lake Jackson.
It's going to be a blast.
November 5th, Lake Jackson, cancel culture, war on speech, a central theme, a central focus of the Liberty Report.
We've got some great speakers, including Del Bigtree and some others.
So get your tickets.
I'll put a link in the description when the show is over.
Dr. Paul, back to you.
Very good.
And thinking about France, you can have contacts.
You don't have to endorse what they do.
But I think the most important thing is available to us in personal habits and personal relationships that you can be at least neutral in some of these things.
If it's not your business and they're doing something wrong or not doing what you think they should do, it's not your obligation to go and stir up trouble.
It doesn't work.
So on the personal habits, the economic matters, these things should all be voluntary.
Because if you go in the opposite direction, you have people, once they decide that it's more and more and bigger and bigger and more money, who's going to be in charge of the global system.
And the globalists are still there and they're powerful.
And they showed how powerful they were during the COVID epidemic.
And that is there.
And still on international affairs, there's a lot of globalistic controls there.
But I think that, yes, the whole system is very, very fragile.
Even the system where the dollar has been maintained here in the last couple of years, surprising a lot of people.
The dollar standard, the Federal Reserve standard, all that is in our empire.
I just see it's there.
It's still very powerful, but it's very fragile.
And it could be that there's another pipeline explosion that's going to come along that will be even bigger.
And the warnings that we heard from Tucker today about what happens if they cut out the financial communications between the United States and Europe.
That would be a big deal.
And that is the reason why we have to continue our struggle to provide information to see that the cause of liberty is superior to all this authoritarianism.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.