Matthew Remski faces sharp criticism from Truth Unrestricted for allegedly abandoning evidence in his "Polite Canada Remilitarizes" episode, where he falsely labels Prime Minister Mark Carney's F-35 purchase as fascist remilitarization. The host argues Remski ignores Canada's military history since 1871 and the economic benefits of Swedish Gripen jets to frame US pressure as a sovereignty betrayal. By weaponizing historical terms like the Rhineland action, Remski is accused of constructing a narrative that demands resolute nationalistic strength against American hegemony rather than engaging with factual context. Ultimately, this critique suggests Remski's approach prioritizes ideological insinuation over logical analysis of Canada's strategic realities. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
The Anti Fascist Dad Podcast00:14:28
And we're back with Truth Unrestricted, the podcast that is ticking the gloves off in the fight against disinformation.
Strap in.
I've got something to say.
There is in the world a podcaster named Matthew Remski.
He is one of three hosts of a highly respected podcast called Conspirituality.
Many people I personally know and who have been on my podcast have been guests on Conspirituality.
Though it must be said, Conspirituality is a podcast with a much higher number of listeners and a much larger reach.
In October of last year, Matthew Remsky began releasing episodes of a new podcast that he does in addition to the Conspirituality podcast.
This is called Anti Fascist Dad.
I checked in with it when it began and it seemed interesting, but I wanted to see where Remsky would go with it before actually listening.
A few weeks ago, I saw what looked like a twist from the Anti Fascist Dad podcast.
After I took a closer look, I noticed that it was not a twist, but a pirouette.
That's the subject of today's podcast.
First, I want to address the people who listen to this podcast that know and respect Matthew Remsky.
I've been a listener of Conspirituality for several years, and it's been a very useful source of information.
On a large number of wellness and anti vaccine grifters who use spirituality as a vehicle to deliver unreal ideas.
I greatly admire Remsky.
His prose is beautiful and rich.
Even his voice is very pleasant to listen to.
So, why are we here?
Why does this episode of Truth Unrestricted have a title that sounds like I'm criticizing this guy that so many people, including myself, greatly respect?
For reasons I've yet to find out, Remsky has taken a sharp turn away from conclusions he can support logically with evidence and toward conclusions that are based openly on loose insinuation and conjecture.
Matthew Remsky is seeing fascists behind every curtain, and we need to talk about it.
Some people seem to be able to hold themselves to a firm grasp of reality and within a strict set of logical standards.
Need to have social pressure applied to keep them there.
I'm as surprised as anyone that this has come to be necessary for Matthew Remsky.
But here we go.
Episode 25 of the Anti Fascist Dad podcast is titled Polite Canada Remilitarizes.
The title seems a little odd.
Remsky breaks up his episodes into halves, and the second half is only available a few weeks after the first one drops.
It's available right away if you subscribe to his Patreon.
For this reason, I had to wait a bit to hear the other half of the episode, which came to be called Mark Carney's Elbows Up Hockey Shtick.
He is slick, isn't he?
Partly as homage, and partly because I don't want anyone to have to sit through this in one go, I've also broken up my criticism into two halves, and the second part will be the very next episode on this podcast feed.
So I listened to both halves of Matthew Remsky's episode.
It turns out that while most critics of Mark Carney want to say that he's inviting communism into Canada by making trade deals with China, Remsky has a completely different criticism.
We're going to hear some clips as I go through this, because I always hate it when I listen to someone claim that someone else said something.
I want to listen for myself, I want to know it's not an interpretation problem.
And I don't think it's necessary to have to go listen separately, so I brought the relevant bits here.
Though you absolutely can go listen to his podcast for this episode if that's what you want to do.
Remsky repeatedly carves away relevant and clarifying context from the story he's telling in order to reshape it for the narrative he's going for.
This isn't how the truth is properly related.
Deliberately ignoring a piece of reality in order to make your story sound better is going to get you called out.
Because I haven't seen anyone call this out yet, it's now my job.
As I listen to the Anti Fascist Dad podcast, I find myself wondering who exactly Remsky's audience is.
Is it Americans or is it Canadians?
He spends a lot of time explaining some things in granular detail that most Canadians would just know.
Also, any Canadians that have paid any attention at all to the news in the past year should be able to spot the dishonest.
Retelling I'm about to lay out here.
The unfinished parts of the story.
To Canadians, Remsky's version makes very little sense.
He starts by saying that he intends to give Canada's Prime Minister Mark Kearney a particular focus on his new podcast going forward.
Here's how he worded that.
So I'm going to continue to follow Mark Kearney closely on Anti Fascist Dad, not because he's a fascist dad figure, but because he's something arguably worse.
The warm and kindly liberal dad who's so wrapped up in the game of capitalism that he will ignore or facilitate the crises of inequality that lead to fascism.
Just in case you didn't catch that, Matthew Remsky just said that Mark Carney is not a fascist, but is arguably worse because what Carney's doing might lead to fascism.
It's part of that famous liberal dad to fascist dictator pipeline that so many have been screaming about for years.
Really putting your thumb on the pulse of the issue there, Matthew.
Now, I want to be as reasonable as I can be here.
I think what Remsky is trying to say is that preventing fascism before it starts is much more efficient than having to fight it once it's already taken hold.
Something like the medical adage an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Fair enough.
But Remsky is an author of several books.
He's also written articles for real life.
Magazines and publications, and he's done the spirituality podcast for like five ish years.
He should be able to arrange his words to properly convey his meanings, and I feel justified expecting that of him.
You might be inclined to give him an out based on this, but I'm not.
Liberalism, even neoliberalism, is not a stepping stone to fascism in an environment this filled with fascists just south of our border.
Why would anyone stop to focus on the things that might become fascist?
I mean, if your target is fascist, as the self proclaimed anti fascist dad, then you're in a truly target rich environment.
You have an embarrassment of fascism happening right in front of you every day.
Why pivot to focus on Carney?
So the title of the episode has a very strange word: remilitarize.
You don't actually hear this word very often, and it's very strange to hear it applied to Canada.
It would imply that we had demilitarized at some point in the past, and we're now reversing course on that.
It's not true.
Canada has had a continuous military for a very long time, since 1871, in fact.
The budget for that military has fluctuated, but we've always had active duty soldiers.
We aren't remilitarizing at all.
So, why does Remsky use this word?
And why does he use it so many times in the episode?
I put together a supercut of all the mentions of this word, just in case anyone thinks I'm being unreasonable here.
Episode 25 of Anti Fascist Ad Podcast Polite Canada Remilitarizes.
How he's framing Canada's remilitarization program as a sovereignty issue over critical minerals.
Let's talk about the extent of Kearney's remilitarization plans and their costs.
He has understood that his skills are best applied to the machine of remilitarization.
From my understanding, when a country begins to remilitarize, but I think what Kearney seems to be doing is to be selling remilitarization as an economic project.
A lot of the remilitarization is focused on the far north.
Most Canadians, and I think people around the world, assume that Canadian remilitarization.
Now, in the first part of this episode, I spoke with veteran anti war activist Brent Patterson about Canada's remilitarization program under Prime Minister Mark Carney.
Yeah.
So that was nine times.
Remilitarize, remilitarization.
He mentions that word more times than he mentions Trump in 51st State.
Why does he use this very strange and not relevant word so many times?
So I thought about it for a while and I think I have it here.
This is the word we use to describe what the Nazis did in 1936.
Some background here.
After Germany lost World War I, they signed the Treaty of Versailles.
To secure peace with the Allied countries.
As part of that treaty, Germany gave up the right to occupy the region called the Rhineland.
It was an area filled with an extremely dense collection of factories.
The thinking was that not having these factories available would help other nations trust that the German Empire wouldn't be trying to start a new war once they'd gotten back on their feet.
In 1936, Hitler marched 20,000 troops into the Rhineland.
Put into production there produced mostly military hardware in history.
This is spoken of as the moment when Hitler remilitarized Germany in preparation for what would become World War II.
Is this why Remsky repeatedly shoehorns this word into his podcast script?
Because of its historical connections to Nazi Germany?
We're left to wonder.
But since it isn't a word that best describes Canada, I feel like it's worth asking.
The first half of Remsky's episode is an.
Is an interview with a Canadian anti war demonstrator.
There is much that could be said about the wisdom of the methods of these protest groups, but one aspect in particular is worth focusing on for this discussion.
Remsky and his guest make several unspoken assumptions that must be understood in order for their conversation to make sense.
I say unspoken because.
They aren't perfectly explicit, but there are some clues.
For example, the guest quotes a famous Polish German anti war demonstrator named Rosa Luxemburg.
In 1911, Rosa Luxemburg was saying militarism, whether as armed peace or war, is a legitimate child of capitalism.
Right.
Much of the rest of their discussion, of their conversation, requires a belief in the purity and absolute truth of this maxim that capitalism creates war.
With this in mind, we can understand their desire to steer Canada away from Kearney and his economy driving pro capitalist goals.
In their minds, this just creates war.
If capitalism were the only condition that created war, then they would have a point, right?
It becomes simple.
Just end capitalism and all the wars will stop.
Magic.
But history gives the refutation here, thoroughly.
Humans have been waging war since well before recorded history.
We've only been trying capitalism for the past few hundred years.
Also worth noting, capitalism has helped to raise the standard of living for almost every human on the planet in that time.
Even the ones who don't live in capitalist countries.
This plan to end capitalism as a shortcut to ending wars is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater and still keeping the bathwater.
F 35s and Sovereignty Myths00:15:06
So, Remski and his guests spend quite a bit of time talking about something called the F 35 purchase.
Here's some background Canada has been buying military planes from the United States.
Ever since Canada got strong armed into canceling our own combat aircraft development program back in 1959.
That's a whole other story.
Suffice it to say that I'm still pissed about it.
Never forget the Avro Arrow.
Canada's Air Force, as Remsky accurately relates, is a fleet of CF 18 aircraft originally purchased from the US in 1980.
We've been in talks to replace this aging fleet with newer F 35 planes since.
2006.
The development of these aircraft has gone far over budget and way past the deadline several times.
The agreement to purchase 88 of these craft was made in 2022 under Trudeau.
So far, we've made payment for 16 of those 88 planes.
Remsky and his guest speak at length about how the deal to purchase these aircraft from the U.S. makes the idea of an elbows up approach to engagement with the U.S. a complete lie.
I think I need to exactly define what elbows up means in this context.
In December of 2024, shortly after he became president elect, Donald Trump began talking about Canada as the 51st state and Prime Minister Trudeau as Governor Trudeau.
This was seen by many Canadians as extremely disrespectful and an incredibly bad sign for our future as a sovereign nation.
The overall attitude of the nation was that someone should do something about this, but that it probably shouldn't be Trudeau.
Enter Mark Carney.
Former governor of the banks of Canada and England.
Trudeau steps down as the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Carney won the subsequent leadership race to become the head of the Liberal Party of Canada and thus prime minister.
An election was called in short order and Canada was asked who they preferred to be in charge of the country.
Meanwhile, Pierre Polyev seemed to be completely unable to even mention Trump's name.
Polyev spent the entire lead up to the election rehearsing attack slogans that would work on Trudeau.
And then refused to change any strategies once Trump and Kearney completely reshaped the political situation.
Polyev's inability to publicly address the perceived threat to Canadian sovereignty from Trump led to Kearney taking political advantage by claiming that space.
This is where Elbows Up originated.
It was inspired by Mike Myers appearing on Saturday Night Live wearing a Canada is not for sale t shirt and motioning upwards with his elbow.
In summation, it was a piece of political theater used to communicate the intentions of the then future Carney administration.
It clearly differentiated Carney from Polyev and captured the spirit of the moment at the same time.
It is undoubtedly the biggest single reason why Carney won the election in 2025.
For everyday Canadians, Elbows Up would be interpreted as an effort to choose to purchase Canadian products ahead of American products.
And or avoid the purchase of American products if at all possible.
Most people recognize that the nature of the threat was economic and related to trade, and that the health of Canadian businesses was a crucial component to resisting the pressure being applied by, and I want to check my notes on this, still the most powerful nation on earth.
With respect to a multi billion dollar deal to purchase a fleet of combat aircraft from the United States, it looks particularly bad when the ordinary people of Canada are actively choosing to purchase.
Higher priced goods in order to support Canadian businesses over American ones.
But Canadians also understand that some products don't have Canadian options.
This is particularly true of very niche items like combat aircraft.
This doesn't seem to have been obvious to Remsky and his guest.
One thing that Remsky repeatedly notes and has been reported many times in the Canadian news is that these F 35s need software support from the US.
To continue functioning, there is even some speculation that this software could be used to render these planes completely useless on a whim by the Americans, which puts Canada in an even more precarious situation with respect to an aggressive stance against the United States.
But Elbows Up isn't really about the purchase of military equipment, Elbows Up is about demonstrating that you understand the nature of the economic problem we're facing.
For Carney, it's about having a fast and easy way to communicate to the Canadian people what approach he intends to take with respect to US Canada relations.
It would be fair criticism to say that maybe Carney hasn't kept his elbows up as much as we think he should have.
But I don't think it's honest to frame this solely through the purchase of these aircraft.
Let's hear Remsky and his guest talk a little bit about this.
You know, I'm not building a straw man here.
Turning to the F 35s, I think that's a good example of the next thing that I want to ask you about, which is that most Canadians and I think people around the world assume that Canadian remilitarization has, you know, it's about elbows up or, you know, protecting national sovereignty from the US.
The reality is that the US and Canadian militaries are joined at the hip with regard to supply chains.
I think I was reading that the F 35 can't even work without continual maintenance or software coordination with the US.
So, you know, we're buying this hardware that is ostensibly about sovereignty or about national pride, but really we're buying into a sort of transnational US dominated military system that doesn't really have anything to do with national interests unless we're talking about corporate interests being.
National interests.
So, can you tell us a little bit about that?
Like, how this integration of these two militaries really kind of gives the lie to this notion of sovereignty?
I mean, it's a thinly veiled lie in a way that somehow it's elbows up to be purchasing military equipment, except that military equipment comes from the United States, ostensibly the country that we think we're defending ourselves from.
Yeah.
The Canadian and U.S. militaries are joined at the hip.
A decision that had a lot more wisdom before the U.S. president elect started calling audibles on the recognition of Canadian sovereignty.
And as such, these two militaries don't separate at the drop of a hat.
We're both key members of NATO and the only two members of NORAD.
A demand on Canada's part to immediately remove all U.S. bases in Canada and vacate any joint teams that.
Work in our alliances would probably not work well for Canada.
The nature of our relationship with the U.S. might need to change, but we need to not be pushing the U.S. into doing anything drastic.
If they violate treaties, then we can rely on our other allies.
If we're the ones backing out of treaties, we could find ourselves without any allies.
Also, as I've said previously, there is no Canadian option for combat aircraft because we had a Prime Minister in 1959 who caved to U.S. pressure.
So it's a little egregious to hear Remsky's guest try to point to the purchase of F 35s as not being an elbows up economic move.
But it's particularly egregious once we add in the relevant facts that Remsky has carefully carved away in this story.
Canada has already made payment on 16 of the F 35s, but is halting the payments for future F 35s while the Canadian government reviews its aircraft replacement options.
At the top of the list of competing options is a Swedish plane called the Gripen.
Everyone knowledgeable about combat aircraft admits that the F 35 is more.
Technically capable.
But the Swedish deal brings with it the option to assemble the aircraft in factories in Canada.
This would bring at least some of those job things every politician likes to brag about back to Canada after the US tariffs have done their damage to the auto sector.
When does Remski get around to mentioning the Gripen option?
He doesn't.
He just carves that relevant piece of information from the story because it doesn't suit the narrative he's trying to make fit into the shoebox he's chosen.
To describe Kearney's economic strategy, Remsky wants only the parts of the story that make this look bad for Kearney, so he leaves this bid out, pretending that Kearney is all in on purchasing F 35s, but halting the remainder of the purchase that Remsky is against seems like something Remsky should cheer for.
Weird that it doesn't come up in his lengthy conversation about this.
Personally, I don't think the Canadian government should purchase either aircraft.
The Russia Ukraine war has taught us that the future of warfare is in drones and eventually will also be in the ability to effectively counter drone attacks.
A few extra billion dollars that are thrown into manufacturing components for drones would go a long way to making Canada a key player on the cutting edge of defense technology.
Anyways, Remsky and his guest don't think that Canada needs a millet.
Needs a military to defend itself from the US because the US would so obviously win such a conflict handily.
This defeatist approach to anti war activism is unappealing and naive.
It's a child's approach to world peace.
Just stop fighting already, right?
Within each nation, it seems to make some sense, but in a world in which these nations must contend with each other, These ideas quickly die, and the Canadian perspective is unique.
We're the only nation that borders the US that has never lost a war to them.
The idea that we're indestructible seems real, but is a fragile illusion.
Anyway, here's Remski's guest making his case for why Canada shouldn't spend any money on military hardware.
There was a couple kind of mainstream news reports, I think Toronto Star, Gold Mail, that kind of thing, over the past number of weeks that were examining this question of increased military spending and Canadians' concerns about a potential US invasion of Canada.
And they said, well, such a small chance of that happening, but still it prevails as a.
As a concern, but then apparently, like you know, the various kinds of scenarios have been reviewed, and even with you know these billions on Canadian F 35s, you know,
it's the United States spends a trillion dollars a year on the you know, any sort of sense of Canadian military spending is somehow elbows up and is going to stop that particular threat that doesn't even really hold up.
Military budgets don't win wars.
When it comes time to go to war, we don't compare military expenditures and throw in the towel whenever we're outspent.
Wars are not won by placing stacks of cash into the hands of weapons manufacturers.
If that were true, then the U.S. would not have lost any of the multiple conflicts they have lost since World War II.
Vietnam was not a Thai.
And truth be known, wars aren't even really one with bullets.
No, wars are one with shovels and preparation, sweat, and a concerted desire expressed among the people of the invaded nation to not want to be part of the expansionist expression of narcissism and overweening national pride that has disrupted the peace and disrespected long established national boundaries.
And for that matter, sovereignty isn't about completely having Canada's airspace free of all U.S. aircraft or by not participating in an intertwined supply chain.
Sovereignty is about the ability to make our own decisions to benefit us.
That's what I hate so much about what Remsky has done here in his episode.
He's taken the actual work that could put us on a path to sovereignty in jeopardy.
He's cheapened that effort by a deliberate misunderstanding and simplification.
Of sovereignty.
Remsky completely fails to mention the situation that is actually happening between Canada and the US hegemony.
My charge against Remsky is that his argument is illogical and naive.
It's a bad argument.
Canada's Subservience to the US00:04:38
Here's a more salient view Canada has had continual, uninterrupted peace with the US.
Since we became a country in our own right in 1867.
This long standing peace hasn't happened because the people in both of our countries are so reasonable and neighborly.
It hasn't happened because there wasn't anything to be gained by a potential merger.
No.
It's turned out this way because Canada has courted the favor of the U.S. by shaping ourselves into what the U.S. wants.
It was a bargain we struck, an international version of the social construct, social contract, unspoken and renegotiated on the fly over and over again via Canada's desire to get investment dollars and access to the world's largest market that happens to be right next door.
Here's more or less what this unspoken arrangement looks like Canada will agree to engage in commerce with.
The United States, extracting and selling to the US whatever raw materials the US would like that we have.
And every once in a while, we also go off and help the US kill some people on another continent.
And as part of that bargain, we've told ourselves that we're safe from US expansionist interests because the US is already getting what they want from Canada without rocking the boat, without threatening the rules based order.
Because the marketplace provided the framework for the rules based order, and as long as we were responsibly participating in that marketplace, we were both profitable and safe.
But then Trump came along and pierced the veil that we've been holding up to justify not seeing this for what it is.
Gone is the lie we told ourselves about being safe because the U.S. was already getting everything it wanted.
Along came someone who decided that he wanted more than merely the raw materials.
He wouldn't be satisfied until he also got subservience.
Donald Trump, whose daydreams of revenge on everyone who has ever embarrassed him, still has strong memories of a handsome, younger Canadian prime minister who stole the spotlight and got the better of him.
Someone Trump couldn't bully.
So the next best thing is to destroy anything that person had built.
Trudeau can't have a legacy if Canada isn't its own country.
And having a new prime minister that's more savvy with world markets isn't going to make that personality issue go away.
Trump is eventually going to develop the same level of unforgiving judgment and envy on Kearney as he developed with Trudeau, and for many the same reasons.
Unless Kearney finds a way to let Trump think he's winning, then Trump is always going to want to renege on the deal.
Our best chance is to delay as much of the pain as possible and play the long game, something that Kearney has almost certainly already calculated.
And by the way, Trump's revenge drive is part of a pattern.
Obama embarrassed Trump in person at the White House Correspondents' Dinner in 2011.
So the revenge is to knock down any snowman that Obama had built.
Obama made the Affordable Care Act happen.
That's got to go away now.
Obama had a strong economy.
Trump's was a stronger economy.
Obama's inauguration crowd was big.
Trump's was bigger.
Obama's picture hangs in the White House.
Have that thing removed, or at least placed where Trump won't have to see it.
All of this, including the Canada as a 51st state nonsense, has been done at the behest of a single politician.
That the vaunted and supposedly exceptional American system of government hasn't yet found the strength to say no to.
Growling at the Grizzly Bear00:05:24
And Canada has played its part to strengthen the U.S. that is now attempting to use that strength against us.
So, yes, Canada must exert its own sovereignty, and it cannot do so by choosing to be defenseless.
Here's a little Canadian story that evokes some of that folksy wilderness stuff that Remsky seems to both adore and sneer at in his episode.
There's a grizzly bear wandering in the woods, and it comes across a wolverine in a dead end gully.
Nowhere to run from the bear.
The wolverine is cornered.
Does the wolverine stand a chance against the grizzly?
By the numbers, no.
Does this mean the grizzly is going to attack the wolverine?
Not necessarily.
You see, the wolverine knew its entire life.
That it will eventually come across a much larger predator.
That it might encounter a no win scenario just like this.
And how do you think the wolverine prepared for this moment?
Did it pull out its own teeth in advance so that the grizzly would know the wolverine was harmless?
Fuck no.
It sharpened its teeth.
And when it got cornered by that grizzly, it growled like its life depended on it.
Because it did.
Here's something I've learned in a lifetime of dealing with bullies.
They aren't looking for a fair fight.
They look for someone weaker to bully.
And while they often pretend to enjoy when their target fights back, it's not really what they want.
No.
They want to get what they want for free, or at least for very cheap.
And as the target of someone much larger and more powerful, you don't always get to deny them what they want.
But you do get to have some say in determining the price they would have to pay to get it.
And when you find a way to promise them an ever increasing price for what they want, that's when you begin to see them change their minds.
Maybe they choose other targets, maybe they just fuck off.
But laying down is never the right move.
In the same way, the wolverine doesn't pull its own fangs out before it gets cornered by the grizzly.
And also, in the same way, Canada should not disarm in the face of an expansionist, fascist US.
We should show resolute strength and nationalistic pride.
We should show the world that the age of hegemonic capitalism is over.
Democracy gives the power to the people to decide for ourselves how our nations are built.
And the U.S. doesn't get to override that just because they spend more on weapons.
And that's also the answer for the peace question.
Peace is not found by disarming a nation.
The foundations of peace are restraint and trust.
When social or political pressure restrains the hand that would otherwise commit violence, we get closer to peace.
Step, and this shouldn't be simplified to a that one step won't get us all the way there, so we shouldn't take that one step straw man argument.
If the wolverine has to growl and show sharpened teeth to get the grizzly to show restraint, then so be it.
The other pillar is trust, building trust between nations and within nations.
Everything that breaks that trust down interferes with the ability to develop peace.
This is the way in which international trade becomes friction for expansionist dictators.
If trade brings prosperity and war means giving that up, then maybe we don't do that, or at least do it less.
There are reasons why we haven't had a major conflict in 80 years.
Nuclear weapons have done their part, for sure.
But increased international trade is a strong factor in that calculation.
Peace cannot be had while expansionist dictators threaten neighboring nations.
It cannot be had while some of us sit by idly watching, glad that at least it isn't us getting bombed.
Agreeing to be disarmed would prevent interventionist measures, would prevent our participation in coalitions that stop the Napoleons of history from erasing all cultures but the one that remains victorious.
Peace Amidst Nuclear Threats00:01:40
No, we cannot disarm and put our heads down, leaving our fates to hope.
Terry Fox didn't sit in a wheelchair, hoping someone would eventually do something about cancer.
Nor should we sit idly by, agreeing to be toothless while wandering the woods filled with grizzlies.
That's all for the first half of this.
If anyone has any questions, comments, complaints, or concerns about anything they've heard on this podcast, you can send that email to.
Truth unrestricted at gmail.com.
Till next time, please remember to rate this podcast as often as possible to increase its reach.
Due to the fact that rating algorithms are so incredibly rigged, only five star ratings are worth anything.
All other numbers might as well be zero stars.
If it's not a five star rating, I would prefer none at all.
Sorry, I didn't build the system.
Please subscribe to this podcast to get the latest episodes brought straight to you and recommend it to whomever you think would enjoy it.
And special thanks to Jeff Powell for the theme music.
I paid for it by listening to him play his old acoustic guitar until the strings broke back in high school.