Fusillo on the Universal Principles of Liberty and Liberland

Opening Remarks on Italy’s State of Civilization

Timestamp: 0:01

Speaker: Unknown (likely Alessandro Fusillo)

What is happening is unworthy of a civilized country.

Timestamp: 0:24

Speaker: Unknown (likely Alessandro Fusillo)

And we are the ones who are defending the fact that Italy still remains a little bit of a civilized country, and we will win this battle.

Timestamp: 0:38

[Music]

Introduction to the Broadcast

Timestamp: 0:54

Speaker: Fabio (Host)

Good evening, good evening, Border Nights friends. It’s 7:10 PM, live. Welcome back to Alessandro.

Timestamp: 1:02

Speaker: Alessandro Fusillo

Hello, Fabio, and good evening, as always, to all viewers and listeners of Border Nights.

Speaker: Fabio

A few things to tell, to discuss with you, then answer the questions at the end. Well, while waiting for the flotilla to arrive in Gaza, the last message indicates that some boats are heading toward the members of this initiative, about five miles from them. Oh well, based on what comes out, we will comment on it, as always, in a slightly irreverent way and obviously trying to go beyond what seems apparent. And yet, let’s start from a concept that inevitably comes to mind and heart, which is that of freedom. There is this photo that perhaps allows us to begin. Alessandro, what does this photo represent?

The Universal Principles of Liberty and Birtawil Project

Timestamp: 2:00

Speaker: Alessandro Fusillo

This photo represents a project I participated in and of which I’m very proud. I posted about it a few days ago on my Telegram channel to introduce it. In the photo, from left to right, you see me, then Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Freemax, who is the initiator of this project, Professor David Dürr, and Stephan Kinsella, a fellow lawyer and writer of libertarian works. What’s the idea? Freemax, the young man in the center, has identified a territory somewhat similar to that of Liberland, but in an absolutely prohibitive area, a piece of desert between Egypt and Sudan. It is a territory not claimed by any state, and his project is to build a free community there that is not a state and follows, to some extent, the example of Rose Island, Liberland, and other projects of this kind. The difference, however, compared to other projects, for example, Liberland, which aims to build a libertarian, liberal state—still a state, even if without taxation or coercion, with certainly sound principles from a libertarian point of view—is that the idea of this area, called Birtawil, is to start from basic rules. This document, which you can see in the photo, Max had printed on a sort of parchment, and it represents the Universal Principles of Justice. It is a condensation, if you like, of libertarian principles and, therefore, the basic elements that constitute law from a libertarian perspective, a law obviously founded on natural law, based on human rationality and Justice with a capital “J,” not on the creation of rules by institutions of various names. We have therefore tried to condense into a few, very few pages, the fundamental principles, which are those we have spoken about many times here and which can be traced back to the core principle of non-aggression. The idea is to open this document for signature by anyone who wants to do so. I published the site on my Telegram channel, from which you can access the document, read it, download it, and sign it. This document has been put on the blockchain, so in some way, it is written on the ledger we know, which contains Bitcoin, basically, but this gives it a sort of digital, electronic perpetuity. The document remains there, and whoever wants to share it, anyone interested, can sign it. What’s my idea? To create a community of people who share this document, a document that constitutes a community of free people who are not necessarily tied to a territory or to being in some place but can simply join by sharing these principles condensed in this document. As you know, I am always committed to things that never end, so I still have to translate it into Italian, and I apologize for that. I will do it in the next few days so that the document can also be read and understood in Italian. It’s a bit like giving concrete form to this libertarian community, right? Who are we libertarians? We are generally scattered, but libertarianism often rhymes, or in any case, is combined with a certain individualism, and therefore, the idea is to gather around a document that somehow summarizes the fundamental principles of freedom from the libertarian point of view. If you read it, surely many of those who follow me and who have found interest in libertarian ideas will see a profound resonance with what is written. In fact, the inspirer of this document is Hans-Hermann Hoppe, whom you saw in the photo and who, in my opinion, and according to many others, is the greatest living libertarian thinker, a student of Murray Rothbard. So, we wanted to start this project. 我们 presented it with this photo, with the official signature of the document by the participants in the initiative right in Bodrum, at the annual meeting of Hoppe’s organization, called the Property and Freedom Society, that is, the Property and Freedom Society, and so there we gave it a bit of an official start to this project, which runs in parallel with other things.

Upcoming Libertarian Initiatives

Timestamp: 7:52

Speaker: Alessandro Fusillo

For example, in December, I will be in Prague for the official reading of the Constitution of Liberland, which is different from the draft of the Universal Principles of Justice but still falls within the scope of these libertarian initiatives to try to build communities that unite around the principles of freedom. I will be there, there will be Stephan Kinsella, the lawyer friend you saw in the photo, there will also be Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and then probably some other guests. Libertarianism is moving, and we Italian libertarians, however small, however not particularly structured, are united in this association, let’s call it that, an alliance between organizations and libertarian activists all over the world, because one of the basic ideas of libertarianism is also a certain universalism, right? There aren’t any borders, there are no limits, and so we libertarians, though Italian, are connected with these people, especially Hoppe, as I was saying, the guru of international libertarianism. So, we see this project. Now I will give it more structure, more emphasis in the coming months. It was a bit like what I announced after the closure of the libertarian movement. In my opinion, a void remains, a space to fill within the libertarian community, and this is the project from which we will do it. There are other initiatives, for example, my dear friend, the lawyer Mark Victor, an American, will launch a movement next year called “Live and Let Live.” This is also a way to present the basic ideas of libertarianism with simple principles, right? “Live and let live” is a principle with which one can hardly disagree. Yet, even applied consistently, exactly like the principle of non-aggression, it ends up being an absolutely revolutionary idea. If you think that those who don’t let us live nor want to leave us in peace are the governments that never miss an opportunity to oppress us with various schemes of obligations, prohibitions, etc. So, there is a movement that is centered around the idea of freedom, individual freedom, and respect for what the American patriots, the American Founding Fathers, called the pursuit of happiness. And that’s a bit like the aspiration of each of us to fill our lives with what corresponds to our individual project and not to someone else’s project, like Trump, Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, or other people of this kind.

Reflections on Liberland

Timestamp: 11:17

Speaker: Fabio

You reminded us of Liberland, a sign that, even if we didn’t know each other at the time, Alessandro, we’ve always had a common feeling. When I read this news about the first cries of Liberland, I immediately got in touch with Liberland and did an interview. It was November 29, 2016, a radio interview because at the time we only did radio and podcasts. We interviewed Vit Jedlička, the founder of Liberland. Alberto Medici gave us a hand with the translation. He greets us, and we talked about this Liberland, this no-man’s-land between Serbia and Croatia, a state without taxes, with a currency, I don’t know if that one is still used, based on merit, on the commitment to the community. So, we were asking ourselves: a provocation, a dream? Nine years have passed, and has someone gone to live there? Maybe I’ve already asked you once, what kind of development has there been?

Timestamp: 12:39

Speaker: Alessandro Fusillo

The project is obviously very difficult to follow. Vit, among other things, was at the conference in Bodrum where I was, so I had the opportunity to chat a bit and ask him for updates. The project is moving forward; they’re starting to build some slightly more structured buildings, among other things, by Italians who are there and taking care of it. The infrastructural part is always difficult because, while Serbia has a relatively tolerant attitude, periodically there are problems, especially with the Croats, who some time ago went to dismantle the tents and temporary structures that were there. But it seems that there is a moment of calm now, and so they are trying to start some more structured constructions. The project has basically remained the same as when you interviewed Vit. Does this Liberland currency, based on merit, still exist? Many Liberland passports have been issued over the years, so there are many initiatives and a great desire for freedom. The more they operate on one side, the more there is a desire for freedom on the other.

Voter Apathy in the Marche Region Elections

Timestamp: 2:09 PM

Speaker: Fabio

Now, let’s comment for a moment on the data from the Marche region, not so much on whether Acquaroli or Ricci won. By the way, Ricci, in a hateful way, let’s say, during the health period, was one of the most combative ones who went on television to criticize and attack those who did not undergo the well-known treatment. However, the data I look at obviously confirms the trend of non-voting, because in the Marche region, it has been underlined, even by the mainstream press, that there was nine percentage points less participation than the previous election. Here, too, we are at approximately 50% of people who did not vote. In fact, our Facebook page asked if this could be worrying news, as many in politics question, as if to say, something needs to be done because it’s a worrying thing, etc., or if it’s a sign of awakening. I obviously lean toward the second hypothesis, even if for many it’s just laziness or a lack of interest, so it’s not a conscious choice like ours could be. But it’s a fact at this point, it’s not an isolated trend, Alessandro, but a trend that is being confirmed from election to election, including European elections and other regional elections. We will now see what happens in Calabria. Politics usually involves people a bit more because it’s talked about so much, but even last time, the data was decreasing. What does this trend tell us? Are people perhaps starting to understand that it’s a ritual charged with a power said to belong to the citizen, but in reality, there is no such power?

Timestamp: 4:14 PM

Speaker: Alessandro Fusillo

I fully agree with your analysis. Before going into the merits of this question, let us always remember that Mr. Ricci was mayor of Pesaro at the time of the so-called pandemic and invented, I think, the most surreal thing, perhaps together with the disinfection of beaches that Cateno De Luca had implemented. He invented one-way streets for pedestrians, and there were traffic police in Pesaro who fined people in the historic center because they didn’t respect the one-way system on foot. Something of unimaginable idiocy from a logical point of view. What sense could there possibly be in everyone walking in the same direction in light of protection from the alleged deadly virus? So, a truly low level. It’s better that the other one won, but in reality, what comes out of this poor voting participation is, in my opinion, a sign of awareness, that is, the fact that people realize at least one basic element: the total uselessness of voting. Whether the right wins, whether the left wins, whether one rather than another sits in that armchair, it changes nothing at all because what is done and the so-called policies that are implemented are decided by others, certainly not by politicians who count for nothing and are not even connected to the content of the election campaign. What is then vomited on us by Parliament, by politics, in terms of initiatives they take, has no connection whatsoever with what they had said during the election campaign. There isn’t even this attempt to give voters a little something extra anymore. So, people know deep down that it is totally useless to go and vote, and I think there is increasingly an awakening from the point of view of awareness because we begin to understand that it’s not so much about legitimacy. Many say, “Okay, but they feel legitimized anyway.” They certainly feel legitimized anyway, there is no doubt about it. Even if only relatives and close friends went to vote, they would still feel legitimized, as you can see from the celebrations that are always held. In a case like this, if you do the math, the winner was elected by a small minority of the inhabitants of the Marche and of those entitled to vote, because they are the majority of approximately 50% who went to vote. So, all politicians actually have no legitimacy whatsoever, but the problem isn’t just how politicians see it; they are what they are, we know them. They are certainly people who do not deserve any respect or even any understanding for the activity they do, which is a despicable activity that should not exist—the activity that politicians perform. But the fundamental question is the awakening of consciences, that is, those who do not go to vote state quite clearly that they do not feel represented by this system. They claim they do not want to be part of it, they claim they don’t want to be subjected to this ridiculous grip, to the foolishness that elections are. They probably realize that they’re being made fun of when they go into the voting booth with the pencil and put an “X” on a colored symbol of a party. They go to vote because they realize more and more that it is evidently a joke, right? It has no meaning, no common sense, even because there is always the alternative, or maybe there are more hypotheses, to choose between various stick leaders who will then all do crazy things against us, against our freedom. But there is no choice of not wanting to be governed, right? The regions are absolutely useless entities, as is the Italian Republic, the ministries, the Parliament. There is never the possibility of saying, “I don’t want these, I’m not interested in being governed, I’d like to do it on my own.” That’s why the choice of elections is a fallacious one, because you are forced to choose someone, right? You’re the plantation slave who has to choose the new supervisor. You can decide to choose perhaps the less evil supervisor, the one who whips the slaves a little less, but the system is always the same: there is the owner of the plantation, the supervisor, and the slaves who work on the plantation. Not voting means deciding quite clearly to want to get out of this system. So, the more people don’t vote, and the more this ridiculous ritual is disproved by the very low voter turnout percentages, in my opinion, the better, and the closer we are approaching a situation where it may start to become difficult for these politicians, right? There’s a famous interview with Giulio Andreotti in which he said, “We’re not really interested in who gets voted for; we care that people go to vote, because when they don’t go to vote anymore, that’s when the system starts to creak.” Not from a formal point of view, mind you. When someone says this, the objection always comes, “Oh well, but the elections are valid anyway.” Of course, they are valid all the same. From a formal, legal point of view, they are valid all the same, but the lack of participation in the vote delivers these institutions more and more to irrelevance. Historically, there are examples, perhaps examples of situations that were not particularly favorable, but, for example, the first Roman Empire, which maintained many elective republican institutions such as magistrates and so on—people no longer went to vote because it made no sense, because, in fact, the praetor consuls were chosen by the emperor, and it was exactly like our elections: a farce, a mockery of Roman citizens. Therefore, no one voted anymore because there was a military dictatorship that ruled with other means and with another constitutional system that had been inserted above the Roman constitutional system. It’s not so different, because we think these things are ancient history, but we, too, have a situation exactly similar. We have a legal system that has been imposed with a kind of cancer mounted on top of our system, which is that of the European Union. We know that many decisions are made at that level, and national politicians are nothing but executors, puppets who do what they are ordered by Brussels. That’s one of the reasons why we don’t go to vote. On the other hand, the European Union, just like the Roman emperor, is not an institution where there is real popular participation. You vote only for the Parliament, which counts for nothing, as always, to draw a parallel with the first Roman Empire. In theory, they voted on a law, ex de imperio, that is, the law that formally transferred the power of command, the imperium, from the Roman people to the emperor. But it was a fiction, evidently, just as the election of the European Parliament is a fiction, which is increasingly becoming an almost ceremonial organism that does nothing, approves what is given to it by the Commission and the Council. So, there is much to learn from history, and there is much to learn from the strength and power that disobedience can have. Certainly, the boycott, because boycotting the elections means boycotting the system and therefore affirming individual autonomy, individual sovereignty, which is what I think we should aim for.

Satirical Commentary on Political Dichotomies

Timestamp: 25:36

Speaker: Fabio

So, because we have already listened to it, but in my opinion, it’s worth it, we had listened to it some time ago, because sometimes with the satire, maybe I don’t know how aware, of Corrado Guzzanti, the concept of right and left, communists, anti-communists—in short, this concept created out of thin air that doesn’t induce people to go to vote for the voice, that is, the character was Father Pizzarro, who was going to personify—and we want to listen to it again because I think that in these two minutes, Alessandro, he has condensed a bit of everything you just said. Beautiful. Go ahead, send it. Send Dandini, let’s hear it for a moment.

Timestamp: 26:22

Speaker: Father Pizzarro (Corrado Guzzanti, satirical clip)

My friend, the order already exists, and it is the one we established in the ’50s. On one side, there are the communists, and on the other, there are the anti-communists. That’s how the game is played. You choose to be a communist, you choose to be an anti-communist. It’s like a game of chess. I play white, you play black. It’s as simple as a game. People, the masses, need an enemy. You have to choose. If we start switching sides here, people won’t understand anything anymore. The communists on one side, the anti-communists on the other. It’s very simple. But I thought there were values behind it, no, I mean, the values behind the right and left took a hit. No, we’re talking about two sides, the right and the left. But how, the right and the left? In what sense, excuse me? In the sense that—do you really believe that right and left exist? There’s no such thing as left and right. These are things we invented for the people, to get them to vote. Of course, because if people know that the right doesn’t exist, the left doesn’t exist, there are only people who try to share power, they don’t go to vote. No, but what do you care? If we tell them this, they’ll stay home with the TV to watch the game, they won’t go to vote. It’s like heaven and hell; they don’t exist. They’re just things to make people understand. Do you really think that when someone dies, on one side goes the one with the big pig with horns, and on the other, there are these with the pigeons? Have you ever seen them? I’ve never seen them. No, it doesn’t exist. But you’re wonderful, you’re young. I mean, where do you come from? From the soap mountain. But there’s no such thing as the right and the left. Let’s take an example: Berlusconi. What does he care about the right and the left? Do you think he, with the billions coming out of his ears, the boat, the ship, the plane, the helicopter, at home he has a piece, I mean, obviously there isn’t. He’s just trying to get some power, I don’t want to understand. So, Berlusconi could have been the leader of the left. Of course, he could have been the leader of the left. Oh, and then why did he choose the right? Because a hole opened up on the right at that moment. Excuse me, because after Craxi fell, after Christian Democracy, on that side, there was a hole; the other side, on the left, was very crowded. You have to get in line; there are the Greens, the communists, the post-communists, the pristine, the post-Dessinists, the browns, the oranges. The other side was empty, so he placed himself there. It seems fair to me, too. It even seems logical. Yes, no, it’s logical, but it’s confusing me a bit. Excuse me, but in your opinion, Berlusconi isn’t the Lord’s anointed? No, no, come on.

Timestamp: 28:44

Speaker: Fabio

A truly brilliant piece. Absolutely extraordinary.

Speaker: Alessandro Fusillo

Actually, it’s a bit like that, basically, going right to the ground, that is, actually, like all things, it depends on what they look at, right? If you look at it from the point of view of the fact that one has to go and vote essentially to establish who distributes various perks, whether they are dissent or non-dissent, it changes nothing.

Speaker: Fabio

Because I had also launched that provocation some time ago where I was saying that if I were to face someone, I wouldn’t go, but at the moment when one goes to vote, right? Anyway, you vote for someone who will surely be irrelevant in the face of which one of the two will go there anyway, that is, from a utilitarian point of view, maybe something can be done. Then, if someone really has to go, he says, okay, I’ll try to make an impact on one side, but going to vote is irrelevant for sure because this is a waste of time and still an attempt. Obviously, someone wants to earn a nice salary, certainly as a member of parliament. There’s no doubt about that, obviously, with a nice speech that he does it for the good, for our good, because there is a need to get out of here, exit from NATO, exit from Europe. That is, in my opinion, they are mockery toward those who do not know politics, toward those who do not know electoral laws, of those who don’t know how parliament, the government, etc., works. So, I see it a bit like that, very bluntly, but here, you have the floor, and then we’ll change the subject.

Timestamp: 30:33

Speaker: Alessandro Fusillo

Definitely. On the other hand, there is a circumstance that, if you want, is the litmus test, the proof of what we are saying, that is, that whoever actually comes to power, in quotation marks, nothing changes in terms of politics, right? Theoretically, we have the conservative government, we have those who are, let’s say, a little more liberal in the economy, those who are against a certain progressive vision of the world, according to which there is this managerial therapeutic state that must remedy everyone’s mistakes and therefore force or, in any case, push everyone toward a sort of social reform, right? So, we have those who, at least on paper, would be more favorable to individual freedom. But they do absolutely nothing about all this, absolutely zero. The administrations that have been in the hands of center-right parties for years are the ones who are pursuing insane policies with the most cruelty, the ban we have spoken about many times, of the use of perfectly functioning cars, half-new, which do not pollute at all or at least do not pollute more than electric or hybrid burglaries that they want to pin on us now, and they do the same thing. The exact same thing they did, those of the left. There is never a conservative local administration that says, “Well, let’s get rid of half these useless ZTLs that do nothing but depress the development of cities. Let’s give free rein to the freedom of people and businesses.” No one does all this, and no one dismantles what the opposing political party had done before, right? There is a sort of continuity. It’s not that the center-right government abolishes the insane laws of the previous center-left government. This never happens. The same thing happens when it comes to the center-left; it doesn’t abolish the center-right laws; they all continue on the same path. What is completely missing is a real political struggle and confrontation. That’s just a scene. That’s what they do on talk shows when they get into a good beating from Bruno Vespa or other people of this kind. They pretend to disagree, as Father Pizzarro rightly says. In reality, they are all in perfect agreement in sharing the power, especially the money behind it, which is not only the salary of a member of parliament or regional councilor. That’s exactly the surface, the minimum. In reality, the real money is somewhere else, and it’s the one they want to share, and then there’s the power that can be exercised within a country with limited sovereignty such as Italy. That’s why they jostle and try to screw each other over. But there isn’t any reality in the political game; it’s simply a charade, a performance that must be made to make fun of people. So, at the very least, if people don’t go to vote, it means that they have understood that it is a charade, that they say, “No, thanks, I am not taking part in this charade.”

The Gaza Flotilla and International Law

Timestamp: 34:19

Speaker: Fabio

Israel has given a stop, news just now. Israel has issued a halt to the flotilla. The activists of this Italian delegation say they have reached the flotilla’s boats. It has been communicated that the attempt to breach the blockade represents a violation of international law. If we continue, we will be stopped, and the ships confiscated, the activists add, explaining that the Israeli forces continued with propaganda messages. They arrived, I think, 85 miles from Gaza. I don’t know, I really struggle to—We were also talking about it with Massimo on Saturday, no? Massimo has spent himself publicly, Massimo Mazzucco has spent himself publicly for—let’s say, let’s separate the facts from some components, too, from our unpresentable point of view of this initiative, because, in any case, the past, from my point of view, cannot be reset. That is, if I see a Greta, if I see some PD parliamentarians, if I see other people who have taken certain positions, I can’t separate all the events. Even if they are events that Massimo rightly says have nothing to do with it, right? It’s not a given that if they were wrong in that case, anyway, they were conniving; it means that they always take the wrong positions. Anyway, I say, I don’t know what idea to make of it because my instinct tells me that when the mainstream still keeps talking about something, well, we should be a little wary. What do you think of this initiative?

Timestamp: 36:10

Speaker: Alessandro Fusillo

I share your same perplexity. Well, meanwhile, the subjects participating in this initiative, let’s say, those you mentioned, the famous “Gretina” and the PD parliamentarians, give rise to some doubts, so certainly subjects who really make you raise an eyebrow. Then, maybe they can even say something right, the famous broken clock. Sometimes there are people who have a rather vague idea of many things, but by chance, they can say something right. So, when they note that in Gaza, there is a genocide going on and that the state of Israel, a rogue state, is subjecting Palestinians to brutal apartheid and, in addition to the killings, the confiscation of the lands owned by the Palestinians, they say the right things, there’s no point in arguing about that. But, frankly, this initiative leaves me a little perplexed. There is a curious fact, then, that international law works intermittently. This can be noticed because if the Israelis say, “You’re in violation of international law, we have the right to block your boats and confiscate them,” it occurs to me that Italy could do the same thing when the boats of immigrants violate international law, just like, hypothetically, those of the flotilla, no? So, here, then there are the usual doubts about these matters. I would see this whole situation in these terms. There is not only the flotilla; there were the protests for Palestine, there was the general strike or at least the attempt at a general strike. In my opinion, what is successful—we’ve been subjected to pro-Israel propaganda for about two years, without ifs, without buts. The entire mainstream has spread the fairy tale that the bad Palestinians had made a surprise attack on October 7, 2023, that Israel has the right to defend itself, which therefore, in reality, the killings, the carpet bombing, the killing of children, the killing of health workers who were trying to bring some help to these poor people, it all came back in a very particular concept of self-defense propagated by Israel with all our politicians, but especially American politicians, who are united behind this simply appalling position of the State of Israel. Let us remember the decisive influence of AIPAC in the United States and this Israeli lobbying organization that literally pays and controls American parliamentarians. Let us remember that a few weeks ago, Mr. Salvini was awarded a prize as a friend of Israel. So, we had about two years of an absolutely compact narrative, all in favor of Israel. Israel is always right. What Israel does is always right; it’s okay if it bombs Iran, it’s okay if it bombs Qatar, etc. They realized, however, at a certain point that the doubts about the invasion of Palestine by the Israelis are doubts that have existed for a long time, because this story has been going on officially since 1948, but in reality, it has been going on much earlier. It is a crazy project, that of somehow assigning the territory of Palestine to the Zionists, which had belonged for thousands of years to other people who had no interest in the realization of the Zionist project. This is very present, and they realized that they made a narrative error because so many people saw this propaganda maneuver in favor of a genocidal regime like Israel’s. It’s interesting because I have had various testimonies of an approach to, let’s call it counter-information, from people who, until recently, had been unaware of it. I mean, we were the dangerous “no-vax” conspiracy theorists, right? There were some who said all sorts, but when they saw the criticisms that come from our world, let’s call it that in a somewhat summary way, to the crimes committed by Israel in Gaza, many have realized, “Well, be careful, though, this is people who are saying wise things and are people who then agree with positions that are traditional, right?” Italy, especially, but also in many European countries, has attention to the Palestinian cause, and it has a very ancient tradition, not a new invention. So, at this point, what did they realize? That they had miscalculated the propaganda and obtained an effect that they certainly didn’t want, that is, to bring a certain part of the population closer to our world, which considered us crazy conspiracy theorists. Therefore, they have to take repairs, and this is a bit of a sign of the fact that behind these initiatives, there are pieces of the mainstream that are certainly quite shady. It seems that, I don’t know if it’s true, but there are reports circulating that the demonstrations are financed by the usual Soros, so we have to believe it. And the subjects of the flotilla are also subjects who have received funding from Soros and, in any case, are part of a certain vision of a dystopian world and against us. I wouldn’t even rule it out, maybe a little maliciously; Davide Rossi also said this a few days ago, the idea is also to prepare the ground, prepare the field for a new invasion of hundreds of thousands of immigrants to Europe, taking advantage of a just feeling of pity for the people who are in Gaza. But maybe this can be used, that’s why I quoted Soros, who has been doing this for decades by financing this type of operation. It can be used for yet another wave of migration that will further destroy European countries and create even more chaos than we have. So, as usual, when something comes from the mainstream, you always have to be extremely doubtful, extremely careful of the absolute unacceptability of what Israel is doing. While this is happening and while we are perhaps distracted by the flotilla, the Israelis, who want to block and confiscate ships, arrest those on board, things just happen, unspeakable things, like the “peace plan,” in quotation marks, presented by Trump, which is really an insult, not only to the victims who are there, because it essentially expects Hamas’ suicide and to entrust the administration of Gaza in a truly neocolonial way to Trump himself. He is a subject who is a war criminal, who should rot in jail like Blair, the former British Prime Minister. There is not a single line in Trump’s plan on the fundamental fact that Israel should return the private property stolen from the Palestinians and should compensate them for the losses they suffered there, not at someone else’s house. So, there is also a maneuver in all of this, a mass distraction from the very dirty game that is being realized, not behind the scenes, because the so-called Trump’s peace plan is official, but still wants to distract public opinion from the real political game and, therefore, from a sort of definitive occupation of the Gaza Strip by the Americans and the English. Therefore, they focus attention on a cosmetic operation only, because now that these four boats arrive in Gaza, it is totally irrelevant to what’s happening there, to the hundreds of thousands of deaths, compared to the horror and destruction for which the State of Israel is responsible, not in the last two years, but in the last 80 years. So, as usual, propaganda must also serve some purpose. The boarding was started on the part of the Israelis. The most plausible hypothesis is considered to be that the Israelis get on every boat, take the activists, transfer them to a larger Israeli ship, take them ashore, and then expel them. The boats will then be towed to port and confiscated. This would seem to be the scenario. I don’t know if it is the scenario that will then induce Landini to announce that he’ll block Italy with a general strike. We obviously missed these unions, the usual characters in search of an author who then get involved in these events. Excuse me, what does it have to do with it? I mean, for goodness’ sake, a strike can also be for political reasons, that is, Landini, who did not go on strike when the workers were forced to obtain the Green Pass vaccination passport, now wants to block Italy, which has nothing to do with it, right? The Italian companies that will suffer the damage from the general strike have nothing to do with what Israel is doing there, for who knows what, precisely, to take advantage of the quarter of an hour of fame and pretend to regain a political virginity when he is a subject who has actively promoted excluding members from jobs, the same members of his union, and of which there are dozens of photos while he was arm in arm with Mr. Draghi, putting a friendly hand on his shoulder, something simply shameful. I hope that all those who are registered with the CGIL, its various sub-organizations, a bit like the tentacles of an octopus, cancel their registration, that they don’t give another lira, a single euro, to the CGIL. Let them leave it without members, a nefarious trade union organization. And also to the other two, obviously, CISL and UIL. The only unions that make sense are the autonomous unions, which, in fact, have great difficulties and perhaps occasionally try to look after the interests of their workers. The trade union triumvirate—CGIL, CISL, and UIL—is an integral part of power and is part of one of the many colossal scams we have. Just look at one piece of data: the trend of the purchasing power of real wages in Italy, right? Net of any other considerations, Italy is one of the countries in the world where real wages have decreased the most. Yes, we were literally richer in the ’90s, in the ’80s, than we are now. A young family can’t afford a house, often can’t afford to create a family and have children, and this is the direct fault of industrial policy that was shared by these three unions, who only caused harm to their members. Let’s remember that not only was there no mobilization on the obligation, but Landini himself, if I’m not mistaken, proposed the extension to everyone. The real problem was not the obligation as such, the vaccination obligation, we are talking about, so it was not the reason for the protest that the obligation had been introduced for some categories, right? They were in favor of introducing it for everyone. Do you think this is a union that not only allowed discrimination in the workplace but even wanted that discrimination to be for everyone? That is an incredible thing, and we have seen this one too, but now for these topics, it’s particularly sensitive.

Clarification on Libertarian Views on Unions

Timestamp: 50:38

Speaker: Alessandro Fusillo

I wanted to read, I’ll answer very briefly. Yan Gentile says libertarians don’t want unions, and that’s not entirely true. Unions, as they are, I am absolutely against any libertarian idea, but the fact that, in full freedom and autonomy, workers can organize themselves to collectively represent their interests vis-à-vis employers—there is nothing against this from a libertarian point of view. Libertarianism is opposed to the violation of private property, hence violence, pickets, and activities in which the unions have distinguished themselves, even historically, are absolutely against the libertarian philosophy. But there is nothing against the organization in free associations, which can also be trade unions from a libertarian point of view, also because, on the other side, we don’t have any libertarian entrepreneurs, in quotation marks. The ideal of the entrepreneur who creates value, who sells his goods to consumers trying to get the best price, is an idea, a fairy tale. It’s like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs; it doesn’t exist. The entrepreneur is usually someone who tries to get aid, perks, and privileges from the government to exploit the coercive apparatus of the government. The real entrepreneurs, that is, those who have very small businesses, are those who are under the most attack and who are now, unfortunately, in total retreat, right? They are the owners of the little shop, the bar, the small professionals—those are the entrepreneurs. The big entrepreneurs, those with whom the unions normally deal in collective bargaining, there is nothing libertarian about them, nothing respectful of private property. We live in a world of corporatism, fascist in a different guise. So, always be careful about this.

Listener Questions: Advance Medical Treatment Declarations (DAT)

Timestamp: 52:49

Speaker: Fabio

Let’s see for a moment. Meanwhile, this friend says: “When you have to vote for them, they build cathedrals in the desert, but if the sovereign has to express dissent around the streets, he’ll be hit by water cannons.” Is it possible? Can you imagine? It’s already exactly like that. So, let’s read a few emails. Let’s start with Luca. “I thank you so much because following your live broadcasts makes me feel a little more free,” and this makes us very happy. “Sometimes, no, even some words can create illusions. We hope they aren’t. It’s also strong, it feels strong in finding alternatives to this cage they’re building for us. My question concerns the DAT, or declaration of advance medical treatment, delivered and registered by my municipality of residence. I heard that by obscuring my health record, which I did, the DAT is also obscured and thus loses its consultation and validity.” That’s a good question. Is that true?

Timestamp: 53:47

Speaker: Alessandro Fusillo

No, it’s not, because they are two completely different systems, that of the DAT and that of the electronic health record. The problem is another: the certainty that the DAT is taken into account in the event of an emergency situation in which the interested party, that is, the one who signed the advance treatment directive, may not be able to point it out to the doctor that there are certain decisions of his regarding healthcare treatments, drugs, or whatever. There is no certainty, and so that’s the fundamental point. In fact, what I recommend, together with the DAT or the so-called living will, is to also appoint a person who, in case of emergency, in case of incapacity, can represent the interested party with the doctors. Otherwise, there is an absolutely real risk that we can’t ensure that these DATs are taken into consideration, not so much because of the health record, because advance treatment directives are recorded in a system that is outside the electronic health record. But can we be sure that at the right time, the doctor or the hospital will go and see them? I would definitely say no. So, it would be appropriate for there to be someone who points it out and represents in emergency situations of this type. The DATs are a strategy that can be used; they don’t give you certainty in an emergency not to be subjected to medical treatments one would not like to be a victim of. So, you have to follow things concretely; it is not possible to make a scenario of everything that could happen.

Listener Questions: TARI Waste Tax and PagoPA

Timestamp: 56:13

Speaker: Fabio

Another question. This one tells us about the Barbara TARI. “This year, a new charge has been introduced into the tax, UR3, coverage of benefits granted to social bonus recipients for waste tax, of €6. Furthermore, payment can only be made by bank transfer via PagoPA. It seems to me that now citizens, in addition to paying taxes to cover all these services, are burdened with burdens that the State no longer covers, namely social ones. It clearly seems to me like a mockery and a war between the poor, if these poor people exist. The UR1 charges have been introduced since 2024, coverage of the costs of managing waste accidentally caught or waste voluntarily collected. UR2, coverage of the benefits granted to the beneficiaries of the social bonus for waste, therefore they pay it, the others, substantially, and from this year also UR3. I ask the lawyer to kindly explain this UR3 burden better, even if it is legal to require the citizen to pay for the service only with the PagoPA tool or if I can ask my municipality for an alternative form of payment.” This is also interesting, that is, the State that is sold to us as the welfare state, the state that, with taxes, goes to rebalance a bit the social justice that would otherwise be lacking, then, in reality, it asks citizens to pay for the social bonuses of those who are in bad economic situations or, in any case, fall within certain segments of society. Is that true?

Timestamp: 57:48

Speaker: Alessandro Fusillo

Yes, I share the horror of our listener in reading these things. It is legal, in the sense that it is provided for by the infinite regulations that concern the TARI, and evidently, it is a joke because the social cost that, in theory, should be a sort of redistribution, if we want to see it that way, of money that the State or local authorities would have from general taxation, in reality, the redistribution comes from other victims of the TARI to some who are privileged on the basis of brainless criteria for social reasons or other similar amenities. Payment only with PagoPA is absolutely illegal because payment in cash is required by the Civil Code, Penal Code, and Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. So, it is absolutely illegitimate that they only provide for payment by electronic means. It’s the usual game they play: there are rules that require municipalities or, in any case, all public administrations to make electronic means of payment available, and there is no discussion about that, but the obligation is to make electronic payments available to anyone who wants them. This obligation is instead interpreted as an obligation to use them by force. The obligation applies only to public administrations, not to citizens. Public administrations must make an electronic payment system available to citizens who wish to use it. For all the others, cash payment is always permitted, must always be permitted. That is certainly possible to contest. On these other charges, it is essentially impossible to think about initiatives. The problem, what’s the problem? It’s the monopoly. As always, waste collection is managed under a monopoly regime. Then there are a galaxy of private companies that organize this service for local authorities, but it is still given as a monopoly to these companies. In reality, the thing to do regarding TARI is that the municipalities keep their entire system with the TARI, taxes, social benefits, what they want, PagoPA, what they want, but the sector should be liberalized, that is, anyone should be able to offer waste collection services. Furthermore, it is a collection service managed in an insane way. It’s enough to think of something that is absolutely obvious: waste sorting is totally inefficient because it is forcibly entrusted to citizens, who must then also face the risk of being fined if they put the yogurt jar in the wrong bag or the plastic bottle. In reality, nowadays, with artificial intelligence systems, waste differentiation could be done in a very efficient way, much better than what can happen with foster care. We have a little dog that protests, and with the foster care, citizens could be helped with robotic systems, with artificial intelligence. If the waste collection system were liberalized, there would be room for entrepreneurial initiatives that could even profit from waste, right? Waste represents wealth. What is waste for some is resources for others. So much so that it often happens, since the municipalities are not able to organize the system, that our waste has been sent for payment, especially to Germany, where there are more efficient waste disposal and sorting systems. So, we pay to send this stuff to Germany; the Germans make money off it with our waste. If the system were liberalized, it would also be variable, right? There would be some who would ask users to do separate waste collection, perhaps by lowering the rates. There would be others who would instead say, “We’ll come to your home, take the unsorted garbage, and then we’ll take care of doing what we have to do.” In short, there would be a bit of entrepreneurial creativity, a sector where there would be a lot of space for entrepreneurial creativity, instead, we have the monopoly of the public on this matter.

Listener Questions: Moped Tax and Statute of Limitations

Timestamp: 1:03:17

Speaker: Fabio

Another email from Laura. Regarding the payment deadline for the moped tax, which this year has been three for the past five years, as you highlighted in a previous video. Can you tell me if this statute of limitations applies from the current year or retroactively? I received the reminder from the Agency of Extortion, Revenue, by regular mail, not by registered mail, for the payment of €40.95, including late payment interest, on assignment of the Tuscany Region, which writes to us in Tuscany, precisely, which requires the payment of the aforementioned stamp duty for the year 2021 and of which I have not received any notice, not even by certified post, as the Region did this year to remind me of the deadline for these taxes. I had to pay despite the moped being unusable, having been left unattended for years in the cellar. The reminder contains even the threat of administrative seizure of the vehicle or seizure of the current account, in my case, a postal one. What do you advise me to do?

Timestamp: 1:04:17

Speaker: Alessandro Fusillo

The stamp duty requirement is completed on December 31 of the third year following the year in which the tax should have been paid. So, the stamp duty for the year 2021, the statute of limitations expires on December 31, 2024, because the current year was 2021, then there is 2022, 2023, and on December 31, 2024, the stamp duty expired. All reminders sent by regular mail are as if they did not exist because the administration has no way of proving that they were actually brought to the attention of the recipient of the extortion. The only ones that interrupt the prescription and are therefore valid are those notified by registered mail or by certified email. So, where the reminder arrived, unfortunately with PEC or with registered mail, it is not worth taking any initiatives. However, as far as the stamps are concerned, if prescribed, you can easily challenge the provision, which, in this case, is the tax bill because the reminder that arrives by ordinary mail is as if it did not exist. At this point, the administration writes the stamp duty credit, and at a certain point, the tax bill arrives. Against the tax bill, you can file an appeal. Of course, the appeal is a bit complex because it goes to the former tax commission, now the first instance Tax Court of Justice. On small amounts, it can be handled by yourself, but in any case, you still have to manage it from a legal point of view. It is necessary to challenge the notice; if I do not challenge the tax collection notice, at that point, the notice becomes definitive, and any accrued prescription is no longer valid. So, you have to act if official documents arrive, notified in a regular way.

Listener Questions: The Great Taking Book

Timestamp: 1:06:38

Speaker: Fabio

So, in the meantime, Auderzo was talking about an email. I looked it up, and I don’t know if it was an email from some time ago, and clearly, perhaps I had missed that you attached a book and asked if Alessandro knew it. Anyway, Alessandro, I sent it to you. The book is called The Great Sting by David Rogers Webb. Anyway, I also sent it to you, that is, I attached it many times, in short. But I think we’ve talked about it.

Timestamp: 1:07:03

Speaker: Alessandro Fusillo

I think we talked about it. Maybe you also interviewed Marco Saba, who is the author of the Italian translation of the book, precisely, La Grande Stangata in Italian. In English, the title is The Great Taking. Maybe we talked about money; it could be, I don’t remember. Anyway, I personally know David Webb, who is a very serious person. He is a former broker who knows the world of finance in a very, very detailed way, and in this book, he reconstructs a legislative modification that started in the United States and then somehow reached us in Europe. The American Uniform Commercial Code was changed, and it is essentially expected that the securities, when we buy bonds, government bonds, shares, are no longer paper documents as they once were, but they are dematerialized documents. That is, we have an electronic certificate; it’s not that they once physically gave you the shares, no, one could even keep them in a safe. Now it’s no longer like that. There are centralized managers of dematerialized securities. In our country, this was traditionally the company Monte Titoli Spa, which provided this service. Well, for a few years now, this part, first in America and then here, the securities depository companies are centralized and are no longer even national. The large European ones, Euroclear and Clearstream, are in Belgium and Holland. And what happens? Because of the way in which this deposit is made, that is, a bulk deposit of securities, we no longer have the certainty that those securities are ours. That is, I buy 10 shares of Apple, for example, I am convinced that I own those 10 shares, and the bank also tells you that you have custody of the securities, and there are 10 Apple shares there, for example. Actually, those 10 shares are in a centralized dematerialized securities depository in Belgium or Holland, and they are not segregated with respect to the customer’s property. What’s happening? The bank or financial institution selling me these securities can use my securities to give them as collateral compared to financial operations carried out by the bank or financial operator. Well, if the bank goes bankrupt or if a financial crisis occurs, who has preference over those securities that I was convinced were mine is the creditor of the bank’s financial transaction. So, there is an absolutely plausible scenario in which, in the event of a new global financial meltdown, we could lose the securities we have in the bank because those securities would be accessed first by the creditors of the various financial institutions. In Europe, there is a European Union regulation that governs this matter and provides the possibility of segregating securities, that is, placing them in an individual nominative sub-account in the name of the single investor, shareholder, etc. Well, the problem is that this European Union regulation is a dead letter. If someone tries to ask their bank, “I would like to have the segregation of my securities according to the European Union regulation,” it is not possible. Or the few banks that offer this service ask for such high costs to carry out the segregation that, in the end, it is no longer worth it because the costs are too high. It’s a seriously alarming situation. David Webb is trying to get the law changed in some American states, encountering, as one can imagine, remarkable resistance. Read the book. Before meeting David, I also checked all the sources he cites, and the book is very well done from a research perspective. That’s absolutely true. And not long ago, in fact, it’s already out—a documentary has come out that I recommend to you, What Are You Waiting For? The author of the documentary is James Patrick, who is also an American friend, a documentary director. He made a beautiful documentary about the whole Covid story. He interviewed many people, including me, and much more authoritative people. He made this documentary called The Great Taking in English; I don’t know if there are Italian subtitles. For those who don’t want to read the book, there’s a very interesting documentary. Among other things, James is also making a new documentary on the risk of a third world war. Follow it; he’s a director of great value, and also watch the documentary on Covid, called Planet Lockdown, which is very interesting. Anyone who wants to learn more about these topics, I highly recommend both the book and the documentary. The book is in Italian, so it’s easily accessible.

Listener Questions: Private Property and Libertarian Money

Timestamp: 1:13:11

Speaker: Fabio

Final flash because it concerns a topic that is close to your heart: private property. COS asks, “According to the lawyer, a libertarian cornerstone? If so, then why isn’t there an official initiative by them to spread the use of the only real private money?” But I believe that initiatives in this sense exist.

Timestamp: 1:13:25

Speaker: Alessandro Fusillo

I myself, in my own small way, have always recommended exiting fiat money and using the two alternatives that are currently plausible sources of real money, which are gold, first and foremost, and Bitcoin for those who want to study it, with the fundamental doubt that concerns Bitcoin, which is not yet a generally accepted medium of exchange. It is certainly an investment vehicle, but this is still not what Satoshi Nakamoto intended when he built this kind of digital gold, that is, a medium of exchange. Gold is much more so; it is much easier to buy something by exchanging it for gold, and in any case, both are goods that allow us to take refuge from the destruction of the purchasing power of fiat currencies. Of libertarian initiatives in favor of gold and Bitcoin, there are dozens, perhaps hundreds. In reality, there’s no need for an initiative either. Look, one of our listeners said, since Fusillo has started recommending gold and Bitcoin, they have more or less doubled. You should thank him. I certainly do. I have given this advice to many clients, and so whoever wanted to follow it has reaped the rewards, in some ways, very concrete rewards. Bitcoin is now trading at around $115,000. Gold opened this morning at $3,850 to $850 a pound, so we’re on the rise overall. In reality, it’s not so much Bitcoin and gold that are rising, but rather fiat currencies that are going toward their destiny, that is, they approach the value zero, which is what they have because they are pieces of paper or simply electronic recordings on a computer.

Closing Remarks and Future Broadcasts

Timestamp: 1:15:42

Speaker: Fabio

We are also particularly happy, not only in terms of renewal but also in terms of adding themes here on the channel, to have two broadcasts, one that talks about Bitcoin and one that talks about physical gold. So, we are also very happy to have started these paths. So, we remind our email that Dimi—I will probably be with Valerio Dalla Costa at the next appointment for, ah, see? Good, good, from Villaggio Bitcoin. Well, well, well. Exactly. Exactly. Great, great. So, you’re going to do a two-day event here at Border Nights on Tuesday and Wednesday. So, thank you, thank you to Alessandro, and let’s remember our email, which is redazione@bordernights.it for questions, the ones that are a little cooler, to Alessandro. We’ll see you next week. Good evening, everyone.

Timestamp: 1:16:33

Speaker: Alessandro Fusillo

Bye, everyone. See you next week.

Timestamp: 1:16:43

Speaker: Unknown (likely Alessandro Fusillo)

What is happening is unworthy of a civilized country.

Timestamp: 1:16:50

Speaker: Unknown (likely Alessandro Fusillo)

And we are the ones who are defending the fact that Italy still remains a little bit of a civilized country, and we will win this battle.

Timestamp: 1:17:05

[Music]