 Yes, and it was for small businesses of under, I think, 500 employees. And the government published a list of everybody who got a loan, I think, above $100,000. So they didn't bother publishing the small loans, the $20,000, $30,000, just the $100,000 and above. And yesterday, Wall Street Journal and others went through that list, and a Wall Street Journal reporter noticed that the Iron Rain Institute was on the list that it received a PPP, and immediately tweeted that because to the innocent, ignorant, unthinking mind that seems like the height of hypocrisy. Here's an institution that doesn't believe in government bailouts, doesn't believe in government spending on any of this kind of stuff, and it is receiving funds from the government. And that, of course, created this massive storm, anybody from, you know, people like the Wall Street Journal, but then, of course, what's-his-name, Robert Reich, had to step in and publish his old video, which really slams Iron Rain, which I have posted a video response to a few months ago. And then Stephanie Kelton of Modern Monetary Theory, the economic advisor to, what's-his-name, Bernie Sanders jumped in accusing the Iron Rain Institute of all kinds of things, and it's like, everybody's this shock, and then people are just shocked. Iron Rain Institute taking PPP money, horrific. If anybody had actually done the research, which I know, I know today in the world today, you don't expect reporters to do, God forbid. They would discover that as far back as late April and May, the Iron Rain Institute put out a written piece by a board member, Javi Benzwanger, and by a board member, by an employee, chief philosophy officer at the Institute, Ankar Ghatay, which actually said, we're going to take PPP money, and here's why. And the Iron Rain Institute did an entire webinar, I think it was over an hour long, on why in times like this, it's, well, not just in times like this, generally, it's okay to take money from the government in the right context. And we link to an Iron Rain article, where she talks about the fact that getting money from the government, if you are against getting money from the government, is moral, that indeed, nobody else is justifying getting money from the government, because they're the ones who are advocating for, they're the ones who are promoting theft. But if you are actually the one who is against theft, who is promoting actively limited government, limited to the protection of individual rights, government that does not use the excuse of democracy to steal from some, to take from some, to give to others, government that does not destroy the economy by intervening and by oppressing us, and by telling us what we can and cannot do, indeed, if you are advocating against all that, you are the one, you're the only one for which it's moral to accept the money. It would be immoral for you to say, no, no, no, because I'm one of the good guys, I'm not gonna get the money and let the bad guys, let the people who promote these ideas, let them benefit from this, that would be absurd, that would be suicidal, that would be insane. The fact is that the government takes our money. If we can get some of it back, why wouldn't we? I mean, I know that when I do my taxes, or when I have my accountant do my taxes, my ask of my accountant is, use every loophole, every exemption, every possible thing to minimize the amount of money I pay taxes. Even though, when I talk about taxes, when I argue about taxes, I either argue that there should be no taxes, but in the world today, I don't, that's not realistic. I argue that taxes should be flat, simple, with no deductions, no exclusions. And yet, I take advantage of every deduction and exclusion that there is. I would be an idiot not to. So I'm gonna be penalized because I take a rational position. Now, somebody asked, does AI pay taxes? No, AI does not. But it's employees do, every single one of them. Employees who, during the crisis in March, because we saw a shrinkage of contributions, and we didn't know where this was heading, were, the hours were cut dramatically. And by the way, we'll talk about why, why we didn't know what was happening and why, you know, the economy did as badly as it is and why contributions went down. And PPP is gonna pay them salaries. So they pay taxes. They're getting restitution for all the taxes they paid over the years. Our contributors pay taxes. All those contributors who now had a cut they contributions pay taxes. But it's more than that. It's not just the taxes. Taxes is one dimension of this. Well, we're getting restitution. We're getting some of our tax money back, but it's more than that. The government actively engaged in destroying the economy. Yes, there was a virus. Yes, the virus was pretty horrific. Maybe, certainly in some places it was. But it is the government, our government, at the federal and state level that did not get its act together. That held up testing. Indeed, you know, made it impossible for the private enterprise to test, to develop tests, to roll out tests. Treatments are being held up by the FDA, by the CDC. So we have a government that completely, utterly, unequivocally screwed up their response to COVID. And then they screwed it up so badly that the virus got a control. Which led state governments, which had already screwed it up by not testing, you know, testing and isolating and tracking. They had screwed it up, so they shut down the economy. By shutting down the economy, they took away people's livelihood. They destroyed businesses. And there was a good chance they were going to destroy the Iron Man Institute because we rely on contributions from people who have businesses, who are now being destroyed through government action. To compensate for this, this is typical government. You do something statist, which is irrational anymore. And then you try to compensate it by doing more irrationally more stuff, like distributing future savings by printing money and handing it out. As an organization that was advocating for a rational approach to the virus, a rational response that would not have required shutting down the economy, would have not have required isolating everybody would home, would have not have required lockdowns. Suffering as a consequence of what the government had done, why would we not take the money as compensation for the damage they were causing us? Compensation for their irrationality. In a laissez-faire economy, in a laissez-faire world, there would be nobody to get this from. We advocate against government bailouts. We advocate against government stimuli. We advocate against government involvement and we argue against government prohibitions and restrictions that made this crisis a crisis. There was no need. If the government had approached this crisis appropriately, no need to shut down the economy, no need to destroy people's livelihoods, destroy people's businesses, destroy people's jobs. There's no need to have a $3 trillion stimulus package and then to tax people in order to pay that stimulus package back because they borrowed all the money or printed all the money. Either way, we're all gonna pay for it. Either way, it's taxes on us. And while the Einwand Institute per se doesn't pay taxes, everybody else does, including its employees. So of course you should take the money. While arguing against the government distributing it, you should take it. So only the enemies of capitalism should take their money. Only the socialists should take the money. While we all starve, while we all get destroyed, while we all have to fire our employees and have to shut down our businesses. That is ludicrous, suicidal, modern, self-sacrificial. Just as I, when I reached age, I'm gonna take Social Security. I paid taxes all these years. I'm gonna take my Social Security back. I'm gonna take my money back. They shouldn't be Social Security. They should never stolen the money from me to begin with. And what option do I have but to use Medicare? When you're 65, you either take Medicare or you have nothing. The government doesn't allow you to buy private health insurance. So of course I'm gonna take Medicare. Not to mention that I paid gazillions of dollars into it. Why would I subsidize everybody else and not take money out when it's my time? And if the government wants to return some of the money it has taken from me to me, I'm gonna take it. I take it every tax season by taking as many deductions, exclusions that I possibly can. And don't pretend that you paid into Social Security or into Medicare. That is a fallacy. Medicare and Social Security are welfare programs. They're welfare for everybody. But they're not, you don't pay for anything. The money isn't sitting there waiting for you. It's a redistribution program. The money you paid into Medicare and Social Security was paid out years ago to old people who were old then. Every time you send a check to Social Security Medicare, that money immediately goes out the other door. There's a little piece of paper that's left in a closet that says, I owe you. But you didn't pay in. The money was taken from you and given to other people. And when you take the money out, you're not gonna count to see, ooh, how much should I pay in? How much should I take out? You'll take out as much as you can because you paid huge amounts of taxes, Social Security, Medicare and everything else. This is an hypocrisy. This is justice. This is justice, a little bit of reparations, a little bit of compensation for all the damage government programs have done to my life, done to my bank account, to my well-being, and to the institutes well-being, and to its donors well-being, and to its employees well-being. So yes, the Ironman Institute took PPP money. It said it was going to take it in April, and it did, and good for them for getting some of their money that's been taken from them back. So there's no hypocrisy here. What there is is justice. We've always said, and Ironman said this in the 60s, in an essay that you can find online, it's called The Question of Scholarship. She said in the 60s that given how much taxes you pay, given the cost that the government imposes on you through regulations, controls, and manipulation of the economy, particularly post-COVID, yeah, if you can get some of it back, go for it, do it, and use it to fight government programs. Use it to fight the programs of the government that they use in order to attack you. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual, would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning, any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, wins or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of the stare, cynicism, and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist broads. Using the super chat, and I noticed yesterday when I appealed for support for the show, many of you stepped forward and actually supported the show for the first time, so I'll do it again, maybe we'll get some more today. If you like what you're hearing, if you appreciate what I'm doing, then I appreciate your support. Those of you who don't yet support the show, please take this opportunity, go to uranbrooksshow.com slash support or go to subscribestar.com uranbrookshow and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this going. I'm not showing the next.