Speaker 1: Attacking free speech, your freedoms, and your rights. Now, I'm
Speaker 1: sure you see it. I'm sure you feel it. You
Speaker 1: see it happening all over. We are going to jump
Speaker 1: into a conversation with a constitutional attorney, a high profile
Speaker 1: constitutional attorney who has worked on some of the biggest
Speaker 1: cases in the United States, and we're going to talk
Speaker 1: about the three ways that your freedom of speech or
Speaker 1: constitutional rights are being chipped away. You may don't maybe
Speaker 1: won't recognize it at first, but once you understand this,
Speaker 1: you're gonna see it. We're gonna talk about ways that
Speaker 1: the do o J and the FBI are being weaponized
Speaker 1: against you, how the judicial system has been compromised and
Speaker 1: they're using this to rewrite the laws right now, right
Speaker 1: before your very eyes, going around constitutional rights. We're gonna
Speaker 1: talk about what's happening with high public of figures when
Speaker 1: it comes to censorship, doing things you couldn't even imagine,
Speaker 1: things that I couldn't imagine. We're gonna talk about the
Speaker 1: reasons why they're doing this. But it's not all doom
Speaker 1: and gloom. We're gonna talk about how this has happened
Speaker 1: before in the United States. As a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: a couple of times before, how we've overcome and how
Speaker 1: we've overturned these things, and even though it's looking dark,
Speaker 1: there's massive hope on the horizon. We're gonna talk about
Speaker 1: how we can continue to build that and how we
Speaker 1: continue to push that. So this is a conversation you
Speaker 1: do not want to miss, super important, and I hope
Speaker 1: you share it with as many people as possibles. AEAD
Speaker 1: jump right into the conversation with Robert Barnes. Robert, thanks
Speaker 1: for joining me today. Uh, I'm happy to have you back.
Speaker 1: I've been following along with all this stuff you've been
Speaker 1: talking about. I am I'm shocked. I'm alarmed of what's
Speaker 1: going on. There's attacks happening all over the place, and
Speaker 1: so I've been wanting to talk to you for a
Speaker 1: couple of weeks. I'm glad we finally got a chance
Speaker 1: to do this. Absolutely so um Man, there's so many
Speaker 1: things that, so many things to dive into, so many
Speaker 1: topics to jump into. UM let's start with the one, um,
Speaker 1: a big one, and then we can dive down. So
Speaker 1: um I've been talking about been seen. It looks like
Speaker 1: we have a tax on free speech from like almost
Speaker 1: every angle I've been saying that I believe we're in
Speaker 1: a war. Um. It's just a war of information and
Speaker 1: money and so um on the information front. Um, if
Speaker 1: the powers that be are losing their grip on the narrative,
Speaker 1: then they have to up their game to win the
Speaker 1: war on information, and so they need to find ways
Speaker 1: to censor people, silence people, et cetera. So I've been
Speaker 1: seeing this as this attack on free speech from multiple angles.
Speaker 1: So a couple of ones that I've seen are the
Speaker 1: Alex Jones trial. Right. Um, they're trying to use something
Speaker 1: that has this unanimous consensus that everybody thinks is bad
Speaker 1: and use that to chip away. We have the Trump
Speaker 1: January six um thing going on, and then we had
Speaker 1: this Tornado cash which was like a public utility or protocol.
Speaker 1: But I think they all look like a tax on
Speaker 1: free speech to me. What's your take on that? No doubt.
Speaker 1: And in fact, the case that a lot of people
Speaker 1: have not paid enough attention to is the Alex Jones trials.
Speaker 1: So in those cases, they're using it as a test
Speaker 1: case to whether you can basically run show trials in America,
Speaker 1: complete show trials. So they have gutted him of all
Speaker 1: of his procedural rights. Not allowed to bring motions to
Speaker 1: dismiss not allowed to bring motions for summary judgment, not
Speaker 1: allowed to challenge the legal sufficiency of the case against him,
Speaker 1: not allowed even to testify on his own behalf as
Speaker 1: to his innocence. He the only in fact that the
Speaker 1: trial that's guilty until proven guiltier where he is not
Speaker 1: allowed to defend himself, where evidence against him is introduced,
Speaker 1: but he is not allowed to impeach or cross examine
Speaker 1: that evidence in a meaningful way. Now. In fact, for example,
Speaker 1: in the Connecticut trial going on right now, the judges said,
Speaker 1: there's one name that cannot even be talked about in
Speaker 1: the entire trial, and that's Hillary Clinton. That's how insane
Speaker 1: the cases, even though Hillary Clinton has a lot to
Speaker 1: do with how that trial came about. So uh and
Speaker 1: and the reason for that is their secondary objective. Uh,
Speaker 1: they're stripping of all of his proceed Drill writes his
Speaker 1: day in court. He hasn't given any day in court,
Speaker 1: his right to trial by jerry on the merits. He's
Speaker 1: being denied his right to trial by jury on the merits. Uh.
Speaker 1: They claim that he didn't participate in discovery but anybody
Speaker 1: watching the trial realizes he must have because they have
Speaker 1: more discovery the other side than anybody's ever had to
Speaker 1: give in any case. It's it's about ultimately using him
Speaker 1: as an example to take away other people's speech because
Speaker 1: the legal president they're establishing. Because the other unique factor
Speaker 1: here is Joe is being sued and for like unfair
Speaker 1: competition and trade laws and consumer protection laws, but the
Speaker 1: people suing him are not consumers. There are people who
Speaker 1: disagree with what he said about topics over the years,
Speaker 1: um and in instead it's basically a defamation case. Yet
Speaker 1: they're being allowed to sue under these theories that no
Speaker 1: one's ever heard of being applied in this context before.
Speaker 1: But the it's not only that, the constitutional requirement is
Speaker 1: that you can't be sued for defamation unless you say
Speaker 1: a specifically factual statement that's false that you know to
Speaker 1: be false about someone specific. So that's how we protect
Speaker 1: robust free speech. We uh, there's no such thing as
Speaker 1: a wrong idea in America. Yet they're trying to gut
Speaker 1: all of that because in the Jones case, he never
Speaker 1: talked about the people that are suing him, never mentioned
Speaker 1: him by name, never referenced him. So forth the people
Speaker 1: that are suing him, there's only one or two people
Speaker 1: that even got referenced directly or indirectly. Almost all the
Speaker 1: people are suing him, including FBI agent. You have an
Speaker 1: FBI agent suing him who didn't identify anything Alex Jones
Speaker 1: every even said about him. He's an FBI lawyer, So
Speaker 1: how is this FBI lawyer being allowed to sue? The
Speaker 1: new theory is if you say something that upset somebody,
Speaker 1: and you know it might upset somebody, they can sue you,
Speaker 1: and if it's controversial enough, they can sue you into
Speaker 1: bankruptcy and oblivion, as the plaintiffs lawyers have said, is
Speaker 1: their exact plan here in the Connecticut case, they said
Speaker 1: it out loud in the courtroom the place lawyer said,
Speaker 1: justice is preventing Alex Jones from ever having a microphone,
Speaker 1: ever having access to the media, ever being able to
Speaker 1: have his opinion heard by you, the people, ever again.
Speaker 1: And that's why the Jones case is so dangerous. They're
Speaker 1: trying to establish the precedent that they can use lawfare
Speaker 1: in the legal system to completely financially obliterate any dissident
Speaker 1: opinion and it's a precarious precedent, and because it's Alex Jones,
Speaker 1: and because the topic is Sandy Hook, most people are
Speaker 1: too scared to look into it, to talk about it,
Speaker 1: to challenge the media narrative, to contest what's happening, to
Speaker 1: expose what's happening. Too many people on the right who
Speaker 1: have disagreements with Alex Jones are letting those disagreements with
Speaker 1: Alex Jones blind the fact that just like he was
Speaker 1: the Canarian the coal mine on big tech, when they
Speaker 1: took out Alex Jones, they used it as the precedent
Speaker 1: ultimately take out the President of the United States, they're
Speaker 1: now using him in the law fair arena to say
Speaker 1: we if we don't like your speech, we can now
Speaker 1: use the state court civil justice system to bankrupt you
Speaker 1: because we don't like your speech, and we can do
Speaker 1: it without every giving you your day in court, without
Speaker 1: every giving you trial by jury on the merits, without
Speaker 1: ever giving you basic core rights that every American is
Speaker 1: supposed to have. Wow, that's a lot. That's a lot
Speaker 1: so um little known fact people will find out here.
Speaker 1: But about two weeks ago I went and sat down
Speaker 1: with Alex Jones, and I even hosted the info War
Speaker 1: Show for a segment and then we went into a
Speaker 1: long interview. Um, so I'm having that come out, but
Speaker 1: I'm afraid to put that on YouTube. So it's probably
Speaker 1: gonna be on my Rumble, It'll be on the Odyssey,
Speaker 1: It'll be on my podcast. It won't be on my YouTube,
Speaker 1: just because I'm afraid of the backlash that will have.
Speaker 1: But I was surprised at just the backlash I already
Speaker 1: got people saw me on info Wars, even from my
Speaker 1: own daughter, who's like, he's such a bad man, and
Speaker 1: he said these bad things. And I told my daughter,
Speaker 1: I'm like, look, okay, so he said bad things. It
Speaker 1: made people feel bad, Like that's wrong and I don't
Speaker 1: approve that, and he shouldn't have said that. Okay whatever,
Speaker 1: but like it's not illegal, it's not illegal. It shouldn't be. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, in his in his defense to what he said,
Speaker 1: he's like, you know, he goes live whatever four hours
Speaker 1: a day, so that's whatever, twenty hours a week, uh whatever,
Speaker 1: almost a hundred hours a month he's live. He said.
Speaker 1: The total amount of time he talked about that topic
Speaker 1: was twenty four minutes, I think, is what he said.
Speaker 1: And he said the same thing as you. He never
Speaker 1: mentioned anybody's name, he never directly said anything whatever. Um.
Speaker 1: And some of the comments I got from other people
Speaker 1: were like, well, he used this to his advantage. He's
Speaker 1: trying to gain from this. I'm like, he talked about
Speaker 1: it twenty four minutes. The media has talked about hundreds
Speaker 1: of hours. Who's using what to gain? But digging back
Speaker 1: into some of the things that you said, because it's
Speaker 1: way worse than I had even imagined. Um, it's a
Speaker 1: way worse. Its not even imagined. So they're denying him
Speaker 1: all these things to the point that you're making um.
Speaker 1: And I didn't write them all down, But um, how
Speaker 1: are they able to do that? I mean, is it
Speaker 1: because they have a judge that's just going along with
Speaker 1: it and they're doing that? I mean, will he be
Speaker 1: able to appeal this? I mean, I I understand laws
Speaker 1: are being changed and it's becoming more and more unfair,
Speaker 1: But for the ones that are still there, I mean,
Speaker 1: doesn't isn't there some sort of recourse there? There should?
Speaker 1: The problem is it's the failure of the judicial branch,
Speaker 1: and the judicial branch is not stepping up to meet
Speaker 1: and protect Alex Jones's rights because he's Alex Jones. So
Speaker 1: the other dynamic is that there's sort of an underlying
Speaker 1: class conflict in all of this because most of Jones's
Speaker 1: supporters are working people. So they may be business people,
Speaker 1: they may be successful people, but they are not the
Speaker 1: professional class, the clerical class, the managerial class. They don't
Speaker 1: have a bunch of little letters after their name like
Speaker 1: we're reinstating old English royalty these days with j D
Speaker 1: or m D or pH D and all that jazz. Uh.
Speaker 1: But the the the group that doesn't like Jones is
Speaker 1: from that professional, managerial class. So Jones has an underrepresented
Speaker 1: as part of his audience. And for people who don't know,
Speaker 1: I mean, this is a man who, according to government,
Speaker 1: its own polls, media's own polls, over thirty million Americans
Speaker 1: are are huge fans. That's as many people who vote
Speaker 1: in the Republican presidential primaries to give people an idea.
Speaker 1: So that's the scale of his influence, his influences. He
Speaker 1: has been the biggest critic of the deep State of
Speaker 1: anybody in recent American history. He's one of the most
Speaker 1: important populist voices out there, and that's why he's being targeted,
Speaker 1: that's why. And there's this mythology, like most people who
Speaker 1: bash Alex Jones remind me the people who bashed Rush
Speaker 1: Limbaugh and I'd be, I'd be. They would describe a caricature,
Speaker 1: they would describe someone that's not the person. I'm like, Okay,
Speaker 1: you're bashing someone you've actually never watched, you've actually never
Speaker 1: listened to, you've actually never read. If you're gonna bash them,
Speaker 1: at least you know, engage with them and then come
Speaker 1: up with a determination. Um. But the it's this caricature
Speaker 1: of him. But there's this underlying class conflict where the
Speaker 1: professional class hates him. The status hate him. Uh, the
Speaker 1: working class, the working person, the ordinary felt person, they
Speaker 1: love him. But in the judicial branch, which is making
Speaker 1: all the decisions here, it's it's by definition dominated by
Speaker 1: the professional manager, a real class. So in their little group,
Speaker 1: in their little bubble, Alex Jones is almost universally despised,
Speaker 1: so they can just ignore the rules. The other scary
Speaker 1: thing is, I mean, this is a trial. These trials
Speaker 1: make Idiocracy's trial look like a beacon of justice. That's
Speaker 1: how bad they are. Um in their parodies of parodies
Speaker 1: and the problem is known none of the other judges,
Speaker 1: because that's the only people who can put a stop
Speaker 1: to this higher courts. So it's all judges getting to
Speaker 1: decide the ethical conduct of judges, which I've always had
Speaker 1: a problem with. Uh, they're they're all in on it.
Speaker 1: I mean that they all want Jones hurt. So there
Speaker 1: were For example, Jones was because he made criticisms of
Speaker 1: a lawyer from his own TV network Early on in
Speaker 1: the case, the judges said, if you become if you
Speaker 1: are sued, you lose your free speech rights. As to
Speaker 1: that case would never happen. That's directly contrary to U. S.
Speaker 1: Supreme Court law. But unless the U. S. Supreme Court
Speaker 1: gets involved, and they almost never do, the other judges
Speaker 1: get away with violating his rights. And if anybody thinks
Speaker 1: they're not planning on using this as a press of it,
Speaker 1: that's the mistake. They're using Jones because they know he
Speaker 1: has inadequate political protection amongst their colleagues in the professional
Speaker 1: managerial class and the press and in the legal world.
Speaker 1: But then they're gonna take that precedent and apply it
Speaker 1: to everyone else. It's what big Tech did. People may
Speaker 1: not remember when they took down Alex Jones. They lied
Speaker 1: about it. They said, oh, this is limited Alex Jones.
Speaker 1: We're not doing this because of his speech. We're limited.
Speaker 1: It's certain incidents that occurred. They could never find or
Speaker 1: identify what those incidents were. Very similar. They had like
Speaker 1: a fake trial of their own kind. And then of
Speaker 1: course they said, well later on, well we took out
Speaker 1: Alex Jones for wrong think, we can take out the
Speaker 1: President United States for wrong things. So the they're gonna
Speaker 1: do the same thing here and that there should be
Speaker 1: remedies at the Court of Appeals. In reality, other than
Speaker 1: the Texas Supreme Court and the U. S. Supreme Court
Speaker 1: and those respective cases, those are the only courts that
Speaker 1: might actually do justice. The problem is they don't have
Speaker 1: to take the case. The judges that do have to
Speaker 1: take the case are willing to violate the rules to
Speaker 1: get at Alex Jones, and and doing so they want
Speaker 1: to establish new rules so they can get it the
Speaker 1: rest of us. So it's almost like these judges have
Speaker 1: it out for him to the kind of past case
Speaker 1: that you're making um and if he got another judge
Speaker 1: that was more sympathetic or really want to uphold the
Speaker 1: law regardless of who it's being examined against, maybe he
Speaker 1: could catch a break, but that's not happening. But I
Speaker 1: think what's even more dangerous as to the point you're making,
Speaker 1: is that even though they're ignoring the law, um, once
Speaker 1: they rule this way, then it sets present. So they're
Speaker 1: almost they're ignoring the law. But then if they rule
Speaker 1: this way, they're actually changing the law. That's exactly right, okay,
Speaker 1: And it was what they're going at. They wanted to
Speaker 1: show that they could do a modern day show trial
Speaker 1: and get away with it. And they could do it
Speaker 1: as to someone as well known as Alex stand well despised,
Speaker 1: exact and that, and because today he's well despised, tomorrow
Speaker 1: they'll go to the person who's not as well as
Speaker 1: who may who's just well despised by the wrong people.
Speaker 1: That they'll continue to escalate in the same way, big technic,
Speaker 1: and they'll say, hey, we did this in the Alex
Speaker 1: Jones case, so we can do it to you. So
Speaker 1: they try to find something that has general consensus in
Speaker 1: the community that most people would agree that if this
Speaker 1: guy said mean things about parents losing their kids, everybody
Speaker 1: would agree that's probably not good. And so then they
Speaker 1: take that. Everybody agrees that, well, let's let's prohibit that
Speaker 1: from happening, and so um everyone Nope, nobody wants to
Speaker 1: stand up for it. And they're just okay, seen it
Speaker 1: happened to this bad guy, um, not realizing that their
Speaker 1: next I guess that's exactly right there, that they're signing
Speaker 1: their own death moran. So so there's there's one one
Speaker 1: when when you're talking about it, and I want to
Speaker 1: jump into this later, but just as you're talking about it, um,
Speaker 1: this big takedown that just happened was this Andrew Tate.
Speaker 1: And I was watching part of this interview with Patrick
Speaker 1: by David on Value Tayment, and he was just saying, how, um, look,
Speaker 1: I don't have viewers. I have fans. And the difference
Speaker 1: is my fans will follow me to wherever I go.
Speaker 1: They don't just watch me because I'm there. So Alex Jones,
Speaker 1: he got wiped off the face of the earth, He's
Speaker 1: still alive and well on his main channel, he still
Speaker 1: has millions of people tuning in regularly. Those were fans, right,
Speaker 1: and so Andrew tay said, those are my fans, he said,
Speaker 1: and they don't want me standing up and saying these
Speaker 1: things having fans, and he systematically broke down how all
Speaker 1: these things are trying to accuse him of. We're all
Speaker 1: taken out of context from little snippets or whatever. But anyway,
Speaker 1: I don't want to jump into that the next thing.
Speaker 1: So that's okay. So so Alex Jones, there's taking something
Speaker 1: that's just general consensus and they're using it to chip
Speaker 1: away at freedom of speech. Then we have this Tornado
Speaker 1: Cash and I don't know how much you looked into that,
Speaker 1: but Tornado Cash is a protocol that allows people to
Speaker 1: mix their cryptocurrencies to gain more privacy. Now they say that, well,
Speaker 1: criminals uses, terrorists uses and they could be laundering their
Speaker 1: money and then they're gonna go blow up schools and
Speaker 1: kill a little kids. And of course nobody wants that. Uh,
Speaker 1: I don't I have little kids. I don't want my school,
Speaker 1: my kids school bombed, And so that has general consensus.
Speaker 1: We all agree that's bad. But then they try to
Speaker 1: attack this, uh protocol, a public utility that's been as
Speaker 1: I understand, three times the Supreme Court has upheld that
Speaker 1: encryption as freedom of speech. So it seems to me
Speaker 1: it's an attack on freedom of speech, oh no doubt.
Speaker 1: And and it's freedom of speech at multiple levels. So
Speaker 1: they've often tried to use the monetary or regulatory angle
Speaker 1: to circumus to limit speech. So that's what Citizens United
Speaker 1: was all about. So, like you look at campaign finance reform,
Speaker 1: often campaign finance reform was about making a person get
Speaker 1: the consent approval of an elite donor class. Right, if
Speaker 1: if one person can be the sole donor of a campaign,
Speaker 1: then you can run for office if you don't have
Speaker 1: your own money and you and un let's say you
Speaker 1: don't have the means of crowdfunding back in the day,
Speaker 1: then uh, with just the support of one percent of
Speaker 1: the economic elite. Right, but if you if everybody's limited
Speaker 1: at what they can contribute, they can require you to
Speaker 1: get the consent of twenty of the economic elite because
Speaker 1: it's it becomes its own form of donor control of campaigns.
Speaker 1: And then one part of this was always how can
Speaker 1: of this happened when money? When you cannot have speech
Speaker 1: if you don't spend money on that speech, Right, I
Speaker 1: got a mike here? If suddenly having a mic means
Speaker 1: I don't get the right to speech because it cost
Speaker 1: me money to have the mic, then all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: I lose my right to free speech. Without the freedom
Speaker 1: of payments, there is no freedom, precisely. And so currency
Speaker 1: is power, and the currency is the means by which
Speaker 1: speech is expressed and the means by which speech has heard.
Speaker 1: Which is always important for people to remember that what
Speaker 1: they're trying to do is prohibit our ability to hear
Speaker 1: what we choose to hear. And that's part of free speech.
Speaker 1: It's not just the right to speak, it's the right
Speaker 1: to hear what we want to hear. Freedom of thought,
Speaker 1: freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of belief, freedom
Speaker 1: of religion, freedom of pressed. That's what they all come
Speaker 1: back to, the right for me to hear what I
Speaker 1: want to hear, not the government to gate keep it
Speaker 1: for me. Uh. And so they were always going to
Speaker 1: go after anybody in the crypto space that they thought
Speaker 1: they could mean that's a lot of what the sec
Speaker 1: actions are. They're trying to convert everything into a secure
Speaker 1: transaction as if it's a publicly traded stock, when that's
Speaker 1: a real reach in my view, they've they've always to
Speaker 1: uh expanded the definition of security to reach things that
Speaker 1: were not originally intended in the legislation. I mean, you
Speaker 1: see it so many different places, the FDA trying to
Speaker 1: regulate medicine, the U. S d A trying to regulate
Speaker 1: little Amish family farmers. Uh. And so the same context
Speaker 1: here is they want to be able to get in
Speaker 1: and restrict your ability to express yourself and have meaningful
Speaker 1: power to have your voice heard and to hear what
Speaker 1: you want to hear by using the disguise that this
Speaker 1: is about monetary control of a financial instrument. Yeah. So um.
Speaker 1: And it's also because of encryption. So I think it's
Speaker 1: the encryption that's been upheld as free speech. It's like
Speaker 1: it's code. They printed it out, they took it to
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court and they said, yeah, that is code. Um.
Speaker 1: And then also the President that this sets too because
Speaker 1: it's a public utility. So typically people are sanctioned or
Speaker 1: nations are sanctioned. Maybe there's some due process there where
Speaker 1: that person could defend themselves maybe, um, But we don't
Speaker 1: have a public utility. So because a criminal drove on
Speaker 1: a road, now we're gonna sanction the road. Because because
Speaker 1: the criminal drove in a car, we're gonna sanction a car.
Speaker 1: Because the criminal used a protocol, then we're gonna sanction
Speaker 1: a protocol. What kind of precedent does that set? All
Speaker 1: of it kind of reflects a broader principle of what
Speaker 1: they allow to have who they allowed to give privacy
Speaker 1: and secrecy to. Right, It's it's always fails, Like I
Speaker 1: always get a kick out of the government that says
Speaker 1: any means of privacy or any means of secrecy will
Speaker 1: be the key for criminals to do bad acts. Yet somehow,
Speaker 1: when it comes to the government privacy and secrecy or
Speaker 1: absolute must we they must have things classified, etcetera. But
Speaker 1: I mean, isn't the same government that told us secrecy
Speaker 1: equals criminality, privacy equals criminality. So the now we it's
Speaker 1: a good transition. It goes into the Trump case. So
Speaker 1: it's like, here you have Trump, but the government is
Speaker 1: asserting that the deep state is asserting that administrative bureaucrats
Speaker 1: you call it, the National Security apparatus, called whatever, the
Speaker 1: administ exactly the administrative state. These are people that have
Speaker 1: only they have no elected constitutional power of their own.
Speaker 1: They're only power comes from the President of the United States.
Speaker 1: And yet they are putting the the former president and
Speaker 1: likely future president of the United States under criminal investigation
Speaker 1: because he chose to keep his own documents on the
Speaker 1: grounds that they the administrative bureaucracy, the deep state, gets
Speaker 1: to gets to decide what is and isn't classified, that
Speaker 1: they decide what isn't isn't a presidential record, that they
Speaker 1: decide what isn't isn't a national security record, that they
Speaker 1: get to decide over the president. And it's someone who
Speaker 1: only has power from the president getting to declare they
Speaker 1: have power over the president. It is an attempt to
Speaker 1: not only criminal eyes political disagreement and use criminal law
Speaker 1: fare to go after their most critical political adversaries, but
Speaker 1: it's an attempt to usurp our entire constitutional system of
Speaker 1: governance so that they get to decide what the people
Speaker 1: get to hear and see, because it's the same version
Speaker 1: of it. That's what classification is all about. Who gets
Speaker 1: to hear it, who gets to see it, who gets
Speaker 1: to know it. That's the decision that's supposed to be
Speaker 1: made exclusively by the president, by the Constitution and by
Speaker 1: prior decisions. Yet they're actually in court arguing that it's
Speaker 1: a crime for the president to have it. It's a
Speaker 1: crime for the president to try to declassify it that
Speaker 1: they the deep state, get to unilaterally decide what do
Speaker 1: people get to see and hear, even though nobody gave
Speaker 1: them that power, not the people, not the Constitution. I
Speaker 1: just I mean hearing that. I just don't see how
Speaker 1: they have any leg to stand on to the point
Speaker 1: that you're making. Uh, there's there's specifically don't have the
Speaker 1: power to do that. They're they're trying to take it,
Speaker 1: but they don't have it, And so what's what what
Speaker 1: lady do they have to stand on? And and I
Speaker 1: guess then in this is this something that's again sort
Speaker 1: of like the show trial. Um, they're taking something that
Speaker 1: maybe has this big unanimous kind of consent. And we'll
Speaker 1: get more into this uh uh framing of these maga
Speaker 1: people will get more into that in a minute. But um,
Speaker 1: does this have any weight at all? Or is it
Speaker 1: similar to like these impeachments that they didn't have a chance.
Speaker 1: Everyone knew they didn't have a chance, it got shut down,
Speaker 1: but they still did it. Anyway, Is it like that
Speaker 1: or is there actually teeth here? There's no legal merits
Speaker 1: at all to their claim. In fact, it's a very
Speaker 1: perilous press that they're trying to set. However, it is
Speaker 1: like the Alex Jones case is, it's another example of
Speaker 1: our judicial brands and our justice system breaking down. There's
Speaker 1: enough rogue prosecutors, enough rogue FBI agents who in a
Speaker 1: DC jury pool because the case is being handled in
Speaker 1: the District of Columbia, which there's problems up to begin with.
Speaker 1: But basically the swamp gets to judge the swamp and
Speaker 1: gets to judge the critics of the swamp. And we've
Speaker 1: already seen in jury trial after jury trial they're just
Speaker 1: politically biased. So they can have somebody completely guilty and
Speaker 1: they let him walk because they like his politics. They
Speaker 1: can have someone completely innocent and they railroad him because
Speaker 1: they dislike his politics. So I say that Martin Luther
Speaker 1: King had a better chance at a fair trial in
Speaker 1: nineteen fifties Birmingham than any MAGA or Trump supporter has
Speaker 1: in the District of Columbia. And so because the the
Speaker 1: d C jurors are the grand jury and the trial jury,
Speaker 1: and you have a lot of weak, need politically corrupt
Speaker 1: judges in the process, that's how this case could somebodyill
Speaker 1: end up in an indictment, which would be utterly insane.
Speaker 1: It would be without legal president, without legal merit. It
Speaker 1: would be the open, overt political weaponization of the criminal
Speaker 1: justice system for a corrupt and competent president to blame
Speaker 1: to actually take out his political opposition. I mean, here
Speaker 1: you have Biden's administration trying to indict the the candidate
Speaker 1: who is leading in the elections against him. This is
Speaker 1: something you hear about from third world nations, but it
Speaker 1: is right now contemporary reality in America. Well, and um,
Speaker 1: when Trump was running against Biden last time in this
Speaker 1: whole Ukraine, call came up and then they he said, fine, here,
Speaker 1: listen to the call or whatever. But they said that
Speaker 1: he was they were trying to go after his opponent, Biden,
Speaker 1: and that was the big deal. How how dare you
Speaker 1: go after your opponent? Right? But now that's exactly what's
Speaker 1: happening here, exactly. They're doing it openly and overtly. It's
Speaker 1: extrait like they complained when Trump was critical of Hillary
Speaker 1: and said she belonged in jail. They complained when he
Speaker 1: was going to expose the Biden corruption in Ukraine the
Speaker 1: UH and and we've seen what that has led to
Speaker 1: in terms of the war in Ukraine and all the
Speaker 1: other problems that we now have under the Biden administration.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I mean it goes even worse than that,
Speaker 1: going to suppressing speech. Uh. They are going after Project
Speaker 1: Veritas for simply getting access to hunter By to Ashley
Speaker 1: Biden's diary concerning very questionable conduct to put it kindly
Speaker 1: of the President of the United States and his own daughter,
Speaker 1: according to his daughter's own words. They're trying to put
Speaker 1: people in prison for simply sharing that information with members
Speaker 1: of the press. And they're trying to put James O'Keefe
Speaker 1: in Project Veritas in prison. Shut down Project Veritas put
Speaker 1: James O'Keefe in prison again after they, you know, wrongfully
Speaker 1: went after him about a decade ago or so. And
Speaker 1: it shows you how nuts it is. And the FBI
Speaker 1: is acting as the private personal Stasi of the incumbent administration,
Speaker 1: the and the deep state apparatus, and their weaponizing the
Speaker 1: legal process in a way we've never witnessed before. And unfortunately,
Speaker 1: so far, the judiciary has been an inadequate check on
Speaker 1: that abusive power. Yeah. Well, and when the and and
Speaker 1: now we're also seeing them frame up the judiciary branch
Speaker 1: as being bad corrupt, outdated, etcetera. So now we see
Speaker 1: these ramped up attacks on the Supreme Court, where the
Speaker 1: Supreme courts an activist court now, and the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: needs to be we need to impeach Clarence Thomas and
Speaker 1: like all these other things. So not only are they
Speaker 1: using this legal system um for their own weaponization, but
Speaker 1: they're also attacking it and breaking down the integrity or
Speaker 1: at least I guess the opinions of people towards that court.
Speaker 1: They're trying anybody that pushes back when the court system
Speaker 1: gets attacked. So the judge that issued a special master
Speaker 1: requirement in the Trump case, which is very common protocol.
Speaker 1: By the way, nothing she did was unusual at all.
Speaker 1: What was unusual as rating the president of the United States.
Speaker 1: That's never been done before ever in American history. What's
Speaker 1: unusual is claiming that the deep state has legal control
Speaker 1: over classification, designation of records, over the president who controls
Speaker 1: them and from whom all authority flows. That's what's unusual
Speaker 1: and unprecedent. What's unusual unprecedent is one administration going after
Speaker 1: their political opponent in such an overt way. Uh, the
Speaker 1: all that's unusual what the district court judge did, would
Speaker 1: simply say, let's have a third party involved, a special master,
Speaker 1: to make sure this is done correctly. And what happens,
Speaker 1: she gets personal death threats. There's people already being arrested
Speaker 1: for it. Where does that come from? Political media press criticism.
Speaker 1: Because they believe that all all tools of power should
Speaker 1: our ends justify the means that they will weaponize any tool,
Speaker 1: and anybody who doesn't go along gets attacked, even if
Speaker 1: you're the most well established justice of the most well
Speaker 1: established legal institution in the world, in Clarence Thomas. Their
Speaker 1: their point of Clarence Thomas is if we can go
Speaker 1: after him, we can go after anybody. So you better
Speaker 1: play ball and do what we we demand you do
Speaker 1: and ignore the law and weaponize it for our political
Speaker 1: purposes or your own personal and professional careers. At stake
Speaker 1: man breakdown of our institutions at the at the highest
Speaker 1: level and at the fastest pace that I could imagine
Speaker 1: ever seeing this. I was really shocked when we saw
Speaker 1: the leak at the Supreme Court on the Roe v.
Speaker 1: Wade situation. And so we have the highest institution, the
Speaker 1: highest court in the land, and an activist Obviously an
Speaker 1: activist leaked this because it was a very sensitive information
Speaker 1: on one side, right, um, very polarized thing that was leaked,
Speaker 1: and that was a complete breakdown of trust in the
Speaker 1: high institution. But then um, the Supreme Court had also
Speaker 1: rolled back some policies I believe on like on on guns,
Speaker 1: concealed carriers, etcetera. The State of California hated that, was
Speaker 1: very open about that. The Governor of California and the
Speaker 1: head of the d o J, the d A said
Speaker 1: that they were a g said that they were going
Speaker 1: to do everything possible to overturn that. And then like
Speaker 1: a week later, all the records just mysteriously got leaked
Speaker 1: in California. Like we're witnessing, uh, the breakdown of the
Speaker 1: highest level of institutions in the land completely. And it's
Speaker 1: it's part of a generational shift that the new generation
Speaker 1: of power, the new Left. I tell people, if you
Speaker 1: want to comparison, don't look to the nineteen sixties for
Speaker 1: the mindset of the new Left that it looked to
Speaker 1: the nineteen thirties. It's very much a status goal and
Speaker 1: it's very much that the ends justify the means, so
Speaker 1: and that they've been taught this in various ways from
Speaker 1: the time they've grown up throughout their educational institutions. These
Speaker 1: slow march through the institutions, as Gramcy called it, the
Speaker 1: sort of Marxist objective to take over society from within
Speaker 1: has effectively taken place in America's educational and cultural institutions.
Speaker 1: That's why our films are such crap, you know, That's
Speaker 1: why our TV shows, I mean couple one after the other.
Speaker 1: I mean, they destroyed Star Wars, they destroy Star Trek,
Speaker 1: they destroyed Marvel. I mean that because they're going through
Speaker 1: one after the next, after the next. Now they're going
Speaker 1: after a little Mermaid. It's gonna be one thing or
Speaker 1: the next. It's because they want to culturally control the
Speaker 1: minds of the populace and the people of this new
Speaker 1: generation that says the ends justify the means that free
Speaker 1: speech is actually bad because free speech is dangerous speech,
Speaker 1: free speech is harmful speech, free speeches hurtful speech. So
Speaker 1: these are people who grew up in you know, Uh,
Speaker 1: my niece went to Toughs where they had ninety four
Speaker 1: different safe spaces, and I was like, nobody at Toughs
Speaker 1: even disagrees with one another. What do you need ninety
Speaker 1: four safe spaces? And it's just one after the other.
Speaker 1: And it's that kind of mindset that is now in
Speaker 1: places of power within the press, within the academy, and
Speaker 1: within this and within the government at multiple levels of
Speaker 1: the bureaucracy. And they're trying to weaponize everything around them.
Speaker 1: And that's why they want to use these test case examples,
Speaker 1: whether it's Alex Jones or Trump, to see how much
Speaker 1: can they just purely politically weaponize the process, ignore all
Speaker 1: of our customs, all of our traditions, all of our rules,
Speaker 1: all of our respect for law, all of our constitutional constraints.
Speaker 1: Can they just eviscerate them so that they can achieve
Speaker 1: and attain their objective and use the any tool of
Speaker 1: power they have around them, whether it's a human resources
Speaker 1: or advertising department at a company, or it's an administrative
Speaker 1: bureaucracy or local state court bench to get their political objectives.
Speaker 1: And that and we are living, without doubt in very
Speaker 1: interesting times. Yeah, to say the least. So you said,
Speaker 1: this is similar to the nineteen thirties, So sometimes I
Speaker 1: have to try it. It's like let me let me,
Speaker 1: let me think about this logically, let me let me
Speaker 1: look at this at a at a historical lens um.
Speaker 1: There's many times throughout history where things have been much
Speaker 1: worse than they are today, um um, from from every
Speaker 1: different angle we want to look at um. And so
Speaker 1: you said this is similar to the nineteen thirties. Another
Speaker 1: thing I look at is again back to kind of
Speaker 1: my original statement of a war of information. And so
Speaker 1: they need to control the narrative. The Internet has caused
Speaker 1: them to lose that narrative because now we can all
Speaker 1: converse without their mainstream media. Now we see the rise
Speaker 1: of the alternative news sources that are, you know, beating
Speaker 1: them in every angle. The Joe Rogans gained two hundred
Speaker 1: million views, um, etcetera. And so if they're not able
Speaker 1: to control that, like and Alex Jones, they did delete
Speaker 1: him off the face of the earth, but yet he's
Speaker 1: still alive. So then well what comes next? So I
Speaker 1: guess sue him into oblivion. That's kind of the point
Speaker 1: that you made earlier. But also if you look back
Speaker 1: in the US history, twice in the last hundred years,
Speaker 1: they've made it illegal to say anything critical of the state.
Speaker 1: Right was one the Smith Act, the Sedition Act, and
Speaker 1: so they could just say it's a crime to say
Speaker 1: anything critical, and they've done it before. Do you see
Speaker 1: that being a reality or a danger or is there
Speaker 1: anything that I'm missing in that historical lens. Well, that's
Speaker 1: where the January six cases are very dangerous, as well
Speaker 1: as some of the Trump cases, because what they're trying
Speaker 1: to do is re invoke the specter of the Sedition Act.
Speaker 1: So the Sedition Act for people that don't know what
Speaker 1: you know, was pasted during World War One, and it
Speaker 1: was utilized, and it was a different variation. We first
Speaker 1: tried the alien and sedition laws back in the right
Speaker 1: at the beginning of the founding of the country. Rightfully,
Speaker 1: our core founding generation got it stopped and reversed so
Speaker 1: that it never came back again. And and and it took,
Speaker 1: you know, about two hundred years before it actually came
Speaker 1: back again in one way, shape or form. But it
Speaker 1: took at least a hundred years before hundred twenty years
Speaker 1: or so before it came back at all. And what
Speaker 1: happened was during World War One, people forget A presidential
Speaker 1: candidate was actually put in prison, Eugene V. Debs for
Speaker 1: saying for only for speech, he said he was opposed
Speaker 1: to World War One and you opposed the draft. They
Speaker 1: called that sedition. They locked him up, they put him
Speaker 1: in federal prison. So they're looking to that. And when
Speaker 1: I started hearing talk in the January six cases of
Speaker 1: rather than treating it as a jet, a basic trespass
Speaker 1: riot case, which is what almost all of the alleged
Speaker 1: criminal conduct could be labeled as. And there's a lot
Speaker 1: of peculiarities about how everything came about in that context,
Speaker 1: why the security was strangely missing, why some security people
Speaker 1: were engaged in provocative behavior at attacking the crowd. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, the a lot of people that went in
Speaker 1: there didn't realize it was illegal because they showed up
Speaker 1: later and the doors were opened and they're walking around.
Speaker 1: So there's all those issues. There's whether or not the
Speaker 1: government was completely turns out like over seventy or eighty
Speaker 1: undercover Feds were part of the crowd from various information
Speaker 1: that's already come out, So there's a lot of reason
Speaker 1: to be suspect about what really happened that day. But
Speaker 1: putting that aside, even in the worst case interpretation of it,
Speaker 1: the behavior is behavior that is just your old school
Speaker 1: trespass rioty, disturbing the peace kind of crimes. This happens
Speaker 1: on a regular basis throughout America. Usually it's almost always
Speaker 1: the left doing it. You know, taking over a government
Speaker 1: building that was prominent throughout the nineteen sixties, all those
Speaker 1: things that's you know, it's disturbing the the piece, it's
Speaker 1: a trespass, etcetera. And then all of a sudden start
Speaker 1: talking about sedition and obstruction and conspiracy, and I was like,
Speaker 1: whoa that. What that is attempting to do is to
Speaker 1: use the January six cases, because it's another example where
Speaker 1: it's the District of Columbia. So you got a corrupt
Speaker 1: jury pull at the grand jury level, corrupt jury pull
Speaker 1: at the trial level. A lot of judges who are
Speaker 1: part of the swamp don't want to judge and govern
Speaker 1: and discipline the swamp. The prosecutors are all connected to
Speaker 1: the swamp. Uh, So you have a very corrupted system
Speaker 1: of justice. And they want to take what they're doing
Speaker 1: in the District of Columbia and export it everywhere across America.
Speaker 1: And that's scary problem number one. Scary problem number two
Speaker 1: is they're using the sedition laws to start to expand
Speaker 1: the prosecution. And sedition laws are basically just speech laws.
Speaker 1: They really are day that you engaged in a certain
Speaker 1: public protest or public speech or other conduct, and consequently
Speaker 1: we're going to call it a crime you can serve
Speaker 1: the rest of your life in federal prison for because
Speaker 1: we don't like the purpose upset speech. I've always considered
Speaker 1: the sedition laws laws that are unconstitutional and never should
Speaker 1: have been allowed to exist in the first place. We
Speaker 1: have we already have criminal laws for treason. We have
Speaker 1: criminal laws for everything on under the earth. Uh that
Speaker 1: could possibly be a crime. We don't need to create
Speaker 1: new criminal laws that can be used to target and
Speaker 1: punished protests. But that's exactly what this is. And and
Speaker 1: that and so that that old sedition president is now
Speaker 1: coming back for the first time in about a century
Speaker 1: a hundred years by the in the January six cases,
Speaker 1: and that would be something to watch because they want
Speaker 1: to use those cases to establish a new precedent that
Speaker 1: they can accuse anyone that is a has unapproved opinions
Speaker 1: that they consider threatning to the government's well being as sedition,
Speaker 1: which is super scary. Um. But I guess also I'm
Speaker 1: always trying to find a sliver of hope here. Um,
Speaker 1: we saw these Druconian measures and these crazy laws. To
Speaker 1: your point, I wasn't aware, but a presidential candidate went
Speaker 1: to prison over speech. Um. But then it got repealed
Speaker 1: and things got better. So we've seen things like this
Speaker 1: go in before and get overturned. We're going back down
Speaker 1: the same road again. Um. It's scary, but maybe it
Speaker 1: gets overturned again at some point. Well, I I think
Speaker 1: it's up to the people. I think the one restraining
Speaker 1: all of these cases, whether it's the Alex Jones cases,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump case, the January six cases, that the cryptocurrency
Speaker 1: area related cases, is it. It's all gonna be. It's
Speaker 1: all only gonna change if the courts have either the
Speaker 1: confidence or the courage to step forward, and that's only
Speaker 1: going to happen, or the legislature has the ability and
Speaker 1: willingness to step forward. That's only gonna happen if the
Speaker 1: court of public opinion is sufficiently outrage. So when this
Speaker 1: was tried by corrupt actors in the yearly eighteen hundreds
Speaker 1: into the and Sedition Acts, it was public outrage that
Speaker 1: led to the repeal of those laws. When it was
Speaker 1: done to Eugen v. Debs, and then we had the
Speaker 1: Palmer raids in nineteen nineteen. The the Jager Hoover used
Speaker 1: all of these political oriented cases to rise to power
Speaker 1: and create the independent FBI that now is one of
Speaker 1: the most corrupt institutions in American law enforcement and the
Speaker 1: and the whole justice system. What there was enough public
Speaker 1: outrage in the nineteen twenties and nineteen thirties that all
Speaker 1: got repealed and pushed back in the deep state drew
Speaker 1: back the nineteen seventies the same thing. I mean, after
Speaker 1: we had when can it be assassinated? Another Kennedy assassinated,
Speaker 1: a king, assassinated, Malcolm X assassinated, a president taken out
Speaker 1: in Nixon, then that's when there was enough public outrage
Speaker 1: about what's going on in our government that led to
Speaker 1: the mk Ultra investigations, the assassination investigations, exposing the Deep State,
Speaker 1: exposing the CIA, exposing the NSA, exposing the FBI with
Speaker 1: cointel pro due to the thing that media, So it
Speaker 1: always comes back to the same thing. It's the power
Speaker 1: and the will of the people, because it's the fifth
Speaker 1: pillar power under all the other pillars of power. If
Speaker 1: public perception falls, then the whole system falls. So it's
Speaker 1: very matrix is in that respect, and so it's the
Speaker 1: best way to defeat the system. The best way to
Speaker 1: stop these abuses is to take the red pill and
Speaker 1: give it to everybody else. And if enough people get it, enough,
Speaker 1: people share it enough, people speak out about it, that's
Speaker 1: when things will change. Yeah, I was as as you
Speaker 1: were talking about this, I was thinking about this. UM.
Speaker 1: I was trying to find the number here, but I
Speaker 1: can't remember top of my head. But this was January.
Speaker 1: The House of Representatives and later the Senate began reviewing
Speaker 1: a document entitled Communist Goals for taking Over America to
Speaker 1: contained an agenda of forty five separate issues, UM that
Speaker 1: in hindsight were quite shocking and then equally setting today. So, UM,
Speaker 1: I forget who the president was, maybe was was whoever
Speaker 1: that was like taking on communism, and then there was
Speaker 1: the McCarthy era whatever. So anyway, UM, on January tenth,
Speaker 1: the House Represents received this document and they had these
Speaker 1: forty five declared goals of communism. Uh, many of these
Speaker 1: what we've seen all over the place, but one of
Speaker 1: which I forget, it's down like number thirty or forty
Speaker 1: was to discredit and destroy the FBI, like lose all
Speaker 1: credibility of the FBI. Um and and that's kind of
Speaker 1: where we're at right now, that's what we're seeing. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, the FBI has managed to do it to itself.
Speaker 1: So you had the fiddle Bureau of Investigation created by
Speaker 1: Jaeger Hoover, and it was always had a political bias,
Speaker 1: but it was political bias, wasn't a partisan bias. And
Speaker 1: that's what's changed now the FB. Like I just saw
Speaker 1: a Harvard poll yesterday, more than half of Republicans don't like,
Speaker 1: don't trust, don't respect the FBI. That's unimaginable just five
Speaker 1: years ago. The biggest defenders of the FBI have been
Speaker 1: your historical conservative Republican in America. But what they've witnessed
Speaker 1: over the lad and this is where they've made mistakes.
Speaker 1: They've overreached. Like if they had had limited themselves to
Speaker 1: just uh, the January six cases, they might have got
Speaker 1: away with it without much public scrutiny or blowback. But
Speaker 1: when you go after Donald Trump, a man who just
Speaker 1: won seventy five million votes, a man who's the leading
Speaker 1: candidate to get the presidency in four a man who
Speaker 1: has a has a the strongest base of any American
Speaker 1: politician in the country and quite sometime since probably Ronald Reagan,
Speaker 1: and the depth and intensity of support of his audience,
Speaker 1: of his of his fans, going back to that he
Speaker 1: he doesn't have viewers, Donald Trump has fans. Um that
Speaker 1: that has backfired on them politically, and and it's where
Speaker 1: if they were smart, they would care about their public
Speaker 1: perception and step back from this. But you have some
Speaker 1: The most dangerous thing we faced currently is that the
Speaker 1: court of public opinion might not always be a check
Speaker 1: on these folks because they show a lack of self restraint. Uh,
Speaker 1: they show a lack of regard for the fact that
Speaker 1: they are being publicly lambasted for their bad acts, and
Speaker 1: that makes them more dangerous probably than they ever have
Speaker 1: been before. Yeah, it's it's actually worse than that. And
Speaker 1: this kind of leads me to the next topic I
Speaker 1: want to jump into, which is um in the court
Speaker 1: of public opinion. To your point, maybe doesn't matter to
Speaker 1: them anymore because exactly what we're hearing in the United States,
Speaker 1: but also I saw it come out of Europe yesterday,
Speaker 1: but we'll talk about that. But basically, what we're seeing
Speaker 1: in the United States? Is that? Uh? Per Biden's speech,
Speaker 1: he gave two speeches. He gave one the one with
Speaker 1: the red background of the Marines in the background. The
Speaker 1: one before that a few days before he said, Oh,
Speaker 1: you Second Amendment supporters, what chance do you think you
Speaker 1: have against us? We have s six teens. So he's
Speaker 1: threatening Americans. That's pretty bold. But what I see angling
Speaker 1: from that is, um, he's basically saying, all you guys,
Speaker 1: your extremist with your views, Um, you have no chance.
Speaker 1: And he's demoralizing people, say you better just stand down,
Speaker 1: you stand no chance. Then went into the next speech
Speaker 1: singling out MAGA Republicans and they're the threat, They're the
Speaker 1: biggest danger, demonizing them, angling to the point where I
Speaker 1: think it's setting up for this indictment because what they're
Speaker 1: trying to do is demoralized people, discredit people, and make
Speaker 1: magat people the worst. So nobody's gonna want to stand
Speaker 1: up formatt Well, I'm against what you're doing, but I
Speaker 1: don't want to stand up for MAGA because you've said
Speaker 1: MAGA is bad. But even worse than that, they're saying
Speaker 1: that it's a threat to our democracy. And so they asked, uh,
Speaker 1: I saw. A question was asked of the White House
Speaker 1: Press Secretary Koree G. Pierre I think her name is,
Speaker 1: and they said, so, what what what defines this extremist?
Speaker 1: She said, Well, in extremist is anyone that doesn't go
Speaker 1: along with the mainstream ideas. And so what they're saying is, um,
Speaker 1: it's a threat to our democracy if you don't like
Speaker 1: what we say. So back to the point that you
Speaker 1: made the court, the court of public opinion. Anyone in
Speaker 1: the public opinion doesn't agree with and they say, well,
Speaker 1: you're a threat to democrat you're not going along with
Speaker 1: mainstream even though Biden has a thirty eight percent approval ratings,
Speaker 1: So we could argue who who is mainstream? But um,
Speaker 1: that's a very dangerous president where they could ignore public
Speaker 1: perception because they don't agree with what we want. So
Speaker 1: it must be a threat to the democracy. It's very
Speaker 1: much sort of safe space ideology now being expressed in
Speaker 1: institutions of power. So it's it's the This is a
Speaker 1: whole generation of people who have grown up believing that
Speaker 1: if you disagree, then that makes you evil, that makes
Speaker 1: you bad, that makes you dangerous, that makes you hurtful,
Speaker 1: that makes you harmful, etcetera. It's what unites all of
Speaker 1: these threats, whether it's January six or Alex Jones or
Speaker 1: Donald Trump or Crypto all the rest. It's there's something hurtful,
Speaker 1: something harmful about your speech, and thus you are an
Speaker 1: extremist if you're advocating such hurtful and harmful speech. Also,
Speaker 1: their idea of democracy is a crop that they don't
Speaker 1: believe in democracy. When they say democracy, they mean them
Speaker 1: having all the power. And now the rest of the
Speaker 1: world has been saying this for over a hundred years.
Speaker 1: They say when America comes talking about democracy, they mean
Speaker 1: American power controlling our society and our economy and our
Speaker 1: resources and our politicians. They don't mean actual democracy. Patrice
Speaker 1: Lamumbo gets elected, we helped coordinate his killing a year
Speaker 1: later in nineteen six one, and uh in in Africa
Speaker 1: with the great Democratic Hope at the done. Uh You know,
Speaker 1: we believe in democracy so much we facilitated and enabled
Speaker 1: and entrapped Nelson Mandela for arrest. So the rest of
Speaker 1: the world knows that America's when it says democracy doesn't
Speaker 1: mean democracy. But now the American people are discovering that too,
Speaker 1: that the American leaders don't mean democracy, they mean their governance.
Speaker 1: That you are challenging our ability to control your life,
Speaker 1: and that makes you a dangerous extremist with hurtful and
Speaker 1: harmful speech who must be excluded from polite society. They've
Speaker 1: been weaponizing the vaccine mandates as an example to go
Speaker 1: after and get rid of any closet Trump supporter or
Speaker 1: really closet free speech supporters, closet liberty supporter out of
Speaker 1: the government. I mean I've been getting I've been hearing
Speaker 1: from people in every aspect of government, even some aspects
Speaker 1: that people might find surprising, the institutions they work for
Speaker 1: where they're being purged under the guise of a vaccine mandate.
Speaker 1: And so it's the same things. No dissident speech allowed.
Speaker 1: Any dissident speech must be banned, must be prohibited, people
Speaker 1: must be fired for it. But people must be removed
Speaker 1: from power from it. They must be labeled and socially stigmatized.
Speaker 1: It's very much nineteen thirties. It's very much communist Stasi
Speaker 1: Germany kind of style of approach. And it's and and
Speaker 1: they're using the FBI and top law enforcement like the
Speaker 1: Soviet Union used the KGB in the East German Communist
Speaker 1: Republic used the Stasi. It's gonna it's It's almost all parallels,
Speaker 1: one after the other after the other after the other.
Speaker 1: The press control, the communication, control, the speech control, the
Speaker 1: weaponization of civil justice, show trials, the weaponization of criminal
Speaker 1: justice powers, the stow social stigmatization to anybody who's a dissident,
Speaker 1: independent thought. It's almost identical to the list you went through.
Speaker 1: We're seeing it in lifetime, that social stickmatizations. So if
Speaker 1: you look at the Bolshevik Revolution, you look at Mao's
Speaker 1: Great Leap forward or hit or whatever you want. But
Speaker 1: like a MoU's great leap forward, um, they had the
Speaker 1: Red army, and the Red Army was the people. It
Speaker 1: was the people turning on the other people. The government
Speaker 1: and the military can't control the people, so they need
Speaker 1: to get the people to turn on each other. And
Speaker 1: Mao had reflected and said, Wow, I can't believe how
Speaker 1: vicious and violent these read these uh these people are.
Speaker 1: He did nothing to stop it, of course, But if
Speaker 1: they can get um, if they can if they can
Speaker 1: stigmatize to the word you use, um, Maga republicans, I mean,
Speaker 1: who would want to make America. Great, I mean, how
Speaker 1: dare you make one? I mean to to even to
Speaker 1: even stigmatize that word. But if they could make, if
Speaker 1: they get the public people to turn against each other
Speaker 1: and stigmatize them, then people don't want to stand up
Speaker 1: one and two. I mean it. I think we're already
Speaker 1: starting to see the violence. I mean it could get
Speaker 1: really bad. Oh no, no, it's collective punishment. And I
Speaker 1: say I encourage people to look at how the Ukrainian
Speaker 1: government is governing because that's also an example of what
Speaker 1: they would like to see. And there, what do you
Speaker 1: see in Ukraine? You see collective punishment of dissidents, you
Speaker 1: see complete suppression of speech, you see locking up of
Speaker 1: the press, you see complete banning of opposition. They took
Speaker 1: their opponent posing leader, locked them up in prison and
Speaker 1: then bragged about it on national TV. They shut down
Speaker 1: any independent press that exists, while awash with all forms
Speaker 1: of corruption, deep state collusion, and excessive war. So Ukraine
Speaker 1: is what the West will convert their own countries and
Speaker 1: societies into if they could, and it should be a
Speaker 1: warning sign to the rest of us that we are
Speaker 1: ultimately the the key barrier to them being able to
Speaker 1: pull off what they want to pull off. And as
Speaker 1: long as enough people resist and push back their agenda
Speaker 1: and do so through lawful and peaceful and democratic and
Speaker 1: constitutional means, that we can sustain our constitutional experiment of
Speaker 1: liberty and freedom a little bit longer, of course, which
Speaker 1: is exactly why they're trying to take it, uh, take
Speaker 1: it over. Um. So, first rip out the tongues so
Speaker 1: they can't say anything, don't allow any kind of public discourse,
Speaker 1: to remove any kind of legal protection or precedence or
Speaker 1: constitutional protection. Um. And then you know, once no one
Speaker 1: can talk anymore, and once there's no more protection, I
Speaker 1: guess than they can have their way. I was thinking about, um. So.
Speaker 1: I recently published a book. It's on Amazon last month,
Speaker 1: is titled The Uncommunist Manifesto. So basically took the Communist
Speaker 1: Manifesto and just kind of rewrote it, and it's called
Speaker 1: the Uncommunist Manifesto. UM. And so thinking a lot about
Speaker 1: communism and how communism seems like it's this old word,
Speaker 1: but really it's just all just been rebranded. Right. So,
Speaker 1: in the original Communist Manifesto, Carl marks that to summarize
Speaker 1: communism in one statement would be the abolition of private property.
Speaker 1: Today we have claud Schwab at the weft saying you'll
Speaker 1: own nothing and be happy. Uh. Right. We had communism
Speaker 1: or socialism was the state controlling the means of production.
Speaker 1: Today from the WEFT, we see this public private partnership.
Speaker 1: And I think about this public private partnership where we
Speaker 1: now have. Zuckerberg told Rogan that you know, the FBI
Speaker 1: came and talked to them, and um, Twitter had to
Speaker 1: put back on Alex Bernson because they found out through
Speaker 1: discovery that the government, somehow deministrative had had pressured them
Speaker 1: to get him off, etcetera. So you kind of have
Speaker 1: this public private partnership where the private side is the
Speaker 1: social media, etcetera. Let's let's wipe him off the face
Speaker 1: of the earth. Uh. And then if that doesn't work
Speaker 1: for the people that get through that filter, the Alex
Speaker 1: Jones that still won't go away, Well that's where the
Speaker 1: public side comes in. And now we'll use the weapon
Speaker 1: of the d o J, the FBI or whatever against them. Yeah. Completely.
Speaker 1: And it's the way they see power differently than our
Speaker 1: founding generation in the ordinary America. We look at power
Speaker 1: and we see what purpose does it serve? What principal
Speaker 1: can in advance and what restraints must operate within, and
Speaker 1: what methodology of approach of making decisions will be the
Speaker 1: best one Over time, they see power, They see any
Speaker 1: of these things, and they simply see a tool, a
Speaker 1: tool to be used for their objective and agenda. And
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter what it is. This is why you
Speaker 1: have these people doing things that college and missions screwing
Speaker 1: people over at college and missions for political reasons, excluding students, uh.
Speaker 1: For for these reasons, people getting not getting promotions, getting emotions,
Speaker 1: getting fired. Uh. In the employment context, advertising choices being
Speaker 1: made and marketing choices being made, and YouTube algorithm choices
Speaker 1: being made, and movie and TV choices being made, and
Speaker 1: book publishing choices being made. At every level of power,
Speaker 1: they see, how can I use this as a tool
Speaker 1: to advance my agenda, regardless of what that power is for.
Speaker 1: So the power supposed to have independent literary cultural value,
Speaker 1: they don't care. They see it as, oh, this is
Speaker 1: a means to get people to do what I want.
Speaker 1: If an employment is supposed to be about the job
Speaker 1: and whether you're qualified to do it, they don't care.
Speaker 1: They see, this is an opportunity for me to advance
Speaker 1: my political agenda. And once you understand that, you can
Speaker 1: predict where they're gonna go. And it is a very
Speaker 1: frightening place. I mean, you mentioned the the the V
Speaker 1: for Vendetta president speech that Biden where they literally took
Speaker 1: the background in the set from V for Vendetta where
Speaker 1: the guy is up there. You know, he even he
Speaker 1: even did the screaming bit. You know, he even did
Speaker 1: that bit, you know, the I mean, the almost exactly
Speaker 1: like it. And it's it's because they see they watched
Speaker 1: movies like and B for Vendetta and they think, golly, gee,
Speaker 1: wouldn't it be great if we could be that government?
Speaker 1: You know, I mean, they totally perverse mindset. But that's
Speaker 1: why we have to resist, because that's who these people are. Yeah,
Speaker 1: do you think. Um, So, now we have all this
Speaker 1: censorship we talked about, you know, Andrew Tate getting deleted obviously,
Speaker 1: Alex Jones being the kind of poster child for that. Um.
Speaker 1: But now we've you know, we see it. It's volatile, right.
Speaker 1: So then Alex Bernson, he got wiped off the face
Speaker 1: of Twitter because of talking about COVID, but now they
Speaker 1: had to let him back on. So now he's back,
Speaker 1: and now it seems like there's a lot of open
Speaker 1: talk about that stuff supposedly now, which is pretty interesting.
Speaker 1: But we're also seeing the rise of these, you know,
Speaker 1: the growth of these alternative platforms, the parlors, the rumbles, etcetera. Um,
Speaker 1: I mean, do you think they'll they'll probably continue to
Speaker 1: attack those right again, going back to kind of controlling
Speaker 1: the free speech, Sedition Act, etcetera. I mean, they didn't
Speaker 1: to shut it all off, so even those other platforms,
Speaker 1: as as as they may be popping up, uh, probably
Speaker 1: won't be allowed to stick around for much longer. I
Speaker 1: think they're they're gonna have some hurdles because the key
Speaker 1: was how to fight back intelligently, And so Elon Musk
Speaker 1: simply talking about and trying to buy Twitter, and now
Speaker 1: they're in lawsuits because it turned out Twitter has a
Speaker 1: lot more bots than they were admitting. So he thinks
Speaker 1: he over he overbought it. Now what he may get
Speaker 1: out of that is a much deeper discount and haircut
Speaker 1: and still end up owing it. But as soon as
Speaker 1: he talked about buying it, all of a sudden, Twitter
Speaker 1: became a lot less than sorious for a period of time,
Speaker 1: still a lot of censorship that takes place, but not
Speaker 1: to the same scale as you know. Now you look
Speaker 1: at Rumble, Rumble is a meaningful competitor because of who
Speaker 1: is investing in Rumble. It's now public news at the
Speaker 1: Wall Street Journal put out there Peter thal jd Vance
Speaker 1: a bunch of people like that, people with political influence,
Speaker 1: people with strong economic ties, people with deep resources. Right now,
Speaker 1: in fact, Rumble has sued Google in that case is
Speaker 1: going into the discovery age. So because Rumble planned a
Speaker 1: certain approach, a disciplined methodological approach to being able to
Speaker 1: uh meaningfully compete and provide an independent platform, It's gonna
Speaker 1: be very hard for Google and YouTube and the rest
Speaker 1: to take him out. It's gonna be very hard for
Speaker 1: them to remove them from the store. They're already like
Speaker 1: the various apps. That's their current monopolistic source of control
Speaker 1: is the control of apps on phones and and on laptops,
Speaker 1: Apple and Google. That's one of the key places that
Speaker 1: needs to be attacked and legally to to stop that
Speaker 1: monopolistic power from continuing to be able to use for
Speaker 1: speech control purposes. But I think the approach Rumble is taking,
Speaker 1: I mean Russell brand is announced he's gonna be doing
Speaker 1: exclusive things. A whole bunch of other people saying they're
Speaker 1: gonna be doing exclusive things on Rumble. Rumble continues to
Speaker 1: upgrade and improve it's technology, it's technological capacity and capability.
Speaker 1: Run by Chris Pavlovski, who's deeply personally committed to creating
Speaker 1: a free speech space that's independent and separate from cancel culture.
Speaker 1: I think Rumble maybe a meaningful competitor, and I don't
Speaker 1: think they'll be able to take him out. And that's
Speaker 1: one of the best white pills in recent time period
Speaker 1: during this era. Yeah, so I see, I see light
Speaker 1: and what I see, as you said, we need to
Speaker 1: get this court of public opinion to turn. Obviously they
Speaker 1: understand that. So that's their attack vector. So that's part
Speaker 1: of this. Viva Vendetta's speech is trying to attack the
Speaker 1: public perception. But at the same time, UM, you know,
Speaker 1: just back to entertain The one thing I was thinking
Speaker 1: is um he was he was growing so fast. He
Speaker 1: was adding over a hundred thousand people per day on Instagram,
Speaker 1: a hundred thousand people a day, and he has a
Speaker 1: message that's very similar to UM to Jordan Peterson's which
Speaker 1: is suck it up, pull yourself up by your bootstraps.
Speaker 1: So what if you got dealta bad hand, it's the
Speaker 1: hand you have, Play it the best you can. You know, uh,
Speaker 1: slap yourself. It's up to you kind of a thing
Speaker 1: like that. And that's obviously a totally different message than
Speaker 1: what we get from mainstream media, which is it's okay,
Speaker 1: you're a victim, you can never get ahead. And um.
Speaker 1: What I see both from the rise of Jordan Peterson
Speaker 1: and with Andrew Tait is like there's a need for that,
Speaker 1: like people want that, and so there's this massive market,
Speaker 1: which of course why I want to shut down, but
Speaker 1: that's encouraging. You mentioned Elon must trying to buy Twitter
Speaker 1: when he put that bid in, and it was all
Speaker 1: about opening up for free speech. So it's really to
Speaker 1: me it was like this free speech the pride. The
Speaker 1: Twitter stock jumped big time with gain at a time
Speaker 1: when the rest of the markets were dropping. That again
Speaker 1: shows there's this massive thirst for freedom of speech. The
Speaker 1: price drove up, um, the rise of Rumble, So there's
Speaker 1: all these things. So I do see light, I do
Speaker 1: see hope. Um. But at the same time, man, they're
Speaker 1: coming after us. Hard. It's coming after us hard. I
Speaker 1: made the comment to my wife a couple of weeks ago,
Speaker 1: and I said, uh, I think there's above average chance
Speaker 1: within the next two years I might not be able
Speaker 1: to be in the United States doing what I'm doing,
Speaker 1: maaning being critical of the government. Um, what's your under
Speaker 1: over on that? Where do you think we're going in
Speaker 1: the next couple of years. Well, the way I put
Speaker 1: it is, there's no great hero story without a great villain,
Speaker 1: and we definitely have a great villain. And the only
Speaker 1: question is how many of us are going to be
Speaker 1: capable of being great heroes. Because I think that capacity
Speaker 1: is there, we are going to face a lot worse.
Speaker 1: They are doing things they've never done before. They're trying
Speaker 1: to establish precedents they've never utilized before. That means they're
Speaker 1: coming for the rest of us. Alex Jones is again
Speaker 1: the canary in the coal mine. They're going after the
Speaker 1: president the United States. That answers all your questions about
Speaker 1: what's the chances they go after me if you they
Speaker 1: see you as a threat, They answer is high. But
Speaker 1: the upside of this is it presents an opportunity for
Speaker 1: people to prove the courage of their character. You know,
Speaker 1: Poncho Villa'd rather die on my feet than live on
Speaker 1: my knees. Provides a lot of you know, med your
Speaker 1: Evers said, you know, most men die a thousand deaths
Speaker 1: every day. I'm only gonna die once it. You know,
Speaker 1: great adversary, great evil presents an opportunity for great courage,
Speaker 1: great honor, and great truth. And we're all going to
Speaker 1: get the opportunity. And the American people and the people
Speaker 1: around the world are going to get the chance to
Speaker 1: show that. And I still have my I love to bet.
Speaker 1: I'm a gambler by nature. I like sports betting, I
Speaker 1: like political betting, you name it. I will always bet
Speaker 1: on the conscience and the soul and the heart and
Speaker 1: the mind of the ordinary, everyday person to resist this
Speaker 1: and to maintain the fight for freedom and liberty moving forward.
Speaker 1: So good, so good. I don't want to add anything
Speaker 1: on to that. I think that's a good place for
Speaker 1: us to break because, um, that's a that's a that's
Speaker 1: a message of hope, it's a message to rally behind.
Speaker 1: And I think, um, yeah, Unfortunately, we have heroes rise up.
Speaker 1: Unfortunately also have martyrs in the movement. Um and uh
Speaker 1: but I think when we stand up for ideologies, it's
Speaker 1: stronger than anything that the other side can throw at you.
Speaker 1: So you you said it perfectly with that, will get
Speaker 1: and sign it off. Robert Um. You know I'm gonna
Speaker 1: link to your Twitter. I know you're super active on there.
Speaker 1: Anything else you want to call attention to, everyone should Yeah.
Speaker 1: If people want to find all the content any and
Speaker 1: also be part of a community that shares similar in
Speaker 1: first as we've been discussing today, they can get that
Speaker 1: at Viva Barnes Law dot locals dot com and what
Speaker 1: is that. It's a locals community, so Locals as part
Speaker 1: of it was owned by Rumble. It's an independent platform
Speaker 1: to replace Patreon or play, subscribe to are and really
Speaker 1: replace Facebook. So people get to make their own post.
Speaker 1: I post, exclude, I post a Barnes Brief there every day.
Speaker 1: That's curated news and information content from across the globe.
Speaker 1: We do exclusive videos. They have a Hush a series
Speaker 1: called Hush Hush, which is about the alternative interpretation of
Speaker 1: events various conspiracy theories that have been debated over time,
Speaker 1: everything from the Kennedy assassination to the moon landing. We
Speaker 1: discuss and debate, book reviews, movie reviews, but also people
Speaker 1: get to interact with one another, They get to post themselves,
Speaker 1: they get to comment, and it creates a community free
Speaker 1: of algorithmic manipulation, free of subject matters, censorship, free of
Speaker 1: trolls and harassers and stalkers, where people really get to
Speaker 1: share ideas about how do they make the world a
Speaker 1: better place in these very unique times we face. That's awesome.
Speaker 1: Everyone should check it out. We're gonna make sure it's
Speaker 1: linked down below, and with that we'll sign it off.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Robert, thanks everybody than