Speaker 1: Robert, thanks for joining me today. Uh, I'm happy to
Speaker 1: have you back. I've been following along with all this
Speaker 1: stuff you've been talking about. I am I'm shocked. I'm
Speaker 1: alarmed of what's going on. There's attacks happening all over
Speaker 1: the place, and so I've been one to talk to
Speaker 1: you for a couple of weeks. I'm glad we finally
Speaker 1: got a chance to do this. Absolutely so um Man,
Speaker 1: there's so many things that, so many things to dive into,
Speaker 1: so many topics to jump into. UM, let's start with
Speaker 1: the one, um, a big one, and then we can
Speaker 1: dive down. So UM I've been talking about been seen.
Speaker 1: It looks like we have a tax on free speech
Speaker 1: from like almost every angle. I've been saying that I
Speaker 1: believe we're in a war. Um. It's just a war
Speaker 1: of information and money and so um on the information front. Um.
Speaker 1: If the powers that be are losing their grip on
Speaker 1: the narrative, then they have to up their game to
Speaker 1: win the war on information, and so they need to
Speaker 1: find ways to censor people, silence people, et cetera. So
Speaker 1: I've been seeing this as this attack on free speech
Speaker 1: from multiple angles. So a couple of ones that I've
Speaker 1: seen are the Alex Jones trial. Right, Um, they're trying
Speaker 1: to use something that has this unanimous consensus that everybody
Speaker 1: thinks is bad and use that to chip away. We
Speaker 1: have the Trump January six um thing going on, and
Speaker 1: then we had this Tornado cash which was like a
Speaker 1: public utility or protocol. But I think they all look
Speaker 1: like a tax on free speech to me. What's your
Speaker 1: take on that? No doubt. And in fact, the case
Speaker 1: that a lot of people have not paid enough attention
Speaker 1: to is the Alex Jones trials. So in those cases,
Speaker 1: they're using it as a test case to whether you
Speaker 1: can basically run show trials in America, complete show trials.
Speaker 1: So they have gutted him of all of his procedural rights.
Speaker 1: Not allowed to bring motions to dismiss not allowed to
Speaker 1: bring motions for summary judgment, Not allowed to challenge the
Speaker 1: legal sufficiency of the case against him, not allowed even
Speaker 1: to testify on his own behalf as to his innocence.
Speaker 1: He the only in fact that the trial that's guilty
Speaker 1: until proven guiltier where he is not allowed to defend himself,
Speaker 1: where evidence against him is introduced, but he is not
Speaker 1: allowed to impeach or cross examine that evidence in a
Speaker 1: meaningful way now. In fact, for example, in the Connecticut
Speaker 1: trial going on right now, the judges said, there's one
Speaker 1: name that cannot even be talked about in the entire trial,
Speaker 1: and that's Hillary Clinton. That's how insane the cases, even
Speaker 1: though Hillary Clinton has a lot to do with how
Speaker 1: that trial came about. So uh and and the reason
Speaker 1: for that is their secondary objective. Uh, they're stripping of
Speaker 1: all of his proceed Drill writes his day in court.
Speaker 1: He hasn't given any day in court his right to
Speaker 1: trial by Jerry on the merits. He's being denied his
Speaker 1: right to trial by Jerry on the merits. Uh. They
Speaker 1: claim that he didn't participate in discovery, but anybody watching
Speaker 1: the trial realizes he must have, because they have more
Speaker 1: discovery the other side than anybody's ever had to give
Speaker 1: in any case. It's it's about ultimately using him as
Speaker 1: an example to take away other people's speech because the
Speaker 1: legal president they're establishing. Because the other unique factor here
Speaker 1: is Joe is being sued and for like unfair competition
Speaker 1: and trade laws and consumer protection laws. But the people
Speaker 1: suing him are not consumers. There are people who disagree
Speaker 1: with what he said about topics over the years, um
Speaker 1: and in instead it's basically a defamation case. Yet they're
Speaker 1: being allowed to sue under these theories that no one's
Speaker 1: ever heard of being applied in this context before. But
Speaker 1: the it's not only that. The constitutional requirement is that
Speaker 1: you can't be sued for defamation unless you say a
Speaker 1: specifically factual statement that's false that you know to be
Speaker 1: false about someone specific. So that's how we protect robust
Speaker 1: free speech. We uh, there's no such thing as a
Speaker 1: wrong idea in America. Yet they're trying to gut all
Speaker 1: of that because in the Jones case, he never talked
Speaker 1: about the people that are suing him, never mentioned him
Speaker 1: by name, never referenced him. So forth, the people that
Speaker 1: are suing him, there's only one or two people that
Speaker 1: even got referenced directly or indirectly. Almost all the people
Speaker 1: are suing him include an 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 opinion.
Speaker 1: 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 got.
Speaker 1: People saw me on Info Wars, even from my own
Speaker 1: daughter who's like, he's such a bad man and he
Speaker 1: said these bad things. And I told my daughter, I'm like, look, okay,
Speaker 1: so he said bad things. It made people feel bad,
Speaker 1: like that's wrong, and I don't approve that, and he
Speaker 1: shouldn't have said that. Okay, whatever, But like it's not illegal,
Speaker 1: it's not illegal. It shouldn't be. Um. You know, in
Speaker 1: his in his defense to what he said, he's like,
Speaker 1: you know, he goes live whatever four hours a day,
Speaker 1: so that's whatever, twenty hours a week, uh whatever, almost
Speaker 1: a hundred hours a month he's live. He said. The
Speaker 1: total amount of time he talked about that topic was
Speaker 1: twenty four minutes, I think, is what he said. And
Speaker 1: he said the same thing as you. He never mentioned
Speaker 1: anybody's name, He never directly said anything whatever. Um. And
Speaker 1: some of the comments I got from other people were like, well,
Speaker 1: he used this to his advantage. He's trying to gain
Speaker 1: from this. I'm like, he talked about it twenty four minutes.
Speaker 1: The media has talked about hundreds of hours. Who's using
Speaker 1: what to gain? But digging back into some of the
Speaker 1: things that you said, because it's way worse than I
Speaker 1: had even imagined. Um, it's a way worse not even imagined.
Speaker 1: So they're denying him all these things to the point
Speaker 1: that you're making um and I didn't write them all down,
Speaker 1: But um, how are they able to do that? I mean,
Speaker 1: is it because they have a judge that's just going
Speaker 1: along with it and they're doing that? I mean, will
Speaker 1: he be able to appeal this? I mean, I I
Speaker 1: understand laws are being changed and it's becoming more and
Speaker 1: more unfair, but for the ones that are still there,
Speaker 1: I mean, doesn't isn't there some sort of recourse there?
Speaker 1: There should? The problem is it's the failure of the
Speaker 1: judicial branch, and the judicial branch is not stepping up
Speaker 1: to meet and protect Alex Jones's rights because he's Alex Jones.
Speaker 1: So the other dynamic is that there's sort of an
Speaker 1: underlying class conflict in all of this because most of
Speaker 1: Jones's 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 morn. 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: back 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
Speaker 1: sudden I lose my right to free speech. Without the
Speaker 1: freedom of payments, there is no freedom, precisely. And so
Speaker 1: currency is power, and the currency is the means by
Speaker 1: which speech is expressed and the means by which speech
Speaker 1: has heard. Which is always important for people to remember
Speaker 1: that what they're trying to do is prohibit our ability
Speaker 1: to hear what we choose to hear. And that's part
Speaker 1: of free speech. It's not just the right to speak.
Speaker 1: It's the right to hear what we want to hear.
Speaker 1: Freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom
Speaker 1: of belief, freedom of religion, freedom of pressed. That's what
Speaker 1: they all come back to, the right for me to
Speaker 1: hear what I want to hear, not the government to
Speaker 1: gate keep it for me. Uh. And so they were
Speaker 1: always going to go after anybody in the crypto space
Speaker 1: that they thought they could mean that's a lot of
Speaker 1: what the sec actions are. They're trying to convert everything
Speaker 1: into a secure transaction as if it's a publicly traded stock,
Speaker 1: when that's a real reach in my view, they've they've
Speaker 1: always to uh expanded the definition of security to reach
Speaker 1: things that were not originally intended in the legislation. I mean,
Speaker 1: you see it so many different places. The FDA trying
Speaker 1: to regulate medicine, the U. S d A trying to
Speaker 1: regulate little Amish family farmers. Uh. And so the same
Speaker 1: context here is they want to be able to get
Speaker 1: in and restrict your ability to express yourself and have
Speaker 1: meaningful power to have your voice heard and to hear
Speaker 1: what you want to hear by using the disguise that
Speaker 1: this is about monetary control of a financial instrument. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so um. And it's also because of encryption. So I
Speaker 1: think it's the encryption that's been upheld as free speech.
Speaker 1: It's like it's code. They printed it out, they took
Speaker 1: it to the Supreme Court and they said, yeah, that
Speaker 1: is code. Um. And then also the President that this
Speaker 1: sets too because it's a public utility. So typically people
Speaker 1: are sanctioned or nations are sanctioned. Maybe there's some due
Speaker 1: process there where that person could defend themselves maybe, um,
Speaker 1: But we don't have a public utility. So because a
Speaker 1: criminal drove on a road, now we're gonna sanction the road.
Speaker 1: Because because the criminal drove in a car, we're gonna
Speaker 1: sanction a car. Because the criminal used a protocol, then
Speaker 1: we're gonna sanction a protocol. What kind of precedent does
Speaker 1: that set? All of it kind of reflects a broader
Speaker 1: principle of what they allow to have, who they allowed
Speaker 1: to give privacy and secrecy to. Right, It's it's always fails,
Speaker 1: Like I always get a kick out of the government
Speaker 1: that says any means of privacy or any means of
Speaker 1: secrecy will be the key for criminals to do bad acts.
Speaker 1: Yet somehow when it comes to the government privacy and
Speaker 1: secrecy or absolute must we they must have things classified, etcetera.
Speaker 1: But I mean, isn't the same government that told us
Speaker 1: secrecy equals criminality, privacy equals criminality. So the now we
Speaker 1: it's a good transition. It goes into the Trump case.
Speaker 1: So it's like, here you have Trump, but the government
Speaker 1: is asserting that. The deep state is asserting that administrative
Speaker 1: bureaucrats you call it, the national security apparatus, called whatever,
Speaker 1: the administ exactly, the administrative state. These are people that
Speaker 1: have 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 they,
Speaker 1: the deep state, get to unilaterally decide what do people
Speaker 1: get to see and hear, even though nobody gave them
Speaker 1: that power, not the people, not the Constitution. I just
Speaker 1: I mean hearing that. I just don't see how they
Speaker 1: have any leg to stand on to the point that
Speaker 1: you're making, Uh, there's there's specifically don't have the power
Speaker 1: to do that. They're they're trying to take it, but
Speaker 1: they don't have it, And so what's what what lady
Speaker 1: do they have to stand on? And and I guess
Speaker 1: then in this is this something that's again sort of
Speaker 1: like the show trial. Um, they're taking something that maybe
Speaker 1: has this big unanimous kind of consent. And we'll get
Speaker 1: more into this, uh uh framing of these MAGA people.
Speaker 1: 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 injury trial after jury trial. They're just politically biased.
Speaker 1: So they can have somebody completely guilty and they let
Speaker 1: him walk because they like his politics. They can have
Speaker 1: someone completely innocent and they railroad him because they dislike
Speaker 1: his politics. So I say that Martin Luther King had
Speaker 1: a better chance at a fair trial in nineteen fifties
Speaker 1: Birmingham than any MAGA or Trump supporter has in the
Speaker 1: district of Columbia. And so because the the d C
Speaker 1: jurors are the grand jury and the trial jury, and
Speaker 1: you have a lot of weak need, politically corrupt judges
Speaker 1: in the process, that's how this case could somebodyill end
Speaker 1: up in an indictment, which would be utterly insane. It
Speaker 1: would be without legal president, without legal merit. It would
Speaker 1: be the open, overt political weaponization of the criminal justice
Speaker 1: system for a corrupt and competent president to blame to
Speaker 1: actually take out his political opposition. I mean, here you
Speaker 1: have Biden's administration trying to indict the the candidate who
Speaker 1: is leading in the elections against him. This is something
Speaker 1: you hear about from third world nations, but it is
Speaker 1: right now contemporary reality in America. Well, and um, when
Speaker 1: Trump was running against Biden last time in this whole
Speaker 1: 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: and 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 court's 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, one after the other.
Speaker 1: I mean, they destroyed Star Wars, they destroyed 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 speech is hurtful speech.
Speaker 1: So 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 disagreeable one another. What do you need ninety four
Speaker 1: safe spaces? And it's just one after the other. And
Speaker 1: it's that kind of mindset that is now in places
Speaker 1: of power within the press, within the academy, and within
Speaker 1: this and within the government at multiple levels of the bureaucracy,
Speaker 1: and they're trying to weaponize everything around them. And that's
Speaker 1: why they want to use these test case examples, whether
Speaker 1: it's Alex Jones or Trump, to see how much can
Speaker 1: they just purely politically weaponize the process, ignore all of
Speaker 1: 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 It is 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, from from every different
Speaker 1: angle we want to look at um. And so you
Speaker 1: said this is similar to the nineteen thirties. Another thing
Speaker 1: I look at is again back to kind of my
Speaker 1: original statement of a war of information. And so they
Speaker 1: need to control the narrative. The Internet has caused them
Speaker 1: to lose that narrative because now we can all converse
Speaker 1: without their mainstream media. Now we see the rise of
Speaker 1: the alternative news sources that are you know, beating them
Speaker 1: in every angle. The Joe Rogans gained two hundred million views, um, etcetera.
Speaker 1: And so if they're not able to control that, like
Speaker 1: and Alex Jones, they did delete him off the face
Speaker 1: of the earth, but yet he's still alive. So then
Speaker 1: well what comes next? So I guess sue him into oblivion.
Speaker 1: That's kind of the point that you made earlier. But
Speaker 1: also if you look back in the US history, twice
Speaker 1: in the last hundred years, they've made it illegal to
Speaker 1: say anything critical of the state. Right was one the
Speaker 1: Smith Act, the Sedition Act, and so they could just
Speaker 1: say it's a crime to say anything critical and they've
Speaker 1: done it before. Do you see that being a reality
Speaker 1: or a danger or is there anything that I'm missing
Speaker 1: in that historical lens. Well that's where the January six
Speaker 1: cases are very dangerous, as well as some of the
Speaker 1: Trump cases, because what they're trying to do is re
Speaker 1: invoke the specter of the Sedition Act. So the Sedition Act,
Speaker 1: for people that don't know what you know, was pasted
Speaker 1: during World War One and it was utilized and it
Speaker 1: was a different variation. We first tried the alien and
Speaker 1: sedition laws back in the right at the beginning of
Speaker 1: the founding of the country. Rightfully, our core founding generation
Speaker 1: got it stopped and reversed so that it never came
Speaker 1: back again. And and and it took, you know, about
Speaker 1: two hundred years before it actually came back again in
Speaker 1: one way, shape or form. But it took at least
Speaker 1: a hundred years before hundred twenty years or so before
Speaker 1: it came back at all. And what happened was during
Speaker 1: World War One, people forget. A presidential candidate was actually
Speaker 1: put in prison, Eugene V. Debs for saying for only
Speaker 1: for speech, he said he was opposed to World War
Speaker 1: One and you opposed the draft. They called that sedition.
Speaker 1: They locked him up, they put him in federal prison.
Speaker 1: So they're looking to that. And when I started hearing
Speaker 1: talking the January six cases of rather than treating it
Speaker 1: as a jet a basic trespass riot case, which is
Speaker 1: what almost all of the alleged criminal conduct could be
Speaker 1: labeled as. And there's a lot of peculiarities about how
Speaker 1: everything came about in that context, why the security was
Speaker 1: strangely missing, why some security people were engaged in provocative
Speaker 1: behavior at attacking the crowd. Uh, you know, the a
Speaker 1: lot of people that went in there didn't realize it
Speaker 1: was illegal because they showed up later and the doors
Speaker 1: were opened and they're walking around. So there's all those issues.
Speaker 1: There's whether or not the government was completely turns out
Speaker 1: like over seventy or eighty undercover Feds were part of
Speaker 1: the crowd from various information that's already come out, So
Speaker 1: there's a lot of reason to be suspect about what
Speaker 1: really happened that day. But putting that aside, even in
Speaker 1: the worst case interpretation of it, the behavior is behavior
Speaker 1: that is just your old school trespass, rioty, disturbing the
Speaker 1: peace kind of crimes. This happens on a regular basis
Speaker 1: throughout America. Usually it's almost always the left doing it,
Speaker 1: you know, taking over a government building that was prominent
Speaker 1: throughout the nineteen sixties, all those things that's you know,
Speaker 1: it's disturbing the the piece, it's a trespass, etcetera. And
Speaker 1: then all of a sudden start talking about sedition and
Speaker 1: obstruction and conspiracy, and I was like, whoa that. What
Speaker 1: that is attempting to do is to use the January
Speaker 1: six cases because it's another example where it's the District
Speaker 1: of Columbia. So you got a corrupt jury pull at
Speaker 1: the grand jury level, corrupt jury pull at the trial level.
Speaker 1: A lot of judges who are part of the swamp
Speaker 1: don't want to judge and govern and discipline the swamp.
Speaker 1: The prosecutors are all connected to the swamp. Uh, So
Speaker 1: you have a very corrupted system of justice, and they
Speaker 1: want to take what they're doing in the District of
Speaker 1: Columbia and export it everywhere across America. And that's scary
Speaker 1: problem number one. Scary problem number two is they're using
Speaker 1: the sedition laws to start to expand the prosecution. And
Speaker 1: sedition laws are basically just speech laws. They really are
Speaker 1: day that you engaged in a certain public protest or
Speaker 1: public speech or other conduct, and consequently we're going to
Speaker 1: call it a crime you can serve the rest of
Speaker 1: your life in federal prison for because we don't like
Speaker 1: the purpose upset speech. I've always considered the sedition laws
Speaker 1: laws that are unconstitutional and never should have been allowed
Speaker 1: to exist in the first place. We have we already
Speaker 1: have criminal laws for treason, we have criminal laws for
Speaker 1: everything on under the earth. Uh, that could possibly be
Speaker 1: a crime. We don't need to create new criminal laws
Speaker 1: that can be used to target and punished protests. But
Speaker 1: that's exactly what this is. And and that and so
Speaker 1: that that old sedition president is now coming back for
Speaker 1: the first time in about a century a hundred years
Speaker 1: by the in the January six cases. And that would
Speaker 1: be something to watch because they want to use those
Speaker 1: cases to establish a new precedent that they can accuse
Speaker 1: anyone that is a has unapproved opinions that they consider
Speaker 1: threatning to the government's well being as sedition, which is
Speaker 1: super scary. Um. But um, I guess also I'm always
Speaker 1: trying to find a sliver of hope here. Um. We
Speaker 1: saw these Druconian measures and these crazy laws. To your point,
Speaker 1: I wasn't aware, but a presidential candidate went to prison
Speaker 1: over speech. Um. But then it got repealed and things
Speaker 1: got better. So we've seen things like this go in
Speaker 1: before and get overturned. We're going back down the same
Speaker 1: road again. Um. It's scary, but maybe it gets overturned
Speaker 1: again at some point. Well, I I think it's up
Speaker 1: to the people. I think the one restraining all of
Speaker 1: these cases, whether it's the Alex Jones cases, Donald Trump case,
Speaker 1: the January six cases, that the cryptocurrency area related cases
Speaker 1: is it. It's all gonna be. It's all only gonna
Speaker 1: change if the courts have either the confidence or the
Speaker 1: courage to step forward, and that's only going to happen,
Speaker 1: or the legislature has the ability and willingness to step forward.
Speaker 1: That's only gonna happen if the court of public opinion
Speaker 1: is sufficiently outrage. So when this was tried by corrupt
Speaker 1: actors in the yearly eighteen hundreds into the and Sedition Acts,
Speaker 1: it was public outrage that led to the repeal of
Speaker 1: those laws when it was done to eugen v. Debs,
Speaker 1: and then we had the Palmer raids in nineteen nineteen.
Speaker 1: The the Jager Hoover used all of these political oriented
Speaker 1: cases to rise to power and create the independent FBI
Speaker 1: that now is one of the most corrupt institutions in
Speaker 1: American law enforcement and the and the whole justice system.
Speaker 1: What there was enough public outrage in the nineteen twenties
Speaker 1: and nineteen thirties that all got repealed and pushed back
Speaker 1: in the deep state drew back the nineteen seventies, the
Speaker 1: same thing I mean, after we had when can it
Speaker 1: be assassinated another Kennedy assassinated, a king, assassinated Malcolm X,
Speaker 1: assassinated a president taken out in Nixon. Then that's when
Speaker 1: there was enough public outrage about what's going on in
Speaker 1: our government. That led to the mk Ultra investigations, the
Speaker 1: assassination investigations, exposing the deep state, exposing the CIA, exposing
Speaker 1: the NSA, exposing the FBI with cointel pro due to
Speaker 1: the thing that media, So it always comes back to
Speaker 1: the same thing. It's the power and the will of
Speaker 1: the people, because it's the fifth pillar power under all
Speaker 1: the other pillars of power. If public perception falls, then
Speaker 1: the whole system falls. So it's very matrix is in
Speaker 1: that respect, and so it's the best way to defeat
Speaker 1: the system. The best way to stop these abuses is
Speaker 1: to take the red pill and give it to everybody else.
Speaker 1: And if enough people get it, enough, people share it, enough,
Speaker 1: people speak out about it, that's when things will change. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I was as as you were talking about this, I
Speaker 1: was thinking about this. Um. I was trying to find
Speaker 1: the number here, but I can't remember top of my head.
Speaker 1: But this was January. The House of Representatives and later
Speaker 1: the Senate began reviewing a document entitled Communist Goals for
Speaker 1: taking Over America to contained an agenda of forty five
Speaker 1: separate issues um that in hindsight were quite shocking and
Speaker 1: then equally setting today. So UM, I forget who the
Speaker 1: president was, maybe was was whoever that was like taking
Speaker 1: on communism, and then there was the McCarthy era whatever.
Speaker 1: So anyway, um, on January tenth, the House Represents received
Speaker 1: this document and they had these forty five declared goals
Speaker 1: of communism. Uh. Many of these what we've seen all
Speaker 1: over the place, but one of which, I forget it's
Speaker 1: down like number thirty or forty, was to discredit and
Speaker 1: destroy the FBI, like lose all credibility of the FBI. Um.
Speaker 1: And and that's kind of where we're at right now.
Speaker 1: That's what we're seeing. Yeah, I mean, the FBI has
Speaker 1: managed to do it to itself. So you had the
Speaker 1: Feddle Bureau of Investigation created by Jaeger Hoover, and it
Speaker 1: was always had a political bias, but it was political bias,
Speaker 1: wasn't a partisan bias. And that's what's changed now the FB.
Speaker 1: Like I just saw a Harvard poll yesterday, more than
Speaker 1: half of Republicans don't like, don't trust, don't respect the FBI.
Speaker 1: That's unimaginable Just five years ago. The biggest defenders of
Speaker 1: the FBI have been your historical conservative Republican in America.
Speaker 1: But what they've witnessed over the lad and this is
Speaker 1: where they've made mistakes. They've overreached. Like if they had
Speaker 1: had limited themselves to just uh, the January six cases,
Speaker 1: they might have got away with it without much public
Speaker 1: scrutiny or blowback. But when you go after Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: a man who just won seventy five million votes, a
Speaker 1: man who's the leading candidate to get the presidency in
Speaker 1: four a man who has a has a the strongest
Speaker 1: base of any American politician in the country and quite
Speaker 1: sometime since probably Ronald Reagan, and the depth and intensity
Speaker 1: of support of his audience, of his of his fans,
Speaker 1: going back to that he he doesn't have viewers, Donald
Speaker 1: Trump has fans. Um that that has backfired on them
Speaker 1: politically inert and it's where if they were smart, they
Speaker 1: would care about their public perception and step back from this.
Speaker 1: But you have some The most dangerous thing we faced
Speaker 1: currently is that the Court of public opinion might not
Speaker 1: always be a check on these folks because they show
Speaker 1: a lack of self restraint. Uh, they show a lack
Speaker 1: of regard for the fact that they are being publicly
Speaker 1: lambasted for their bad acts, and that makes them more
Speaker 1: dangerous probably than they ever have been before. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: it's actually worse than that. And this kind of leads
Speaker 1: me to the next topic I want to jump into,
Speaker 1: which is um in the court of public opinion. To
Speaker 1: your point, maybe doesn't matter to them anymore because exactly
Speaker 1: what we're hearing in the United States. But also I
Speaker 1: saw it come out of Europe yesterday, but we'll talk
Speaker 1: about that. But basically what we're seeing in the United
Speaker 1: States is that, uh per Biden's speech, he gave two speeches.
Speaker 1: He gave one the one with the red background of
Speaker 1: the Marines in the background. The one before that, a
Speaker 1: few days before he said, oh, you Second Amendment supporters,
Speaker 1: what chance do you think you have against us? We
Speaker 1: have s six teens. So he's threatening Americans. That's pretty bold.
Speaker 1: But what I see angling from that is, um, he's
Speaker 1: basically saying, all you guys, your extremist with your views, Um,
Speaker 1: you have no chance, and he's demoralizing people, say you
Speaker 1: better just stand down, you stand no chance. Then went
Speaker 1: into the next speech singling out MAGA Republicans and they're
Speaker 1: the threat, they're the biggest danger, demonizing them, angling to
Speaker 1: the point where I think it's setting up for this
Speaker 1: indictment because what they're trying to do is demoralized people,
Speaker 1: discredit people, and make magat people the worst. So nobody's
Speaker 1: gonna want to stand up formatt. Well, I'm against what
Speaker 1: you're doing, but I don't want to stand up for
Speaker 1: MAGA because you've said MAGA is bad. But even worse
Speaker 1: than that, they're saying that it's a threat to our democracy.
Speaker 1: And so they asked, uh, I saw a question was
Speaker 1: asked of the White House Press Secretary Koree Pierre I
Speaker 1: think her name is, And they said, so, what what
Speaker 1: what defines this extremist? She said, Well, in extremist is
Speaker 1: anyone that doesn't go along with the mainstream ideas. And
Speaker 1: so what they're saying is, um, it's a threat to
Speaker 1: our democracy if you don't like what we say. So
Speaker 1: back to the point that you made the court the
Speaker 1: court of public opinion, anyone in the public opinion doesn't
Speaker 1: agree with and they say, well, you're a threat to
Speaker 1: democrat you're not going along with mainstream, even though Biden
Speaker 1: has a thirty eight percent approval ratings. So we could
Speaker 1: argue who who is mainstream, But um, that's a very
Speaker 1: dangerous president where they could ignore public perception because they
Speaker 1: don't agree with what we want, So it must be
Speaker 1: a threat to the democracy. It's very much sort of
Speaker 1: safe space ideology now being expressed in institutions of power.
Speaker 1: So it's it's the This is a whole generation of
Speaker 1: people who have grown up believing that if you disagree,
Speaker 1: then that makes you evil, that makes you bad, that
Speaker 1: makes you dangerous, that makes you hurtful, that makes you harmful, etcetera.
Speaker 1: It's what unites all of these threats, whether it's January
Speaker 1: six or Alex Jones or Donald Trump or Crypto all
Speaker 1: the rest. It's there's something hurtful, something harmful about your speech,
Speaker 1: and thus you are an extremist if you're advocating such
Speaker 1: hurtful and harmful speech. Also, their idea of democracy is
Speaker 1: a crop that they don't believe in democracy. When they
Speaker 1: say democracy, they mean them having all the power. And
Speaker 1: now the rest of the world has been saying this
Speaker 1: for over a hundred years. They say, when America comes
Speaker 1: talking about democracy, they mean American power controlling our society
Speaker 1: and our economy and our resources and our politicians. They
Speaker 1: don't mean actual democracy. Patrice Lamumbo gets elected, we helped
Speaker 1: coordinate his killing a year later in nineteen six one,
Speaker 1: and uh in in Africa with the great democratic Hope
Speaker 1: at the done. Uh. You know, we believe in democracy
Speaker 1: so much we facilitated and enabled and entrapped Nelson Mandela
Speaker 1: for arrest. So the rest of the world knows that
Speaker 1: America's when it says democracy doesn't mean democracy. But now
Speaker 1: the American people are discovering that too, that the American
Speaker 1: leaders don't mean democracy, they mean their governance. That you
Speaker 1: are challenging our ability to control your life, and that
Speaker 1: makes you a dangerous extremist with hurtful and harmful speech
Speaker 1: who must be excluded from polite society. They've been weaponizing
Speaker 1: the vaccine mandates as an example to go after and
Speaker 1: get rid of any closet Trump supporter or really closet
Speaker 1: free speech supporters, closet liberty supporter out of the government.
Speaker 1: I mean, I've been getting I've been hearing from people
Speaker 1: in every aspect of government, even some aspects that people
Speaker 1: might find surprising, the institutions they work for where they're
Speaker 1: being purged under the guise of a vaccine mandate. And
Speaker 1: so it's the same things. No dissident speech allowed. Any
Speaker 1: dissident speech must be banned, must be prohibited, people must
Speaker 1: be fired for it. But people must be removed from
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 1: dissident independent thought. It's almost identical to the list you
Speaker 1: went through. We're seeing it in lifetime that social stickmatizations.
Speaker 1: So if you look at the Bolshevik Revolution. You look
Speaker 1: at Mao's great leap forward or hit or whatever you want.
Speaker 1: But like a MoU's great leap forward, um, they had
Speaker 1: the Red Army, and the Red army was the people.
Speaker 1: It was the people turning on the other people. The
Speaker 1: government and the military can't control the people, so they
Speaker 1: need to get the people to turn on each other.
Speaker 1: And Mao had reflected and said, Wow, I can't believe
Speaker 1: how 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
Speaker 1: discourse to remove any kind of legal protection or precedence
Speaker 1: or constitutional protection, um. And then you know, once no
Speaker 1: one can talk anymore, and once there's no more protection,
Speaker 1: I guess than they can have their way. I was
Speaker 1: thinking about, UM. So, I recently published a book. It's
Speaker 1: on Amazon last month, is titled The Uncommunist Manifesto. So
Speaker 1: basically took the Communist Manifesto and just kind of rewrote it,
Speaker 1: and it's called the Uncommunist Manifesto. UM and so thinking
Speaker 1: a lot about communism and how communism seems like it's
Speaker 1: this old word, but really it's just all just been rebranded. Right.
Speaker 1: So in the original Communist Manifesto, Carl Marks that to
Speaker 1: summarize communism in one statement would be the abolition of
Speaker 1: private property. Today we have claud Schwab at the Weft
Speaker 1: saying you'll own nothing and be happy. Uh right. We
Speaker 1: had communism or socialism was the state controlling the means
Speaker 1: of production. Today from the Weft we see this public
Speaker 1: private partnership. And I think about this public private partnership
Speaker 1: where we now have. Zuckerberg told Rogan that, you know,
Speaker 1: the FBI came and talked to them, and um, Twitter
Speaker 1: had to put back on Alex Bernson because they found
Speaker 1: out through discovery that the government somehow deministrative had had
Speaker 1: pressured them to get him off, etcetera. So you kind
Speaker 1: of have this public private partnership where the private side
Speaker 1: is the social media, etcetera. Let's let's wipe him off
Speaker 1: the face of the earth. Uh. And then if that
Speaker 1: doesn't work for the people that get through that filter,
Speaker 1: the alex Jones, that still won't go away, Well that's
Speaker 1: where the public side comes in. And now we'll use
Speaker 1: the weapon of the d o J, the FBI or
Speaker 1: whatever against them. Yeah. Completely. And it's the way they
Speaker 1: they see power differently than our founding generation in the
Speaker 1: ordinary American we look at power and we see what
Speaker 1: purpose does it serve, what principal can in advance, and
Speaker 1: what restraints must operate within, and what methodology of approach
Speaker 1: of making decisions will be the best one. Over time
Speaker 1: they see power, they see any of these things, and
Speaker 1: they simply see a tool, a tool to be used
Speaker 1: for their objective and agenda. And it doesn't matter what
Speaker 1: it is. This is why you have these people doing
Speaker 1: things that College and missions screwing people over at college
Speaker 1: and missions for political reasons, excluding students. Uh. For for
Speaker 1: these reasons, people getting not getting promotions, getting emotions getting fired. Uh,
Speaker 1: in the employment context, advertising choices being made and marketing
Speaker 1: choices being made, and YouTube algorithm choices being made, and
Speaker 1: movie and TV choices being made, and book publishing choices
Speaker 1: being made. At every level of power, they see, how
Speaker 1: can I use this as a tool to advance my agenda,
Speaker 1: regardless of what that power is for, So the power
Speaker 1: supposed to have independent literary cultural value, they don't care.
Speaker 1: They see it as, oh, this is a means to
Speaker 1: get people to do what I want. If an employment
Speaker 1: is supposed to be about the job and whether you're
Speaker 1: qualified to do it, they don't care. They see, this
Speaker 1: is an opportunity for me to advance my political agenda.
Speaker 1: And once you understand that, you can predict where they're
Speaker 1: gonna go. And it is a very frightening place. I mean,
Speaker 1: you mentioned the the the V for Vendetta President speech
Speaker 1: that Biden where they literally took the background in the
Speaker 1: set from V for Vendetta where the guy is up there.
Speaker 1: You know, he even he even did the screaming bit.
Speaker 1: You know, he even did that bit, you know the
Speaker 1: I mean, the almost exactly like it. And it's it's
Speaker 1: because they see they watched movies like and B for
Speaker 1: Vendetta and they think, golly, gee, wouldn't it be great
Speaker 1: if we could be that government? You know, I mean
Speaker 1: they totally perverse mindset. But that's why we have to resist,
Speaker 1: because that's who these people are. Yeah, do you think, um, so,
Speaker 1: now we have all this censorship we talked about, you know,
Speaker 1: Andrew Tate getting deleted obviously, Alex Jones being the kind
Speaker 1: of poster child for that. Um But now we've you know,
Speaker 1: we see it. It's volatile, right. So then Alex Bernson,
Speaker 1: he got wiped off the face of Twitter because of
Speaker 1: talking about COVID, but now they had to let him
Speaker 1: back on. So now he's back, and now it seems
Speaker 1: like there's a lot of open talk about that stuff
Speaker 1: supposedly now, which is pretty interesting. But we're also seeing
Speaker 1: the rise of these, you know, the growth of these
Speaker 1: alternative platforms, the parlors, the rumbles, etcetera. Um, I mean,
Speaker 1: do you think they'll they'll probably continue to attack those
Speaker 1: right again, going back to kind of controlling the Free speech,
Speaker 1: Sedition Act, etcetera. I mean, they didn't to shut it
Speaker 1: all off, so even those other platforms, as as as
Speaker 1: they may be popping up. Uh, probably won't be allowed
Speaker 1: to stick around for much longer. I think they're they're
Speaker 1: gonna have some hurdles because the key was how to
Speaker 1: fight back intelligently. And so Elon Musk simply talking about
Speaker 1: and trying to buy Twitter, and now they're in lawsuits
Speaker 1: because it turned out Twitter has a lot more bots
Speaker 1: than they were admitting. So he thinks he over he
Speaker 1: overbought it. Now what he may get out of that
Speaker 1: is a much deeper discount and haircut and still end
Speaker 1: up owing it. But as soon as he talked about
Speaker 1: buying it, all of a sudden, Twitter became a lot
Speaker 1: less than sorious for a period of time. Still a
Speaker 1: lot of censorship that takes place, but not to the
Speaker 1: same scale as you know. Now you look at Rumble,
Speaker 1: Rumble is a meaningful competitor because of who is investing
Speaker 1: in Rumble. It's now public news at the Wall Street
Speaker 1: Journal put out there Peter thal jd Vance a bunch
Speaker 1: of people like that, people with political influence, people with
Speaker 1: strong economic ties, people with deep resources. Right now, in fact,
Speaker 1: Rumble has sued Google in that case is going into
Speaker 1: the discovery age. So because Rumble planned a certain approach,
Speaker 1: a disciplined, methodological approach to being able to uh meaningfully
Speaker 1: compete and provide an independent platform. It's gonna be very
Speaker 1: hard for Google and YouTube and the rest to take
Speaker 1: him out. It's gonna be very hard for them to
Speaker 1: remove them from the store. They're already like the various apps.
Speaker 1: That's their current monopolistic source of control is the control
Speaker 1: of apps on phones and and on laptops Apple and Google.
Speaker 1: That's one of the key places that needs to be
Speaker 1: attacked and legally to to stop that monopolistic power from
Speaker 1: continuing to be able to use for speech control purposes.
Speaker 1: But I think the approach Rumble is taking. I mean,
Speaker 1: Russell brand is announced he's gonna be doing exclusive things,
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of other people saying they're gonna be
Speaker 1: doing exclusive things on Rumble. Rumble continues to upgrade and
Speaker 1: improve it's technology, it's technological capacity and capability. Run by
Speaker 1: Chris Pavlovski, who's deeply personally committed to creating a free
Speaker 1: speech space that's independent and separate from cancel culture. I
Speaker 1: think Rumble maybe a meaningful competitor, and I don't think
Speaker 1: they'll be able to take him out and that's one
Speaker 1: of the best white pills in recent time period during
Speaker 1: this era. Yeah, so I see, I see light and
Speaker 1: what I see, as you said, we need to get
Speaker 1: this court of public opinion to turn. Obviously they understand that.
Speaker 1: So that's their attack vector. So that's part of this
Speaker 1: Viva Vendetta's speech is trying to attack the public perception.
Speaker 1: But at the same time, um, you know, just back
Speaker 1: to entertain The one thing I was thinking is, um,
Speaker 1: he was he was growing so fast. He was adding
Speaker 1: over a hundred thousand people per day on Instagram, a
Speaker 1: hundred thousand people a day, and he has a message
Speaker 1: that's very similar to um, to Jordan Peterson's, which is,
Speaker 1: suck it up, pull yourself up by your bootstraps. So
Speaker 1: what if you got dealta bad hand, it's the hand
Speaker 1: 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 You're
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. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: also have martyrs in the movement. Um and uh, but
Speaker 1: I think when we stand up for ideologies, it's stronger
Speaker 1: than anything that the other side can throw at you.
Speaker 1: So you you said it perfectly with that, will Ben
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