The idea of the false binary. What an illusion of choice does establishes the
baseline assumptions that nobody questions.
This is part of the fifth generation warfare that we've talked about.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is definitely an emotional,
psychological trap that people are in.
You're cheerleading for an insane ideology because you think you're winning.
The role we have is media.
How do we help everybody understand this is theater and you need to get back into the real world?
If you're opposed to the agenda, you should oppose it regardless listen to who's selling it to you.
Welcome back to the Independent Media Alliance. We're here to have a very in-depth
conversation about the nuance of free speech today, something that I'm very passionate about.
Obviously, I think everyone here very passionate about. But even within this
group, I mean, I don't know for sure, but I argue there's probably variances
on where we think that should be. And that's the whole point of the conversation today.
Obviously, this has become very, very relevant for a lot of different topics
we could discuss throughout this conversation.
For me, it's sort of like going back to the fire in a theater point and,
or even today with the idea of political violence being what I kind of argue
is the new hate speech, you know, violence is a thing, you know,
speech, but it's the overlay to it and, and where that line is drawn,
you know, somebody going,
making a joke about somebody doing something bad or somebody saying that person should be hurt.
And, you know, the words are violence overlap and all of that.
So that's the main point of today so let's get into it in general and why don't
we just start off well i know we'd in the past we wanted to um briefly introduce
each other you know if you guys want to do that today that's okay with me if
you guys want to say anything real quick go ahead and go around,
sure i'm not shy i'll jump in jason bermas independent journalist free thinker
and i'll throw it to bros hey everybody derek bros here with the conscious resistance
network happy to be here for another ima panel.
James corbett report.com and uh i'll throw it to charlie,
activistpost.com macroaggressions.io i'm les claypool and i play bass happy
62nd birthday les little lake good job appreciate it,
now i i actually don't know where the uh banner for our names are i'll tell
me point that to me later and i'll try to include that but let's go ahead and
start with um you know what i think is kind of the best starting point,
which is the fire in a theater.
And I'll kind of kick that off and where I think the, you know,
for me, let me put it this way.
I think this started with something that I already find to be a challenge on
what the constitutional right is.
I mean, the idea that it became this kind of line that was drawn well,
where, which opened the door, the shoe in the door of the conversation of that,
that allowance, you know, that words can be a problem in this circumstance,
but then that becomes a nuance.
Right. And so I argue that yelling almost anything we should get into,
but just saying fire in a theater could be an accident, could be deliberate.
Maybe you actually thought it,
you know, either way that other people are responsible for their actions.
So let's get into that, that main point and where we, and you know,
what we think about that and the overlaps to it. Anybody want to jump in? Go ahead.
I'll jump in because I hate the fire in a crowded theater line so much.
I have hated it since I first heard it when I was about 14. mean?
It is the most annoying thing I've ever heard on the internet.
On the internet, it is the most annoying thing. Just think about what that means.
It doesn't make any sense. It just throws open deliberate vagueness for anything
to be classified as potentially offensive or potentially dangerous.
There is no legal definition of fire. There is no legal definition of crowded.
There is no legal definition of theatre. What does it mean? doesn't mean
anything and it will be used a lot and it is used a lot they can just say twitter
is the public theater and shouting fire is saying vaccines are dangerous and
that kind of thing it it is deliberately vague to give people a tool they can
use whenever they want to use it and i hate it.
So i want to kind of throw in where my line is okay and i'm a free speech absolutist
now i think the question is, where does speech become either criminal,
in other words, prosecutable, or you have the right to take physical action against that speech?
And my argument is this, unless somebody is directly threatening your life or
others around you, okay, with force right there.
You don't have the right to take force against them. I would say that the one
exception, if that person is an authority figure who is directing others to take force against you.
In other words, the general that is saying you need to go raid that or take
that from that person and it is unjust.
Otherwise, I'm sorry, words are not violence.
You can say the most despicable thing about another person, about another entity.
You can call for an organization to be burnt to the ground.
You know, you can literally say, I want this person dead.
And if you are not directing people to do so, that may be abhorrent behavior.
Okay. But to me, that does not cross the line. And quite frankly,
has never really legally crossed the line.
They have constantly tried to take this idea of speech, especially in a public
forum to incite violence and the causation so that they can criminalize that later.
I think that is extremely dangerous.
And obviously what Kit just said about,
you know, there is no legal definition of what a theater is and can that be
a public square has constantly been exploited in the rhetoric,
not just in the last, you know,
10 to 15 years of cancel culture, But I would argue, you know,
you go back to the war of terror post 9-11 times and you had the same thing.
I'll give just one really quick example.
Michael Reagan, who was Ronald Reagan's son, had a right wing neocon talk show.
Actually ended up having him on twice on this program for his work with veterans,
I think on Memorial Day each year.
He called for me and Corey and Dylan, the three loose change filmmakers,
to be shot in front of a firing squad. That's his right.
He had nobody that was going to come and shoot us.
He had no way to get, you know, us to be arrested or into a trial.
We hadn't broken any laws.
If he wants to be an ignorant jackass and expose himself, I'm all for it.
I don't like people hiding their speech.
I don't like the term dog whistle or innuendo.
Say what you feel. That's what we're supposed to do.
Let's get a real bend on who these people are and combat that type of speech
with better speech. And that will end my intro rant.
Well, no, I mean, that's that's the whole point is that you combat speech you
don't like with more speech and better speech.
You don't do it with a billy club or a bullet or any of that nonsense.
In the last five, maybe seven years, the term stochastic terrorism has been
floated over and over and over.
And it's one of the most nonsensical phrases that has been injected into the
Western lexicon in recent memory.
If you're if you're a violent person, you're going to do violent things.
If you're a peaceful person, you're going to do peaceful things.
Very rarely is speech going to be the thing that incites you to violent action.
In most cases, it's violence being visited upon you first.
And most people are reactionary. Most people don't wake up in the morning and
go, I'm going to say the most insane,
hateful crap I can come up with in order to provoke a reaction from people.
There are bullies, sure, but 99 times out of 100, violence on the part of any
individual is in reaction to what's been done.
And so to claim, especially from the perspective of the state,
that there are now phrases or words that we can't use because they may be violent
when in almost every case, the state itself is raining down violence upon people.
People is like literal violence, physical violence, whether it be bombs,
bullets, whatever, you know, limiting rights. It doesn't matter.
The state is an inherent arbiter of violence. And they're the people that are
trying to say, oh, well, maybe your words hurt, but our bullets are fine.
Whoever wants to jump in next.
Who wants to go? I just want to add on to it seems like there's a bit of a sentiment,
which I totally agree with, that the speech is not really the root of the problem.
So I think with so many issues, whether it's speech or drugs or anything that
people want to ban, the root of the problem is not the item in question.
It's not the speech. It's not the drugs. It's not the guns.
It's a much deeper, I'd say, spiritual sickness, emotional sickness.
And trying to cordon speech or anything else off under force,
under, you know, bans or whatever else, whatever government authority is invoked,
it never really addresses the root problem. And I think the same is true of speech.
I'd like to get everyone, if you kind of just, you know, chime in on this,
unless you don't want to. We just thought we kind of like set the table.
Otherwise I can jump in again if you guys don't want to throw in your thoughts.
Well, going back to the fire in a theater analogy, Does everyone know where that came from?
You know, that's a good question. I'm sure there's a president.
The first use of that was a federal prosecutor by the name of Wurtz in the case
against Eugene Debs for having the temerity, the absolute gall to make a speech
suggesting people resist the military draft in World War I.
And, of course, Debs' defense is free speech. Of course. If we've got a First
Amendment, Congress shall make no law, right?
And so the federal prosecutor said, yes, of course, there's the First Amendment and free speech.
But what about if somebody is yelling fire in a crowded theater?
That was the first ever use of that analogy.
And it was then picked up by Oliver Wendell Holmes, who argued in the Schneck
case in 19, I think, 1918,
which was, again, prosecuting people for having the temerity to hand out flyers
suggesting that they should resist the military draft in World War One.
That, again, well, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.
That's where that analogy comes from. And I think that explains exactly what
that analogy has always been about and what it has always been aimed at,
which is suppressing political prevent.
And James is always why you're such a welcome part of this team.
And that's such a James Corbett addition to all that. I mean,
that's fantastic overlap to understand that it comes from something that was
not even about the actual threat, right?
That's the real crux of that. But I have more thoughts. But go ahead,
if anybody else wants to give their kind of overlay.
Well, just to build on James's point real quick. Sorry, Charlie, I'll throw it to you.
But this is the sort of the justification for the Espionage Act that has limited
the ability for journalists to report on real things that are happening in real
time ever since 1918. Yeah.
Charlie, go ahead. Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. Yeah,
a place where these words are actually going to hurt us is in the designation of domestic terrorist.
You know, if you're using it to classify somebody like that,
now we're talking about something totally different,
where this level of speech in this current iteration post-Patriot Act America,
where Antifa is being labeled as a domestic terrorist organization.
Now, all of a sudden, somebody starts going around calling you a domestic terrorist.
That's a little bit more than just an insult. It might be a legal designation
that could get you killed.
So this is something that I think we need to take into account moving forward,
that given the world that we live in,
and of course the right is enthusiastically cheerleading the Antifa stuff without
having the ability to comprehend two steps ahead, that it'll be turned on them
eventually at some point.
But this is where the language and the words might actually be violence.
You know how the left is always going on about words or violence and things like that.
Well, if you get labeled of domestic terrorists operating in the homeland on
the battlefield, that's more than just an insult. That might get you black bagged.
Well, I would just say this though, Charlie, you know, I refer to a lot of bad
people as gangsters, which they are.
I called, you know, Joe Biden, Joey B for years before he had dementia.
And you could argue that if I'm calling them a gangster, then you could invoke
a Rico case against them.
Or, you know, in the laws of the streets, he could be taken out by another quote unquote gangster.
I would be just very careful about what regular citizens are trying to designate.
Now, if again, you're a government official or you're somebody in power in that
arena of law enforcement and that can actually be taken against you, okay.
But let me say this, I also think that you have the right in the society,
even though it is overly used, to sue that person for defamation.
If there's somebody in that public arena and that gains traction,
that you are, in fact, a quote unquote domestic terrorist.
I would hope that you could get them on libel, you know, the same way.
That they got, you know, libel case for that 16 year old kid in the MAGA hat
who had a drum beat against him.
And all of a sudden, everybody was calling that kid a white supremacist. Right.
So, listen, I hate the language.
I hate the designate. I think it's totally and completely insane that you would
label any group a domestic terrorist organization,
especially one as, loosely affiliated as Antifa is.
I was covering the anti-fascists back in 2008, 2009 at the G20 when it was the black block.
Back then, I didn't like people wearing masks. I still don't.
It was one of the things that I thought was abhorrent in the whole COVID-1984 nightmare.
I again feel like if you believe in your speech you believe in your cause let
it show get out there at the same time you have the right to wear that mask
and until it crosses into the level of criminal behavior,
trespass destruction of property etc then it's not a crime uh and by the way
those crimes are not terrorism right we have laws on the books you know i'm
not i when i was in dc a few weeks to host that event.
I went over to the George Washington Masonic Memorial because it had been somewhere
that was really interesting to me. I'd been in the past.
They had a big thing for Albert Pike in the corner.
And I mentioned to the guy, I said, hey, what do you think about the Pike statue
that was ripped down and Trump talking about it going back up?
Now, I'm not for ripping down statues. I'm not for Albert Pike.
At the same time, I don't think people did that to each other.
Everything? How can you exaggerate it? And when you do that,
you end up exploiting the entire general populace under authoritarianism, under collectivism.
And that's extremely dangerous, in my opinion.
It's such a good point, Jason. And Ryan and I have talked about this plenty
when he comes in on Tuesday.
There's almost always, if not always,
existing laws on the books that address
whatever issue is being thrown
into the media sphere at any given point so if the laws already exist and you're
now creating a new statute you're now creating an additional portion to it what
you're doing effectively is sending a message to everybody else in on the planet going,
we have new ways to come after you because the ways that we traditionally used
don't fit the narrative or don't fit the agenda that we're trying to push forward.
Now, I'd like to give Roy a chance to chime in on his thoughts and kind of the origin part of this.
But if we could, I'd like to focus on like the principle because we will get
mired in the examples, which I do want to get into, like all that because we
all probably have 15 examples and how it's overlapping with policy.
But where we started where it was about the like fire in
a theater and like the principle of you know
i get like i said the absolutist in my opinion being a
free speech absolutist means there is literally no word that or
sentences you can say out loud that means that you
are because you have absolute you know your free speech can't be infringed so
where do you you know the point we started with was fire in a theater and if
you wanted to go ahead and chime in on maybe your thoughts on that basic premise
and i want to throw in some more thoughts yeah i get what you're saying with
all the examples and i think ultimately what we're dealing with here And I know
this example has been used to death.
1984, George Orwell. I reread it this summer.
I watched the movie for the first time. But it's basically they're bringing
in globally in each country the Ministry of Truth, thought police.
And so, you know, today it's Antifa. Tomorrow it's anti-Semitism.
The next day it's going to be the list is just going to get longer.
And so hate speech is thought crime. And that's what they're doing.
Essentially, they're legalizing these systems, Canada, Europe, UK, Mexico, you name it.
And so I think that's really what's going on. And, you know,
when we were all kids, we didn't really have these problems. Right.
You know, I was just thinking about this today. You know, maybe people should
be allowed to be racist. Right.
But maybe there is that one exception of death threats.
Who wants to be dealing with death threats? But I think ultimately what we're
really dealing with here is the installation of the Ministry of Truth writ large.
You live in Mexico. All of your neighbors are racist.
Hilariously, casually racist. It's okay.
So I'd like to throw in the, you know, so where I'm glad we can,
it sounds like most of us have a pretty similar standpoint.
And I, you know, if you, if you feel that there is like, like even say like
a death threat, like, you know, it's going beyond fire in a theater.
I'd like to flesh that out too. Like, again, I argue that we should go as far
back in the print, like to the principle, which is that there are no,
like, and this is where I even argue a lot of Americans probably disagree.
And that's why it'd be great to have somebody on that might even want to argue
that like the constitution is outdated and we should change it, which I disagree with.
But that the argument is that if i say go kill
that person it would be the person's responsibility who acted it
out but like jason brought up an excellent point from that all the
way down to something that's more benign the reality that
we how this got manipulated was the argument that the government should get
involved because the point is as he points out there's a legal process through
which you can sue somebody for doing like something like that and it's always
to the discretion of the judge now it could be obviously overturned if it's
a ridiculous ruling but judges can quite literally rule pretty much any way
they want at the end of the day and they could argue fire a theater.
You could argue as the theater owner, that guy said this and it destroyed my
business. You'd probably win that.
But the case is for the government to step in and say, you're not allowed to
say that because that might do some harm.
Like that's where, you know, where that line, needs to go back to.
And so again, I think it's all speech.
If absolutist or just what free speech means, I argue it should be every single
possible variation of that.
But so like a death threat, for example, like we could argue under the current
legal reality, which I argue would be unconstitutional, therefore Nolan Boyd
per Murbury versus Madison, for example, 1803.
Like that it's, if it's repugnant to the constitution, it's Nolan Boyd,
whether or not it's been voted on by a bunch of unconstitutional politicians.
But like that there, there's a line where a lot of Americans might say,
well, you can't threaten my life. Like you can't act out on that.
Um, you know, I, I want to get into like the Sue part as well,
but right on that, any more follow-up thoughts that anybody wants to add?
I'll throw something in there real quick.
Um, cause I know we're not talking about the, too much of the current events yet.
It's mainly just the principle, but it does kind of tie into things going on
with Pam Bondi coming out speaking about hate speech.
I just wanted to mention that when she was talking about hate speech,
which a bunch of people on the right, thankfully actually were calling out over
on Twitter on Elon's platform,
she got a community note where people added some context and
they link to a Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court
ruled that is legal to justify or celebrate violence or
to advocate or teach the duty necessity or propriety
of violence but not incitement to imminent violence
such as telling a mob with weapons to kill somebody so even under
what's constitutionally legally allowed some level of calls for violence is
considered constitutionally protected speech and that well that's interesting
because at least if i'm not very versed in the case but the argument sounds
like you're there and saying go get them and they all run out and go do something.
Now- That's the line right there. It says like, so if there's a mob of people
with weapons and they're about to lynch somebody, you say, do it,
then that's the line, according to the screen report. That's a perfect example because like.
I'm going to be airing it very hard on the side of the principal,
but myself right now I'm going, like you could make a legal argument that that
person would be involved with that violence, but see, this is the,
where that line gets blurred.
And so I argue today, even with something like that, because of the way the
government is abusing these things, the only way to fight it is to err on the
side of the principal, you know, and then who committed violence will be charged for that violence.
The crime is why Charles Manson got put in prison, right?
He, he didn't do any violence himself, But according to the state,
he orchestrated, encouraged and then provoked and ordered the violence so that
in and of itself should be viewed as a free speech case as opposed to any sort
of actual physical crime,
murder, anything like that.
It became a conspiracy to commit, and that's how the court system entraps other people.
But it's a very, very fuzzy area. I don't know if anybody has any thoughts about
that in particular, but that's the thing that popped into my head immediately.
Well, that's great. It's a rabbit hole we don't necessarily need to go down
right now, but the Charles Manson case was probably CIA all the way down to
discredit the hippie anti-war movement anyway.
Right, right. But that's a really interesting overlap as well,
though, right? So conspiracy to any number of things is arguably,
well, that is a crime, right?
But there might be a line where that would overlap, like you're saying,
to abuse that to go after somebody for speech.
But if you are planning a violent act and then people carry it out,
that's a very different situation. But these are all really great examples to
bring these things to mind about why we should be having this conversation.
Because right now, I mean, we can go wherever we want. I just wanted to really
get that principal point out there of all the different examples,
you know because let's get into the millions of different ways we could overlap this
with charlie kirk and all this been happening and the objectively obvious
hypocritical stances of people that were 30 seconds ago screaming
now shall not be infringed and now are making similar cases you
know well there's one thing i don't think that we've really covered when we're
talking about death threats and that's domestic abuse right like how many boyfriends
ex-husbands have said i'm gonna f and kill you bitch or this and that and then
gone and done it or went and beat that person it you know.
And I'm just going to say that the legal system is such where you could probably
get arrested if the person takes
the phone call or has it on videotape and it's a direct death threat,
direct threat of physical violence. But otherwise, it's extremely difficult.
And obviously, it should be extremely difficult if you can't prove that.
But at the same time, again, there are laws on the books when you make a direct
death threat or physical threat against somebody, you know, that is realistic.
And I don't think that that is overhyped. I think that we should have laws like
that on the books, especially because we see it happen every day in our society and culture.
And, you know, when we are talking about abusive relationships,
you know, oftentimes it's very difficult for the female to sever those ties fully.
So, again, we don't make it about terrorism. I don't necessarily think that
that is a First Amendment issue.
I don't think that you can repeatedly tell somebody that you're involved in
that you're going to kill them without any type of repercussion.
But, again, you put that in a context where you can prove it in a court of law
and they will be prosecuted.
And more than likely successfully so, and do criminal time.
Again, we have to have these type of criminal deterrence. So again,
when it's a direct person that you're involved in, you're calling for their death,
I think it's different than if you're a psycho on the internet with some kind
of ideology saying this person has to die,
or that person has to die, or I hope Trump's next, et cetera, et cetera.
As much as I don't like hearing those things I think
that's a different thing from a
direct threat to somebody that you know and so
who gets to decide you know like logic like just logically I
mean agree with you like I don't I I'm legally arguing we shouldn't be doing
that but I agree with you in the logical sense because that seems like somebody
threatening somebody but what if they're joking what if they you know how do
you prove intent in that regard if you just basically have them saying that
that's why and the government will inevitably and already is using those kind
of nuances to drive in more restriction.
So with that reality, again, my argument is that we err on the principle.
And if he breaks the law, you charge him, evend your evidence.
If not, then you don't charge him because there was no crime.
The moment we create the crime for words is where we lose our way.
That's kind of my stance today.
Well i mean we could bring up plenty of examples right i mean we want some of
the very obvious ones are like with like you know we can even just start with
the uh oh you know what let's let's do this one quick since we can i chime in
about the antifa thing that charlie mentioned earlier,
because i think that this is something that um i think we're all probably paying
attention to and have been warning people for years about the use of um domestic
extremism and domestic terrorist.
And I know Jason was giving the example of, you know, calling somebody a gangster,
but I think that, well, especially now with that actually being a term,
now you could be accused of being an MS-13 and you might actually get taken away, right?
So it is almost rising to that level of being called a domestic terrorist.
But I've been warning people for years that labeling your political enemies,
domestic extremists, domestic terrorists, which has been happening the entire
time Trump has been around since Antifa and alt-right clashing in the street,
that it's just it's getting us exactly to where we are right now,
where, you know, just the last week Trump designates Antifa's terrorist domestic
terrorist organization, which, by the way, I know that we have a few people
who might or have identified in the past as anarchists or volunteerists on the panel here.
And I just want to read the first sentence of that executive order.
It says Antifa is a militarist anarchist enterprise that explicitly calls for
the overthrow of the U.S. government.
I'm sure some here or in the audience have done that.
The overthrow of U.S. government, law enforcement authorities, and our system of law.
Again, it's not hard to see how that can be twisted to fit probably many of
the things that some of us here on this panel have said in the past.
And I think that's really what I worry about. Obviously, the Antifa thing itself
is problematic and labeling people domestic terrorists, but it's that combined
with the free speech conversation we're having here.
And then how words like that or like anarchist, et cetera, are being thrown
around. That really does, I think, worry me.
Not that it's anything unexpected, but I do think we are now entering that territory where.
It's not just the left using you know hate speech
and stuff like that but now the right has kind of find their angle of
how in the post charlie kirk assassination they
want to use that to target people and i just think
that is um it's taken us all the places we've known for years it was going and
it's not going to end up good if people really embrace this so i just want to
kind of implore anybody out there in the audience or in our collective audiences
to do what you can in your virtual spaces and in your real world human spaces
to discourage that as much as possible when you meet people who are talking like that.
Really try to bring it back to a sense of normalcy and help people understand why labels like that.
And then of course, accepting and emboldening this idea of hate speech,
which I think many of us here probably have been the kind of people I know I
have been for years saying that hate speech, hate crimes, these aren't even
really a thing like that. It was a problematic from the beginning.
You already have, you know, if somebody commits a crime, they want to make a
special case that says, well, if it was because they were gay,
or if because, you know, it's a racial thing, then that should be,
you know, aggravated, extra charge, extra time, instead of just being an assault and a murder.
So that was already kind of problematic from the beginning of creating these special categories.
And the same thing goes with creating a special category of speech.
You know, it's not just free speech, it's hate speech now, because it's,
again, it's a specific group, or it's, you know, all the different ways they twist it.
So yeah, I just want to encourage everybody out there who's seen what's happening
to not participate, not buy into that, not feed into it, but instead try to
pull away from it as much as possible.
And my point was that political violence is the
same thing i mean it's in principle it's the same thing right
violence is something you can prove the violence but political violence even
like you could prove in some cases you could probably prove that
somebody hated somebody and that's why they acted our point is that's still
just speech right violence is the same idea and i think it's just the new it's
like the rights version of hate speech even though both is happening you know
and so i'm glad you bring that up because clearly this is about hypocrisy and
there are so many examples right now of people being driven and weirdly enough
almost coming out in the conversation of like.
Yes, we're being hypocritical, but it's because they deserve it.
And they started it like that's the level of the conversation.
I think Gavin McInnes was one that made that case very clearly and just argue
that that's, you know, they're the real terrorists.
That's why this is acceptable when they do it. They're lying about us like that.
How do you argue something like that? Well, here's here's the thing.
Antifa, according to all available
paperwork and propaganda is
an idea in the same way that the global war on terror was us fighting an idea
not an actual group of people when derek highlighted black block yes that's
a a specific group of people who all dress in the same uniform and all,
show up with a specific intent to do damage or violence or something.
Five years ago, five and a half years ago, Jason Bermas and I were standing in Washington,
D.C., looking at a group of people who on one side was black bloc and people
who would probably identify as Antifa.
And then on the other side of the square, it was Proud Boys and people who would
probably identify with people on the right.
And me and Burmis are standing in the exact middle of this going,
which way should we turn?
Because it was sort of a cordoned off like alleyway type of thing.
And we knew that we were going to get flack whichever way we move.
You know, but all of those people had a hundred percent right to be there.
All of those people had a hundred percent right
to air their grievances where it becomes legal
in my mind is when somebody
goes and runs and throws a
fist or shoots or does whatever
that then becomes actual violence but
two disparate groups of people shouting mean
things at each other across the courtyard is fine
as far as I'm concerned but this does
kind of bring up a larger problem because now
the state is attacking ideas that
could or could not be manifest within an individual and you can't we've proven
you can't fight a war against an idea you have to have a physical embodiment
of that idea and that is now going to be disseminated throughout the populace.
And it seems kind of the crux of that that can lead to violence, right? Go ahead.
Well, I would just say, going back to the hypocrisy, I think that's very much
the point of what we're going through right now, because we're not actually
seeing anything new. There's not new talking points.
Pam Bondi says hate speech isn't free speech, as if she just had that idea,
but she didn't. That's years and years old.
It's not hate speech, it's not free speech it's not free speech,
it's not violence. We're talking about years old things, even domestic terrorism.
Was first in like invoked years ago and was freshly
invoked just a couple of years ago by joe biden about january
sixes and then even about anti-vaxxers because again they
weaponized the vagueness to be like well if killing
four people in a building is terrorism there isn't killing 500 000 children
because they didn't get their vaccines even more terrorism um what this what
the last space of offense has been about has been corralling the pro free speech
right back into the anti-free-speech camp so now everybody's in there no matter what.
Maybe I'll just add that I think the technosphere, right?
You know, we always had issues before the internet world with free speech and
governments, but I feel like all of this is heightened because of the internet,
because so many people can now put their thoughts online and have effect,
you know, weaponize their thoughts.
I don't know if you guys mentioned the recent example of George Galloway coming
back from Russia and being held up for about five, six hours as a thought criminal.
So I think it's important to highlight the technosphere aspect and the difference
between policing thought, which is what they're trying to do,
and then using that example of the death threat.
If I get a serious death threat, I don't really get many death threats,
fortunately, but if there's something serious where I'm in Mexico and it's like
a cartel member sending me a
message or something, then I will go to the police to deal with that act.
And it's not so much about the authorities dealing with that, you know,
speech online, you know, traditionally will go to the authority to deal with
the potential violent act going around, you know, the internet. Yeah.
Anyways, yeah. Well, Hervoy, I'm glad you brought up the technosphere side of
this, because this is potentially a point of discord that may exist amongst us.
I don't, for one thing, I don't call myself a free speech absolutist,
only because I think that might convey to people a misapprehension.
For example, if I certainly don't think anyone has the right to come into my
house and start scribbling on my walls.
I don't think anyone has the right to come into my website and start scribbling
on my website walls, my comment section or whatever.
No, there is no free speech there. It is my I allow what speech I allow and
I disallow what speech I disallow.
And no one can stop me from that. Now, of course, if you put free speech absolutism
in the context of government, government can make no law against this or that.
Yes, of course, I 100 percent agree with you. But private entities on private
property can absolutely make whatever speech curtailment they desire.
And people entering into that private property will either agree to abide by
that or agree to get kicked out if they don't abide by that.
And I asked this point, because this is where the disagreement comes.
This is where people start saying, but the government already is in bed with Twitter.
So or X or whatever it's called this week. so therefore
it's not private property therefore the
government can tell us what can and cannot be on
twitter right and that is where i fundamentally disagree well that's what i
think like where is the line drawn when you're talking because i totally agree
with you right like if i if i'm even on my my youtube channel or or on my x
account and just something is just so bigoted or so crazy I'll take it off.
Or if someone's just spamming like pro-Trump or, you know, it's the copy-paste
stuff, I just get rid of it. It doesn't even necessarily have to be bad.
At the same time, does an entity like Google that has been,
I mean, first of all, brought up through the intelligence apparatus,
not only through In-Q-Tel, but NASA and DARPA, the National Library Initiative
that has all sorts of defense department contracts,
that has AI contracts that is in bed with them on quantum computing.
Does that entity, because it's on the stock market.
Classify as a private company that can do what it wants, when in reality it
is literally financially and when you're talking about, especially AI.
Authoritatively a government organization?
I mean, if the question is specifically, can Google or Alphabet or X decide
what goes or does not go on their platform, even if they are government sponsored
or whatever? Let's get into this.
I freaking love this. I'm absolutist on that point.
They can decide what goes on their platform, even if they are government entities,
because we have the right to not go on their platforms.
That is our choice. They are private entities. we
do not have to be on giving our information and
everything over to google to allow oh and then oh
well they're trying to censor my channel so the only possible solution
is to create a government platform that's going to decide and
arbitrate and say no youtube you can't ban
james corbett or you can ban this person or
you can't ban this person and there's going to be some sort of government adjudication of
each person getting banned or not no thank you okay but corbett
here's the the thing what we're ultimately talking about
is a third amendment issue okay because
google and all of these other massive tech platforms aren't
private entities they're public private entities
and they all have seed funding from the state and the third amendment says you
have the right to not be forced to quarter the government within your home yet
everybody with one of these is quartering the government within their home.
This is a fundamental issue that I think people really could rally around because
the government, the state, their soldiers, their minions, everybody has whatever device you're on.
That entity in your home.
You're not maybe you're volunteering to do
it in terms of purchasing it but you don't
know that as the consumer so we're
all we all have forced sequestration of
the state within our confines i
find that doesn't have traditional argument has everything
to do with search and seizure um however
i see what you're saying and i don't disagree with that necessarily
but i'm japan i'm in japan i'm canadian so
yeah none of that applies to me really quickly on
that i think this is really interesting point because i mean
that's a little bit of a stretch but there's some logic there but
i think it's like i kind of have i kind of actually take issue
with the idea of conflating the idea of that digital space with
our home but it's more of like the almost like the government's argument but
i get where you're going with that like it's a router no no you
know what's the motto i get it i get it it's a very it's an interesting point
but i think you know it's like this is another really good
dividing point like james is saying because look you would
even ask this to james like so if you could literally prove the government
was controlling the actions of that platform i think you'd
probably argue that that would make the case for that it was government censorship but
it's a very fair point to make and i've always made that argument about like
you know what the principle of government censorship versus just people you
know deleting comments off their platform for example it doesn't it's not this
is hypothetical because YouTube
just came out just in the past week or whatever it was and admitted.
Yeah, the government forced us to de- or was pressuring us to de-activate all
these accounts because of COVID, right? Wouldn't you argue that?
I'm assuming I wouldn't.
I've got another nuanced question.
So that came out and I decided, you know, I was going to tag at Team YouTube
on X and say, re-monetize my channel. This is insane.
They've labeled me now for six years in one sentence as harmful content.
And that is content that is controversial and therefore harmful to viewers.
I think everybody hears that same book.
Okay. But hear me out here. I pointed out how they are government-sponsored
and a government entity.
They're also government-protected for me suing their ass for defamation through 203.
So what is my recourse? That's the question, though, Jason. What is the solution?
So what are you actively proposing should be done here?
Should the government come in and now tell YouTube or whoever?
I don't think the government should protect them. So in other words,
I should have the same right to sue them as anybody else.
But me going in, I'm not only going against a megalithic corporation,
I'm literally going against the national security apparatus that we know has
been nothing but honest and gracious to us in the last several decades,
if not post-World War II, James.
So I think that we're in this conundrum where you can kind of scoff a little bit about what he said,
but these magical devices are in everybody's home and half of them are directly
associated with that organization, Google, Alphabet,
YouTube, call it whatever you want. It's the same thing.
And now we not only have these, but these are embedded with our children,
not just through this, through the education system.
Every single one of them has a Chromebook. In fact, that's so integrated that
Chrome and Android have now announced that they are merging.
Now, that infiltrates...
I would say 90 plus percent of the youth in this country. I'd say there's probably
10 percent of schools and homeschoolers that maybe aren't using those devices.
And then I don't have a voice as an adult on an equal playing field.
And I can't challenge that.
I don't know that. And by the way, I'm not advocating for a government solution.
I'm advocating government take away the protection so at least I can get in the arena.
And i don't think are you referring to 230 specifically or
is there some other protection you know i've heard people make
the argument against repealing 230 i would say you know it should not get any
type of special protection just like the pharmaceutical companies should not
be having these etc etc just like if they want to say and they have ruled on
this many times that corporations are people,
right? I can sue people.
So then I, anything that you want to sell on the stock market.
What lawsuit would you like to bring against Alphabet? I would, defamation.
Yes, defamation. You have blanketed me as harmful content.
You have to prove that I have, I have literally produced harm.
I have produced harm to nobody. Words are not violence, James.
Like, that's the idea. Everything that I have never, not only have I never called
for violence, everything I have presented, I've either backed up with evidence or
I have said it's speculation. And when I am wrong, which is often I say, I got it wrong.
I didn't think they were going to put the dementia patient in as the president.
I got it wrong. I thought they were going to put Trump in prison.
I didn't think they were going to try to shoot him. I think if you are an honest
broker, you should have the same abilities, especially when these people are
not being honest brokers.
Right. And I know we're getting weeds of free speech. But the weeds are important
here because specifically it always comes down to the brass tacks of,
okay, so what specifically should happen here?
And I'm not American. I'm not in America. So you have tried to sue YouTube for
defamation, but you were rejected by the courts?
I don't know that you can bring that lawsuit.
I've talked to, for instance, not that I'm a rich man, but Renz,
me and Tom have talked now for several years.
I met him early on in the Reawaken America campaign. This is really before he
even opened up to a lot of the things about the hate and lie shots, DARPA, et cetera.
And, you know, I went over with him. I go, you know, is there a case?
Is there a way to bring this case? And he goes, you know, there might be a way
to bring the case, but you're talking about literally millions of dollars in
fees and a team to go up against Google.
And somebody willing to risk their career and possibly even,
you know, them passing the bar and being a lawyer. Like, I don't like Sidney Powell.
I'm not like, I was never out like, hey, the Kraken is coming.
And, you know, she's the best. She lost her license to, you know, pursue law.
You know, I look at somebody like Bill Barr. Is he ever going to lose his license to pursue law?
I don't think so. And has he been an honest broker? I don't know if you guys have seen it yet.
But for instance, the oversight committee did ask him about the first Epstein suicide.
They said, you know, Epstein went to prison guards and multiple officials and
said he was attacked. Were you aware of this?
And again, not being reported on the media, he said, yes, I am aware of those
reports, but I don't think they were true because of his mindset at the time.
I mean let me let me bring in another addition to the the youtube censorship
part like so it's interesting because yours you overlap with vit like you're
harmful that's an interesting that's a good way to look at that but so let's
take like mine or whitney's the same situation it was,
specifically around myocarditis being possible through the shots which everyone
knows is a provable case today not that i was saying every time but you can
prove that's possible and we got censored for that and still to this day because
of all this coming around i petitioned them like everyone did.
And they immediately responded saying, we re-looked at it. No,
you can't come back. Medical misinformation.
And so there's a very different case there, right? So to Corbett's point.
You know, it's a very, I honestly don't know exactly what I think should happen.
One thing I think you can prove is that the government's involved,
right? So that makes that government censorship.
Now the company part of it being a private company, I think that kind of,
that doesn't apply if we know government's doing it.
But what am I demanding? Like you said, that the government should then allow it back.
I mean, it's kind of a, like, I think the point is that new platforms
that we should lean into we should fight to not allow that overlap but
the dealt the dealing point should be the government being involved in
any case i don't think suing a company whether or not the government's
involved is going to be for i think our justice system our legal
system is wildly broken for people that don't have a lot of money so it's
all it's a whole different conversation but so that changes a little bit right
so i just i mean what do you think james what would be your solution and
if as a u.s citizen in that situation or you know what
you think would make i don't know if i can imagine myself as an american
but i am a canadian in japan who had my channel
taken down for years because they said whatever oh
this is you know unallowable content and then after a
few years they said hey guess what we were wrong oops
sorry here's your channel back okay yay wonderful um yeah
so what's my solution to that it is certainly not to beg the u.s government
to be some sort of adjudicator in this or something no obviously government
action interaction with these platforms is the problem itself um so the only
solution is to get government out of these platforms.
I don't have much of an ability to do that on my side, by myself, anyway.
So what- Are we not moving in the opposite direction, especially with this TikTok hype, right?
To me, totally, we're starting to, on a grand level, it doesn't matter what
side you're on, just accept this techno-fascism.
Which is handed TikTok to a CIA contractor that is a dyed-in-the-wool Zionist
who shares information on the regular with the IOF.
I mean, I totally agree with you. I mean, again, this is the big issue because
right for let me give you another news story that there's only it's only on the peripheral.
Are you guys aware of the hood Barack emails that got hacked with Epstein?
I mean, it's almost nowhere. I haven't even been able to find the raw files.
I'm reading other reports on it. But it's I mean, it's proving that,
again, Epstein was very, very involved in international relations,
especially with Israel and the Middle East, brokering these deals.
And as I've argued before, remember, a hood. Barack wasn't just the prime minister.
He was the defense minister.
This guy's an arms dealer. Everybody's wondering where his money came from.
Really good. The additional point to that and go right back to you is that this
was Ryan Grimm and Dropside News had a really great article about this.
Through the Mongolia point was about them was Epstein
facilitating Israel startup nation pop-up companies
that they literally use as front companies that they admitted to 60
minutes after the pager attack right that's a really big deal that's the infiltration
go ahead I just want to make sure that I'm glad you made that point because
again it's it's this it's this layer and facade of government I still have gotten
no uh answers and I and I'm shame shame on me but even most of alternative media,
not digging into the signature reduction program that never went away, right?
I mean, we all know that this intelligence network, I guess we'll call it,
because signature reduction is not an official name. They refer to it as an art form.
It's been going on for literally 15 years with no hearings, no oversight from
the Senate, no oversight from the Intelligence Committee, and they admit there
are 60,000 of these people online and in person. And that's four years ago.
And they're embedded in the biggest companies.
So you're telling me they're not embedded in Google X, Meta,
TikTok, of course, just like they're embedded in Raytheon, Lockheed Martin,
just like they're embedded in BlackRock.
They're embedded in all these goddamn things.
OK, and, you know, Palantir is another extension of that. You know, this.
I think that's one of the big issues with this free speech idea is that we are
so far down that techno-fascistic rabbit hole.
What is a private company? What is the government?
And have we had any type of actual criminal accountability at high levels on
either in my lifetime? And I'm a 46-year-old man.
Haven't seen much. I'm still – I guess that's the real point here.
I don't know that we're going to go in the direction of actual free speech unless
we're able to get some type of criminal accountability for this type of behavior
for individuals that are doing it.
And I think Epstein is one of those individuals.
We never got a criminal trial. We never fleshed anything out.
It's still I think if we did, we would have actual insight to some of these
people and people would demand that. but I haven't seen us get there.
We haven't even really gotten to a trial where those ideas are explored.
You look at the Ghislaine Maxwell trial and they truncated that as far as they
could into, you know, human trafficking, essentially to Epstein alone. Right.
You bring up like the, like I, this is one of the things I wanted to get to
in this conversation was that very perfect point about the pro the public private
partnership, the, the fascistic discussion, like we have seen the corporate
world blend with the government right in front of us.
And so So that obviously changes the conversation, right? So it's a...
All of these are problems, not to say we're going to solve them on this conversation,
but it's important to identify that that very issue is one of the reasons why
this is so difficult, because we can't discern what where that line is from the government side.
So what anybody's thoughts on how you go forward with that?
I was just going to make that point, because I agree with James that for all
intents and purposes, let's say all these platforms are private, Google, big tech.
But what happens? OK, they take you down from Google. You know,
you go to Microsoft, they take you down.
You go to that, you know, anywhere. there's nowhere to go
and even if you have your own website um google
delists you and so nobody can see you and now you
know we've left any semblance of a republic or
government and this is totalitarianism and i can use you know because i'm here
in mexico i can think of these examples all day look at the analog world let's
say i go to a public plaza the cartel zone i go to another corner another cartel
is there and so now the issue becomes well now you're living under fascism or
oligarchy or mafia or cartel.
And now we've got another problem to deal with.
Okay, well, let's look at Trump's inauguration
and the front row of Trump's
inauguration where you had
defense contractor slash social
media CEO standing next to defense
contractor slash social media CEO
Standing next to defense contractor slash social media CEO And so on and so
forth Let's look at the parade that they had in the UK Just a couple of weeks
ago Where all of the heads of the tech firms And the AI firms are standing there Dressed like,
you know What?
Delightfully adorned penguins Standing next to an actual king who was walking behind.
The president of the United States, the this is the Anglo-American establishment in its full force.
So there's no that in terms of social media and maybe maybe I could get some
pushback on this. God, I hope I could.
But there's no difference between the heads of social media companies in my mind and the state.
Carrie, do you have like, well, I've honestly, I've been wanting to say something
that's kind of adjacently really, but I think is quite important to consider.
You mentioned his inauguration.
We're talking about, well, should the government be involved?
And I wanted to bring up an executive order that Trump had shortly after he
was inaugurated that all of the MAGA crowd and the free speech absolutists were
very excited about because it was basically saying the government's not going
to censor social media anymore.
By my executive order, you know, I'm ordering all these agencies to stay out of it. They can't do it.
But when I read that order, I found it very interesting because they refer to
constitutionally protected speech.
So in theory, this is maybe, forget I said that part just now,
before I mentioned that, in theory, wow, Donald Trump is getting the government
out of censoring social media. But that's a huge caveat.
When you look at the speech they're now saying is unacceptable.
They would probably argue that anti-Semitic speech, which could just be criticizing
the government of Israel, is not constitutionally protected.
So that's a complete, I wouldn't even call it a backdoor. That is a front door
to continue censoring the Internet under the guise of no longer censoring the
Internet because they use the term constitutionally protected.
And who decides? Well, people in government, they decide whether or not it's constitutional.
So I don't have a specific reply to what you're saying, because I've been censored
by potentially that public private partnership.
If Derek were on the call, like he was censored with the anti-media as well.
And as far as we can tell, it seems like the Atlantic Council was involved.
But I to this day I don't know where to draw that
line because well it's still a private company I
believe that and I think that is especially important
because we're talking about the extent of this corporate public practice
like how do you not how are you if okay if if
Facebook and Google and all these companies are government entities because
they got funding from the government or they there's a revolving door
like what company isn't in this day and age and that's a
broader conversation but it's all of these things are in
mesh so it's like if everything is is
fascism corporatism is nothing fascism corporatism
within the paradigm we're we're living in i
don't have the answer but those are the things that are crossing my mind well
it's interesting the um sorry just to jump on the the um constitutionally protected
speech thing i mean they're taking away the right to due process now arguing
that people who are citizens don't get the right to due process.
So people who aren't citizens, I suppose, also don't get the right to free speech.
They haven't actually said that, but it is implied.
There was a recent ruling, by the way. They just came out and argued that that
was unconstitutional. Keep going. I just think that's important to what you're saying.
The fact that he- I'm done anyway. It was just a quick-
Appendix that that's important to think about though there's
two a house ruled recently or it hasn't you know hasn't it's
not official yet but that ultimately they're trying to stop rubio from
being able to remove citizens or censor them
based on speech as well as they in regard to trump using that around protesters
like khalil and ozturk and so on so there is some pushback but you know the
the thing is i think everyone here is principled and i think that's why this
is difficult because they're creating a line or an absence of one where we want
to make sure we're doing, you know,
within our principles and it's not definable. So it makes that very difficult.
So this is my, this is why I argue that the only real answer is to air back
as far, you know, air to the principle as far as you can.
And so let me make this case about, uh, this is the clip overlapping Bondi saying
hate speech and Charlie Kirk.
And I think the point to talk about here is that the issue right now is that
you have a lot of people who are out there who either don't understand constitutionally,
which I think is actually one of the largest constitutional ignorance in this country,
but P or people that know and don't care who are professing to
care about free speech but will ignore that the moment it suits their
interest and so again it's not you know it's about i think it's individual
actions that make the big difference here but just a quick opening part so we
can set that speech and then there's hate speech and there is no place especially
now especially after what happened to charlie in our society my position um
is that even hate speech should be completely and totally allowed in our country
the most disgusting speech should absolutely be protected.
Now, he goes on and makes a bigger case, but just to put that out there,
you know, so there's thoughts on that.
It's important because it's hard. We're in a situation where we're trying to
have a conversation about the core point when 50 percent of the conversation
out there doesn't we don't even agree on what that looks like or where that
line should be drawn or what free speech means.
So, well, let me tell you a place where I think the line was drawn in the wrong
place. And I don't know what Kirk's position was it was on it before he died.
In fact, I'd like to dig it up.
But, you know, again, Trump just signed an executive order saying you can't
burn an American flag. Excuse me.
That is insane. Like, first of all, that's been shot down by the Supreme Court
again and again and rightfully so. And it needs to be again.
I'll say this again.
If it is your property and you are not destroying something else from someone
there, if you are not disruptive in a public arena.
And if you are, you know, if you if you're disruptive in a public arena,
if they want to get you for something like that, great.
There should be no law saying I can't do something with my property I own,
even if it is a quote unquote symbol of this country. That is the wrong direction.
And again, I don't know what Kirk's position was on that, but he would have
had what probably a good month, six weeks before he was assassinated to weigh
in on that issue. if he was truly against, you know, any types of censorship.
And by the way, I am a guy that says hate speech 100%. Even if you think it's
hate speech, we get to do it here.
They can call people Nazis all they want.
We're allowed to have real Nazis in this country dancing around in the regalia. Like, that's a thing.
You're allowed to do that. Let's see what he says this right here.
Do you want to read that? Yeah, this is an example of him. Like,
so this is Trump saying all federal funding will stop for any college,
school or university that allows illegal protests, which, again,
they decide what they deem illegal. And Trump's made it clear it's not about violence.
In L.A., he put out the point that if people show up to protest,
we'll be met with force. Very clear.
He said Charlie Kirk responded saying President Trump lays down the new rules on campus protests.
No more federal funding for schools that allow illegal protests to continue.
Now, this is well played because of the overlap of the school funding,
but it's been Supreme Court's roundly ruled. It's just like with the FCC point.
If they say, or SEC, excuse me, if they say, or no, they say if you,
you know, act on Jimmy Kimmel or else, and they do, that's still a free speech issue.
But it goes on to say, foreign students sent home, American students expelled,
and so on, and no masks to hide identities and criminals is exactly spot on,
except unless it's ICE today, you know, different point.
But so there's many of those where Charlie Kirk, I would argue, seems
to contradict the stance he would say in that speech but
it's always because of the nuance and maybe he was doing it with good intention it's
hard to say at this point but the real problem there is
the federal funding that's the actual problem that
that it isn't even about the government trying to stop speech
it's about federal funding and hey we'll take this federal funding
away from you no don't take the federal funding away from colleges
we should fight for federal funding for colleges say they
would be anarchists no the point is the
federal funding is the original evil that's the
point carrie was getting into is that that line right like that's you blur those
lines intentionally and then it becomes impossible to be able to make that that
definition so i mean the principal position is easy and is simple no the principal
position the solution to this is to get the government out of colleges altogether
so the federal funding and whether it is not the sort of damocles that they can dangle.
OK, then that same point of government was coming along and saying there is
a new law, you will be arrested if you have a protest on campus.
Oh, OK, that's the free speech. But no, they're saying we'll take federal funding
away. So what should our position be on that? No, don't take federal funding away.
Well, no, no. Yeah, that's a good point. But the point is not just we decide
which way or the other, but simply to highlight that they're using that as a
coercive tool to manipulate their speech or the speech on campus through their enforcement.
That's very clear right but so how would you apply that james
to the not college situation what would
you feel is the most principled stance with what we're dealing with
the censorship you know that that's kind of seems to be this yeah okay
good because to me this is the the actual point of this conversation we all
know the problem and we all agree on the problem we all see the problem and
i think everyone in the audience understands the problem what is the solution
that is the only thing we should be concentrating on what do we do about this
and if people's answer is we need more federal funding for colleges or something,
or we come out on that side of the equation, we are getting stuck in the wrong.
In the stuck on stupid conversation, answering the wrong questions in the wrong way.
What we need to do is decide, okay, what are our principles and how do we work towards them?
Now, I think it would be great, yes, if government just completely,
utterly left all of these corporations.
They're not going to do that anytime soon, are they? Because exactly as Burm
has said, how many of these people
have ever faced any sort of criminal prosecution for what's going on?
Exactly zero of them. How many can we expect to face such prosecution in the
near future under the Trump administration?
Exactly zero of them. So what can we do? What can we do?
And I'm going to give the unpopular answer no one wants to hear.
Everyone will say, you're stupid, James. This is dumb.
But it's the only answer that is actually principled. And it is the answer of
screw Google and screw Alphabet and screw X, screw all these companies.
And why don't we start building our own infrastructure? No, you're stupid.
That'll never happen. It won't work. You have to be on Alphabet.
Everyone has to be on Alphabet. So now we need some government organization
to tell Alphabet who can and can't be on.
No, our power is to not be on their platforms.
Our power is to develop something else. Speaking of which, how's Odyssey going?
I thought we had an IMA portal now.
On that note, it's just the updates in the group chat they're giving us is just
that they're still working out bugs and so on.
You know, I keep I update people. I simply say I've been in this position.
Funny enough, with Super U in the past where that exact problem was trying to
be addressed of a new platform building the infrastructure where Peter put in
about a million dollars to build multiple places. Then he mysteriously died.
That's the actual story, by the way. But, you know, not to say I don't agree
with you entirely, by the way, James, but there's a lot more obviously of things
are outside the legal reality that governments and powerful people actively do.
But so, you know, the interesting thing is the government aspect in what you're
saying, right, which is that, you know, like in that situation,
what we're all talking about, the government, I think, is where you have to
be look for accountability.
And like we do with everything else, like we need to hold them accountable because
the company, you know, they are there's clearly fault and there's clearly dishonesty.
But if you're a corporation and you're competing with other companies that are
getting government one-ups you're going to probably do the same thing like so
that you can argue government.
Companies are not necessarily the issue and all that but the government
that's doing that so how do we hold the government accountable for
creating the situations and that's the only action we really have to be honest
outside of what you're saying james which i do agree with but that's going to
take a while if if it happens if we go momentum so how do we hold the government
accountable for knowingly coercing companies to do so i think there is mechanisms
there what do you guys think I think you've got to win in the court of public opinion first. I agree.
I think a great example of that is James Corbett and the fact that he just had
Ron Johnson on there talking about these documentaries that were sitting.
You've just got to keep kicking and screaming on every platform that's available.
Let me give you an example.
I don't know that we're going to win in actual court. Ron Johnson,
he showed up at the Turning the Tide. Dennis Kucinich was there.
Kurt Weldon. Dana Rohrabacher, which kind of shocked me.
You know, Dana Rohrabacher, I specifically remember him on Real Time with Bill
Maher talking about how the Iraqis were going to literally put flower petals
at our feet after we went and liberated them.
And he's speaking about 9-11 truth basically on his last political legs.
That's winning in the court of public opinion. Me being up at 2 in the morning,
hitting stand-up comedy full, watching somebody I've never seen perform,
and they're making jokes about Building 7 and going, buildings don't fall that way.
That's winning in the court of public opinion. The Tuckins, whether you love
them or hate them, and I think he got the first 10 minutes of that five-part
series completely wrong, and even propped up John Antisev,
the FBI handler that literally handled Ahmad Salam, who built the bomb that
exploded in 93. Got it wrong.
He's at least looking at this. I watched the second part.
I thought it was actually rather good, a lot better than the first part.
I'm going to be watching it week to week. But when I say winning in the court of public opinion.
Watch that Tucker Carlson, Sam Altman interview. I'm not accusing Sam Altman
of anything, but it's the first time in my lifetime that after somebody died
suspiciously in a huge corporation and business,
that the CEO of that corporation was asked about his suspicious death several
times on behalf of the family.
That means we're moving the needle somewhere. The fact that Altman even sat
down with him, that's moving the needle somewhere.
Look, Peter Thiel, another example, him having to go on Rogan in that podcast
bro push at the very end for the Trump administration.
Again, I don't love what I don't think Thiel was being an honest broker.
That's moving the needle. OK, I'm just saying that that's what we just got to continue to do.
I never thought that the Epstein issue was going to be the one that brought
at least, you know, what they call the left and the right together.
I really always believed it would eventually be 9-11.
And maybe we can get to that level. But we have to exploit that the best we can as honest brokers.
In other words, we utilize the tools that we have. I don't, James, I'm with you.
I wish we'd already built better tools, right? I wish Minds.com,
we talk about social media, took all in the manner it should have.
I wish Rockfin was able to do that. Charlie, take it away, bro.
Outernet, John Snison.
Those of you who know John, I met him in 2019 at Anarcopulco with you, James, actually.
He is part of a team that has built a product called Outernet.
O-U-T-E-R-R.net. it.
And I'm the wrong person to talk about the technical aspects of anything.
But it's private communication in a way that he could explain more fully.
And there's an opportunity for us. He just messaged me today.
There's an opportunity for people who are looking to be investors in that.
So there's an opportunity to do something solutions-based, maybe even investment-based,
maybe even change your entire life.
I don't know. I don't know what the product's going to be.
But there are people out there that are actually doing and
it's inspiring and it and it and it makes you want to
be involved in it and so john's nice
into somebody that it had he been here he would certainly
talk about one of the solutions that he's working on and and i think that's
uh you know he's the anti in q tell you know he's gonna be funded by us not
by them i think this may be unpopular in this group or maybe possibly even in
this group is what i meant and i i hope not, but I, I, I think we're winning.
I've said that a lot. I don't mean winning in every possible sense,
but I think what we're seeing is what you're saying, Jason, like,
when have we ever seen that?
Like, when have we ever seen the independent media, like genuinely setting the
conversation points? Like there, it's almost like they're responding to everything,
you know, somewhat mainstream alternative media, but nonetheless,
the same kind of, that's a reaction to us being in that position.
So, you know, I think that's like, hypothetically, let's even say,
maybe we're already there.
Maybe we already have a majority, maybe 51% of people that are like,
yes, yes, we see the problem. Okay. What do we do?
Right. Okay. So what we do is we thunk our dick on the table.
That's what we do. And I'm sorry to say it so crudely, but sometimes you just got to put it down.
And you have to go, I actually do run shit here.
And everybody on this panel right now runs shit here.
James Corbett is considered a prophet by many people because he was out there
way in the early era of the internet going, this is what's happening.
This is what's coming. This is what you can expect.
And my brother, you have been proven right time and time and time again.
In fact, when people are like, are you black pilled?
Are you white pilled? No, I tell them I'm Corbett pilled because I've, you know,
I've had this resource for a very long time that has told me unapologetically in full truth,
what things are without qualifiers and what things may be without qualifiers.
And that's honestly the most respectable position I could ever imagine in my entire life.
And so we have a huge database of people who have been legitimately.
I guess to put it in a baseball analogy, calling balls and strikes as they come.
And so it's a matter of messaging. So what does the thunk look like?
Like, so we know that. So that's what I'm trying to get at. So you said thunk
on the table, right? So what are we talking about? Like, what is the action?
We already know this. Derek Rose, you know, who was here earlier,
talks about this all the time.
It's understanding that technology is inherently a part of our life.
And it's very difficult to decouple from that. But you can do many,
many things in and around that, maybe even in spite of that.
First and foremost, you can grow and produce your own food.
What you can't grow and produce on your own, you can have a handshake relationship
with the people who do that in your area.
We have a gentleman who comes through the show very frequently,
Texas Slim from the Beef Initiative, who is working very hard to make sure that
people have a handshake relationship with their rancher.
But it extends beyond that because once you understand what food is and where food comes from,
you have a kind of a building block opportunity to understand that, well.
Information in and of itself doesn't happen because the state tells you or CNN
or Fox or MSNBC tells you.
There are things that you can do that it
falls i guess to trust but verify and
so we like i i'm i'm one of those people who believes that we have we're living
in an era of unlimited potential and unlimited opportunity in spite of everything
that's being thrown at us i just want to say that in no way i'm like i just
want that part be the conversation we get into steve talks about these things
all the time, just to make that clear.
And so, but like, let's, let's hone in all outstanding suggestions.
I think that's like in a broad sense, but how do we hone in on the free speech point?
Cause I mean, I, I mean, I honestly, I'm not saying I even have like a solution
to it other than my, what I believe we should be leaning into,
which is just the principle and every way air on that side, even if there's bad consequences.
Like I really want that to be something to think about, but so what are our solutions?
You know, in addition to what we went out. You know, I talked about utilizing
the tools. I think we also have to lean into the politicians,
unfortunately, that are consistent.
And they are very few and far between. But like Massey is the man.
You know, I watched Thomas Massey and he is principled. He doesn't seem to bend
the knee. He's anti-war.
He doesn't sit up there and say, oh, well, we're going to give an exception
to Israel or this nation or this ideology.
He's pushing extremely hard on the Epstein files.
He grilled cash patel and
made him look like a you know almost tearful
child when he was going into it i mean he literally
hammered him gave examples of people uh
who had been trafficked he said you know the magician aka david blaine he said
the rock star i think that's probably courtney love i mean he went down the
list and he made patel go well it's not just this administration it's the two
administrations prior that have looked into this really where he was just on the podcast circuit,
telling us we shouldn't believe anything from those administrations and invoking the Epstein files.
Ron Johnson is another one. You know, I remember during the COVID-1984 era,
obviously he was much better than most, but me and my brother would have discussions.
Yeah, still kind of a neocon war hawk, really didn't like his foreign policy.
Starting to come around on that, right? And we have to keep in these people's ears.
And then unfortunately, I mean, we may have – and this is what kind of makes
me sick to my stomach, and I know it might for you, James,
as a professed anarchist, and you're never going to have this problem as a Japanese
citizen, but step up to the plate, and maybe I am eventually going to have to
run for state senate or state congress or something. I really –,
I'm just in the belly of the beast. And it was actually, you know,
and this is maybe even a part of that conversation when we talk about free speech,
martial law, the military, its uses.
It's the cleanest I've ever seen D.C. in my entire life, guys.
I'm just I'm I'm hey, I just want to be honest with you.
Hey, man, tanks on the streets and dudes with AR fucking threatening people
really does make for a civil society. As long as you're using authoritarian
tactics. I again, I get it.
I didn't see one National Guardsman or one tank. I didn't see one. I'll be honest.
Every other trip that I'd been there in the last five years,
I had seen some type of military. I drove, by the way. So it wasn't like I was just isolated.
Like I said, I went out to Alexandria. I was there for like four days.
The homeless problem was totally gone. i mean but it's not gone though you have
to if we're talking about.
It's a middle ground of them occupying the space that criminals would otherwise
occupy while they're militarily marching the streets now but again i didn't
see the military there that's my point right but you you know the point though
you know that they know that they're present and that's why people are going
i'm not going to go do this because they're fucking I'm going to rest. Oh, excuse me.
I think it's a.m. I don't. As I was driving down, I had to drive.
I drive through Chicago on the way through the Midwest.
So the big hubbub was that the National Guard was coming to Chicago.
My friend Chris Don T. Harris, he covered it. I haven't talked to him yet.
I, I have not seen it in action yet. So I am, I am not going to make a judgment,
but I am going to be honest about the result there.
You know, and I know that I went away from us trying to be part of it,
but listen, if we don't want that type of action and we are talking about solutions
and we are talking, we're going to have to become the government guys.
No, no, no, no, no. Okay. Hold on though. Hold on. Hold on. I had to push back.
You can argue. I look, I'll support you. You want to do that?
Like I supported Derek, I'll support you. I just don't expect me to vote for
you. Right. I don't think that's going to work.
I'm just saying. No, no, hold on. Make a point. The point about what you're
saying in regard to the location. You know, it's not a solution.
It's not, it's, first of all, it's shockingly unconstitutional.
So there's not even, if we're arguing the solution in any way is violating our
rights, then that's the problem. That's the whole crux of the conversation.
That's not the solution. That's going to lead to more problems.
But I think the reality is that, like, even looking at Portland right now,
you realize, I mean, even the claim is it's an unlawful, war-torn,
and the reality is they've arrested four people, most of which were bumping
up against people in a protest.
That's the legitimate reality of the numbers right now. And they're telling you that it's overrun.
You know, so that's military in the streets, on the, in the water.
So Washington DC was a military deployment and whether or not they're marching
through now, the reality is they're well aware.
Like I all simply argued, like
I think it's obvious once they officially move on, people will go back.
Maybe, maybe it does decrease the crime. I'm not going to deny that,
but it still does not mean that the, the cure was worse than the solution or the problem.
That's always that idea. But I think that it will probably go back to much of
what it was before once they realize the enforcement's out of the way.
But it's wrong either way, in my opinion.
I mean, it possibly could. Again, I'm just showing the results there.
You know, one of the other things that I did notice, and this is just going
to be like kind of far off.
I've never seen more Muslims, practicing Muslims in D.C. in my life.
And I know that a lot of people have seen the stuff in Europe, et cetera.
I only say that because this is the first time in my life. I went to two Walmarts,
one in the heart of D.C. and one in Alexandria.
And I kid you not. First of all, not that white.
Whitest person in the place and it wasn't hispanics
or mexicans it was literally arabs uh speaking arabic
i mean the the vast majority of the people that are working there were
women in uh hijabs so you know
i don't know where we are going to be as a culture i do
know that in those type of cultures they
accept more authoritarianism and i'm i'm not advocating okay
this is a very dangerous conversation right look we
are on dangerous conversation i'm not
saying like you should stop i we should flesh this out what i'm saying is
very what you just laid out there first of
all i don't think being a muslim or arab or speaking arabic in any
way is against the law or unconstitutional and so whether or not
there's a lot of muslims is a that that's what's being
used right now to frame somehow that we're being overtaken and all
which i i understand the reality of weaponized migration
my point in this regard when i see loomer for example
who i let's just my personal opinion and this does this is
we're back to the free speech i believe my opinion that
she's acting for the interest of a foreign government at the very least not an
american interest just my opinion so i'm arguing look do
i see her do this every day do i feel her using her free
speech in order to manipulate us 100 will i still defend her right to use that
free speech 100 so when you get into the problem of like we have a you know
like i don't know the problem last point when you can talk about the fleshing
out of the muslim conversation and saying we're seeing muslims everywhere and
saying that's overtaking us i've never been one of those people.
Last thing last sentence and you can go when they break
the law right if we have something breaking the law then make
your case charge them for something or like we said a conspiracy
to commit a crime right but this argument that i'm not saying
you're doing this but that's that's what it felt like is that i've never seen
more muslims it feels like we're trying to argue that them being present is
in and of itself the problem i i can't agree with that well i'm so let me let
me let me say that's not the like i'll give you an example there's a huge uh
muslim contingent in Michigan, which I go to and go through a ton.
I'd say it's different in D.C. because it is the epicenter of geopolitics.
And normally when I'm in D.C.
Or in the surrounding areas, yeah, there is a mix. But there's so many embassies around, right?
There's not one culture that I see dominant other than American culture in most cases.
I see French people, German people, and on the streets, still the same thing.
I'm just saying I have never seen that concentration of Muslims in that political
arena and area. And I'm not saying I even know what it means.
I'm not one of those guys that is warning about radical Islam or I think that's
the next attack. But I will say this.
It's certainly be a lot easier to blame radical Islam if something happens in
that area and you have a higher population density there.
This is a problem reaction solution
scenario yeah that's what i'm saying describing 100
it is right but so the point is that as i understand it it's there's protests
going on just like we can see a street full of jewish zionists marching through
the street protesting for their interest to washington dc like i think that
is what this tends to be but it may be not and make a case if There's crimes being committed,
lay it out Can we make a case For American Culture, or is that Like something that is so Beyond.
The the register that it doesn't even exist well let's talk american culture
for a second and freedom of speech and kind of broader issues here in iowa i
mean i know that everybody's seen it because it's become a national story uh
you know you had this individual who was a superintendent.
Who you know had a firearm a handgun
so it wasn't just like a shotgun or whatever had that
registered was registered to vote and wasn't
an american citizen now culturally i
think i'm not against somebody who comes from
another country comes here gets a job in the school system
and rises up in the ranks as long as they become a citizen like i
would think that if you are bringing in someone from another country
say it could be a specialized class on that
region you know we have these different cultural studies maybe a
different language etc i just don't know how we have a system
now that we're taking foreigners and they
get all the rights of a citizen and a job in
our educational system see culturally that to
me is an issue had that person gone through the process of becoming a citizen
and you know and i'm not even saying we should be pledging our allegiance to
a flag or anything like that but i am a kind of a fan of the constitution it's
right for someone to vote without being a citizen period so if that's possible
that's against the law well i I mean,
they're saying he literally had been voting. He was a Democrat.
It would be a crime if they did. The problem, again, we'll see what happens.
But he has resigned now from that position.
I don't know that the charges have gone away. It seems like he is going to be deported on top of it.
But I think that, again, when he's talking about Americana, when we are talking
about free speech, right?
Well, we're always talking about influence campaigns. At least the government is.
Oh, Russian influence and the Chinese influence. and
this is kind of like real influence of
a different culture that not somebody that acclimated but
let's make a quick point about this that the reality the constitutional literance
of literacy of understanding that literally everybody
in this country has constitutional rights whether or not they're an illegal alien
whether or not they're a visa card holder green card holder so again it's
it's it seems like it's important to understand this so the
really the only issue is that they're there and that
they're a different culture and that they're speaking a different language because
they have and they haven't pledged allegiance to our ideal set at its core which
which i think is free speech like i said right i mean i'm trying to understand
the the point of the of the criticism here because if we live in a country with
freedom of religion look and i'll be clear i'm not and we're taking kind of
a hard turn here but i'm not.
I'm aware of the very real ways these things can be abused and that there are
very real issues from Israel, from Saudi Arabia, from China.
Like the reality of this, the issue, though, is that we live in a country with
freedom of religion, freedom of speech. At least we tell ourselves that.
And so when they break the law, this is where this becomes a problem.
But everything else becomes hyperbole.
But do you think it should be legal for somebody like that to become not even just a principal?
Let's say, I mean, the head of an educational organization in this country for
American citizens, I think bare minimum, if you're going to be the director
of that, again, you're on a teaching visa. I get it.
You know, if you're teaching a language, if you're the head of that,
I want you to be an American citizen. I do. I really do.
Like, I want you to be part of the process. Doesn't mean you have to vote,
but you should absolutely have, you know, the right to vote.
And again, I'm not saying you have to be born here either. The thing that gets
me is how is this person able to do all those things? If that's terrible, by the way.
What's that? Because you just said we didn't verify that. But the point is still
that if he did, that's a fair question, right?
Yeah, and that's my question when we're talking about children.
Because again, how are we supposed to embed the ideas of freedom of speech,
of individual person and property, if the person that's literally in charge
of educating our children isn't down with that ideal set?
We don't know what his opinions are, but I think it comes to a legal issue of
today. Is that against the law?
I mean, just to speak up for the now 50 percent of the panel that isn't actually American.
And you've got your imperialist mindsets going on here.
This is kind of breaking away from the free speech topic. But I would suggest that, unfortunately,
the American system, you're talking about America and Israel,
and I'm afraid that, in my view, in the next few years, that is going to collapse
and be replaced by something else. And this is all part of that.
Yeah, I can agree with that. I mean, there will be a transition away from the American empire.
It will be the main power in the world to become something else.
And this will be sold to most people, including most Americans, as a good thing.
I get that sense too, to be honest. Do you think that can happen without a major
casualty event, I would say, or maybe the right kind of political assassination?
For instance, right now, I look at the Kirk assassination, and my biggest fear
is some type of quote-unquote retaliation from the other side that indiscriminately
kills people, right? Well, I mean, potentially, no, no, I would agree.
There must be, like, if you look at the transition of power,
for example, historically from Britain to the US, people would say that the
episode around that was World War II, essentially, but...
The transition wasn't then flagship or even necessarily deliberate
so you could sort of argue it's it's different um i
i don't think no i think the collapse of
the u.s when it comes will involve an awful lot of casualties
one way or the other whether that becomes just from a club of infrastructure like
you saw in the collapse of the soviet union where there were millions of casualties
that weren't you know taken out by bullets there was just a complete
collapse of all social infrastructure and i could see that being
done let's take this back in the direction of free speech though i
mean i i felt i felt compelled to to respond with this what
you were saying jason i'm sorry but i i think that that you know all of this
overlaps with obviously the conversation of constitutional rights right so that's
a very least the overlap to the conversation but you know the free the free
speech point which we're largely wrapping up at this point i think is you know
we we were talking about the the the the principle we talked about the.
Hypocrisy which we didn't get into many of the examples but i like james said
i mean i think everyone's very well aware of the problem.
We got into the point of the partisan kind of hypocrisy around it and some of the solutions.
So, I mean, we can kind of wrap up if you guys want to just go through your
thoughts on where we should go and, you know, whatever else you want to add to it.
Well, I have just a final thought on free speech, which is the assault on free speech.
The most dangerous thing about it is people accepting the assault on free speech,
because I think the system as it is, they will never be able to totally police it.
They will never have the power or even really the desire to totally police it. What's it more about?
Is inculcating in ordinary people the idea that
they will take care of themselves they will censor themselves there are some things
you are not allowed to say and some things you are not allowed to think um that's
far more important than actual laws which they can't pass and people
wouldn't ignore anyway because and if they do that they don't
need to pass the laws i think really what you're backing against
is self-censorship imposed through
fear and through the fear of social rejection
i think that's much more important that's why they target it
in these ways they do left-wing free speech right-wing free
speech and they don't they trust on people's tribalism
to keep that separate maybe can
you please write an article about that because that's such an
important point i 100 agree with what you're saying there
it is like 50 articles about that over the
years it just comes right one specifically
said james here's that article about that thing and then i'll no republish it
at activist post no um can i just echo what you're saying there because 100%
the point of this is the point of even the media covering with every single,
oh, look, the British police just knocked on someone's door over a tweet.
The incessant coverage of this is to embed in the minds of the public two things.
One, you're going to get the police called on you if you say anything naughty.
And two, also to embed the idea in people's minds.
Well, when we take over the government, we can do this to our enemies.
Thus normalizing it. So it's that double pronged approach.
And yeah, we need the third alternative way. We need to be 100% constructing our own communities.
But also, as Jason says, out there ringing the bell, setting,
putting the word out, because as Ryan says, quite rightly, it is having an effect.
We are having an effect. And I actually think of it slightly differently.
I don't think we are winning.
Like this is some battle that's going back. I think the power has always been ours. The power is ours.
And when we recognize that and understand that
and take that back into our own sovereignty and claim
that and and act within that power that
we have i think we're unstoppable but the
entire point of the enemy propaganda is you're weak you're pathetic you're powerless
you can do nothing all you can do is come and groveling on bended knee to ask
youtube to monetize your channel or whatever nope our power is our decisions
what we do and what we say we have to spread that message a thousand times farther
than the propaganda can go.
And one small addition to that is, you know, so a hundred percent agree with
everything you're saying.
Then what we see is the, not, not just the fierce self-censorship,
but the other side doing kind of like the same thing on the other extension
of it saying, well, they started it. Right.
So yes, I see this as a problem, but they're the ones that did it first and
they deserve to get it back.
Or like McGinnis difference is saying we are hypocrites, but they deserve it.
You know, I guess I kind of just said that, but yeah. And it's kind of that,
that's the real, like the rationale from any, which way you look at it.
It's, it's driving you to agree to your own subjugation.
I guess I'll jump in. I totally agree with James on this idea that we can't play the victim.
Unfortunately, I think victim mentality has really been pushed,
especially with the youth.
I see it within my own family. It makes me very, very sick.
It also is associated with these identity politics that are there to separate us.
And I would just say this, you know, if I came across, you know,
anti Arab or Muslim, I just like to say this.
I also don't think that we should be deporting students that are on visas here
that decide to protest against, you know, Israel or what's going or anything.
Right. I think they're here on a visa in the education system.
Like you said, they are allotted those same constitutional rights.
Again, if they're breaking laws, charge them with that.
We have a criminal justice system.
But I think that the only way that we continue on with this is challenging that again and again.
When, you know, somebody that you agree with on 70 or 80 percent of things starts
chanting, no, I'm so glad that we can't burn the flag in, you know,
this country. Get those commies.
You have to explain why that's a dangerous ideal set. Right.
You have to explain to people why you can't have this blanket rule that you're
not allowed to criticize this government, this race of people, this religious belief.
No, you get to criticize anything and everything. You get to be wrong.
All right. We're allowed to be wrong in this country. You have to bring that back as well.
So, look, I think it's going to be an eternal battle. You know,
I've said it before. I'll say it again.
I barely know what's happened in the last 46 years that I've been on this planet.
I don't have any, you know, severe religious or ideological set other than good and evil exists.
And I'm sorry, but the repression of speech, the outright authoritarianism of
taking that away is pure evil.
That's it. It's evil. You know, everyone gets to express themselves full stop.
Maybe I'll just give my concluding thoughts, reiterating what everyone's saying.
We all run our counter-influence campaign as the government's running their
manipulation of public perception and opinion. We got to do the opposite.
And then what you guys said about what James said about them trying to scare
us into self-censoring through constantly showing all of these people who are
getting visits by the thought police.
Um that actually inspires me to
further say something you know before i
went to croatia this summer i was you know
should i retweet richard medhurst should i retweet george galloway or or or
graham phillips or um clarenberg i actually printed out one of the eu constitution
articles because i'm an eu citizen and it says an eu citizen is allowed by the
eu's own articles which they don't even follow,
to travel with their non-EU family members in case I got stopped.
Nothing ever happened. But, you know, and so just to reiterate some of the solutions,
as you guys were saying, don't, you know, use their platforms less and less. Opt out.
Try to cost them attention, eyeballs, money.
Public opinion, I think, is important.
There was a great clip by a Mexican businessman that went viral.
His name is compa moi after four years of
becoming very successful he said i gotta shut down um
they're extorting me the cartels i'm afraid they're
gonna send a sicario and he said his his desire is
the problem is not enough mexicans are speaking out if more mexicans spoke out
it's the same principle that would then create this public opinion that would
oblige authorities to act and i think that's the same thing and then you know
legal actions um and it's just it's a war of attrition. We just got to keep.
Pounding away you know and i'm and when you guys said
we're winning i have a more uh long-term pessimistic
view but for me the issue isn't that we're winning we just
have to keep hammering away keep firing the mortars uh and then we'll decide
where we're at you know in a few years or decades time ryan you asked us for
solutions why don't we just you know i would i would say that anybody on the right who you can reach,
be that in the US, UK,
immigration, shut these, we got to round these, we got to fingerprint all these
illegals and scan their eyeballs and all that stuff.
Just remind them to think a couple steps ahead and to know that that,
how would you feel if this power was given to Gavin Newsom?
And they go, well, I mean, how would it be used against you or somebody like
you or somebody said, you know, what would you want?
Would you be as enthusiastic if it was, you know, cause it is,
it's going to be handed down.
It's going to be passed down from one party to the next.
And, and, and if you don't trust your enemy with this power.
Then can you trust your guy with it as well?
And so maybe for them to, to re-examine that belief system and,
and acknowledge that it's, you know, it can be not okay when their guy wants to do it too.
And for them to be very careful about advocating for state power because once
they are granted this power,
once you allow them to take it, you never get it back and it gets turned against you at some point.
So today it's the illegals coming across the border and five years from now,
it's them scanning your eyeball before you get on an airplane.
And so reminder to people to think long-term about this stuff.
Anybody else? I can't, I don't know if you want to say anything.
I'm not sure if you did already. I forget, but I'll jump in and if you guys all said something.
So I'll just wrap up in general. So I think, you know, what I will actually
say to that since it got brought up more than once, and I'm not saying we've won.
I think we're winning in the sense that we're gaining ground is really what I'm meaning.
You know, and I think we all kind of sense that not, maybe that's not even the
majority yet, but that's kind of where I'm leaning.
And either way, I think we recognize that there's a difference today,
you know, and that just speaks to what we're all getting at is that what we're
doing, it is affecting people.
And I think that's a powerful thing to recognize, you know? And I want to say
that I think that, you know, there's two kind of overlapping things is right
now there's a lot of people out there.
Well, I will say too, that like I've been saying often that I don't think the
left and the right, like the mainstream alternative media and the mainstream
media framing each other.
I don't think that represents most Americans anymore. I think things have shifted
and now they keep screaming about the left does this, the right does that.
And there's leanings, but I think that's changing.
And I think that there's a lot of really just good people who
believe that they're fighting for the constitution who maybe don't understand
it enough or who, who are misled or rationalizing why it's okay to stop it now
for X, Y, and Z, but let's not always, you know, I think it's important.
And I think we all here do a good job at this, but out there.
Immediately assume somebody's fighting for the wrong reasons or a partial or
parlor, you know, give people the benefit of the doubt in regard to these kinds
of ways and let them prove themselves out, right? Like engage with somebody is my point.
Say, Hey, have you thought about this? Do you understand this part of it?
And I'll say that it's important in that, in that case to really understand
that in this country, we're not given constitutional rights, right?
And we all talk about this here, right? That you, these are things that are
inherent, God given both terms are used.
So whether you're religious or not, right, the idea is that these are things
that when this was originally outlined, the idea was this is something that
human beings have inherently, but we can only enforce this within these boundaries.
So hopefully other people in the world will ultimately take the same kind of
mindset on. And you could if you read the documentation, it's very clear.
And so the reality is that these are things that the government could never
take away, but they can they can fail to respect them.
Right. And I think that's where we end up. And so I just really think that's
super important to think about. And I really, you know, all the discussions
and the solutions, I think this will give people a lot of ground to think on
and hopefully evolve their opinions.
But just, you know, understand where that principle, in my opinion,
speaking for myself, I think that has to be the end all be all error today because
of the way it's being abused.
And I'll say lastly that I hope, you know, like what Jason said,
I hope it wasn't taken like maybe I came out across too hot in that.
I feel like the ideas are used very manipulatively out there,
not even to suggest that's what you were doing, Jason.
And so I just think it's important to have that conversation. I love Jason to death.
We still love each other after this because the point is it's an amicable. I love you too, Ryan.
Well, this is important though, right? Because, you know, and we,
I mean, I've been on your show in the past where we get a little bit of heated conversation.
The point is that we will always, I'd like to believe, and I think we all agree,
be amicable after this and be like, okay, I'm glad we had the conversation.
I think we, you know, reach some different opinions and people can think on
it for themselves. And that's the whole point of the argument.
Not me, I'm cutting all of you off.
I'm never talking to any of you ever again. Goodbye. You're right.
Just because you said it like that I just got to give just a personal story
Really quick And this is the end This is the craziest thing to me,
My mother called me a few days ago, Friday, to let me know she had a heart attack
on Monday. Now, it was a silent heart attack.
She went, got it out, left ventricle. My uncle had had a heart attack the week before.
Now, my only way to get to that part of the family is usually through my cousin.
And she had disconnected her Facebook. Now, I thought that she disconnected
her Facebook because maybe she didn't want to deal with everything.
Her father was sick. etc and my
mother goes no no no she she did
that because she did a post on charlie kirk and i
go so she goes well she's
married to a black man jason and i go so and
then she goes well she's got black children jason and
i go so and then
my mother says and i'm gonna tell you right now i have no context what
she wrote okay or what the responses were my mother
says to me well Charlie Kirk was a racist and
I literally lost my mind on
the phone and I just started screaming at my mother
I'm like mom I don't know where your brain
is at and where your kid's brain is at or where my family's brain is at but
I had a lot of disagreements with Kirk I never saw him or heard him say anything
that was racist and I often you know my brother called me basically right after
he got shot, before he was announced dead.
He was worried because Tucker Carlson was actually supposed to be at the event
and be presenting, and I was going to be introducing him. He wanted me to be okay.
And I just thought to myself, not only back to that Reagan thing,
but how many people would have cheered 20 years ago if I got my head blown off
in public for speaking out against 9-11?
How many would cheer now? I had people in the chat literally saying,
here's to you catching a bullet like Charlie.
And it really disturbs me that that kind of poison has infiltrated my family's
mindset, that somebody that whether you disagreed with them or not,
was willing to have the conversation was somehow inherently racist.
I hope we can get beyond that. Sorry, I had to jump in.
No, no, no. I think that's important. And especially since the whole idea is
that I will even add on top of that, that those people on my point would have the right to save that.
And that may be that may be contentious because there was no crime outside of
that idea. but that, you know, you may feel threatened and that means that you can sue them.
And I think this, that gives a little bit of a final point on where we might discuss that.
And I'll even add to the point that I think it's a subjective point anyway,
right? What we always talk about, he can say whatever he wants.
Some people thought what he said was racist.
Like even the DEI point they point to, you could argue that there's a level
of racism there, but I argue his point is about the DEI point and hiring not
the person who has the best for the job.
You know, so it becomes a very nuanced thing. The whole point is that he can
say whatever he wants, you know, and the idea is that we have a right to listen or not.
And that's kind of the crux of the point at the end of the day.
And I hope we can think about where that line should be and how that being open
allows the government to take that action that I think we all disagree with.
Right. So anybody else, any final thoughts?
All right. We'll leave it there for today. I appreciate everybody's time and
I really enjoyed the conversation. Plenty more to come.
And I was always questioning everything. Come to your own conclusions. Stay vigilant.