➡ The discussion revolves around the concept of ‘false binary’ and how it manipulates people’s choices. It also delves into the role of media in helping people understand the reality behind the illusion. The conversation further explores the nuances of free speech, particularly the line between speech and violence. The participants argue that speech should not be restricted unless it directly threatens lives, and that the state often misuses the concept of ‘dangerous speech’ to control narratives.
➡ The discussion revolves around the concept of free speech and its limitations, using the analogy of ‘yelling fire in a theater’. The group discusses how this analogy was first used to suppress political dissent and how it’s evolved to potentially label individuals as domestic terrorists. They express concern about the misuse of language and labels, and the potential for these to infringe on free speech rights. They also discuss the importance of existing laws and the dangers of creating new ones that could be used to further limit free speech.
➡ The discussion revolves around the issue of non-citizens voting and holding influential positions in the U.S., which some see as a violation of the law. The conversation also touches on the importance of understanding constitutional rights, regardless of one’s immigration status. The panelists also discuss the potential decline of American influence globally and the possible consequences. Lastly, they emphasize the importance of free speech and the dangers of self-censorship.
➡ The text discusses the importance of freedom of speech and the dangers of self-censorship. It emphasizes that everyone has the right to express their opinions, even if they are wrong. The text also warns against the misuse of power and urges people to challenge any attempts to suppress their rights. It encourages people to keep fighting for their rights, even if the battle seems long and hard.
➡ The text discusses the importance of inherent human rights and how they should be respected by the government. It emphasizes the need for open conversations and differing opinions, even when they lead to heated debates. The text also shares a personal story about family disagreements over perceived racism, highlighting the impact of divisive rhetoric. It concludes by encouraging critical thinking and vigilance.
➡ The text discusses the complexities of free speech, particularly around hate speech and threats. It questions where the line should be drawn between what is acceptable and what is not, and who should make that decision. The text also touches on the role of the government and the legal system in regulating speech, and the potential for abuse in these areas. It concludes by highlighting the importance of these discussions in the context of current events and societal issues.
➡ The text discusses the dangers of labeling political opponents as domestic terrorists and the potential misuse of such labels. It emphasizes the importance of free speech and warns against creating special categories of speech, such as hate speech. The text also highlights the hypocrisy in the current political climate and the potential for misuse of power. It encourages readers to resist participating in these harmful practices and to promote understanding and normalcy instead.
➡ The discussion revolves around the control of online speech and the role of tech giants like Google. The speakers debate whether these companies, despite being private entities, should be considered government organizations due to their close ties and contracts with the government. They also discuss the potential for censorship and the right to sue these companies for defamation. The conversation highlights the complexity of defining free speech in the digital age.
➡ The speaker argues against the censorship of content by platforms like YouTube, suggesting that it’s unfair and potentially influenced by government involvement. They believe that the current legal system is flawed, favoring those with money, and that suing companies for censorship is unlikely to be successful. They also express concern about the lack of accountability for high-level individuals and corporations, using the Epstein case as an example. They suggest that free speech may only be protected if there is criminal accountability for those who suppress it.
➡ The discussion revolves around the blurred lines between government and big tech companies, and how this affects free speech. The participants express concern about censorship, especially when it’s unclear whether it’s being done by private companies or government entities. They also discuss the issue of what constitutes ‘constitutionally protected speech’, and how this term can be manipulated to control what is allowed on social media. The conversation ends with a debate on the legality of burning the American flag, emphasizing the importance of individual rights over property.
➡ The discussion revolves around the issue of free speech, particularly in colleges, and the role of federal funding in influencing it. The speakers argue that the government uses federal funding as a tool to control speech on campuses. They suggest that the solution is not more federal funding or government intervention, but rather building independent platforms and holding the government accountable. They also emphasize the importance of winning in the court of public opinion to bring about change.
➡ The speaker discusses the importance of independent media in shaping public opinion and the need for more honest brokers in the media landscape. They highlight the role of technology in our lives and the potential for self-sufficiency, such as growing our own food. They also emphasize the need to hold politicians accountable and possibly even consider running for office themselves. The speaker believes we are living in an era of unlimited potential and opportunity, despite the challenges we face.
➡ The speaker discusses his recent experiences in Washington D.C., noting a visible increase in the Muslim population and a decrease in homelessness. He also mentions the absence of military presence, contrary to his previous visits. The speaker debates the implications of these observations, touching on issues of authoritarianism, free speech, and cultural shifts. He also raises concerns about non-citizens holding positions in the American educational system.

Sam, we’re going to be discussing the idea of the false binary, what an illusion of choice does. It 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 evil 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 of 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 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, in the past we wanted to briefly introduce each. 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 Ermes, 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, corporate report.com and I’ll throw it to Charlie. Activistpost.com macroaggressions IO I’m Les Claypool and I play bass. Happy 62nd birthday last. Little late. Good job. Appreciate it. Now I, I actually don’t know where the banner for our names are. I’ll somebody point out to me later and I’ll try to include that.

But let’s go ahead and start with, 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. 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 no matter 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 no other people are responsible for their actions. So let’s get into that. That main point 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.

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 theater. 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 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 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, to get, you know, us to be arrested or into a trial. We hadn’t broke 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, 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, 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 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? Okay, go, Carrie. Who wants to go? I.

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, bands 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. If you don’t. 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. Well, going back to the fire in a theater analogy, does everyone know where that came from? You know, it’s a good question. I’m sure there’s. That was a federal prosecutor by the name of Wirtz 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’s defense is free speech. Of course, if we got a First Amendment, there’s. 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’s 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 I.

That again, well, you can’t. You’ll 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 dissent. 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 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. 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. But given the world that we live. 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, well, if you get labeled a domestic terrorist 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, oh yeah, 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 drumbeat 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, quote, unquote, loosely affiliated as antifa is. You know, I was covering the anti fascists back in 2008, 2009 at the G20 when it was the black bloc. And you know, I don’t. 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. 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 D.C. a few weeks ago 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’ve 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. 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 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, 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, like I said, the absolutist, in my opinion, being a free speech absolutist means there is literally no word or sentences you can say out loud that means that you are, because you have absolute, 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 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, is thought, thought crime. And that. 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.

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, you know, if you. If you feel that there is like. Like, even say, like, a death threat, like, you know, 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’ve. 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 theater. You could argue, as the theater owner, that guy said this, and it destroyed my business.

You 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 I think 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 null and Boyd per Murbury vs Madison, for example, 1803.

Like that, it’s if it’s repugnant to the Constitution, it’s null and void whether or not it’s been voted on by a bunch of unconstitutional politicians. But like that, 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. You know, 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 because I know we’re not talking about the too much of the current event yet.

It’s mainly just the principle. But it does kind of tie into things going on with, you know, 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, you know, thankfully, actually we’re calling out over on Twitter on Elon’s platform, she got a community note where people added some context and they linked 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, 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 perfect example. Because like, so I’m going to be erring 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 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. This 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, you know, 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 CIA all the way down to discredit the hippie anti war movement anyway, so.

Right, right. But that’s a really interesting overlap as well though. Right. So conspiracy to any number of things is arguably. Well, that, that is a crime. Right. But there might be a line where that would overlap. Like you’re saying to, to abuse that, to go after somebody for speech. But if you are planning a violent act and then people carry it out like that’s, that’s a very different situation. But these are all really great examples to, to bring these things to mind about why we should be having this conversation. Because right now, I mean, and don’t.

We can do it 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 them 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 or this and that and then gone and done it or went and beat that person it, you know, and I’m just gonna 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 I, I, 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. You know, again, we have to have these type of criminal deterrence. So, you know, 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, you know, 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, etc. Etc. As much as I don’t like hearing those things, I think that 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, you know, how do you prove intent in that regard if you just basically have them saying that that’s my. 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 event your evidence. If not, then you don’t charge them because there was no crime. The moment we create the crime for words is where we lose our way. That’s, that’s kind of my stance today.

Well, I mean, we could bring up plenty of examples, right? I mean, we, one of. Some of the very obvious ones are like, with, like, you know, we can even just start with the. Oh, you know what? Let’s, let’s do this one quick since we chime in about the antifa thing that Charlie mentioned earlier, because I think that this is something that I think we’re all probably paying attention to and have been warning people for years about the use of domestic extremism and domestic terrorists. 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 be called being called the 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 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 volunteers on the panel here.

And I just wanted 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 US Government. I’m sure some here or in the audience have done that. The overthrow of US 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 are like anarchist etc are being thrown around, that really does, I think, worry me not to, you know, 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 it’s taken, 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 embolding 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, this is 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 seeing 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, 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 so five years ago, five and a half years ago, Jason Burmas and I were standing in Washington D.C.

it looking at a group of people who on one side was black block 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 Burmas 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 gonna get flack whichever way we moved, 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 a 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 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. Those are not new talking points. Pam Bondi says hate speech isn’t free speech. As if she just had the idea, but she didn’t. That’s years and years old. It’s, you know, it’s not hate speech of incites, but it’s not free speech of incites violence.

Like we’re talking about years old things. Even domestic terrorism was first invoked years ago and was freshly invoked just a couple of years ago by Joe Biden about January 6th 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, that isn’t killing 500,000 children because they didn’t get their vaccines. Even more terrorism. What this book the Last Spatial Events 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.

Right. Maybe I’ll just add that I think the technosphere, right. You know, we always had issues in the 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. You know, I don’t know if we. You guys mentioned the recent example of George Galloway coming back from Russia and being held up for but five, six hours is a, you know, 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.

Like if I’m, if I get a serious death threat, you know, I don’t really take, 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 we’ll go to the authority to deal with the potential violent act going around, you know, the Internet. So anyways, yeah, well, Sirvoj, 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 agree with you. But private entities on private property can absolutely make whatever speech curtailment they, 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 this, can I ask 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’s 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, and you know, it’s the copy paste stuff I just get rid of.

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.

The answer is, I freaking love an absolute. Just 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 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 thanks. 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. Everything to do with frustrating from search and seizure. 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 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 feels like the government’s argument. But I get where you’re going with that. Like, it’s a router. No, no, 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 could 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. And admitted, yeah, the government forced us to d. Or was pressuring us to deactivate all these accounts because of COVID Right. Wouldn’t. Wouldn’t you argue that? I’ve got another, like, nuanced question. So that came out, and I decided, you know, I was going to tag at Team YouTube on X and say, remonetize 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. Think everybody here is in that same boat. Okay, but. But hear me out here. I pointed out how they are government sponsored and a government entity. They’re also government protected from me suing their ass for defamation through 203. So what is my recourse? This is the question though, Jason. What is the solution? What. So what are you actively proposing should be done here? Should the government come in and now tell YouTube or whatever? 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, you know, several decades, if not post World War II. James. So I think that we’re in this conundrum where, you know, you know, you can kind of scoff a little bit about what he said, but these magical devices are in everybody’s home and half of a are directly associated with that organization. Google, Alphabet, YouTube, call it whatever you want, it’s the same thing.

And now you not only have these, but these are, 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% 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, and 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, 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. Okay, but what lawsuit would you like to bring against Alphabet? And I would. Defamation. Yes, I. Defamation. You have blanketed me as harmful content. You have to prove that I have. I have literally produced harmed. I have produced harm to nobody. Words are not violence, James. Like that’s the idea. Everything that I have never not only, not only have I never called for violence, everything I have presented I either backed up with evidence, 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 into the weeds of free speech because specifically, it always comes down to the brass tax of, okay, so what specifically should happen here? And I’m, you know, 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, I don’t know that you can bring that lawsuit. I’ve talked to, for instance, not that I’m a rich man, but Ren’s. Me and Tom have, 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, etc. 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, 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 vite like you’re harmful. That’s an interest. 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. 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 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 if as a US 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. Yeah. So what’s my solution to that? It is certainly not to beg the US Government to be some sort of adjudicator in this or something. No, obviously government action interaction with these platforms is the problem itself. So the only solution is to get government out of these platforms. I don’t have much of a. An ability to do that on my side by myself anyway. So what Are we not moving in the opposite direction? Especially with this tick tick tock hype. Right. We’re, we’re, to me, totally. We’re starting to. On a grand level. Doesn’t matter what side you’re on, just accept this techno fascism to a CIA contractor that is a dyed in the wool Zionist who shares information on the regular with the iof.

I mean, I, I totally agree with you. I, 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 who 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 Ahood, 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 quick, Jason, the, the additional point to that and go right back to you is that this was Ryan Graham and Dropsite News had a really great article about this through the Mongolia. Point was about them. Was Epstein facilitating Israel’s 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. Oh, no, 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 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 these, 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. 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, Tick Tock. 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. Okay. And you know, Palantir is another extension of that. You know this. I, I think that’s one of the big issues with this free speech idea is that we are so down 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 that. 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 cr. Like this is one of the things I wanted to get to in this conversation was that very perfect point about the public private partnership, the fascistic discussion. Like we have seen the corporate world blend with the government right in front of us. And so that obviously changes the conversation. Right. So you know, 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 let’s, for all intents and purposes, let’s say all these platforms are private. Google, big tech. But what happens, okay, they take you down from know you go to Microsoft, they take you down, you go to that, you know, anywhere that there’s nowhere to go. And even if you have your own website, 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, or mafia or, or, or cartel. And now we’ve got another problem to deal with. Okay, well, let’s look at, 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 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 related, 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, 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 mention that in theory, well, 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 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 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 where 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.

Like how do you not. How are you. If, okay, 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 enmeshed. So it’s like if everything is fascism, corporatism is nothing fascism, corporatism within the paradigm we’re living in? I don’t have the answer, but those are the things that are crossing my mind. Well, I, I think the, Sorry, just to jump on the, the constitutionally protected speech thing.

I mean, they’re taking away the right to due process now, arguing that people who aren’t citizens don’t get the right to due process. So people who aren’t citizens, I suppose, also get. 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 was just a quick appendix. 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 Oz Turk and so on. So there is some pushback. But, you know, 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 we make this case about 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. 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 interests.

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 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% 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, was on it before he died. In fact, I’d like to dig it up, but, you know, again, Trump said 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 a hundred percent. Even if you think it’s hate speech, we get to do it here. They could 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. 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 allows illegal protests, which again, they decide what they deem illegal. And Trump’s made it clear it’s not about violence. He, in la, he put out the point that if people show up to protest will be met with force. That, you know, 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 protest 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 just like with the FCC point, if they say. Or sec. Excuse me, if they say. Or. No, it wasn’t. 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 mask to hide identities and criminals. It’s 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, principle, the principled 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 is not the sort of Damocles that they can dangle. Okay, then that same point, the government was coming along and saying, there is a new law. You will be arrested if you have a protest on campus. Oh, okay, 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, 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’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, 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 Burma 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 is. 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, 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, the group chat they’re giving us is just that they’re still working out bugs and so on. You know, I, I keep, when 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 that. And 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 I, you know, the interesting thing is the government aspect in what you’re saying, right, which is that, you know, the gut like in that situation, what we’re all talking about, the government I think is where you have to be look for accountability and we like we do with everything else, like we need to hold them accountable because the company, you know, they are, there’s, 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 it happens, if we get 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 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 set.

You 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 tie. Dennis Kucinich was There Kurt Weldon, Dana Rohrabacher, which kind of shocked me. You know Dana Rohrbacher, I, 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 911 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. Opinion. The tuck ins, whether you love them or hate them. And I think he got like the first 10 minutes of that five part series completely wrong and even like 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 then the first part. I’m gonna be watching it week to week. But when I say winning 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 Theo was being an honest broker. That’s moving the needle. Okay. 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 911 and maybe we can get to that level.

But we have to exploit that the best we can as honest brokers. Another reason. In other words, we utilize the tools that we have. I don’t. James. I’m with you. I wish we, I wish we’d already built better tools. Right. I wish minds.com we talk about social media took off in the manner it should have. I wish Rockfin was able to do that. Charlie Take it away, bro. Outernet. John Snyssen. Those of you who know John, I met him in 2019 at an archipelco with you, James. Actually he has built, he is part of a team that has built a product called outernet.

O u t e r r.net and this. 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 makes you want to be involved in it.

And so John Snyson is somebody that, had he been here, he would certainly talk about one of the solutions that he’s working on. And, and I think that’s, you know, he’s the anti in Q tel, 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. But 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 they’re, it’s almost like they’re responding to everything, you know, somewhat into 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. I, and, and I’m sorry to say it so crudely, but sometimes you just gotta put it down and you, you have to go. I, I actually do run here scared, Carrie. And everybody on this panel right now runs 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 all over? No, I tell them I’m Corbett pilled because I’ve, you know, I’ve, 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. Life. And so we, we do, we have a, 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 what? Exactly. 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? Derek Bros. You know, who, 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, a kind of a, 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, there are things that you can do that it, 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, like, I, 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? Because, I mean, 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 you’ve laid 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 watch Thomas Massie 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 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? Weren’t you 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 warhawk. 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 was 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 DC in my entire life. Guys, I’m Just, I’m, I’m.

Hey, I just want to be honest with him. Hey, man, tanks on the streets and dudes with ars 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. 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 creates 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 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 gonna rest. Excuse me. I think it’s Am, wake up. I don’t this. As I was driving down, I had to drive.

I, 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, Kristan 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 have support. 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’m just. No, no, hold on. Make a point. The point about what you’re saying in regard to the location. You know, I, I, 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 pro, 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 poor 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, D.C. 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, 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 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, etc. 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 speaking Arabic. I mean, the vast majority of the people that are working there were women in 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. 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 that’s a 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’s what’s being used right now to frame somehow that we’re being overtaken and all.

Which. Hey, I, I understand the reality of weaponized migration. My point in this regard, when I see Loomer, for example, who I. What’s this? My personal opinion? This. No, this is 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 in 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, last point conversation and saying we’re seeing Muslims everywhere and saying that’s overtaken us.

Last thing, last sentence. And you can go, when they break the law. Right. If we have somebody 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 isn’t and of itself the problem. I, I can’t agree with that. So let me. Let me. Let me say that’s not the. Like. I’ll give you an example.

There’s a huge 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 all the time 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, 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’d 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. 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 in Washington, D.C. like, I think that is what this tends to be, but maybe 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. 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. 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 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. The problem. That’s what I’m saying. They’re saying he literally had been voting, he was a Democrat. Prove that 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 da, da, da. 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. The reality, the constitutional literance of illiteracy, 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, 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, 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 pro. 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, 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 Americans, citizens? I think, bare minimum, if you’re going to be the director of that, again, you’re, 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 was this person able to do all those things if we, if that’s. By the way, what’s that? Well, because you just said we didn’t verify that.

But the point is still that if he did, that’s a fair question, right? Like, yeah, that’s, 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? Okay, we don’t, we don’t know what his opinions are, but I think it comes to a legal issue of today is that against the law, isn’t. I mean, I just, just to speak up for the now 50% 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 like 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. There will be a transition away from the American empire and it will be the main power in the world, 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, 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 the, the, the episode around that was World War II essentially.

But, but the transition wasn’t then flagship or even necessarily deliberate. So you could sort of argue it’s, it’s different. 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 clubs of infrastructure like you saw in the collapse of the Soviet Union, where there were millions of casualties that weren’t, you know, taken up 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 felt, I felt compelled to, to respond with this. What you were saying, Jason. I’m sorry, but I think that, you know, all of this overlaps with obviously the conversation of constitutional rights. Right. So that’s a very least 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 were talking about 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 in 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 this is 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. That’s far more important than actual laws which they cannot pass and people would ignore anyway. And if they do that, they don’t need to pass the laws. I think really what you’re backing against is, 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. Can you please write an article about that? Because that’s such an important point. I 100% agree with what you’re saying there. 50 articles about that over the years. It just comes up. One specifically said, James, here is that article about that thing and then I’ll, I’ll republish it at activist post. No, can I just echo what you’re saying there? Because 100%, the point of this is the, the point of even the, 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 and, 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 and forth. 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 me 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 could go. And one small addition to that is, you know, so 100 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’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, 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 that they’re here on a visa in the education system. Like you said, they are allotted those same constitution, constitutional rights. Again, if they’re breaking laws, you know, 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% 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. You know, we all run our counter influence campaign as the government’s running there, you know, 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 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 Graham Phillips or 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 are 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 Moy. After four years of becoming very successful, he said, I gotta shut down. They’re extorting me, the cartels. I’m afraid they’re gonna send us 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. And then, you know, legal actions and it’s just, it’s a war of attrition. We just got to keep pounding away, you know. And when you guys said we’re winning, I have a more 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 and then we’ll decide where we’re at, you know, in a few years or decades time.

Anybody else, Ryan, you asked, you asked 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, you know, Immigration, you know, shut these in. You know, we got around these, we got to fingerprint all these illegals and scan their eyeballs and all that stuff. You know, just remind them to think a couple steps ahead and to know that, that you know, how would you feel if this power was given to Gavin Newsom? You know, and they go, well, I mean, I don’t, you know, 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, because 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, you know, it can be not okay when their guy wants to do it too. And, and, and for them to be very careful about advocating for state power because once they are granted this power, once you give it or allow them to take it, you never get it back and in it and it gets turned against you at some point.

So it’s, you know, today it’s the illegals coming across the border and you know, 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? Kid, 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 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, 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, 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, there’s good people who, 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 all, you know, I think it’s important and I think we all here do a good job at this. But out there, don’t immediately assume somebody’s fighting for the wrong reasons or a partial or part of the, you know, give people the benefit of the doubt in regard to these kind of ways and, 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, in what Jason said, I hope it wasn’t taken.

Like, maybe I came across too hot in that. I feel like the ideas are used very manipulative, manipulatively out there. Not even to suggest that’s what you were doing, Jason. And so I just think it’s important to, to have that conversation. I love Jason to death. We still love each other after this. Because the point is, it’s an. I love you too, Ryan. Well, this is important though, right? Because, you know, and we, I mean, I’ve even. 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. Not me. I’m cutting all of you off. I’m never talking to any of you ever again. Goodbye. Right? Just because you said it like that. I just got to give just a personal story really quick. Okay? Just got. And if 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, 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 going to 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 or.

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, you know, for speaking out against 9, 11? How many would cheer now? I had people in the chat literally saying, I hope you.

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, 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 say that. And that may be contrary. That may be contentious, and because there was no crime outside of that idea, but that, you know, you may feel threatened and that means you can sue them.

And I think this. That gives a little bit of 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 as always, question everything, Come to your own conclusions, stay vigilant.
[tr:tra].

See more of The Corbett Report on their Public Channel and the MPN The Corbett Report channel.