What Is Freedom Of Speech With TLAV Corbett Slow News Day And More Part 2
Send Some Love and Buy Me A Cup Of Joe:
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jasonbermasShow more ETH - 0x90b9288AF0E40F8C90604460973743dBC91dA680
Watch My Documentaries:
https://rokfin.com/stack/1339/Documentaries--Jason-Bermas
Subscribe on Rokfin
https://rokfin.com/JasonBermas
Subscribe on Rumble
https://rumble.com/c/TheInfoWarrior
Subscribe on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/InfoWarrior
Follow me on X
https://x.com/JasonBermas
PayPal: [email protected]
Patriot TV - https://patriot.tv/bermas/
#BermasBrigade #TruthOverTreason #BreakingNews #InfoWarrior Show less
It is time for part two of the Freedom of Speech Independent Media Alliance panel featuring myself, James Corbett, the last American vagabond, Steve from Slow News Day, Charlie from Macro Aggressions, and so much more.
You're not going to want to miss it.
Buckle up and get ready to make sense of the madness.
Which, again, the definition of that is the comment.
I think it's a CIA contractor that is a died-in-the-wool Zionist who shares information on the regular with the IOF.
I mean, I totally agree with you.
I mean, again, this is the big issue because, right, let me give you another news story that it's only on the peripheral.
Are you guys aware of the Ahud Barak 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, Ahud Barak 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.
I mean, really quick, Jason.
The additional point to that, and I'll go right back to you, is that this was Ryan Graham and Dropside News had a really great article about this.
Yes, and I read it.
It is about the Mongolia point.
It 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?
Exactly.
That's the infiltration.
Go ahead.
No, no, I'm glad you made that point because, again, it's this lair and facade of government.
I still have gotten no answers.
And shame on me, but even most of alternative media not digging into the signature reduction program that never went away, right?
I mean, we all know that this intelligence network, I guess we'll call it, because signature reduction is not an official name.
They refer to it as an art form.
It's been going on for literally 15 years with no hearings, no oversight from the Senate, no oversight from the intelligence committee.
And they admit there are 60,000 of these people online and in person.
That's four years ago.
And they're embedded in the biggest companies.
So you're telling me they're not embedded in Google, X, Meta, TikTok?
Of course, just like they're embedded in Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, just like they're embedded in BlackRock.
They're embedded in all these goddamn things.
Okay.
And, you know, Palantir is another extension of that.
You know this.
I think that's one of the big issues with this free speech idea is that we are so 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, but 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 Ghelane Maxwell trial and they truncated that as far as they could into human trafficking, essentially to Epstein alone, right?
Well, you bring up like the, 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 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 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 Google.
You 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 mafia or cartel.
And now we've got another problem to deal with.
Okay, well, let's look at, hang on, 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.
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.
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 guy.
I hope I could, but there's no difference between the heads of social media companies in my mind and the state carried.
Do you have like?
Tell me more?
Well, i've honestly, i've been wanting to say something that's kind of adjacently really, but I think is quite important to consider.
You mentioned his inauguration we're talking about.
Well, should the government be involved?
And I wanted to bring up an executive order that Trump had shortly after he was inaugurated, that all of the the MAGA crowd and the free speech absolutists were very excited about, because it was basically saying the government's not going to censor social media anymore by my executive order.
You know i'm ordering Murdering 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, wow, Donald Trump is getting the government out of censoring social media.
But that's a huge caveat.
When you look at the speech they're now saying is unacceptable, they would probably argue that anti-Semitic speech, which could just be criticizing the government of Israel, is not constitutionally protected.
So, that's a complete, I wouldn't even call it a back door, that is a front door to continue censoring the internet under the guise of no longer censoring the internet because they use the term constitutionally protected.
And who decides?
Well, people in government, they decide whether or not it's constitutional.
So, I don't have a specific reply to what you're saying because I've been censored by potentially that public-private partnership.
If Derek Barnacle, he was censored with the anti-media as well.
And as far as we can tell, it seems like the Atlantic Council was involved.
But I, to this day, I don't know where to draw that line because it's still a private company.
I believe that.
And I think that is especially important because we're talking about the extent of this corporate public practice.
Like, how do you not?
How are you?
If, okay, if Facebook and Google and all these companies are government entities because they got funding from the government or they, there's a revolving door, like what company isn't in this day and age.
And that's a broader conversation, but it's all of these things are in mesh.
So it's like if everything is 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 see the sorry, just to jump from the constitutionally protected speech thing.
I mean, that's 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 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 did it anyway.
It 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 it, 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 as air to the principle as far as you can.
And so they 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.
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 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 that was on it before he died.
In fact, I'd like to dig it up.
But, you know, again, Trump just signed an executive order saying you can't burn an American flag.
Excuse me?
That is insane.
Like, first of all, that's been shot down by the Supreme Court again and again, and rightfully so.
And it needs to be again.
I'll say this again.
If it is your property and you are not destroying something else from someone there, if you are not disruptive in a public arena, and if you are, you know, if you're disruptive in a public arena, if they want to get you for something like that, great.
There should be no law saying I can't do something with my property I own, even if it is a quote-unquote symbol of this country.
That is the wrong direction.
And again, I don't know what Kirk's position was on that, but he would have had what probably a good month, six weeks before he was assassinated to weigh in on that issue.
If he was truly against, you know, any types of censorship.
And by the way, I am a guy that says hate speech 100%, even if you think it's hate speech, we get to do it here.
They 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.
Do you want to read that?
Yeah, this is an example of him.
Like, so this is Trump saying all federal funding will stop for any college, school, or university that allows illegal protests, which again, they decide what they deem illegal.
And Trump's made it clear it's not about violence.
In LA, he put out the point that if people show up to protest, we'll 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 protests to continue.
Now, this is well played because of the overlap of the school funding, but it's been Supreme Court's roundly ruled.
It's just like with the FCC point, if they say, or SEC, excuse me, if they say, or no, was it they say if you 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 mass to hide identities and criminals.
It's exactly spot on, except unless it's ICADA, you know, different point.
But so there's many of those where Charlie Kirk, I would argue, seems to contradict the stance he would stay 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.
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 Kerry was getting into, is that that line, right?
Like that's you blur those lines intentionally, and then it becomes near impossible to be able to make that definition.
So, I mean, the principled position is easy and is simple.
No, the principled 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 applies.
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 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 with censorship?
You know, that's kind of seems to be this overall.
Well, to me, yeah, okay, good.
Because to me, this is the actual point of this conversation.
We all know the problem and we all agree on the problem.
We all see the problem.
And I think everyone in the audience understands the problem.
What is the solution?
That is the only thing we should be concentrating on.
What do we do about this?
And if people's answer is we need more federal funding for colleges or something, or we come out on that side of the equation, we are getting stuck in the wrong, in the stuck on stupid conversation, answering the wrong questions in the wrong way.
What we need to do is decide, okay, what are our principles and how do we work towards them?
Now, I think it would be great, yes, if government just completely, utterly left all of these corporations.
They're not going to do that anytime soon, are they?
Because exactly as Burmese said, how many of these people have ever faced any sort of criminal prosecution for what's going on?
Exactly zero of them.
How many can we expect to face such prosecution in the near future under the Trump administration?
Exactly zero of them.
So what can we do?
What can we do?
And I'm going to give the unpopular answer.
No one wants to hear.
Everyone will say, you're stupid, James.
This is dumb.
But it's the only answer that is actually principled.
And it is the answer of screw Google and screw Alphabet and screw X. Screw all these companies.
And why don't we start building our own infrastructure?
No, you're stupid.
That'll never happen.
It won't work.
You have to be on Alphabet.
Everyone has to be on Alphabet.
So now we need some government organization to tell Alphabet who can and can't be on.
No, our power is to not be on their platforms.
Our power is to develop something else.
Speaking of which, how's Odyssey going?
I thought we had an IMA portal now.
On that note, it's just the updates in the group chat they're giving us is just that they're still working out bugs and so on.
You know, I keep 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, not to say I don't agree with you entirely, by the way, James, but there's a lot more obviously of things 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 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 of 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?
Well, I think you got to win in the court of public opinion first.
And, you know, 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 sent.
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 of the tide.
Dennis Kucinich was there, Kurt Weldon, Dana Rohrbacher, which kind of shocked me.
You know, Dana Rohrbacher, I specifically remember him on real time with Bill Maher talking about how the Iraqis were going to literally put flower petals at our feet after we went and liberated them.
And he's speaking about 9-11 truth basically on his last political legs.
That's winning in the court of public opinion.
Me being up at two in the morning, hitting stand-up comedy full, watching somebody I've never seen perform, and they're making jokes about building seven and going, buildings don't fall that way.
That's winning in the court of public opinion.
The Tuckens, 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 than the first part.
I'm going to be watching it week to week.
But when I say winning in the court of public opinion, watch that Tucker Carlson Sam Altman interview.
I'm not accusing Sam Altman of anything, but it's the first time in my lifetime that after somebody died suspiciously in a huge corporation and business, that the CEO of that corporation was asked about his suspicious death several times on behalf of the family.
That means we're moving the needle somewhere.
The fact that Altman even sat down with him, that's moving the needle somewhere.
Look, Peter Thiel, another example.
Him having to go on Rogan in that podcast bro push at the very end for the Trump administration.
Again, I don't love what I don't think 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 9-11.
And maybe we can get to that level, but we have to exploit that the best we can as honest brokers.
In other words, we utilize the tools that we have.
I don't, James, I'm with you.
I wish we, 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 Sneissen.
Those of you who know John, I met him in 2019 at an Arcapulco 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 dot 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 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 I think that's, you know, he's the anti-inQTEL.
You know, he's going to be funded by us, not by them.
I don't think this is unpopular in this group, or maybe possibly even in this group is what I meant, but I hope not.
But 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, it's almost like they're responding to everything, you know, somewhat in 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.
How do we?
Okay.
So what we do is we funk our dick on the table.
That's what we do.
And I'm sorry to say it so crudely, but sometimes you just kind of put it down and you have to go.
I actually do run shit here.
Scared carry.
Everybody on this panel right now runs shit here.
James Corbett is considered a prophet by many people because he was out there way in the early era of the internet going, This is what's happening.
This is what's coming.
This is what you can expect.
And my brother, you have been proven right time and time and time again.
In fact, when people are like, Are you black pilled?
Are you white-pilled?
No, I tell them I'm Corbett-pilled because I've, you know, I've had this resource for a very long time that has told me unapologetically, in full truth, what things are without qualifiers and what things may be without qualifiers.
And that's honestly the most respectable position I could ever imagine in my entire life.
And so we do, we have a huge database of people who have been legitimately, I guess to put it in a baseball analogy, calling balls and strikes as they come.
And so it's a matter of messaging.
So what does the thunk look like?
Like, so we know that.
So what 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 Brose, you know, who was here earlier, talks about this all the time.
It's understanding that technology is inherently a part of our life.
And it's very difficult to decouple from that, but you can do many, many things in and around that, maybe even in spite of that.
First and foremost, you can grow and produce your own food.
What you can't grow and produce on your own, you can have a handshake relationship with the people who do that in your area.
We have a gentleman who comes through the show very frequently, Texas Slim from the Beef Initiative, who is working very hard to make sure that people have a handshake relationship with their rancher.
But it extends beyond that because once you understand what food is and where food comes from, you have a kind of a building block opportunity to understand that, well,
information in and of itself doesn't happen because the state tells you or CNN or Fox or MSNBC tells you that there are things that you can do that it falls, I guess, to trust but verify.
And so we like, 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 just want that part to 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, 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 err 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?
Well, I think once we get 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 Massey and he is principled.
He doesn't seem to bend the knee.
He's anti-war.
He doesn't sit up there and say, oh, well, we're going to give an exception to Israel or this nation or this ideology.
He's pushing extremely hard on the Epstein files.
He grilled Kash Patel and made him look like a, you know, an 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-19 44 era, obviously he was much better than most, but me and my brother would have discussions.
Yeah, still kind of a neocon war hawk.
Really didn't like his foreign policy.
Starting to come around on that, right?
And we have to keep in these people's ears.
And then unfortunately, I mean, we may have to, 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 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 everybody.
Hey, man, tanks on the streets.
Hold on.
And let me say this.
Threatening people really does make it.
I, again, I get it.
I didn't see one National Guardsman or one tank.
I didn't see one.
I'll be honest.
Every other trip that I'd been there in the last five years, I had seen some type of military.
I drove, by the way, so it wasn't like I was just isolated.
Like I said, I went out to Alexandria.
I was there for like four days.
The homeless problem was totally gone.
I mean, totally gone.
But it's not gone, though.
You have to understand.
I understand that.
I'm just saying from the area.
It's a middle ground of them occupying the space that criminals would otherwise occupy while they're militarily marching the streets.
But again, I didn't see the military there.
That's my point, Ryan.
No, but you know the point.
I understand that they're present, and that's why people are going, I'm not going to go do this because they're fucking going to rest.
Oh, excuse me.
I'm thinking about it.
I like it.
No, it's a little saucy.
Listen, I don't just, as I was driving down there, right?
I had to drive.
I drive through Chicago on the way through the Midwest.
So the big hubbub was that the National Guard was coming to Chicago.
My friend Christon T. Harris, he covered it.
I haven't talked to him yet.
I have not seen it in action yet.
So I'm not going to make a judgment, but I am going to be honest about the result there.
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, Okay, hold on, though.
Hold on.
Hold on.
I have to push back.
You could argue.
Look, I'll support.
You want to do that like I supported Derek?
I'll support you.
I just don't expect me to vote for you.
Again, I'm just saying.
No, no, hold on.
Good point.
The point about what you're saying in regard to the location, you know, it's not a solution.
It's not, it's, first of all, it's shockingly unconstitutional.
So there's not even, if we're arguing the solution in any way is violating our rights, then that's the problem.
That's the whole crux of the conversation.
That's not the solution.
That's going to lead to more problems.
But I think the reality is that, like, even looking at Portland right now, you realize, I mean, even the claim is it's an unlawful war-torn.
And the reality is they've arrested four people, most of which were bumping up against people in a protest.
That's the legitimate reality of the numbers right now.
And they're telling you that it's overrun.
You know, so that's military in the streets, on the in the water.
So Washington, 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 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.
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 DC in my life.
And I know that a lot of people have seen this stuff in Europe, et cetera.
I only say that because this is the first time in my life.
I went to two Walmarts, one in the heart of D.C. and one in Alexandria.
And I kid you not.
First of all, not that white, whitest person in the place.
And it wasn't Hispanics or Mexicans.
It was literally Arabs 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 not advocating that.
But this is a very dangerous conversation.
We are on dangerous conversation, though.
It's free speech.
I'm not saying like you should stop.
We should flesh this out.
What I'm saying is this is 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.
I don't think so either.
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 I understand the reality of weaponized migration.
My point in this regard, when I see Loomer, for example, who I, plus, this is my personal opinion.
This does, 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 an American interest, just my opinion.
So I'm arguing, look, do I see her do this every day?
Do I feel her using her free speech in order to manipulate us?
100%.
Will I still defend her right to use that free speech?
100%.
So when you get into the problem of like, we have a, you know, I don't know that it's a problem.
Right.
I'm not saying it's a problem.
It's a Muslim conversation and saying we're seeing Muslims everywhere and saying that's over time.
Again, I've never been one of those people that's 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, and I'm not saying you're doing this, but that's what it felt like is that I've never seen more Muslims.
It feels like we're trying to argue that them being present is in and of itself the problem.
I'm not saying so.
So 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 DC because it is the epicenter of geopolitics.
And normally when I'm in D.C. or in the surrounding areas, yeah, there is a mix, but there's so many embassies around, right?
There's not one culture that I see dominant other than American culture in most cases.
I see French people, German people, all the time, and on the streets, still the same thing.
I'm just saying I have never seen that concentration of Muslims in that political arena and area.
And I'm not saying I even know what it means.
I'm not one of those guys that is warning about radical Islam or I think that's the next attack.
But I will say this: it'd certainly be a lot easier to blame radical Islam if something happens in that area and you have a higher population density there.
You know, they can point to it.
This is a problem reaction solution scenario.
That's what I'm saying.
That's kind of describing.
Yes.
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 of Washington, D.C. Like I think that is what this tends to be, but it 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 register that it doesn't even exist?
Well, let's talk American culture for a second and freedom of speech and kind of broader issues.
Here in Iowa, I mean, I know that everybody's seen it because it's become a national story.
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, et cetera.
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, right?
It's illegal for someone to vote without being a citizen, period.
So if that's possible, that's against the law.
Well, I mean, that's what I'm saying.
They're saying he literally had been voting.
He was a registered Democrat.
I think we should prove that.
It would be a crime if they did.
Well, I mean, 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 that.
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-da-da.
This is kind of like real influence of a different culture that I not somebody that acclimated to our culture.
That's a great point about this, the reality, the constitutional literacy of understanding that literally everybody in this country has constitutional rights, whether or not they're an illegal alien, whether or not they're a Visa card holder, green card holder.
So again, it seems like it's important to understand this.
So that really the only issue is that they're there and that they're a different culture and that they're speaking a different language.
And they haven't pledged allegiance to our ideal set at its core, which I think is free speech, like I said, which I think is a Fourth Amendment.
I'm trying to understand the point 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 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 superintendent, but a principal?
Let's say, I mean, the head of an educational organization in this country for American citizens.
I think bare minimum, if you're going to be the director of that, again, you're on a teaching visa.
I get it.
You know, if you're teaching, 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 the right to vote.
And again, I'm not saying you have to be born here either.
The thing that gets me is how is this person able to do all those things in this system?
By the way, what's that?
Because you just said we didn't verify that.
But the point is still that if he did, that's a fair question, right?
Yeah, that's that.
And that's my question when we're talking about this culturally.
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, right?
Okay, we don't know what his opinions are.
Sure, but I think it comes to a legal issue of today, right?
Is that against the law?
I mean, 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.
There will be a transition away from the American empire.
And it will be the main power in the world to become something else.
And this will be sold to most people, including most Americans, as a good thing.
I get that sense too.
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?
I mean, potentially, no, no, I would agree.
There must be like, if you look at the transition of power, for example, historically from Britain to the US, people would say that the episode around that was World War II, essentially.
But the transition wasn't then flagship or even necessarily deliberate.
So you could sort of argue it's different.
I don't think, no.
I think the collapse of the US when it comes will involve an awful lot of casualties one way or the other, whether that becomes just from a collapse of infrastructure like you saw in the collapse of the Soviet Union, where there were millions of casualties that weren't 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 compelled to respond with this, what you were saying, Jason.
I'm sorry, but I think that all of this overlaps with obviously the conversation of constitutional rights, right?
So that's a very least overlap to the conversation.
But the free speech point, which we're largely wrapping up at this point, I think is we were talking about the principle.
We talked about the hypocrisy, which we didn't get into many of the examples.
But like James said, I mean, I think everyone's very well aware of the problem.
We got into the point of the partisan kind of hypocrisy around it and some of the solutions.
So, I mean, we can kind of wrap up if you guys want to just go through your thoughts on where we should go and 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're 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 batting against is self-censorship imposed through fear and through the fear of social rejection.
I think that's much more important.
And that's why they target it in these ways.
They do left-wing free speech, right-wing free speech, and they trust on people's tribalism to keep that separate.
Kit, can you please write an article about that?
Because that's such an important point.
I 100% agree with what you're saying there.
I've written like 50 articles about that over the years.
It just comes up.
One specifically said, James, here's that article about that thing.
And then 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 point of even the media covering with every single, oh, look, the British police just knocked on someone's door over a tweet.
The incessant coverage of this is to embed in the minds of the public two things.
One, you're going to get the police called on you if you say anything naughty.
And two, also to embed the idea in people's minds.
Well, when we take over the government, we can do this to our enemies, thus normalizing it.
So it's that double-pronged approach.
And yeah, we need the third alternative way.
We need to be 100% constructing our own communities.
But also, as Jason says, out there ringing the bell, 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 act within that power that we have, I think we're unstoppable.
But the entire point of the enemy propaganda is you're weak, you're pathetic, you're powerless, you can do nothing.
All you can do is come and groveling on bended knee to ask YouTube to monetize your channel or whatever.
Nope.
Our power is our decisions.
What we do and what we say, we have to spread that message a thousand times farther than the propaganda can go.
And one small addition to that is, you know, 100% agree with everything you're saying.
Then what we see is the 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 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'd 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 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 constitutional rights.
Again, if they're breaking laws, charge them with that.
We have a criminal justice system.
But I think that the only way that we continue on with this is challenging that again and again.
When 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 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.
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 counterinfluence campaign as the government's running their manipulation of public perception and opinion.
We got to do the opposites.
And then what you guys said about what James said about them trying to scare us into self-censoring through constantly showing all these people who are getting visits by the thought police.
That actually inspires me to further say something.
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 were saying, don't, you know, use their platforms less and less, opt out, try to cost them attention, eyeballs, money.
Public opinion, I think, is important.
There was a great clip by a Mexican businessman that went viral.
His name is Compa Moy.
After four years of becoming very successful, he said, I got to shut down.
They're extorting me the cartels.
I'm afraid they're going to send us Sicario.
And he said his desire is the problem is not enough Mexicans are speaking out.
If more Mexicans spoke out, it's the same principle.
That would then create this public opinion that would oblige authorities to act.
And I think that's the same thing.
And then, you know, legal actions.
And it's just, it's a war of attrition.
We just got to keep pounding away.
You know, and I'm, and when you guys said we're winning, I have a more long-term pessimistic view, but for me, the issue isn't that we're winning.
We just keep hammering away, keep firing the mortars, and then we'll decide where we're at, you know, in a few, a few years or decades' time.
Anybody else?
Ryan, you asked, you asked for solutions.
Why don't we just, you know, I would say that anybody on the right who you can reach, be that in the U.S., UK, you know, immigration, you know, shut these, 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, you know, how would it be used against you or somebody like you or somebody?
So, 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 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 re-examine that belief system and acknowledge that it, you know, it can be not okay when their guy wants to do it too.
And for them to be very careful about advocating for state power, because once they are granted this power, once you give it or allow them to take it, you never get it back.
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 wanted to say anything.
I'm not sure if you did already.
I forget, but I'll jump in and if you guys all said something.
So I'll just wrap up in general.
So I think, you know, what I will actually say to that, since it got brought up more than once, and I'm not saying we've won.
I think we're winning in the sense that we're gaining ground is really what I'm meaning, you know, and I think we all kind of sense that.
Not maybe that's not even the majority yet, but that's kind of where I'm leaning.
And either way, I think we recognize that there's a difference today, you know, and that just speaks to what we're all getting at is that what we're doing, it is affecting people.
And I, that's a powerful thing to recognize, you know?
And I want to say that I think that, you know, there's two kind of overlapping things is right now, there's a lot of people out there.
Well, I will say too, that like I've been saying often that I don't think the left and the right, like the mainstream alternative media and the mainstream media framing each other, I don't think that represents most Americans anymore.
I think things have shifted and now they keep screaming about the left does this, the right does that.
And there's leanings, but I think that's changing.
And I think that there's a lot of really just good people who believe that they're fighting for the Constitution, who maybe don't understand it enough or who are misled or rationalizing why it's okay to stop it now for X, Y, and Z.
But let's not always, you know, I think it's important.
And I think we all here do a good job at this, but out there, 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 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 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 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 off across too hot in that.
I feel like the ideas are used very manipulatively out there, not even to suggest that's what you were doing, Jason.
And so I just think it's important to have that conversation.
I love Jason to death.
We still love each other after this because the point is it's 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 in 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 IMF.
Not meaning I'm cutting all of you off.
I'm never talking to any of you ever again.
Goodbye.
Listen, just because you said it like that, I just got to give just a personal story really quick.
Okay.
And this is at the end.
This is the craziest thing to me.
My mother called me a few days ago, Friday, to let me know she had a heart attack on Monday.
Now, it was a silent heart attack.
She went, got it out, left ventricle.
My uncle had had a heart attack the week before.
Now, my only way to get to that part of the family is usually through my cousin.
And she had disconnected her Facebook.
Now, I thought that she disconnected her Facebook because maybe she didn't want to deal with everything.
Her father was sick, et cetera.
And my mother goes, no, no, no.
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.
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 there.
No, no, no.
I think that's important.
And especially since the whole idea is that I will even add on top of that, that those people on my point would have the right to say that.
And that may be contrary.
That may be contentious because there was no crime outside of that idea, but that, you know, you may feel threatened and that maybe you can sue them.
And I think this, that gives a little bit of a final point on where we might discuss that.
And I'll even add to the point that I think it's a subjective point anyway, right?
What we always talk about, he can say whatever he wants.
Some people thought what he said was racist, like even the DEI point they point to.
You could argue that there's a level of racism there, but I argue his point is about the DEI point and hiring not the person who has the best for the job.
You know, so it becomes a very nuanced thing.
The whole point is that he can say whatever he wants, you know, and the idea is that we have a right to listen or not.
And that's kind of the crux of the point at the end of the day.
And I hope we can think about where that line should be and how that being open allows the government to take that action that I think we all disagree with, right?
So.
And that is going to wrap it up for the freedom of speech panel.
I really hope that you guys enjoyed it.
Remember, I cannot do this without you guys.
Please consider supporting the broadcast via the links down below.
$5, $10, $15.
It absolutely means the world to me.
Thank you so much, big donors for making the show possible.