This Is How They are Coming For You | Robert Barnes

constitutional rights are being chipped away. You may don't maybe won't recognize it at first, but once you understand this, you're gonna see it. We're gonna talk about ways that the do o J and the FBI are being weaponized against you, how the judicial system has been compromised and they're using this to rewrite the laws right now, right

before your very eyes, going around constitutional rights. We're gonna talk about what's happening with high public of figures when it comes to censorship, doing things you couldn't even imagine, things that I couldn't imagine. We're gonna talk about the reasons why they're doing this. But it's not all doom and gloom. We're gonna talk about how this has happened

before in the United States. As a matter of fact, a couple of times before, how we've overcome and how we've overturned these things, and even though it's looking dark, there's massive hope on the horizon. We're gonna talk about how we can continue to build that and how we continue to push that. So this is a conversation you do not want to miss, super important, and I hope you share it with as many people as possibles. AEAD jump right into the conversation with Robert Barnes. Robert, thanks

for joining me today. Uh, I'm happy to have you back. I've been following along with all this stuff you've been talking about. I am I'm shocked. I'm alarmed of what's going on. There's attacks happening all over the place, and so I've been wanting to talk to you for a couple of weeks. I'm glad we finally got a chance to do this. Absolutely so um Man, there's so many things that, so many things to dive into, so many topics to jump into. UM let's start with the one, um,

a big one, and then we can dive down. So um I've been talking about been seen. It looks like we have a tax on free speech from like almost every angle I've been saying that I believe we're in a war. Um. It's just a war of information and money and so um on the information front. Um, if the powers that be are losing their grip on the narrative, then they have to up their game to win the war on information, and so they need to find ways

to censor people, silence people, et cetera. So I've been seeing this as this attack on free speech from multiple angles. So a couple of ones that I've seen are the Alex Jones trial. Right. Um, they're trying to use something that has this unanimous consensus that everybody thinks is bad and use that to chip away. We have the Trump January six um thing going on, and then we had this Tornado cash which was like a public utility or protocol. But I think they all look like a tax on

free speech to me. What's your take on that? No doubt. And in fact, the case that a lot of people have not paid enough attention to is the Alex Jones trials. So in those cases, they're using it as a test case to whether you can basically run show trials in America, complete show trials. So they have gutted him of all

of his procedural rights. Not allowed to bring motions to dismiss not allowed to bring motions for summary judgment, not allowed to challenge the legal sufficiency of the case against him, not allowed even to testify on his own behalf as to his innocence. He the only in fact that the trial that's guilty until proven guiltier where he is not allowed to defend himself, where evidence against him is introduced, but he is not allowed to impeach or cross examine

that evidence in a meaningful way. Now. In fact, for example, in the Connecticut trial going on right now, the judges said, there's one name that cannot even be talked about in the entire trial, and that's Hillary Clinton. That's how insane the cases, even though Hillary Clinton has a lot to do with how that trial came about. So uh and and the reason for that is their secondary objective. Uh, they're stripping of all of his proceed Drill writes his day in court. He hasn't given any day in court,

his right to trial by jerry on the merits. He's being denied his right to trial by jury on the merits. Uh. They claim that he didn't participate in discovery but anybody watching the trial realizes he must have because they have more discovery the other side than anybody's ever had to give in any case. It's it's about ultimately using him as an example to take away other people's speech because

the legal president they're establishing. Because the other unique factor here is Joe is being sued and for like unfair competition and trade laws and consumer protection laws, but the people suing him are not consumers. There are people who disagree with what he said about topics over the years, um and in instead it's basically a defamation case. Yet they're being allowed to sue under these theories that no one's ever heard of being applied in this context before.

But the it's not only that, the constitutional requirement is that you can't be sued for defamation unless you say a specifically factual statement that's false that you know to be false about someone specific. So that's how we protect robust free speech. We uh, there's no such thing as a wrong idea in America. Yet they're trying to gut all of that because in the Jones case, he never talked about the people that are suing him, never mentioned

him by name, never referenced him. So forth the people that are suing him, there's only one or two people that even got referenced directly or indirectly. Almost all the people are suing him, including FBI agent. You have an FBI agent suing him who didn't identify anything Alex Jones every even said about him. He's an FBI lawyer, So

how is this FBI lawyer being allowed to sue? The new theory is if you say something that upset somebody, and you know it might upset somebody, they can sue you, and if it's controversial enough, they can sue you into bankruptcy and oblivion, as the plaintiffs lawyers have said, is their exact plan here in the Connecticut case, they said it out loud in the courtroom the place lawyer said, justice is preventing Alex Jones from ever having a microphone,

ever having access to the media, ever being able to have his opinion heard by you, the people, ever again.

And that's why the Jones case is so dangerous. They're trying to establish the precedent that they can use lawfare in the legal system to completely financially obliterate any dissident opinion and it's a precarious precedent, and because it's Alex Jones, and because the topic is Sandy Hook, most people are too scared to look into it, to talk about it, to challenge the media narrative, to contest what's happening, to

expose what's happening. Too many people on the right who have disagreements with Alex Jones are letting those disagreements with Alex Jones blind the fact that just like he was the Canarian the coal mine on big tech, when they took out Alex Jones, they used it as the precedent ultimately take out the President of the United States, they're now using him in the law fair arena to say we if we don't like your speech, we can now use the state court civil justice system to bankrupt you

because we don't like your speech, and we can do it without every giving you your day in court, without every giving you trial by jury on the merits, without ever giving you basic core rights that every American is supposed to have. Wow, that's a lot. That's a lot so um little known fact people will find out here. But about two weeks ago I went and sat down with Alex Jones, and I even hosted the info War Show for a segment and then we went into a

long interview. Um, so I'm having that come out, but I'm afraid to put that on YouTube. So it's probably gonna be on my Rumble, It'll be on the Odyssey, It'll be on my podcast. It won't be on my YouTube, just because I'm afraid of the backlash that will have. But I was surprised at just the backlash I already got people saw me on info Wars, even from my own daughter, who's like, he's such a bad man, and he said these bad things. And I told my daughter,

I'm like, look, okay, so he said bad things. It made people feel bad, Like that's wrong and I don't approve that, and he shouldn't have said that. Okay whatever, but like it's not illegal, it's not illegal. It shouldn't be. Um, you know, in his in his defense to what he said, he's like, you know, he goes live whatever four hours a day, so that's whatever, twenty hours a week, uh whatever, almost a hundred hours a month he's live. He said.

The total amount of time he talked about that topic was twenty four minutes, I think, is what he said. And he said the same thing as you. He never mentioned anybody's name, he never directly said anything whatever. Um. And some of the comments I got from other people were like, well, he used this to his advantage. He's trying to gain from this. I'm like, he talked about it twenty four minutes. The media has talked about hundreds

of hours. Who's using what to gain? But digging back into some of the things that you said, because it's way worse than I had even imagined. Um, it's a way worse. Its not even imagined. So they're denying him all these things to the point that you're making um. And I didn't write them all down, But um, how are they able to do that? I mean, is it because they have a judge that's just going along with it and they're doing that? I mean, will he be

able to appeal this? I mean, I I understand laws are being changed and it's becoming more and more unfair, But for the ones that are still there, I mean, doesn't isn't there some sort of recourse there? There should? The problem is it's the failure of the judicial branch, and the judicial branch is not stepping up to meet and protect Alex Jones's rights because he's Alex Jones. So the other dynamic is that there's sort of an underlying class conflict in all of this because most of Jones's

supporters are working people. So they may be business people, they may be successful people, but they are not the professional class, the clerical class, the managerial class. They don't have a bunch of little letters after their name like we're reinstating old English royalty these days with j D or m D or pH D and all that jazz. Uh. But the the the group that doesn't like Jones is from that professional, managerial class. So Jones has an underrepresented

as part of his audience. And for people who don't know, I mean, this is a man who, according to government, its own polls, media's own polls, over thirty million Americans are are huge fans. That's as many people who vote in the Republican presidential primaries to give people an idea. So that's the scale of his influence, his influences. He has been the biggest critic of the deep State of

anybody in recent American history. He's one of the most important populist voices out there, and that's why he's being targeted, that's why. And there's this mythology, like most people who bash Alex Jones remind me the people who bashed Rush Limbaugh and I'd be, I'd be. They would describe a caricature, they would describe someone that's not the person. I'm like, Okay, you're bashing someone you've actually never watched, you've actually never

listened to, you've actually never read. If you're gonna bash them, at least you know, engage with them and then come up with a determination. Um. But the it's this caricature of him. But there's this underlying class conflict where the professional class hates him. The status hate him. Uh, the working class, the working person, the ordinary felt person, they love him. But in the judicial branch, which is making all the decisions here, it's it's by definition dominated by

the professional manager, a real class. So in their little group, in their little bubble, Alex Jones is almost universally despised, so they can just ignore the rules. The other scary thing is, I mean, this is a trial. These trials make Idiocracy's trial look like a beacon of justice. That's how bad they are. Um in their parodies of parodies and the problem is known none of the other judges, because that's the only people who can put a stop

to this higher courts. So it's all judges getting to decide the ethical conduct of judges, which I've always had a problem with. Uh, they're they're all in on it. I mean that they all want Jones hurt. So there were For example, Jones was because he made criticisms of a lawyer from his own TV network Early on in the case, the judges said, if you become if you are sued, you lose your free speech rights. As to that case would never happen. That's directly contrary to U. S.

Supreme Court law. But unless the U. S. Supreme Court gets involved, and they almost never do, the other judges get away with violating his rights. And if anybody thinks they're not planning on using this as a press of it, that's the mistake. They're using Jones because they know he has inadequate political protection amongst their colleagues in the professional managerial class and the press and in the legal world. But then they're gonna take that precedent and apply it

to everyone else. It's what big Tech did. People may not remember when they took down Alex Jones. They lied about it. They said, oh, this is limited Alex Jones. We're not doing this because of his speech. We're limited. It's certain incidents that occurred. They could never find or identify what those incidents were. Very similar. They had like a fake trial of their own kind. And then of course they said, well later on, well we took out Alex Jones for wrong think, we can take out the

President United States for wrong things. So the they're gonna do the same thing here and that there should be remedies at the Court of Appeals. In reality, other than the Texas Supreme Court and the U. S. Supreme Court and those respective cases, those are the only courts that might actually do justice. The problem is they don't have

to take the case. The judges that do have to take the case are willing to violate the rules to get at Alex Jones, and and doing so they want to establish new rules so they can get it the rest of us. So it's almost like these judges have it out for him to the kind of past case that you're making um and if he got another judge that was more sympathetic or really want to uphold the law regardless of who it's being examined against, maybe he

could catch a break, but that's not happening. But I think what's even more dangerous as to the point you're making, is that even though they're ignoring the law, um, once they rule this way, then it sets present. So they're almost they're ignoring the law. But then if they rule this way, they're actually changing the law. That's exactly right, okay, And it was what they're going at. They wanted to show that they could do a modern day show trial

and get away with it. And they could do it as to someone as well known as Alex stand well despised, exact and that, and because today he's well despised, tomorrow they'll go to the person who's not as well as who may who's just well despised by the wrong people. That they'll continue to escalate in the same way, big technic, and they'll say, hey, we did this in the Alex

Jones case, so we can do it to you. So they try to find something that has general consensus in the community that most people would agree that if this guy said mean things about parents losing their kids, everybody would agree that's probably not good. And so then they take that. Everybody agrees that, well, let's let's prohibit that from happening, and so um everyone Nope, nobody wants to

stand up for it. And they're just okay, seen it happened to this bad guy, um, not realizing that their next I guess that's exactly right there, that they're signing their own death moran. So so there's there's one one when when you're talking about it, and I want to jump into this later, but just as you're talking about it, um, this big takedown that just happened was this Andrew Tate.

And I was watching part of this interview with Patrick by David on Value Tayment, and he was just saying, how, um, look, I don't have viewers. I have fans. And the difference is my fans will follow me to wherever I go. They don't just watch me because I'm there. So Alex Jones, he got wiped off the face of the earth, He's still alive and well on his main channel, he still

has millions of people tuning in regularly. Those were fans, right, and so Andrew tay said, those are my fans, he said, and they don't want me standing up and saying these things having fans, and he systematically broke down how all these things are trying to accuse him of. We're all taken out of context from little snippets or whatever. But anyway, I don't want to jump into that the next thing.

So that's okay. So so Alex Jones, there's taking something that's just general consensus and they're using it to chip away at freedom of speech. Then we have this Tornado Cash and I don't know how much you looked into that, but Tornado Cash is a protocol that allows people to mix their cryptocurrencies to gain more privacy. Now they say that, well, criminals uses, terrorists uses and they could be laundering their money and then they're gonna go blow up schools and

kill a little kids. And of course nobody wants that. Uh, I don't I have little kids. I don't want my school, my kids school bombed, And so that has general consensus. We all agree that's bad. But then they try to attack this, uh protocol, a public utility that's been as I understand, three times the Supreme Court has upheld that encryption as freedom of speech. So it seems to me it's an attack on freedom of speech, oh no doubt.

And and it's freedom of speech at multiple levels. So they've often tried to use the monetary or regulatory angle to circumus to limit speech. So that's what Citizens United was all about. So, like you look at campaign finance reform, often campaign finance reform was about making a person get

the consent approval of an elite donor class. Right, if if one person can be the sole donor of a campaign, then you can run for office if you don't have your own money and you and un let's say you don't have the means of crowdfunding back in the day, then uh, with just the support of one percent of

the economic elite. Right, but if you if everybody's limited at what they can contribute, they can require you to get the consent of twenty of the economic elite because it's it becomes its own form of donor control of campaigns. And then one part of this was always how can of this happened when money? When you cannot have speech if you don't spend money on that speech, Right, I

got a mike here? If suddenly having a mic means I don't get the right to speech because it cost me money to have the mic, then all of a sudden, I lose my right to free speech. Without the freedom of payments, there is no freedom, precisely. And so currency is power, and the currency is the means by which speech is expressed and the means by which speech has heard. Which is always important for people to remember that what they're trying to do is prohibit our ability to hear

what we choose to hear. And that's part of free speech. It's not just the right to speak, it's the right to hear what we want to hear. Freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of belief, freedom of religion, freedom of pressed. That's what they all come back to, the right for me to hear what I want to hear, not the government to gate keep it

for me. Uh. And so they were always going to go after anybody in the crypto space that they thought they could mean that's a lot of what the sec actions are. They're trying to convert everything into a secure transaction as if it's a publicly traded stock, when that's a real reach in my view, they've they've always to uh expanded the definition of security to reach things that

were not originally intended in the legislation. I mean, you see it so many different places, the FDA trying to regulate medicine, the U. S d A trying to regulate little Amish family farmers. Uh. And so the same context here is they want to be able to get in and restrict your ability to express yourself and have meaningful power to have your voice heard and to hear what you want to hear by using the disguise that this is about monetary control of a financial instrument. Yeah. So um.

And it's also because of encryption. So I think it's the encryption that's been upheld as free speech. It's like it's code. They printed it out, they took it to the Supreme Court and they said, yeah, that is code. Um. And then also the President that this sets too because it's a public utility. So typically people are sanctioned or nations are sanctioned. Maybe there's some due process there where that person could defend themselves maybe, um, But we don't

have a public utility. So because a criminal drove on a road, now we're gonna sanction the road. Because because the criminal drove in a car, we're gonna sanction a car. Because the criminal used a protocol, then we're gonna sanction a protocol. What kind of precedent does that set? All of it kind of reflects a broader principle of what they allow to have who they allowed to give privacy

and secrecy to. Right, It's it's always fails, Like I always get a kick out of the government that says any means of privacy or any means of secrecy will be the key for criminals to do bad acts. Yet somehow, when it comes to the government privacy and secrecy or absolute must we they must have things classified, etcetera. But I mean, isn't the same government that told us secrecy equals criminality, privacy equals criminality. So the now we it's

a good transition. It goes into the Trump case. So it's like, here you have Trump, but the government is asserting that the deep state is asserting that administrative bureaucrats you call it, the National Security apparatus, called whatever, the administ exactly the administrative state. These are people that have only they have no elected constitutional power of their own. They're only power comes from the President of the United States.

And yet they are putting the the former president and likely future president of the United States under criminal investigation because he chose to keep his own documents on the grounds that they the administrative bureaucracy, the deep state, gets to gets to decide what is and isn't classified, that they decide what isn't isn't a presidential record, that they decide what isn't isn't a national security record, that they

get to decide over the president. And it's someone who only has power from the president getting to declare they have power over the president. It is an attempt to not only criminal eyes political disagreement and use criminal law fare to go after their most critical political adversaries, but it's an attempt to usurp our entire constitutional system of governance so that they get to decide what the people get to hear and see, because it's the same version

of it. That's what classification is all about. Who gets to hear it, who gets to see it, who gets to know it. That's the decision that's supposed to be made exclusively by the president, by the Constitution and by prior decisions. Yet they're actually in court arguing that it's a crime for the president to have it. It's a crime for the president to try to declassify it that they the deep state, get to unilaterally decide what do people get to see and hear, even though nobody gave

them that power, not the people, not the Constitution. I just I mean hearing that. I just don't see how they have any leg to stand on to the point that you're making. Uh, there's there's specifically don't have the power to do that. They're they're trying to take it, but they don't have it, And so what's what what lady do they have to stand on? And and I guess then in this is this something that's again sort of like the show trial. Um, they're taking something that

maybe has this big unanimous kind of consent. And we'll get more into this uh uh framing of these maga people will get more into that in a minute. But um, does this have any weight at all? Or is it similar to like these impeachments that they didn't have a chance. Everyone knew they didn't have a chance, it got shut down, but they still did it. Anyway, Is it like that or is there actually teeth here? There's no legal merits at all to their claim. In fact, it's a very

perilous press that they're trying to set. However, it is like the Alex Jones case is, it's another example of our judicial brands and our justice system breaking down. There's enough rogue prosecutors, enough rogue FBI agents who in a DC jury pool because the case is being handled in the District of Columbia, which there's problems up to begin with. But basically the swamp gets to judge the swamp and

gets to judge the critics of the swamp. And we've already seen in jury trial after jury trial they're just politically biased. So they can have somebody completely guilty and they let him walk because they like his politics. They can have someone completely innocent and they railroad him because they dislike his politics. So I say that Martin Luther King had a better chance at a fair trial in nineteen fifties Birmingham than any MAGA or Trump supporter has

in the District of Columbia. And so because the the d C jurors are the grand jury and the trial jury, and you have a lot of weak, need politically corrupt judges in the process, that's how this case could somebodyill end up in an indictment, which would be utterly insane. It would be without legal president, without legal merit. It would be the open, overt political weaponization of the criminal justice system for a corrupt and competent president to blame

to actually take out his political opposition. I mean, here you have Biden's administration trying to indict the the candidate who is leading in the elections against him. This is something you hear about from third world nations, but it is right now contemporary reality in America. Well, and um, when Trump was running against Biden last time in this whole Ukraine, call came up and then they he said, fine, here,

listen to the call or whatever. But they said that he was they were trying to go after his opponent, Biden, and that was the big deal. How how dare you go after your opponent? Right? But now that's exactly what's happening here, exactly. They're doing it openly and overtly. It's extrait like they complained when Trump was critical of Hillary

and said she belonged in jail. They complained when he was going to expose the Biden corruption in Ukraine the UH and and we've seen what that has led to in terms of the war in Ukraine and all the other problems that we now have under the Biden administration. But yeah, I mean it goes even worse than that,

going to suppressing speech. Uh. They are going after Project Veritas for simply getting access to hunter By to Ashley Biden's diary concerning very questionable conduct to put it kindly of the President of the United States and his own daughter, according to his daughter's own words. They're trying to put people in prison for simply sharing that information with members of the press. And they're trying to put James O'Keefe

in Project Veritas in prison. Shut down Project Veritas put James O'Keefe in prison again after they, you know, wrongfully went after him about a decade ago or so. And it shows you how nuts it is. And the FBI is acting as the private personal Stasi of the incumbent administration, the and the deep state apparatus, and their weaponizing the legal process in a way we've never witnessed before. And unfortunately, so far, the judiciary has been an inadequate check on

that abusive power. Yeah. Well, and when the and and now we're also seeing them frame up the judiciary branch as being bad corrupt, outdated, etcetera. So now we see these ramped up attacks on the Supreme Court, where the Supreme courts an activist court now, and the Supreme Court needs to be we need to impeach Clarence Thomas and

like all these other things. So not only are they using this legal system um for their own weaponization, but they're also attacking it and breaking down the integrity or at least I guess the opinions of people towards that court. They're trying anybody that pushes back when the court system gets attacked. So the judge that issued a special master requirement in the Trump case, which is very common protocol. By the way, nothing she did was unusual at all.

What was unusual as rating the president of the United States. That's never been done before ever in American history. What's unusual is claiming that the deep state has legal control over classification, designation of records, over the president who controls them and from whom all authority flows. That's what's unusual and unprecedent. What's unusual unprecedent is one administration going after

their political opponent in such an overt way. Uh, the all that's unusual what the district court judge did, would simply say, let's have a third party involved, a special master, to make sure this is done correctly. And what happens, she gets personal death threats. There's people already being arrested for it. Where does that come from? Political media press criticism.

Because they believe that all all tools of power should our ends justify the means that they will weaponize any tool, and anybody who doesn't go along gets attacked, even if you're the most well established justice of the most well established legal institution in the world, in Clarence Thomas. Their their point of Clarence Thomas is if we can go after him, we can go after anybody. So you better play ball and do what we we demand you do and ignore the law and weaponize it for our political

purposes or your own personal and professional careers. At stake man breakdown of our institutions at the at the highest level and at the fastest pace that I could imagine ever seeing this. I was really shocked when we saw the leak at the Supreme Court on the Roe v.

Wade situation. And so we have the highest institution, the highest court in the land, and an activist Obviously an activist leaked this because it was a very sensitive information on one side, right, um, very polarized thing that was leaked, and that was a complete breakdown of trust in the high institution. But then um, the Supreme Court had also rolled back some policies I believe on like on on guns, concealed carriers, etcetera. The State of California hated that, was

very open about that. The Governor of California and the head of the d o J, the d A said that they were a g said that they were going to do everything possible to overturn that. And then like a week later, all the records just mysteriously got leaked in California. Like we're witnessing, uh, the breakdown of the highest level of institutions in the land completely. And it's it's part of a generational shift that the new generation

of power, the new Left. I tell people, if you want to comparison, don't look to the nineteen sixties for the mindset of the new Left that it looked to the nineteen thirties. It's very much a status goal and it's very much that the ends justify the means, so and that they've been taught this in various ways from

the time they've grown up throughout their educational institutions. These slow march through the institutions, as Gramcy called it, the sort of Marxist objective to take over society from within has effectively taken place in America's educational and cultural institutions. That's why our films are such crap, you know, That's why our TV shows, I mean couple one after the other. I mean, they destroyed Star Wars, they destroy Star Trek,

they destroyed Marvel. I mean that because they're going through one after the next, after the next. Now they're going after a little Mermaid. It's gonna be one thing or the next. It's because they want to culturally control the minds of the populace and the people of this new generation that says the ends justify the means that free speech is actually bad because free speech is dangerous speech,

free speech is harmful speech, free speeches hurtful speech. So these are people who grew up in you know, Uh, my niece went to Toughs where they had ninety four different safe spaces, and I was like, nobody at Toughs even disagrees with one another. What do you need ninety four safe spaces? And it's just one after the other. And it's that kind of mindset that is now in places of power within the press, within the academy, and within this and within the government at multiple levels of

the bureaucracy. And they're trying to weaponize everything around them. And that's why they want to use these test case examples, whether it's Alex Jones or Trump, to see how much can they just purely politically weaponize the process, ignore all of our customs, all of our traditions, all of our rules, all of our respect for law, all of our constitutional constraints.

Can they just eviscerate them so that they can achieve and attain their objective and use the any tool of power they have around them, whether it's a human resources or advertising department at a company, or it's an administrative bureaucracy or local state court bench to get their political objectives. And that and we are living, without doubt in very interesting times. Yeah, to say the least. So you said, this is similar to the nineteen thirties, So sometimes I

have to try it. It's like let me let me, let me think about this logically, let me let me look at this at a at a historical lens um. There's many times throughout history where things have been much worse than they are today, um um, from from every different angle we want to look at um. And so you said this is similar to the nineteen thirties. Another thing I look at is again back to kind of my original statement of a war of information. And so

they need to control the narrative. The Internet has caused them to lose that narrative because now we can all converse without their mainstream media. Now we see the rise of the alternative news sources that are, you know, beating them in every angle. The Joe Rogans gained two hundred million views, um, etcetera. And so if they're not able to control that, like and Alex Jones, they did delete him off the face of the earth, but yet he's still alive. So then well what comes next? So I

guess sue him into oblivion. That's kind of the point that you made earlier. But also if you look back in the US history, twice in the last hundred years, they've made it illegal to say anything critical of the state. Right was one the Smith Act, the Sedition Act, and so they could just say it's a crime to say anything critical, and they've done it before. Do you see that being a reality or a danger or is there

anything that I'm missing in that historical lens. Well, that's where the January six cases are very dangerous, as well as some of the Trump cases, because what they're trying to do is re invoke the specter of the Sedition Act. So the Sedition Act for people that don't know what you know, was pasted during World War One, and it was utilized, and it was a different variation. We first tried the alien and sedition laws back in the right

at the beginning of the founding of the country. Rightfully, our core founding generation got it stopped and reversed so that it never came back again. And and and it took, you know, about two hundred years before it actually came back again in one way, shape or form. But it took at least a hundred years before hundred twenty years

or so before it came back at all. And what happened was during World War One, people forget A presidential candidate was actually put in prison, Eugene V. Debs for saying for only for speech, he said he was opposed to World War One and you opposed the draft. They called that sedition. They locked him up, they put him

in federal prison. So they're looking to that. And when I started hearing talk in the January six cases of rather than treating it as a jet, a basic trespass riot case, which is what almost all of the alleged criminal conduct could be labeled as. And there's a lot of peculiarities about how everything came about in that context, why the security was strangely missing, why some security people

were engaged in provocative behavior at attacking the crowd. Uh, you know, the a lot of people that went in there didn't realize it was illegal because they showed up later and the doors were opened and they're walking around. So there's all those issues. There's whether or not the government was completely turns out like over seventy or eighty undercover Feds were part of the crowd from various information that's already come out, So there's a lot of reason

to be suspect about what really happened that day. But putting that aside, even in the worst case interpretation of it, the behavior is behavior that is just your old school trespass rioty, disturbing the peace kind of crimes. This happens on a regular basis throughout America. Usually it's almost always the left doing it. You know, taking over a government building that was prominent throughout the nineteen sixties, all those things that's you know, it's disturbing the the piece, it's

a trespass, etcetera. And then all of a sudden start talking about sedition and obstruction and conspiracy, and I was like, whoa that. What that is attempting to do is to use the January six cases, because it's another example where it's the District of Columbia. So you got a corrupt jury pull at the grand jury level, corrupt jury pull at the trial level. A lot of judges who are part of the swamp don't want to judge and govern and discipline the swamp. The prosecutors are all connected to

the swamp. Uh, So you have a very corrupted system of justice. And they want to take what they're doing in the District of Columbia and export it everywhere across America. And that's scary problem number one. Scary problem number two is they're using the sedition laws to start to expand the prosecution. And sedition laws are basically just speech laws.

They really are day that you engaged in a certain public protest or public speech or other conduct, and consequently we're going to call it a crime you can serve the rest of your life in federal prison for because we don't like the purpose upset speech. I've always considered the sedition laws laws that are unconstitutional and never should have been allowed to exist in the first place. We have we already have criminal laws for treason. We have

criminal laws for everything on under the earth. Uh that could possibly be a crime. We don't need to create new criminal laws that can be used to target and

punished protests. But that's exactly what this is. And and that and so that that old sedition president is now coming back for the first time in about a century a hundred years by the in the January six cases, and that would be something to watch because they want to use those cases to establish a new precedent that they can accuse anyone that is a has unapproved opinions that they consider threatning to the government's well being as sedition, which is super scary. Um. But I guess also I'm

always trying to find a sliver of hope here. Um, we saw these Druconian measures and these crazy laws. To your point, I wasn't aware, but a presidential candidate went to prison over speech. Um. But then it got repealed and things got better. So we've seen things like this go in before and get overturned. We're going back down the same road again. Um. It's scary, but maybe it gets overturned again at some point. Well, I I think

it's up to the people. I think the one restraining all of these cases, whether it's the Alex Jones cases, Donald Trump case, the January six cases, that the cryptocurrency area related cases, is it. It's all gonna be. It's all only gonna change if the courts have either the confidence or the courage to step forward, and that's only going to happen, or the legislature has the ability and willingness to step forward. That's only gonna happen if the

court of public opinion is sufficiently outrage. So when this was tried by corrupt actors in the yearly eighteen hundreds into the and Sedition Acts, it was public outrage that led to the repeal of those laws. When it was done to Eugen v. Debs, and then we had the Palmer raids in nineteen nineteen. The the Jager Hoover used all of these political oriented cases to rise to power and create the independent FBI that now is one of the most corrupt institutions in American law enforcement and the

and the whole justice system. What there was enough public outrage in the nineteen twenties and nineteen thirties that all got repealed and pushed back in the deep state drew back the nineteen seventies the same thing. I mean, after

we had when can it be assassinated? Another Kennedy assassinated, a king, assassinated, Malcolm X assassinated, a president taken out in Nixon, then that's when there was enough public outrage about what's going on in our government that led to the mk Ultra investigations, the assassination investigations, exposing the Deep State, exposing the CIA, exposing the NSA, exposing the FBI with cointel pro due to the thing that media, So it

always comes back to the same thing. It's the power and the will of the people, because it's the fifth pillar power under all the other pillars of power. If public perception falls, then the whole system falls. So it's very matrix is in that respect, and so it's the best way to defeat the system. The best way to stop these abuses is to take the red pill and give it to everybody else. And if enough people get it, enough, people share it enough, people speak out about it, that's

when things will change. Yeah, I was as as you were talking about this, I was thinking about this. UM. I was trying to find the number here, but I can't remember top of my head. But this was January. The House of Representatives and later the Senate began reviewing a document entitled Communist Goals for taking Over America to contained an agenda of forty five separate issues, UM that

in hindsight were quite shocking and then equally setting today. So, UM, I forget who the president was, maybe was was whoever that was like taking on communism, and then there was the McCarthy era whatever. So anyway, UM, on January tenth, the House Represents received this document and they had these

forty five declared goals of communism. Uh, many of these what we've seen all over the place, but one of which I forget, it's down like number thirty or forty was to discredit and destroy the FBI, like lose all credibility of the FBI. Um and and that's kind of where we're at right now, that's what we're seeing. Yeah, I mean, the FBI has managed to do it to itself. So you had the fiddle Bureau of Investigation created by Jaeger Hoover, and it was always had a political bias,

but it was political bias, wasn't a partisan bias. And that's what's changed now the FB. Like I just saw a Harvard poll yesterday, more than half of Republicans don't like, don't trust, don't respect the FBI. That's unimaginable just five years ago. The biggest defenders of the FBI have been your historical conservative Republican in America. But what they've witnessed over the lad and this is where they've made mistakes.

They've overreached. Like if they had had limited themselves to just uh, the January six cases, they might have got

away with it without much public scrutiny or blowback. But when you go after Donald Trump, a man who just won seventy five million votes, a man who's the leading candidate to get the presidency in four a man who has a has a the strongest base of any American politician in the country and quite sometime since probably Ronald Reagan, and the depth and intensity of support of his audience, of his of his fans, going back to that he

he doesn't have viewers, Donald Trump has fans. Um that that has backfired on them politically, and and it's where if they were smart, they would care about their public perception and step back from this. But you have some The most dangerous thing we faced currently is that the court of public opinion might not always be a check

on these folks because they show a lack of self restraint. Uh, they show a lack of regard for the fact that they are being publicly lambasted for their bad acts, and that makes them more dangerous probably than they ever have been before. Yeah, it's it's actually worse than that. And this kind of leads me to the next topic I want to jump into, which is um in the court

of public opinion. To your point, maybe doesn't matter to them anymore because exactly what we're hearing in the United States, but also I saw it come out of Europe yesterday, but we'll talk about that. But basically, what we're seeing in the United States? Is that? Uh? Per Biden's speech, he gave two speeches. He gave one the one with

the red background of the Marines in the background. The one before that a few days before he said, Oh, you Second Amendment supporters, what chance do you think you have against us? We have s six teens. So he's threatening Americans. That's pretty bold. But what I see angling from that is, um, he's basically saying, all you guys, your extremist with your views, Um, you have no chance. And he's demoralizing people, say you better just stand down,

you stand no chance. Then went into the next speech singling out MAGA Republicans and they're the threat, They're the biggest danger, demonizing them, angling to the point where I think it's setting up for this indictment because what they're trying to do is demoralized people, discredit people, and make magat people the worst. So nobody's gonna want to stand up formatt Well, I'm against what you're doing, but I don't want to stand up for MAGA because you've said

MAGA is bad. But even worse than that, they're saying that it's a threat to our democracy. And so they asked, uh, I saw. A question was asked of the White House Press Secretary Koree G. Pierre I think her name is, and they said, so, what what what defines this extremist? She said, Well, in extremist is anyone that doesn't go along with the mainstream ideas. And so what they're saying is, um, it's a threat to our democracy if you don't like what we say. So back to the point that you

made the court, the court of public opinion. Anyone in the public opinion doesn't agree with and they say, well, you're a threat to democrat you're not going along with mainstream even though Biden has a thirty eight percent approval ratings, So we could argue who who is mainstream? But um, that's a very dangerous president where they could ignore public perception because they don't agree with what we want. So

it must be a threat to the democracy. It's very much sort of safe space ideology now being expressed in institutions of power. So it's it's the This is a whole generation of people who have grown up believing that if you disagree, then that makes you evil, that makes you bad, that makes you dangerous, that makes you hurtful, that makes you harmful, etcetera. It's what unites all of these threats, whether it's January six or Alex Jones or

Donald Trump or Crypto all the rest. It's there's something hurtful, something harmful about your speech, and thus you are an extremist if you're advocating such hurtful and harmful speech. Also, their idea of democracy is a crop that they don't believe in democracy. When they say democracy, they mean them having all the power. And now the rest of the world has been saying this for over a hundred years.

They say when America comes talking about democracy, they mean American power controlling our society and our economy and our resources and our politicians. They don't mean actual democracy. Patrice Lamumbo gets elected, we helped coordinate his killing a year later in nineteen six one, and uh in in Africa with the great Democratic Hope at the done. Uh You know, we believe in democracy so much we facilitated and enabled

and entrapped Nelson Mandela for arrest. So the rest of the world knows that America's when it says democracy doesn't mean democracy. But now the American people are discovering that too, that the American leaders don't mean democracy, they mean their governance. That you are challenging our ability to control your life, and that makes you a dangerous extremist with hurtful and

harmful speech who must be excluded from polite society. They've been weaponizing the vaccine mandates as an example to go after and get rid of any closet Trump supporter or really closet free speech supporters, closet liberty supporter out of the government. I mean I've been getting I've been hearing from people in every aspect of government, even some aspects that people might find surprising, the institutions they work for where they're being purged under the guise of a vaccine mandate.

And so it's the same things. No dissident speech allowed. Any dissident speech must be banned, must be prohibited, people must be fired for it. But people must be removed from power from it. They must be labeled and socially stigmatized. It's very much nineteen thirties. It's very much communist Stasi Germany kind of style of approach. And it's and and they're using the FBI and top law enforcement like the Soviet Union used the KGB in the East German Communist

Republic used the Stasi. It's gonna it's It's almost all parallels, one after the other after the other after the other. The press control, the communication, control, the speech control, the weaponization of civil justice, show trials, the weaponization of criminal justice powers, the stow social stigmatization to anybody who's a dissident, independent thought. It's almost identical to the list you went through.

We're seeing it in lifetime, that social stickmatizations. So if you look at the Bolshevik Revolution, you look at Mao's Great Leap forward or hit or whatever you want. But like a MoU's great leap forward, um, they had the Red army, and the Red Army was the people. It was the people turning on the other people. The government and the military can't control the people, so they need

to get the people to turn on each other. And Mao had reflected and said, Wow, I can't believe how vicious and violent these read these uh these people are. He did nothing to stop it, of course, But if they can get um, if they can if they can stigmatize to the word you use, um, Maga republicans, I mean, who would want to make America. Great, I mean, how dare you make one? I mean to to even to

even stigmatize that word. But if they could make, if they get the public people to turn against each other and stigmatize them, then people don't want to stand up one and two. I mean it. I think we're already starting to see the violence. I mean it could get really bad. Oh no, no, it's collective punishment. And I say I encourage people to look at how the Ukrainian government is governing because that's also an example of what they would like to see. And there, what do you

see in Ukraine? You see collective punishment of dissidents, you see complete suppression of speech, you see locking up of the press, you see complete banning of opposition. They took their opponent posing leader, locked them up in prison and then bragged about it on national TV. They shut down any independent press that exists, while awash with all forms

of corruption, deep state collusion, and excessive war. So Ukraine is what the West will convert their own countries and societies into if they could, and it should be a warning sign to the rest of us that we are ultimately the the key barrier to them being able to

pull off what they want to pull off. And as long as enough people resist and push back their agenda and do so through lawful and peaceful and democratic and constitutional means, that we can sustain our constitutional experiment of liberty and freedom a little bit longer, of course, which is exactly why they're trying to take it, uh, take

it over. Um. So, first rip out the tongues so they can't say anything, don't allow any kind of public discourse, to remove any kind of legal protection or precedence or constitutional protection. Um. And then you know, once no one can talk anymore, and once there's no more protection, I guess than they can have their way. I was thinking about, um. So. I recently published a book. It's on Amazon last month,

is titled The Uncommunist Manifesto. So basically took the Communist Manifesto and just kind of rewrote it, and it's called the Uncommunist Manifesto. UM. And so thinking a lot about communism and how communism seems like it's this old word, but really it's just all just been rebranded. Right. So, in the original Communist Manifesto, Carl marks that to summarize communism in one statement would be the abolition of private property. Today we have claud Schwab at the weft saying you'll

own nothing and be happy. Uh. Right. We had communism or socialism was the state controlling the means of production. Today from the WEFT, we see this public private partnership. And I think about this public private partnership where we now have. Zuckerberg told Rogan that you know, the FBI came and talked to them, and um, Twitter had to put back on Alex Bernson because they found out through discovery that the government, somehow deministrative had had pressured them

to get him off, etcetera. So you kind of have this public private partnership where the private side is the social media, etcetera. Let's let's wipe him off the face of the earth. Uh. And then if that doesn't work for the people that get through that filter, the Alex Jones that still won't go away, Well that's where the public side comes in. And now we'll use the weapon of the d o J, the FBI or whatever against them. Yeah. Completely. And it's the way they see power differently than our

founding generation in the ordinary America. We look at power and we see what purpose does it serve? What principal can in advance and what restraints must operate within, and what methodology of approach of making decisions will be the best one Over time, they see power, They see any of these things, and they simply see a tool, a tool to be used for their objective and agenda. And

it doesn't matter what it is. This is why you have these people doing things that college and missions screwing people over at college and missions for political reasons, excluding students, uh. For for these reasons, people getting not getting promotions, getting emotions, getting fired. Uh. In the employment context, advertising choices being made and marketing choices being made, and YouTube algorithm choices being made, and movie and TV choices being made, and

book publishing choices being made. At every level of power, they see, how can I use this as a tool to advance my agenda, regardless of what that power is for. So the power supposed to have independent literary cultural value, they don't care. They see it as, oh, this is a means to get people to do what I want. If an employment is supposed to be about the job and whether you're qualified to do it, they don't care. They see, this is an opportunity for me to advance

my political agenda. And once you understand that, you can predict where they're gonna go. And it is a very frightening place. I mean, you mentioned the the the V for Vendetta president speech that Biden where they literally took the background in the set from V for Vendetta where the guy is up there. You know, he even he even did the screaming bit. You know, he even did that bit, you know, the I mean, the almost exactly

like it. And it's it's because they see they watched movies like and B for Vendetta and they think, golly, gee, wouldn't it be great if we could be that government? You know, I mean, they totally perverse mindset. But that's why we have to resist, because that's who these people are. Yeah, do you think. Um, So, now we have all this censorship we talked about, you know, Andrew Tate getting deleted obviously, Alex Jones being the kind of poster child for that. Um.

But now we've you know, we see it. It's volatile, right. So then Alex Bernson, he got wiped off the face of Twitter because of talking about COVID, but now they had to let him back on. So now he's back, and now it seems like there's a lot of open talk about that stuff supposedly now, which is pretty interesting. But we're also seeing the rise of these, you know,

the growth of these alternative platforms, the parlors, the rumbles, etcetera. Um, I mean, do you think they'll they'll probably continue to attack those right again, going back to kind of controlling the free speech, Sedition Act, etcetera. I mean, they didn't to shut it all off, so even those other platforms, as as as they may be popping up, uh, probably

won't be allowed to stick around for much longer. I think they're they're gonna have some hurdles because the key was how to fight back intelligently, And so Elon Musk simply talking about and trying to buy Twitter, and now they're in lawsuits because it turned out Twitter has a lot more bots than they were admitting. So he thinks he over he overbought it. Now what he may get out of that is a much deeper discount and haircut

and still end up owing it. But as soon as he talked about buying it, all of a sudden, Twitter became a lot less than sorious for a period of time, still a lot of censorship that takes place, but not to the same scale as you know. Now you look at Rumble, Rumble is a meaningful competitor because of who is investing in Rumble. It's now public news at the Wall Street Journal put out there Peter thal jd Vance a bunch of people like that, people with political influence,

people with strong economic ties, people with deep resources. Right now, in fact, Rumble has sued Google in that case is going into the discovery age. So because Rumble planned a certain approach, a disciplined methodological approach to being able to uh meaningfully compete and provide an independent platform, It's gonna be very hard for Google and YouTube and the rest to take him out. It's gonna be very hard for them to remove them from the store. They're already like

the various apps. That's their current monopolistic source of control is the control of apps on phones and and on laptops, Apple and Google. That's one of the key places that needs to be attacked and legally to to stop that monopolistic power from continuing to be able to use for speech control purposes. But I think the approach Rumble is taking, I mean Russell brand is announced he's gonna be doing exclusive things. A whole bunch of other people saying they're

gonna be doing exclusive things on Rumble. Rumble continues to upgrade and improve it's technology, it's technological capacity and capability. Run by Chris Pavlovski, who's deeply personally committed to creating a free speech space that's independent and separate from cancel culture. I think Rumble maybe a meaningful competitor, and I don't think they'll be able to take him out. And that's one of the best white pills in recent time period

during this era. Yeah, so I see, I see light and what I see, as you said, we need to get this court of public opinion to turn. Obviously they understand that. So that's their attack vector. So that's part of this. Viva Vendetta's speech is trying to attack the public perception. But at the same time, UM, you know, just back to entertain The one thing I was thinking

is um he was he was growing so fast. He was adding over a hundred thousand people per day on Instagram, a hundred thousand people a day, and he has a message that's very similar to UM to Jordan Peterson's which is suck it up, pull yourself up by your bootstraps. So what if you got dealta bad hand, it's the hand you have, Play it the best you can. You know, uh, slap yourself. It's up to you kind of a thing

like that. And that's obviously a totally different message than what we get from mainstream media, which is it's okay, you're a victim, you can never get ahead. And um. What I see both from the rise of Jordan Peterson and with Andrew Tait is like there's a need for that, like people want that, and so there's this massive market, which of course why I want to shut down, but that's encouraging. You mentioned Elon must trying to buy Twitter when he put that bid in, and it was all

about opening up for free speech. So it's really to me it was like this free speech the pride. The Twitter stock jumped big time with gain at a time when the rest of the markets were dropping. That again shows there's this massive thirst for freedom of speech. The price drove up, um, the rise of Rumble, So there's all these things. So I do see light, I do see hope. Um. But at the same time, man, they're

coming after us. Hard. It's coming after us hard. I made the comment to my wife a couple of weeks ago, and I said, uh, I think there's above average chance within the next two years I might not be able to be in the United States doing what I'm doing, maaning being critical of the government. Um, what's your under over on that? Where do you think we're going in the next couple of years. Well, the way I put it is, there's no great hero story without a great villain,

and we definitely have a great villain. And the only question is how many of us are going to be capable of being great heroes. Because I think that capacity is there, we are going to face a lot worse. They are doing things they've never done before. They're trying to establish precedents they've never utilized before. That means they're coming for the rest of us. Alex Jones is again the canary in the coal mine. They're going after the

president the United States. That answers all your questions about what's the chances they go after me if you they see you as a threat, They answer is high. But the upside of this is it presents an opportunity for people to prove the courage of their character. You know, Poncho Villa'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees. Provides a lot of you know, med your Evers said, you know, most men die a thousand deaths

every day. I'm only gonna die once it. You know, great adversary, great evil presents an opportunity for great courage, great honor, and great truth. And we're all going to get the opportunity. And the American people and the people around the world are going to get the chance to show that. And I still have my I love to bet. I'm a gambler by nature. I like sports betting, I

like political betting, you name it. I will always bet on the conscience and the soul and the heart and the mind of the ordinary, everyday person to resist this and to maintain the fight for freedom and liberty moving forward. So good, so good. I don't want to add anything on to that. I think that's a good place for us to break because, um, that's a that's a that's a message of hope, it's a message to rally behind. And I think, um, yeah, Unfortunately, we have heroes rise up.

Unfortunately also have martyrs in the movement. Um and uh but I think when we stand up for ideologies, it's stronger than anything that the other side can throw at you. So you you said it perfectly with that, will get and sign it off. Robert Um. You know I'm gonna link to your Twitter. I know you're super active on there. Anything else you want to call attention to, everyone should Yeah.

If people want to find all the content any and also be part of a community that shares similar in first as we've been discussing today, they can get that at Viva Barnes Law dot locals dot com and what is that. It's a locals community, so Locals as part of it was owned by Rumble. It's an independent platform to replace Patreon or play, subscribe to are and really replace Facebook. So people get to make their own post. I post, exclude, I post a Barnes Brief there every day.

That's curated news and information content from across the globe. We do exclusive videos. They have a Hush a series called Hush Hush, which is about the alternative interpretation of events various conspiracy theories that have been debated over time,

everything from the Kennedy assassination to the moon landing. We discuss and debate, book reviews, movie reviews, but also people get to interact with one another, They get to post themselves, they get to comment, and it creates a community free of algorithmic manipulation, free of subject matters, censorship, free of trolls and harassers and stalkers, where people really get to share ideas about how do they make the world a better place in these very unique times we face. That's awesome.

Everyone should check it out. We're gonna make sure it's linked down below, and with that we'll sign it off. Thanks so much, Robert, thanks everybody than