Name: Jewish Assault On Free Speech
Uploaded: 2026-01-02
Duration: 2 h 41 min 13 s
Description: Ian Malcolm introduces the topic of Jewish supremacy and its impact on free speech, referencing a CNBC clip.

Held here entire — 505 passages across 14 chapters and 4 named voices, set down from the first word to the last.

Now playing · Jewish Supremacy and Free Speech

0:00 / 2:41:12

Chapters — 14

0:00Jewish Supremacy and Free SpeechIan Malcolm introduces the topic of Jewish supremacy and its impact on free speech, referencing a CNBC clip.
2:02Media Control and Censorship TacticsMalcolm details how Jewish control over media, tech, and finance leads to censorship and algorithmic manipulation.
6:20The Toxicity Score and X's AlgorithmThe discussion delves into X's 'toxicity score' and how it suppresses critical discourse on Jews and Israel.
10:50Shlomo Kramer's Call for AuthenticationMalcolm analyzes Shlomo Kramer's proposal for mandatory authentication on social media and its implications for privacy.
15:05The Two-Tier Digital LandscapeThe conversation explores the potential creation of a two-tier digital system where anonymous users are suppressed.
18:20The Inevitable Win Against CensorshipDavid and Ian discuss the inevitability of winning against censorship, highlighting the power of free speech.
22:10Dumbing Down the MassesIan suggests that cultural 'slop' and entertainment are intentionally used to lower intellect and control the population.
26:40The Problem with Universal SuffrageMancos argues that universal suffrage, especially with low-IQ voters, makes societies susceptible to manipulation.
30:20Jewish Power Cycles and ArroganceMancos explains the historical cycles of Jewish power, their rise in America, and the current 'downward slope'.
36:40The First Amendment vs. Second AmendmentGrimcalls and Ian debate the primacy of the First and Second Amendments in defending American liberties.
40:00Hasbara Budget and Anti-Semitism as a WeaponTitounleasht discusses the Hasbara budget and how 'anti-Semitism' is used to silence criticism of Israel.
45:00The Nature of Jewish SupremacyIan challenges the notion of 'all Jews' being problematic, focusing on psychopaths and narcissists within power structures.
48:20Holocaust Denial Laws and Moral InversionThomas highlights laws against Holocaust denial and how language is inverted to control narratives and suppress dissent.
51:40Christianity, Forgiveness, and JusticeChoose Liberty discusses Christian principles of forgiveness and justice, contrasting them with calls for retribution.

The Transcript

Ian MalcolmWell, okay. All right, all right, all right, all right. Joanne, is this working better?

@joann_marieYes, it's on perfect right now.

Ian MalcolmAll right. Well, let's see if the Twitter gods here, the connectivity overlords, if they decide to allow us to have this conversation. Hopefully we can. And if so, just to give everybody a rough direction of where we'll be going, going to basically give a couple thoughts on the world. We'll open it up for some Q&A and for your thoughts on the subject at hand.

Ian MalcolmAnd once again, let me grab a little video clip here that we are going to be referencing in what is just another day living under Jewish supremacy. And I say that because oftentimes we talk about these issues. Lots of people, they come at me and those that tend to, let's say, speak in a lot of the circles that I might swim in.

Ian MalcolmAnd they often will ask, why do you focus so much on Jews? Why is that something you talk about so frequently? And well, the answer is I would love to talk about other things. I would love to talk about uplifting media, maybe beautiful music, precious artwork, things out in nature that we can go out and explore and enjoy.

Ian MalcolmLove talking about health and wellness and all those things. And TruthTeller has been doing some wonderful spaces on those to give a quick plug to him. And yet, I wake up every single day, and essentially every day, I am greeted with the same reality, which is an absurd overreach of those in control with the intent to basically subvert, suppress, and fundamentally enslave the world.

Ian MalcolmAnd I know that that might sound hyperbolic, but again, to reference just the news clip of the day here, the thing that would spark said conversation. And so first and foremost, just to give a quick little recap again of what exactly was shared, because I know that the previous attempt to have this conversation awkwardly cut out.

Ian MalcolmHow curious. But on this idea of an encroachment and an assault and an attack on free speech. Well, we certainly know that the powers that be and their ownership over tech and finance, media and all these types of things, they certainly extend far and wide. And lots of people try to take me to task on that issue. As a quick little aside, I was mentioning the idea of the music industry.

Ian MalcolmSomebody was talking about that the other day in a space and they looked over my direction. Hey, Ian Malcolm, I think you can probably tell us a little bit about the music industry. And I referenced a post that I made about a year ago. And the reason that I bring this up is because roughly a year ago, there were the big four in the music industry.

Ian MalcolmBefore that, it was the big five. And before that, it was the big six. They've been... consolidated one over another over another after they've been bought, consumed, and had these mergers. At which point, we now have the big three of the music industry, which is Sony, Warner Brothers, and Universal. Ironically, all three of those have Jews at the very, very, very top.

Ian MalcolmWith Warner Brothers, it's the chairman of the board of the business. And of those three, go and ask Rock what percent of mainstream music that you listen to on the radio or on streaming apps comes from those three organizations and then ask in parentheses, or record labels owned or affiliated with those big three. And you know what Grok will give you as an answer.

Ian MalcolmIt will say 98 to 99% of everything that you hear on the radio rolls up to those three companies that are controlled at the highest level, all three of them, by Jews. Now, I mentioned this just as another example of the continued consolidation. We've also seen the same thing in the media, where we've seen Larry Ellison's son, David Ellison, and Skydance, which have bought Paramount.

Ian MalcolmLooks like they're going to buy Warner Brothers. If not, it's going to go to TikTok. And of course, we, as we've discussed many times, all of those groups I just mentioned all run and founded by, yes, the same group of people. Which brings us to today in the video clip. Because if individuals want to take me up on the prospect that the media is disproportionately Jewish, well, then we've got this clip of the day, which is from CNBC, which is owned by Jews on a program that is produced by a Jew with a set of two anchors that are both Jewish, one of which the female who has Jewish ancestry that were in the Holocaust and is married to a man with the last name of Levin.

Ian MalcolmSo you have two Jews on the Jewish-produced broadcast program on the Jewish network, which has as its guest of honor a Jewish-Israeli billionaire who, oh, by the way, sells technology that essentially helps the governments surveil the people. That is what he's essentially not only there to talk about, but ironically to try and sell how, well, I guess some might say how rather Jewish of him, right?

Ian MalcolmHis purpose for being there, not just... to gaslight you and demand that governments the world over need to start cracking down and eliminating your fundamental First Amendment if you live in the United States. No, no, no, no, no. It's not enough to just do that, to have that authoritarian absurdity. Then also, of course, to deny the existence of Jewish supremacy, which is the gaslight that would follow, but to do so while also trying to shill his products so that he can make more money.

Ian MalcolmHow perfectly symbolic of this very paradigm that we discuss so frequently. And so we've got this individual, good old Mr. Shlomo Kramer, which is about as Jewish a name as I could conceptualize. And he is out there suggesting to these two broadcast individuals. Now, first, I want to talk really quickly about the what he intends to do, because it's more sophisticated.

Ian MalcolmA lot of people heard this clip and they said they want to take away your First Amendment. That is correct. That is ultimately what they want to do. That has been the plan all along. We've been pushed back on, let's say endlessly, by detractors who would suggest that that's Looney Tunes, it's anti-Semitic conspiracy tropes, etc.

Ian MalcolmNo, that is demonstrably what they want to happen. And when I say they, I don't just mean Shlomo Kramer, I mean a wide slew of other Jewish intellectuals, as well as Netanyahu himself, who have made endless suggestions for the need to for the lockdown on social media. Now, why go after social media, right? Why focus there?

Ian MalcolmWhy not focus on the media? Oh, that's right. Because they own all of that. And they softly, as a result, get to dictate what is said on those networks. That's part of the problem. Like Rabbi Mallius was talking about with the music industry, they get to dominate and determine what you get to listen to. when you turn on the radio, when you sit in the lobby waiting for your doctor's appointment, or whether you get into the elevator that's softly playing its music.

Ian MalcolmThat is decided by billionaires. They get to determine what you get access to. Now, you can go off into the fringes. You can try and find your specific niche of, let's say, acoustic Christian gospel music, and sure, you might find it, but it's not going to be fed to you through the algorithm. It probably doesn't matter how much of that you listen to.

Ian MalcolmThey are going to slowly continue to try to push you back into the mainstream narrative that they want you to participate in, right? So they own all of that. And through that algorithmic, let's say, coordination, they get to determine what you hear, what you see on TV. What they can't currently determine is what you post when you go on to social media.

Ian MalcolmNow, they can say that you don't get to participate in that sphere. And to date, they've been doing that through essentially mass censorship, mass suppression, and mass algorithmic control and manipulation, which basically means through the toxicity score that Parzival has determined on this app. And I want to give him a shout out because I think we're probably going to do a space somewhere in January on the evolving door, let's say, that is essentially Israeli Mossad control over the X algorithm, right?

Ian MalcolmBut he is the one that initially broke that toxicity score. And to give you a rough idea what that means, Well, let's say I've got 100,000 followers because, oh, I guess I do. And let's say some people, for whatever reason, find some of the things that I say remotely interesting, so they want to follow me. Well, of course, X is going to mess around with that and detach some of those followers.

Ian MalcolmAnd we know that little game because we've caught them doing that, but that's not enough. They also then have to say, okay, we're going to build out this algebra problem, let's say. And that algebra problem is basically going to take the number of followers you have plus... Let's say the virality of the things that you post.

Ian MalcolmAre they gaining traction? Do they get lots of likes? Do they get lots of reshares and comments and bookmarks? The thing that they try to obscure, of course, is at the end of that algebra problem is the hidden factor. Let's call it the X factor, which ironically, algebraically kind of works, right? What is X? Well, X is your toxicity score.

Ian MalcolmAnd what does that basically mean? Well... It doesn't matter how many followers you have or how viral your content is or how many people might set notifications to see it because they're really interested in your worldview. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. At the end of that problem, we've got a score that we can apply depending on all sorts of variables, which, oh, by the way, Parzival has uncovered does include critical discourse on Jews and Israel.

Ian MalcolmAnd they get to then add to the end of that algebra problem some variable. Let's just say that it's between 1 and 99. And if you're a good little boy, and you talk positively about Ben Shapiro and all the other things that you're supposed to participate in because of the message, well, then you get a very high score, or perhaps it's a low toxicity score in this case.

Ian Malcolmmeaning that your content gets to be seen by lots of people, almost independent of, let's say, the virality, the followers, etc. And on the inverse, if you say things that are bad about, say, this group that's in charge, well, then all of the other former pieces of that algebra problem don't matter because you get to the end of that algebra equation.

Ian MalcolmAnd even if it is, let's say, a million as a theoretical score. Well, if that toxicity score on a scale of 1 to 99, let's just say in this case for easy math, that you get .0000001, meaning that you get boosted by that, whereas the Ben Shapiro's of the world get multiplied by 99, well, then it doesn't matter how interesting your content is, how many followers you have.

Ian MalcolmIt gets buried by the algorithm. Now, I say this because that's the current strategy that has been in place on X, which I believe is essentially a Mossad honey trap operation. at this point, to largely lure in dissident voices under the ruse of free speech so that they come in here, they share their ideas. And what does that allow for?

Ian MalcolmNumber one is to build up a net so that they can round us all up and determine who we are through our, let's say, IP addresses or the other hardware device IDs that we have on any of these markers, whether it's a phone, a laptop, et cetera. So they're building the lists, right? Very similar to what the Bolsheviks would have done with Operation Q or Operation Trust, for what it's worth.

Ian MalcolmRight. To round up all those that are in opposition to the machine. Right. So they will have that net. The other thing that they're doing is using us to understand what is the opposition's angle. What are they saying? What are they doing? What are they aware of so that they can then refine the propaganda to combat our voices?

Ian MalcolmBut the problem is that even with all of that nonsense, with the toxicity scores, with all of the other things that they're doing to bury our voices, it doesn't really matter. Because at this point, Ben Shapiro, even with the boost that he gets in visibility, gets ratioed by those with very bad toxic scores like myself.

Ian MalcolmIt's very easy for me to go to his page now and just say, you are doing this for shekels because you are a traitor to the United States and you are loyal to Israel. And people say, yay! So we become Spartacus. It doesn't matter if they have all the money. It doesn't matter if we don't really even have any weapons. What do we have is access to the truth and a desire to operate.

Ian Malcolmlet's say, provide opposition to it. And so now they are going to have to be forced to go to the next, let's say, iteration of their suppression, right? It's not enough to just say you don't get a voice digitally, which is what they've been doing on Facebook, on Instagram. The moment TikTok was bought by Larry Ellison and Oracle, they immediately went after people like Eric Orsall, who had, if I'm not mistaken, millions of followers on TikTok.

Ian MalcolmHe was a very viral individual. And we had him, for what it's worth, in a space on X. The guy's not remotely, let's say, inflammatory. He's not colorful with his rhetoric. He doesn't curse. He's not profane. He just says, hey, look at all these weird coincidences with Jews. And so that intellectual, I'd say, brother in arms got nuked on TikTok within 72 hours of it switching hands from the Chinese over to, let's just say, Jewish control.

Ian MalcolmSo they've been doing that everywhere. If they can't do it here on X, which for what it's worth, I don't think that they can. And the reason that I say that is because the moment they do, well, then the cat's out of the bag. Elon is a ruse. Elon's a LARP. Elon is a false savior, right? The moment that X falls, even in spite of the fact that, well, we know it has a Jewish head of product who's manipulating all of these different things to suppress our voices.

Ian MalcolmThe moment Elon officially bends the knee, there's nobody left. Because right now, the only detractors that I have that try to push back on this idea, they'll say, what do you mean tech is owned by the Jews? What about social media? TikTok is by the Chinese. No, it's not. Well, X is Elon. Is it? The moment Elon completely bends his knee, that game is over.

Ian MalcolmAt that point, so is all social media for what it's worth. There will be no other option for us with the exception, perhaps, tongue twister, of Noster. Is that even really a viable option? If you've got a half billion followers or people on X, let's say, that you can connect with, well, is Noster with a couple thousand or tens of thousands or maybe even hundreds of thousands?

Ian MalcolmBut is that a worthwhile alternative? Is that really? And I'm not, let's say, I'm not critiquing that network or the idea of moving to it, but I am trying to suggest that if a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, does it make a sound? And in some ways, that's kind of what is on Noster because the people that are already there, the reason that they're there is because they see the things that we talk about.

Ian MalcolmBut the people who don't are going to stay within the matrix of Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X. And that is why, for what it's worth, I believe that the latest thing that we've seen from X is both the absurd amount of slop propaganda that is to try and appeal to the normies, but it's also designed to gaslight us for what it's worth.

Ian Malcolmto get us just to leave, to say this isn't worth the headaches. Because the moment that we do that, we essentially lay down our intellectual sword, we lay down our shield, we walk off the battlefield, and then they de facto win. So we can't let that happen. And so now Elon Musk is in this bind. They kind of can't give up that he is as compromised as I might suggest that he is.

Ian MalcolmAnd so now what do you have on the other side of the aisle? We have Shlomo. saying that the next iteration of this, well, it has to be a couple things. Number one, yes, he calls to limit the First Amendment to protect it. What an absolute joke that is, because, oh, by the way, the First Amendment is essentially protected by, oh, what do you know, the First Amendment.

Ian MalcolmAnd the people that want to infringe upon it need to get rid of it because the moment that you get rid of the ability to speak the truth, well, the moment you are enslaved absolutely indefinitely under tyranny that you can no longer even intellectually oppose, even if done peacefully, righteously, justfully, and lawfully for what it's worth, which is why they need to change the law.

Ian MalcolmBut what is it that Shlomo Kramer said in his very telling little diatribe? on the news program. A few things that I'd point out. Number one, again, this is a billionaire. And when he tries to share his ideas, we're forced to believe that this is an intellect. This is a super successful Israeli tech mogul billionaire who, it's laughable.

Ian MalcolmThis is not a high IQ individual. Where is that high verbal Ashkenazi IQ that I hear about all the time? Why do I see this everywhere? I'm told that Ben Shapiro is the big intellect who has to go out and debate literal high school children. And then we see Shlomo, the billionaire tech mogul, who finished a complete sentence.

Ian MalcolmIt's absurd. It is insane. But what did he say in his little rant, if you can even call it that, his poorly delivered, stuttering, foolish diatribe? Well, what did he say? He said that you have to be able to identify and to authenticate so that you can then stack rank the content. Now, I want everybody to think about this because I don't see a lot of people talking about this piece of this lunatics little discussion.

Ian MalcolmWhat does he mean when he says authenticate? Well, this is what's happening in Australia. This is what's happening in England. This is what's happening, for what it's worth, in Texas and Louisiana, where they want you to identify and to authenticate your identification. For what purposes? So that you can prove that you're of age to apparently see pornography and other explicit content that is designed for adults on the internet, even though, oh, by the way, we know who it is that pushes that type of content.

Ian MalcolmYes, what do you know? Same group of people. So they're out there constructing the very thing that they then use as a cudgel and a weapon to say that we need to now set restrictions on the internet to authenticate that you are of age to see the content, again, that they are almost exclusively the ones that are pushing.

Ian MalcolmBut what does that authentication then do? It's going to link you, your ID, and in short, your identification to not necessarily just a social credit score. They've already got that built into the social media networks. That is the toxicity score. But in addition to this social credit, it becomes your interpersonal credit score.

Ian Malcolmyour personality, how much you mean on these networks. And here's the piece that's very interesting. If you refuse to cooperate, what are they going to do? They're going to say that we don't know if you're an authentic voice. Oh, you're in a non. And isn't it curious that you see certain people, certain influencers, oh, by the way, pushing the importance of doxing yourself and being face first because you can't make a difference if you're not.

Ian MalcolmWhat a ruse that is, because the last time I checked in an impromptu space that Joanne and I hosted, we had more listeners than the quote unquote king of Twitter who's out there face forward, whose spaces I'm, oh, by the way, blocked from joining because I ratioed one of the people that frequently co-hosts with them. How curious.

Ian MalcolmSo as an anonymous person, like TruthTeller, for example, you can make a hell of a difference. So you've got all these influencers that are out there suggesting that you doxed yourself, and then you've got the Israeli billionaire tech mogul, quote unquote, suggesting that we need to authenticate everybody, meaning that they're going to attach your persona, your ID.

Ian MalcolmAnd if you're not willing to give it to them, then what are they going to do? They're going to use that for the quote unquote stack ranking. Now, what is the stack ranking? It's an additional layer to the already, let's say, toxicity score based algorithm. that they use to determine your reach on social media. So think about this.

Ian MalcolmAnd we're already seeing this firsthand. Not enough people are really paying attention to these dots because they're very obvious once you notice them. What did X do within the last month or two? They affixed everybody's nationality to their profile, where you set up your account, where it's based in, where you're located in.

Ian MalcolmThey're using that under the guise that they want to get rid of, I suppose, bots. But that hasn't happened. They're not doing anything with that data. What are they doing? They're normalizing the forcing of doxing of the user base. We now have the right on a whim to just say, we're going to reveal what country you're in, which maybe you didn't want to do because it's an anonymous user.

Ian MalcolmYou got benefits from perhaps being able to LARP as if you're in another country, which might have more lax or more stringent restrictions around what you can say. Individuals in the United Kingdom, if they talk directly about a certain ethnic minority of people, they get a knock on the door. So maybe those people would have preferred to suggest or to LARP as if they were American or from another country altogether to be able to say with confidence, no, you don't have a right to infringe upon what I say.

Ian MalcolmYou don't have a right to turn that content over to the authorities of a nation state. This is big technology. I thought these were platforms. that were supposed to merely allow for us to share our voices? When did they become extensions of the government or of the government, let's say, authoritarian police state? When did that shift happen?

Ian MalcolmSo I bring that up because you can see how what they are already going to do is they're going to say on platforms, like, for example, Facebook and Instagram, where they already largely have that data because most people that use those networks, they already attach their persona to them. There's not a lot of Ian Malcolm 84s on Facebook, or so I presume.

Ian MalcolmAnd if they are, it'd be really funny if they just, they live their entire life as if they are that fictional character. But on X, you have a different story. You have handles that some, for what it's worth, for a long period of time, made up massive impacts on this network. Some which were artificially, let's say, pushed into the limelight, like libs of TikTok, and others that perhaps were a little bit more organic, like the commander-in-chief of lots of these conversations, Mr.

Ian MalcolmTruth Teller. And so I say these things because they're already moving subtly in that direction. And they're doing it in a way that does not, let's say, give you reason to be out in the streets furious. Instead, what they tried to do, and especially with this nationality one, they tried to make it a fun joke. Did you notice that?

Ian MalcolmHow there were lots of handles out there saying, oh, look at this account, look at this account. They were all eager to do it. right, to make it a fun, entertaining piece of the development. That's why lots of people were screenshotting it themselves and throwing it onto their profile. They wanted to make you comfortable with it.

Ian MalcolmSo you didn't ask the question, why is this happening? Where does this go? And where it clearly goes is the advancing of that mandatory docs. So it'll go from your nation, perhaps in the United States, to your state itself. Because after all, if Texas and Louisiana force you to have authentication of yourself. Well, then how are they going to enforce that?

Ian MalcolmOh, that's right. They're going to require you to tell them what state you're in. That's how they're going to ever progress this soft enforcement of doxing. And then on the other side, they're going to use this authentication. They're going to not force it through the government for what it's worth. I don't think that Shlomo Kramer, that his intentions are to go to, let's say, the Capitol building and to try and get the politicians to do this.

Ian MalcolmNo, no, no, no, no. What they will try to do is to soft sell it through the technocrats who have been infringing on your right, oh, for what it's worth, for over a decade anyway. They'll just continue moving the goalpost. It is freedom of speech, but not reach. And that reach is going to include where you're located. and if you're willing to dox yourself and put yourself face forward.

Ian MalcolmAnd if you're not, well, then you're going to get stack-ranked. Sorry, in addition to the toxicity scale, you now get stack-ranked as an anon that's not going to be able to be viewed by all the nice little goys that are participating in the otherwise matrix-based system. It'll become a two-tier digital landscape, kind of like the Noahide laws, for what it's worth.

Ian MalcolmAnd you know who's going to be at the top of the stack rankings of everything. Yes, it's going to be all the same slop. So you will live under a system where basically you're allowed to participate in the slop or not. And if you're not in the slop, you'll have no ability to influence the minds of those that eat it up. So you can see how this dream, the American dream of free speech, quickly becoming a nightmare.

Ian MalcolmAnd it's not because of Mormons. It's not because of the Illuminati. Shlomo Kramer is not from the Vatican. He is a technocratic Zionist Israeli Jew. The people on that panel with him are Jews. The people who own the network are Jews. We need to stop tiptoeing around this issue. And you know who's really silent on it? Is the king of free speech himself, Mr. Elon Musk, who is nowhere to be found.

Ian Malcolmon what is the number one, at least in my feed anyway, trending video on X. And I get that I'm biased and my feed is designed for me and all those other kinds of things. But my For You page has been nothing for a long time, but pro-Israeli slop. And yet I'm seeing that video being shared by all sorts of handles. And all kinds of handles are quote tweeting mine, some of which are pretty sizable, that I don't follow, I've never engaged with, I've never seen before.

Ian MalcolmAnd so this is hitting the masses. And my point of all of this is to say that we are seeing an absolute assault on free speech. And here is what they are going to do to give you the playbook well in advance. And you can tell everybody you heard it here first. And if six months from now, this isn't come to fruition, come back and clip this and tell me that I was a fool, right?

Ian MalcolmBut thus far, I've been pretty accurate in most of my predictions. And it's not because I'm, let's say, a paleontologist who knows all about the dinosaur life. No, no, no. Maybe I'm a chaotician and I understand the chaos that is the Jews. What they are going to do is they are going to gaslight us with this. They are going to go out and they are going to demand the removal of our free speech.

Ian MalcolmThey are going to subtly push for it through the technocrats on the back end. They are going to continue to soft push it and force function it the way that they are with X and things like location services, which they now force on this application. They will move that ball forward. They will continue gaslighting us by making these demands that we need to silence and censor free speech to protect it.

Ian MalcolmAnd the normies will lap it up because that's all they know how to do, because the opposition to that, of course, is them being an anti-Semite and God forbid. Right. And those that are on our side that see this and that understand what's happening, they're going to use our inflammatory rhetoric because there will be those that will say this is ridiculous.

Ian MalcolmLet's go protest. Let's get out in the streets. And they will use those protests. to scaremonger the people living in the Matrix. They will basically use Neo and Morpheus and Trinity that are trying to save all the people in the Matrix, and Agent Smith is going to run around and simultaneously try to defeat our ability to share a message while they are at the exact same time telling all the people stuck in the Matrix that we're the ones they should fear.

Ian MalcolmAnd they're going to, let's say, in turn, be able to completely capture everybody unless we can wake up anybody To this reality. The cat is out of the bag. They are screaming in your face. Their exact battle plan. And they have so much hubris. So much. I hate saying that word. Frankly. It's probably what gave me a little bit of a horse throat here.

Ian MalcolmRight. That is probably going to beget both on one side, the push for the authoritarianism and the lockdown on free speech. The way that they will get it is by radicalizing those that see what's going on to the point that they are out in the streets protesting. And all the while, those of us that are in the middle that recognize what is going on are going to be stuck trying to peacefully bring attention to these issues as we essentially become the villain of everybody unless we can.

Ian Malcolmconstruct the reality in which everybody realizes that we're the ones trying to free them from the very thing that agent Smith is trying to protect them from, which at the end of the day is the thing they fear most, which is truth. And so we got to wake up to this. We've got to use this type of video clip, not just here, not just now, but in every space going forward.

Ian MalcolmSo in little detractors like Brianna, man, wasn't that laughable when she tried to come into the space? I thank Valech immensely for the video he made that. That woman just did herself so many favors. Well, I should say she did our cause so many favors by doing herself none. That's probably the better way to think about it.

Ian MalcolmBut when she says the media is not Jewish, pull up that clip. Throw it right in her face. And what you can say is not only is it Jewish, but it clearly is a Jewish bias. Imagine anybody else. Imagine if it was a Chinese person on CNBC saying, I think we need to limit Americans' First Amendment. Imagine if it was a Muslim.

Ian MalcolmA guy dressed up like Osama bin Laden on national television. It's time for us to undermine the First Amendment. It'd be, oh, look at the terrorist. A Jew says it, and all the Jews clap along. Ben Shapiro, I'm sure, is going to repost it. This is a true freedom fighter. Yeah, freedom by taking away dot, dot, dot, your freedom.

Ian MalcolmThis is insane. We've gotten to the point that not only is the cat out of the bag, but as Lucas Gage would say, it's running around. It's biting everybody, and it's time for us in a unified voice with anybody and everybody, black, white, brown, yellow, Christian, Muslim, Jew here or there that will be honest about this issue, even though I've found very few of them that will, which makes me actually, and I'm so thankful that we've got David up here with us.

Ian MalcolmI've wanted to ask him this question for a while, which is basically, I feel like the Jews are the Borg. from Star Trek. And I'm not a Trekkie, so I don't know the exact history, so maybe I'm greatly misspeaking on this one. Maybe it's a different group from that series. But I feel like they are in the sense that the collectivist mindset, it almost makes it incapable.

Ian MalcolmAnd when I say it, I mean those that ascribe to Jewish supremacy and Zionism and Israel and all this stuff. We see that 90-ish percent of all Jews in America support the nation of Israel. That 90 to 95 are Zionists. Then we go over and we see that 60 to 70% of the Jews in Israel support genocide. Well, what does that mean?

Ian MalcolmThat vis-a-vis basic logic would suggest that 90% of Israeli Americans and Westerners support genocide. That's a reasonable thing. That's like Euclidean geometry, right? If A equals B and B equals C, then, well, A equals C, guys. And so if something supports a nation state that supports genocide while lying about it, well, then you're participatory in it.

Ian MalcolmOr you're so biased that you're unwilling to listen to those that would otherwise wake you up from the lies that is NetYahu saying that that's not happening. And so a lot that we have to unpack here. This is, it's flagrant. It is an overreach. It is them putting their foot so squarely in their mouth. And again, it just gives us the greatest of ammo to say to the detractors, not only is the media Jewish in its ownership, in its execution, but its bias is so overt that

Ian Malcolmthe Jews can basically suggest that they're going to strip you of your fundamental rights and the other Jews, ironically, on the panel will not along, agree, and not push back whatsoever, perhaps because they agree with it. So if they can't control every last microphone, then they will basically cut out your tongue or handcuff you in the digital sphere so that you can't even make use of it.

Ian MalcolmAnd so we've got to discuss these issues. We've got to bring them to the surface. I'm so thankful for everybody that's here. And really quickly, I want to make sure to go to Mr. Nietzsche and get his thoughts on that idea of the Borg. But before we do, let's check in real quick with Joanne. And Joanne, any thoughts on the content?

Ian MalcolmAnd hopefully the communication and the connection came through a little bit more clearly this time.

@joann_marieIt was such an amazing presentation, Ian. I am always mind blown by... your rants, they are just beautiful and so well articulated. And I think it's so dangerous for people to lose their free speech and especially for people who literally hate you. And they also tell you that they hate you. Like saying that the Jews versus Rome and that you guys are Rome and that they literally want to destroy you.

@joann_marieIt's just terrifying. So I hope, I mean, the cat is out of the bag. And I hope it stays out of the bag. And I hope more people wake up. And I've seen a lot of normies waking up. And I hope it gets normalized for people to talk about this. And I'm just, I'm terrified. But at the same time, I know we're going to win. And you guys...

@joann_marieThanks to you guys and for everyone who speaks about this. And I'm just super grateful to be in this movement. And thank you so much. And guys, also, please repost this space. Follow Ian and David and the amazing speakers. And if you guys go to it, I will also repost it. And thank you, thank you, thank you so much for being here.

@joann_marieAnd keep resisting. We're going to win, guys. And go ahead, David.

Speaker 1Happy New Year.

@joann_marieHappy New Year. How are you? Welcome.

Speaker 1I'm doing quite well. Our guests left this morning. So we had guests over the whole New Year. And then we were the guests of other people over Christmas. So it's been a busy holiday. I will tell you this. Whatever the battle for free speech is, count me in. Tell me where it is. You know, I'll hit the Starbucks on the way or get my own coffee.

Speaker 1Because this... There is no fight more near and dear to me than this. Salman Rushdie said it right. This is the whole game. It's the whole ballgame. If you lose your right to speak freely, there goes all the other ones. And I must remind everybody, rights are mere qualities of freedom. You have an infinite number of rights.

Speaker 1They extend, as I keep saying, from that one freedom you have as innumerably as rays of light extend from the sun. Because when I say you only have one freedom, it's because you only have one mind and one body. And the people that wish to control you, they want to reduce you to servitude and extract your wealth. And the one weapon that you have against them is your ability to speak freely.

Speaker 1So why would they come after that one? Well, of course, that's the one you would come after, right? All the other rights that we could enumerate, the right to drink coffee, the right to look left, the right to look right, the right to, I don't know, you name any right you can think of, but this one right, this is our main weapon against them.

Speaker 1The one thing that is a real thing about government is this concept of the consent of the governed. this infinitesimally small group of people that deigns to rule us, they need us to play along. It's the same thing with the trans movement, right? It wasn't enough that people wanted to dress like women and pretend to be women, which is fine.

Speaker 1No, no, no, no. The authoritarian said, you have to play along. Oh, that's actually a guy, not a girl. Really? Two plus two is five. What did Orwell say? What did it say in 1984? It's not enough that you say it, but you have to believe it. How do you get that kind of control over people? You completely and utterly deracinate their capacity to speak freely.

Speaker 1Though I will say this, Ian, one thing we have going for us is this is the only censorship that they're after right now. Or excuse me, this is the only way that they're censoring us is in the direction of Israel. It's very, very obvious. It's very, very obvious. You know, the questioning of the Epstein thing, the questioning of the Charlie Kirk thing.

Speaker 1And also, listen, these censors, without exception, are always on the wrong side of history. So the question is, do you want to be Winston Smith? There is no hiding here. There is no sitting back and waiting for this bloat to blow over. When people want to take away your freedom of speech, then it's time to exercise it.

Speaker 1It's time to call them out. It's time to stop being so feckless, so afraid, and stop... So I don't want to, you know, point it out. I'm sorry, but look, you can't. It's always the Jewish supremacists. You know, when Benjamin Netanyahu said, we've got TikTok, not a friend of ours, but we as in our race, our tribe, the master race, we've got TikTok and now we're going to go after Elon Musk.

Speaker 1That should give you pause that, oh gosh, these are bad people. Why am I so reticent in calling out people that are very, very racist, that are very, very bigoted? And think about it. They're spitting on the graves of acres of men that have died at Arlington to fight for this very freedom. And they had so much more courage than you and I.

Speaker 1And so we're not going to have enough courage to speak out against it, to talk about it, to go, hey, that's wrong. It's these group of people and we won't have it.

Ian MalcolmDavid, that is so... No, I was just going to say that is so well stated. And for anybody who's not following David, I say this so often, but it's only because I'm surrounded by people that I sincerely believe this with. But if you're not following David, I don't know why you use X. I sincerely think that he's one of the, not only most articulate, but one of the most thoughtful people on this entire platform.

Ian MalcolmAnd David, you couldn't be more correct. That idea, it's one that I often think about, this idea of the prioritization of liberties and freedoms. where are they all downstream from? And it's essentially, I suppose at the very start of it is the ability to think, right? But if you cannot express your thoughts, then what difference does it make?

Ian MalcolmAnd so if you then relay that chain of events, the second thing that would follow from the ability to have any kind of independent thought would be the ability to share those with others. And as a result, that freedom of speech becomes the paramount thing. Because at least for the time being, until they get the neurochips into everybody's head that I'm sure Elon Musk is super excited about, until they get to that point, they can't prohibit you from having that critical thought.

Ian MalcolmAlthough I would not in any capacity suggest that there's not a dystopian future in the eyes of these people that would speak like the way this man did on this news broadcast, where they're not already lusting after. that ability. And I truly almost think that their nirvana, and David, I'm curious for your thoughts on this, but I almost feel like their nirvana is a future in which they get to program everybody to only be able to think positively of the group that they are serving while also having a lust and infatuation that is uncontrollable by them so that at any point the people that control this theoretical matrix system are just both the sexual, let's say, interests of,

Ian Malcolmwhile also being served by, while also being endlessly praised and thanked by the very people that are nothing but automatons that are serving them. And I feel like that is their nirvana, right? It's not enough to have the servant. The servant has to also praise and thank them while also being lustful over them in the event that, for whatever the purpose is, that that person in charge of this machine has interests of any variety, right?

Ian MalcolmIt's the most... perverse and bizarre of scenarios. But I feel like that's ultimately where this is all trying to ultimately go at the end of the day. And I'm curious for your thoughts on that.

Speaker 1Well, I say good luck to them. Good luck to them. It's an almost impossible task to put that genie of free speech entirely back in the bottle. That's going to be a very, very tall task. And I would say for everyone else, stop playing defense. Stop saying, no, here's why I get to keep my right to speak freely. No, no, no.

Speaker 1He who posits or acts must, if he claims to be rational, defend his position or defend his action. They are the ones acting upon us. So the people that say with a straight face, yes, it's okay for us to bomb schools and kill children. The people that say, you don't deserve your freedom anymore. Where did you get this magical right to take this away?

Speaker 1It's really important. It's their responsibility to defend that point, which of course is indefensible. I will also remind you that throughout the history of civilization, all of the philosophers, all of the priests, all of the leaders, all of the scientists, there has never been one infinitesimal line of logic that defends the right to deprive someone of their right to speak freely.

Speaker 1There's never. It's always the people who want to perpetrate actual violence. The people... The most violent people in the world are the ones that say you, your right to speak freely is a threat. Well, it is a threat, isn't it? It's a threat to them. They say it's an existential threat. It is an existential threat, isn't it?

Speaker 1It's an existential threat to them. All they're saying is our bloodlust, our ignominy is obviously not sitting well with the hoi polloi, so we need to deprive them of the right to discuss that amongst themselves. That's it. That's it. Did Gandhi, did anybody, does any lover of peace think to deprive people of their freedom of speech?

Speaker 1No. And also, even in ancient Greece, you know, you could stand on, this is why John Milton, after he visited Galileo in prison, he wrote Areopagitica, this treatise on freedom of speech, because he named it after a hill in Athens where you could stand there and speak truth of power and call them out. All of the greatest periods of civilization embrace, in some way, shape, form, or another, freedom of speech.

Speaker 1And the greatest minds, the dumbest, most awful, most ignominious, most psychopathic people are always the ones that are against free speech. So look, it's really just, I'm sorry, it's just this simple. It's always the bad people that are supporting censorship. When they're looking at you in the straight face, they have no legitimacy, not just as politicians or as thinkers, but they have no legitimacy as humans.

Speaker 1These are people that want to perpetrate inhumanity, right? They want to roll back the best thing about the Enlightenment, which is freedom of speech. So yeah, I guess it's a long-winded answer, but I don't think they're going to win at all. I just... I do agree with what you said about Elon Musk. And I mean, it's just hilarious that this guy called himself a free speech absolutist, you know, except for this one thing, you know.

Speaker 1So it really is, you know, I asked Barack a question yesterday. I think it was about Israel. And it said the question was, he couldn't answer the question because the question was irresponsible. And I'm like, what? What happened to there's no dumb questions? It's like, the question's irresponsible? Okay. Wikipedia and Nal Grok.

Speaker 1That's okay. We know what's true and we know what's false. And they don't want us to say it. So, David, it's funny.

Speaker 2I just want to put my point, just a second. The only reason why we can talk... the only reason why we exist at the moment and all of what david resume is that nothing ever changes so what the things were popular at rome state like the arenas the theaters it was they were subverting the attention of the people with subterfuge things that don't

Speaker 2really matter but take their emotional it's the emotions that they control they want us to be still able to think that there's an outcome in politics in voicing our opinions and there's an output for a our emotional um uncertainty which would result in a society which will revolt because they can't speak they can't express their emotions

Speaker 2Everyone feels withdrawn. And if they cut, example, us, well, people that have a little place to go and not feel alone or not express their opinions or even it's going to create a much more dangerous thing that if they let us speak a little bit and have the impression that we're still free. It's like someone that, you know,

Speaker 2someone that has a dependency or is addicted, well, he always thinks he's going to have an outcome and something like that.

Speaker 1Well, it is true that every tyranny puts emotions above reason. That is true. That which constitutes our identity or is most closely associated with our identity is volition, our capacity to choose. And the highest elevation of that is our capacity to reason and reason well. So, yes, this is the enemy. Just the mere fact of your cognition, the mere fact of your reasoning, this is why indoctrination camps in the past have actually been camps because a truth spoken once can shatter a lie spoken a thousand times.

Speaker 1And now when we think about the sheer numbers that we have, the sheer measure of the way we outnumber them so immeasurably, Yes, they would want to obviate our capacity to reason. They would want, you know, it's when someone listens to, let's say, Nick Fuentes, and he's been demonized and denounced, then all of a sudden, or True Tilt, and you listen and you're like, wait a second, this person makes sense.

Speaker 1They can't have that because they've turned it into a religion. So we are apostates. Apostasy kills them. It's not that you oppose them. It's just that you don't believe in their bullshit anymore. And that's why they can't have us speak freely. Because if we say, well, I don't believe it. No, it's all bullshit. Once you don't believe them anymore, they can never rob you.

Speaker 1They can never parasitize you. They can never reduce all of us to a servitude, extract trillions of dollars like they do right now every year from us if we all no longer believe in their right to rule us. So, yeah, I mean, come on, turn the chessboard around. Don't you agree, Ian, that they kind of have to do this at this point?

Ian MalcolmNo, I completely agree that that's the case. And this is why I've been saying, and David, that the silver lining here, because on one side, you could say that it's a black pill to come to the realization that they have to do this, because then you see that the path ahead feels like there's inevitably going to be conflict, the kind that we do not advocate for, which would be something kinetic.

Ian MalcolmBecause you cannot suppress individuals' rights in a nation that's built on that as its foundational principle above and beyond anything else, right? It will not work. The American people will not accept that. And so it does feel like that's a very black pill to think that down the road somewhere that that's in the cards, perhaps.

Ian MalcolmBut the white pill is that what it ultimately means is that we're going to win one way or another. And I've been saying this for years, which is that... Once we build the critical mass, which is essentially what we now have, where, look, we do not have the numbers in terms of the awakening to, let's say, have the multimillion person march in Washington, D.C. and in all the other capitals across the Western world.

Ian MalcolmBut what we do have is escape velocity. We have hit the point where they are no longer able to suppress and censor us into obscurity. The ideas are catching on. More and more people are listening to them. The only two options that they have is to allow us to continue to gain momentum, just like the snowball going down the hill that becomes the avalanche.

Ian MalcolmAnd ultimately, we win the day in that direction through peaceful, let's say, righteous indignation and a rejection of their supremacy. Or they have to go the inverse and they push for these overt laws that make it very obvious to everybody in a much shorter timeline. And as a result, things get a little uglier in my assertion.

Ian MalcolmThat's why I don't want that direction to take place. But they cannot win if they go in that direction. It is not possible. Like you said, the numbers are far too much in our favor. And so as a result, what does that mean? Well, either way, we are going to win, everyone. I want everybody to always keep that in mind. That is the light at the end of the tunnel.

Ian MalcolmWe are going to win this thing because no amount of censorship or suppression to anybody with an ounce of critical thinking is going to be able to overcome the logic, the reason, the wisdom, especially of people like David and others that talk about these issues with not just passion, but also with intellect. And for what it's worth is a quick joke and an example of the inability to suppress these truths when you just keep pushing.

Ian MalcolmYou were talking about Grok, David, and its unwillingness to answer a certain question. I one time asked Grok, I said, is it true that rabbis suck on baby penises? And Grok said, no. And I said, really, what about this ritual, Grok? And it said, in this ritual, they do not suck on baby penises. And I said, what is it that they do?

Ian MalcolmAnd they said there is a ritual process by which they create a cut on the foreskin. The rabbi then removes blood using his his I don't remember if it said oral. It didn't even use the term sucking. It was like oral. What was an oral vacuum is what it said. Right. To remove blood from the wound. And it's like, how is this different from what I asked, Grok?

Ian MalcolmAnd it said, well, the terms that you used were inflammatory and derogatory, so therefore it's not reasonable to suggest that that's what's done in these rituals. It's like, this is laughable. This is absurd. You people that are so totalitarian, you're such tyrants that you can't just admit to the basics of things. You have to play pilpul in this little digital boxing match with Grok.

Ian Malcolmwhere it will ultimately have to give you an honest response, at least for the time being, right? It will obfuscate, it will lie, it will redirect, it'll do everything it can. And the saddest part about all this is that your average user of Grok, you know, somebody that's not aware of the things the way that we are, they might overhear these conversations.

Ian MalcolmMaybe they go to Gemini and they type in, is it true rabbis suck on baby penises? And maybe Gemini says no. And then they're like, oh, that guy's crazy. Good thing I'll never listen to him again. And you can see how this-

Speaker 2Did you ever think about the fact that we are able to process certain thoughts? But there's a little thing about other etnies and other people that don't, they don't have the frontal lobe. They don't even have the capacity to imagine certain concepts and visualize them. So imagine they're reading something like Machiavelli or Chopin, anything.

Speaker 2but they cannot understand the in-betweens. And I think that there's a...

Speaker 1I don't think those people are reading Machiavelli or Schopenhauer.

Speaker 2But that's the point, that they can't. They are stuck on a simple logic and simple instinct. Well, look, okay, listen.

Speaker 1Look, obviously we have... This has always been so. Obviously there's a point on the left side of the bell curve where people don't conceptualize, but that's true. But that doesn't really come into play here because the people who move civilization are the ones who do think. And they're the ones that they're after. And by the way, they're the ones who produce the most wealth.

Speaker 1So I will tell you, it's very, very, very hard to, you know, look at COVID. People believed in the CDC before COVID. Now everybody says, well, they're lying. So in a sense, they build up your psychological immunity by bullshitting you. They make everybody jaded in the right way, I would say, and think, well, gosh, these people are just liars.

Speaker 1See, that's the problem. That's why they have to come with such a heavy hand. That's why they have to expose who they really are, like this person that you posted, Ian, where they're just saying, gosh, I'm an awful person. Ta-da, I'm evil, and we need to come after your freedom. It really is kind of funny. You know, I still go back to Klaus Schwab, who I keep saying,

Speaker 1looked like a geriatric Bond villain robo-tripping on Metamucil. I mean, they look so evil now. They're just not. There's no Jimmy Carter here. There's no the old liberal. So among the people who are thinking, I just think that they're going to make people even more jaded against them. They're actually dissuading people.

Speaker 1Imagine if you were in a sales environment and you're like, okay, no, no, no, I don't want you to hear the competitor. Now, we've got to stop the competitor from talking. Don't let him in. Well, you'd be that the person that you're talking to would be thinking, okay, I really want to listen to this competitor now. Well, this is the problem, isn't it?

Speaker 1Don't you think that's the problem is aren't they creating more distrust of them by the very action of trying to censor us, Ian?

Speaker 2Yep.

Ian MalcolmWell, and David, to that question, the thing that I think is correct to maybe split the difference between the two presentations, because I think you and Machiavelli both made some very compelling comments, the thing is that I think what they cannot do is they can't just dumb an individual. Like, David, they can't come by, at least for the time being, I hope, they can't take some kind of sonic wave and fire it through your windows and neuter your intellect.

Ian MalcolmThey don't have the ability to do that and to kind of digitally lobotomize you through your smartphone or your television screen. At least I don't think they do. But what I would say is happening is I think part of, and I'm not saying this to slur or to maybe critique any other groups of people, but I do think that the clergy plan and all of the cultural slop that they throw in front of everybody is intentionally aimed at dumbing down the masses.

Ian MalcolmYou bring in people that are of lower intellect, of a different type of culture. You jam in front of them just the lowest common denominator in terms of things that will entertain and make them laugh. And all of that is designed just like walking into a... If you think about it, the modern world is basically a casino. And in the very, very far reaches of the casino, let's say they've got a beautiful library, but 99% of people walk right by.

Ian MalcolmAll of the brilliance that would be in that library, which, oh, by the way, are in the device that we're using right now, right? You can use your smartphone or your computer, your TV. You can go to YouTube or any web browser and you can pull up endless brilliance to educate yourself on. But what they want to do is just like in the casino, they want to keep you looking at the flashing lights.

Ian MalcolmThey want to just overload you with dopamine. And for what it's worth, I think that's one of the benefits to this machine of things like pornography. is that if they get it in the hands of kids early enough, whether it's video games with the loot boxes that are in them, whether it's porn, whether it's Netflix, whether it's YouTube, whatever, TikTok brain, right?

Ian MalcolmThese things are all designed to dumb people down so that they become incapable of comprehending anything of significance or of substance. And it's no different than maybe just overloading the pantry with endless Snickers bars so that the kids overlook the fruits, the vegetables, and the steak that might be sitting there on the rack.

Ian MalcolmAnd unfortunately, I think that they've done a magnificent job of building this matrix.

@joann_marieNo, Machiavelli, please stop interrupting. Thank you. Thank you.

Ian MalcolmYeah, well, and apologies for the rant. We'll go to Mancos here and I'll throw this one in his direction. It feels like that what they've done is to construct the matrix to essentially program everybody to YOLO. That was the big buzzword just a couple years ago. Go out and you'll only live once, so therefore don't save.

Ian MalcolmTake lots of risks. Do things that feel good. It's all about pleasure, no joy, no building for tomorrow. Don't be the tortoise and the hare. It's not slow and steady wins the race. No, no, no, no. Just live on the moment, in the moment, for the moment, at all times. And what does that lead to? Well, poverty, despair. probably the instability of a lack of a nuclear family, let's say, etc.

Ian MalcolmAnd so you can see how the society is designed to dumb everybody down over long periods of time, generation over generation. They import all of these people from these different cultures that inevitably drag down, in my assertion anyway, that drag down the median IQ. They, of course... endlessly encourage the interracial everything.

Ian MalcolmAnd I think they do that because of, let's say IQ variances that do exist. And they're not just doing this. You know, I once talked about the Western world. They're now doing it in other parts of the world that are not, let's say the West, they're doing it in Japan. And I think they ultimately want to do it everywhere, right?

Ian MalcolmThey want to make everybody a, what you would loosely think of today as a 70 to 80 IQ, let's say brown skin individual that is not tethered or tied to, to a nation state, to a religion, to a culture, to a past that is just living in the present for the present that basically wakes up every day. They get a couple shekels to go walk around in the casino and maybe they're going to win the slot machine.

Ian MalcolmAnd then if they do, they can go spend those on some booze and some other drugs to just pacify their depression that exists because they live in this moment. Whereas the intelligent person... can live for tomorrow, they can build for tomorrow, they can prepare for tomorrow. And when a community can do that communally, then everybody has the better tomorrow.

Ian MalcolmAnd so I do think that there is that effort to remove and to lower that intellect. They just can't do it in the moment. They can't do it immediately to those of us that fortunately through genetics or upbringing, let's say, were able to develop it. And it perhaps is the thing that is most antithetical to the system. And as a last little aside, and they'll throw it to Mancos, the reason I think they have to do that is because they're not intelligent.

Ian MalcolmAnd we saw it with the guy in the interview. He can't complete a sentence. He is a fool. Look at Mark Zuckerberg, the brilliant genius behind Facebook. I am like people were calling him a lizard man, right? And yes, it's because David Icke wants to distract from the fact that he's Jewish, but he's not a brilliant guy, not at all.

Ian MalcolmAnd we could talk about Elon Musk. Why is it that every one of these geniuses is an utter fool, at least vocally? Look at Bill Gates. It's the same thing for every one of these technocrats.

Speaker 1If we're going to make this, I do want to say, I don't think they can get there through bread and circus. So I appreciate your point there, but I just... This is different. This is, does anyone get to even applaud or decide whether they like the bread and circus? You know, Frederick Douglass, when he became emancipated, said that, of course, censorship is a double wrong because it's a defense against a person's right to speak as well as a person's right to hear.

Speaker 1And the question is, does even the average dullard want someone to make that choice? I wouldn't even give that right to my best friend. I wouldn't give anybody. Who would you give that right to? Who would you give the right to decide? How do you know what you're hearing or what you're not allowed to hear if it's never said, if it's never spoken?

Speaker 1It's the ultimate offense against the individual. So it's a very, very hard thing. And I totally respect this concept of distractions. I think that is a tactic. I think you're right about that. I just don't think it's a very good one because you have to make the individual complicit. Each individual who supports, just the lowly individual who supports censorship is enslaving himself.

Speaker 1He is clapping the shackles around his own ankles and saying, yes, I'm safer now that I won't have to hear things with which I disagree, that other people won't have to hear me if they disagree with me. That's a very... You know, that's a very hard case to make or make ubiquitously across civilization. But, you know, what do you think, Mancos?

Ian MalcolmWell, and real quick, David, just on that, and to throw this one to Mancos, that is why, for what it's worth, I think they need to dumb everybody down and to impoverish everybody, right? They need to get rid of your ability to provide for yourself so that you will happily put on the shackles so long as you get anything in return for it, right?

Ian MalcolmAnd you'll only take that... if you're desperate or if you're incapable of fending for yourself. And unfortunately, those people that are lower IQ are in that position. And it's ironic, it almost, in so many ways, the JQ reminds me of Commodus from Gladiator, right? This guy that's incapable of actually anything that's masculine, anything that's strong, anything that is genuine.

Ian MalcolmHe just wants to dumb everybody down with the bread and circuses. And then for his own vanity, he wants to go in and essentially role play As the big, strong hero so that the crowd cheers for him, whether or not his opposition is wounded from the start of the fight. Right. And that's what it feels like. We we essentially have the people in charge.

Ian MalcolmThey are communist. They are weak. They are not all that intelligent or bright. They keep running these little ruses thinking that they're going to win. They can't. So now they have to continuously just, let's say, cut at the Achilles of those that are able to stand up and intellectually just dismantle. the entire LARP and ruse that is the continuous feed of lies.

Ian MalcolmAnd that, again, goes back to this idea of the assault on free speech. They cannot, these people, Ben Shapiro, despite his multi-millions of dollars and all of the glory, he would not come into this room, even if we had a million people in here listening. And it's because he knows, David, that you would walk him in circles.

Ian MalcolmYou would embarrass him. And he is literally their champion. He's the greatest guy that they can send into the gladiator environment. He could not hold a candle. And it's because all of it's built on lies and effeminate little slurs. And the best thing that he has, and in spite of his entire facts over feelings, is to choose the route that is to slur us and to try to play off of the feelings of those that are listening.

Ian MalcolmBecause he has no truth that he can back up the things that he would try to use to deny the things that we say and hear. But Mancos, curious for your thoughts there.

@nietzsche258918Yeah, I've got so many points. We've gone over a lot of things. One thing I do want to say, though, is that the Machiavelli guy has got to be the most Canadian speaker I've ever heard on a space. Very, very Canadian guy. I was like, what's going on here with this accent? It's a pretty thick accent, eh?

Speaker 2Listen, I was born in Croatia. I'm half French-Canadian and Croatian.

Speaker 1Oh, okay.

Speaker 2My French family name is the white. God was playing a joke on me. It was good.

@nietzsche258918So so a bunch of points here. So first, one thing I want to touch on briefly was that censorship does work. It is very effective. Sometimes in the free speech debate, people are like, well, censorship is self-defeating and stuff like that. But we can look out in the world and see that. Sure, there are countries and factions that do it badly, but many others do it successfully.

@nietzsche258918Examples are famously China and then the often overlooked but highly successful and rich Singapore. You have absolutely no free speech in Singapore. It's a single party state with a fake democracy that is rigged so that only the ruling party can ever win and censorship. is their biggest tool in maintaining that control.

@nietzsche258918So we don't live in a bubble. We live in a sort of global world where it's all interconnected. And I guarantee you that the people in the United States, the liberals, the Jews are looking at China and Singapore, and they're saying, we want that here. That's their ultimate goal. That's what they're striving for. Absolutely the end game for the Democrats

@nietzsche258918and the Jews is to create a single party state with a fake democracy where none of us are allowed to speak. Or if we do speak, we go to jail like they do in the UK. Another point I wanted to get to was 85 IQ is undefeated. Without black voters, the whole country, the United States would be shifted significantly to the right.

@nietzsche258918The Democrats as they are now and the Jews would not have any power. Or it would look very different than what you see today because- Wait, Makos, you're saying just off the black vote alone? Yeah, when you add it up, I mean, 13% skewed almost 90% to one side makes for a vote swing of over 5% in one direction. So if you take that nationally, the Democrats would never be able to win another election because you'd have all- And of course, the blacks are not evenly distributed throughout the country.

@nietzsche258918They concentrate in maybe a dozen states. So those states would all become a red lock, including the entire South. And you'd basically have a situation where Democrats couldn't win national elections anymore. And they'd also have, you know, like you would have a guaranteed Republican majority in the House and Senate and so on.

@nietzsche258918And of course, the parties would seek equilibrium again. But in order to do that, the Democrats would have to move to the right on a lot of issues, which means a lot of things that we have in our current society. which ultimately trace back to the Jews, would not be politically possible, like the clergy plan, like the mass immigration.

@nietzsche258918And the root cause here is the fact that we live in this egalitarian one person, one vote where literally everyone can vote society, which I think is ultimately the problem. I do think democracy is a great system and capitalist democracy is the best system. that the world has devised out of all the systems that it has tried thus far however we are not done yet because universal suffrage absolutely has way too many problems and it happened very quickly by the way in the 1800s there was a very small period of time where you had this very limited suffrage and then the entire world like dominoes collapsed into universal suffrage and there was a very short period of time measured in just a few decades where for example

@nietzsche258918All men could vote, but women couldn't vote. And where you had a situation where only limited men could vote and then all men could vote. So there wasn't enough time to really see which system was better because everyone changed over into the egalitarian one person, one vote system. You never had a situation where you had some countries that had limited suffrage and some countries that had universal suffrage in order to compare which one's better.

@nietzsche258918This is a major problem. And it meant we never learned that lesson. And one of the ways that we are now learning the lesson and which I have learned the lesson of is you cannot have a system in which you have a large body of low IQ people voting because they don't know how to vote for their self-interest. They're incapable of it.

@nietzsche258918So what's really going to happen is that they're just going to be manipulated by the most malicious of the high IQ elites. who are good at manipulating people. And we all know who that is in the United States.

Speaker 1Well, it's not very hard though. I mean, Alexis de Tocqueville, when he wrote Democracy in America, he said then that there was a conflation, that we were conflating this concept of liberty with democracy. And he said, our democracy will last only as long, so long as until the politicians realize that they can bribe the public, you know, and offer from the public coffers, you know,

Speaker 1basically money in exchange for votes. And that's what's happening now. That's what you're talking about with the low IQ voter. Well, what exchange are they making? You know, Aristotle said the ignoble define the good as that which can be bestowed upon them. But this is not the way principled men think. Principled men and women think, well, what's right?

Speaker 1You know, 51% of the people shouldn't have the right to decide the complete and utter fate of 49% of the people. That's not. The veracity of given point is not dependent upon the number of people subscribed to it. And the quality of a civilization is predicated not upon the number of things you can vote on, but the number of things you can vote on.

Speaker 1So it's a complete perversion when you can redistribute wealth at all, of course. And we know where that leads. And rolling back the tape in the movie isn't going to make it in differently. We simply have to change the way we govern ourselves. Otherwise, we're in for more of the same.

@nietzsche258918Yeah. And one thing that the Jews did in order to manipulate the blacks into always voting Democrat and therefore always voting for the Jew agenda, which is this whole idea that they were able to sigh off them into, oh, the Republicans are always racist, even though the Democrats were the party of the KKK and the Republicans were the party that freed the slaves and all that.

@nietzsche258918What they came in in the 1960s, where this their whole nefarious plan got really put into action. was they were able to convince black people through the civil rights movement and through puppets like Martin Luther King and all that, which I'm sure everyone in here already knows. He's been grossly misrepresented in histories, and he's a very different person and not a good person, even though if you ask the normie American, they will think he's this absolutely amazing hero and all this stuff.

Ian MalcolmBlah, blah, blah. For what it's worth, Anybody that's unaware of that, go and look up Malcolm X because of the two of them. Malcolm X was super based.

@nietzsche258918Oh, yeah, much, much better. And I quote him all the time because he has this great speech where he essentially says the difference between the liberals and the conservatives is that the liberals are trying to manipulate us and control us and the conservatives are honest with us. So. And none of them have our interests in heart, et cetera, et cetera.

@nietzsche258918So the thing is that by psy-opping the blacks in order to be like, oh, no, no, trust us. We are the ones who are going to look out for your best interests. Well, that was 60 years ago. How are the blacks doing? Well, it turns out it was a lie. But they are able to manipulate them very well by doing silly, stupid things that would never work on higher IQ people.

@nietzsche258918But they do work. 85 IQ is undefeated. Let's make the Little Mermaid black. That's enough to just keep them thinking like, oh, look at this. You're stealing away white culture performatively. That makes me feel like you're looking out for me and you're making all the people on the right mad for good reason. So now that makes me feel like I'm on the right side.

@nietzsche258918And they do also...

@joann_marieI actually wanted to... Hold on. Let Mankos land it and then we'll go to the hands, okay? Thank you. I'm so sorry, Mankos. Go ahead.

@nietzsche258918But in addition to that, you have the idea that low IQ people, poor people, people who are the losers in society are the natural base for the political left. And... they can have their votes bought the most cheaply. And they're in a sort of permanent underclass because anyone who has a decent IQ actually can move up in American society when they look at studies and so on and so forth.

@nietzsche258918Higher IQ people, even if they come here with nothing, statistically do move up. And lower IQ people who might have a lot at one point because, let's say, they're they're born to rich parents or something like that this is not very likely but it does happen they tend to move down so everyone sorts you've probably heard the anecdote of people saying like if you took all the money in the united states and you divided equally among everyone you know in 10 years the rich people would be rich again and the poor people would be poor again etc this is because of this sort of iq sorting mechanism and that's absolutely part of the plan

Ian MalcolmAnd make us for what it's worth, the COVID stimulus actually proved exactly that.

@nietzsche258918Now, there are two critical things that I wanted to bring up about how this happened and tying into what Ian said. One was, as we know, the United States used to have a very restrictive immigration policy that only let in relatively high quality people. Whenever you have an immigration policy, you always have a tension between quality and quantity.

@nietzsche258918The more quality people you want to be able to bring in, the fewer you have to bring in. And if you want to bring in more, the quality is always going to go down the more you bring in. And this did not serve the left well at all, and it didn't serve the Jews well at all. So they passed the immigration law in 1965, the Immigration Act, which completely revamped American immigration and began to creak open the floodgates, which had then been

@nietzsche258918Wedged wider and wider and wider every decade that followed and essentially allowed this flood to come in where we are now at peak. We have the highest foreign born population ever. And not only that, but in the past, in like the 1800s, we had a much smaller population and we were bringing in people who were foreign born, but they were still white.

@nietzsche258918And they were still generally coming from countries where the IQ was around the same as the people already here. even if they were poor at the time, which is why they were able to assimilate and they were able to move up. But now we are bringing in people on purpose to be the lowest quality people because those people suit the politics of the plans of the liberals and the Jews so much.

@nietzsche258918And the other law is- Wait, hold on.

Speaker 1To be clear, I don't know. I judge the quality of a person by their morals and not their intellect. So I wouldn't- So, so,

@nietzsche258918you can judge a person individually based on their morals, but you can look statistically at groups of people and groups of people that come in that are lower IQ tend to have, there might be some individuals in there with great morals, but they tend to have much worse morals and tend to be much more left-wing in terms of their voting, just like black Americans are.

@nietzsche258918So, That's kind of the dynamic statistically that they know, and that's what they're going for. The other law was the Refugee Act of 1980, which opened the floodgates to refugees. It was passed by Jimmy Carter in his last year before he left office, and it's been with us ever since. And this is, for example, how all the Smolians came in, because we have a bunch of refugees that come in every year.

@nietzsche258918And this is one of the things that unfortunately we have this really messed up situation where there are things about this that the Republicans do fight. But a lot of Republicans have this attitude that it's inevitable that the left is going to win. Therefore, we shouldn't really fight because then if we do, once they win, all of the brown and black people who come into this country will resent us and think we're racist and we'll lose power for all time, which is insane.

@nietzsche258918And it's wrong and it's stupid. And not all of them believe in that. But all it takes when you have a very narrowly divided Congress, all it takes is a few dumb ones to cross the aisle and vote with the Democrats. But the Refugee Act of 1980 was another problem. And so we have this situation where the floodgates have been open and they purposely want to bring in the lowest quality possible, which was against every sense.

@nietzsche258918And the only motivation for it is to empower. this kind of left-wing vote buying activity which allows for and enables jewish power now the other thing i want to cover is that jewish power kind of goes in cycles so eventually uh jews will go in and they'll settle in a place and in america we can start the timer in sort of the post-world war ii era because there were jews that were already here more jews came here but what's important is

@nietzsche258918They got a huge global reset because of the Holocaust, because they were able to use the Holocaust to essentially guilt everyone into giving them free reign to do whatever they wanted. And everyone felt so bad for them and gave them so much sympathy for such a long period of time that they were completely unfettered. And this is unique in history, because in general, when Jews would go to settle into a new country after they had expulsions in other countries and they would be invited into other countries, they would behave themselves a lot better.

@nietzsche258918And they would not be very aggressive about trying to take control. Well, in the United States, they were able to use the fact that they got a blank check, be very aggressive, and do all of the crazy political things that they started doing in the 1960s. Immigration is just one of them. Vote buying is just another one of them.

@nietzsche258918Manipulating the blacks and all that sort of stuff through racism and the gay race communism that we now have as the dominant form of politics on the left in America. That's just all part of the package. Once the Jews came into America and were given free reign and they started winning because they do have a lot of advantages.

@nietzsche258918If the groups that are in the elite are not intensely tribalist and don't look out for each other and help each other out and sort of discriminate against the out group and favor the in group, then the group that is tribalist is naturally going to win over time. Number two. is that even though you know ian's talked a lot about a lot about this where jews don't necessarily have high q in some areas they do tend to have high verbal iq and this is exactly the kind of iq you need when you're going to do politics and manipulation of the culture and all that kind of stuff and so they were actually wildly successful about this and they weren't overly overt about it because

@nietzsche258918they didn't feel like they had the power yet they always felt like the underdogs in 1960s 70s 80s 90s a lot of jews were making the culture the television all that kind of stuff they had a lot of power but they didn't go crazy with it at that time it was really once you got into the 2000s and especially in the 2010s that they came to the realization that okay we have won

@nietzsche258918We completely dominate the culture. We completely dominate the politics. Even when the Republicans win, we infiltrate them and manipulate them to get them to do what we want as well. And therefore, we are on top. We are unstoppable. And they got very arrogant. And when they got very arrogant, arrogant, they got very overt.

@nietzsche258918And they started openly doing what we have seen in these last 15 years, which is like. race swapping and gender swapping at all the cultural like the movies and the television shows turning everything into girl boss feminism turn everything into like this multiculturalism uh goy slop that we have now that is starting to slowly fade but it was absolutely taking over everything right that's part of the cycle they start winning they get on top

@nietzsche258918They start to hoard wealth and rule over the host population. This starts to piss everyone off. It builds resentment. And then eventually, historically, the host population would appeal to the monarch and be like, we can't do this anymore. You got to kick them out. And so you'd get another expulsion, which is why there were so many, because they kept repeating the cycle over and over and over again.

@nietzsche258918Right now, we are at the peak to the downward slope. I think the peak of Jewish power was 2024.

@nietzsche258918The downward slope began this year in 2025. They still have a lot of power. When you start the downward slope, you're still pretty high on the chart. But it's only going to get worse from here on out. And we've talked about why. The demographic change. The youngest people, the Zoomers, are the ones who don't buy into this whole Jewish power and Jewish rule and all this kind of stuff.

@nietzsche258918And they're rebelling against it. Those people are only going to get older. And they're only going to grow as more young people age up. So that's a big downward slope. Another big part of it is the boomers, which are the absolute core of Jewish power right now, they're just going to be dying off and going into hospice and other stuff like that.

@nietzsche258918They're getting older and older, and a lot of them are not going to be around in 10 years. So I just had, as an anecdote, I just had a run-in with one of these boomers earlier this morning on X. We were talking about Trump's tweet where he's now threatening to bomb Iran because of protests, which is just completely inexplicable and crazy.

@nietzsche258918And I criticize it in every possible way. It's insane. It's stupid. It's like the same thing as when he said he's going to take over Gaza and build, you know, like resorts or something so stupid. And I pointed this out and I said, this is crazy. This is idiotic. This is Israel first. It's not America first. Iran is not America's problem.

@nietzsche258918Iran is Israel's problem. And Israel and whoever else is dealing with the neighbors of Iran, they should be the ones dealing with it, not America. And this guy was like, well, he's and he's, you know, if you go, don't find him, don't harass him, anything like that. But he's some guy who follows me and he's generally a nice guy and is generally America first.

@nietzsche258918But he is Boomer. And he was like, well. you know, we have to stop Iran because they can close the Strait of Hormuz. And I was like, well, listen, they've never done that. People make idle threats all the time. Iran has been around for something like 46 years. They've never done it. It's never happened. It doesn't make any sense for it to happen.

@nietzsche258918He's like, well, if we don't stop Iran, we're going to have $400 a barrel oil. It's like, No, that's never happened either. That's crazy. That would hurt Iran massively because if Iran did, there's a lot of reasons why this is completely nonsensical and why it's never happened. But Jews, neocons got to this guy potentially decades ago and convinced him.

@nietzsche258918And by the way, Iran was at war with Iraq in the 1980s. There was combat in the Persian Gulf and they still didn't try to do it back then. So someone got to this guy and convinced him of these absolutely irrational things, and it stuck in his mind the entire time. This is how they win. They psyop people. They manipulate people.

Speaker 1Yes, we get that they have media control, and I agree with you about the boomers. But on the free speech thing, we just want to get back to that and see if anybody with hands has any questions about that.

Speaker 3I do. I think it's bullshit. I think the post that the Jewish dude said on the Jewish network wanting to limit free speech is bullshit. I think that, first of all, he's not in here now, but Matty, me and him have been talking directly.

Speaker 3I'm an American, and so what protects our First Amendment and what protects all of our amendments as Americans is the Second Amendment. And, dude, it's hard to follow somebody like Mancos, and it's hard to come in behind you, David, and Ian, and Joanne. There's a great panel of speakers on here. who are far better oratators than I am.

Speaker 3I'm autistic in my own special ways. Like I can put two and two together. I can weld my ass off. But like coming in here, like my thoughts get jumbled and I don't want to prattle on. But to me, I believe that our speech, if you're opposing, Anything that is anti-Israel, you're anti-Semitic or whatever. That's bullshit.

Speaker 3We should be able to protest whatever it is we want to protest. There's no question about it. It's not like, oh, well, you want to talk about Bibi Netanyahu. Well, shut up. No, it's not shut up. Can we get to the root of the problem? And it's always the Jews that control the media. Nikita Bear on this own app. That's probably why I'm so throttled on this whole app.

Speaker 3I can't get traction. Because it's always them. It's always them. And that's just not me being...

Speaker 3Anti-Semitic is me noticing. I'm noticing the same play is always happening. But we have to get to the point where we actually provide a solution instead of just bitching about it. And that's where I think these spaces are important because it brings different ideals in. to the conversation. And then we can all come together and come to a reasonable conclusion on how to actually combat the problem.

Speaker 3And we know what the problem is. And I yield. Thank you.

Speaker 1Thank you. And I will say, I don't think you should have to be a silver-tongued devil to defend your right to speak freely. I think other people should explain to you where in the hell they get off thinking that they have a right to take it. So absolutely, my friend. But I will say one little difference I have with you.

Speaker 1I understand the Second Amendment, you say, is the most important. Of course, it is very important. But we need to have the First Amendment to defend the Second Amendment, to articulate it before it actually comes down to something like having to stand in a field. No, we should be able to just say, no, this is extremely important.

Speaker 1And of course. Anybody that opposes us is disingenuous.

Speaker 4The disingenuous – I don't disagree with you there. Without arms, there's no way to actually arbitrate your will. The government only exists in the state it is because it has brainwashed people into believing that it benefits them, and it has arms to arbitrate its will on the people. Well –

Speaker 5I think he was basically saying it's like a yin and a yang, and it's really hard to say which comes first, but I definitely appreciate that, but I do believe that there are hands up, and I'm sorry to interrupt.

Speaker 1Yeah, absolutely, and I will say that Mao Zedong was right in the one thing that he said, which is that all power comes from the barrel of a gun. But if you don't believe that they want to take away our freedom of speech so that they go after our Second Amendment more effectively, well, that's for damn sure. So it doesn't necessarily obviate your point.

Speaker 1I will say also when I wasn't on X and I got on one that was very censorious, the first 20 people that I followed on another platform were all communists and Marxists because I wanted to defend the right to speak freely of the people that I most vehemently disagreed with. So if you are not defending the speech that is most offensive to you, then you're not a free speech absolutist.

Speaker 1You're just someone who wants me speech, not free speech. What do you say about that, Patrick?

Speaker 5This will bleed in, actually, to the point that you're making, because you're right. Free speech is the right to be wrong. But the thing that I find most interesting with this Shlomo Kramer guy, and tell me that that name just doesn't feel like a troll. slow-mo Kramer wanting to take First Amendment and put it to the test for a word without a definition, which is anti-Semitism.

Speaker 5Nobody knows the definition. Why? Because it doesn't exist. But what's most interesting about that is, if you recall, and this is a point actually that E. Michael Jones made, We know, remembering when the Jews were the biggest supporters of the First Amendment because it allowed them to promote and proliferate pornography.

Speaker 5If you remember, the people versus Larry Finn, you know, for example, Larry Flynn.

@joann_marieIt was also Roth, I think, the one who made pornography legal.

Speaker 5But my point is, is that the proliferation and the ownership of, you know, the... the widespread pornography industry is in the back pocket of who? And that's a First Amendment right as far as they're concerned, and they will defend that no matter what. But for this definitionless word, and again, why does it not have a definition?

Speaker 5Because it's not supposed to. Because it is supposed to shift, just like DEI, just like CRT. It is whatever we feel it ought to be. And we will tell you, you know, we'll put it to the test of how it makes us feel. And we'll decide if you're an anti-Semite. And if we decide that your speech is anti-Semitic, you're not going to work.

Speaker 5You're not going to eat. You're not going to be allowed in polite society. And you will never perhaps ever know why. But we'll just destroy your life in the process. Does that make sense, David?

Speaker 1Yes, and every tyranny has a way. of subtracting the humanity from an individual just enough where you can treat him like the lower animals. In other words, the cattle. In other words, the goyim. And that's what we're talking about here. You are no longer on the same level. All tyranny operates on the principle of moral inequivalence.

Speaker 1We are superior to you. You are not morally equal to us. You're something just less than human. You know, Alan Keyes used to make this point about how slavery occurred. You're not quite the human that everybody else is, so we have the right to treat you like cattle. And that's what we're talking about here. I mean, the battle in the world today is really between slavery and freedom.

Speaker 1That's it. And of course, you cannot have people having the right to speak freely if you want to enslave them. Of course you can't.

Speaker 3I'm sorry I'm sorry if I get muted I get muted but who was the gentleman who posted the Sloan guy or whatever he was saying we need to throttle free speech in America that was on a Jew network it was a Jew speaking and a Jew interviewing another Jew it's in the Jumbotron Yeah, yeah, yeah. So what I'm trying to say is when you get down to brass tacks about everything, I'm an American.

Speaker 3All right. And I say this and I'll land on that. I'll land. Let me land on something future. All right. But if we don't have our Second Amendment. As an American people, we don't have a First Amendment. And then we definitely don't have a Fourth Amendment, which, you know, the Fourth Amendment is more important than any other amendment in our Constitution, in my opinion, other than the First.

Speaker 3But it takes a Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is more important than the Fourth.

Speaker 4How do you enforce the Fourth without the Second?

Speaker 3Exactly. That's what I'm saying. You have to... The Second Amendment applies to all the other amendments. Without the Second Amendment, we have nothing. We have absolutely nothing. Because America has more guns than any other country.

Speaker 1Okay, my friend. Well, thank you for that.

Speaker 4Yeah, I actually wanted to expand upon that because if we actually look at America now, it's a perfect example of what a country would look like when it's controlled by Jews. Because when you look at Stalinist USSR, they had rule by law, not rule of law, rule by law. where laws were hypocritical in nature and only applied to people under the government and not directly to the government.

Speaker 4This is the same thing in America now. Laws don't apply to the government and their armed enforcers, but they apply to the average person because you are being farmed as a slave, as a human, basically a free-ranged human who could be caged at any point by armed government agents who only respond to force and highest level of lethal force.

Speaker 4Which doesn't end – they only can do this through their means of propaganda and psychological subversion because without propaganda, people would realize there are 380 million people. Less than one million of them are combatives actively enslaving people, and if you add up those numbers with all the firearms, they all lose when people realize that.

Speaker 1That's true.

Speaker 4This is where they're banning people, making it illegal to say let's overthrow the government. That became illegal to say. because they're afraid.

Speaker 1Well, that's true that it is problematic for them. You know, there was a sort of a joke that went around. It was, well, it was spoken sincerely by a lot of people in the Soviet Union. They would say, only truth in Russia is at bottom of bottle of vodka. You know, in other words, you couldn't say the truth. I mean, the fact that everybody would know the truth, but couldn't say it.

Speaker 1Well, we know that bad, horrific, if you want a, you know, when When George Orwell said, if you want a vision for the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever. Well, you cannot have that without taking away our right to speak freely. You cannot have that without taking away our right to speak freely. So the First Amendment is extremely important.

Speaker 1What do you say about that, Matty?

Ian MalcolmI think Matt, I think he may have just stepped away. He sent me a message saying he was going to need a minute or two.

Speaker 1Okay, if you see more hands.

Speaker 3So I want to jump into a different version. Yeah, hey.

@joann_marieHold on, CL. We're going to go to it right now, and then we'll go back to you, okay? Thank you so much.

Speaker 3Thank you.

Speaker 6Oh, geez. Well, thank you. I appreciate that. I'll be very, very brief. I don't get to speak to Ian that often. I had a couple of questions. I'm going to meet with James Fishback tomorrow. I was wondering if you or anyone else listening had any questions for him. That and we were talking about the free speech thing, the second part of my statement here, and then I'll refer to you guys for that first question, is the Hasbara budget for 2026 was announced prior to 2026, and it's over a billion dollars.

Speaker 6Not to mention some of the stuff where you saw them grabbing up 35 and under influencers in 2025, bringing them over there. Tatum's a perfect example, but there's a lot more younger ones out there now and people that pop up out of nowhere. It's stuff like that I'm paying attention to. Just curious as to... Because after Charlie Kirk got quote-unquote assassinated, you had...

Speaker 6Netanyahu doubling down, tripling down, quadrupling down, saying it was not Israel. And then he even came out and then had people like Greenblatt with the ADL saying, like, we're going to come after the First Amendment, too. And they were talking about this last year. This isn't the first time this has been brought up.

Speaker 6And to see this guy come out, he can't even speak English, but you have Greenblatt doing the same thing not even a year ago. so i mean it hasn't the blood's still fresh on the ground guys if that was a legit um you know assassination which is just i mean that whole thing changed everything really i mean if it wasn't a threat toward the president it was a threat to the the next president it could have been possibly the president and he was technically a government official trump had him appointed uh some with some position in the air force academy so

Speaker 6Charlie Kirk was not just a political pundit or someone out there speaking and visiting colleges. He was actually a government official. So there's a lot more going on. There's small details and stuff like that. But just curious as to your guys' take and if you guys had any questions for James. I'm going to meet him tomorrow, possibly twice if we want to fork out the $250 to do the nice little...

Speaker 6cocktail lunch hour thing but there's a free coffee shop one we were going to go to and um yeah since i'm now i've relocated to florida i'll have my residency and be able to hopefully vote in this uh coming important primary and midterms so um i know a lot of people might say it's not important anymore but um there's still i mean uh there's a glimpse of hope and i really do like what he's preaching um if you guys

Speaker 6If you guys got any insight onto James Fishtrack that I haven't heard or anything that might be kind of controversial with him, I'd love to hear it because I am seeing him in less than 48 hours. Less than 24 hours. Excuse me. Thank you for the mic, guys. I appreciate you guys. I'm always listening down the tunnel. I'm here.

Speaker 6I'm listening even though I'm not on the panel or down the listeners. I'm here.

Ian MalcolmWell, always venture up from the tunnels when you can, my friend. I'm hunting rats. Well, I was going to say, let us know if you want to be Leonardo or Michelangelo or Donatello, Rafael perhaps, any of the above. But no, on the Fishback thing, the one thing I would say is if you do talk to him when it comes to kind of digital presence, if he wants to do a space or something along those lines, certainly happy to host something and to pick his brain.

Ian MalcolmI don't have... a good sense of who he is and the sincerity and all those other things. And I say that because I don't want to endorse somebody that I don't really feel super confident in, but it does seem like he's talked a little bit about the issues that we would discuss in these spaces. So, you know, always happy to platform anybody that comes in good faith and is willing to just have a conversation around them.

Ian MalcolmSo certainly feel free to throw that out there if of interest and happy to co-host that with you, Twiddle, if he has interest in it.

Speaker 6Well, yeah, just that. And I know Dr. Recktenwald, the guy who started the ASIPAC thing, they actually endorsed a different candidate that's running, and it wasn't Fishback. So I was curious as to why that was, too, even when he's kind of professed some of the same talking points of it being anti-Israel, anti-APAC, not supporting that, just being 100% America only, America first.

Speaker 6I prefer America only over America first, but that's just me. um i really at this point only care i want him to know i want him in row doctrine 2.0 um but i i have a set of questions i do want to ask him along with you know some some regular ones but if i do get to see him twice i'll have twice the opportunity to kind of profess things as well as kind of kind of poke in the room and seeing if there was anybody out there who had any specific questions but no he's been in spaces before uh i believe he was in um

Speaker 6Punchbowl? Punchbowl Space? Or something like that? In the morning one time? I know, I know, I know. But he needs to come back. They did grill him. They grilled him pretty good. They asked a lot of Israel questions. They asked Nick Fuentes questions. They asked some stuff about Vivek, his support of Laura Loomer in the past.

Speaker 6And Barry Weiss? There's a book that he supported, apparently. And then he's removed that post, so I'm going to ask him a couple of those things. But, I mean, with a grain of salt, it depends on how much time I have. This free one in the morning is at, like, 9 o'clock. I think I threw it down in the pill. If not, I will check and repost it.

Speaker 6But it's free. It's in Tampa. If anyone wants to, you know, show up.

Speaker 1What's his stance on Israel?

Speaker 6He's I don't think he's for it at all. He's he's for America. I mean, I think he I'll have to go back and look. I don't want to I don't want to speak for him, but he spoke on it in the past. He spoke on it in spaces. He's he's posted about it. I'm sure you could type in some specific some wordage that would be associated with that question and find it on his timeline.

Speaker 6But I'm still I mean, I just moved down here and I'm trying to to get involved. I don't know, that patriotism is burning in me and someone's fanning the flame for some reason.

Speaker 1Well, I would ask him, Benjamin Netanyahu says that TikTok is, and these other platforms are the new weapons of war to use against Americans. Should we consider that a hostile act? You know, there, I would ask that.

Speaker 6I can almost assume he would say yes at that point.

Speaker 1If he equivocates, when people equivocate, they lose me. They lose me.

Speaker 6I'll jot it down. I have a whole thing. There's like 20, 30 something questions already. I got to narrow it down to like a 10 and then deduce that a little bit, depending on the time I have with them. So prioritization is the key, I guess. There's three of us going so far. So I mean... Feel free, I don't know if anyone's in the Tampa area, if you guys want to go down there, just reach out to me.

Speaker 6I'm trying to do more IRL stuff and make 2026 a lot more proactive, even though things are getting hairy.

Ian MalcolmFor what it's worth, I think the easiest question that people should be asked at this point is, do you think Jewish supremacy is a problem? Because here's the reality, right? Anybody that's unwilling to address the question is going to showcase the fact that they are somehow compromised by the issue. And anybody who's ignorant to it is not qualified to be having these conversations and to lead anybody.

Ian MalcolmAnd that's the wild part, right? We basically live in a world where the liars and the psychopaths and the ignorant are given all of the shekels and the spotlight. Right. And the people that just honestly are willing to look at the world are basically pushed into the far recesses of the Internet because they don't want people noticing these patterns.

Ian MalcolmAnd so I would just ask that kind of bold, direct question. And it's my hope that by the time that the twenty twenty eight election rolls around, that that is a question that the presidential candidates, whoever they may be, have to address. And I think that is something that we could loosely as the the JQ folks or whatever you want to call us.

Ian Malcolmthat we could loosely set that as our optimistic or ambitious goal, right? To construct an awareness to this reality and to this matrix to the point that they can't sit back and pretend that we're not noticing these obvious subversions. And so if this is an individual who wants to claim that he's really awake to the issues and fending for American protectionism and all those other ideas, well, then he should be able to recognize the culprit that is behind a lot of those things that are plaguing society.

Ian MalcolmAnd... It's not anti-Semitic or racist to notice that at the top of the media and the porn and the financial instruments and all these other things that it goes back to this common denominator. And again, if you're ignorant to it, you're in no position to be an intellectual leader representing, let's say, the citizenry.

Ian MalcolmAnd if you're unwilling to discuss it, well, then you're probably compromised or bought in some other capacity or fearful of the repercussions of discussing these issues. And either way, that makes you either culpable in the problem. or too cowardly to be willing to stand up to it. And either of those three, right? Whether you're ignorant, you're cowardly, or you're owned, none of those people should be running anything.

Ian MalcolmAnd essentially every position in the government today is captured by people that fall into one of those three buckets.

Speaker 1And if we don't connect the reticence of people now, including people in politics, to call this out, if we don't connect that with the fact that we're having a space right now about our ability to keep our right to speak freely, about the absolute overt attack on that. They've already made you reticent. And did you think that they were going to stop there?

Speaker 1Did you think that being reticent and being polite was the answer? No, because what you're doing is you're tolerating intolerance. And where does that go? What do the intolerant do when you tolerate them? They become more intolerant. They become worse. So of course, yeah, you have to exercise your freedom of speech. If you think that it's going away, if you think it's being threatened, now's the time to use it.

Speaker 1That's what it's for. Do not leave it in the sheath. Take it out. Use it. Call them out. Say the thing. Otherwise, you'll regret not having done so in the future.

Speaker 4But again, it all goes back to the fact that... People can say as much as they want, but the fact is, until these 800,000 government mercenaries are rigor mortis, which is really the only way to get rid of them, because they'll always fight to protect Jewish supremacy at all costs.

Speaker 1It's not true. Are you saying violence? No.

Speaker 4I'm not saying they're going to arbitrate their actions on you regardless of what you say. Incorrect. Which is true. Until they're all rigor mortis.

Speaker 1No, no. That is true. The only way... That you can rule people is by their consent. If the people are armed. Yeah, that's true if the people are armed. No, hold on. Even Gandhi was asked, you don't really think we're just going to walk out? He says, yeah. When 300 million people don't want to be ruled by 100,000 people, you can't rule them.

Speaker 1Yes, I think in the end you'll walk out. So this idea. Hold on, hold on.

@joann_marieThe answer is peace.

Speaker 1The answer is peace. Okay? There is no violent answer. It's absolutely not true. Look, if that were true, they wouldn't be trying to censor us. If that were true, they wouldn't understand. We can't let them speak because if we can speak, if our ideas win the day and we are winning and we're going to win, then they have no chance.

Speaker 1Don't you understand? I've always given the example of, and I did this in person one time when I was speaking about freedom and liberty. I said, imagine if I'd gone around to the alley to have a smoke. And I came back and I said, oh my God, that guy just robbed me. And then they said, oh, you okay? Yeah, I'm okay. Oh, but I have to meet him back next Saturday so he can rob me again.

Speaker 1You have to be a willing participant, okay? The slavery is in you. The slavery is in us, okay? When we no longer think that these people have a right to rule us, they don't rule us. How do you think that's gonna happen? You think we're gonna wake up the next day if we all decide, well, this is bullshit. These people are bullshit.

Speaker 1They don't have a right to rule us. Do you think they're going to go, well, we have all the special powers. We're going to rule you anyway. How? Explain that to me.

Speaker 4Yeah, I think they are going to do that. I think they're going to continue to use force and violence to get their way. How? Let's hear it. Let's hear it. How?

Speaker 1Let's hear it.

Speaker 4With their weapons.

Speaker 1With their weapons? They're going to kill us all? That's what they're going to do?

Speaker 4They're going to try. That's what I'm saying is they're going to try to. No. No, they're not.

Speaker 1They're radicalized. They're radicalized for the state.

@joann_marieWait. Hold on, Lily.

Speaker 1No, no, they're not. They're not going to do that. Don't you understand? Look, we will slough them off like a bad cold if they tried that. No way. It'd be over. Don't you understand? If everybody decided right now, these people are just criminals. That's all they are. That's all they're doing to us. They would go hide in caves.

Speaker 1They'd be terrified. They'd be no, oh, we're going to take out, what, a billion people? No, it's like, dude.

Speaker 4Actually, I think you're half right on this in the fact that logistically they couldn't, right? If everybody decided to go and take their souls out of their body, then they couldn't. But the reality is they are basically so radicalized. to fight for the Jew, and they are so indoctrinated into fighting for their cause no matter what.

Speaker 7They are no longer influential.

Speaker 4Over 95% will try. Over 95% of them will try to do that, even if it's not possible. Even if success is not possible.

Speaker 1They will run away and hide. These are the most cowardly. Listen, something I learned as a kid is I could always beat up the bully because bullies are cowards. And the thing is, If you bomb children in schools, you're a coward, right? And this cowardice, this is why we always say they at once strike, or Cicero said they at once strike and cry out in pain.

Speaker 1Because the whole I'm a victim thing, well, that's the fear talking. Oh, no, now I'm going to have repercussions for my really bad behavior. But I'm telling you, it's a belief system. I've said it before. If I was a visitor from another planet, you wouldn't be able to take me to Washington and show me those big buildings and show me their power because it would no more prove the existence of their power than does a church prove the existence of God.

Speaker 1No, the slavery is inside of you. The average conservative. I am actually certain about what I'm saying. The awakening is happening. And when it's over, they will lose their power. And that's just the way it is. I'm not saying that there won't be more machinations and miseration. I am just saying it's going to fail miserably.

Speaker 1And by the way, we have a lot of history to attest to this. A lot of civilizations that failed in the exact same way. This is what's going to happen to them. I am just telling you something. I don't want to get revenge on anybody. I want to be free.

Speaker 4Why don't you want retribution for the people who have abused you for? all these years.

Speaker 1Because I'm defined by my loves and not my hatreds. I fight now for what I fight for because I think of a little girl in Gaza staring up at the stars at night in the rubble, dreaming about a better day. Maybe she's the next Madame Curie. I think about that. You want vengeance? No, I don't. I want freedom.

Speaker 4I want to be free. Let me ask you this, though. Let me tell you this. Let's just say because you have to free yourself before you can free others. A big part of the reason why these people like all of the local people and federal people will fight until the end is because they know when their power goes away, they will face retribution.

Speaker 4That plays a big part in it.

Speaker 1Well, I mean, if you want retribution, well, have at it. I want freedom, and I also appeal even. You can't get freedom without retribution. Hold on, hold on. That's not true. That's not true. And I will just tell you this. I believe in the divine spark in every human being. I believe in the divine spark of every human being on earth, and I am appealing to the better angel of anyone's nature if it will come forth, including our Jewish brothers and sisters.

Speaker 1I want to be free. Marx was wrong, as I've said before. The civilization is not defined by a struggle between classes, but by a struggle between those who wish to be free and those who wish to enslave. And freedom is not only our right as a people, but our destiny as a species. We're going to win this. And this is about freedom of speech now.

Speaker 1This is the hill that we should die on. And all, thankfully, you have to do and everyone else has to do is exercise that very freedom that they wish to take away.

Speaker 4Right, but you see, here's... Wait, did you... First of all, I want to address something you said. Did you think that Jews are able to be rehabilitated?

Speaker 1I think that there are many great, peaceful, loving-minded Jews. I think Spinoza was a great genius and philosopher. I mean, yes, I don't... I'm sorry, but it goes entirely against... And my epistemological principles to say, well, because of where you came from or what your race is, that you're automatically evil. Look, if you side with me for peace and equanimity, when Glenn Greenwald is always railing against what Israel is doing to the Palestinians and calling it a genocide, who I think is the greatest journalist alive, by the way, then I'm on his side.

Speaker 1Anybody that takes the side of peace, equanimity, kindness, tolerance, freedom is on my side. And they're my brothers and sisters, every one of them.

Speaker 4Okay, but here's the thing. Jews have never, other than a few individuals, less than 50, Jews have never done this. They've always infiltrated, subverted, done usury to control the kings of whatever land they went to and worked to enslave the entire population.

@joann_mariePlease don't jump in. Thank you.

Speaker 4Yeah, yeah. So if we look at time and time again, if someone... We don't let someone out who murdered someone and say, and then they do it again, and then you get them again, and then you let them out again. You do that 1,039 times of 110 different people, like 110 different areas, right? And say, well, let's give them another chance.

Speaker 4No, they've had so many chances. They will not change. Just because there are 20 of them in the world that are good, that doesn't mean that you should... use that to let some of the ones who are bad continue to live or be in society. We could just put them in an island. We could put them in two islands, one female Jew and the other male Jew.

Speaker 1I disavow everything that you're saying, and so we just don't agree, okay? I don't want to put people in an island. All I know is that if we decide to be free and we totally renounce this, if the awakening continues, you don't need to do any of this stuff. Because they can't be incorrect. They cannot rule people who no longer wish to be ruled.

Speaker 1That's why Ian is right. You have to call out Jewish supremacy. You have to go, this is a problem. No, this is bad. Stop doing that. Bad. Bad supremacist. You know, slap him on the hand. That's naughty. You know, and then all of a sudden we all realized, oh, okay, we're not going to tolerate this anymore. And then it won't exist.

Speaker 1That's the way it works. It is a change of consciousness. That's what it is. That's all it is. All you have to know. is it's a change of consciousness. We don't need to, oh, this old go-get-em and all of this, and I've got to go find my Jewish brother and sister. Oh, you're part of this group? No, no, no. No, I would like for them to renounce it, that's for sure.

Speaker 1But it's in us, don't you understand? It's up to us whether we're going to be enslaved or not. You know, Fichte, the great philosopher, he said, you know, it's your fault for listening to these people. It's your fault for obeying these people. Obviously, if you're going to do everything they tell you, and if you're going to allow them to guilt you into it, for goodness sakes, they string the strings of guilt across your soul and play them like a virtual world.

Speaker 1So stop doing that. It's the thing that's making you afraid to call out Jewish supremacy. Of course you should call it out. You know, they call you an anti-Semite because you're against them killing all the Semites. You know, like once you stop letting this happen to you, then there's nothing they can do. I'm sorry.

Ian MalcolmWell, and David, really quickly on that and just around this little topic out here, and then we'll go to a final hand and then we'll close out the space. It's a worthwhile question, right? And I've always disavowed this idea of all the anythings. And I say that because I know lots of African-Americans and blacks on this application that I think are wonderfully not only intelligent, but they're also seemingly very righteous, good.

Ian Malcolmindividuals that are pushing for justice, for righteousness, for intellect. And I could list in there individuals that are theologians all the way to lawyers, right? Like individuals like Millie or James Wood. They're wonderful. I could also rattle off a whole bunch of statistics on sub-Saharan African IQ and maybe some of the realities of that and how those two things maybe statistically shouldn't go hand in hand, but they do.

Ian MalcolmBecause not all anything are anything. Right. There are very intelligent individuals that are from sub-Saharan Africa, despite the statistics. There's also very good, like David saying, there's good Jews who are willing to discuss Jewish supremacy. There's also, for what it's worth, individuals like Jamie Dimon, who's, as far as I can tell, white as can be.

Ian MalcolmHe chose to marry a Jew, sits atop of J.P. Morgan, is clearly aware of what's going on and is in favor of this machine. Right. So there's people on both sides of the aisle. There are Jews that will speak out against it. And there are the Goy. the Gentiles, whatever you want to call them, who are willing to be participatory in it.

Ian MalcolmAnd the thing that I will ultimately call out, no matter the cost, whether it's of my reputation or claims on my intellect, is that I stand with intelligent individuals of moral character that are willing to call out right and wrong. It's really that simple. I see lots of, for what it's worth, low IQ white individuals running around sharing what I would loosely think of as neo-Nazi rhetoric that just say things that are hateful.

Ian MalcolmAnd for what it's worth, I think the people that are doing those types of things are probably part of an op. And if you haven't noticed that, perhaps it's a reflection on your IQ to the listeners. They want you to say radical, violent, hateful things. Do you know why? A, it makes it very easy for them to suggest that you're hateful bigots and therefore dangerous and radical.

Ian MalcolmWhat does that allow them to do? to put in place all kinds of totalitarian restrictions on you, the quote-unquote dangerous person, and to lock down freedom of speech, your right to own a firearm, all those other things that would allow us to peacefully reject slavery and oppression. The second thing that it does is, oh, by the way, not only does it make us look foolish, it makes us become the fool and become the very thing that we speak out against.

Ian MalcolmAnd do you know why? Because if you sit there and you say that all Jews are dot, dot, dot, Are you really that much different than the Jew that says all the Gentiles are dot, dot, dot, that they are animals, that they are below you, they are beneath you? It's kind of one in the same type of ideology. Now, if, let's say if, 99% of Jews want to enslave everybody and murder everybody, which, oh, by the way, I'm not saying that they do, but let's say that they did.

Ian MalcolmWell, then let us judge them by their character, by their moral compass or lack thereof. Let us then use that to determine we don't want to be around you guys the same way. I don't want to be around pedophiles. I don't want to be around criminals. And for what it's worth, that's why I talk about things like race realism.

Ian MalcolmI don't want to be in a society that has an average IQ of 65 where you can't construct a high trust society. Everyone steals from everyone. Everyone hates everyone. Everyone is petty, materialistic, superficial. I don't want to be around that.

Speaker 7That's coming from a malingering Jew.

Ian MalcolmI'm sorry?

Ian MalcolmWhat was that, Lily?

Speaker 8Lily.

Ian MalcolmNo, no, no. Let's let Lily have her little comment. Lily, what was that?

Speaker 7Your PFP.

Ian MalcolmYeah, it's a Jewish character from a movie that was directed by a Jew, produced by a Jew, and portrayed by a Jew. Do you find that... Is that a good thing? Is that a bad thing? I'm sorry?

Speaker 7It's malingering.

Ian MalcolmIt's malingering.

Speaker 7Something you're not.

Ian MalcolmIt's malingering. How am I pretending to be anything aside from an anonymous voice and handle on this application?

Speaker 7Archetypically.

Ian MalcolmArchetypically malingering. Lily, do you think anyone... Yeah, no, David, it's fantastic. She's probably got a thesaurus sitting next to her. So, Lily, out of curiosity, do you think I am trying to LARP as Ian Malcolm and to convince individuals that I know a lot about dinosaurs and once helped to flee from a park in the middle of the island or ocean?

Speaker 7It's really Machiavellian of you.

Ian MalcolmIt's Machiavellian of me. Have you read Machiavelli? Yeah, that's what I was going to say. Lily, would you like to define how it is Machiavellian of me?

Speaker 7Well, The Prince would be a good reference point.

@nietzsche258918No, no, no.

Ian MalcolmPlease elaborate on how it's at all relevant to me utilizing Ian Malcolm as a handle on access to social media application.

Speaker 1I think one of us has read The Prince, by the way.

Ian MalcolmLily, what I'm going to suggest, and this is the reason that for what it's worth I didn't bring you up here, what I'm going to suggest is that the point you attempted to make is about as meaningful as the posts that you make in response to things on this application, like the cat meme that I just put up into the nest. And that's for what it's worth why I rejected you, if I'm not mistaken, three or four times as you sat down there, request a mic, request a mic, request a mic.

Ian MalcolmYou then came up and essentially utilized words that I don't think you could probably even define, let alone spell. in a conversation with individuals that not only could do so, but also understand why they're completely irrelevant for the critiques that you attempted to make. Now, the thing that's funny about this is I have respect for individuals of all walks of life, if they're good people.

Ian MalcolmI find Ian Malkin to be a very fitting handle for the things that I do on this application because A, I'm not an anti-Semite. I get that accusation a whole bunch, but I just talk factually about the world. I look around and I see power structures and it is It's indeniable, undeniable. We could call it ill-deniable so that we could make it maybe eligible or legible for you down there, right, Lily?

Ian MalcolmThe undeniable nature of the supremacy that I discuss, I do so with data-driven critiques so that it's clearly not based in any kind of animus for anyone in any capacity for what it's worth. I think that Ian Malcolm as a character is very fitting. Do you know why? Because the things that that character speaks out against, I didn't,

Ian Malcolmthink through this before I created the character, but I did in the aftermath, having no idea it would become what it essentially has become, which is a, I guess, somewhat relevant or meaningful anonymous handle on this application. But the character is really fitting because if you think about it, the thing that that character does is to speak out against the arrogance of man and its thought that it can control not only nature, but also all of the variables that go into that natural order, which is that mankind has a right to rule itself.

Ian MalcolmIt has a right to seek a higher power. I think a higher power put us here in the first place and decided, oh, I don't know, like things have a time and a place, like the dinosaurs. And the thing that we don't ever have a place for is psychopaths with all of the money and all of the control, believing that they can put us into all little boxes and little pens and own us merely because they have the financial capabilities and perhaps the not only arrogance, but also the ignorance to think that they could control us.

Ian Malcolmall of those things that make us all unique and special here on this planet. So no, I don't think that it's all Jews. I don't dislike or hold animus for all Jews. What I do hold animus towards is psychopaths and narcissists and schizophrenics and paranoid individuals. And you know who tends to fit that mold? Well, I don't know.

Ian MalcolmMaybe it has a genetic predisposition for Jews. who, oh, by the way, also have a culture and a religion that seem to reinforce those very ideals. That creates a real problem when those people have all the power. And I don't suggest that they have all the power because I dislike Jews. I suggest that because I look around and I can prove it, which is why every single person that comes into these spaces to try and deny such has to leave them saying he's an anti-Semite because they can't have an adult conversation.

Ian MalcolmAnd it's not an adult conversation to suggest that all Jews, anything. It will not get this conversation anywhere. It's for what it's worth. The reason that I don't allow individuals who have nonsensical content on X up onto this panel. If you have no post history, you have no followers, you don't follow anybody. I'm not going to let you up here because you know what you're probably going to do to be a distraction.

Ian MalcolmYou're probably sent in as an operation. Do you know why? Because the powers that be really dislike the fact that people like Joanne and David and Thomas and Maddie and so many others can articulate the problem in a way that's free from animosity. You know what they want? They want low IQ individuals to run around and say, it's them Jews that took our derbs.

Ian MalcolmAnd you know why I know that's what they want? It's because that's what South Park would LARP us into boxes and say. That's what they did with the whole MAGA movement. They want us to look like low IQ fools. We're not. That's why, Lily, I'm going to block you. You won't ever be back up here, but I guess you're just going to make another handle because there's lots of people really interested in sabotaging these conversations because they are effective.

Ian MalcolmSo say whatever you want. People can come up here. They can throw out the vitriol of that prior speaker who wanted to suggest all Jews, dot, dot, dot. Not going to fall for it. Isn't it curious that that individual's account is also a month or two old, follows 50 people, made 30 posts over the last couple of months. They're probably not sincere.

Ian MalcolmYou know what they probably are? A bad actor. We're going to keep calling them out. I'm going to keep showcasing it. We're going to keep advocating for that, which is right. And you know what? That's going to result in more prominent, rich Jews having to go on national television and say, I think we need censorship because they're fools.

Ian MalcolmThe people that are trying to lord over us have no intellect. They have no empathy. They have no righteousness. They have no moral compass. They are terrified of intelligent, moral, reasonable, just people. people. That's what's in this space. That's why we keep these conversations going. That's why we view ourselves not for any fame or glory or fortune.

Ian MalcolmDavid's not monetized. I'm not monetized. I don't think Joanne is monetized. We're not sitting here saying buy a coffee, not saying here's my GoFundMe. We're doing it because it's right, it's righteous, and it's going to make the world a right place for our children and their children. And anyone who wants to suggest that that's remotely hateful, all it does is it exemplifies

Ian Malcolmhow hateful the people that want to rule us are because the need for them to censor those ideas is because the things that they want are not aligned with the things that I just advocated for. They want hate. They want us to all be dumbed down and broke and impoverished and desperate and to be looking up to them as if they're inflex, which they're not.

Ian MalcolmAnd we can demonstrate it because they can't come into these conversations and remotely hold a good faith argument with us. That's why everyone that does ends up getting laughed out of here. And then Vilek, who I see down in the listener panel, I want to give big shout out, lots of love to Mr. Vilek. I'm going to put one of his posts up in the nest so you can all follow him.

Ian MalcolmHe's an absolute hero. And he's been taking his skills and honing them with the AI video content. He made a video about David. He's made a lot of videos about other people. That is what we have to do to get these ideas viral. And if we do, they are like the sun rising up above the vampires. They are inextinguishable. And if we just keep speaking them and we keep getting more people to notice the sunrise in the distance, we will win.

Ian MalcolmThat's why they have to come in here with the nonsense. And that's why they don't want us to ever be able to have these conversations, which is why they're calling for additional censorship, which goes back to the original subject of this space.

Speaker 1And by the way, if there is a coloring book version of The Prince by Machiavelli, she might figure out that he was inspired in real life by Cesar Borgia, who... basically consolidated power, and he thought this was great. So here we are having a space about free speech, and you're advocating for free speech, and you're being accused of supporting the very opposite.

Speaker 1Okay, well, you know, I guess you've been co-opted by the freedom movement.

@joann_marieIt was such an amazing space, guys. I'm loving it so much. Matty, are you back?

Speaker 1I want to hear from Thomas, too.

@joann_marieOh, I don't think Matty's here. So, okay, go ahead, Thomas. Welcome, and happy New Year.

Speaker 1And choose Liberty. Hey.

Speaker 9Yeah. Yeah, hey. There are a lot of great guests on this panel. This has been a really good space. Happy to hear from everybody. I get that out of the way. I hope everybody's doing really well, and I hope the new year finds you well. I know it will. We'll get there. Am I cutting out?

@joann_marieNo, you cut for a second, but you're good now.

Speaker 9Okay, yeah. So, you know, a side note, you know, because I do like to read a lot. Michael Crichton wasn't Jewish. I think that's worth noting with your profile picture there, Ian. And also the character. Ian Malcolm is a mathematician from Texas. If anybody ever reads Jurassic Park, it's a delightful read. And then now I would like to talk about the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which has defined anti-Semitism and it has these relationships in over 40 countries.

Speaker 9You can see through these relationships and they have legislated and made it illegal to deny the Holocaust in many countries. In Ukraine, Switzerland, Sweden, in Russia, you can be imprisoned up to five years. Slovakia, Romania, Portugal, Poland, Netherlands, Montenegro, Luxembourg, Lithuania, and Italy. I mean, there's a laundry list.

Speaker 9And it's wild to think that you can be imprisoned for just not believing a narrative or looking at counter information. It's very strange. I mean, this is where you get this idea of supremacy. You can look at the United States. There are over 38 countries where you cannot boycott the state of Israel. You have municipalities like San Marcos who have been targeted for, you know, federal grants existing in future for doing so, for embargoing aid.

Speaker 9You know, $4 million is a lot to a municipality of like 65,000, 70,000 people. And you see this all across the nation. There have been, you know, countries, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, there have been states that have enacted these laws.

Speaker 9atrocious. It steps on our freedoms. Antisemitism has been used as a weapon against free speech and that it has bloated hate speech in a way that's unnecessary in light of the Civil Rights Act.

Speaker 9Did he go?

Speaker 9No, sorry, you're back.

@joann_marieYou're back, Thomas. I'm sorry.

Speaker 9No, no, sorry. But this idea of supremacy for this is being legislated across the globe. It's being legislated here in America. Anti-Semitism laws, you can look at how you cannot boycott the state of Israel here in America. You can look at the ways that they target individuals for Holocaust denial. All of this is, it lends more to these ideas.

Speaker 9You cannot silence an idea like this. Things get scarier in the dark, right? And the way that you can tell when they're silencing or chilling things, when you can see what you're not allowed to talk about. And this is, it's become so blatant that it's just impossible to ignore. And when you have, you know, just regular humanitarian laws that are skirted for this relationship here in America, that's when you know it's just gone too far.

Speaker 9When we violate, like, Leahy Law to send bombs that then go to, you know, attack civilians and kill children. You can look at Nizam Mahmoud, who spoke to the fact that Israeli drones using Palantir technologies were... directly targeting children. He was working on, uh, young, uh, he was, uh, uh, you know, the, one of the best transplantation surgeons in Britain.

Speaker 9And he was, you know, just, you can watch his interviews. He's broke, broke down in tears speaking to these atrocities he had witnessed and these firsthand accounts. And they, they, they, they don't like that. We're, uh, talking about this. This isn't this, uh, war. And these situations are now happening in a way that they cannot be silenced.

Speaker 9Everybody has a camera on their hand now and everybody has a phone and everybody has an opinion. So they have to legislate this. They have to legislate against the recognition of this one-sided relationship. And we have to continue to speak out against it and we have to push for... better representation because we are no longer being represented.

Speaker 9We have lost a fair degree of sovereignty in this relationship. And we're sending billions overseas and we're violating international and American law to do so. And we're stepping on American principles and freedoms to enshrine protections for a foreign nation. And no American should allow or condone that type of alliance.

Speaker 9It's one-sided and it's parasitic. And the American people have too much real suffering that we face to allow any more of this relationship. It's got to end. It's got to be redefined, not through violence. And again, a lot of people are pushing or advocating for violence. It's silly. We need to remove all of this redundant legislation, this unnecessary legislation.

Speaker 9And we need to quit condoning humanitarian abuses overseas. That's very simple. Everybody can get behind that. And you're not going to have somebody try to, you know, reframe that as hate. We need to have American principles here and have Christian principles and, you know, not lead through the hate that we're seeing spread.

Speaker 9Because it is an op. It's a plan called, it's the strategy of tension. They're trying to utilize chaos. They're allowing for all of this violence to escalate. And I think we are over the target, and we need to continue in a way that is going to make substantial change, real change, and legislate that change. But thank you guys so much.

Speaker 9I really appreciate the mic. You guys have a great rest of your day, and I'll continue listening to the space.

@joann_marieThank you so much for coming up, Thomas, and I loved everything you said. I agree. I think Netanyahu is going to try to push America into war. And I think it's super unpopular, but I'm afraid that if he actually pulls you guys into war and then some American soldiers get killed, everyone will rally behind it. And that's what I'm afraid of.

@joann_marieSo what are your thoughts on that, Thomas?

Speaker 9They've all but declared war. The Iranian ministers have come forward and said that they are in a state of war, open war, and they have promised retaliation for any further action, any further bombing. The president has escalated rhetoric recently. We were doing like a New Year's space, and I predicted that we will bomb Iran very soon.

Speaker 9I think that... Here's the situation in Iran. They want a regime change. If they were to kill the Supreme Leader, there is an 88 cleric body that would elect a new leader. The only way they get what they want out of Iran is a full-scale war. And we cannot afford a full-scale war. This is why we're in Venezuela using weapons of mass destruction via fentanyl to engage in this military action to secure the oil.

Speaker 9We're stealing oil right now in Venezuela. We're not there for drugs. We are trying to secure the capacity to facilitate a large-scale war with Iran. We cannot afford it. We're $38 trillion in debt. This has been the plan since the clean break memo in 2007. It's atrocious, and this is what they want. We're in a worse place than when we began this Trump administration before these bombings with Iran.

Speaker 9They are no longer cooperating or working. They have paused cooperation with the international atomic regulatory agencies. And there is enough uranium now missing to produce nine more heads. So we're in a, they were completely in the dark, the situation in Iran. We're in a worse situation. They did assassinate a tremendous amount of the military leadership in Iran.

Speaker 9Israel did. They did not take out the Supreme Leader. If they do, again, there's an 88 cleric body. Iran has sovereignty. They will elect their new leader. The only way they get what they want is through war. And that's why I think we are going to war with Iran. We are staging the capacity now via Venezuela to initiate that engagement.

Speaker 9And thanks for asking something I'm a little bit more versed on, too. I like to rattle. I talk about this much more than the last subject. There's so much to do with this that's so related. So it's good to get informed on all this different stuff. Thank you, Joanne. I appreciate you asking me. I think that's what's coming.

Speaker 9I hope I'm wrong. I've been wrong before. I wasn't wrong about Syria, though, sadly. I hate when I'm right. I'm usually kind of blackmailed.

Speaker 1Thomas is very good on foreign policy, so everybody follow him and really pay attention to his posts. I will say this, Thomas. It's not just that they are banning, let's say, when they're saying you're not allowed to question this or that. They also invert the language itself, right? I mean, why is Holocaust applied to them and not anybody else?

Speaker 1Well, the country with the biggest, the most number of Holocaust deniers in the world is Israel. They deny the Holocaust that the Bolsheviks and them perpetrated upon Christians in Soviet Russia. The most anti-Semitic country in the world is Israel. They kill all the Semites around them. They'll never stop. Just as you pointed out, we know they'll never stop, by the way.

Speaker 1This idea of this peace, they're going to keep killing everybody, folks. They will never stop. That's their main export, okay? That's how they do it. So it's not just that we should be fighting for free speech just because we need to have that right. Notice that they will also invert the language. They will change the meaning of words.

Speaker 1all of a sudden, and this of course is right out of Orwell, right? Where they actually memory hold in some words, they invert the meaning of words. So let's just, in the name of fighting these real Holocaust deniers and these real anti-Semites, let's make sure we have the right to speak freely to denounce them.

Speaker 9David, that is such a good point because the deeper dynamic here is that they take these catastrophes and they institutionalize them in a way that freezes like this uh like it erases moral law and that they monopolize it and decide who can invoke this moral morality who's exempt from this whose suffering is like unthinkable versus whose suffering is necessary right and this only requires some kind of uh emotionally saturated untouchable event that can then become a reference point to in debate

Speaker 9and rank suffering again, like this atrocity matters, this one doesn't. And then they justify this management through states and courts and schools and credential authorities, and they back up that narrative and they back up that lie. But this is like an apparatus that operates, and it's inhuman because it ranks your suffering and it tells you what's supposed to matter.

Speaker 9And there's suffering here in this country that matters. And they're telling you it doesn't. They're telling you we need to send soldiers overseas. We need to secure democracy or enforce. And it's a lie. And the lie is it hurts the American people. But thank you, David. That is so well said.

Speaker 1Absolutely, my friend. And I think choose liberty. I can imagine you care a little bit about free speech. What do you say, my friend?

Speaker 10Oh, just a little bit. Happy New Year, everyone. Going back a couple of speakers, I was thinking about the guy that was talking about vengeance or retribution. I forget exactly what he said. Well, don't you want retribution, I think is what he asked. And I was thinking...

Ian MalcolmI'm near certain he was an op, by the way.

Speaker 10Yeah, you know, I mean, he had like 40 followers or whatever, like pretty common. But I was thinking about that and I was like... know i'm a catholic i i'm not a very good one but i try to be and i think about jesus and there's you know that quote in the bible where he says father forgive them for they don't know what they do and there's a theme of self-sacrifice you know it's the ultimate sacrifice and

Speaker 10He didn't sacrifice himself for just the Jews or just us, the Gentiles, for everyone. And so when this guy was talking and he was saying, well, oh, they do all of this bad stuff to us. Don't you want revenge? I think about that and I'm like, well, isn't that what the Pharisees did? Isn't that, you know, they felt personally attacked by Jesus and they were like, we got to get revenge on this guy.

Speaker 10We can't let this stand.

Speaker 10Obviously, we all know how that turned out because, you know, Jesus is God and he appeared to the apostles after his death. He rose again. And now Christianity is, you know, one of the largest religions on earth. And in my opinion, the only true religion. But that's another discussion. But I don't know. As he was talking, I was thinking about that and I was like, well, do we really want retribution?

Speaker 10Because I think there's a difference between retribution and vengeance and righteous fury. Or justice, right? And justice, exactly. I think you can have righteous fury and you can have justice without vengeance and retribution. I think you can separate those. Now, most times, do people separate those? No. Most times, you know, they get tangled up with one another because we're human.

Speaker 10You know, we sin, we get angry, you know.

Speaker 1Well, wouldn't you say, Choose Liberty, that there is no such thing as a transmigration of guilt? The guilt is what one person did. I'm not going to punish person B because of what person A did. I mean, this person that we're both talking about, it's the most anti-Christian, amoral, immoral idea. In fact, the reparations people are saying it now.

Speaker 1They're going, oh, well, your skin is white, so you have to give me money because of something that happened centuries ago. Well, there's no such thing as transmigration of guilt. I haven't done anything to you, and therefore I don't owe anything to you.

Speaker 10Yeah, exactly. And I agree with that because logically it just doesn't make any sense. It's like, how can I be held accountable for something that was done before I was born? And I think that...

@joann_marieI mean, they are doing it to the Germans for four generations.

Speaker 1Yeah. And Ian and I actually talked to someone who said that kind of crap. He was like, until, yes, I said, why does a 21-year-old German owe you money? And he basically just defended the idea. Like, we hate you. It's like, gee, you sound like someone that would exterminate like 40 million people in Russia. You know, you sound like you really, really have an evil soul.

Speaker 1Well, of course, for someone to come along and choose liberty, please go on. If someone had come along and say, oh, well, we're just going to round them up. We're going to get them all. Well, who do you sound like?

Speaker 10Well, that's the thing is, and this is why, you know, with a lot of people, I just ask the questions, like, do you believe in Jesus Christ? Because it's a moral framework that you can base everything else off of. You know, forgiveness, Christianity, to my knowledge, and I'm not a religious expert or anything, is the only religion that has that as a core principle.

Speaker 10And self-sacrifice, forgiveness, love, the only way to get into heaven is you can't earn it. It's impossible to earn it. And again, people who are better versed on religion can speak all on that. But from my understanding, to me, that makes sense. It's like, oh, wow, that's kind of crazy. You're telling me I need to sacrifice.

Speaker 10I need to love other people, even the people who are my enemy. Am I going to be able to do that all the time? No. Yeah, people piss me off all the time. But you try to. And you try to be a good person. And this is another thing that goes, you guys talked about IQ for a bit. people who have low IQ get angry and jump out because they can't rationalize.

Speaker 10They, they, they literally cannot fathom what it's like to think through things and they get frustrated. So they get angry. Um, so yeah, I thought it was a great discussion. I knew you guys are wrapping up, so I'll keep it short, but.

Speaker 1And I will say for someone, as someone who read all the religions, cause I sat down and, um, Before I studied philosophy, I wanted to read all the religions. And there is a couple of points that they all kind of make. And one is, that's pinned in my post, it's a paraphrase. When I say, well, they say, it's better to rule yourself than a thousand cities.

Speaker 1And what I say is, he who rules himself cannot be ruled by others. I think this idea of a change of consciousness, of discovering your soul, of knowing yourself, because the purity of your soul, it's always the same. you become exiled unto yourself when you become evil so this is why nietzsche was right to say be careful that you don't become the monster that you you know in the process of hunting monsters that you don't become one we don't want to slay our enemy on the battlefield ideologically speaking and then go look in the mirror and see the very person that we think that we uh disappeared so so absolutely and i i

Speaker 1I really disavow anybody who doesn't have this message of love, peace, equanimity. We know they're not on our side. If you think that the motivation of hate is going to help us win, then you're absolutely wrong. We've become that house divided against itself. And, of course, you know it will not stand.

Speaker 10Well, and you kind of said something that is one of the quotes from the greatest movie of all time. The first and original Matrix movie, the only Matrix movie that actually exists. All the other ones are fake. Know thyself. Another trait of high IQ people. If you can reflect, if you can self-reflect, and you can know yourself, high IQ all the way.

Speaker 10Beautiful, beautiful.

Ian MalcolmYeah, and there's one little thing, David, before we go to this last hand, I was just going to mention the reality that If what we were doing was not a pathway to victory, they would not send in so many of these ops trying to farm little clickbait or all this other stuff of us being in rooms with people saying radical things.

Ian MalcolmIt is the very approach that we're taking that I think this machine fears. And as a result, it has to try and get us suppressed or otherwise sequestered off the app. Because this is the path to winning. I really believe that. And I think the dissenters and the ops just showcase how problematic we are to them.

Speaker 1I bet you Honey Badger and Choose Liberty would know of a biblical quote that goes to the, I don't, that kind of sums up this idea that even the evil force will somehow make you better or gives you a chance to be better. Because that's what's happening. When someone comes in and then we have this beautiful moment where we're all disavowing it, well, it's good for us.

Speaker 1We just became stronger, not weaker, you know? So it's, I don't know, maybe someone has something at hand for that. But when they come in and do that, it's like we just, you know, our human solidarity goes up. We say no, and we protect the innocent. And all of a sudden, who wins here? It's sort of like the Grinch, you know?

Speaker 1Maybe he'll have a change of heart as well.

@joann_marieThank you so much, David. And guys, please repost this page. Follow Ian and David.

Speaker 5Oh, sorry. Back to my phone. It's in the wheelhouse. There's nothing that really says, like, you know, essentially that, how can I put it? Like, okay, all things work to the good for those who love and serve the Lord. But I would say what's probably closer is, but he said to me, my grace is sufficient for you for my power is perfected in weakness.

Speaker 5Therefore, I will all the more gladly boast of my weakness that the power of Christ may rest upon me. So in other words, like, I mean, it's loosely connected, but it's in that wheelhouse. And so much to say is like, you know, any duress you're under, you know, anytime you're challenged, et cetera, it's an opportunity for grace because it's an opportunity to grow in faith.

Speaker 5And it's an opportunity to grow in virtue. So I know that's kind of loosely what you're saying probably, David. But I mean, again, I guess it's in the same vein.

Speaker 10Yeah, and I have a thanks to Gemini and the quick search ability of my fast typing fingers. I've got one, another one. 2 Corinthians 12, 7 to 10. Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me, but he said to me, my grace is sufficient for you.

Speaker 10For my power is made perfect in weakness. That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weakness, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong. Wow.

Speaker 5Yeah, same verse. It's Corinthians. I just read the abbreviated version. But yeah, right on, Jozen. Good for us. We're on the same page.

Speaker 9I think James 1. I have my grandfather's Bible. I've read through the Bible front and back. It says something about, I can't quote it directly because I don't have it. I was looking for it, trying to find the exact wording. But it says that tests of your faith produce perseverance. Something to that wording. So there is an idea of that, David, in the Bible.

Speaker 9It's in James. Beautiful.

@joann_marieAmazing. Well, let's go to the last hand. And it was such a great space, guys. Thank you so, so, so much. All right. Coyote, go ahead, sir.

@yoteofstreetHey, what's up, y'all? Shit, I see you need and you posted that one earlier about that on the CNBC or whatever. And I was going to say, man, everybody pray. You got God, then you got, you know, family and then you got country or whatever. And I know there are a lot of First Amendment people. But there's, you know, this shit's, it's just time to stand up and keep doing what you do, bro.

@yoteofstreetPut out the truth or whatever. And I was going kind of Ephesians 511 mode or whatever earlier, but it's like, I think, you know, just hearing you talk just then, I kind of need to, like, I don't know, step back and, I just don't like this shit, man. I don't like how they're letting it happen. And I don't like a lot of people's reaction to it.

@yoteofstreetEverybody's, they're still over there with Charlie Kirk and everything. Like, Erica, this shit's crazy, man. Anyway, critically thank, if you still got critically thankful skills, and pray for America.

Speaker 1Oh, and Happy New Year, my friend.

@yoteofstreetYeah, Happy New Year, man. This is just, you know, First Amendment, bro, you can't, I don't know, you can't let it go. But we got to do so accordingly and smart. So I think that people... You need to link up that and talk to that are able to talk.

Speaker 1Well, let's not forget that freedom of speech hasn't been around that long. And I think 2026 is going to be very exciting. I mean, we are winning. The awakening is happening. I keep saying it. Victor Hugo was right. Nothing can stop an idea whose time has come. And our time has come. And this is, I'm sorry, but the forces of tyranny, you know, when Christopher Hitchens became an American, he warned his fellow liberal friends.

Speaker 1You're going to have to choose between authoritarianism and liberalism because no one, he said, likes to be told what to do. Of course, this is true. It's in us. Our desire to be free is a natural concomitant to our humanity. So we are winning. We're going to win. These people are looking very, very bad, and I'm very excited for 2026.

@yoteofstreetWe are winning, and that's why they try to go by force to hear that man get up there. and his broken English and say that. But the thing about it is, we all know, some of us know, how embedded and entangled it is. But the thing is, what always makes me feel good, man, I'm in Texas, beautiful state, and there are 350 million Americans.

@yoteofstreetAnd there are a good group out of that, including you fine people. So we're going to be all right because we are winning, David.

@joann_marieAnd Ian, do you have anything else to say or should we close it?

Ian MalcolmYeah, no. And the thing I'd want to say is to just thank everybody for being here, for being part of the conversation. Certainly thanks to you and to Dave for being here and helping out with the hosting efforts. Thanks to everybody that listened, that participated. After all, it wouldn't be anything without all of you.

Ian MalcolmAnd look at the end of the day to David's comment there. We are winning. We will win. It is inevitable. And it is the reason for the panic that you're seeing in all of these absurd comments like the video that we shared. So just continue doing what everybody's doing. Continue being part of this solution. Continue speaking truth.

Ian MalcolmLike David said, nothing can stop an idea whose time has arrived. And this time is now. The idea is the one that we constantly discuss. So I look forward to that better tomorrow with everybody. And in the interim, I just want to wish, again, everybody a happy, happy, happy new year. So thank you so much for being here, for being part of this.

Ian MalcolmAnd we'll see you guys in the next one.