Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language
Detected language: English
[00:00.000 --> 00:05.600]  Welcome back to the channel. I'd like to talk to you a little bit today about free speech, which,
[00:05.600 --> 00:11.440]  as you're probably aware, is under attack in the United States and has been now for several years.
[00:11.440 --> 00:16.560]  I'd like to begin by sharing a quote from Benjamin Franklin. Benjamin Franklin said,
[00:17.520 --> 00:23.040]  without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom and no such thing
[00:23.040 --> 00:30.960]  as public liberty without freedom of speech, which is the right of every man. As far as by it,
[00:30.960 --> 00:37.520]  he does not hurt or control the right of another. And this is the only check it ought to suffer and
[00:37.520 --> 00:44.880]  the only bounds it ought to know. Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin
[00:44.880 --> 00:48.960]  by subduing the freedom of speech. Close quote.
[01:05.760 --> 01:09.680]  I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that Franklin said,
[01:10.640 --> 01:17.840]  whoever would overthrow the liberty of the nation must begin by subduing the freedom of speech.
[01:19.200 --> 01:26.720]  Whoever would overthrow. In other words, Benjamin Franklin was not limiting the discussion about
[01:26.720 --> 01:32.960]  the overthrow of liberty in a nation to government suppression of free speech. He's saying,
[01:32.960 --> 01:39.760]  whoever would overthrow. I'd like to share a few more quotes with you concerning freedom of
[01:39.760 --> 01:46.160]  speech. Another quote by Benjamin Franklin is this, if all printers were determined not to
[01:46.160 --> 01:53.840]  print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed. And,
[01:53.840 --> 01:58.800]  of course, that's one of the big issues in our country today that there's a certain type of
[01:58.800 --> 02:04.960]  person who, if they are offended or bothered by something than somebody else in their world the
[02:04.960 --> 02:10.400]  way they see the world, then someone else has to shut the hell up. Someone else has to lose free
[02:10.400 --> 02:15.760]  speech because they don't feel good about the speech they're hearing. Another quote.
[02:28.800 --> 02:35.680]  Reason is of no use to us. The freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be
[02:35.680 --> 02:44.240]  led like sheep to the slaughter. George Washington. Note that Washington was saying matters that are
[02:44.800 --> 02:51.840]  most serious and have alarming consequences. They should invite the consideration of mankind. And
[02:51.840 --> 02:59.760]  then he says, if that's not possible, if that is suppressed, reason is of no use to us.
[03:00.640 --> 03:08.720]  And this, it is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. That's
[03:08.720 --> 03:14.160]  Louis Brandeis, United States Supreme Court Justice, to free us from irrational fears.
[03:14.560 --> 03:23.520]  I cannot help but think of the dialogues that were suppressed and the many opinions and views of
[03:24.320 --> 03:31.680]  extremely well-credentialed and experienced professionals that were suppressed. That the
[03:31.680 --> 03:38.560]  free speech of those extremely well-credentialed and experienced professionals was suppressed.
[03:39.200 --> 03:46.480]  And of course, make no mistake, when the free speech of anyone, whether they're the truck driver,
[03:46.480 --> 03:50.960]  the mechanic down the street, the waitress, or the extremely well-credentialed and experienced
[03:50.960 --> 04:00.640]  professional, whenever speech is suppressed, what is really taking place is your ears are being
[04:00.640 --> 04:07.840]  suppressed. Your brain is being suppressed because what they're saying, but I don't want that guy's
[04:07.840 --> 04:13.760]  words to be heard. I don't want that guy to speak. What they're saying is that guy might be heard by
[04:13.760 --> 04:20.480]  a million people and I don't want those million people to hear what he has to say. And you are
[04:20.480 --> 04:26.320]  one of those million people. So in other words, this whole effort of suppressing free speech is
[04:26.320 --> 04:33.440]  really about you and making sure that you are restricted from hearing things the establishment
[04:33.440 --> 04:37.840]  doesn't want you to hear. That's the point that Brandis was trying to make.
[04:38.720 --> 04:46.080]  And this, we are so concerned to flatter the majority that we lose sight of how very often
[04:46.080 --> 04:53.520]  it is necessary in order to preserve freedom for the minority, let alone for the individual,
[04:54.160 --> 05:01.760]  to face that majority down. That was William F. Buckley Jr.
[05:10.640 --> 05:13.360]  And again, I want to emphasize from Buckley's statement,
[05:14.000 --> 05:22.800]  in order to preserve freedom, we must face the majority down at times. Suppression of free
[05:22.800 --> 05:31.840]  speech is intended to make sure we can't do that. And this, of that freedom of thought and speech,
[05:32.400 --> 05:41.120]  one may say that it is the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other
[05:41.760 --> 05:49.040]  form of freedom. That's Benjamin Cardoza, U.S. Supreme Court Justice. And by Henry Commager,
[05:49.040 --> 05:57.440]  U.S. historian, quote, we cannot have a society half slave and half free, nor can we have thought
[05:57.440 --> 06:05.760]  half slave and half free. If we create an atmosphere in which men fear to think independently,
[06:05.760 --> 06:13.360]  inquire fearlessly, and express themselves freely, we will, in the end, create the kind
[06:13.360 --> 06:20.720]  of society in which men no longer care to think independently or to inquire fearlessly.
[06:21.520 --> 06:28.000]  And this, the freedom of speech and the freedom of press have not been granted to the people
[06:28.000 --> 06:34.080]  in order that they may say things which please and which are based upon accepted thought.
[06:34.080 --> 06:40.720]  But the right to say the things which displease, the right to say the things which may convey
[06:40.720 --> 06:47.200]  the new and yet unexpected thoughts, the right to say things even though they do a wrong.
[06:48.000 --> 06:54.400]  Samuel Gompers, U.S. labor leader. And that last part is of particular importance where he says,
[06:54.400 --> 07:00.320]  even though they do a wrong, in other words, something you say is mistaken or perhaps
[07:00.320 --> 07:05.840]  intentionally wrong, you're trying to mislead people, as long as it's not criminal fraud,
[07:06.560 --> 07:15.280]  there is no way to stop people from saying things that are wrong or mistaken without
[07:15.280 --> 07:21.840]  suppressing free speech generally. And the reason is, once you set up a paradigm that says someone
[07:21.840 --> 07:30.640]  is going to decide what can be said and what must be silenced, every evil son of a bitch
[07:30.640 --> 07:37.520]  on the planet will vie to have that power, that position, or to control the men and women who do,
[07:38.080 --> 07:43.120]  which is pretty much what we've been at for the last handful of years.
[07:43.840 --> 07:46.720]  Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Quote,
[07:47.280 --> 07:53.040]  If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment
[07:53.040 --> 08:00.160]  than any other, it is the principle of free thought. Not free thought for those who agree with us,
[08:00.160 --> 08:06.320]  but freedom for the thought that we hate. And, of course, I think it should stand to reason
[08:06.960 --> 08:13.120]  that free thought is meaningless unless that thought can be expressed to others,
[08:13.760 --> 08:18.960]  which brings us back to free speech. I also want to point out that Wendell Oliver Holmes said that
[08:18.960 --> 08:26.960]  he's speaking of a constitutional principle, not any particular clause or provision.
[08:26.960 --> 08:33.920]  It is a principle enshrined from the earliest times of this nation that must always be considered
[08:34.800 --> 08:39.840]  when viewing the Constitution. And we'll bookend these quotes with another quote from Benjamin
[08:39.840 --> 08:46.320]  Franklin. Freedom of speech is a principle pillar of a free government. When this support is taken
[08:46.320 --> 08:54.880]  away, the Constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins.
[08:55.680 --> 09:02.640]  You may have noted that not a single one of these luminaries talked about free speech
[09:02.640 --> 09:12.320]  being suppressed specifically or exclusively by government. They didn't say that. They spoke of
[09:12.320 --> 09:20.960]  the principle of free speech and how critically important that principle is to a free people,
[09:20.960 --> 09:28.720]  to a free nation. How critically important free speech is to personal liberty and freedom
[09:28.720 --> 09:36.560]  generally. Given the critical importance of free speech, does it matter who is suppressing it?
[09:37.520 --> 09:42.320]  You know, I'm at a complete loss to figure out how certain of my fellow citizens seem to have
[09:42.320 --> 09:47.840]  come to the position that it's absolutely fine to suppress free speech and, hell, perhaps even
[09:47.840 --> 09:53.840]  eradicate it, as long as that suppression of free speech isn't done directly by government. If it's
[09:53.920 --> 09:59.680]  done by private entities and nobody can have free speech anymore, that's just hunky dory with them.
[09:59.680 --> 10:06.320]  I totally don't get that bullshit. As you may be aware, I'm the author of Income Tax Shattering the
[10:06.320 --> 10:11.440]  Mist, which talks about the truth of the income tax, the fact that Congress has never imposed the
[10:11.440 --> 10:17.200]  income tax on the ordinary American. There is a reason, speaking of this, it's free speech related.
[10:17.840 --> 10:24.240]  There is a reason I self-publish and have since day one, and here's the reason. You may not be
[10:24.240 --> 10:31.920]  aware of this, but it is possible for a private company to completely suppress the message that's
[10:31.920 --> 10:38.160]  contained in a writing, in this case a book. Let me explain. When I started looking into publishers,
[10:38.800 --> 10:46.080]  one of the things I found is this. The way publishing houses work is the author signs his
[10:46.080 --> 10:54.080]  rights completely over to the publisher. Then the publisher has relationships with it. We're going
[10:54.080 --> 11:02.240]  back a little bit, perhaps even dating this examination of how it works. They have relationships
[11:02.240 --> 11:09.920]  with the bookstores and promotional outlets and PR firms and so forth. They have this machine they
[11:09.920 --> 11:19.360]  use to put the author's book out into the public domain. However, as I said, the author has to sign
[11:19.360 --> 11:25.840]  over 100% of the rights. The author gets paid for per copy, whatever the agreed upon rate is,
[11:25.840 --> 11:30.640]  but the author loses all rights to the work. The author loses all control over the work.
[11:31.360 --> 11:36.800]  As I pondered that, knowing that the government would love to silence the truth about the income
[11:36.800 --> 11:41.920]  tax, because sooner or later it's going to catch fire. For whatever the reason, these issues can
[11:41.920 --> 11:48.960]  go along just without catching fire, and suddenly the message catches fire. I have no doubt that the
[11:48.960 --> 11:53.680]  message that's in income tax shatter, the truth that's in income tax shatter, is at some point
[11:53.680 --> 12:01.360]  in history going to catch fire. The government is terrified of that. If you don't want a book,
[12:01.360 --> 12:06.640]  the contents of a book and the book itself to catch fire and have millions of people read it,
[12:06.640 --> 12:14.320]  if you don't want that, what's the best method to ensure that doesn't happen? Right. Make sure
[12:14.320 --> 12:22.880]  the book is unavailable. So as I pondered what a publisher could do, I imagined this conversation.
[12:24.160 --> 12:30.160]  The head counsel for the publisher gets a call from the chief counsel's office of the IRS,
[12:30.160 --> 12:34.080]  so they're talking attorney to attorney. There's attorney-client privilege.
[12:35.600 --> 12:39.200]  The attorney for the IRS, or the attorney for the Treasury Department,
[12:40.000 --> 12:43.920]  tactfully, without coming right out, you don't want to do an overt threat, right?
[12:44.640 --> 12:50.240]  But tactfully makes it clear to the publisher that if the publisher continues to put income tax
[12:50.240 --> 12:54.880]  shattering the myths out into bookstores and other venues from which it can be acquired,
[12:55.600 --> 13:01.760]  if the publisher continues to do that, things are not going to go well in a future examination.
[13:02.560 --> 13:05.520]  In other words, the message would be whatever money you think you're going to make off of
[13:05.520 --> 13:09.120]  income tax shattering the myths, whatever money you, in fact, might make off of income tax
[13:09.120 --> 13:15.120]  shattering the myths, when we're done with you, the damage will be many times greater than anything
[13:15.120 --> 13:19.440]  you would have made off that book. Now, it'd be nice to think that a publisher would have integrity,
[13:19.440 --> 13:24.800]  but what are the odds, right? We don't live in a land of integrity. What we live in is a land of
[13:24.800 --> 13:30.240]  corporate profit, so it's very likely that the counsel for the publisher would go in and sit
[13:30.240 --> 13:34.400]  down with the president or the CEO and explain how the call went down and say, there's no way
[13:34.400 --> 13:39.760]  we can stop the IRS from doing this. If they conduct an examination, we can fight them for
[13:39.760 --> 13:43.680]  years and years and years, but in the end, we're going to spend a lot more. We're going to lose
[13:43.680 --> 13:47.760]  a lot more than anything we're going to get on champions book income tax shattering the myths,
[13:47.760 --> 13:52.640]  and the CEO is very likely to say, because he's got shareholders he has to answer to,
[13:52.640 --> 13:56.480]  right? He can't get in a fight with government over one book. I mean, if the government wanted
[13:56.480 --> 14:02.320]  to suppress their business generally, that's one thing, but one book out of tens of thousands?
[14:02.320 --> 14:09.680]  No. That CEO is almost certainly going to say, bring that book back. And what they mean by that
[14:09.680 --> 14:14.800]  is pull it from all the stores, pull it from all the other places that we put it. So the order
[14:14.800 --> 14:20.000]  goes out. We sent you 23 copies of income tax shattering the myths three months ago.
[14:20.800 --> 14:25.280]  We are now demanding all of those back, and the publishers have the right to do that,
[14:25.280 --> 14:31.680]  to tell a bookstore or other outlet, you must return those books to us. The publisher has
[14:31.680 --> 14:37.760]  that right because the publisher owns the rights to the book. So all the books in this scenario,
[14:37.760 --> 14:40.960]  all the books come back to the publisher and the publisher says, okay, we're done,
[14:40.960 --> 14:46.000]  closes that chapter and moves on. What recourse would I have to make sure that I can still get
[14:46.000 --> 14:53.120]  income tax shattering the myths out to the American people? None. Zero. Because the terms
[14:53.120 --> 14:57.920]  of the agreement with the publisher is that the publisher has all the rights. I only get a
[14:57.920 --> 15:04.080]  particular dollar value per copy sold. I no longer own the rights to that book. So when the publisher
[15:04.080 --> 15:09.280]  recalls every single copy, destroys them and says, we're not going to print anymore, end of story,
[15:09.680 --> 15:16.080]  that's it. Income tax shattering the myths could never be sold again, could not be sold by me,
[15:16.080 --> 15:21.520]  and it would not be sold by them. In other words, the thought, the free thought expressed through
[15:21.520 --> 15:26.800]  freedom of speech in the writing of the book and freedom of speech in your ability to read the truth
[15:26.800 --> 15:38.160]  about the income tax, all of that would be gone. And it would be a private company that chose to
[15:39.120 --> 15:48.000]  do it. Are you really going to tell me a monumental truth, a monumental piece of government
[15:48.000 --> 15:54.560]  disinformation that constitutes the largest financial crime in the history of the world?
[15:55.600 --> 16:00.960]  It's okay that that's suppressed, that that's silenced, that that message can no longer get out
[16:00.960 --> 16:07.760]  because it was done by a private company. This is the same reason that I self-publish
[16:07.760 --> 16:14.960]  body science as well, because if this is never going to happen just for the sake of illustration,
[16:15.760 --> 16:24.080]  let's say there are 334 million people in the United States today and 334 million people chose
[16:24.080 --> 16:32.320]  to read body science next week, and 334 million people acted on what they found, what they
[16:32.320 --> 16:39.680]  discovered, what they learned in body science. They chose to act on it. The result of that
[16:39.680 --> 16:48.320]  would be the demise of several trillion-dollar enterprises. So yes, I'm unwilling to give that
[16:48.320 --> 16:54.560]  to a publisher so that perhaps a publisher can be blackmailed into pulling that.
[16:54.560 --> 17:04.160]  But again, I guess that several gigantic false narratives that I destroy in body science,
[17:04.160 --> 17:09.760]  those false narratives having made the American people the most chronically ill society in the
[17:09.760 --> 17:16.320]  history of mankind, I guess it's okay if that message doesn't get out because it's suppressed
[17:16.320 --> 17:25.200]  by private companies. The point of all this is I hope you're better armed to shut down these fools
[17:25.840 --> 17:32.480]  who say it's not censorship. It's totally fine. It's not a big deal because it's not being done
[17:32.480 --> 17:38.080]  by the government. And I haven't even broached the subject, and I'm not going to in this video,
[17:38.080 --> 17:45.600]  broach the subject that the lion's share of the censorship that we've seen over the last several
[17:45.600 --> 17:52.560]  years is driven by the government. It may not actually be done by the government. It may be
[17:52.560 --> 18:00.000]  done by private sector companies, but it's being driven by government. But even in cases where it
[18:00.000 --> 18:09.600]  isn't being driven by government, we still need to value and preserve free speech, the principle of
[18:09.600 --> 18:16.640]  free speech, the exercise of the principle of free speech, and never for a second should we say
[18:16.640 --> 18:21.280]  it's okay if that principle is diminished or destroyed because it's being diminished or destroyed
[18:21.280 --> 18:27.440]  by private companies. Now, if you'd like to get your hands on a copy of Income Tax Shattering the
[18:27.440 --> 18:34.720]  Mist or Body Science, and I encourage you to get them both, go over to doctorreality.news. Simple
[18:34.720 --> 18:39.040]  enough. Click on Store. Grab the books. Put them in the cart. By the way, I'm running a little
[18:39.040 --> 18:47.760]  special right now. If when you're checking out, you enter in the coupon code field, tax honesty,
[18:47.760 --> 18:53.840]  all one word, tax honesty, I will personally autograph and inscribe your copy of Income
[18:53.840 --> 18:58.800]  Tax Shattering the Mist and or Body Science. All I have to do is put tax honesty in the coupon field.
[18:59.360 --> 19:05.120]  We're good to go. And that helps me to continue to be here for you with these sort of presentations.
[19:05.120 --> 19:12.720]  Thanks.