Using free speech to free minds. You're listening to the David Night Show.
As the clock strikes thirteen, it's Wednesday, the twenty ninth of November.
Have of Our Lord, twenty twenty three. Well, we're about three hours
late because we had power outage that just came back. It was off for
over six hours and still not so and what the cause was. But we
still have about twelve thousand people in the area that are out of power.
But we've got a lot to talk about. So I want to get on
anyway, and we'll see what happens with this new time slot. And I
think we're going to necessarily continue with this, but we'll see what happens.
I wanted to talk today. We're going to focus on the ramping up of
censorship. It is really they're stepping it into high gear. And as we
look at this, I think it's what is this is causing. This is
causing people who've been a part of this, who didn't really approve of it,
But now we've got whistleblowers who are coming out to expose it because they
realize how bad this is and how rapidly it is ramping up. So we'll
be right back stay with us. Well again, thank you for all the
messages about concern, and we did put up. I was able to get
on my phone and get up on Twitter that the show is not going to
be going live until we got power back. But of course Twitter is kind
of a dead platform for me, has been for a long time, even
though I typically have a you know, a large number of followers if you
look at it, I've been shadow band there for years and I really just
quit posting anything. It's not put the show up, but that's basically it.
So for those of you, we'll get this out to everybody this afternoon
and we'll put it up as usual. So those of you who listen on
podcast and watch it delayed, you won't notice anything any different. But I
want to thank people for the concern. And let's let's start with what is
happening with free speech because it is. It's kind of interesting, massive new
document dump showing what I've said all along. We always knew that this was
the case. We could detect it from their motives, we could detect it
from what they've been planning for decades. You'd go back, as I've talked
about the fact that in the nineteen sixties, you had JCR. Licklier at
DARPA. So let's create this intergalactic information network, a computer network. They
shortened that to Internet. They didn't have the technology. Once they got the
technology, As I've said before, in the nineties, you had the CIA
was so adamant to get control of this thing that they openly created a venture
capital firm called Inku Tel, and then other venture capital firms were loaded on
their board of directors with people from the intelligence community, people from the NSSA
and the CIA and other things like that. But they had their own venture
capital firm, and all these different venture capital firms were funding and picking the
competitors who are going to play it out. And just like our elections,
you don't get in to being a competitor unless you're somebody that they're going to
ultimately be able to control. And so they get the people that they can
control, and then they say, let the best one of these puppets win,
and so you wind up with a puppet, but it's the strongest of
the puppets that are there. And so that was what social media has always
been about. So why everything was free, That's how they built this thing
up. And now we're getting to look behind the curtain as whistleblowers are coming
out very alarmed about what is happening with it. As a matter of fact,
when you look at the insanity of all this stuff, YouTube is now
going to allow monetization for nudity, for torking, for sensual dancing and things
like that. Not my Christmas songs. However, they will not allow you
to say twenty twenty was a year that the world became China. They won't
allow that. But they will and they say, well, we don't want
to have people's ads show up on something that they might not like, and
we got to have a safe community and we don't want to offend anybody.
But they're going to now start funding this and that is par for the course.
But as we understand, you know, the consequences of this are really
starting to spread out. As I've pointed out, it's not just getting you
know, in twenty eighteen, as this cl thing that we're going to talk
about, as I was being formed, that was when they lowered the boom,
and that's when they openly took out everybody at info Wars. We don't
really care if you notice, right, And then that was in August of
twenty eighteen. Two months later, they took out eight hundred other people on
social media. There were not Trump supporters necessarily. Most of them, as
a matter of fact, were not Trump supporters for that just before that mid
term in twenty eighteen. Most of them were anti war, anti police state,
anti surveillance state. Those are the types of people that were taken out,
people like the Free Thought Project, for example. I interviewed them in
the aftermath of that. It was that was the type of people that they
were removing. I know, when you look at who they're taking out,
and when you look at their history, you pretty much know where this is
coming from. And yet for the longest time we had in the wake of
all that, Trump had the Rose Garden Party and he invited all these conservative
influencers in who were still on social media. Interestingly enough, they weren't influencers
enough that they were worthy to be kicked off at that point in time,
still are not as a matter of fact, and so he brought them in.
He brought in the biggest conservative think tank, Heritage, He brought in
the biggest libertarian think tank, Cato. They were all saying, well,
corporations can do whatever they want. This is not coming from the government.
These are corporations. Corporations like people. They can do whatever they They've got
rights just like you. They can do anything that they want. And you
even had people at Reason doing it, of course, and even John Stossel
said, I don't like the fact that I'm getting censored on YouTube, but
hey, YouTube is a corporation. They can do anything they want. And
I think he really meant I don't really think he was being a show.
I think it's just incredibly stupid about it, really stupid about it. Hadn't
thought this thing through. That's not what our society is based upon. And
so Ron Paul's got a solution about this, and he says we need to
separate tech and state. He said, we need to make sure we have
to have laws that prohibit communication between the government and these social media companies and
things like that, because we know that they are what would be the word
conspiring, conspiring, So we stop them communicating from each other because they're conspiring
against us. It is a conspiracy. It's not a theory. We knew
it for the longest time. Now we've got the receipts, the documents,
we've got the Twitter files. Now we've got the whistle bower about the CITL,
so we know that that is happening. But that's not even the right
answer. The right answer is that we have to understand the difference between human
beings and corporations. They're not the same thing. Mitt Romney said they were.
He's wrong about that is about almost everything. Corporations are not people.
Corporations are a legal entity created by the government, and therefore they have been
given privileges. They have no rights. They've been granted privileges as a way
to exist, and since they're created by a government, they're always going to
be privileged, right. And human beings, on the other hand, are
creatures of God. We have been created by God. We are equal before
God. That's the Christian principles that this country was founded upon. That's what
the Declaration of Independence says. And so that principle, that Christian principle that
all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with inalienable rights, and
that the purpose of government is to protect those rights. That's all government is
opposed to it. That's really the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect
those God given rights. Now that's very different than the government creating a corporation.
And if we go back to that original understanding, we've gotten so far
away from our Christian principles, so we don't even understand what this country was
founded on. The founding fathers were standing on a Christian foundation, the idea
that we are endowed by our creator with inalienable rights. If we get back
to that and we understand that there's a big difference between that and a corporation,
that would short circuit all of this so called public private partnership nonsense,
which is what these people that were conspiring to do. It will get into
the details of it. They were saying, well, someone, as we
called it, a public private partnership, we can do whatever we want.
No, you can't. This is a conspiracy. This is like mission impossible,
mister Phelps. If you or any of your team are caught, we
will disavow any knowledge of which I've been doing for a long time. But
we knew they were lying about that, of course as well. And so
the other part of the puzzle, which would really shut this whole thing down.
So so first of all, you have to understand, well the differences
between rights and privileges you have to understand the difference between corporation and human And
that's really important because the corporations are going to be putting out robots. Are
robots going to be given equal rights to us or superior rights to us?
Yeah, because maybe they're more valuable than us. And so we've got to
get that part of it right. The other thing we have to get right
is we have to go back to what the Supreme Court said in nineteen forty
six Marti Versuses Alabama that I've talked about so many times. They said,
in a cold town where somebody was handing out a religious track, and they
said, you can't do that. This is private property. And they said,
no, the public square, even if it is privately owned, cannot
be censored. This is the digital public square. Jack Dorsey said it multiple
times under oath when he was being questioned about it. We all know that
YouTube and Facebook and Twitter and TikTok and all these companies are de facto digital
public squares, and so we need to have that same approach to it.
Those two things would fix this, and nobody's talking about them. Nobody.
And again I'll say this, had this argument back and forth with Robert Barnes
on the air at Info Wars. The nineteen forty six Marsh versus. Alabama
case was not nullified by subsequent court cases in California and elsewhere where. People
said, I want to be able to set up a soapbox and say whatever
I want to in a protest in a mall. No, you can't.
That private property is retail space. It's not the digital it's not the public
square. It's retail space. They have kiosks there. You can no more
set up your protests in the middle of a mall than you can to go
into Sears or j C. Pennies, if any of them still existed.
I don't even know if they exist anymore. I don't think they shut down.
But you can't go into the department store at the mall instead of up
and you can't do it out in the common area of that. That has
nothing to do with Marsh versus Alabama. Those are completely different things. Oh
what is happening? That is all you got? Does? I pointed out
briefly yesterday James O'Keeffe put on this SSSS list for extra screening on flights,
which means that they not only put him through enhanced and uh, you know,
scanning and things like that. Uh, but they also have a marshall
following him around. And where did that come from? Well, that was
the legacy of Trump and January the sixth and Alex Jones and the stop the
Steal stuff. Anybody who even flew into that general area, just like you
know, Bank of America is reporting anybody that had any financial transactions on January
sixth in that general area. They were all reported to the FBI. And
if you flew into those areas, the fbis put you on their Super Secret
List or the SSSS whatever that stands for. It's like animal House where they
put the guy's on double secret probation. Uh. Like you know, I
laugh at this stuff and I don't really care what they did to me,
but we need to understand this has happening. It gonna happen to everybody.
You know, they're broadening the net over everything. I've got a whole list
here of fake garbage and DEI censorship, DEI based censorship. Because and these
things, even though intrinsically they may not matter, they're like the bump stock
when it comes to the Second Amendment, all of these different issues where they're
going out there and banning this and that because it offends people are going to
ban the name the Kansas City Chief's mascot. And we want to come after
this kid because he's got black and red paint on his face and wearing an
Indian headdress or Christmas Christmas decorations anything. None of that is really important,
just like the bump stock is not really important or the pistol brace is not
really important. But they come after these things to establish a principle. And
the principle is very important. And if you don't pay attention to the principle,
then they will come after the meat of the issue. First. They
do it around the edges with infringement. And that's why, you know,
the founders of this country understood the tactics that would be taken, you know,
and that it would be a gradual process. It'd be done iteratively,
as Fauci said, And so that's why they talked about infringement. And yet
when it comes to free speech, they understand that free speech, unlike the
weapons that we use to protect ourselves from government aggression, the free speech can
be taken away with a pen, a signature on a law. And that's
what they're doing in Ireland and other places as well. So it's a very
important principle and this is being broadened and it's not just going to be when
you look at it, all these different streams of oppression are converging. The
ID, the CBDC, the censorship, the government, you know, complete
control of the narrative to push out their stuff and shut down everybody else,
and the constant surveillance of everybody. All of these streams are coming together.
So of free speech groups are calling on the Congress to block funding of NewsGuard.
You see the way this is operating NewsGuard, Election Guard. They're operated
under Microsoft, but they're being funded by the government. As a matter of
fact, we look at election Guard underneath Microsoft as a corporation that was within
Microsoft, but all their money came from DARPA, had a ten million dollar
contract directly from DARPA. And so the government is pretending again that you know,
as I used to say, you know, this is the iron fist
of censorship and a velvet glove of private ownership. And so that's the way
these things are set up. They go to Microsoft, which has long been
allied with them, ever since they brought Bill Gates to heel with the antitrust
situation. They let him off and he's been their boy ever since. So
they come to him to set these things up. So NewsGuard, election guard,
news guard to guard the election for them, you know, to guard
the news for them, election guard, to guard the election for them.
And of course the next thing that people are not talking about by talking about
it frequently CCPA. So not the Chinese Communist Party of America, but it
might as well be. It's a coalition for content providence, who owned it,
who created it, and authentication, and it is a coalition of hardware
and software companies that are going to work with their handmaids in the media like
the BBC, the New York Times, Washington Post. They will identify those
people, will identify who they don't like, whose content they don't like.
And then the hardware and software companies, you know, the people who do
the CPUs, the people who do the software that creates content. They will
mark everything that you create and make sure that it doesn't even get up to
the Internet. You know, they're not even gonna They're not tent. These
people are thorough. If nothing else, they're not going to just try to
stop the propagation of information. They're going to stop it from being published in
the first place. They're going to identify all of us. They're going to
take us off financially. As I said, it was five years ago that
I was. Five years ago that I was kicked off of everything except Twitter
and then shadow band on Twitter to the point of might as well have been
off. But then it was two and a half years ago on this program
that I got purged financially with PayPal, with Memo and with other platforms like
that. So this is all coming, and it's coming for everybody, not
just people who speak out. It's coming for everyone. And so the interesting
thing about this is the fact that this is still being funded by Congress and
they put it in the NDAA because for them, defending their privileged political position
is something that is more vital than the defense of this nation. Our government
and the NDAA and the Pentagon and the Defense Department and the Military Industrial Complex
and the Intelligence Committee. They're not about defending us. When they talk about
national security, they're talking about their security. They don't care about us.
They don't care about us even in the war. They won't protect our borders.
They are pushing us into a nuclear war. When we have a nuclear
war, they will go to their underground bunkers and let the rest of us
die. That's been the plan from the mid century on. They don't care
about us in any way, shape or form. When they talk about national
security, that's their security. So we don't take them out put them in
a guillotine. As Michael Bloomberg said, well, this is not about our
security, it's about their security. So they're outsourcing the censorship. We all
know that that is what's happening. And before we get into the CTIO,
let's take a look at what is happening in Ireland. As the people have
been saying, is they look at this bill. This is becoming like Fahrenheit
four fifty one. Because their response was not only to say, well I
don't not only do I not care about the massive migration that we're bringing in
and how these people are violent and this knife incident, which is the latest
in a string of incidents. It was the Irish people there did not react
to that one incident. They're reacting to a string of incidents, none of
which the government cares anything about. And that made it very clear that the
Prime Minister, who was from India that the Prime Minister of Ireland from India
decided that the Irish were the problem, just like you got the politician in
Scotland. Too many white people here in Scotland, and I remember where that
guy was from. Anyway. The hate speech to law that Ireland is preparing
to pass is arguably the most radical legislation so far that we've seen in the
formerly Free West, as Western civilization is melting down, as Western civilization is
being leveled by these Marxists. It criminalizes the mere possession of materials that are
likely to incite violence or hatred. That includes books, videos, even memes
on your phone. If you have any of that, that is a criminal
offense and they can lock you up. This is beyond Fahrenheit four fifty one.
As a matter of fact, if the problem, as this Indian Prime
Minister of Ireland says, if the problem is the Irish and these people are
waving Irish flags, don't you think that that is a provocation. Isn't that
likely to incite violence or hatred? According to this prime minister, Well,
of course it is. So you could argue that if anybody's got an Irish
flag in their house, or on their house. They could be arrested,
right, because this is about nationalism and that's why they've got why the leftists
put in people from other countries to run these countries. And the same way
that when you look at Nikki Hilly, right, what does she do well?
She says that Confederate flags were hate symbol. So they're going to be
banned, right, And that is something that is propagated through throughout our society
now. But it began with her. It began with this person who spent
her career at the UN and doing she began her career. As DeSantis points
out in his latest commercial, she began her career, she said, talking
about why she got into politics is because she saw Hillary Clinton speaking. She's
an ambassador to the UN. She loves the UN, she loves the World
Economic Forum, and she hates symbols of our history and she will attribute them
to be hateful. It's hateful. So looking at the law here, it
says persons shall be guilty of an offense under this section if the person prepares
or possesses material that is likely to incite violence or hatred against a person or
group of persons on account of their protected characteristics. What are the protected characteristics?
Well, one of them would be national origin. But you better believe
that it's not going to protect anybody who's Irish. If they talk about being
Irish, they're going to go to jail with criticizing Ireland's open borders even be
legal under this bill? Why no, of course not. And then the
other thing that they've added to this in terms of protected characteristics is now gender.
Gender. So gender would include a transgender, any gender other than male
or female, they said, and by their definition, that's in their law.
Any gender other than male or female. There are no other genders other
than male or female. And if they disagree with that, where did I
get that? I got that from the Bible. He created them male and
female, two genders, and so the Bible has got to go. Have
you got a Bible in your house? Fahrenheit four fifty to one? Take
the Bible? Will you also put you in jail? Right? Ireland's Department
of Justice argued that their previous hate speech laws were not effective. It did
not allow them to jail enough people. Well, here's what do you have
to say addition to that, I think it's now very obvious to anyone who
might have doubted it. That's our incitement hatred. Legislation is just not up
to date. It's not up to date for the social media age, and
we need that legislation through and we need to through within a matter of weeks
because it's not just the platforms of a responsibility here and they do. There's
also the individuals who post messages and images online that stir up hatred and violence,
and we need to be able to use laws to go after them individually
as well. And they said when they talked about the new bill, they
said, quote, it is designed to be more effective in securing convictions.
Yes, this is the very they're wringing their hands and saying, oh,
we've only had a thirty years since we enacted this back in nineteen eighty nine.
We've only had fifty prosecutions. So these provisions were designed to be more
effective in securing convictions. That's what they put out. So the question is
do they have trial by jury in Ireland, and even if they do,
is a jury going to be informed? This is the Irish government's response to
their people's outrage over mass migration. Shut up and take it, I said
one person on Twitter. Of course, in the threat is or we will
lock you up. Now as everybody talks about this and said, what you're
banning free speech, you're banning this, you're banning this. The Green Party
politician had this to say about bans. When you think about it, all
law, all legislation is about the restriction of freedom. That's exactly what we're
doing here is we are restricting freedom, but we're doing it for the common
good. You will see throughout our constitution. Yes you have rights, but
they are restricted for the common good. Everything needs to be balanced. And
if your views on other people's identities go to make their lives unsafe, insecure,
and cause them such deep discomfort that they cannot live in peace, then
I believe that it is our job as legislators to restrict those freedoms for the
common good. Yeah, this is the Green Party that wants to take everything
that you have. It's going to be the Green agenda that is going to
be the basis the climate macguff and the basis for making sure that you own
nothing, let you go nowhere, that you have nothing to eat, that
sort of thing, and it's been going to be done for the common good.
Of course, you know in the World Economic Forum was talking about the
common good. They talked about the common pass and all the rest of these
things, and a common id, common global id. It is communism.
And what she is describing there, you know, if somebody's uncomfortable with what
you're doing, well, they weren't going to ban you from doing it.
Well what if I'm uncomfortable with them doing that? What if they make me
uncomfortable? Well, it depends on who you are. Because we have a
ranking system here. Not all the animals on animal farm are equal. Some
animals are more equal than others. Of course, that's the way they enforce
their their their political law. Get their political foot on your throat. And
of course the most equal animals are the ones like her at the top.
They make the rules, they are protected, and they claim that you are
coming after a national security if you come after them. And so this is
not about rights. This is about privileges the government can take from you and
give to somebody else. So this is something said this writer get his name
here, Nate Hauckman. Nate Houckman said, same thing I've been saying for
the longest time. This is something that we're seeing across the West across Western
civilization. A state that is at war with its own people. He says
its own nation, but here he means his own people. I've said that
as well, and we saw this. This is not something new. This
began in twenty twenty as they were all going through the lockstep to lock us
down. And I said that about Trump, I said, he's a globalist.
Look at what he's doing. He's doing the same thing that Trudeau is
doing. He's doing the same thing that Macron is doing. He's doing the
same thing that all these people that you criticize are doing. He was at
the World Economic Forum. You know, they come after people. It's interesting
they come after people because they have been selected as a World Economic Forum youth
leaders. They came after Vaiveak Ramaswami and he did a lawsuits. They take
my name off of there. You never asked me to put it on there.
So I don't know if that's the way that is with a lot of
these people. But all the time you'll have people say, well, look
at Dan Crenshaw, Tulca Gabbard, they were World Economic Forum Young leaders chosen.
I have not. I'm not aware. Maybe they did. I'm not
aware that they pull back and disavowed that like Ramaswam he did. But then
you have people like the Virginia governor Youngkin, or you have people like the
Georgia governor Brian Kemp, and they actually went, oh, now MAGA really
hates them. What about Donald Trump? Donald Trump went not once but twice.
Donald Trump, as a matter of fact, went right before he locked
us all down. And he did everything that all the other people there at
the World Economic Form did. But we must never say anything about Donald Trump.
I had such I did look at some comments on this, and I
get so much hate after I had David Stockman on yesterday to talk about his
book, Trump's warren Capitalism. Trump was a war with America. He was
at war with the constitution. Capitalism was just one part of it. He
went to war with every single one of us. He told us that we
were non essential unless we were Wall Street Corporation. Unless that unless we were
some kind of multinational stakeholder, we were non essential. Donald Trump did everything
that Klaus Schwab would have done, everything that Klaus Schwab would have done.
He will get no criticism from the Maga cult whatsoever for anything. They will
rightfully criticize all these other people. Just take a look at the Pennsylvania election.
You mayb we had Kathy Bennett there, She says. These other people,
these two front runners that are vying for the endorsement of Trump, they
both went to the World Economic Forum. They're both rich billionaires or millionaires,
multimillionaires or whatever. And so Trump endorsed the rich multimillionaire who went to the
World Economic Forum, who was also a select because that's where he likes to
hang out. That makes it a lot of difference for him, but not
the real conservative, not Kathy Bennett, who called them out for that.
So Trump doesn't have a problem. I mean, did he indorse them because
they're part of Hydra, right hel Hydra because the guy handshake whispers in his
ear? Did Trump do it for that? It certainly did not disqualify them
in his eyes. He didn't care, and maybe that was an advantage for
him to endorse them. But anyway, it is every nation, every government
at war with his own people because these people are all part of the UN
World Economic Forum Hydra club, if you will, and that is what they're
doing. Okay, So Trudeau, as we see the EU putting out their
digital ID. So now we got the digital ID. Now we got the
wallet. Now we've got to put the CBDC in it. Do it soon.
Trudeau is doing this for Canada. He's now opened up a partnership with
the EU for this digital ID. This is why I say, I think
this is why we got whistleblowers, because people are looking at how rapidly this
is coming and understand that they want to have their system in place by twenty
thirty. They're taking us down completely if they follow their plan, if we
don't wake up, if we don't oppose it, if we don't set up
our own way to get out of this net that they've set up, and
a big part of that is the inter net that they've set up. And
we don't find a parallel structure, ways that we can operate outside of this,
not necessarily one hundred percent, even just enough that you can be outside
of it. If we don't find a way to do this, they're going
to take us down one way or the other. It may be with war,
it may be with a phony pandemic, it may be with a real
pandemic, it may be with you name it. Whatever they're going to do,
it's disruption. As Fauci said just before they did this pandemic, you
do it with this uption, you do it from the inside, and you
do it iteratively. But they're stepping this up. The iterations are coming much
more quickly, and they're taking bigger steps, just like watching the Federal Reserve
start to raise the interest rates not by a quarter of a percent each time,
but by three quarters of a percent each time. And so they're ramping
this thing up to take us down. And all of these different streams of
the ID and the CBDC and the censorship and the propaganda, they're all converging
together at once. And and justin Trudeau he says we've now finalized a controversial
well he didn't call it controversial. This is reclaimed the net, saying that
he finalizes a controversial collaborative digital partnership of the European Union full commitment to the
introduction of a digital identity system in Canada, and the government is pursuing it
under the guise of fighting online disinformation. See how they all come together,
And of course, remember Nicki Haley wants to know your name. Nicki's not
her real name. Her real name is Nuki. Her real name is Nimroda
something all with it, and she married somebody who was an American. Uh
so she's again, you know, we need our own Indian foreign president so
we can follow on the path of Ireland, don't we. The Trudeau government's
announcement delineates the terms of the Canada EU Digital Partnership, which aims not only
to institute digital credentials for Canadians, but also to bolster cooperation in the field
of artificial intelligence AI. Well, they're going to do it for data mining
and they're going to that's what they're going to use AI for. They're going
to use it for data mining, and they're going to use it for that
other AI that's been around for a very long time. Anticipatory intelligence or as
you may think of it, pre crime from a Northea report, That has
been something that they've been working on for decades, especially in the nineties.
The Geospatial Intelligence Agency or James Clapper rose fastest growing part of the intelligence agency
in order to do the kinds of things that they did on January the sixth
to conservative protesters, geospacial intelligence to map out your politics, map out your
location whereabouts, to make sure that you don't get out of your fifteen minute
city area. All of these types of things. That's been very important for
them. Geospatial intelligence. They have poured everything into that for the last twenty
years and now they're going to start applying it to us. But a part
of that is anticipatory intelligence AI. That AI, and for anticipatory intelligence,
they're going to need artificial intelligence to help them to collate to mine all this
information that they've got on us with the scanners and the biometrics and all the
rest of this stuff. Gates Foundations doubling down on its push for digital ID
and to tie it to digital money, and they're doing it in Nigeria.
He's focusing on these poor countries. He focused years ago in India, came
up with the Adhar system and he said, well, you know that we
got all these people who are just not in the banking system and we need
to get them an ID. We all understand what he was doing now,
right, don't we? And so he's doing the same thing now in Nigeria.
And what they did in India was they blackmailed people. They went to
the poorest people and they said, we will give you government welfare, will
give you medical care, we'll give you food and things like that, but
you gotta take the number. And that's what they want to do to us.
That's why they're going to destroy everything, why they have to level it
so they have that leverage over us. You take the money, you take
the number of the beast, the number of the government, or you die.
It's just that simple. It's purposely targeting countries where it's easier to get
this stuff through because the way that it operates, But it's really the poor
countries that it makes it easier for him to get through. And Nigeria,
the Gates Foundation President for Global Growth Opportunities, is actually quote challenging the country's
government to make more investments to create a DPI ecosystem, and of course that's
just their buzzword for their digital control. DPI is digital public infrastructure, not
dots per inch, which is all I always think of it as a printer.
But again he's coming out with us publicly. He wants to have fifty
countries within the next five years that are all going to be on CBDC.
And so you know, when you talk about Nigerie, what is their big
problem is that their wars, their race wars, their incredible violence, the
persecution of Christians is happening, and the war on Christians there, No,
it's none of that. None of that. Their problem is they don't have
an ID so we can control them. That's what their problem is. Well,
we're going to take a quick break and we come back. We're going
to start now talking about the CTIL, the files that have now been released,
and Michael Schellenberger has a long article on this, and we'll talk about
that when we come back. Let me just respond to some of the people
who have been kind enough to leave a comment and a tip. As a
matter of fact, on Rockvie and Brian McCartney, thank you very much for
the tip. They said, just glad that you're up and running. Was
praying that you were all safe and that it was only a communication or internet
issue. Thank you very much for that. Even got to sign up for
a Twitter account under Brian's name to check on you. We have been banned
for years from that platform. Well there go, you can get on.
It doesn't necessarily mean that if you're on their bad side, then their bad
list, you know, like I got on that they're ever gonna take me
off. But you can be there and on rock Fan. Thank you very
much, Eric, I appreciate the tip. Thank you. So both of
we've got people on rock Fans rumble up and working. Okay, good And
let me just say this too. You know, a lot of people say,
yeah, what about a power backup? Look, the problem that we
have a power backup and we've had a lot of these power outages here and
the problem with the power backup is that we don't we have internet coming in
in the same way. We don't have the band with We tried getting a
hotspot that we could use with us because he's for us to get a power
back up, a generator or something like that, but the problem is the
internet connection and having the bandwidth to put this out to multiple streams, and
so we can't do that. You know, when this happened before, when
we were in Texas and everything, all the windmills froze that the Republicans had
put in for the billionaires and paid for the infrastructure and paid for running the
wires back to the grid and all the rest of this stuff. I mean,
the crony capitalism and the corruption in Texas is disgusting. It's all coming
from gop so just so you know, but you know, when all that
thing, when the windmills froze and everybody lost their power, we did the
broadcast with a phone because we really were not up at that point in time.
We'd only been doing the show for a couple of weeks, and we
really weren't on at a lot of different places at that point in time.
And the first few shows that we did we did with my son holding the
you know, one of my sons holding the iPhone in front of me on
the desk, and so we had already been doing shows that way just a
week or two before, and so we continued with it. You know,
other places, even Info Wars with all the elaborate backup that they've got there,
they blacked out. But we did it, and we put it up
on Twitter. Had more of an active Twitter account at that point in time,
and I had to do the show with a with a candle, and
so you did a candle light. And then as I was doing the show,
one of the pipes burst, said, Travis and Karen were running around.
My other son was holding the phone, and Karen and Travis were running
around trying to stop the water. You know, mitigate to keep it from
getting over where we were and then get it turned off. And so you
know, we've done that type of thing in the past, but here we've
got enough streams that are going now that the internet is the issue. So
unless we get really high speed wireless internet, which we've not been able to
find yet, the power out of just shut us down. And I don't
know what happened today. Usually this has happened because there's been weather, wind
or something like that knocks over a tree, and because you know a lot
of trees here, it takes out the power to us or to somebody else.
But that was not the case today. It was cold, but it
must have been somebody with an automobile accident that took something out because it went
out about six o'clock and this morning, and so that's what I'm guessing was
really behind it. We're to take a quick break. When we come back,
we're going to talk about the c T I L Files, So stay
with us. We'll be right back. You're listening to the David Knight Show,
Elvis the Beetle and the Sweet Sounds of Motown. Find them on the
Oldies Channel at APS radio dot com. All right. And as I said,
we're talking about the c T I L files. This is like the
Twitter files, but it is more extensive, and it verifies everything that we've
already known. All you had to do was look at who was benefiting from
this and look at what they had done in the past. We knew where
they were headed with this, and if you had any discernment, if you
had any you know, people in the media should have understood this. They
were the ones that I was upset with. I understand the public for the
most part, didn't know it, but there's no reason for people who are
in the media not to understand what this is about. And many of them
didn't, and many of the think tanks didn't understand it. And I don't
think there's any excuse for that Heritage Foundation, CATO reason. All those people
just did not get it, did not understand the principles involved either. Many
people insist that the governments are not involved in censorship, but they are now.
Whistleblower has come forward with an explosive new trove of documents, rivaling or
exceeding the Twitter files and the Facebook files, both in scale and importance,
and I would agree with that. I don't know about the scale, but
I would say this is more important frankly. And so this is a thing
that's been put out on substackics, put together by Michael shellen Berger, Alex
Gutenthogg and Matt Taibi who went through this information. And this is just part
one of this expos but it names names and it shows you exact factly how
they were putting this together. The US and UK, you know, part
of the Five Eyes. And of course they explicitly within this document talk about
doing this with the Five Eyes. The Five Eyes the five English speaking countries
that collaborate with their intelligence agencies. It's one big spy network. That's why
they call the Five Eyes a US, UK, Canada, New Zealand and
Australia. So the US and the UK military contractors created sweeping plan for global
censorship in twenty eighteen, and that's when they went public with their censorship plans.
Now they don't talk about it here, but I just have to say
that no matter how bad TikTok is, no matter how bad it is,
we should not support it being banned because it's just like drugs and the drug
wars. I've said before, if we allow them However, to establish this
that they can take out an entire platform. Guess what's going to happen.
Well, then they'll start complaining. Well, you know, rumble is just
really bad. You see this all the time. Oh, look at this
platform or that platform is filled with Nazis. Well, the Nazis are going
to go wherever there's a real free speech. It's going to be the price
you pay, because to have free speech, you're going to have to put
up with speech that you don't agree with. And so you're going to have
people who are like Nazis, and you're going to have people who are radical
Islamicists that you don't agree with. And that's the price that you pay for
freedom. And if you can't refute people like that, you you don't just
give it up. I mean, come on, they're the easiest people in
the world to take down, argue against. You know, let them speak.
The more they speak, the more they put themselves into a hole.
And you know, so only a very, very sick society is going to
support people like that. And so how do we make sure we don't have
a sick society. Well, we have to have the freedom of speech.
To have freedom of religion, and it is going to be in our religious
values that we're going to be able to pose p like radical Islamisists, people
like Nazis, and people like the ones running our own government right now,
the CIA, the NSA, and these people. They are as bad as
the Nazis. They're as bad as the radical Islamicists. They're even worse because
you don't know who they are and you don't understand what they're up to.
So again, in twenty eighteen, August, Info Wars October eight hundred other
sites. But getting back to this, the one thing I disagree with these
guys on Matt Tybee and Tybee and Schellenberger, they said this is done in
reaction to Brexit and Trump election in twenty sixteen. No, it wasn't.
No, it wasn't. This was planned for decades. I got to contact
Matt Tybee. He contacted me once and interviewed me about censorship, my censorship,
and maybe I can get in touch with him. I'd like to interview
him, and I'd like to expand his horizons. Do you understand the history
of this stuff? Yeah, I'm going back to the ninety he's going back
to the sixties. For sixty years, have been working on this stuff.
Yes, they did it quote unquote in response to Bresit and Trump. They
use that as justification, you understand, justification to roll out what they've been
working on and planning on for decades. You know, that's not to say
that, you know, to say that this is a response to Bregsit and
Trump is to say that twenty twenty and the lockdowns and the vaccines and the
masks and all the social distancing and the ventilators and the rest of this stuff,
to say that was in reaction to COVID, No, it wasn't.
It was their plan that they'd practiced for twenty years. They used that as
an excuse, and it was a phony excuse at that, just like I
think Trump is a phony excuse. I think it was part of them.
I think he was a controlled opposition. Anyway, it was justification. They
planned this all along, they practiced it. They're moving step by step,
doing it from the inside, doing it with disruption. So he said this
digon twiszle blowers come forward with an explosive neutrobe of documents rivaling or exceeding the
Twitter files, Facebook files, and so forth. They described activities as of
an anti disinformation group quote unquote called the Cyber Threat Intelligence League League the league
I was looking at that. I always think of the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.
Well, I guess this is the League of extraordinary non gentleman You go
back to the early part of the twentieth century, and I forget whether it
was British or American intelligence. This is one guy who is head of the
intelligence agency. And there we was just you know, they said, well,
you know, they were surveilling somebody and they wanted him to look at
their mail. He says, I'm sorry, gentlemen, did not read other
gentlemen's mail. If only we had people like that in government, now can
you imagine? So this is the extraordinary non league of non gentlemen that are
doing this. And so they said, well, this is nothing, but
this is a a volunteer project, a volunteer project to people who were defense
and intelligence veterans, and not even just veterans. By veterans, they mean
they've been there a very long time. Doesn't mean that they had left.
And these are people who pretended that this is a public private partnership. Well,
you know, I yes, for a long time I worked for them,
and oh, by the way, and I still do. But I
have this private corporation on the side, which is one hundred percent funded by
the intelligence agencies. But it's a private public partnership. And as long as
it's a private public partnership, I can do whatever I want. The First
Amendment doesn't apply. Do you understand how phony that is? This is way
beyond what we find out in these files. This is way beyond the idea
that you know they're they're sending messages to Twitter and Facebook and telling them shut
down David Knight or whatever. This is way beyond that. This is These
are people who are openly talking about how they're going to do it. And
as long as we have the pretense that this is private, we can disavow
any knowledge of what is actually happening here, any responsibility, and we don't
have to follow the law. We don't have to follow the first because we've
got a private company here. And that's the kind of thinking that was coming
out from Heritage Foundation and cater Institute. Somebody needs to look at their connections
to the military industrial complex. Were they shills for them saying that kind of
stuff? So partnerships. They also had partnerships with the role of military and
intelligence agencies. They had partnerships that partnerships with civil society organizations, you know,
like George Soros, and with commercial media, mainstream media. And they
used sock puppet accounts to go on offense against people. So lock your excrement
down, says one document about creating your spy disguise. That's what they called
it. Your spine is. But of course this is all allowed, isn't
it under their rules? Under their new rules, all the stuff in why
to people? You can do it in secret? What does Nikki think about
this? Niki Haley? You know she wants to know their name. Well,
what's that going to do with the talk puppet accounts? Well, of
course they'll be able to do things secretly because they're different, all right.
They're the intelligence community. They're the government. The rules don't apply to them.
They make the rules for us. They are the government. Here and
Other explains that while such activities overseas are typically done by the quote typically quote
unquote by the CIA, in the NSA and the Department of Defense, we
can do this against Americans if we use private partners because the government doesn't have
the legal authority to do this. So let's use, you know, put
on the the Groucho Marx glasses with a big nose and the mustache, and
we will do this as a private corporation, will pretend that we're the private
corporation. This is over the last year we've had congressional investigators and others document
the rights of the censorship industrial complex and network of over one hundred government agencies
and also non governmental organizations that worked together to urge censorship by social media platforms
and to spread propaganda about disfavored individuals, topics and all entire whole narratives.
Nothing new about any of this stuff. And then what they say when they
look at the whistleblower, So they find that at the epicenter of this is
the cyber Security Information Security Agency SISA. They tried three times to pass it
when it was called SISPA p and then they tried SOPA ACTA PIPPA, various
forms of this. They all failed. They dropped the P. What is
the PA about protection? And they had that there because the gist of it
was that they wanted to protect private corporations that were going to partner with them
you understand, you see, this is all private public partnership, and so
that p stood for protection, but it could also stand they could do peepee,
it's getting too many letters there, so it could be cisp CISPA,
cis p PA, you know, protect the private part of the security agency.
And it was clear from that how you know, if you looked at
that process. And again they tried it at least two times as CISPA.
They also tried SOPA active PIPPA, and they were all the same, and
they were all being opposed by Aaron Schwartz, who was a part of the
cyber community. And they killed him. They killed him, said he committed
suicide. He did not commit suicide because they were going to trumped up charges
against him. It was the federal government. They accused him of breaking into
Harvard and doing some stuff onl line. Harvard looked at, they didn't care.
Local law enforcement looked at they didn't care. So they got the federal
attorney to come after him, and and he didn't care. This wasn't his
first rodeo. He was like, I'm not gonna do anything about that.
But then he dies and they take him to jail. He dies in jail,
and they say, well, you know, he committed suicide like Jeffrey
Epstein or something right, and and and and so people got very angry with
the federal attorney who was prosecuting or persecuting him, I should say. And
her husband, her name was Carmine Ortiz. Her husband put out on social
media she didn't drive him to suicide. She was she gave him an offer,
said, okay, do this and we'll just take it down to you
know, not decades in prison, but we'll do it for you know,
three months or something like that. And so he didn't do it for that.
Well, then he took that down, but it was too late.
People got it. And so that completely belies the motivation of suicide because he
was so distraught, or the fact that he was going to go to jail
for a very very long time, as if he was involved in January the
sixth. Of course, it's all pre dated January sixth by quite a bit.
But he had fought that. He told people what this is about,
and he was a point man fighting in I think it was Mike McCall out
of Texas who was a point man who was pushing SISPA and original and then
finally got it through as SISSA, but it was always this is at the
center of all this, And understand that these intelligence organizations were always creating this
web of the military and the intelligence agencies and then private corporations and the p
in there was initially there to say, well, we're going to protect any
companies that turn over information about the people who are using their service on the
Internet. Were going to protect them from being sued by the those people,
and that's what it did, but also created this new bureaucracy and her homeland
security. So they have emails between sissa's social media partners show that they created.
SISA created the Election Integrity Partnership in twenty twenty, which involved the Stanford
Internet Observatory and other US government contractors. I'm sure in that there's also the
one that operated out of the University of Indiana, and I've talked about that
before. Oh so me and they had the guy that was head of that
social media manipulation monitoring and manipulation thing. The guy who was there had come
over from Italy to be put in charge of the Kinsey Perverted Sex Institute,
which is part of that university there in Indiana. This conservative state alex all
Republicans, and they've got the Kinsey Institute there, and so they brought this
I were from India in Italy, not India Italy to run that thing,
and then they moved them over to be their spy on social media anyway.
Then the successor to the EIP, the Election Integrity Partnership, was the Virality
Project, and it was the one that was communicating with Twitter, Facebook and
other platforms that sensor social media posts by ordinary citizens and also by elected officials,
all of them. And again it's very difficult to follow this web of
intrigue, and it's not necessary to follow this web intrigue. As they point
out, there's more than one hundred organizations, and then there's the private ones,
and then there's all the corporations, and they keep changing them as they
did with this, But the framework is the same. The framework is this
excuse of it being public private. The public private model the seeds of what
both the US and the UK would put into place in twenty twenty and twenty
twenty one, including masking censorship within cyber security institutions and counter disinformation agendas,
a heavy focus on stopping disfavored narratives and not just the wrong facts. You
see the ctil's approach the disinformation. They went far beyond censorship. It shows
that they engaged in offensive operations to influence public opinion, discussing ways to promote
counter messaging, to co op hashtags, to dilute disfavored messaging, to create
sock puppet accounts, and to infiltrate private invite only groups. And we saw
all of this happening through the so called pandemic, and of course it's all
ways been there to some extent, and even more so now with the climate
stuff. So the Internet and social media were created for this very purpose.
The FBI declined to comment to these people about this. SISA would not comment
on it, but they don't have to. We know one particular person named
terp she was one of the key players. She would also not respond.
They said that one person that did respond, by the name of Bonnie Smalley,
replied over LinkedIn and said quote, all I can comment on is that
I joined a CTI league, which is not only which is unaffiliated with any
government organizations, and I did it because I wanted to combat the inject bleach
nonsense online During COVID. I can assure you that we had nothing to do
with a government, though I'm not assured, uh, And I don't know
what her motivations are. I find that difficult to believe. Quite frankly,
this injecting bleach nonsense that she's talking about. This is so stupid that I
didn't believe it was. I didn't believe that even Trump believed it. It
was so stupid. And I've said this, you know all this stuff,
Oh, you know, could inject sunlight in people's veins, and we could
do this, and we could do that. And he does that in conjunction
with a droxy CLOrk one which, along with zinc, was going to was
working for a lot of people and getting them over the respiratory disease rather than
sending them to the hospital where Trump's richly rewarded hospital protocol was killing people.
But he put this stuff out. He played the fool, He played the
clown Defauci's serious scientist. Oh that's Trump. You just can't You can't believe
anything this guy says. He doesn't know. I'm the scientist here. He
played costello to Fauci's abbot. He was the clown de Fauci's straight man,
and I don't believe that this was something that's been injecting bleach nonsense. She
had to get online and become part of this to stop that. Nobody was
taking that seriously. It was so stupid, not even Trump would take it
seriously. So that's a bunch of nonsense, right there, Geesebusters, Good
to see you there, and thank you so much. That's very generous.
I appreciate that. On Rumble, David, so glad you're back up,
started getting with Dralton fifteen this morning. Yeah, so did I I was
getting really antsy about all this stuff as you get into this in terms of
a habit and it's like, oh no, but anyway, Yeah, back
to this. So terp this the person who was at the very center of
this. She had a SISA badge, but it went away at some point,
said the whistleblower. Yeah yeah, mister Phelps. Let's see, IA
will disavow any knowledge of you if you're caught or captured. So you know,
these are people who work for them, people who still work for them
putting this stuff together. As a matter of fact, kind of the co
founder of all this thing was a guy who was working with Let's see here
it is right here. His name is Pablo Brewer Pomblow. He was also
a leader with the League, the League of Non Gentleman and he was somebody
who was a former US Navy commander. Poblow was uh. He was military
director of US Special Operations Command Donovan Group. UH. He had been an
advisor and an officer UH to the National Security Agency, the US Cyber Command,
many of these other things. So he's heavily involved in military intelligence also
with the NSA all the rest of the stuff. Look, when I was
doing all this uh investigation into asymmetric warfare, Admiral McRaven was head of Special
Operations at the time, and what he was saying was, we've always we've
come to think of special Forces green Berets and others, you know, including
Navy seals. We've come to think of them in terms of kinetic operations,
in other words, jumping out a plane and scuba diving and all the rest
of this stuff, and underwater demolition. He says, that's not the way
the Special forces began. Special forces were originally set up as psychological operations.
That's what we've got to get back to Originally, the special forces are sent
into an area where we might be injecting our military, where we might be
you know, starting a war or something like that, and they would go
in to identify who is going to be on our side, who was not
going to be on our side. I think that was really what jade Helm
was about. And so they, you know, do certain things and then
see how people reacting. Okay, I know when you know, we act
as if we're going to come in do something, but we're not really We're
just testing their reactions. Oh now I know where their loyalties lie. And
so again, these people have always been about special operations, have always been
about PSIO. Also, looking at this, they had the so called All
Volunteer League of Censorship had grown to about fourteen hundred members in seventy six countries
and they were vetted, vetted and spanned forty five different sectors, but fourteen
hundred members in seventy six countries, and they helped a lawfully take down twenty
eight hundred cyber criminal assets on the internet. They said, well, yeah,
sure, how do they define criminal? Imagine they defined me as criminal.
But look, this is the Stazi approach. We are so they're volunteers,
so what if they are The people in East Germany were volunteers who worked
for the Stazi. I told the story before the woman who was an American
issue went to She went to East Germany because she loved Communism. She really
loved it. She was that stupid. And the people who lived under Communism,
the East German secret police, they couldn't leave her motives. It's like,
there's no way she's here because she likes communism. Why would anybody leave
American move here? We got nothing here, right, So they are very
suspicious effort. She meets a guy in East Germany, she marries him.
Again, they don't trust her, and she has all these friends that were
so nice to her and everything. She found out years later when they released
the papers from the Stazzi, that almost all of her friends were informants to
the Stazi on her. That's what these people are. These are traders to
the United States. All of these people. I don't care if they've got
a title, I don't care if they got a uniform. I don't care
how long they worked as a veteran in the military. You are a trader.
If you do this, you have broken your oath to the Constitution.
You betrayed your own people to set up a globalist government. They stressed that
there were simply volunteers that were motivated by altruism, and they did it at
places like the Aspen Institute. Interviewed a guy who is lone Conservative and Aspen
who was reporting about the Aspen Isitute and other things like that. Terp again,
the woman who was one of the founders and leaders of this I guess
we could call it the say the USA has now come the United Stazi of
America. These people united through this league, united through the intelligence community,
Terp said. In a twenty nineteen podcast, she said, cognitive security is
the thing that you want to have, you want to protect that cognitive layer.
It's basically, it's all pollution. It's about pollution, misinformation, disinformation.
It's all a form of pollution across the Internet. See, she's really
just an Internet environmentalist. Let's get out all this stuff that I don't like.
It's just just purging out of there. No, it's not about that
at all. What this is about is the government lying to people and then
shutting down anybody who questions their lines. It's just that simple. We're all
conspiracy theorists, we're all anti vaccine and all the rest of this stuff.
And it's like you, you know, you're right about that. I don't
care that you use it as a pejoraty of term. I'll accept that label.
Brewer. Getting back to Brewer, who worked for Special Forces. A
Navy commander, he admitted in a podcast that his aim was to bring military
tactics to use on social media platforms to shut down speech that he didn't like,
speech that the government didn't like. He said, I wear two hats,
he says, I'm military director of the Donovan Group. And remember the
Donovan Group as part of US Special Operations Command. So I'm military director of
the Donovan Group and one of two innovation officers at soft Works, which is
also involved in all that. And he says, but then I'm the other
hat that I've got. I'm completely unclassified five oh one C three nonprofit that
is funded by US Special Operations Command. So how is that private? Again?
It's no different from Election Guard, that is an organization under Microsoft but
funded with a ten million dollar grant from DARPA. Is a DARPA thing,
right, Election Guard is a DARPA thing. I don't care about it being
under typically under Microsoft or whatever. It's being funded by DARPA. It's a
darp operation. This is a Special Forces operation. They're the ones paying for
it. They own it, they're directing it. They've got a guy who
has all these other responsibilities and he's running this thing. Come on, how
stupid do they think we are? Now? He went on to describe how
they thought that they were getting around the First Amendment. He said, We've
got to have non traditional partners in one room, he said, and maybe
somebody from one of the social media companies, maybe a few special Forces operators,
maybe some folks from the Department of Homeland Security to talk in a non
attribution an open environment, in an unclassified way, so that we can collaborate
better, more freely, really start to change the way that we address some
of these issues and control people. They advocated for police for military, for
intelligence involvement and censorship, and they advocated for it across all five ey nations,
the US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and they
even suggested that they are to bring Interpol in with them. This is a
global censorship operation, to bring in a global governance so they said, we
need to prebunk things again, anticipatory intelligence. We've got to stop stuff from
going. That's what the CCPA is about, coalition for content, providence and
authentication to stop you to pre bunke it. They're going to identify the same
thing that NewsGuard does. NewsGuard says, oh, okay, this guy oppose
our narrative. We're going to block everything that comes from this guy. And
so that's what this is about, pre bunking, preemptively inoculating a vulnerable population
against messaging. And so in all of this, Brewer says, we have
a public private model of censorship laundering. What DHS and others are going to
embrace. He said. He spoke freely and openly on podcasts, and what
he said about it was he said, it's comparable to what's being implemented by
the Chinese government in terms of the Great Firewall of China, which was the
famous you know, long ago they were the only ones doing it, but
you know they worked it out there. Now they want to do that everywhere.
As I said you, twenty twenty was the year the world became China,
and so the Great Firewall of China they could block information coming into their
country. But here's what Brewer. Brewer and Terp the founders of this CTIL,
the Censorship League, what he said was, he said, want to
have in mind as comparable to what's been implemented by the Chinese government, only
we will make it more palatable for Americans. He says, if you talk
to the average Chinese citizen, they absolutely believe the Great Firewall of China is
not there for censorship. They believe that it's there because the Chinese Communist Party
wants to protect the citizenry, and they absolutely believe that that is a good
thing. If the US government tried to sell that narrative, we would absolutely
lose our minds and say no, no, this is a violation of our
First Amendment rights. So the in group and the outgroup messaging have to be
different. In other words, we've got to say something within our group,
we know that we're setting up a great firewall, we know that we're setting
up censorship like the Chinese do, but we can't tell the American people,
and we have to come up with a different way to couch this. We
can't say this is coming from the government. We've got to pretend that it's
coming from private institutions, even though I'm in both the even though the government
is funding and running this through these sellouts like Brewer, even though this sellout,
this Pablo Brewer is selling us out and violating his oath to the Constitution.
You got to sell it as if it's a private organization. What a
disgusting person. You ought to be in jail, along with James Clapper,
along with Michael Hayden, who says there's no difference between Hamas and a conservative
like me. Well, I'll tell you why. There's no difference between Michael
Hayden and Hamas. They are one and the same thing, one and the
same thing. There's no difference between Michael Hayden and Shijen Ping. There's no
difference between Michael Hayden and Stalin, any of these dictators. The only difference
between them is that he hasn't consolidated his power completely yet. And we better
make sure that people like Michael Hayden, Pablo Brewer, and this TOWRP Turp
is her name, not TWRP but TWRP. That's we got to make sure
they don't have the power. So yeah, but look, he is really
wrong about this. Fundamentally right. People are being so indoctrinated and miseducated by
our government institutions that the people who are in K through twelve, the people
who are in universities, they really do believe that a great firewall and censorship
is there to protect them, and they really do want this. And this
is where we're headed, and this is what our task is. Our task
is to uh to get these people who are being programmed to say, well,
this is a microaggression and you've got to have the government here to protect
you and make you feel safe. Just like you heard that green tyrant in
Ireland say well, you know, yeah, we're going to ban stuff if
you make if somebody feel uncomfortable, Yeah, we're going to ban it.
You see, she's selling the same thing that he's selling, and the same
thing that China has sold. And I think he's lying about that, but
I think that he will get people in the US to embrace their chain I
will engage in this Stockholm totalitarianism. And that's the unfortunate thing. And that's
why at the very center of this really are these schools. They're the ones
that are preparing everybody for this slavery in the coming generations. The ethos was
that we would get away with it as legal and there were no First Amendment
concerns because we have a public private partnership. That's the word we use to
describe it to disguise those concerns. Private people quote unquote private people can do
things public servants can't do, and public servants can provide the leadership, the
coordination, and of course the money. And you notice this is the same
thing that was being parroted at that same time by the Heritage Foundation, by
Cato, by Reason, by John Stossel, all the rest of these people
embracing their slavery, selling this idea of slavery to you because you know,
again, corporations can do no wrong right corporations, As I said before.
The way we get around this we have to have the understanding that corporations not
people. God creates people withinnalienable rights. Governments are there to protect those inalienable
rights. Corporations are not people. They're created. They're creatures of government.
They have been given privileges, and we need to understand above all, we
need to start looking at corporations as not somebody. You know, libertarian view
of corporation has always been. Well, like you know, they have to
eat. Greed is good. Why is greed good? They say, well,
greed is good because these people are going to operate from a position of
greed, but they're going to operate in terms of in their own self interest,
in their own greed. They have to provide goods and services that people
want. They have to compete. They have to provide better services, better
products that are better priced than their competitors do. So even though they're greedy,
even though the greed is motivating them, that's a good thing. You
know. They want to have money, they want to succeed, so they're
going to do this stuff that's incredibly naive because we don't have a free market
anymore. We have all these corporations only want to please the government because they
want to be part of the stakeholder club. They want to have a franchise.
They know that anybody who's not in that stakeholder club is going to be
shut down. The mom and pops are going to be non essential, just
like Trump told them in twenty twenty, shutting them down. Service businesses.
No, we're not going to have you. And so these big corporations want
to please the government. They don't. Nascar doesn't care about their people,
Budweiser doesn't care about their customers. They care about play. They got one
customer and that's the government. And that's why this whole thing about corporations can
do You know the well corporations are competing against each other. And where have
you been for the last several decades. You haven't seen what is happening.
You still don't see what is happening with these corporations pushing this stuff down the
throat of their customers and offending them to the point of boycott. And they
can still continue to do it. Why because the government is funding money to
them, because they can raise money on Wall Street and they don't need customers
and if they can make the government happy. So you need to understand,
and we should start viewing all corporations as compromised. We should view all corporations
as complicit. We should view all corporations as bribeable and controllable, because they
are. And we've seen this, there's absolutely no question about it. It
doesn't matter if it's NASCAR or Coca Cola, Butdweiser, any of these companies,
they're all bribed and controlled and they're complicit in selling this agenda. They're
not selling the rope that's going to be used to hang them. They're selling
the rope it's going to be used to hang you. They're ingratiating themselves into
a position with this satalitarian government that's going to serve them in the long run,
and that's why they're throwing this stuff out. One last thing I'll say
before I take a break. Paul as I mentioned earlier, he ores what
he calls the separation of tech and state. He says some libertarians dismiss concerns
over social media company suppression of news and opinions that contradict select agendas by pointing
out that these platforms are private companies and not part of the government. And
I'm glad that Ron paul is saying this, because he's got clout with people
like John Stoscil and others. It may be seen whether they will turn on
him for saying this or not. But what Ron Paula is saying here is
absolutely true. He says. There's two problems with this argument. He says,
first of all, there's nothing unlibertarian about criticizing private businesses or using peaceful
and voluntary means such as Boycott's to persuade businesses to change their practices. Well,
that's one part of it. What do you do when they control everything,
they monopolize it, or they've got a little oligarchy of everything and they
use it to control everybody, you know, like Seamus Breemer, I think
his name the Control of Arks that I am reading last week. Second thing
he says is this idea that they're private companies. This argument does not hold
water. The tech companies censorship has often been done at the request of government
officials, and I would say bequest of the government officials. The extent of
government involvement with online censorship has been revealed in emails between government and employees of
various tech companies, and in these emails, the government officials addressed employees of
these private companies as though these employees were the government officials subordinates. We already
knew that it was easy to discern, and when we look at these latest
files, these CTIL files, it's been clear that some people need to be
called to account for violating their oath to the Constitution. People like Pablo Brewer
and this terp need to be kicked out of their government positions. They need
to have their their tensions taken away, and they need to be jailed quite
frankly, because they have been traders to the American people. They have violated
their oath to the American people. They are quizzlings of the globalist scheme selling
what all these globists want. And that's the difference with this stuff. Yeah,
we should not allow these corporations to censor people because it is a digital
public square. And that's what Ron Paul does not say. Again, going
back to Marshasses Alabama, but we shall also have some punishment for the people
who betrayed us, But I don't think that's going to happen. Look at
twenty twenty. These people literally kill people with the Trump shots. They literally
kill people with the protocol and the hospitals, and they're richly paid by Trump
to do both of those things, and nobody's holding them to account. And
the Conservatives, even though they look at this stuff and they understand what's going
they will not hold Trump accountable. Nobody is going to be held accountable to
this stuff. Government officials using their authority to silence American citizens as a blatant
violation of the First Amendment says Ron Paul. Of course that is a blatant
a violation of the Constitution and they should be punished for that. I say,
yeah, some conservative elected officials and writers think the solution to the problem
a big tech censorship is to give government more power over technology companies. Instead
of giving the government more power over social media, defenders of free speech should
work to separate the two. And what he means by that is that his
son Rand and Jim Jordan have introduced a bill to make it a crime for
any federal employee or employee of a federal contractor to use his position to communicate
with a social media company to interfere with any Americans exercise of First Amendment protected
rights. Have a question, why is it not a crime? Since these
people violate the Constitution, there has to be some way that you can come
after them. It takes just a little bit of creativity looking at this.
But don't tell me that you can't think it's something to charge these people with
that. You can't kick them out, take people out for not taking the
Trump poison. You can't kick them out for this. I'm sure you can
think of something if you really try. Jim Jordan and ran Paul, but
I don't think they're serious about it. They want to posture for people who
are upset about this. Well, quite frankly, that's just not good enough.
Same thing Conor McGregor said, you know, I'm sorry, that's not
good enough. You're going to have to do better than that. You're gonna
have to do more than have a speech or hold a hearing. You better
put these people in jail. Anyway. Ron Paul goes on to say big
tech censorship as a problem created by big government. Solution lies not with giving
government more power, but by separating tech and state. Well, I say
we give the death penalty to some of these corporations that have done this.
They were given birth and created by the government. They exist as a government
privilege. They have served these government traders to subvert the Constitution. And I
think that they ought to be dissolved. And I think these people ought to
be fired and then to have their pensions taken, and they ought to go
to jail. Anything less than that is not good enough, not good enough.
We'll be right back. Whether you're feeling like the booze or bluegrass aps
radio has you covered. Check out a wide variety of channels on our app
at apsradio dot com. You're listening to the David Knight Show. Well,
I got a couple of comments here from Guard Goldsmith and from Jason Barker.
Thank you, guys, and thank you for watching. I knew at least
you two guys will be watching because Karen contacted you as always. I know
Jason saw the tweet that I put out earlier. Guard, thank you for
the tip on rock Fan. He says that David, it's great to see
you all back with the power, the power of truth and research. Thank
you. I can rely on you to dig into the news and teach as
you report. Well, thank you very much. Guard. And of course
Guard does the same thing. He's been on this as well. He knows
what this is all about. And Jason, thank you. He says,
I'm waiting for the little car on your desk to burst into flames. Looks
like an early Tesla model. Yeah, if I haven't flamed it yet,
I don't know if it's burst into flames. As angry as I got about
this, let's talk a little bit about fake stuff again. As I said
before, this is really kind of like the bump stock stuff, but it
gives you an insight into the character of these people and the purposes of what
they want to do with this power that they're giving themselves their power over us
with information, with education and these you know, the censorship that is rolling
out here. And I thought it was kind of funny coming out of well,
this actually is been covered by Japan today. Fake AI generated woman on
a tech conference agenda leads Microsoft and Amazon executive to drop out. See,
they're okay with fake women as long as their breathing, But this is completely
This is a fake woman who is just completely artificial intelligence generated AI generated,
And so that kind of a fake woman is just a step too far from
them. Just yet, as a matter of fact, you know, they
worship the fake women who are really men, but tach. Executives at Microsoft
and Amazon have dropped out of an upcoming software conference after at least one of
the women on the agenda turned out to be fake. This conference is called
Devternity, and the organizer admitted on social media that one of the featured speakers
was an auto generated woman as opposed to bruce gender or people like that.
I guess they're not auto generated. I guess they have to be generated by
some other surgeon or something, but anyway, he had a fake title.
He was responding to allegations about a number of suspicious profiles on his conference websites
that appeared to be generated by AI. So it's not just one woman that's
AI generated, but a bunch of people there were going to be presenters at
his conference or something. He denied that the fake profile was intended to mask
the quote worse than expected level of diversity of speakers. You see, this
is what Microsoft is really upset about. The people that were going to go
are really upset about this because you know, we just don't have enough diversity,
and he's faking this stuff to get diversity. And that's how badly he
needed to have diversity. He knew that it was so important to the people
at Amazon and Microsoft and these other tech companies that he faked it. I
found out that I was the only woman on the agenda, and some of
the others advertised may not be real, said Amazon Web Services executive and Microsoft
executive set an X that he only speaks at conferences with an inclusive lineup,
and he said I was duped by the false speakers that he had here.
If only they could get some real training women to show up. You know,
somebody like this guy who is in Nashville, not Nashville, Tennessee,
but Nashville, Illinois, who is a self identified pedophile and has been for
five years making threats against Christians and Blacks and everybody that he hates. He's
filled with hate, filled with hate, and yet he's not guilty of hate
speech. And the FBI did nothing about this until just now. And of
course he went on a tirade after the Nashville shooting. By that training,
we still can't see the trnifesto, but we see this guy his trail,
and people were pointing it out to the FBI and other people who failed to
act on it for five years. And so a trends identified Illinois man from
Nashville, Illinois, self described pedophile, is facing charges for making social media
threats to sexually assault Christian girls, young girls, and to commit copycat attacks
somewhere to the attack at a Christian school in Tennessee earlier this year. See
is this kind of trans insanity that is being hidden and covered up by the
government. His name is Jason Lee Willie of Nashville, Illinois. Charged November
seventh in US District Court in Illinois fourteen felony accounts of interstate communication of a
threat to injure. So you see this is coming from the Feds. It's
in a US district court, and it's about interstate communication. But he was
able to do this for five years, and he was able to do it.
Was it eight or nine months ago? Eight months ago in March when
you had the Nashville killer. The threats dated between March and August include repeated
references to Christians, black Americans, the publican party, and everybody that he
hates. And that's what I said about this training killer in Nashville. She
had been trained to hate herself being white, trained to hate her sex,
being female, and then hating everybody else. And that's exactly what's going on
with this guy as well. Among the alleged threats sided in the indictment are
threats to quote bomb churches. He said, we're gonna bomb them. We're
gonna bomb them. We're going to bomb the churches. We're gonna bomb them.
You know, we're going to kill you. And then he did videos
about this. In a video, he made reference to quote Christian trash unquote,
he said they're transphobic, they're homophobic. They're no different from the explitive
white supremacists. He also frequently used racial epithets and threatened to target anyone with
a around your neck. He said he had other video threats. He said,
we're coming for your children. We're not going to hurt you. We're
not going to hurt you. You have to understand I know how to get
to you. And that's by and he pounds his fist and his palm twice
for emphasis. That's by effing your children, By hurting your children, And
that's exactly what we're gonna do. I guarantee I'll be in the bathroom raping
your Christian daughters. And there ain't nothing you can effing do about it.
You hear me, he said, So, I guess he can get in
the bathrooms because of the Biden and Obama rules. In an August video,
he appeared to identify himself as a pedophile when he graphically described sexual abuse towards
little girls. He said, you guys can't do nothing about it. I
don't care. I'm openly a pedo. I'm openly a pedophile. So he
said he's tired of being picked on. We're going to go to the schools.
We're going to kill their effing children out here, and that's the end
of it. We're at. Is this the kind of talk that's in this
trenifesto that the Metropolitan Police in Nashville and especially THEBI. The FBI were the
ones that said, don't with the Metropolitan Police are going to release it.
The FBI told him, don't do it. So is this kind of language
that was there, this kind of threats. It appears to be that from
the three pages that we saw, they're very interested in trying to keep this
secret and trying to cover up this kind of hate that they have inculcated in
people. The authorities declined to provide even a booking photo of this guy,
but some other people had a picture of it that they were able to get.
But they don't even want to show the picture of this guy, just
like they don't want to show the manifesto of that killer in Nashville. Willie's
online communications generated complaints to the FBI on at least four occasions from twenty eighteen
on to twenty twenty two, and they needed a whole bunch of them when
this killing happened in Nashville, Tennessee in March and continued on through August.
The FBI did nothing about this for five years. But boy, they'll show
up to your doorstep, won't they if they can connect you to January sixth
somehow. On March twenty eighth, just one day after the shooting in Nashville,
the FBI received a report of an alleged Facebook post where Willie said quote,
there will be many more and larger attacks on Christians by transgender people and
that Christians would come to know fear like never before. This is yeah,
this is a protected person. You see. This is the kind of person
you're not allowed to criticize in Ireland or they'll throw you in jail. And
then when we look at the other fake stuff that is coming out, we
have the we have the guy who was the founder of Chipolti who was kicked
out of the company when they had problems with them E Coli and neurovirus poisoning,
and so you know, he's been kind of you know, sitting on
the sidelines and reading books by Bill Gates, and now he is coming back
with a food chain that is going to be meatless and have robots that are
going to be cooking the food. But he's going to watch a chain of
foods, a chain of restaurants run by robots. Yeah, maybe it'll be
something like this. You know, it's a very big it's a very big,
fluffy fun where's the beef? Hamburger places give you a lot less beef
and a lot of bun where's the bee? Bawdy's? We say a hamburger?
We modest you remember that commercial. That's a great commercial. I imagine
people will do something like that. This is going to be an easy target
for any of his competitors. Quite frankly, where's the beef? Any beef
here? Where are the people? There's no people here either? Who needs
people? Who's going to buy his food? You know? When these geniuses
have replaced all their employees. So he said, yeah, I spent a
lot of time, you know, while I was kind of sitting on the
shelf after I got kicked out of my company because we couldn't make food wholesomely.
Well, then I was reading this stuff from Bill Gates, How to
Avoid a Climate Disaster by Bill Gates, And so he designed this restaurant as
a new kind of restaurant that would need fewer resources to run. Yeah,
we can't use any energy and can't use any resources, and we can't use
any meat. So what am I gonna do for a restaurant? Oh,
I'll open fifteen locations throughout New York City, and I will serve fake chicken
sandwiches along with cucumbers and wild rice. Ah. They're going to be beating
a path to this guy's door. It's going to be so good to see
this guy squander the money that he's got. Left catered and operated by his
skeleton crew with a lot of robots to do the job. Wall Street Journal
said that customer orders would be beamed to the kitchen. Isn't that great?
You know? This is? They don't just the beam it to beat me
up, Scottie. It's going to be beamed to the kitchen, where a
robotic arm will put food laden pans into the oven. A programmed toaster flips
a bun into the oven for warming, and while conveyor belts move dishes throughout
the kitchen. Workers finish off the dishes, package the food, and slot
it into cubbies for pickup. Wow. This sounds like a great place to
eat, isn't it. El's is the guy's name. He assembled a small
team to figure out how to use a commissary kitchen and robotics to squeeze into
spaces of only a thousand square feet or smaller and to turn out to go
orders. Maybe he doesn't realize that, you know, people aren't coming back
to New York to work. That's what Gerald Slenty has been talking about.
The commercial real estate collapse's happening here. I guess people are so many companies
have been put out of business of the lockdown and all the rest of the
stuff. Who's going to buy his food? I don't know. And why
would you do it in an area that people are are leaving now. Thomas
Massy in reaction to this, you know, he's put out the Prime Act,
and we've talked about this before to allow American farmers to more easily sell
healthy food, which the USDA is adamantly opposed to. That. Oh,
you can grass feed your beef, but you're going to have to finish them
off at the feed lot and let us do the centralized control with meat processing.
Can't do it on your farm. If you do, we're going to
raide you with a spat as they'd done to several Amish farmers. Now Thomas
Massey had this to say in a series of tweets. He said, pastures
can convert sunlight, animal waste, and CO two into grass, which is
fuel for self propelled protein generating machinery. We call them cattle, self propelled
protein generating machinery, and it's self replicating as well. Self propelled and self
replicating. The protein this system generates is eminently digestible by humans with no post
processing other than cutting and optional cooking. You can eat it rare. You
know, Grass and cattle, says Thomas Massey, can regenerate and reinforce each
other indefinitely in harmony with nature, with almost no human input, as evidenced
by existence of this cycle with tens of millions of bison on the planes of
North America before our intervention. Be wary of those and here's the key thing.
Be wary of those who tell you this natural arrangement is inferior to a
system that uses seed planters, sprayers, harvesting combines, diesel, pesticides,
inorganic fertilizers, GMO crops, subsidies, sterile fields as centralized multinational factories to
produce fake meat. Disclosure He says, although grain finished beef operations do rely
on grass fed cattle as inputs, they are distinct from grass finished beef operations
and that they do require significant use of fertilizer, fuel, infrastructure, and
machinery to augment production of real beef. Instead of resigning ourselves to eat fake
meat made in foreign factories, we should re examine US government actions that have
made smaller, otherwise sustainable farms unprofitable. He says, past the Primact to
allow American farmers to more easily sell healthy food locally. He's good, He's
really good. We're lucky to have a man like him. It's too bad
that he's only one out of about five hundred thirty five what's whatever the number
is. And then you have this fake news. Look at how this company
is. This a sports blog is called dead Spin, and I think they
may be dead at this point because of the way they spun the news.
It's truly reprehensible. What this guy did a total bullface lie, I should
say black face lie. And what he did was he put this up,
put up this picture so that kid down there wearing an Indian headdress. He's
at a Kansas City Chiefs game, and he's got one half of his face
painted black and the other half of his face painted red because that's the team
colors, red and black. You can see it on the jersey there right,
red jersey with a black collar. Red and black is their color.
Now, he didn't he chose not to show the kid full face, so
you can see that clearly. What he did was he painted his face in
the colors of the team. And the sports writer and i'll put writer and
air quotes, the sports writer who did this character assassination is pushing this DEI
racism agenda to the hilt. He's a black reporter and he's talking about blackface.
But let me just say this. You know when you do something like
this or you you know, blackface, anytime anybody's got something black on their
face. Are freaking out about this, which is absolutely insane. You know,
the blackface minstrels, Yes, they were, they were mocking, and
I can understand that to some degree. But again, I don't think that
any speech, even if you're offended by it, I don't think that you
have the right to shut it down. I'll just say it right there.
I don't think they have the right to shut down even the most mocking of
the black face minstrel shows. But you know, to freak out over somebody,
even a kit who's got some black paint on his face. These people
need to get a life, they need to grow up, They need to
not be taken seriously. And of course he doubled down on this when people
said, once you show the full picture of both sides of his face.
And so the guy who did this is a senior writer for dead Spin,
so appropriate name for that. I hope it does die because of the way
they spin the stuff. He wrote a piece on Monday saying the NFL needs
to speak out against a Kansas City Chiefs fan in blackface and native headdress.
He accused the child of being racist towards black and Native American people for wearing
the headdress and face paint during a Sunday afternoon game in Las Vegas. The
young boy's headdress resembled the logo in the nineteen sixties and early nineteen seventies that
depicted a Native American wearing a large headdress and carrying a hatchet. He painted
both sides of his face and the team colors red and black. This writer,
whose name is Phillips also targeted the Kansas City Chiefs and the NFL,
trying to shame them for allowing their fans to display the so called racism and
hate that He said, this is all about that kid. This is racism
and hate and that kid. Yeah, see the hate in his face.
Now, I see the hate and the writer. I think the writers fill
with hate, not that kid, since they did not change their team name,
since they didn't end their traditional tomahawk chop, and they have a practice
where team players wear the arrowhead logo on their helmet. Whh we imagine that?
And they use a large drum to kick off their games. He said,
well, it isn't the league's responsibility to stop racism and hate from being
taught at the home. In the home, they are the league that has
relentlessly participated in prejudice. If the NFL had outlawed the chop at the chief
games and been more aggressive and changing the team's name, then we wouldn't be
here, you know. I remember are the Atlanta Braves. Wasn't it owned
by Ted Turner or something? But I remember saying Ted Turner and Jane Fonda
doing the tomahawk chop at the Atlanta Braves baseball game, and you know as
a cheer, yeah, oh for them and all this kind of stuff.
Is she repented of that? Have they shamed her for that? No?
No, it's okay. That's okay. She's made amends for that buy supporting
the Vietcong. There's no place for a franchise to be called the Chiefs in
a league that has already eradicated the Redskins. He also complained the team has
not released a statement on the fans appearance. He never once mentioned the team's
collaboration with local Native American tribes or the history of the team name anywhere in
his pace, and instead he doubled down on He said, for the idiots
and my mentions who are treating this as if it was some kind of a
harmless act, he said, it doesn't make any difference that the other side
of his face was painted red. I could make the argument that that makes
it even worse. Just look at how hateful this kid is a red and
black face, and it is not. First of all, his red face
is not like the red face that Indians would have. It is not that
red. But anyway, the Kansas City Chiefs then, instead of slapping this
guy down, just like bring back John Wayne for just one day, and
instead just slapping this guy silly and throwing him out of the window, definestrating
him. Instead, they bowed to this Marxist revolutionary with his fake hate and
as fake racism and all the rest of this stuff. They said, Well,
we relied very heavily on Native American culture in a racially insensitive fashion throughout
history, and we have sensed to eliminate that. They said, back in
twenty twenty, the team banned headdresses from home stadium. This kid was in
Vegas, right, so that's how he got snuck in. They weren't looking
out for any kids wearing Indian headdresses. Can't have that in any face paint.
The Chiefs had also been in a quote thorough review process of the Arrowhead
Chop, and they planned to modify the drum deck to accurately represent the drum's
spiritual significance and Native American cultures. The team's name is a homage to former
Kansas City Mayor h Roe Bartell, who earned the nickname Chief during his time
in office. In their early nineteen sixties. People are saying, you know,
Chief is a term of respect of endearment. This is a person who
has head of this stuff. But I guess now, this guy who is
so upset about it, he's more like Perry White. Don't call me chief,
you know, say that to Jimmy Wilson. Don't call me chief.
So he doesn't want anybody called chief. Phillips has accused white sports fans of
racism on many occasions, and he's so obsessed with skin color. And this
guy needs to get a life, and he needs to be fired if they
want to keep this this sports thing. The day following the mass shooting in
Buffalo, New York, he accused white people of white supremacy for being entertained
by black athletes. During Game number seven, he said the number of white
people in Flint, Michigan is concerning. He said, well, you know,
let's play this DEI game to the full extent. Let's play it all
the way out. You know, when we talk about NBA, let's start
choosing the team players on the basis of skin color and diversity. Right,
there's not enough equity. We got too many tall black guys playing in the
basketball league and we don't really care about merit. Right, So instead of
tall black guys. Once't you get short, fat white women to play basketball.
As a matter of fact, you know, we need to include the
disabled as well. It's not enough to have them short. Let's get people
who are in wheelchairs and we can you know, do that for the NBA.
And let's go complete DEI And then what's going to happen to the sport
that this racist sports writer makes his living off of. Do people want to
see that? You know, when it comes to sports, people want to
talk about merit, and we have a guess that's going to be coming up.
He talks about he set up an organization to help people to get companies
and other things funded around the outside of this cancel culture and to do things
based on Christian principles because it has gotten so bad that there's a lot of
people, he said, that want to help to create things. A lot
of people have ideas, but they can't get the stuff done because nobody wants
to compete on merit anymore. It's all going to be about DEI and this
Marxism and everything is politicized, and so it's giving rise to organizations like this
trying to set up a parallel economy. So we'll be having him in just
about fifteen minutes. Jason Barker says, I lived in Nashville, Illinois.
I've never heard of Nashville, Illinois. That is a small town with heavy
conservative roots. It's scary that places like that are now breeding people like this
tranny killer. Yeah it is. But you know, by nationalizing the educational
curriculum with a Department of Education, that's how they've been able to do this
stuff. That and along with the media and everything else that's out there now.
I've talked in the past about the school that I went to, Tramline
High School in Tampa, and I've talked about how we had the chief was
our mascot, and I described it, so I thought I would basically,
I thought I would show you this. You know, they set the Kansas
City chiefs up in the nineteen sixties. Well, the high school that I
went to was created in nineteen fifty six, and they just had a big
back and forth about and this was well it was actually last summer of twenty
twenty two, and what they did was they got rid of the mascot.
They said it was derogatory and offensive to Native Americans. And you had the
school board vote five to one to get rid of it, and they're going
to spend fifty thousand dollars to rebrand everything. That picture that you see there
of a guy there. He was somebody who graduated just a little bit before
I did, but I didn't know him. But he was brought to tears
as he talked to the school board about getting rid of the mascot, and
Frank they you know, look, I thought it was a lot of that
part of it was a lot of fun. I wasn't really that fond of
high school the experience in general, but I did enjoy the band stuff,
and I did enjoy what we did with it. But you know, what
he is upset about is that they're trampling on his memories. It's like,
you got your memories, you got your photographs. Which you should be upset
about is what they're doing to our society. They're trying to erase our traditions,
our culture, our history, and that's a Marxist tactic. These people
don't really they're reacting to the most superficial aspects of this that you're getting rid
of the Indian head that was on the building. As a matter of fact,
this is what it looked like that big Indian head and there's a TV
snapshot of TV thing there. They have to get rid of that. They
have to have all new uniforms for the sports teams and for the band and
all the rest of this stuff. It's going to cost some more than fifty
thousand dollars. But they had a lot of people showed up. They had
a petition of sixty eight hundred signatures there. People who were opposed to it
even included the Democrat, female lesbian mayor of Tampa who went to Chamberlain and
said, no, I don't want to see this happening. But they really
didn't care. And as I said, you know, they went back to
nineteen fifty six when they chose the the when they got the mascot was chosen.
And then when you look at move forward a little bit, this is
what the drum majors actually looked like around my time. And you know,
they would put this is not red paint like that kid had in Vegas for
the chiefs. This was a thing called Texas dirt. So the guys would
not wear a shirt and they would get all rubbed down with us, and
then they would put war paint on top of that, and that was a
drum major the way the drum majorid set up. And so you know,
if that's something's going to push your buttons today, boy, that really did
push your back. And I found when I saw this article, I saw
that they had banned that from the band. The band, the band.
They don't have a marching band anymore. They have a drum corps, and
they don't have a chief anymore. At Chamber they got rid of that.
They got rid of the dancers that were part of the band because they also
had headdresses. This is an article from two thousand and seven, so as
recently as two thousand and seven they did have dancers who wore this head dress
and everything. And in that article they talk about the fact they got these
headdresses out that had been used. I don't know if maybe they stopped using
them and they started using them again or something, and they said they were
all old and smelly and sweaty and they had mildew on them, so we
had to get all new ones. And they went to a guy who was
an Indian and he said, I can make those, and they got him
to make them and he made them out of turkey feathers. They had white
turkey feathers and stuff, and he said he was really honored to be able
to do that because you see, they're not mocking them. There's no mockery
involved in this. This is not at all like black faced minstrels. And
they had a big deal about it with Florida State University. For state University
they're the Seminoles, and said now we're going to shut that down. And
the Seminole Tribe of Florida said, no, we're honored by that. We
don't want to shut that thing down. And so this guy who spoke there
said that he graduated from high school there. He went on to obtain his
master's degree in biology medical science. He wrote his thesis on medicinal plants of
North America that were used by indigenous people. He said, I am an
Iroquois from many generations ago, heritage that is near and dear to my heart,
and it meant a lot to me to be a proud chief. Again,
he doesn't understand what's going on, you know, he's just reacting to
the surface issues of this, like many other alumni speaking before him. He
was a member of the Chamblin High School Legacy Alliance, an organization composed of
alumni. But here's what's happened with all this. They were opposed to what
was being done by this group that called themselves the Parent Advisory Committee Title six
Parent Advisory Committee. The Title six is part of the nineteen sixty four Civil
Rights Act. And you may have this kind of stuff happening in your town.
This is a little self appointed group that decided that they were going to
go around and they were going to shut down every mascot that had anything that
they were offended by. Okay, and a bunch of little petty Marxist tyrants.
And he doesn't really address this Marxist tyranny. He doesn't understand that as
she Van Fleet did, how this is exactly what Mao and Stalin and all
these Marxists did. He doesn't get it. And so this little Advisory committee
is part of a national organization of parents who have taken this Title six initiative.
The government gives you money, and then it's going to pull this back
if you don't do what they say. And they have used this and by
the way, it's not just the federal money. This is created a nineteen
sixty four Civil Rights Act discrimination. This is not discrimination. They're not discriminating
against anybody, and they're not mocking anybody either. So how does this apply,
Well, it doesn't matter because you've got these squeaky wheels of a bunch
of women who've got nothing better to do, and so they're going around doing
this all the different schools in the area. And according to the chairwomen of
the Hillsborough County Title six Committee, Shannon Durant, and again, it's all
women, and everybody on the school board were all women. We now have
a matriarchy. You see, the matriarchy. This opposition to the so called
patriarchy was not about having an equality of men and women. It was about
replacing men at the top with women at the top. And that's exactly what
they this is all being. The committee is all women, the school board
is all women, and their feelings are hurt and they're out for blood.
And so they've gotten rid of the mascots of Adam's Middle School, which fed
into Chamberlaine went to both of those and then a five different elementary school that
had various Indian things. They claimed that these are derogatory, No they're not.
That they damaged the self esteem of students of Native American heritage. No,
they don't, but they want to get rid of anybody who's got a
mascot that's Indian chiefs, warriors, braves, any of that kind of stuff.
And so the only school in Hillsboro County that was allowed to keep this
was one called East Bay. They were the East Bay Indians, and they
had an election and the student body there unanimously, unanimously decided to keep the
mascot. They had an election at this high school at Chamberlain and they had
seventy seven percent of the people say we want to keep it, and seventy
eight percent sorry, twenty two percent. So they wanted to get rid of
it. And it didn't matter. They got rid of it anyway. The
people at the As a matter of fact, they also put up a survey.
Look at this. The Hillsboro County School put up a survey, so
we would like to know what you think, and so this is online survey.
But they never released this survey. We like to know what you think.
They got They figured out that by the thousands people didn't like what they
were doing, so they made the survey disappear. That's how dishonest this stuff
is. But it gets even more interesting when she talks about this this person
who is part of their the Committee of six. It's like something out of
the Prisoner right, And she says, one person said, I'm not really
happy the way that all this was done. Who was a member of the
graduating class back in nineteen fifty eight, the first one. She's eighty two
years old. She was a chief at at the time. She said that,
she talked, said they had an election and only twenty two percent agreed
to remove the mascot. But again seventy eight to twenty two. So the
twenty two wins. When the Marxists are doing the county. This is the
way you want to have an election. This is the way the Marxists count
votes when they want to get something. And so she has the audacity of
when she wants to scrub this one of these titles six members, Jennifer Hart
says, these mascots are teaching stereotypical, misleading and often insulting images of indigenous
people. Well, I'll just show this too. Is there anything cartoonish or
characteristic about that? No, there isn't. But anyway, she said,
she said this was led by students, she said, And if we can't
honor what the students want, what are we doing. This is the woman
with a committee of six who says this is led by the students. They
had an election, seventy eight percent of the students did not want to change.
She says, it's led by the election. It was what they did
when they couldn't get a majority. They shut down. They ask people their
opinion, they shut it down on the survey, and then they go to
have an election. And when they get slammed at that election, and they
go to the student council and these are a bunch of kids, as we
all know, you know, who've got political aspirations. And they've got a
student advisor who just graduated from college for the student government. And it was
a student government who said, yeah, we want to get rid of it
because our advisor, who's a little a newly minted Marxist right straight out of
college, wants this. These are the people who will control the past.
By who control the future and control the past, they will erase the past
and they will control the future of that. These are the detlitarians. And
again, in the big scheme of things, it doesn't matter. But it's
like the bump stock. This is the way these people operate. And Colorado
you have school fires a white Christian principle and so he is now suing them.
He had the principal got angry with him because he went to a Christian
meeting, and when he got back from the Christian meeting, the principal,
he claims in his lawsuit that his status is a Christian and as a white
man, played a role in his decision to fire him. When he got
back from the Christian meeting, he said he was brought into the principal's office
after he spoke to a Christian student group of athletes, and the principal changed
his job evaluation. He'd been given a good job evaluation, he changed it,
and they put in negative remarks, including accusations of insubordination, implicit bias,
and failure to promote safety and equity. You understand what implicit bias is.
This is one of the tactics that they've used to say, Well,
you really aren't consciously racist about people, You don't really hate anybody, but
because of who you are, because you've got white skin, you have a
bias that is implicit it's implied in the fact that you got white skin.
This is what they're doing to everybody. And again they're going back to the
title six to try to shut this guy down. Look, we just need
to defund these operations that call themselves schools, their propaganda operations. And one
more public school in Michigan. They said they've got a new guy who again
just graduated from college, because this is where they're minting these people. These
are the seminaries for Marxism. And he comes on board and he says,
so, why is Santa Claus always white? Well, he just need to
ask Megan Kelly. She knows that Santa Claus is white. You might as
well ask why is Mickey Mouse always black? I don't know, but you
know, he comes back and he tells the people in this school that we're
going to ban Christmas symbols, decorations, and expressions. We're going to have
a winter celebration. And he puts out an FAQ there and the teachers got
upset about this. They contacted Liberty Council. These are the same people who
won the court case for hal shirtlift up in Boston. They wouldn't let him
fly the Christian flag and I said, well, this is a public area
and you can't discriminate against me because you don't like my Christian flag. You
let everybody fly flags up there. And he took it all away Supreme Court
and one hal Shirtliffin. He's got camp Constitution up there in Massachusetts. I've
interviewed him multiple times, but I interviewed him after he won the Supreme Court
case, I think last year, and so Liberty Council were the ones who
won that. Liberty Council was contacted by teachers at these public schools and they
said, instead of being inclusive, these directives are rooted in critical race theory,
and they promote a hatred for and they discriminate against Christianity and associated holidays
such as Christmas. They violate school policy, they violate the First Amendment,
they violate Title seven of the Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty four. They
are showing hostility on the basis of religion and on the basis of race.
And so there was an email that was sent from this guy, Matt Morales,
who just graduated from college, and they put him in as the director
of diversity, equity and Inclusion for the school district. And he writes this
holiday celebrations email. He says, while this may be an exciting time for
many people, others lack a sense of belonging. Well, isn't that too
bad? Find something that you like and do that and leave other people alone
instead of demanding that everybody can form to your mental illness, he says,
And so we need to create a more inclusive learning community. I asked that
you review the meaning of decentering Christmas. See this is this not and have
a diverse display of stuff. And so he gives them. He says,
We've got to dismantle this hierarchy of religious practices and holidays, and he gives
them a recommended resource list. Listen to this leftist Marxist garbage here. By
the way, he wants to dismantle the hierarchy because he wants to establish himself
at the top of the hierarchy. That's what the Marxists are doing. And
so one of the pamphlets is called Racial Justice Guide to the Winter Holiday Season
for Educators and Families. Another one is Christian Privilege, Hegemony and the Winter
Holiday Season, and then one of another one Dear white people, the holiday
season is the best time to tell our grandparents to stop being racist. And
finally, why is Santa Claus always white? Well, it's all obviously because
of Christian white privilege, isn't it. And so when there is a hierarchy.
By the way he says in the email, he says, even non
religious aspects of a holiday, such as helf on the shelf, Santa decorated
trees, are actually centered on Christian beliefs and practices. And he says even
these secular aspects must be eliminated because they promote racism and discrimination based on ethnicity,
ancestry, color, and Marxism is what these people are saying, is
what he's pushing out. And so he says, Chris and whiteness are problems
that have to be remedied. Well, you don't like the hierarchical nature of
this stuff and you want to dismantle it. How's this for hierarchy? Christ
is Lord, deal with it and that's the reality you're going to have to
deal with. Sooner or later, you're gonna have to deal with that.
Do it now while it's not a difficult thing for you. Finally, before
we quit and go to our interview, we just had the National Christmas Tree
near the White House toppled by wind. You see, these people are so
incompetent that they can't even put up decorations and have last But I thought it
was a perfect analogy for what our government has become. The federal government is
like you know this dead tree, right, this big dead Christmas tree.
So the federal government is like a large dead tree that is just waiting for
some wind to come along and knock it over, and as sooner as the
better, quite frankly. So we're going to go to again our reporter.
It's with an organization called New Found Hunting, and here is their trailer talking
about their organization. Then we'll go right into the interview. Thank you for
listening, Thank you for joining us today at this unusual time. Fifty years
ago, we worked out of a well founded optimism, a confidence that our
products will be the greatest off the line, the last to fail, the
first space that we would lead our peers abroad in technology, finance, and
manufacturing. Today we'll work over zoom. You're on mute growing, parasitic SaaS
companies and copycat services, while woke ideology it's away at our core. The
best of us are at risk of losing our jobs over vax mandates and pronouns,
while the worst continue their campaigns for social activism, free salad bars and
doggie daycare. You're at meta. It doesn't have to be this way.
New Founding is bringing together those who are working to build something better, those
who seek excellence of craft, and like minded teams working towards an ambitious end.
We've made hundreds of connections in the last few months, introducing players in
tech, finance, media and law. If you want to hire motivated talent
dedicated to excellence, not radical politics. If you want to escape brain dead
workplaces and help build the great businesses up the twenty twenties, we'll connect you.
Come join us in the new Founding Talent network. Joining us now is
Nate Fisher. He is a CEO of a new Founding and this is bringing
together people who are entrepreneurs, people who are venture capitalists to fund this.
But he's got some very interesting ideas about setting up a parallel society. How
do we take back our society. We've had all of our institutions taken over,
and when we look at it from the business standpoint or educational standpoint,
we all understand the institutions have been taken over, used against us. So
how do we build a society when we have nowhere else to go? Right?
We can't immigrate to another place, so we build it parallel here.
So joining us now is Nate Fisher. Thank you for joining us, sir,
Thanks for having me. Good to be here. It's great to talk
about this subject. And you know, when we look at this, as
many people pointed out, the Marxists decided that they were going to march to
the institutions. They pretty much done that, and they've pretty much taken over
everything. And we have a situation now where we're being canceled left and right.
What do we do about this? What are you setting up here to
help people essentially transcend what is set up here? In other words, you're
kind of oriented more I think when I look at your site, you're more
oriented towards solutions that are going to come up with something new that's going to
transcend it. Rather than going back and trying to desperately take back these institutions
that have been taken over. We create our own new institutions that are going
to transcend it. Am I correct about that? That is that gets to
the core and what I'll say is to me, and I use the parallel
economy language at times I think is helpful to what a lot of people understand.
Ultimately, I think a necessary condition is for us to have institutions that
aren't captured by the Left. A winning condition, a desirable one, is
for us to actually gain the power to take back these institutions. But my
view is we're not going to do that. It's just it is an absolute
grind to do that in spaces where everything is an uphill battle. I mean,
you're playing by their rules. The entire design of bureaucracy is something that
reflects the rules of the Left. It is a managerial approach to two organizations.
So my approach is, either way, we should be doing this.
There's huge opportunities through the business sector and particularly through disruptive technology, so high
level. If our enemies control every segment of society, every institution, which
to a large extent they do, then rather than playing on a playing field
that they control, the place that we should be focused more than anything else
is the place where there's the leverage if you succeed reshuffle the deck in important
ways. I mean, think of it like if we were able to get
if we were able to build the next Google, or even better, not
just the next Google, but something that is to Google as much bigger than
Google is than Google was than some of the predecessors that it displaced. And
you look at the way technology evolves in there is likely to be a disruptor
that is that significant in the future, and then not to just the future,
in the coming decade. So if we were able to get control of
things at that scale, then that lets us not only create entire ways of
navigating the world that are not under that thumb, but also also really platforms
that offer us the leverage to potentially put on the same pressure on those institutions
that the Left was able to put on them when they capture them. And
of course, you know when we look at that, first thing that comes
to my mind is artificial intelligence. Is people are looking at this saying,
well, is this a Google killer? There's going to be something If it's
not that, there's going to be something that has the potential to do that,
even though they have a great deal of money. And so when you're
looking at this and you're coming at it, I should have said from the
very beginning, coming at this from a Christian perspective, not just a politically
conservative perspective. You talk about how do we catechize the bots? You know,
how do we get they are setting up artificial intelligence, they're training it
as you would train up a child, but it's going to be a monster
once it grows up. How do we take over that and how do we
leverage let's say, for example, artificial intelligence, you know, how do
we use that to bolster ourselves rather than become a victim to it? So
I think you hit on a very interesting point that I'll elaborate on, which
is Christian not just conservative. And I think a challenge that conservatives have faced,
and it's really impeded our ability to deal with technology, is in some
sense conservatism. Conservatism sidesteps some of the fundamental questions of where we should go,
and it focuses on It allows us to avoid some of what are really
pretty serious debates and divides within the movement, are things that need to be
hatched out, and it sticks to conserving good things of the past, things
we can all agree are good. The problem with that is that side that
gives us a very little vision about what we should be aiming for and it
leads to conservatives being naturally negatively disposed toward technology. So if you think about
it, if your goal is to preserve good things in the past, technology
is inherently your enemy. Technology guarantees that those there is going to be an
erosion, a creative destruction of many of the good traditions, good norms that
we all agree are good. That's happened throughout history, and so there's sort
of a natural suspicion of technology among conservatives. But what it also leads to
is also leads to our just our failure to play in that space, our
failure to come up with a vision for what. So technology is going to
continue to evolve, there is going to be innovation. The question I would
say is what should that be used for? What should be the vision that
we try to create with that technology? And if we're not in that playing
field at all, the left is the only one defining that. So it's
no surprise that they so surprised that a lot of new technology is built and
sort of the left fills that void. They're the only ones even trying to
catechize the bots, and they end up taking over the domains disrupted by technology
even more than the past ones. But as a Christian we don't have to
be limited to that. As a Christian, I do have fundamental answers to
this. I believe that we have a very clear dominion mandate. What does
dominion look like? God calls us to that. We have a very clear
understanding of the person. What is the right vision of technology that complements the
person? The creation of technology is one of the most fundamentally human processes that
in many ways sort of parallels God's career of the world. It is a
creating something out of nothing, and I think we can embrace that. And
if we embrace that, suddenly we can realize that technology is something that we
don't need to be afraid of, something that we actually have. We can
develop a positive vision for what we should be aiming for. And it's one
of the most powerful levers we have available to to change, reshuffle kind of
a world that right now seems stacked against us, to disrupt our opponents in
many ways. So is AI a component of that? I think a I
could be a component of that. I'm probably a little more of an AI.
I won't say I'm an AI customist. I'm not worried about AI the
way some of these people are. I don't think AI is going to be
as as transformative as some people assume, Like I don't. I don't believe
that AGI is going to is going to come and displace sort of totally replace
humans. That comes back to my view of sort of the special nature of
people, as as people made an image of God, not just as sort
of the material being. So I think that I think an understanding of AI
and understanding of human nature actually will allow us to develop AI that is actually
complementary to humans, which is ultimately going to be a more effective use of
the technology than if you believe it's going to just totally replace humans, which
is going to lead to all sorts of I think, confusion about what it
can be, and probably unfulfilled promises, just like driverless cars remain an unfulfilled,
unfulfilled promise at a large scale. So I think a proper understanding it
of technology, well, what it does is absolutely these algorithms do play an
enormous role in helping us navigate the world, whether it's sort of what are
seen as AI algorithms today or other curation algorithms, whether it's the Google algorithm
whether it's sort of yelped setting where you eat dinner or whatever. They play
a role in navigating the world, and we do need to catechize them with
our values, like our positive vision should be baked into into the value system
that these algorithms help scale. I agree when we look at it fundamentally,
technology as a tool, and it can be good or evil. And I
think one of the things that I've noticed, because I come from this from
an engineering background, and it always concerned me an engineering because it was so
secular. I would see so many engineers who would just simply see it as
a puzzle to be solved, and they didn't really care how it was going
to be used, who was going to use it, or for what purpose.
And I always had a problem with that, and I guess it kind
of came to a head when I talked to Hugo Degaris, who was a
developer of artificial intelligence early on. I think he's retired now, but he
said he would pose the question to his scientific audiences and say he was not
a believer, and so he said, well, I think that we're going
to create something that is a godlike intelligence and it may wind up killing us.
Would you do that. And he would ask his audience. It would
be scientists and engineers, and they would always the majority of asque majority of
them would say yes. He did that at a Christian conference that I was
speaking at, and he said, this was the first time that people said
no. And so I think when Christians look at a tool like this,
or a technology or a group of companies, and you see where these people
are coming from, your reaction is to push back away from it, rather
than to say, maybe there's a tool that we could use to transcend this
and to instill our values, which is what I think you're talking about.
Well, and I think you can go back to Genesis and you can see
that God called us to dominion over the earth. We are called to a
great deal of transformation and impact. I think it comes down to the intent.
Would you create a godlike intelligence A that's not possible, You're going to
fail. It has more power. What they're doing is they're paralleling what was
done at the Tower of Babble. They're trying to create something they can raise
them to the heavens. And it was very obvious that God thoroughly frustrated their
plans. They have no understanding of the power that they're they're up against.
It's a feudal task. They fail. But at the same time, that
is that has been an impulse of man since the dawn of time. That's
right. And yet you know, when we look at this, if we
looked at the Tower of Babel, for example, and say, well,
your purpose is evil and I don't want to be involved in that venture.
But we can look at this and say, but I like the way that
you braced this. You know, You've got to do construction technique that I've
not seen here before. I think I can use that to build something good
that is not in rebellion to God. And so I think that's really where
we need to be. And I think you know, when Reagan talked about
the evil Empire, he would say, well, we're going to transcend them.
And I think that needs to be our attitude, that we're going to
build something that is better, that we can build something that is better and
rather than just you know, I understand people looking at this kind of arrogant
attitude as you talk about kind of a Tower Babbel attitude, this pride,
this godlessness that is out there, and our first instinct is Christians is to
just totally reject it and walk away, rather than looking at this and saying,
well, this could be dangerous to us, this is a tool that
could be used against us. There are things here that we could use that
would be good turned to good. And you know they may have meant it
for evil, but let's see what we can do to use this for good.
And that's a tricky thing to do, but I think that what you're
trying to do is apply Christian principles in that space. To do something like
that. Is that correct? Absolutely? And I think I think there's sort
of there's a several folds. So one of the one of the projects that
I found it is called American Reformer, and it's a nonprofit focused on restoring
and revitalizing Protestant thinking and traditional Protestant thought, which has a rich tradition of
addressing a lot of these questions. I mean, the Protestant Reformation really built
on the printing press, very new technology, very very early, is a
great deal of leverage. So it's certainly a tradition that understands how to use
technology, but it's I think a lot of that thought, a lot of
the deeper thought there has been lost in the evangelical church today and really just
a culture that hasn't emphasized it. It's part of our tradition, just as
Catholics have a lot of thinking in that space. So part of it is
and then the goal is to revitalize revitalized Christian institutions. Part of the goal
is can we revitalize a church that can lead the way and provide the thought
that can help shape and anchor any vision. And then I see venture and
a venture firm as a really great platform for sort of articulating this vision or
at least taking sort of the first steps of what a positive vision of technology
should look like, which includes our focus is particularly on those where there's going
to be sort of a meaningful political difference. Typically, think of something where
that the early adopters would be Christian's conservatives, what have you, And there's
a lot of cases where that's actually likely to be the case. We are
the ones who are the most dissatisfied with the status quote if you think of
previous sort of movements where people have exited in mass, which is what you
need to get. Early adopters for a new technology were the first communities to
come to America really as coherent communities, and you could say gain a network
effect. Here it was deeply religious, profoundly dissatisfied communities. I mean,
you had the sort of got a few people who are economically motivated and such,
but a lot of those the Puritans, the Quakers likewise, early adopters
of the homeschool movement were Christian. I think there's a lot of situations where
if you have something new, there's a very reasonable chance that the most natural
users of it. Again, it'll depend a little bit on the design.
Is it built to centrally control or is it built too is it is it
built to be a tower of baffle In that case, that case we wouldn't
be. But it is actually technology that offers things that we value greater decentralization
that makes it harder for us to be censored. Is the technology that that
includes encryption or whatever, things that things that sort of a dissionent minority can
be naturally expected to value were the natural early adopters, and as a result,
companies that know how to reach that market will have an edge in the
competition. If that is the technology that becomes the Google disruptor. Let's say
we may have an edge in that competition because we can get the early adopters
first. So going back to what we're doing for Venture, my interest is
is businesses where there's a very specific thesis around reaching people like that with a
product. It's fine if it's just a product that's always going to be a
sort of niche serving our customer base. I mean, we've invested in a
pro life health insurance company that's it's not necessarily a second where there's going to
be mass disruption. They do have a superior product in many ways. It
has a lot of regulatory reasons that they're able to they're aiming to make it
cheaper than many of the other ones there. But it's fine if it's just
an available product that provides cost effective insurance that fits your values, includes access
to a network of doctors who aren't going to force the vacs on you or
don't try to trans your kids. That's fine. But there's other cases where
there's actually going to be a next generation technology that is maybe it's initially serving
our needs, but it has the potential to move on and disrupt the disrupt
the incumbent players. So that's that's really our focus. I see venture as
the place where we can be ourselves articulating, taking some stabs at some of
the ideas we see as potentially transformative, and then working with entrepreneurs who are
really drawn to that, and working experts in a particular domain, and working
out an actual business to realize that. Yeah, and I think you know,
when we've looked at this, we've seen a great deal of change in
the homeschooling movement and educational stuff because we understand how corrupted and controlled the schools
are as institutions and how they become antithetical to education. But you know,
we now see over the last three years, it seems to me like there'd
be a lot of opportunity within the medical area, as you pointed out just
now, because you've got a lot of people who are very dissatisfied with this
corrupt medical institution that's run on a very different it seems to me like there's
an opportunity and some people are starting to take advantage of this, have a
completely different par nine towards healthcare, and there's a big desire for people to
be able to get out of this dangerous, controlled, in many cases,
kidnapping type of medical feel that's there. It's overpriced, and it is very
authoritarian and centrally controlled and pushing products that many people do not regard as safe
or effective. And so it seems to me like there's a real desperation out
there for things to be restructured, as well as a lot of people who
refuse to take the vaccine mandate who are trained medical professionals and would like to
be a part of that on the service side. So I imagine there's some
opportunities in that as well. Now you put together, tell a little bit
about how your company operates before we get into some of the other ideas that
you have about parallel society. You have opportunities for people to invest into the
venture capital funding. Is that correct as well as you know, investing in
companies who have ideas. Tell us little bit about that. Yes, so
we really have the fundamental theme is ventured and in some ways the fundamental theme
is we fly the flag. We're willing to be very public about a vision
that in the private sector a lot of people are drawn to, but far
few are a public about their beliefs. Sign I mean there's many many people
in elite levels of the private sector companies who recognize the problems, they recognize
something needs to be done, but they're not going to fly that flag very
publicly at this point until the right opportunity comes along. And sometimes that right
opportunity is they need to meet someone else, let's say it a potential business
partner or potential potential employer, and so by flying that flag we end up
just being We get a lot of people coming to It's a lot of private
dms on Twitter, a lot of messages LinkedIn Twitter forms, on our website
or whatever coming to us, some of whom are people who are are not
public yet but will tell us a lot about themselves, a lot about their
interests, a lot about their desires. And then fundamentally, a lot of
this comes down to just putting together the matches, figure out what this person
has to offer it's often incredibly valuable, and what they need and can we
offer that. And so the way we've sort of organized this into a few
business lines. First, we have a fund. We've launched a venture fund
on angel List, which is a platform that is become very popular in Silicon
Valley for early stage funds. Fairly libertarian its culture too, so it's one
that it's one that is not likely to censor us. They were happy with
the very explicitly political vision that we put out there. And it's a it's
called a rolling fund where people can come in on a quarter by quarter basis
and it's accessible to basically high net worth edit it but not I don't need
to be institutional skill investors and raise from that and then invest that into early
stage companies with a conventional venture model. But we're going to provide really probably
a degree more value at than a lot of investors because we because we have
this network. So we invested in this probably Felt insurance company, where we
let their preceed round. We'll probably be investing in another company very soon again
leading their preceed round. And in both cases we're able to really do a
lot in terms of introducing them to potential partners, advise them on how to
reach potential customers in a space where it's just not well. You can't go
to a marketing firm and say, hey, I want to I want to
market to Christians and conservatives. I mean, most mainstream marketing firms don't even
know how to think about that, or if they do, they'll have a
very sort of simplicity I view about that, and it's not easy, partially
because the commercial intermediaries have actually blocked it. So in many cases there's not
established like you can't use established ad networks. You can't there's no network to
reach to reach most of these people, it ends up being a lot of
independent I mean understanding how to reach different independent podcast advertisers, influencers, other
partnerships, often creative or earned media efforts. So we're really we'll be able
to work with these people to understand their audience. You mentioned the trends in
medicine where people are moving away from away from sort of the current medical system,
and it's not just about it's not just about sort of explicitly things that
would be seen as sort of traditionally like liberal values. It's a lot of
is people recognize sort of the corruption of the whole system, and there's some
trends that reshaping how they think about it. We understand those kind of things.
So basically for involvement, people can invest in the fund, we turn
around and invest the money in companies in this space, and we've really become
the go to desired partner for companies that fit this profile. Then we do
a few more things. So we do we do what we call venture studio,
where we're actually participants in the founding of the company. So you can
make a venture fund, like we write a check to the company our fund
to get some ownership stake. We end up splitting. We end up giving
majority of that money back to the investors. We take a split of that
venture studio, We as new founding will actually be effectively a co founder of
the company. And that's going to be done in a few cases where we
have real strategic value to add. Maybe it's maybe it's not a company that
requires the same level as the capital intensity, but it's much more about the
connections and much more about some of the business acumen, and we'll we'll jump
in there and we'll actually help help launch it. Then we have advisory where
we'll work with you can think of this sort of investment banking advisory or fractional
CFO. We actually just helped advise on a deal that closed where it was
a seven million dollar acquisition by some people we've been working with previously in other
capacities and they had this opportunity to buy this company, and we represented them
on the trends action and have investment bankers have been through that process before,
and we're able to provide just significant advice and execution throughout the process. And
finally we'll do we'll do talent placements. We have this broader network and part
of that is our talent network where people can come to us that can sign
up for our network, and we talk to companies that are looking for they're
looking for good people who are going to be values aligned, and we can
serve them, we can help fill their roles. So it's really it's ultimately
as you can see, for all of them, there's a lot of making
matches and there's a lot of providing that business and strategic advisory services to companies
and really across the board trying to just accelerate the growth of this sector.
Well, I think that's very important because you know, when we look at
where we are right now, as you were saying, when you're describing this,
there's a lot of people who whose values are aligned with ours, but
they're afraid to speak out. You know, this is you know, the
danger of how extensive the takeover has been of our institutions and everything else in
terms of the cancel culture and censorship and that type of thing, and so
it's important have some kind of a clearinghouse in a sense what you're doing.
You've already got kind of a parallel structure here, but it's also kind of,
you know, even though there's nothing criminal about it, it is still
kind of has to be kind of underground in order to get past the censorship
and the canceling that is there. It truly is amazing to see how rapidly
this has been put in and how it's going to accelerate. I think,
so, how do you see the future of business and a digital age like
this where there is a lot of centralized control. You know, when I
first started looking, we look at the internet initially the rise of the personal
computer. I'm old enough that I began when it was mainframe computers, and
I thought, what an amazing liberation now that we have personal computers. And
it worked that way for a while, but then through the social media networks
and other things like that, they were able to establish the search engines,
they were able to re establish the centralized control. Again, what do we
do to get away from this centralizing trend? Very good question, and I
think it's hard to know exactly how any disruptive technology plays at That's sort of
the nature of it. There's dynamics that are there's dynamics that make it very
hard to predict precisely. So what I tend to look at is I tend
to look at, sort of at the macro level, what are the sort
of trends, what are the factors that are likely to shape outcomes? And
what I would say is, yes, certainly, the web two point zero
the social media was a sharp divergence from what was seen as the early promise
of the Internet, which was all about liberation and really freeing people to have
access to information. I think there's an extent to which that did play out,
right. I think that what Facebook Facebook in particular did during the trumppot
during twenty sixteen in playing a role in the election of Trump was shocking to
a lot of people in Silicon Valley because it showed that this technology was not
invariably going to lead in a progressive direction the way they imagined it. I
mean, Facebook's mission was to make the world a more open and connected place,
and lo and behold, what does that do It It opens up channels
for a large, very frustrated group in the country that had really been shut
out of whose messages have been shut out of mainstream media, and combined with
someone who knew how to play that media very well, Trump, it actually
allowed this movement to grow rapidly, just like you saw that with Brexit,
and so in many ways, even the sort of even the centralized technologies did
actually open things up. What you saw was a sharp reaction where they realized
we're a very political group, realized they needed to get control of these and
they needed to impose censorship. But then you've had fighting back. I mean,
Elon buying Twitter has certainly been a I think a major blow to the
censorship resine. I don't know that. I don't know how long Twitter is
going to remain open. I don't know exactly how it plays out. I
think there's very good reasons why. I think there's very good reasons why Elon
will have to and I believe he realizes this. He will have to go
to war with the regime fundamentally, or he will never achieve his goals if
he has to impose if he has to impose dei HR policies, he's never
going to get to Mars. And he knows that, So I think there's
a reason that there's a reason for optimism, whether or not sort of his
vision would fully aligned with minus another question. But there's going to be people
who are going to recognize that they need to push back and effectively control of
one of these digital platforms is almost sort of monarchical in position. I mean,
he is acting as a sort of monarch of Twitter. He took control
of what was essentially a digital government and meaningfully changed its policy. Now what
is going to change the direction of things? Here's sort of the fundamental resource
that I see when I look at it is we are becoming a low trust
society in many ways. I mean, you look at the trend. I
spent a long time outside. I spent a year visiting sixty five countries around
the world in twenty fifteen, talking to it, had hundreds of meetings,
really trying to get a sense of global patterns, global trends, and what
I saw was really, more than anything, sort of what the dynamics you
see in low trust societies were. And the distressing thing is you're seeing trends
in America that are in the same direction. So in a world like that,
people no longer trust institutions increasingly, that means they don't trust the truth
that comes out of universities. It'll be I think, a slower process,
but they won't trust the credentials of those universities. Print they certainly don't trust
government armorers of truth. Increasingly they honestly even trust the big centralized platforms.
And there's also sort of the collapse of trust at the basic level, like
just less confidence that some sort of stranger you do business with is going to
follow through, is going to be competent. So what does that mean.
It means that trust is going to be scarce. And so the way I
look at it is we Christian conservatives particularly have communities often organized around churches.
Church communities there remain sort of distinct higher trust communities where they have a different
set of norms, they reject some of the dynamics that are driving this job.
In many cases, they just continue to they continue to build relationships and
community in a way that is increasingly scarce in anatomized world. And so these
communities now have something that is going to become scarcer and scarcer and more valuable
in society. And that is how exactly things play out is harder to predict.
But that is an asset that we can recognize is going to become more
and more strategically valuable. It's going to become more and more valuable for ourselves.
Meaning the more we're able to force away from these mainstream trends, the
more we'll be able to continue to do business as you would in a high
trust society. Right, Let's say in a low trust society, you could
never call a contractor and just kind of getting the job done. For most
of the world, you wouldn't dream of putting down a twenty thousand dollars deposit
for one hundred thousand dollars job before the work's been done. I mean,
the assumption is you'd never see the guy again. But if you're able to
get a recommendation through your church and you know that person as a member in
good standing, they value that membership could be very different. That person now
has a lot more incentives to maintain a different set of norms. They have
an ethical foundation that's no longer common in society to maintain it, so it
lets us preserve our way of life sort of in parallel in these parallel networks.
But even more that now serves as the foundation for something that others in
society are going to value more and more. So example I give is back
in the seventeenth century, the Quakers were famously high trust in England in a
world that was lower trust, so many many people wanted to do business with
them as intermediaries. If you're doing a high transaction that requires a lot of
trust, you want to do it through people you know can be trusted to
follow through on their work. And if it's complex transaction, you really need
sort of multiples of those people involved. And our communities can serve as repositories
of trust that I think will increasingly be sought out for these high trust intermediary
roles as that becomes scarcer elsewhere. So if I'm thinking of the nature of
any sort of disruptive platform that that is a Google buster, it is something
or I won't call it a Google buster. I'll say it's something as to
Google what Google might have been to the more powerful companies in the past.
It's sort of a new platform that becomes even more powerful, even if it's
in a different domain. That's going to be what it builds up. It's
going to be building on communities like that it's going to be leveraging that trust,
and it's going to be providing them the tools to really leverage that trust
to play a broader role in society as more people seek them out. Yeah,
that's very important. I think if they anomize us to it seems like
if we look at their strategy to control people, it is to isolate each
and every one of us so that we are only connected to them and to
keep us from making connections to each other. So it seems to me like
that kind of community, that kind of trust, those kind of interpersonal relationships,
anything that can facilitate that is anesthetical to what they're trying to do in
terms of centralized control. Right absolutely, And I think the centralized thing is
the centralized thing is a key question. If it's highly centralized, then you
essentially rely on algorithmic mediation. So it's actually interesting even Facebook has changed the
new speed algorithm, So the new speed algorithm looks more like the TikTok algorithm,
which is less of a communal social algorithm and is much more of a
sort of individualized entertainment. And I think that's for any platform that breaks down
those communities or it doesn't really build on those communities. That's the invariable trend
is that they're going to move in the direction of really that computer being your
counter party, being intermediary. Whereas if it's technology, and it can often
be simpler technology in some ways that facilitates that serves these people as communities,
then you're strengthening you're strengthening that community engagement and the nodes, the centers of
power are no longer one giant, centralized algorithm, but they're really the distributed
communities that exist, and then you facilitate the sort of the connections needed for
them to engage in larger scale or more sophisticated transactions that necessarily go beyond beyond
that community level. But it's sort of as necessary rather than sort of attempting
to pull them as quickly as possible into that that broad ether, so to
speak. Yeah, when we would look at this, we need to understand
it and we should not be disheartened by the fact that the institutions are controlled
by people whose values are anesthetical to ours because their values are inherently self destructive.
When you look at ESG and DEI, those are things that don't lead
to excellence. They cannot sustain themselves. They're you know, they're they're going
to be those are going to be the seeds of their destruction. And even
those types of things, even if we don't pay attention to the fact that
as Christians, we've got God on our side who can do anything that he
wants to do. That's that's the key thing. But even when we look
at at their values and how they have essentially placed on a pedestal or an
altar or made a God out of DEI and E. S. G and
things like that, that is really should be heartening to us that that we
can take this back, and we can if we strive for excellence and if
we work for that and if we have common with that. It's a very
hopeful situation. We've always had in the past Christian organizations that would you know,
Christians would come together in a community and they would build hospitals, the
build schools and things like that. Alexis Detofol when he came, he said,
this is the thing about America that's very different. They don't wait for
the government to do an approach. They get together, they see a need,
they get together in the community and they build it and that's really the
kind of mindset that we need to inculcate now, isn't it? Absolutely?
And I think ultimately we should be hopeful. I mean, in many ways,
I think the regime is fragile. The regime is far more fragile than
people assume. Yes, they are. They have embraced suicidal ideologies. That
is limiting their that is limiting their competence, it's limiting their effectiveness. I
also, I mean this is sort of another way of looking at it,
coming from more of a financial angle. But you look at the Arrest of
Trump, and you look at other movies like that, and a lot of
people would say that a show of force, that is a that is a
a regime that is confident enough it can crack down on its enemies, isn't
it? I would say, I would say it's much more like desperation.
I think that if you think about it, almost from a financial perspective,
it's a bigger departure from the past. It's sort of an increase in volatility,
so you think of sort of a change from norms. I mean,
they've had a they had what was seen as sort of a steady progressive trend
in history sharply interrupted by things like Trump. You could think of that as
sort of a higher volatility in politics, a much broader range of of sort
of possible outcomes. And there's certainly, in many ways, they seem in
control of many things right now, and they're more and more sharply departing from
norms. But when volatility increases, it doesn't mean that it just increases in
one direction. Like the range of potential outcomes grows in both directions. And
so I look at h I look at things like the arrest of I look
at other things like that, and that is a that is a bigger and
bigger departure from norms that ultimately just sort of objectively increases the range of possible
outcomes in both directions. And that's not the move of a that's not the
move of a stable, self confident regime. A stable self confident regime is
not they're going to want to sort of slowly and carefully move in their direction
and not do anything that sort of rocks the boat, because if you're in
control, you don't want to rock the boat. No, that is that
is that is people who feel desperation, and it's people who ultimately I think
are setting the stage for for greater volatility that could very quickly. I think
they know their own weakness in some ways, and they're actually accelerating things that
could lead to their own demise. You know, when you talk about your
on your website, when you say about our firm, you say, we
explicitly opposed DEI, E. S. G, and the bureaucetization of American
business culture. And I think again, as we talk about the fact that
DEI and SG is about denying merit and sows the seeds of its own destruction,
the same thing is true of bureaucracies as well. In central planning.
We have always been able in the past. America has been able to transcend
these centrally planned economies. If we look at North versus South Korea, one
country split, same people, same background, but a different system, one
that is tightly centrally controlled and bureaucratic. The same thing with East and West
Germany. And so we know that having something that has decentralized, something that
is based on merit, not bureaucracy, and that type of thing, we
know that that's a winning position, and so that should be a very hopeful
thing. You say you promote a culture of entrepreneurship and excellence, betting on
great companies and products and customers discovered by corrosive ideologies. It's a very hopeful
strategy, I think, and talk to us a little bit about what you
see in terms of you know, let's talk about a disruptive technology that is
teetering. It could go either way, and that is cryptocurrency. You know,
we have the CBDC, which is a big specter of complete and total
surveillance and control of everything that we do, and they have a targeted cryptocurrency
for extinction. But then there's other aspects of the blockchain that perhaps might be
used. How do you see that developing? So it's a good question.
I think that is I'm very interested in blockchain. I'm probably in some ways,
I'm probably more interested in it than AI because I think that it is
it is particularly focused on it's particularly focused on targeting many of the centers of
regime control. I mean, you think a bitcoin and it is directly challenging
a control of the currency, which is ultimately probably the strongest source of UH
present regime power. And it's uh, I'm optimistic. I think that I
think that bitcoin is an incredibly powerful technology. Uh, it's it's certainly one
that has I think it doesn't just have the technical promise, and there's obviously
always stuff that needs to be worked out in sort of the technology of any
of these things that at an earlier stage. But it also has a culture
that I think aligns with intends to draw the sort of people who are who
are skeptics of the central control. And it's it's it's by nature international.
So the more international something like that is, the uh, the harder it
is for it to be stamped out in any one location. So I look
at that, and I see that, and I think that a lot of
the attacks on it are just spurious. I mean they say that it can
be used for criminal activity or whatever, but it's it's traceable. It's actually
I mean, the US bundles of cash are far more effective for money loan
than bitcoint is. It's uh, what it really is is it's not about
it's not about secrecy or anything. It's about, Uh, it's about not
being something that can be arbitrarily shut down by financial institutions that are increasingly politicized,
not being something that can be sort of systematically taxed and debased. UH.
So I look at that and I see a lot of potential. I
see a lot of excitement in the community. I see a lot of very
serious people, serious thinkers, doing very serious things in the bitcoin world and
UH and increasingly, UH there's there's evident political UH pressure that pushes back against
the UH really against the regulators who want to shut it down. I mean,
people know that a CBDC is something that can be a powerful tool for
UH for essentially just increasing increasing the totalitarian capability of the current system. UH.
That is not something that's just going to be let in easily in the
mood there. So I look at it. I see obviously it could be
used. Some of these things could be used for They could be used for
harming us. But the vast majority of the space is really culturally aligned and
I think technologically aligned with directionally where we need to go. That's true.
Yeah, yeah, it does have some issues with privacy that people don't realize.
And but like you said, culturally and technically, you know, culturally
they're aligned with us in many ways in terms of decentralization and liberty, and
there are some things that we can use in that space. What would you
say, to the Christian Right as a movement, what needs to change and
the way we approach things in our perspective in order to win whatever that means,
win the culture. I think part part of it is actually try.
I mean, I think one big problem, so one big challenge in the
Christian Right is they've been politically neutered in many I think, accepted theologies that
are intentionally politically neuterting. So you look at a lot of and there's a
lot of different things you can tie us to. I mean, I would
say a pessimistic eschatology can lead to a mindset where you just put your head
down and kind of expect things are going to get worse. And it's one
that ultimately is very undermining a human agency because you don't you don't only have
the belief in the effectiveness of your actions. But second of all, even
aside from that, I think most Christians intuitively recognize that there's a problem here
and then they want it to change, Realize that we can be effective,
realize our numbers, realize that ultimately this is a war that we're in.
I mean, you have a lot of people who I think would be very
patriotic about signing up increasingly. I think that these people have been alienated by
the military, but they wouldn't have hesitated to pick up arms and make great
sacrifices to fight for the defense of the country. But otherwise are fairly uninterested
in politics. I mean, a lot of Christians really may be aside from
the exception of abortion, just really are not very interested in politics, are
not very focused on politics. You homeschool, let's say, or you go
to Christian school, so you're not really interested in what happens to the school
board. Well, you're paying for it, and it's educating the people who
you're who are going to be co workers or employers or whatever, so we
should care about it. It's going to shape the culture of the town that
someone lives in, So we should care about all of those things. And
we should recognize that we have we have real numbers here, and we have
real eye I think, a real foundation. This is what American reformers trying
to do is sort of restore the foundation that that makes clear how Christian doctrine
speaks to any number of institutions. It has clear visions not just of abortion,
but how you should think about all sorts of issues around what government should
ideally be doing, and how government should be, how government should be approaching
things, So get political would be one of the top ones. And then
second of all, embrace a positive vision. I think this is a big
thing is if we're a conservative. I mean, my view is a conservative
impulse is a good impulse. It's a prudent impulse in a world where we
recognize that man as fall If we recognize we're fallen, we're wise not to
sort of recklessly go and try to just constantly change everything from the ground up.
Like that should be there, But we should also have Christians who are
part of the vanguard, who are pushing out a positive vision, who are
really aspiring for what we should build it. You actually do see a lot
of these people in the crypto world, and I think that we need a
lot more. I mean, if Christians are some people are I think temperamentally
going to be conservative. They are just naturally they want to focus on that
type of thing. That's great, but that doesn't need to be the defining
identity of our movement. The defining identity of our movement should be a positive
vision for how society should be organized. That is a sharp, very clear,
and ultimately I think much more attractive. Alternative to what the left puts
out there is their vision of progress. So they defined progress their way.
We should be defining what an elevated vision of society. I don't I don't
know that I would embrace the word progress. I think that has a particular
uh, there's a particular sort of framework called they've kind of stolen that word,
just like they stole the word liberal liberal used to liberated people. It's
an open question whether we whether we believe that, whether it's I don't know
that I would think of it even necessarily in terms of progress, because I
don't believe that history moves in one direction so much as we certainly have a
vision of sort of what an elevated vision of life looks like, what is
a higher what is a sort of higher vision of society or a lower vision
of society at the very least, and we should be we should be painting
pictures of what the elevated vision looks like and rallying people to uh, to
go create that. I agree as one person said, I forget it was
that said that you can't win a culture where if you don't have a culture,
and we have retreated from this. We are shamed of what our beliefs
are because we've been criticized, and we have a very compelling vision, and
we should be looking at ways that we can move that forward, that we
could project that out, explain it to people. It is not a threatening
vision to people. It's quite frankly, their centralized control vision is a very
threatening thing. And I think one of the things that we can learn from
the left. Get your opinion on this, seems like the left has a
very They've got their set of values and they don't and their values based really
I don't agree with their values, but they push those values out, whereas
we say, well, just don't change anything. I just don't want to
see any change here. And if we have values, we're not trying to
advance those values as the left is. We're just trying to keep things from
changing. That's a conservative perspective. Whereas we need to go on the offense
and we need to say these are a values, these are why these values
are good, and then how are we going to best establish these values?
And I think unless we do that, we're going to lose. And we've
been losing because we've not been doing that. I think we have to have
that vision, project that vision, work on that vision, and try to
push that forward, which is what the left does, but we don't do
that as conservatives, and clearly, you know the conservatives, that's really kind
of a political position. That's why I think it's very important for us to
look at this from a Christian position because they have principles we have as Christians,
we have principles and things that we want to advance, and you have
to have that. You have to have some standard that you're going to try
to advance. Think of it as a flag or whatever, you know,
that type of standard that's going to advance what we want to see our culture
look like and work on that. I think. I think that's what you're
doing, absolutely, and it's a self confidence that goes with that. I
think that's a huge part of it. I think the self confidence to know
that your values are better than the other side, that in many cases we
know that it is the truth, We know that we have the truth.
And I think education is a great place to look at this. Look at
a lot of Christian colleges and they have a sort of palpable inferiority complex.
They covet the endorsement of institutions like Harford. Yeah, and you look at
institutions like Harvard, and Harvard does not know. Harvard does not know what
truth means. They do not know what an education means anymore. As an
institution, they become so disconnected. I mean, Yale has a professor like
Jason Stanley in their philosophy department. Totally ridiculous, guy, I mean,
just comically ignorant by any standard of history, any sort of standard of education.
And he's in a philosophy to heartment. So why do you want Yale's
approval? The right approach would be it could be a small college, but
they could express they should be expressing contempt for these institutions and really very self
confidently saying if no one else knows how to truth, will define our own
standard. We understand truth better than anyone else out here. We understand what
an education means. So we're going to be our own judge. We're not
going to brag out how many graduates we get into Harvard grad programs, or
how many sort of prestigious degrees our faculty have, when when all that means
is you're really submitting to the standards of people who don't even know what an
education means. So I think there's that self confidence is really a an absolutely
crucial position, and it comes from knowing that our values, knowing that we
are right, knowing that we have the better vision of life, which increasingly
all you have to do is look at the left. I think for a
while, for a long time, the left did seem to have things that
were more exciting, things that were more more attractive. In many ways,
I think part of that was sort of an appdication of the part of conservatives.
Part of it was just where they were in their their art. There
were sort of some bakeding values. But really at this point, I mean,
you look at what DEI is putting out and it's literally ugly. Yeah,
and you look at these people. There's a great deal of hubris that
they have, and they act as if they are one hundred percent right,
and yet you know that they know that they're not right, because they won't
engage you in debate. As you pointed out, you know, it's an
act of desperation, you know when you look at politics there and when they
try to they don't want to engage in debate. They want to just shut
down and cancel everything. And we see this whenever you go up and engage
them at a protest, you say, well, what are you protesting?
Please? Are you're racist? You know? They just start throwing fithets at
you. They don't want to defend their position. They don't want to debate
what you have to say, which is really coming from a position of deep
insecurity and desperation. And so we need to understand that even though the facade
that they present is one of arrogance and complete confidence, that on the inside
they don't have that at all, and so there is a vulnerability there,
and so we need to work on what we need to understand in terms of
our foundation, I think, and then once we have, once we are
confident unlike them internally, and once we're confident in our position with God,
then that's a foundation on which we can stand and conquer. And we should
move from that and project those values out to other people that trying to control
them, without making any mandates on them. But we hold it out there
as a standard to be achieved. And that's the way that Christian society has
always advanced in the past, I believe. Yeah, well, I will
say to some extent, there are areas where there's no neutrality, and I
think that's actually that's an important one too. So if you ask me what
I would say about Christians, we've been conservative, but we've also sort of,
at best thought, bought for a neutral public square in the We bought
into a lot of the assumptions in the twentieth century of secularism, which are
totally out of stuck with American history, where there was no there was no
sense that you'd have a sort of public scare square cleansed of God, for
instance. And what I think is actually happening in the digital age, and
this is interesting, is you're starting to see people realize there is no neutrality.
The left realized is ahead of us. So this goes to going back
to the Facebook example. After the face, let's say the Facebook algorithms played
a role in elevating pro Trump content, amplifying pro Trump content that helped elect
Trump. People realize that there's no neutrality. I mean, you have an
algorithm that gives people what they want to see, this engagement that's not neutral,
that is going to advance a certain type of content. The left certainly
wanted to impose their own values. But you particularly you think of the nature
of an algorithmic feed itself, and by its very nature, its job is
to rank and curate things for you. If you look at Google, go
to Google, you type in a search term, you have a number one
search result, you have number two, search result, number ten, et
cetera. There must be a value system within Google about why one is better
than two. That cannot be the There's no neutrality there. I mean,
you go type in the search term is Jesus God, and ultimately a search
engine condenses things. The top result either says yes or no. There's no
there's no possibility in the sort of greatest summarized version of it for neutrality there.
And I think as people realize, as the left realizes that, they
realize you have to catechize the boy, becomes a religious war to catechise the
body. So in many cases, I think of the digital algorithms as equivalent
to the sort of norms in society where we may have had a strong tradition
of toleration. I think the angle of world has had a very strong tradition
of religious toleration, but there's still the sort of norms and customs throughout society
that nudge you in certain directions, that normalize certain beliefs as the sort of
default or expected belief. And I think the algorithm, in many ways,
the algorithmic curation that is going to shape just all aspects of society fits in
that and either those norms, those norms cannot be neutral. Either they either
they reflect Christian truth or they reflect some other set of values. So I
think I think it'll be helpful actually for Christians to move beyond simply fighting for
neutrality and actually realize that in many of these domains we should be fighting for
the truth. We should have confidence in the truth well enough to fight for
it. And there isn't going to be neutral. So if we try to
leave it neutral, it's just gonna be filled by It's gonna be filled by
an ideology that is not ours, and it is invariably going to be hostile
to us. I agree, Yeah, I think neutrality is alive when you're
talking about education, when we're talking about journalism and that type of thing beyond
Google. They take a look at Matt Drudge. He is aggregating the news.
And I've said this from the beginning. The whole idea that they keep
trying to sell people. It's like, oh, we're completely neutral. Well,
if you believe that in terms of being a journalist, then you're either
incredibly naive and ignorant yourself unaware of your biases and prejudice, or you're lying
to somebody because you really do have those biases and prejudices, and we can
see it. And Matt Drudge, he went from presenting the you know,
select he doesn't write anything, but he's got what he selects to show to
you is either from a conservative bent or now from a leftist bent. And
this has always been the case, is also the case when you look at
religion in the public square. They said, we're going to be neutral by
purging religion out of the neutral out of the public square. Well that's not
neutrality. What you're now doing is you're pushing a religion of secular humanism.
But I think that you know, when we when we look at this,
as you point out, Christianity has had a history of being tolerant of differences
but still having very strongly held values that we hold deer and I think that's
one of the key things. I think we have gotten to the point where
you know, tolerance of different opinions is really not the value that's holding forth.
What we're really putting out is the fact that we're apathetic. We don't
really care, and so it isn't that we're tolerant. We just don't care
anymore about these fundamental values, and so we have to reclaim those things on
a personal basis. And then once we reclaim those things, we will have
a very firm foundation. It doesn't necessarily mean we're going to ram those things
down somebody's throat. Now, if you have a situation like, for example,
abortion, there is going to be a conflict there, and people who
believe that that is murder, as I do, are going to do everything
they can to stop that. But in most cases it's going to be a
you know, this is our positivision of the world, and if you don't
want to join us, you don't have to join us. But we're going
to do this. And I think that's a key part of what you're trying
to do with the Venture Fund, is to transcend this kind of decaying society
that is there. It really is to me, I look at our society
right now, looks like a very big tree that you may not realize it,
but the entire insides have been eaten out by a bug and it's just
waiting for a breeze to come along and blow the whole thing over on your
house. That's kind of where I think where it was society right now.
I agree, and I think that I think that what's interesting is more and
more is going to be that soft nudging. It is to be edging in
one direction. And going back to Google, my favorite, my favorite example,
ranked search terms. That's not that's not coercive in the legal sense,
but it certainly nudges you toward a particular uh. One result is ranked higher
than the other one, and people go there for a reason because, going
to the idea of Matt Drudge, it can't be neutral. Neutral. Neutral
in the age of the Internet is entirely spam. I mean, you're going
to be totally inundated by spam. So you're looking for someone to judge by
some standard. This is worth my reading, This is worth my seeing.
What is that standards that standard of the truth? Is that standard a particular
ideology? Is that standard? Something purely sort of reflexive, like engagement,
like the more time you spend on it the better it must be, which
I think is that's sort of thing engineers like because it allows them to sort
of sidestep the questions they really don't know how to answer. But that points
to the vulnerability of these companies. I mean, you go to Google,
and Google you go there to see them rank rank websites, presumably looking for
truth or looking for for something good or useful. I would argue Google lacks
the foundation, They lack the epistemological foundation to actually know how to answer those
questions. They really don't know how to distinguish spam from non spam. Ultimately,
if you don't, if you don't know how to define what is good,
then then then what is that is what distinguishes spam from non spam ultimately,
and people just spammers just get really good at sort of playing to the
algorithm. If you don't have an objective standard, if it just becomes sort
of a reflexive one. So I think a big vulnerability is they lack the
They lack the ability to actually discriminate in ways that people are looking for.
And so increasingly, as as we have a breakdown of any sort of norms
and standards in society, you're just going to see you're going to see a
degradation of quality in all sorts of spaces, and that includes a degradation in
the quality of the goodness of information out there, the truth value, that
the moral value. According to even people who might not see themselves as a
Christian, they're looking for that. They still are looking for something that they
sort of intuitively recognize is good in many cases. Obviously some are not.
Some are truly looking for evil, and platforms that don't know how to provide
that are not going to be able to get people what they look, what
they want, and increasingly they're going to be They're going to produce dissatisfaction.
And that is an opportunity for us to capitalize on and for us to show
them a better vision, show them better alternatives. Absolutely, New Founding is
about building the future, about responding to market signals from a Christian and conservative
perspective, about getting around the culture and promoting a culture of excellence and merit.
And I think that we need to understand that we are really in a
better position than many of us think because of those values that we hold.
The question is how do we implement those values into new businesses, into new
systems into new institutions, and I think new Founding has an important role to
play in that. Thank you so much for joining us, Nate. I
appreciate it. Thank you very much, Nate Fisher, thank you, Thank
you for having me. David, thank you. The David Knight Show is
a critical thinking super spreader. If you've been exposed to logic by listening to
The David Knight Show, please do your part and try not to spread it.
Financial support, or simply tell the others about the show causes this dangerous
information to spread. Father people have to trust me, I mean, trust
the science. Wear you mask, take your vaccine, don't ask questions using
free speech to free minds. It's the David Knight Show. Whether you're feeling
like the booze or bluegrass, APS Radio has you covered. Check out a
wide variety of channels on our app at apsradio dot com.