Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 29, 2023 - The David Knight Show

03:09:10

The David Knight Show - 11/29/2023

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Transcription by CastingWords
	Transcription by CastingWords You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	As the clock strikes 13, it's Wednesday, the 29th of November, year of our Lord, 2023.
	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 I'm still not certain what the cause was, but we still have about 12,000 people in the area that are out of power.
	But we've got a lot to talk about, so I'm going to get on anyway, and we'll see what happens with this new time slot.
	Not that we're going to necessarily continue with this, but...
	We'll see what happens. I want 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 this is causing people who have 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.
	up.
	So we'll be right back.
	Stay with us.
	Well, again, thank you for all the messages about 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 was not going to be going live until we got power back.
	But, of course, Twitter is kind of a dead platform for me.
	It has been for a long time, even though...
	I typically have a large number of followers if you look at it.
	I've been shadowbanned there for years and I've really just quit posting anything except for 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 start with what is happening with free speech.
	Because it is kind of interesting.
	A massive new document dump showing what I've said all along.
	We always knew this was the case.
	We could detect it from their motives.
	We could detect it from what they've been planning for decades.
	Go back, as I've talked about, the fact that in the 1960s, you had J.C.R. Licklider and DARPA say, let's create this intergalactic information network, 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 90s, you had the CIA was so adamant to get control of this thing.
	That they openly created a venture capital firm called In-Q-Tel.
	And then other venture capital firms were loaded on their board of directors with people from the intelligence community, people from the NSA 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 were going to play it out.
	And just like our elections, you don't get into 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.
	It's 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 up, 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 twerking, for sensual dancing, and things like that.
	Not my Christmas songs, however.
	They will not allow you to say 2020 was the year that the world became China.
	They won't allow that.
	And they say, well, we don't want to have people's ads show up on something that they might not like.
	And we've 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 2018 as this CITL thing that we're going to talk about, as that was being formed, that was when they lowered the boom.
	And that's when they openly took out everybody at Infowars.
	We don't really care, if you notice, right?
	And then, that was in August of 2018.
	Two months later, they took out 800 other people on social media.
	They were not Trump supporters, necessarily.
	Most of them, as a matter of fact, were not Trump supporters just before that midterm in 2018.
	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.
	But that was the type of people that they're removing.
	So, you 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 are like people.
	They can do whatever. 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 it.
	I don't really think he was being a shill.
	I think he'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.
	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 whistleblower 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, like he 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 government, they're always going to be privileged, right?
	Human beings, on the other hand, are creatures of God.
	We've 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 supposed to.
	That's really the only legitimate purpose of government.
	It's 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 that we don't even understand where 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, we'll get into the details of it, they're saying, well, as long as we call it a public-private partnership, we can do whatever we want.
	No, you can't.
	This is a conspiracy.
	This is like Mission Impossible.
	Mr. Phelps, if you or any of your team are caught, we will disavow any knowledge of which they'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, first of all, you have to understand, well, the difference is between rights and privileges.
	You have to understand the difference between a corporation and a human.
	And that's real 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?
	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 1946, Marsh v.
	Alabama, that I've talked about so many times.
	They said, in a coal 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, I had this argument back and forth with Robert Barnes on the air at InfoWars.
	The 1946 Marsh v.
	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 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 JCPenney's, 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 and set it up.
	And you can't do it out in the common area of that.
	That has nothing to do with Marsh v.
	Alabama. Those are completely different things.
	So, what is happening is, as I pointed out briefly yesterday, James O'Keefe put on this SSSS list for extra screening on flights, which means that they not only put him through enhanced scanning and things like that, But they also have a marshal following him around.
	And where did that come from?
	Well, that was the legacy of Trump in January the 6th and Alex Jones and the Stop the Steal stuff.
	Anybody who even flew into that general area, just like Bank of America is reporting anybody that had any financial transactions on January the 6th in that general area.
	They were all reported to the FBI. And if you flew into those areas, the FBI has put you on their super secret list, or the SSSS, whatever that stands for.
	It's like Animal House, where they put the guys on double secret probation.
	Look, you know, I laugh at this stuff, and I don't really care what they do to me.
	But we need to understand this is going to 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.
	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.
	We're going out there and banning this and that because it offends people.
	We're going to ban the name, you know, the Kansas City Chiefs mascot.
	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 and everything.
	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 the founders of this country understood the tactics that would be taken.
	And that it would be a gradual process.
	It would 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, that 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 you have free speech groups are calling on the Congress to block funding of NewsGuard.
	You see, the way this is operating, NewsGuard, ElectionGuard, they're operated under Microsoft.
	But they're being funded by the government.
	As a matter of fact, we look at ElectionGuard underneath Microsoft.
	That was a corporation that was within Microsoft.
	But all their money came from DARPA. They had a $10 million 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 news guard, election guard, you know, 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, but I talk about it frequently, CCPA. It's not the Chinese Communist Party of America, but it might as well be.
	It's a coalition for content provenance, 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.
	They're not even going to...
	They're not content.
	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 banned on Twitter to the point I 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 Venmo, 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, you know, 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 community, 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 a 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 people have been saying, as they look at this bill, this is becoming like Fahrenheit 451.
	Because their response was not only to say, well, 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, 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 it 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've got the politician in Scotland.
	Too many white people here in Scotland.
	And I remember where that guy was from, or woman.
	Anyway, the hate speech 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 451.
	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 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.
	In the same way that when you look at Nikki Haley, what does she do?
	Well, she says that Confederate flags were a hate symbol, so they're going to be banned.
	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 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, 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'll attribute them to be hateful.
	It's hateful. So, looking at the law here, it says, A person 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. Would 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 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.
	If you've got a Bible in your house, Fahrenheit 451, take the Bible, but he'll 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 he had to say.
	In addition to that, I think it's now very obvious to anyone who might have doubted it that 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 it through within a matter of weeks because it's not just the platforms who have a responsibility here, and they do.
	There's also the individuals who post messages and images 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 a very, they're wringing their hands and saying, you know, we've only had, in the 30 years since we enacted this, back in 1989, we've only had 50 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 the 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, said one person on Twitter.
	Of course, and 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 MacGuffin, the basis for making sure that you own nothing, that you go nowhere, that you have nothing to eat, that sort of thing.
	And it's going to be done for the common good, of course.
	You know, 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, then we're going to ban you from doing it.
	Well, what if I'm uncomfortable with them doing that?
	What if they make me uncomfortable?
	Well, that 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 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 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, I've got his name here, Nate Huckman.
	Nate Huckman said the 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 said that as well. And we saw this.
	This is not something new.
	This began in 2020 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 was 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 World Economic Forum youth leaders.
	They came after Vivek Ramaswamy, and he did a lawsuit.
	He said, 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 it is with a lot of these people.
	But all the time you'll have people say, well, look at Dan Crenshaw, Tulsi Gabbard.
	They were World Economic Forum young leaders chosen.
	I'm not aware.
	Maybe they did. I'm not aware that they pulled back and disavowed that.
	Like Rama Swami 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 Forum did.
	But we must never say anything about Donald Trump.
	I did look at some comments on this.
	I get so much hate after I had David Stockman on yesterday to talk about his book, Trump's War on Capitalism.
	Trump was at 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 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.
	Remember, we had Kathy Bennett there.
	She says these other people, these two frontrunners 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 celebrity, because that's where he likes to hang out.
	That makes 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 endorse them because they're part of Hydra?
	Right? Hail Hydra! Gives the guy a handshake, whispers in his ear.
	Hail Hydra! 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 its own people, Because these people are all part of the UN World Economic Forum Hydro Club, if you will.
	And that is what they're doing.
	Okay, so Trudeau, as we see the EU putting out their digital ID, say, now we got the digital ID, now we got the wallet, now we 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 2030.
	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 internet that they've set up.
	If we don't find a parallel structure and ways that we can operate outside of this, not necessarily 100% 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, name it, whatever they're going to do.
	It's disruption, as Fauci said just before they did this pandemic.
	You do it with disruption, 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 in Justin Trudeau, he says, we've now finalized a controversial, well, he didn't call it controversial, this is Reclaim the Net, saying that he finalized a controversial collaborative digital partnership with the European Union.
	Full commitment to 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, Nikki Haley wants to know your name.
	Nikki's not her real name.
	Her real name is Nuki. No, real name is Nimrata, something wrong with it.
	She married somebody who was American.
	So she's, again, you know, we need our own Indian foreign president so we can follow in 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 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 Minority Report.
	That has been something that they've been working on for decades, especially in the 90s.
	The Geospatial Intelligence Agency, where James Clapper rose, fastest growing part of the intelligence agency, in order to do the kinds of things that they did on January the 6th to conservative protesters.
	Geospatial intelligence. To map out your politics, map out your location, your whereabouts, to make sure that you don't get out of your 15-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 20 years, and now they're going to start applying it to us.
	But a part of that It's 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 Foundation is doubling down on its push for digital ID and to tie it to digital money, and they're doing it in Nigeria.
	You know, he's focusing on these poor countries.
	He focused years ago on India, came up with the Adhar system, and he said, well, you know, we've 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, we'll give you medical care, we'll give you food and things like that, but you've got to 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 of the way that it operates, but it's really the poor countries that makes it easier for him to get through.
	In 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 I always think of it as a printer.
	But again, he's coming out with this publicly.
	He wants to have 50 countries within the next five years that are all going to be on CBDC. And so, you know, when you talk about Nigeria, what is their big problem?
	Is it 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 when 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 Rockfilm.
	Brian and Deb McCartney, thank you very much for the tip.
	I 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.
	You 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 you go. You can get on it.
	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 going to take me off.
	But you can be there.
	And on Rockfin, thank you very much, Eric.
	I appreciate the tip. Thank you.
	So both of them, we've got people on Rockfin.
	Is 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 with power backup, and we've had a lot of these power outages here, And the problem with the power back up...
	Is that we have internet coming in in the same way.
	We don't have the bandwidth. We tried getting a hotspot that we could use with us because it's easy enough for us to get a power backup, 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 the stuff.
	I mean, the crony capitalism and the corruption in Texas is disgusting.
	That'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 a 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 in 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'd already been doing shows that way just a week or two before.
	And so we continued with it.
	You know, other places, even InfoWars, with all the elaborate backup that they've got there, they blacked out.
	But we did it, and we put it up on Twitter.
	I had more of an active Twitter account at that point in time.
	And I had to do the show with a candle.
	And so we did a can of light.
	And then as I was doing the show, one of the pipes burst.
	So 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, mitigate it, 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 outage has 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 6 o'clock this morning.
	And so that's what I'm guessing was really behind it.
	We're going to take a quick break. When we come back, we're going to talk about the CTIL files.
	So stay with us.
	We'll be right back.
	PIANO PLAYS
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Elvis.
	Ladies and gentlemen, the Beatles.
	And the sweet sounds of Motown.
	Find them on the Oldies channel at APSradio.com.
	you Alright, and as I said, we're talking about the CTIL 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 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 Substack.
	It's put together by Michael Schellenberger, Alex Gutentag, and Matt Taibbi, who went through this information.
	And this is just part one of this expose.
	But it names names, and it shows you exactly how they were putting this together.
	The U.S. and U.K. 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 it the Five Eyes.
	U.S., U.K., Canada, New Zealand, and Australia.
	So the U.S. and the U.K. military contractors created a sweeping plan for global censorship in 2018.
	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.
	It's filled with Nazis.
	Well, the Nazis are going to go wherever there's 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 don't just give it up.
	I mean, come on. They're the easiest people in the world to take down, to 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 oppose people like radical Islamists, 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 are as bad as the radical Islamists.
	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 2018, August Infowars.
	October, 800 other sites.
	But getting back to this.
	The one thing I disagree with these guys on, Matt Taiby and Schellenberger, they said this was done in reaction to Brexit and Trump election in 2016.
	No, it wasn't.
	No, it wasn't. This was planned for decades.
	I got to contact Matt Taiby.
	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?
	You know, going back to the 90s, going back to the 60s.
	For 60 years, they've been working on this stuff.
	Yes, they did it, quote-unquote, in response to Brexit and Trump.
	They use that as justification, you understand.
	Justification to roll out what they've been working on and planning on for decades.
	That's not to say that this is in response to Brexit and Trump.
	It's to say that 2020 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 20 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 he was part of them.
	I think he was the 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, uh, this, uh, this document, whistleblowers come forward with an explosive new trove of documents rivaling or exceeding the Twitter files, Facebook files, and so forth.
	They described the activities as a, of an anti disinformation group, quote unquote, called the cyber threat intelligence league, league, the league.
	I always think of the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.
	Well, I guess this is the League of Extraordinary Non-Gentlemen.
	You go back to the early part of the 20th century.
	And I forget whether it was British or American intelligence.
	This is one guy who was head of the intelligence agency.
	And there 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 league of non-gentlemen that are doing this.
	And so they said, well, this is nothing.
	This is a volunteer project.
	A volunteer project to people who were defense and intelligence veterans.
	And not even just veterans.
	By veterans, they mean they'd been there a very long time.
	It doesn't mean that they'd left.
	And these are people who pretended that this is a public-private partnership.
	Well, you know, 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 100% 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 sending messages to Twitter and to 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.
	And any responsibility.
	And we don't have to follow the law. We don't have to follow the First Amendment because we've got a private company here.
	And that's the kind of thinking that was coming out from Heritage Foundation and Cato 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 the military and the intelligence agencies.
	They had partnerships. They had 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 spy disguise.
	But, of course, this is all allowed, isn't it?
	Under their rules? Under their new rules?
	All this stuff, you can lie to people, you can do it in secret.
	What does Nikki think about this?
	Nuki Haley. You know, she wants to know their name.
	Well, what's that going to do to the sock puppet accounts?
	Well, of course, they'll be able to do things secretly because they're different.
	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.
	Another explains that while such activities overseas are typically done by the CIA and 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 Groucho Marx glasses with a big nose and the mustache and we will do this as a private corporation.
	We'll pretend we're the private corporation.
	This is, over the last year, We've had congressional investigators and others document the rise of the censorship industrial complex, a network of over 100 government agencies and also non-governmental organizations that work together to urge censorship by social media platforms and to spread propaganda about disfavored individuals' topics on 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, CISA. They tried three times to pass it when it was called CISPA, P. And then they tried SOPA, ACTA, PIPA, various forms of this.
	They all failed. They dropped the P. What is the P 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, it could do PP. It's getting too many letters there.
	So it could be CISPPA. C-I-S-P-P-A. 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, ACTA, PIPA, 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 online.
	Harvard looked at it. They didn't care.
	Local law enforcement looked at it.
	They didn't care. So they got the federal attorney to come after him.
	And he didn't care.
	This wasn't his first rodeo.
	He was like, I'm not going to 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 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 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 over the fact that he was going to go to jail for a very, very long time, as if he was involved in January 6th.
	Of course, this all predated January 6th by quite a bit.
	But he had fought that. He told people what this was about, and he was a point man fighting it.
	I think it was Mike McCall out of Texas who was a point man who was pushing CISPA and then finally got it through as CISA. 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 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.
	We're going to protect them from being sued by those people.
	And that's what it did. It also created this new bureaucracy under Homeland Security.
	So, they have emails between CISA's social media partners show that they created, CISA created, the Election Integrity Partnership in 2020, which involved the Stanford Internet Observatory and other U.S. government contractors.
	I'm sure in that there's also the one that operated down at the University of Indiana.
	I've talked about that before.
	Oh, so me. Oh, so me.
	They had the guy that was head of that social media manipulation, you know, 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.
	They like all Republicans, and they've got the Kinsey Institute there.
	And so they brought this guy from Italy, not India, Italy, to run that thing.
	And then they moved him 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 to censor 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 of intrigue.
	As I point out, there's more than 100 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 U.S. and the U.K. would put into place in 2020 and 2021, including masking censorship within cybersecurity institutions and counter-disinformation agendas, a heavy focus on stopping disfavored narratives and not just the wrong facts, you see. The CTIL's approach to disinformation, they write, 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 always 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.
	CISA would not comment on it.
	But they don't have to.
	We know. Now, they identified 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 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 the government, though. I'm not assured.
	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.
	I didn't believe that even Trump believed it.
	It was so stupid. And I've said this.
	All this stuff. We could inject sunlight in people's veins and we could do this and we could do that.
	And it does that in conjunction with hydroxychloroquine, which along with zinc 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 to Fauci's serious scientist.
	Oh, that's Trump.
	You just 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 to 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 withdrawals at 900.
	Yeah, so did I. I was getting really antsy about all this stuff.
	You get into this in terms of a habit, and it's like, oh, no.
	But anyway, yeah, back to this.
	So Terp, this person who was at the very center of this, she had a SISA badge, but it went away at some point, said the whistleblower.
	Ah, yeah. Yeah, Mr.
	Phelps. The CIA 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.
	Oh, Pablo.
	He was also a leader with the League.
	The League of Non-Gentlemen...
	And he was somebody who was a former U.S. Navy commander, Pablo was.
	He was military director of U.S. Special Operations Command, Donovan Group.
	He had been an advisor and an officer to the National Security Agency, the U.S. 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 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, you know, 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 of planes 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, special forces were 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 was going to be on our side and who was not going to be on our side.
	I think that was really what Jade Helm was about.
	And so they do certain things and see how people react.
	Okay, I 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 loyalty is like.
	And so, again, these people have always been about special operations, have always been about PSYOP. Also looking at this, they had the so-called All-Volunteer League of Censorship.
	Had grown to about 1,400 members in 76 countries.
	And they were vetted.
	Vetted. And spanned 45 different sectors.
	But 1,400 members in 76 countries.
	And they helped to lawfully take down 2,800 cyber criminal assets on the internet, they said.
	Well, yeah. Sure.
	How do they define criminal?
	I imagine they define me as criminal.
	But look, this is the Stasi approach.
	So they're volunteers.
	So what if they are? The people in East Germany were volunteers who worked for the Stasi.
	I've told a story before.
	The woman who was an American, and 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 believe her motives.
	It's like there's no way she's here because she likes communism.
	Why would anybody leave America and move here?
	We got nothing here, right?
	So they are very suspicious of her.
	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 Stasi, That almost all of her friends were informants to the Stasi on her.
	That's what these people are.
	These are traitors to the United States.
	All of these people. I don't care if they've got a title.
	I don't care if they've got a uniform.
	I don't care how long they worked as a veteran in the military.
	You are a traitor if you do this.
	You have broken your oath to the Constitution.
	You have betrayed your own people to set up a globalist government.
	They stress that they were simply volunteers that were motivated by altruism.
	And they did it at places like the Aspen Institute.
	I interviewed a guy who is a lone conservative in Aspen who was reporting about the Aspen Institute 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 USA has now become the United Stasi of America.
	People united through this league, united through the intelligence community.
	Terp said in a 2019 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.
	Let's just purge it 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 know, you're right about that.
	I don't care that you use it as a pejorative term.
	I'll accept that label.
	Brewer, getting back to Brewer, who worked for Special Forces 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 is part of U.S. Special Operations Command.
	So I'm military director of the Donovan Group.
	And one of two innovation officers at Softworks, 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 501c3 nonprofit that is funded by U.S. Special Operations Command.
	So how is that private?
	Again, it's no different from Election Guard.
	That is an organization under Microsoft, but funded 100% with a $10 million grant from DARPA. It's 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 DARPA 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?
	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.
	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 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 5i nations.
	The US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand.
	And they even suggested that they ought to bring Interpol in with them.
	This is a global censorship operation to bring in a global governance.
	So they said, we need to pre-bunk 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-bunk it.
	They're going to identify the same thing that NewsGuard does.
	NewsGuard says, oh, okay, this guy opposed 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 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 and now they want to do that everywhere.
	As I said, you know, 2020 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, what I have in mind is 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 U.S. 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 out-group 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 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've got to sell it as if it's a private organization.
	What a disgusting person.
	He 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 what, 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 Xi Jinping.
	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 Twerp.
	Terp is her name, not Twerp.
	But Twerp. 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-12, 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 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 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 U.S. to embrace their chains.
	They 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.
	It's legal. And there were no First Amendment concerns because we have a public-private partnership.
	That's the word we use 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 are not people.
	God... It creates people with inalienable 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, the libertarian view of corporations has always been, well, like, you know, they have to, 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 at a better price 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 a...
	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 2020, shutting them down.
	Service businesses? No, we're not going to have you.
	And so these big corporations want to please the government.
	NASCAR doesn't care about their people.
	Budweiser doesn't care about their customers.
	They got one customer.
	And that's the government. And that's why this whole thing about corporations can do, you know, well, corporations are competing against each other.
	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 bribable 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, Coca-Cola, Budweiser, 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 that's going to be used to hang you.
	They're ingratiating themselves into a position with this totalitarian 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.
	Ron Paul, as I mentioned earlier, he urges what he calls the separation of tech and state.
	He says, some libertarians dismiss concerns over social media companies' 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 Stossel and others.
	It remains to be seen whether they will turn on him for saying this or not.
	But what Ron Paul is saying here is absolutely true.
	He says there's two problems with this argument.
	He says, first of all, there's nothing un-libertarian about criticizing private businesses or using peaceful and voluntary means such as boycotts 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 Bremer, I think is his name, the controller guards that I interviewed last week.
	The 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 pensions taken away.
	And they need to be jailed, quite frankly, because they have been traitors to the American people.
	They have violated their oath to the American people.
	They're quizlings of the globalist scheme.
	Selling what all these globalists 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.
	That's what Ron Paul does not say.
	Again, going back to Marsh v.
	Alabama. But we should also have some punishment for the people who betrayed us.
	But I don't think that's going to happen.
	Look at 2020. These people literally killed people.
	With the Trump shots. They literally kill people with the protocol in 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 on, 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 is a blatant violation of the First Amendment, says Ron Paul.
	And of course, it is a blatant violation of the Constitution.
	And they should be punished for that, I say.
	Yet some conservative elected officials and writers think the solution to the problem of big tech censorship is to give government more power.
	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 American's exercise of First Amendment protected rights.
	I have a question. Why is it not a crime?
	Since these people violated 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.
	You kick 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 Rand 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 going to 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 is 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 traitors to subvert the Constitution.
	And I think that they ought to be dissolved.
	And I think these people ought to be fired.
	And they ought 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 blues or bluegrass, APS Radio has you covered.
	Check out a wide variety of channels on our app at APSRadio.com.
	....
	The End
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Well, I got a couple of comments here from Gard Goldsmith and from Jason Barker.
	Thank you, guys, and thank you for watching.
	I knew at least you two guys would be watching because Karen contacted you as always.
	I know Jason saw the tweet that I put out earlier.
	Gard, thank you for the tip on Rockfin.
	He says, David, it's great to see you all back with the power.
	The power of truth and research.
	Yeah. Thank you.
	I can rely on you to dig into the news and teach as you report.
	Well, thank you very much, Gard. And of course, Gard 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 going to 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 the censorship that is rolling out here.
	And I thought it was kind of funny.
	Coming out of...
	Well, this actually is being covered by Japan today.
	Fake AI-generated woman on a tech conference agenda leads Microsoft and Amazon executives to drop out.
	See, they're okay with fake women.
	As long as they're breathing.
	But 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 for them just yet.
	As a matter of fact, you know, they worship the fake women who are really men.
	But take 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 Jinder 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.
	Who 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 said on 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 tranny 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 trainee.
	We still can't see the tranifesto, but we see this guy's trail.
	And people were pointing it out to the FBI, who failed to act on it for five years.
	And so...
	A trans-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 similar to the attack at a Christian school in Tennessee earlier this year.
	It's this kind of trans insanity that is being hidden and covered up by the government.
	His name is Jason Lee Willey of Nashville, Illinois.
	Charged November 7th in U.S. District Court in Illinois 14 felony counts of interstate communication of a threat to injure.
	So you see, this is coming from the feds.
	It's in a U.S. 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, what 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 Republican Party, and everybody that he hates.
	And that's what I said about this trainee 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 cited in the indictment are threats to, quote, bomb churches.
	He said, we're going to bomb them.
	We're going to bomb them. We're going to bomb the churches.
	We're going to bomb them. You know what?
	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 expletive white supremacists.
	He also frequently used racial epithets and threatened to target anyone with a cross 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 going to 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 bathroom 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 war. Is this the kind of talk that's in this tranifesto that the Metropolitan Police in Nashville, and especially the FBI, the FBI were the ones that said, the Metropolitan Police are going to release it.
	The FBI told them, 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 2018 on to 2022.
	And then he did 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 the 6th somehow.
	On March 28th, just one day after the shooting in Nashville, the FBI received a report about 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 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 guy who is the founder of Chipotle, who was kicked out of the company when they had problems with E. coli and norovirus poisoning.
	And so, you know, he's been kind of 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 launch a chain of foods, a chain of restaurants, run by robots.
	Yeah, maybe it'll be something like this, you know?
	Big fluffy bun.
	It's a very big fluffy bun.
	Where's the beef? Some hamburger places give you a lot less beef on a lot of bun.
	Where's the beef? At Wendy's, we serve a hamburger we modestly call the same.
	Remember that commercial? That was a great commercial.
	I imagine people will do something like that.
	This is going to be an easy target for any of its competitors, quite frankly.
	Where's the beef? Why isn't any beef here?
	We're the people. There's no white people here either.
	Who needs people?
	Who's going to buy his food?
	You know, one of 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.
	We can't use any energy and can't use any resources and we can't use any meat.
	So what am I going to do for a restaurant?
	Oh, I'll open 15 locations throughout New York City and I will serve fake chicken sandwiches along with cucumbers and wild rice.
	Oh, 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 a 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 transmit it.
	They beam it. Beam me up, Scotty.
	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, doesn't it?
	Ells 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 1,000 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 Salenti has been talking about.
	The commercial real estate collapse is happening here.
	I guess people, so many companies have been put out of business with a 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 leaving?
	Now, Thomas Massey, 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 feedlot and let us do the centralized control of meat processing.
	You can't do it on your farm. If you do, we're going to raid you, as they've 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 CO2 into grass.
	Which is fuel for self-propelled protein-generating machinery.
	We call them cattle.
	Self-propelled protein-generating machinery.
	And 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.
	Yeah. 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 plains 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, and centralized multinational factories to produce fake meat.
	Disclosure, he says.
	Instead of resigning ourselves to eat fake meat made in foreign factories, we should re-examine U.S. government actions that have made smaller, otherwise sustainable farms unprofitable.
	He says, pass the Prime Act 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 535, whatever the number is.
	And then you have this fake news.
	Look at how this company is, this sports blog is called Deadspin.
	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 blackface lie.
	And what he did was he put this up, put up this picture.
	See 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 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 in air quotes, the sports writer who did this character assassination, It's pushing this DEI racism agenda to the hilt.
	And 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 know, blackface, anytime anybody's got something black on their face, they're freaking out about this, which is absolutely insane.
	You know, the blackface minstrels, yes, 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 blackface minstrel shows.
	But, you know, to freak out over somebody, even a kid, 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, why don't you show the full picture of both sides of his face?
	And so the guy who did this is a senior writer for Deadspin.
	It's an appropriate name for that.
	I hope it does die because of the way they spin the stuff.
	He wrote a piece on Monday.
	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 1960s and early 1970s that depicted a Native American wearing a large headdress and carrying a hatchet.
	He painted both sides of his face in 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 was all about.
	That kid. This is racism and hate in that kid.
	See the hate in his face?
	Now, I see the hate in the writer.
	I think the writer is filled 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.
	Oh, imagine that.
	And they use a large drum to kick off their games.
	He said, while 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 Chiefs games and been more aggressive in changing the team's name, then we wouldn't be here.
	You know, I remember the Atlanta Braves.
	Wasn't it owned by Ted Turner or something?
	But I remember seeing Ted Turner and Jane Fonda doing the tomahawk chop at the Atlanta Braves baseball game.
	And, you know, as a cheer, you know, go for them and all this kind of stuff.
	Has she repented of that?
	Have they shamed her for that?
	No. No.
	It's okay. It's okay.
	She's made amends for that by supporting the Viet Cong.
	There's no place for a franchise to be called the Chiefs in a league that has already eradicated the Redskins.
	He also complained that 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 piece.
	And instead, he doubled down on it.
	He said, for the idiots in 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 is 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's not, first of all, his red face is not like the red face that Indians would have.
	It's not that red.
	But anyway, the Kansas City Chiefs then, instead of slapping this guy down, Bring back John Wayne for just one day.
	Instead, just slapping this guy silly and throwing him out the window, defenestrating him.
	Instead, they bow to this Marxist revolutionary with his fake hate, his fake racism, and all the rest of the stuff.
	They say, well, we relied very heavily on Native American culture in a racially insensitive fashion throughout history, and we have since to eliminate that, they said.
	Back in 2020, 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 in Native American cultures.
	The team's name is an homage to former Kansas City Mayor H. Roe Bartle, who earned the nickname Chief of During his time in office in the early 1960s.
	People are saying, you know, chief is a term of respect, of endearment.
	This is a person who is 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, I say that to Jimmy Olsen.
	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 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 just 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, why don't you get short, fat, white women?
	To play basketball.
	As a matter of fact, 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 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?
	When it comes to sports, people want to talk about merit.
	And we have a guest 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 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 15 minutes.
	Jason Barker says, I lived in Nashville, Illinois to 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 the 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, Chamberlain 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 1960s.
	Well, the high school that I went to was created in 1956, and they just had a big back and forth about, and this was, well, it was actually last summer of 2022.
	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 5-1 to get rid of it, and they're going to spend $50,000 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 frankly, you know, look, I... I thought 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 what he is upset about Is that they're trampling on his memories.
	And it's like, you got your memories, you got your photographs.
	What 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, a snapshot of the 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 the stuff.
	It's going to cost them more than $50,000.
	But they had a lot of people showed up.
	They had a petition of 6,800 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 1956 when they chose 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 this.
	And then they would put war paint on top of that.
	And that was the drum major, the way the drum major would set up.
	And so, you know, if that's something that's going to push your buttons today, boy, that really did push your buttons.
	And I found when I saw this article, I saw that they had banned that from the ban.
	The banned the ban.
	They don't have a marching band anymore.
	They have a drum corps, and they don't have a chief anymore.
	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 2007.
	So as recently as 2007, they did have dancers who wore this headdress 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 then started using them again or something.
	And they said they were all old and smelly and sweaty, and they had mildew on them, so they 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 blackface minstrels.
	And they had a big deal about it with Florida State University.
	Florida State University, they're the Seminoles.
	And they said, no, 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 and 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, a 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 Chamberlain 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, the Title VI Parent Advisory Committee.
	The Title VI is part of the 1964 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.
	And a bunch of little petty Marxist tyrants.
	And he doesn't really address this Marxist tyranny.
	He doesn't understand, as Xi 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 VI 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 was created in the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
	It prohibits 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 to all the different schools in the area.
	And according to the chairwoman of the Hillsborough County Title VI 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, 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 Adams Middle School, which fed into Chamberlain, went to both of those, and then five different elementary schools that had various Indian things.
	They claim that these are derogatory.
	No, they're not. That they damage 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 Hillsborough 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 77% of the people say, we want to keep it.
	And 78%, sorry, 22% said 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 Hillsborough County School put up a survey.
	Said, we would like to know what you think.
	And so this is an online survey, but they never released this survey.
	We'd like to know what you think.
	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 the Committee of Six, it's like something about the prisoner, right?
	And she says, one person said, I'm not really happy the way all this was done, who was a member of the graduating class back in 1958, the first one.
	She's 82 years old.
	She was a chief at the time.
	She said they had an election, and only 22% agreed to remove the mascot.
	But again, 78% to 22%, so the 22% wins when the Marxists are doing the counting.
	You want to have an election?
	This is the way the Marxists count votes when they want to get something done.
	And so she has the audacity of...
	When she wants to scrub this, one of these Title VI members, Jennifer Hart, says these mascots are teaching stereotypical, misleading, and often insulting images of indigenous people.
	Well, I'll just show this to you.
	Is there anything cartoonish or characteristic about that?
	No, there isn't. But anyway, 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. 78% of the students did not want to change.
	She says it's led by the election.
	What they did, when they couldn't get a majority, they shut down.
	They asked 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, they go to the student council.
	And these are a bunch of kids, as we all 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 newly minted Marxist straight out of college, wants this.
	These are the people who will control the past and People who control the future and control the past.
	They will erase the past and they will control the future of that.
	These are the totalitarians.
	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.
	In Colorado, you have a school fires a white Christian principal.
	And so he is now suing them.
	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 this lawsuit that his status as 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 You're 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've got white skin.
	This is what they're doing to everybody.
	And again, they're going back to the Title VI to try to shut this guy down.
	Look, we just need to defund these operations that call themselves schools.
	They're 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, you just need to ask Megyn Kelly.
	She knows that Santa Claus is white.
	You might as well ask, why is Mickey Mouse always black?
	I don't know. 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 Shurtleff 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 the way to the Supreme Court and won, Hal Shurtleff.
	And 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 VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
	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 conform to your mental illness.
	He says, and so we need to create a more inclusive learning community.
	I ask that you review the meaning of de-centering Christmas.
	See, this is this night.
	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. 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 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 obviously because of Christian white privilege, isn't it?
	And so...
	There is a hierarchy, by the way.
	In the email, he says, even non-religious aspects of a holiday, such as Elf 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, Christmas 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 going to 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 them 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 the sooner the better, quite frankly.
	So we're going to go to, again, our report.
	It's with an organization called New Founding.
	And here is their trailer talking about their organization, and 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 to space.
	That we would lead our peers abroad in technology, finance, and manufacturing.
	Today... We work over Zoom, growing parasitic SaaS companies and copycat services, while woke ideology eats 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 doggy daycare.
	It doesn't have to be this way.
	Newfounding 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 of the 2020s, we'll connect you.
	Come join us in the New Founding Talent Network.
	Joining us now is Nate Fisher.
	He is CEO of 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 a 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?
	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. 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 gets to the core.
	And what I'll say is, to me, and I use the parallel economy language at times, I think it's helpful.
	It's 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 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 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 to, 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 next Google, but something that is to Google as much bigger than Google is, than Google was, than some of the predecessors that it just placed.
	And you look at the way technology evolves and There is likely to be a disruptor that is that significant in the future, in the not-too-distant future, in the coming decades.
	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 really platforms that offer us the leverage to potentially put some of the same pressure on those institutions that the left was able to put on them when they captured them.
	And of course, you know, when we look at that, the first thing that comes to my mind is artificial intelligence.
	As people are looking at this and 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 a 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.
	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?
	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 the, what are really pretty serious debates and divides within the movement or 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 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 to the past, technology is inherently your enemy.
	Technology guarantees that 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 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 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.
	It in many ways sort of parallels God's creation of the world.
	It is a creating something out of nothing.
	And I think we can embrace that.
	And if we embrace that, certainly we can realize that technology is something that we don't need to be afraid of.
	It's 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 AI could be a component of that.
	I'm probably a little more of an AI. I won't say I'm an AI pessimist.
	I'm not worried about AI the way some of these people are.
	I don't think AI is going to be as transformative as some people assume.
	I don't believe that AGI is going to come and totally replace humans.
	That comes back to my view of the special nature of people as people made in the image of God, not just as material beings.
	So I think that I think an understanding of AI, an 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.
	It does remain an unfulfilled promise at a large scale.
	So I think a proper understanding of technology.
	But 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 Yelp deciding where you eat dinner or whatever.
	They play a role in navigating the world, and we do need to catechize them with our values.
	Our positive vision should be baked into the value system that these algorithms help scale.
	I agree. When we look at it, fundamentally, technology is 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 in engineering because it was so secular.
	I 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.
	I always had a problem with that, and I guess it kind of came to a head when I talked to Hugo de Garris, 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 that would be scientists and engineers, and the vast majority of them would say yes.
	He did that at a Christian conference that I was speaking at.
	And he said, that's 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, 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 God-like intelligence?
	A, that's not possible.
	You're going to fail. God has more power.
	What they're doing is they're paralleling what was done at the Tower of Babel.
	They're trying to create something that can raise them to the heavens.
	It was very obvious that God thoroughly frustrated their plans.
	They have no understanding of the power that they're up against.
	It's a futile task.
	They failed. But at the same time, 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 a new 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 of Babel attitude, this pride, this godlessness that is out there.
	And our first instinct as 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 turn to good, and 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 there's several folds.
	So one of the projects that I founded 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 early as a great deal of leverage.
	So it's certainly a tradition that understands how to use technology.
	But 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 sort of culture that hasn't emphasized it.
	It's part of our tradition, just as Catholics have a lot of thinking in that space.
	And so... Part of it is, and then the goal is to revitalize 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 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.
	Like, typically think of something where the early adopters would be Christians, 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 quo.
	If you think of previous sort of movements where people have exited en masse, which is what you need to get early adopters for a new technology, who 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 a few people who were economically motivated and such, but a lot of it was 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, and again, it'll depend a little bit on the design, is it built to centrally control or is it built to be a tower of battle?
	In that case, we wouldn't be, but is it actually technology that offers things that we value, greater decentralization that makes it harder for us to be censored?
	Is it technology that includes encryption or whatever?
	Things that sort of a dissident minority can be naturally expected to value, we're 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 businesses where there's a very specific thesis around reaching people like that.
	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.
	It's not necessarily a sector 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 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 vaccine on you or 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 incumbent players.
	So 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 We're good to go.
	this 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 on the service side.
	So I imagine there's some opportunities in that as well.
	Now, you put the Tell us 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 investing in companies who have ideas.
	Tell us a little bit about that. Yes.
	So we really have, the fundamental theme is venture.
	And in some ways, the fundamental theme is we fly the flag.
	We are willing to be very public about a vision that in the private sector, a lot of people are drawn to, but far fewer are public about their beliefs on.
	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 We're good to go.
	Forms on our website or whatever coming to us, some of whom are people who 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, figuring out what this person has to offer.
	It's often incredibly valuable in 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 AngelList, which is a platform that is...
	It's become very popular in Silicon Valley for early stage funds.
	Fairly libertarian in its culture, too.
	So 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, accredited, but don't need to be institutional scale 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 add than a lot of investors because we have this network.
	So we invested in this pro-life health insurance company.
	We led their precede round.
	We'll probably be investing in another company very soon, again, leading their pre-seed 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-developed.
	You can't go to a marketing firm and say, hey, 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 simplistic, naive 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 ad networks.
	You can't use established ad networks.
	There's no network to reach most of these people.
	It ends up being a lot of independent...
	Understanding how to reach different independent podcast advertisers, influencers, other partnerships, often creative or earned media efforts.
	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 Yeah.
	Yeah. 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 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 gets an 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.
	That's going to be done in a few cases where we have real strategic value to add.
	Maybe it's not a company that requires the same level of capital intensity, but it's much more about the connections and much more about some of the business acumen.
	We'll jump in there and we'll actually help launch it.
	Then we have advisory where we'll work with, you can think of it as sort of investment banking advisory or fractional CFO.
	We actually just helped advise on a deal that closed where it was a $7 million 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 transaction and have investment bankers who have been through that process before.
	And we're able to provide just significant advice and execution throughout the process.
	And then finally, we'll do talent placement.
	So we have this broader network, and part of that is our talent network where people can come to us, they can sign up for our network, and we talk to companies that are 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 when we look at where we are right now, as you were saying when you're describing this, there's a lot of people whose values are aligned with ours, but they're afraid to speak out.
	This is 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 to 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 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 in a digital age like this?
	Well, there is a lot of centralized control.
	You know, when I first started looking, we look at the Internet initially and The rise of 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 search engines.
	They were able to reestablish 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 out.
	That's sort of the nature of it.
	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?
	What I would say is, yes, certainly the Web 2.0, 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...
	I think there's an extent to which that did play out.
	I think that what Facebook in particular did during 2016 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.
	Facebook's mission was to make the world a more open and connected place.
	And lo and behold, what does that do?
	It opens up channels for a large, very frustrated group in the country 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 centralized technologies did actually open things up.
	What you saw was a sharp reaction where they realized, where 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 and Elon buying Twitter has certainly been a, I think, a major blow to the censorship regime.
	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 Elon...
	He 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 DEI HR policies, he's never going to get to Mars.
	And he knows that. So I think there's a reason for optimism.
	Whether or not sort of his vision would fully align with mine is 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 monarchial 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 We're good to go.
	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 65 countries around the world in 2015, talking to 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 that those universities print.
	They certainly don't trust government arbors of truth.
	Increasingly, they don't necessarily 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 or 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 that Often organized around churches, church communities that 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 drop.
	In many cases, they just continue to build relationships and community in a way that is increasingly scarce in an atomized world.
	And so these communities now have something that is going to become scarcer and scarcer and more valuable in society.
	And that is a, 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 fork 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.
	True to most of the world.
	You wouldn't dream of putting down a $20,000 deposit for a $100,000 job before the work's been done.
	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 is 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 17th 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 a complex transaction, you really need sort of multiples of those people involved.
	And it 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 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 on.
	It's going to be building on communities like that.
	It's going to be leveraging that trust.
	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 atomize 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 antithetical to what they're trying to do in terms of centralized control, right?
	Absolutely. And I think 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 newsfeed algorithm.
	So the newsfeed 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 feed.
	And I think that's for any platform that breaks down those communities or 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 counterparty, being your 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 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 connections needed for them to engage in Larger scale or more sophisticated transactions that necessarily go beyond that community level.
	But it's not, but it's sort of as necessary rather than sort of attempting to pull them as quickly as possible into that broad ether, so to speak.
	Yeah, when we look at this, we need to understand, and we should not be...
	Disheartened by the fact that the institutions are controlled by people whose values are antithetical 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.
	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 the key thing.
	But even when we look at their values and how they have essentially placed on a pedestal or an altar or...
	You know, made a god out of DEI and ESG and things like that.
	That is really, should be heartening to us that we can take this back and we can, if we strive for excellence and if we work for that and if we have commonality 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, you know, build hospitals and build schools and things like that.
	Alexis de Tocqueville, when he came, he said that 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.
	They have embraced suicidal ideologies 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 moves like that, And a lot of people would say that is a show of force.
	That is a regime that is confident enough it can crack down on its enemies.
	It's desperation. It's desperation, isn't it?
	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 sort of 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 things like the arrest of Trump, I look at other things like that, and that is a bigger and bigger departure from norms that ultimately just sort of objectively increases the range of possible outcomes in both directions.
	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 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, and you say about our firm, you say, we explicitly oppose DEI, ESG, and the bureaucratization of American business culture.
	And I think, again, as we talk about the fact that DEI and ESG is about denying merit, We're good to go.
	One country split, same people, same background, but a different system, one that is tightly centrally controlled and bureaucratic.
	Same thing with East and West Germany.
	And so we know that having something that is decentralized, something that is based on merit, not bureaucracy, and that type of thing, we know that that's a winning position.
	That should be a hopeful thing.
	What you see in terms of, you know, let's talk about disruptive technology that is teetering and could go either way, and that is cryptocurrency.
	You know, we have CBDC, which is a big specter of complete and total surveillance and control of everything that we do, and they have targeted cryptocurrency for extinction.
	But then there's other aspects of the blockchain that perhaps might be used.
	How do you see that developing?
	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 particularly focused on It's particularly focused on targeting many of the centers of regime control.
	I mean, you think of Bitcoin, and it is directly challenging control of the currency, which is ultimately probably the strongest source of present regime power.
	And it's...
	I'm optimistic.
	I think that Bitcoin is an incredibly powerful technology.
	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 at an earlier stage.
	But it also has a culture that I think aligns with and tends to draw the sort of people who are skeptics of the central control.
	And it's by nature international.
	So the more international something like that is, 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 traceable.
	It's actually... Bundles of cash are far more effective for money launching than Bitcoin is.
	So what it really is, it's not about secrecy or anything.
	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.
	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 increasingly, there's evident political pressure that pushes back against the regulators who want to shut it down.
	People know that a CBDC is something that can be a powerful tool for For essentially just increasing the totalitarian capability of the current system.
	That is not something that's just going to be let in easily, given 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, it does have some issues with privacy that people don't realize.
	But like you said, 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 in the way we approach things and our perspective in order to win?
	Whatever that means.
	I think 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 ways, I think, accepted theologies that are intentionally politically neutering.
	So you look at a lot of...
	And there's a lot of different things you can tie this 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 of human agency because you don't 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 that they want it to change.
	Realize that we can be effective.
	Realize our numbers.
	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, maybe 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 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 real numbers here, and we have real...
	I think a real foundation, this is what American reform is trying to do, is sort of restore the foundation 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 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. My view is a conservative impulse is a good impulse.
	It's a prudent impulse in a world where we recognize that man has fallen.
	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.
	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.
	You actually do see a lot of these people in the crypto world.
	And I think that we need a lot more.
	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 define progress their way.
	We should be defining what an elevated vision of society.
	I don't know that I would embrace the word progress.
	I think that has a particular sort of framework built into that.
	They've kind of stolen that word just like they stole the word liberal.
	I think it's an open question 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 go create that.
	I agree. As one person said, I forget who it was, that said, you can't win a culture war if you don't have a culture.
	And we have retreated from this.
	We are ashamed 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 can project that out, explain it to people.
	It is not a threatening vision to people.
	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're 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 our 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, 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.
	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 Harvard.
	And you look at institutions like Harvard, and 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 their philosophy department.
	So why do you want Yale's approval?
	The right approach would be, it could be a small college, but they should be expressing contempt for these institutions and really very self-confidently saying, if no one else knows how to define truth, we'll define our own standard.
	We understand truth better than anyone else out here.
	We understand what 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 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 an absolutely crucial position in.
	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 attractive in many ways.
	Yeah. I think part of that was sort of an abdication on the part of conservatives.
	Part of it was just where they were in their arc.
	There were sort of some baked in 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 100% 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, it's an act of desperation when you look at politics 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?
	Oh, you're racist. They just start throwing epithets 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 It's 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 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 without 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.
	Well, I will say, to some extent, there are areas where there's no neutrality, and I think that's actually 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, fought for a neutral public square.
	We've bought into a lot of the assumptions in the 20th century of secularism, which are totally out of step with American history, where there was no...
	There was no sense that you'd have a sort of public square cleansed of God, for instance.
	Yeah. Let's say the Facebook algorithms played a role in elevating pro-Trump content, amplifying pro-Trump content that helped elect Trump.
	People realized that there's no neutrality.
	I mean, you have an algorithm that gives people what they want to see that's 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 a number two search result, number 10, etc.
	There must be a value system within Google about why one is better than two.
	That cannot be – 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 possibility in the sort of greatest summarized version of it for neutrality there.
	I think as people realize, as the left realizes that, they realize you have to catechize the Bible.
	It becomes a religious war to catechize the bot.
	So in many cases, 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 Anglo 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 cannot be neutral.
	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 a neutral.
	So if we try to leave it neutral, it's just going to be filled by an ideology that is not ours and is invariably going to be hostile to us.
	I agree. Yeah, I think neutrality is alive when you're talking about education, when you're talking about journalism and that type of thing.
	Beyond Google, 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 is 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 – 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.
	It 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 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 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 dear.
	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 positive vision 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 I'm with society right now.
	I agree.
	I think that what's interesting is more and more is going to be that soft nudging.
	It's going to be nudging in one direction.
	And going back to Google, my favorite example, ranked search terms, that's not coercive in the legal sense, but it certainly nudges you toward a particular 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, 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 standard? Is that standard 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 the 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 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 know how to define what is good, then...
	Then that is what distinguishes spam from non-spam ultimately.
	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 ability to actually discriminate in ways that people are looking for.
	And so increasingly, as we have a breakdown of any sort of norms and standards in society, you're just 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, the The moral value, according to even people who might not see themselves as Christian, they're looking for something that they intuitively recognize is good in many cases.
	Obviously, some are not. Some are truly looking for evil.
	Platforms that don't know how to provide that are not going to be able to get people what they want.
	Increasingly, 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 cancel 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 Then 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 telling others about the show causes this dangerous information to spread farther.
	People have to trust me.
	I mean, trust the science.
	Wear your 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 blues or bluegrass, APS Radio has you covered.

▲