29Nov23 Thursday David Knight Show UNABRIDGED

Using free speech to free minds. You're listening to the David Night Show. As the clock strikes thirteen, it's Wednesday, the twenty ninth of November. Have of Our Lord, twenty twenty three. Well, we're about three hours late because we had power outage that just came back. It was off for over six hours and still not so and what the cause was. But we still have about twelve thousand people in the area that are out of power. But we've got a lot to talk about. So I want to get on

anyway, and we'll see what happens with this new time slot. And I think we're going to necessarily continue with this, but we'll see what happens. I wanted to talk today. We're going to focus on the ramping up of censorship. It is really they're stepping it into high gear. And as we look at this, I think it's what is this is causing. This is causing people who've been a part of this, who didn't really approve of it, But now we've got whistleblowers who are coming out to expose it because they

realize how bad this is and how rapidly it is ramping up. So we'll be right back stay with us. Well again, thank you for all the messages about concern, and we did put up. I was able to get on my phone and get up on Twitter that the show is not going to

be going live until we got power back. But of course Twitter is kind of a dead platform for me, has been for a long time, even though I typically have a you know, a large number of followers if you look at it, I've been shadow band there for years and I really just quit posting anything. It's not put the show up, but that's basically it. So for those of you, we'll get this out to everybody this afternoon and we'll put it up as usual. So those of you who listen on

podcast and watch it delayed, you won't notice anything any different. But I want to thank people for the concern. And let's let's start with what is happening with free speech because it is. It's kind of interesting, massive new document dump showing what I've said all along. We always knew that this was the case. We could detect it from their motives, we could detect it from what they've been planning for decades. You'd go back, as I've talked

about the fact that in the nineteen sixties, you had JCR. Licklier at DARPA. So let's create this intergalactic information network, a computer network. They

shortened that to Internet. They didn't have the technology. Once they got the technology, As I've said before, in the nineties, you had the CIA was so adamant to get control of this thing that they openly created a venture capital firm called Inku Tel, and then other venture capital firms were loaded on their board of directors with people from the intelligence community, people from the NSSA

and the CIA and other things like that. But they had their own venture capital firm, and all these different venture capital firms were funding and picking the competitors who are going to play it out. And just like our elections, you don't get in to being a competitor unless you're somebody that they're going to

ultimately be able to control. And so they get the people that they can control, and then they say, let the best one of these puppets win, and so you wind up with a puppet, but it's the strongest of the puppets that are there. And so that was what social media has always been about. So why everything was free, That's how they built this thing up. And now we're getting to look behind the curtain as whistleblowers are coming

out very alarmed about what is happening with it. As a matter of fact, when you look at the insanity of all this stuff, YouTube is now going to allow monetization for nudity, for torking, for sensual dancing and things like that. Not my Christmas songs. However, they will not allow you to say twenty twenty was a year that the world became China. They won't

allow that. But they will and they say, well, we don't want to have people's ads show up on something that they might not like, and we got to have a safe community and we don't want to offend anybody. But they're going to now start funding this and that is par for the course. But as we understand, you know, the consequences of this are really

starting to spread out. As I've pointed out, it's not just getting you know, in twenty eighteen, as this cl thing that we're going to talk about, as I was being formed, that was when they lowered the boom, and that's when they openly took out everybody at info Wars. We don't really care if you notice, right, And then that was in August of twenty eighteen. Two months later, they took out eight hundred other people on

social media. There were not Trump supporters necessarily. Most of them, as a matter of fact, were not Trump supporters for that just before that mid term in twenty eighteen. Most of them were anti war, anti police state, anti surveillance state. Those are the types of people that were taken out, people like the Free Thought Project, for example. I interviewed them in the aftermath of that. It was that was the type of people that they

were removing. I know, when you look at who they're taking out, and when you look at their history, you pretty much know where this is coming from. And yet for the longest time we had in the wake of all that, Trump had the Rose Garden Party and he invited all these conservative

influencers in who were still on social media. Interestingly enough, they weren't influencers enough that they were worthy to be kicked off at that point in time, still are not as a matter of fact, and so he brought them in. He brought in the biggest conservative think tank, Heritage, He brought in the biggest libertarian think tank, Cato. They were all saying, well, corporations can do whatever they want. This is not coming from the government.

These are corporations. Corporations like people. They can do whatever they They've got rights just like you. They can do anything that they want. And you even had people at Reason doing it, of course, and even John Stossel said, I don't like the fact that I'm getting censored on YouTube, but hey, YouTube is a corporation. They can do anything they want. And I think he really meant I don't really think he was being a show.

I think it's just incredibly stupid about it, really stupid about it. Hadn't thought this thing through. That's not what our society is based upon. And so Ron Paul's got a solution about this, and he says we need to

separate tech and state. He said, we need to make sure we have to have laws that prohibit communication between the government and these social media companies and things like that, because we know that they are what would be the word conspiring, conspiring, So we stop them communicating from each other because they're conspiring against us. It is a conspiracy. It's not a theory. We knew it for the longest time. Now we've got the receipts, the documents,

we've got the Twitter files. Now we've got the whistle bower about the CITL, so we know that that is happening. But that's not even the right answer. The right answer is that we have to understand the difference between human beings and corporations. They're not the same thing. Mitt Romney said they were. He's wrong about that is about almost everything. Corporations are not people. Corporations are a legal entity created by the government, and therefore they have been

given privileges. They have no rights. They've been granted privileges as a way to exist, and since they're created by a government, they're always going to be privileged, right. And human beings, on the other hand, are creatures of God. We have been created by God. We are equal before God. That's the Christian principles that this country was founded upon. That's what

the Declaration of Independence says. And so that principle, that Christian principle that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with inalienable rights, and that the purpose of government is to protect those rights. That's all government is opposed to it. That's really the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect those God given rights. Now that's very different than the government creating a corporation.

And if we go back to that original understanding, we've gotten so far away from our Christian principles, so we don't even understand what this country was founded on. The founding fathers were standing on a Christian foundation, the idea that we are endowed by our creator with inalienable rights. If we get back to that and we understand that there's a big difference between that and a corporation, that would short circuit all of this so called public private partnership nonsense,

which is what these people that were conspiring to do. It will get into the details of it. They were saying, well, someone, as we called it, a public private partnership, we can do whatever we want. No, you can't. This is a conspiracy. This is like mission impossible, mister Phelps. If you or any of your team are caught, we will disavow any knowledge of which I've been doing for a long time. But

we knew they were lying about that, of course as well. And so the other part of the puzzle, which would really shut this whole thing down. So so first of all, you have to understand, well the differences between rights and privileges you have to understand the difference between corporation and human And that's really important because the corporations are going to be putting out robots. Are robots going to be given equal rights to us or superior rights to us?

Yeah, because maybe they're more valuable than us. And so we've got to get that part of it right. The other thing we have to get right is we have to go back to what the Supreme Court said in nineteen forty six Marti Versuses Alabama that I've talked about so many times. They said, in a cold town where somebody was handing out a religious track, and they said, you can't do that. This is private property. And they said, no, the public square, even if it is privately owned, cannot

be censored. This is the digital public square. Jack Dorsey said it multiple times under oath when he was being questioned about it. We all know that YouTube and Facebook and Twitter and TikTok and all these companies are de facto digital public squares, and so we need to have that same approach to it. Those two things would fix this, and nobody's talking about them. Nobody. And again I'll say this, had this argument back and forth with Robert Barnes

on the air at Info Wars. The nineteen forty six Marsh versus. Alabama case was not nullified by subsequent court cases in California and elsewhere where. People said, I want to be able to set up a soapbox and say whatever I want to in a protest in a mall. No, you can't. That private property is retail space. It's not the digital it's not the public

square. It's retail space. They have kiosks there. You can no more set up your protests in the middle of a mall than you can to go into Sears or j C. Pennies, if any of them still existed. I don't even know if they exist anymore. I don't think they shut down. But you can't go into the department store at the mall instead of up and you can't do it out in the common area of that. That has nothing to do with Marsh versus Alabama. Those are completely different things. Oh

what is happening? That is all you got? Does? I pointed out briefly yesterday James O'Keeffe put on this SSSS list for extra screening on flights, which means that they not only put him through enhanced and uh, you know, scanning and things like that. Uh, but they also have a marshall following him around. And where did that come from? Well, that was the legacy of Trump and January the sixth and Alex Jones and the stop the

Steal stuff. Anybody who even flew into that general area, just like you know, Bank of America is reporting anybody that had any financial transactions on January sixth in that general area. They were all reported to the FBI. And if you flew into those areas, the fbis put you on their Super Secret List or the SSSS whatever that stands for. It's like animal House where they

put the guy's on double secret probation. Uh. Like you know, I laugh at this stuff and I don't really care what they did to me, but we need to understand this has happening. It gonna happen to everybody. You know, they're broadening the net over everything. I've got a whole list

here of fake garbage and DEI censorship, DEI based censorship. Because and these things, even though intrinsically they may not matter, they're like the bump stock when it comes to the Second Amendment, all of these different issues where they're going out there and banning this and that because it offends people are going to ban the name the Kansas City Chief's mascot. And we want to come after this kid because he's got black and red paint on his face and wearing an

Indian headdress or Christmas Christmas decorations anything. None of that is really important, just like the bump stock is not really important or the pistol brace is not really important. But they come after these things to establish a principle. And the principle is very important. And if you don't pay attention to the principle, then they will come after the meat of the issue. First. They

do it around the edges with infringement. And that's why, you know, the founders of this country understood the tactics that would be taken, you know, and that it would be a gradual process. It'd be done iteratively, as Fauci said, And so that's why they talked about infringement. And yet when it comes to free speech, they understand that free speech, unlike the weapons that we use to protect ourselves from government aggression, the free speech can

be taken away with a pen, a signature on a law. And that's what they're doing in Ireland and other places as well. So it's a very important principle and this is being broadened and it's not just going to be when you look at it, all these different streams of oppression are converging. The ID, the CBDC, the censorship, the government, you know, complete control of the narrative to push out their stuff and shut down everybody else,

and the constant surveillance of everybody. All of these streams are coming together. So of free speech groups are calling on the Congress to block funding of NewsGuard. You see the way this is operating NewsGuard, Election Guard. They're operated under Microsoft, but they're being funded by the government. As a matter of fact, we look at election Guard underneath Microsoft as a corporation that was within Microsoft, but all their money came from DARPA, had a ten million dollar

contract directly from DARPA. And so the government is pretending again that you know, as I used to say, you know, this is the iron fist of censorship and a velvet glove of private ownership. And so that's the way these things are set up. They go to Microsoft, which has long been allied with them, ever since they brought Bill Gates to heel with the antitrust situation. They let him off and he's been their boy ever since. So

they come to him to set these things up. So NewsGuard, election guard, news guard to guard the election for them, you know, to guard the news for them, election guard, to guard the election for them. And of course the next thing that people are not talking about by talking about it frequently CCPA. So not the Chinese Communist Party of America, but it

might as well be. It's a coalition for content providence, who owned it, who created it, and authentication, and it is a coalition of hardware and software companies that are going to work with their handmaids in the media like the BBC, the New York Times, Washington Post. They will identify those people, will identify who they don't like, whose content they don't like. And then the hardware and software companies, you know, the people who do

the CPUs, the people who do the software that creates content. They will mark everything that you create and make sure that it doesn't even get up to the Internet. You know, they're not even gonna They're not tent. These people are thorough. If nothing else, they're not going to just try to stop the propagation of information. They're going to stop it from being published in the first place. They're going to identify all of us. They're going to

take us off financially. As I said, it was five years ago that I was. Five years ago that I was kicked off of everything except Twitter and then shadow band on Twitter to the point of might as well have been off. But then it was two and a half years ago on this program that I got purged financially with PayPal, with Memo and with other platforms like that. So this is all coming, and it's coming for everybody, not

just people who speak out. It's coming for everyone. And so the interesting thing about this is the fact that this is still being funded by Congress and they put it in the NDAA because for them, defending their privileged political position is something that is more vital than the defense of this nation. Our government and the NDAA and the Pentagon and the Defense Department and the Military Industrial Complex and the Intelligence Committee. They're not about defending us. When they talk about

national security, they're talking about their security. They don't care about us. They don't care about us even in the war. They won't protect our borders. They are pushing us into a nuclear war. When we have a nuclear war, they will go to their underground bunkers and let the rest of us die. That's been the plan from the mid century on. They don't care about us in any way, shape or form. When they talk about national security, that's their security. So we don't take them out put them in

a guillotine. As Michael Bloomberg said, well, this is not about our security, it's about their security. So they're outsourcing the censorship. We all know that that is what's happening. And before we get into the CTIO, let's take a look at what is happening in Ireland. As the people have been saying, is they look at this bill. This is becoming like Fahrenheit

four fifty one. Because their response was not only to say, well I don't not only do I not care about the massive migration that we're bringing in and how these people are violent and this knife incident, which is the latest in a string of incidents. It was the Irish people there did not react to that one incident. They're reacting to a string of incidents, none of

which the government cares anything about. And that made it very clear that the Prime Minister, who was from India that the Prime Minister of Ireland from India decided that the Irish were the problem, just like you got the politician in Scotland. Too many white people here in Scotland, and I remember where that

guy was from. Anyway. The hate speech to law that Ireland is preparing to pass is arguably the most radical legislation so far that we've seen in the formerly Free West, as Western civilization is melting down, as Western civilization is being leveled by these Marxists. It criminalizes the mere possession of materials that are likely to incite violence or hatred. That includes books, videos, even memes on your phone. If you have any of that, that is a criminal

offense and they can lock you up. This is beyond Fahrenheit four fifty one. As a matter of fact, if the problem, as this Indian Prime Minister of Ireland says, if the problem is the Irish and these people are waving Irish flags, don't you think that that is a provocation. Isn't that likely to incite violence or hatred? According to this prime minister, Well, of course it is. So you could argue that if anybody's got an Irish

flag in their house, or on their house. They could be arrested, right, because this is about nationalism and that's why they've got why the leftists put in people from other countries to run these countries. And the same way that when you look at Nikki Hilly, right, what does she do well? She says that Confederate flags were hate symbol. So they're going to be banned, right, And that is something that is propagated through throughout our society

now. But it began with her. It began with this person who spent her career at the UN and doing she began her career. As DeSantis points out in his latest commercial, she began her career, she said, talking about why she got into politics is because she saw Hillary Clinton speaking. She's an ambassador to the UN. She loves the UN, she loves the World Economic Forum, and she hates symbols of our history and she will attribute them

to be hateful. It's hateful. So looking at the law here, it says persons shall be guilty of an offense under this section if the person prepares or possesses material that is likely to incite violence or hatred against a person or group of persons on account of their protected characteristics. What are the protected characteristics? Well, one of them would be national origin. But you better believe

that it's not going to protect anybody who's Irish. If they talk about being Irish, they're going to go to jail with criticizing Ireland's open borders even be legal under this bill? Why no, of course not. And then the other thing that they've added to this in terms of protected characteristics is now gender. Gender. So gender would include a transgender, any gender other than male or female, they said, and by their definition, that's in their law.

Any gender other than male or female. There are no other genders other than male or female. And if they disagree with that, where did I get that? I got that from the Bible. He created them male and female, two genders, and so the Bible has got to go. Have you got a Bible in your house? Fahrenheit four fifty to one? Take the Bible? Will you also put you in jail? Right? Ireland's Department of Justice argued that their previous hate speech laws were not effective. It did

not allow them to jail enough people. Well, here's what do you have to say addition to that, I think it's now very obvious to anyone who might have doubted it. That's our incitement hatred. Legislation is just not up to date. It's not up to date for the social media age, and we need that legislation through and we need to through within a matter of weeks

because it's not just the platforms of a responsibility here and they do. There's also the individuals who post messages and images online that stir up hatred and violence, and we need to be able to use laws to go after them individually as well. And they said when they talked about the new bill, they said, quote, it is designed to be more effective in securing convictions.

Yes, this is the very they're wringing their hands and saying, oh, we've only had a thirty years since we enacted this back in nineteen eighty nine. We've only had fifty prosecutions. So these provisions were designed to be more effective in securing convictions. That's what they put out. So the question is do they have trial by jury in Ireland, and even if they do, is a jury going to be informed? This is the Irish government's response to

their people's outrage over mass migration. Shut up and take it, I said one person on Twitter. Of course, in the threat is or we will lock you up. Now as everybody talks about this and said, what you're banning free speech, you're banning this, you're banning this. The Green Party politician had this to say about bans. When you think about it, all

law, all legislation is about the restriction of freedom. That's exactly what we're doing here is we are restricting freedom, but we're doing it for the common good. You will see throughout our constitution. Yes you have rights, but

they are restricted for the common good. Everything needs to be balanced. And if your views on other people's identities go to make their lives unsafe, insecure, and cause them such deep discomfort that they cannot live in peace, then I believe that it is our job as legislators to restrict those freedoms for the common good. Yeah, this is the Green Party that wants to take everything

that you have. It's going to be the Green agenda that is going to be the basis the climate macguff and the basis for making sure that you own nothing, let you go nowhere, that you have nothing to eat, that sort of thing, and it's been going to be done for the common good. Of course, you know in the World Economic Forum was talking about the common good. They talked about the common pass and all the rest of these things, and a common id, common global id. It is communism.

And what she is describing there, you know, if somebody's uncomfortable with what you're doing, well, they weren't going to ban you from doing it. Well what if I'm uncomfortable with them doing that? What if they make me uncomfortable? Well, it depends on who you are. Because we have a ranking system here. Not all the animals on animal farm are equal. Some animals are more equal than others. Of course, that's the way they enforce

their their their political law. Get their political foot on your throat. And of course the most equal animals are the ones like her at the top. They make the rules, they are protected, and they claim that you are coming after a national security if you come after them. And so this is not about rights. This is about privileges the government can take from you and give to somebody else. So this is something said this writer get his name

here, Nate Hauckman. Nate Houckman said, same thing I've been saying for the longest time. This is something that we're seeing across the West across Western civilization. A state that is at war with its own people. He says its own nation, but here he means his own people. I've said that as well, and we saw this. This is not something new. This began in twenty twenty as they were all going through the lockstep to lock us down. And I said that about Trump, I said, he's a globalist.

Look at what he's doing. He's doing the same thing that Trudeau is doing. He's doing the same thing that Macron is doing. He's doing the same thing that all these people that you criticize are doing. He was at the World Economic Forum. You know, they come after people. It's interesting they come after people because they have been selected as a World Economic Forum youth leaders. They came after Vaiveak Ramaswami and he did a lawsuits. They take

my name off of there. You never asked me to put it on there. So I don't know if that's the way that is with a lot of these people. But all the time you'll have people say, well, look at Dan Crenshaw, Tulca Gabbard, they were World Economic Forum Young leaders chosen. I have not. I'm not aware. Maybe they did. I'm not

aware that they pull back and disavowed that like Ramaswam he did. But then you have people like the Virginia governor Youngkin, or you have people like the Georgia governor Brian Kemp, and they actually went, oh, now MAGA really hates them. What about Donald Trump? Donald Trump went not once but twice. Donald Trump, as a matter of fact, went right before he locked us all down. And he did everything that all the other people there at

the World Economic Form did. But we must never say anything about Donald Trump. I had such I did look at some comments on this, and I get so much hate after I had David Stockman on yesterday to talk about his book, Trump's warren Capitalism. Trump was a war with America. He was at war with the constitution. Capitalism was just one part of it. He went to war with every single one of us. He told us that we were non essential unless we were Wall Street Corporation. Unless that unless we were

some kind of multinational stakeholder, we were non essential. Donald Trump did everything that Klaus Schwab would have done, everything that Klaus Schwab would have done. He will get no criticism from the Maga cult whatsoever for anything. They will rightfully criticize all these other people. Just take a look at the Pennsylvania election. You mayb we had Kathy Bennett there, She says. These other people, these two front runners that are vying for the endorsement of Trump, they

both went to the World Economic Forum. They're both rich billionaires or millionaires, multimillionaires or whatever. And so Trump endorsed the rich multimillionaire who went to the World Economic Forum, who was also a select because that's where he likes to hang out. That makes it a lot of difference for him, but not the real conservative, not Kathy Bennett, who called them out for that.

So Trump doesn't have a problem. I mean, did he indorse them because they're part of Hydra, right hel Hydra because the guy handshake whispers in his ear? Did Trump do it for that? It certainly did not disqualify them in his eyes. He didn't care, and maybe that was an advantage for him to endorse them. But anyway, it is every nation, every government at war with his own people because these people are all part of the UN World Economic Forum Hydra club, if you will, and that is what they're

doing. Okay, So Trudeau, as we see the EU putting out their digital ID. So now we got the digital ID. Now we got the wallet. Now we've got to put the CBDC in it. Do it soon. Trudeau is doing this for Canada. He's now opened up a partnership with the EU for this digital ID. This is why I say, I think this is why we got whistleblowers, because people are looking at how rapidly this is coming and understand that they want to have their system in place by twenty

thirty. They're taking us down completely if they follow their plan, if we don't wake up, if we don't oppose it, if we don't set up our own way to get out of this net that they've set up, and a big part of that is the inter net that they've set up. And we don't find a parallel structure, ways that we can operate outside of this, not necessarily one hundred percent, even just enough that you can be outside of it. If we don't find a way to do this, they're going

to take us down one way or the other. It may be with war, it may be with a phony pandemic, it may be with a real pandemic, it may be with you name it. Whatever they're going to do, it's disruption. As Fauci said just before they did this pandemic, you do it with this uption, you do it from the inside, and you

do it iteratively. But they're stepping this up. The iterations are coming much more quickly, and they're taking bigger steps, just like watching the Federal Reserve start to raise the interest rates not by a quarter of a percent each time, but by three quarters of a percent each time. And so they're ramping this thing up to take us down. And all of these different streams of the ID and the CBDC and the censorship and the propaganda, they're all converging

together at once. And and justin Trudeau he says we've now finalized a controversial well he didn't call it controversial. This is reclaimed the net, saying that he finalizes a controversial collaborative digital partnership of the European Union full commitment to the introduction of a digital identity system in Canada, and the government is pursuing it under the guise of fighting online disinformation. See how they all come together,

And of course, remember Nicki Haley wants to know your name. Nicki's not her real name. Her real name is Nuki. Her real name is Nimroda something all with it, and she married somebody who was an American. Uh so she's again, you know, we need our own Indian foreign president so

we can follow on the path of Ireland, don't we. The Trudeau government's announcement delineates the terms of the Canada EU Digital Partnership, which aims not only to institute digital credentials for Canadians, but also to bolster cooperation in the field of artificial intelligence AI. Well, they're going to do it for data mining and they're going to that's what they're going to use AI for. They're going to use it for data mining, and they're going to use it for that

other AI that's been around for a very long time. Anticipatory intelligence or as you may think of it, pre crime from a Northea report, That has been something that they've been working on for decades, especially in the nineties.

The Geospatial Intelligence Agency or James Clapper rose fastest growing part of the intelligence agency in order to do the kinds of things that they did on January the sixth to conservative protesters, geospacial intelligence to map out your politics, map out your location whereabouts, to make sure that you don't get out of your fifteen minute city area. All of these types of things. That's been very important for

them. Geospatial intelligence. They have poured everything into that for the last twenty years and now they're going to start applying it to us. But a part of that is anticipatory intelligence AI. That AI, and for anticipatory intelligence, they're going to need artificial intelligence to help them to collate to mine all this information that they've got on us with the scanners and the biometrics and all the

rest of this stuff. Gates Foundations doubling down on its push for digital ID and to tie it to digital money, and they're doing it in Nigeria. He's focusing on these poor countries. He focused years ago in India, came up with the Adhar system and he said, well, you know that we got all these people who are just not in the banking system and we need to get them an ID. We all understand what he was doing now, right, don't we? And so he's doing the same thing now in Nigeria.

And what they did in India was they blackmailed people. They went to the poorest people and they said, we will give you government welfare, will give you medical care, we'll give you food and things like that, but you gotta take the number. And that's what they want to do to us. That's why they're going to destroy everything, why they have to level it so they have that leverage over us. You take the money, you take the number of the beast, the number of the government, or you die.

It's just that simple. It's purposely targeting countries where it's easier to get this stuff through because the way that it operates, But it's really the poor countries that it makes it easier for him to get through. And Nigeria, the Gates Foundation President for Global Growth Opportunities, is actually quote challenging the country's government to make more investments to create a DPI ecosystem, and of course that's

just their buzzword for their digital control. DPI is digital public infrastructure, not dots per inch, which is all I always think of it as a printer. But again he's coming out with us publicly. He wants to have fifty countries within the next five years that are all going to be on CBDC.

And so you know, when you talk about Nigerie, what is their big problem is that their wars, their race wars, their incredible violence, the persecution of Christians is happening, and the war on Christians there, No, it's none of that. None of that. Their problem is they don't have an ID so we can control them. That's what their problem is. Well,

we're going to take a quick break and we come back. We're going to start now talking about the CTIL, the files that have now been released, and Michael Schellenberger has a long article on this, and we'll talk about that when we come back. Let me just respond to some of the people who have been kind enough to leave a comment and a tip. As a matter of fact, on Rockvie and Brian McCartney, thank you very much for

the tip. They said, just glad that you're up and running. Was praying that you were all safe and that it was only a communication or internet issue. Thank you very much for that. Even got to sign up for a Twitter account under Brian's name to check on you. We have been banned for years from that platform. Well there go, you can get on. It doesn't necessarily mean that if you're on their bad side, then their bad list, you know, like I got on that they're ever gonna take me

off. But you can be there and on rock Fan. Thank you very much, Eric, I appreciate the tip. Thank you. So both of we've got people on rock Fans rumble up and working. Okay, good And let me just say this too. You know, a lot of people say, yeah, what about a power backup? Look, the problem that we have a power backup and we've had a lot of these power outages here and the problem with the power backup is that we don't we have internet coming in

in the same way. We don't have the band with We tried getting a hotspot that we could use with us because he's for us to get a power back up, a generator or something like that, but the problem is the internet connection and having the bandwidth to put this out to multiple streams, and

so we can't do that. You know, when this happened before, when we were in Texas and everything, all the windmills froze that the Republicans had put in for the billionaires and paid for the infrastructure and paid for running the wires back to the grid and all the rest of this stuff. I mean,

the crony capitalism and the corruption in Texas is disgusting. It's all coming from gop so just so you know, but you know, when all that thing, when the windmills froze and everybody lost their power, we did the broadcast with a phone because we really were not up at that point in time. We'd only been doing the show for a couple of weeks, and we really weren't on at a lot of different places at that point in time.

And the first few shows that we did we did with my son holding the you know, one of my sons holding the iPhone in front of me on the desk, and so we had already been doing shows that way just a week or two before, and so we continued with it. You know, other places, even Info Wars with all the elaborate backup that they've got there, they blacked out. But we did it, and we put it up

on Twitter. Had more of an active Twitter account at that point in time, and I had to do the show with a with a candle, and so you did a candle light. And then as I was doing the show, one of the pipes burst, said, Travis and Karen were running around. My other son was holding the phone, and Karen and Travis were running around trying to stop the water. You know, mitigate to keep it from

getting over where we were and then get it turned off. And so you know, we've done that type of thing in the past, but here we've got enough streams that are going now that the internet is the issue. So unless we get really high speed wireless internet, which we've not been able to find yet, the power out of just shut us down. And I don't

know what happened today. Usually this has happened because there's been weather, wind or something like that knocks over a tree, and because you know a lot of trees here, it takes out the power to us or to somebody else. But that was not the case today. It was cold, but it must have been somebody with an automobile accident that took something out because it went out about six o'clock and this morning, and so that's what I'm guessing was

really behind it. We're to take a quick break. When we come back, we're going to talk about the c T I L Files, So stay with us. We'll be right back. You're listening to the David Knight Show, Elvis the Beetle and the Sweet Sounds of Motown. Find them on the Oldies Channel at APS radio dot com. All right. And as I said, we're talking about the c T I L files. This is like the Twitter files, but it is more extensive, and it verifies everything that we've

already known. All you had to do was look at who was benefiting from this and look at what they had done in the past. We knew where they were headed with this, and if you had any discernment, if you had any you know, people in the media should have understood this. They were the ones that I was upset with. I understand the public for the most part, didn't know it, but there's no reason for people who are in the media not to understand what this is about. And many of them

didn't, and many of the think tanks didn't understand it. And I don't think there's any excuse for that Heritage Foundation, CATO reason. All those people just did not get it, did not understand the principles involved either. Many people insist that the governments are not involved in censorship, but they are now. Whistleblower has come forward with an explosive new trove of documents, rivaling or exceeding the Twitter files and the Facebook files, both in scale and importance,

and I would agree with that. I don't know about the scale, but I would say this is more important frankly. And so this is a thing that's been put out on substackics, put together by Michael shellen Berger, Alex Gutenthogg and Matt Taibi who went through this information. And this is just part one of this expos but it names names and it shows you exact factly how they were putting this together. The US and UK, you know, part

of the Five Eyes. And of course they explicitly within this document talk about doing this with the Five Eyes. The Five Eyes the five English speaking countries that collaborate with their intelligence agencies. It's one big spy network. That's why they call the Five Eyes a US, UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. So the US and the UK military contractors created sweeping plan for global censorship in twenty eighteen, and that's when they went public with their censorship plans.

Now they don't talk about it here, but I just have to say that no matter how bad TikTok is, no matter how bad it is, we should not support it being banned because it's just like drugs and the drug wars. I've said before, if we allow them However, to establish this that they can take out an entire platform. Guess what's going to happen. Well, then they'll start complaining. Well, you know, rumble is just really bad. You see this all the time. Oh, look at this

platform or that platform is filled with Nazis. Well, the Nazis are going to go wherever there's a real free speech. It's going to be the price you pay, because to have free speech, you're going to have to put up with speech that you don't agree with. And so you're going to have people who are like Nazis, and you're going to have people who are radical Islamicists that you don't agree with. And that's the price that you pay for

freedom. And if you can't refute people like that, you you don't just give it up. I mean, come on, they're the easiest people in the world to take down, argue against. You know, let them speak. The more they speak, the more they put themselves into a hole. And you know, so only a very, very sick society is going to support people like that. And so how do we make sure we don't have a sick society. Well, we have to have the freedom of speech.

To have freedom of religion, and it is going to be in our religious values that we're going to be able to pose p like radical Islamisists, people like Nazis, and people like the ones running our own government right now, the CIA, the NSA, and these people. They are as bad as the Nazis. They're as bad as the radical Islamicists. They're even worse because you don't know who they are and you don't understand what they're up to.

So again, in twenty eighteen, August, Info Wars October eight hundred other sites. But getting back to this, the one thing I disagree with these guys on Matt Tybee and Tybee and Schellenberger, they said this is done in reaction to Brexit and Trump election in twenty sixteen. No, it wasn't. No, it wasn't. This was planned for decades. I got to contact Matt Tybee. He contacted me once and interviewed me about censorship, my censorship, and maybe I can get in touch with him. I'd like to interview

him, and I'd like to expand his horizons. Do you understand the history of this stuff? Yeah, I'm going back to the ninety he's going back to the sixties. For sixty years, have been working on this stuff. Yes, they did it quote unquote in response to Bresit and Trump. They use that as justification, you understand, justification to roll out what they've been

working on and planning on for decades. You know, that's not to say that, you know, to say that this is a response to Bregsit and Trump is to say that twenty twenty and the lockdowns and the vaccines and the masks and all the social distancing and the ventilators and the rest of this stuff, to say that was in reaction to COVID, No, it wasn't. It was their plan that they'd practiced for twenty years. They used that as an excuse, and it was a phony excuse at that, just like I

think Trump is a phony excuse. I think it was part of them. I think he was a controlled opposition. Anyway, it was justification. They planned this all along, they practiced it. They're moving step by step, doing it from the inside, doing it with disruption. So he said this digon twiszle blowers come forward with an explosive neutrobe of documents rivaling or exceeding the

Twitter files, Facebook files, and so forth. They described activities as of an anti disinformation group quote unquote called the Cyber Threat Intelligence League League the league I was looking at that. I always think of the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Well, I guess this is the League of extraordinary non gentleman You go back to the early part of the twentieth century, and I forget whether it was British or American intelligence. This is one guy who is head of the

intelligence agency. And there we was just you know, they said, well, you know, they were surveilling somebody and they wanted him to look at their mail. He says, I'm sorry, gentlemen, did not read other gentlemen's mail. If only we had people like that in government, now can you imagine? So this is the extraordinary non league of non gentlemen that are doing this. And so they said, well, this is nothing, but this is a a volunteer project, a volunteer project to people who were defense

and intelligence veterans, and not even just veterans. By veterans, they mean they've been there a very long time. Doesn't mean that they had left. And these are people who pretended that this is a public private partnership. Well, you know, I yes, for a long time I worked for them, and oh, by the way, and I still do. But I have this private corporation on the side, which is one hundred percent funded by the intelligence agencies. But it's a private public partnership. And as long as

it's a private public partnership, I can do whatever I want. The First Amendment doesn't apply. Do you understand how phony that is? This is way beyond what we find out in these files. This is way beyond the idea that you know they're they're sending messages to Twitter and Facebook and telling them shut down David Knight or whatever. This is way beyond that. This is These

are people who are openly talking about how they're going to do it. And as long as we have the pretense that this is private, we can disavow any knowledge of what is actually happening here, any responsibility, and we don't have to follow the law. We don't have to follow the first because we've got a private company here. And that's the kind of thinking that was coming out from Heritage Foundation and cater Institute. Somebody needs to look at their connections

to the military industrial complex. Were they shills for them saying that kind of stuff? So partnerships. They also had partnerships with the role of military and intelligence agencies. They had partnerships that partnerships with civil society organizations, you know, like George Soros, and with commercial media, mainstream media. And they used sock puppet accounts to go on offense against people. So lock your excrement

down, says one document about creating your spy disguise. That's what they called it. Your spine is. But of course this is all allowed, isn't it under their rules? Under their new rules, all the stuff in why to people? You can do it in secret? What does Nikki think about this? Niki Haley? You know she wants to know their name. Well, what's that going to do with the talk puppet accounts? Well, of course they'll be able to do things secretly because they're different, all right.

They're the intelligence community. They're the government. The rules don't apply to them. They make the rules for us. They are the government. Here and Other explains that while such activities overseas are typically done by the quote typically quote unquote by the CIA, in the NSA and the Department of Defense, we can do this against Americans if we use private partners because the government doesn't have

the legal authority to do this. So let's use, you know, put on the the Groucho Marx glasses with a big nose and the mustache, and we will do this as a private corporation, will pretend that we're the private

corporation. This is over the last year we've had congressional investigators and others document the rights of the censorship industrial complex and network of over one hundred government agencies and also non governmental organizations that worked together to urge censorship by social media platforms and to spread propaganda about disfavored individuals, topics and all entire whole narratives.

Nothing new about any of this stuff. And then what they say when they look at the whistleblower, So they find that at the epicenter of this is the cyber Security Information Security Agency SISA. They tried three times to pass it when it was called SISPA p and then they tried SOPA ACTA PIPPA, various forms of this. They all failed. They dropped the P. What is

the PA about protection? And they had that there because the gist of it was that they wanted to protect private corporations that were going to partner with them you understand, you see, this is all private public partnership, and so that p stood for protection, but it could also stand they could do peepee, it's getting too many letters there, so it could be cisp CISPA, cis p PA, you know, protect the private part of the security agency. And it was clear from that how you know, if you looked at

that process. And again they tried it at least two times as CISPA. They also tried SOPA active PIPPA, and they were all the same, and they were all being opposed by Aaron Schwartz, who was a part of the cyber community. And they killed him. They killed him, said he committed suicide. He did not commit suicide because they were going to trumped up charges against him. It was the federal government. They accused him of breaking into

Harvard and doing some stuff onl line. Harvard looked at, they didn't care. Local law enforcement looked at they didn't care. So they got the federal attorney to come after him, and and he didn't care. This wasn't his first rodeo. He was like, I'm not gonna do anything about that. But then he dies and they take him to jail. He dies in jail, and they say, well, you know, he committed suicide like Jeffrey Epstein or something right, and and and and so people got very angry with

the federal attorney who was prosecuting or persecuting him, I should say. And her husband, her name was Carmine Ortiz. Her husband put out on social media she didn't drive him to suicide. She was she gave him an offer, said, okay, do this and we'll just take it down to you know, not decades in prison, but we'll do it for you know, three months or something like that. And so he didn't do it for that. Well, then he took that down, but it was too late.

People got it. And so that completely belies the motivation of suicide because he was so distraught, or the fact that he was going to go to jail for a very very long time, as if he was involved in January the sixth. Of course, it's all pre dated January sixth by quite a bit.

But he had fought that. He told people what this is about, and he was a point man fighting in I think it was Mike McCall out of Texas who was a point man who was pushing SISPA and original and then finally got it through as SISSA, but it was always this is at the center of all this, And understand that these intelligence organizations were always creating this web of the military and the intelligence agencies and then private corporations and the p

in there was initially there to say, well, we're going to protect any companies that turn over information about the people who are using their service on the Internet. Were going to protect them from being sued by the those people, and that's what it did, but also created this new bureaucracy and her homeland security. So they have emails between sissa's social media partners show that they created. SISA created the Election Integrity Partnership in twenty twenty, which involved the Stanford

Internet Observatory and other US government contractors. I'm sure in that there's also the one that operated out of the University of Indiana, and I've talked about that before. Oh so me and they had the guy that was head of that social media manipulation monitoring and manipulation thing. The guy who was there had come over from Italy to be put in charge of the Kinsey Perverted Sex Institute,

which is part of that university there in Indiana. This conservative state alex all Republicans, and they've got the Kinsey Institute there, and so they brought this I were from India in Italy, not India Italy to run that thing, and then they moved them over to be their spy on social media anyway.

Then the successor to the EIP, the Election Integrity Partnership, was the Virality Project, and it was the one that was communicating with Twitter, Facebook and other platforms that sensor social media posts by ordinary citizens and also by elected officials, all of them. And again it's very difficult to follow this web of

intrigue, and it's not necessary to follow this web intrigue. As they point out, there's more than one hundred organizations, and then there's the private ones, and then there's all the corporations, and they keep changing them as they did with this, But the framework is the same. The framework is this

excuse of it being public private. The public private model the seeds of what both the US and the UK would put into place in twenty twenty and twenty twenty one, including masking censorship within cyber security institutions and counter disinformation agendas, a heavy focus on stopping disfavored narratives and not just the wrong facts. You

see the ctil's approach the disinformation. They went far beyond censorship. It shows that they engaged in offensive operations to influence public opinion, discussing ways to promote counter messaging, to co op hashtags, to dilute disfavored messaging, to create sock puppet accounts, and to infiltrate private invite only groups. And we saw all of this happening through the so called pandemic, and of course it's all ways been there to some extent, and even more so now with the climate

stuff. So the Internet and social media were created for this very purpose. The FBI declined to comment to these people about this. SISA would not comment on it, but they don't have to. We know one particular person named terp she was one of the key players. She would also not respond.

They said that one person that did respond, by the name of Bonnie Smalley, replied over LinkedIn and said quote, all I can comment on is that I joined a CTI league, which is not only which is unaffiliated with any government organizations, and I did it because I wanted to combat the inject bleach nonsense online During COVID. I can assure you that we had nothing to do with a government, though I'm not assured, uh, And I don't know

what her motivations are. I find that difficult to believe. Quite frankly, this injecting bleach nonsense that she's talking about. This is so stupid that I didn't believe it was. I didn't believe that even Trump believed it. It was so stupid. And I've said this, you know all this stuff, Oh, you know, could inject sunlight in people's veins, and we could

do this, and we could do that. And he does that in conjunction with a droxy CLOrk one which, along with zinc, was going to was working for a lot of people and getting them over the respiratory disease rather than sending them to the hospital where Trump's richly rewarded hospital protocol was killing people. But he put this stuff out. He played the fool, He played the clown Defauci's serious scientist. Oh that's Trump. You just can't You can't believe

anything this guy says. He doesn't know. I'm the scientist here. He played costello to Fauci's abbot. He was the clown de Fauci's straight man, and I don't believe that this was something that's been injecting bleach nonsense. She had to get online and become part of this to stop that. Nobody was taking that seriously. It was so stupid, not even Trump would take it seriously. So that's a bunch of nonsense, right there, Geesebusters, Good

to see you there, and thank you so much. That's very generous. I appreciate that. On Rumble, David, so glad you're back up, started getting with Dralton fifteen this morning. Yeah, so did I I was getting really antsy about all this stuff as you get into this in terms of a habit and it's like, oh no, but anyway, Yeah, back to this. So terp this the person who was at the very center of this. She had a SISA badge, but it went away at some point,

said the whistleblower. Yeah yeah, mister Phelps. Let's see, IA will disavow any knowledge of you if you're caught or captured. So you know, these are people who work for them, people who still work for them putting this stuff together. As a matter of fact, kind of the co founder of all this thing was a guy who was working with Let's see here it is right here. His name is Pablo Brewer Pomblow. He was also a leader with the League, the League of Non Gentleman and he was somebody

who was a former US Navy commander. Poblow was uh. He was military director of US Special Operations Command Donovan Group. UH. He had been an advisor and an officer UH to the National Security Agency, the US Cyber Command, many of these other things. So he's heavily involved in military intelligence also

with the NSA all the rest of the stuff. Look, when I was doing all this uh investigation into asymmetric warfare, Admiral McRaven was head of Special Operations at the time, and what he was saying was, we've always we've come to think of special Forces green Berets and others, you know, including Navy seals. We've come to think of them in terms of kinetic operations, in other words, jumping out a plane and scuba diving and all the rest

of this stuff, and underwater demolition. He says, that's not the way the Special forces began. Special forces were originally set up as psychological operations. That's what we've got to get back to Originally, the special forces are sent into an area where we might be injecting our military, where we might be you know, starting a war or something like that, and they would go in to identify who is going to be on our side, who was not

going to be on our side. I think that was really what jade Helm was about. And so they, you know, do certain things and then see how people reacting. Okay, I know when you know, we act as if we're going to come in do something, but we're not really We're just testing their reactions. Oh now I know where their loyalties lie. And so again, these people have always been about special operations, have always been

about PSIO. Also, looking at this, they had the so called All Volunteer League of Censorship had grown to about fourteen hundred members in seventy six countries and they were vetted, vetted and spanned forty five different sectors, but fourteen hundred members in seventy six countries, and they helped a lawfully take down twenty eight hundred cyber criminal assets on the internet. They said, well, yeah, sure, how do they define criminal? Imagine they defined me as criminal.

But look, this is the Stazi approach. We are so they're volunteers, so what if they are The people in East Germany were volunteers who worked for the Stazi. I told the story before the woman who was an American issue went to She went to East Germany because she loved Communism. She really loved it. She was that stupid. And the people who lived under Communism, the East German secret police, they couldn't leave her motives. It's like,

there's no way she's here because she likes communism. Why would anybody leave American move here? We got nothing here, right, So they are very suspicious effort. She meets a guy in East Germany, she marries him. Again, they don't trust her, and she has all these friends that were so nice to her and everything. She found out years later when they released the papers from the Stazzi, that almost all of her friends were informants to

the Stazi on her. That's what these people are. These are traders to the United States. All of these people. I don't care if they've got a title, I don't care if they got a uniform. I don't care how long they worked as a veteran in the military. You are a trader. If you do this, you have broken your oath to the Constitution. You betrayed your own people to set up a globalist government. They stressed that there were simply volunteers that were motivated by altruism, and they did it at

places like the Aspen Institute. Interviewed a guy who is lone Conservative and Aspen who was reporting about the Aspen Isitute and other things like that. Terp again, the woman who was one of the founders and leaders of this I guess we could call it the say the USA has now come the United Stazi of America. These people united through this league, united through the intelligence community,

Terp said. In a twenty nineteen podcast, she said, cognitive security is the thing that you want to have, you want to protect that cognitive layer. It's basically, it's all pollution. It's about pollution, misinformation, disinformation. It's all a form of pollution across the Internet. See, she's really just an Internet environmentalist. Let's get out all this stuff that I don't like. It's just just purging out of there. No, it's not about that

at all. What this is about is the government lying to people and then shutting down anybody who questions their lines. It's just that simple. We're all conspiracy theorists, we're all anti vaccine and all the rest of this stuff. And it's like you, you know, you're right about that. I don't care that you use it as a pejoraty of term. I'll accept that label.

Brewer. Getting back to Brewer, who worked for Special Forces. A Navy commander, he admitted in a podcast that his aim was to bring military tactics to use on social media platforms to shut down speech that he didn't like, speech that the government didn't like. He said, I wear two hats, he says, I'm military director of the Donovan Group. And remember the

Donovan Group as part of US Special Operations Command. So I'm military director of the Donovan Group and one of two innovation officers at soft Works, which is also involved in all that. And he says, but then I'm the other hat that I've got. I'm completely unclassified five oh one C three nonprofit that is funded by US Special Operations Command. So how is that private? Again? It's no different from Election Guard, that is an organization under Microsoft but

funded with a ten million dollar grant from DARPA. Is a DARPA thing, right, Election Guard is a DARPA thing. I don't care about it being under typically under Microsoft or whatever. It's being funded by DARPA. It's a darp operation. This is a Special Forces operation. They're the ones paying for it. They own it, they're directing it. They've got a guy who has all these other responsibilities and he's running this thing. Come on, how stupid do they think we are? Now? He went on to describe how

they thought that they were getting around the First Amendment. He said, We've got to have non traditional partners in one room, he said, and maybe somebody from one of the social media companies, maybe a few special Forces operators, maybe some folks from the Department of Homeland Security to talk in a non attribution an open environment, in an unclassified way, so that we can collaborate better, more freely, really start to change the way that we address some

of these issues and control people. They advocated for police for military, for intelligence involvement and censorship, and they advocated for it across all five ey nations, the US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and they even suggested that they are to bring Interpol in with them. This is a global censorship operation, to bring in a global governance so they said, we need to prebunk things again, anticipatory intelligence. We've got to stop stuff from

going. That's what the CCPA is about, coalition for content, providence and authentication to stop you to pre bunke it. They're going to identify the same thing that NewsGuard does. NewsGuard says, oh, okay, this guy oppose our narrative. We're going to block everything that comes from this guy. And so that's what this is about, pre bunking, preemptively inoculating a vulnerable population against messaging. And so in all of this, Brewer says, we have

a public private model of censorship laundering. What DHS and others are going to embrace. He said. He spoke freely and openly on podcasts, and what he said about it was he said, it's comparable to what's being implemented by the Chinese government in terms of the Great Firewall of China, which was the famous you know, long ago they were the only ones doing it, but you know they worked it out there. Now they want to do that everywhere.

As I said you, twenty twenty was the year the world became China, and so the Great Firewall of China they could block information coming into their country. But here's what Brewer. Brewer and Terp the founders of this CTIL, the Censorship League, what he said was, he said, want to have in mind as comparable to what's been implemented by the Chinese government, only

we will make it more palatable for Americans. He says, if you talk to the average Chinese citizen, they absolutely believe the Great Firewall of China is not there for censorship. They believe that it's there because the Chinese Communist Party wants to protect the citizenry, and they absolutely believe that that is a good thing. If the US government tried to sell that narrative, we would absolutely lose our minds and say no, no, this is a violation of our

First Amendment rights. So the in group and the outgroup messaging have to be different. In other words, we've got to say something within our group, we know that we're setting up a great firewall, we know that we're setting up censorship like the Chinese do, but we can't tell the American people, and we have to come up with a different way to couch this. We

can't say this is coming from the government. We've got to pretend that it's coming from private institutions, even though I'm in both the even though the government is funding and running this through these sellouts like Brewer, even though this sellout, this Pablo Brewer is selling us out and violating his oath to the Constitution. You got to sell it as if it's a private organization. What a

disgusting person. You ought to be in jail, along with James Clapper, along with Michael Hayden, who says there's no difference between Hamas and a conservative like me. Well, I'll tell you why. There's no difference between Michael Hayden and Hamas. They are one and the same thing, one and the same thing. There's no difference between Michael Hayden and Shijen Ping. There's no difference between Michael Hayden and Stalin, any of these dictators. The only difference

between them is that he hasn't consolidated his power completely yet. And we better make sure that people like Michael Hayden, Pablo Brewer, and this TOWRP Turp is her name, not TWRP but TWRP. That's we got to make sure they don't have the power. So yeah, but look, he is really

wrong about this. Fundamentally right. People are being so indoctrinated and miseducated by our government institutions that the people who are in K through twelve, the people who are in universities, they really do believe that a great firewall and censorship is there to protect them, and they really do want this. And this

is where we're headed, and this is what our task is. Our task is to uh to get these people who are being programmed to say, well, this is a microaggression and you've got to have the government here to protect you and make you feel safe. Just like you heard that green tyrant in Ireland say well, you know, yeah, we're going to ban stuff if you make if somebody feel uncomfortable, Yeah, we're going to ban it. You see, she's selling the same thing that he's selling, and the same

thing that China has sold. And I think he's lying about that, but I think that he will get people in the US to embrace their chain I will engage in this Stockholm totalitarianism. And that's the unfortunate thing. And that's why at the very center of this really are these schools. They're the ones that are preparing everybody for this slavery in the coming generations. The ethos was that we would get away with it as legal and there were no First Amendment

concerns because we have a public private partnership. That's the word we use to describe it to disguise those concerns. Private people quote unquote private people can do things public servants can't do, and public servants can provide the leadership, the

coordination, and of course the money. And you notice this is the same thing that was being parroted at that same time by the Heritage Foundation, by Cato, by Reason, by John Stossel, all the rest of these people embracing their slavery, selling this idea of slavery to you because you know, again, corporations can do no wrong right corporations, As I said before. The way we get around this we have to have the understanding that corporations not

people. God creates people withinnalienable rights. Governments are there to protect those inalienable rights. Corporations are not people. They're created. They're creatures of government. They have been given privileges, and we need to understand above all, we need to start looking at corporations as not somebody. You know, libertarian view of corporation has always been. Well, like you know, they have to

eat. Greed is good. Why is greed good? They say, well, greed is good because these people are going to operate from a position of greed, but they're going to operate in terms of in their own self interest, in their own greed. They have to provide goods and services that people want. They have to compete. They have to provide better services, better products that are better priced than their competitors do. So even though they're greedy,

even though the greed is motivating them, that's a good thing. You know. They want to have money, they want to succeed, so they're going to do this stuff that's incredibly naive because we don't have a free market anymore. We have all these corporations only want to please the government because they want to be part of the stakeholder club. They want to have a franchise. They know that anybody who's not in that stakeholder club is going to be

shut down. The mom and pops are going to be non essential, just like Trump told them in twenty twenty, shutting them down. Service businesses. No, we're not going to have you. And so these big corporations want to please the government. They don't. Nascar doesn't care about their people, Budweiser doesn't care about their customers. They care about play. They got one customer and that's the government. And that's why this whole thing about corporations can

do You know the well corporations are competing against each other. And where have you been for the last several decades. You haven't seen what is happening. You still don't see what is happening with these corporations pushing this stuff down the throat of their customers and offending them to the point of boycott. And they can still continue to do it. Why because the government is funding money to them, because they can raise money on Wall Street and they don't need customers

and if they can make the government happy. So you need to understand, and we should start viewing all corporations as compromised. We should view all corporations as complicit. We should view all corporations as bribeable and controllable, because they are. And we've seen this, there's absolutely no question about it. It doesn't matter if it's NASCAR or Coca Cola, Butdweiser, any of these companies, they're all bribed and controlled and they're complicit in selling this agenda. They're

not selling the rope that's going to be used to hang them. They're selling the rope it's going to be used to hang you. They're ingratiating themselves into a position with this satalitarian government that's going to serve them in the long run, and that's why they're throwing this stuff out. One last thing I'll say before I take a break. Paul as I mentioned earlier, he ores what

he calls the separation of tech and state. He says some libertarians dismiss concerns over social media company suppression of news and opinions that contradict select agendas by pointing out that these platforms are private companies and not part of the government. And I'm glad that Ron paul is saying this, because he's got clout with people like John Stoscil and others. It may be seen whether they will turn on him for saying this or not. But what Ron Paula is saying here is

absolutely true. He says. There's two problems with this argument. He says, first of all, there's nothing unlibertarian about criticizing private businesses or using peaceful and voluntary means such as Boycott's to persuade businesses to change their practices. Well, that's one part of it. What do you do when they control everything, they monopolize it, or they've got a little oligarchy of everything and they use it to control everybody, you know, like Seamus Breemer, I think

his name the Control of Arks that I am reading last week. Second thing he says is this idea that they're private companies. This argument does not hold water. The tech companies censorship has often been done at the request of government

officials, and I would say bequest of the government officials. The extent of government involvement with online censorship has been revealed in emails between government and employees of various tech companies, and in these emails, the government officials addressed employees of

these private companies as though these employees were the government officials subordinates. We already knew that it was easy to discern, and when we look at these latest files, these CTIL files, it's been clear that some people need to be called to account for violating their oath to the Constitution. People like Pablo Brewer and this terp need to be kicked out of their government positions. They need to have their their tensions taken away, and they need to be jailed quite

frankly, because they have been traders to the American people. They have violated their oath to the American people. They are quizzlings of the globalist scheme selling what all these globists want. And that's the difference with this stuff. Yeah, we should not allow these corporations to censor people because it is a digital public square. And that's what Ron Paul does not say. Again, going back to Marshasses Alabama, but we shall also have some punishment for the people

who betrayed us, But I don't think that's going to happen. Look at twenty twenty. These people literally kill people with the Trump shots. They literally kill people with the protocol and the hospitals, and they're richly paid by Trump to do both of those things, and nobody's holding them to account. And the Conservatives, even though they look at this stuff and they understand what's going they will not hold Trump accountable. Nobody is going to be held accountable to

this stuff. Government officials using their authority to silence American citizens as a blatant violation of the First Amendment says Ron Paul. Of course that is a blatant a violation of the Constitution and they should be punished for that. I say, yeah, some conservative elected officials and writers think the solution to the problem

a big tech censorship is to give government more power over technology companies. Instead of giving the government more power over social media, defenders of free speech should work to separate the two. And what he means by that is that his son Rand and Jim Jordan have introduced a bill to make it a crime for any federal employee or employee of a federal contractor to use his position to communicate with a social media company to interfere with any Americans exercise of First Amendment protected

rights. Have a question, why is it not a crime? Since these people violate the Constitution, there has to be some way that you can come after them. It takes just a little bit of creativity looking at this. But don't tell me that you can't think it's something to charge these people with that. You can't kick them out, take people out for not taking the Trump poison. You can't kick them out for this. I'm sure you can think of something if you really try. Jim Jordan and ran Paul, but

I don't think they're serious about it. They want to posture for people who are upset about this. Well, quite frankly, that's just not good enough. Same thing Conor McGregor said, you know, I'm sorry, that's not good enough. You're going to have to do better than that. You're gonna have to do more than have a speech or hold a hearing. You better put these people in jail. Anyway. Ron Paul goes on to say big tech censorship as a problem created by big government. Solution lies not with giving

government more power, but by separating tech and state. Well, I say we give the death penalty to some of these corporations that have done this. They were given birth and created by the government. They exist as a government privilege. They have served these government traders to subvert the Constitution. And I think that they ought to be dissolved. And I think these people ought to be fired and then to have their pensions taken, and they ought to go

to jail. Anything less than that is not good enough, not good enough. We'll be right back. Whether you're feeling like the booze or bluegrass aps radio has you covered. Check out a wide variety of channels on our app at apsradio dot com. You're listening to the David Knight Show. Well, I got a couple of comments here from Guard Goldsmith and from Jason Barker. Thank you, guys, and thank you for watching. I knew at least you two guys will be watching because Karen contacted you as always. I know

Jason saw the tweet that I put out earlier. Guard, thank you for the tip on rock Fan. He says that David, it's great to see you all back with the power, the power of truth and research. Thank you. I can rely on you to dig into the news and teach as you report. Well, thank you very much. Guard. And of course Guard does the same thing. He's been on this as well. He knows what this is all about. And Jason, thank you. He says, I'm waiting for the little car on your desk to burst into flames. Looks

like an early Tesla model. Yeah, if I haven't flamed it yet, I don't know if it's burst into flames. As angry as I got about

this, let's talk a little bit about fake stuff again. As I said before, this is really kind of like the bump stock stuff, but it gives you an insight into the character of these people and the purposes of what they want to do with this power that they're giving themselves their power over us with information, with education and these you know, the censorship that is rolling out here. And I thought it was kind of funny coming out of well,

this actually is been covered by Japan today. Fake AI generated woman on a tech conference agenda leads Microsoft and Amazon executive to drop out. See, they're okay with fake women as long as their breathing, But this is completely This is a fake woman who is just completely artificial intelligence generated AI generated, And so that kind of a fake woman is just a step too far from them. Just yet, as a matter of fact, you know, they

worship the fake women who are really men, but tach. Executives at Microsoft and Amazon have dropped out of an upcoming software conference after at least one of the women on the agenda turned out to be fake. This conference is called Devternity, and the organizer admitted on social media that one of the featured speakers was an auto generated woman as opposed to bruce gender or people like that.

I guess they're not auto generated. I guess they have to be generated by some other surgeon or something, but anyway, he had a fake title. He was responding to allegations about a number of suspicious profiles on his conference websites that appeared to be generated by AI. So it's not just one woman that's AI generated, but a bunch of people there were going to be presenters at his conference or something. He denied that the fake profile was intended to mask

the quote worse than expected level of diversity of speakers. You see, this is what Microsoft is really upset about. The people that were going to go are really upset about this because you know, we just don't have enough diversity, and he's faking this stuff to get diversity. And that's how badly he needed to have diversity. He knew that it was so important to the people

at Amazon and Microsoft and these other tech companies that he faked it. I found out that I was the only woman on the agenda, and some of the others advertised may not be real, said Amazon Web Services executive and Microsoft executive set an X that he only speaks at conferences with an inclusive lineup, and he said I was duped by the false speakers that he had here.

If only they could get some real training women to show up. You know, somebody like this guy who is in Nashville, not Nashville, Tennessee, but Nashville, Illinois, who is a self identified pedophile and has been for five years making threats against Christians and Blacks and everybody that he hates. He's filled with hate, filled with hate, and yet he's not guilty of hate speech. And the FBI did nothing about this until just now. And of

course he went on a tirade after the Nashville shooting. By that training, we still can't see the trnifesto, but we see this guy his trail, and people were pointing it out to the FBI and other people who failed to act on it for five years. And so a trends identified Illinois man from Nashville, Illinois, self described pedophile, is facing charges for making social media threats to sexually assault Christian girls, young girls, and to commit copycat attacks

somewhere to the attack at a Christian school in Tennessee earlier this year. See is this kind of trans insanity that is being hidden and covered up by the government. His name is Jason Lee Willie of Nashville, Illinois. Charged November seventh in US District Court in Illinois fourteen felony accounts of interstate communication of a threat to injure. So you see this is coming from the Feds. It's

in a US district court, and it's about interstate communication. But he was able to do this for five years, and he was able to do it. Was it eight or nine months ago? Eight months ago in March when you had the Nashville killer. The threats dated between March and August include repeated references to Christians, black Americans, the publican party, and everybody that he

hates. And that's what I said about this training killer in Nashville. She had been trained to hate herself being white, trained to hate her sex, being female, and then hating everybody else. And that's exactly what's going on with this guy as well. Among the alleged threats sided in the indictment are threats to quote bomb churches. He said, we're gonna bomb them. We're gonna bomb them. We're going to bomb the churches. We're gonna bomb them.

You know, we're going to kill you. And then he did videos about this. In a video, he made reference to quote Christian trash unquote, he said they're transphobic, they're homophobic. They're no different from the explitive white supremacists. He also frequently used racial epithets and threatened to target anyone with a around your neck. He said he had other video threats. He said, we're coming for your children. We're not going to hurt you. We're

not going to hurt you. You have to understand I know how to get to you. And that's by and he pounds his fist and his palm twice for emphasis. That's by effing your children, By hurting your children, And that's exactly what we're gonna do. I guarantee I'll be in the bathroom raping your Christian daughters. And there ain't nothing you can effing do about it. You hear me, he said, So, I guess he can get in

the bathrooms because of the Biden and Obama rules. In an August video, he appeared to identify himself as a pedophile when he graphically described sexual abuse towards little girls. He said, you guys can't do nothing about it. I don't care. I'm openly a pedo. I'm openly a pedophile. So he said he's tired of being picked on. We're going to go to the schools. We're going to kill their effing children out here, and that's the end of it. We're at. Is this the kind of talk that's in this

trenifesto that the Metropolitan Police in Nashville and especially THEBI. The FBI were the ones that said, don't with the Metropolitan Police are going to release it. The FBI told him, don't do it. So is this kind of language that was there, this kind of threats. It appears to be that from the three pages that we saw, they're very interested in trying to keep this secret and trying to cover up this kind of hate that they have inculcated in

people. The authorities declined to provide even a booking photo of this guy, but some other people had a picture of it that they were able to get. But they don't even want to show the picture of this guy, just

like they don't want to show the manifesto of that killer in Nashville. Willie's online communications generated complaints to the FBI on at least four occasions from twenty eighteen on to twenty twenty two, and they needed a whole bunch of them when this killing happened in Nashville, Tennessee in March and continued on through August. The FBI did nothing about this for five years. But boy, they'll show up to your doorstep, won't they if they can connect you to January sixth

somehow. On March twenty eighth, just one day after the shooting in Nashville, the FBI received a report of an alleged Facebook post where Willie said quote, there will be many more and larger attacks on Christians by transgender people and that Christians would come to know fear like never before. This is yeah, this is a protected person. You see. This is the kind of person

you're not allowed to criticize in Ireland or they'll throw you in jail. And then when we look at the other fake stuff that is coming out, we have the we have the guy who was the founder of Chipolti who was kicked out of the company when they had problems with them E Coli and neurovirus poisoning, and so you know, he's been kind of you know, sitting on the sidelines and reading books by Bill Gates, and now he is coming back with a food chain that is going to be meatless and have robots that are

going to be cooking the food. But he's going to watch a chain of foods, a chain of restaurants run by robots. Yeah, maybe it'll be something like this. You know, it's a very big it's a very big, fluffy fun where's the beef? Hamburger places give you a lot less beef and a lot of bun where's the bee? Bawdy's? We say a hamburger? We modest you remember that commercial. That's a great commercial. I imagine people will do something like that. This is going to be an easy target

for any of his competitors. Quite frankly, where's the beef? Any beef here? Where are the people? There's no people here either? Who needs people? Who's going to buy his food? You know? When these geniuses have replaced all their employees. So he said, yeah, I spent a lot of time, you know, while I was kind of sitting on the shelf after I got kicked out of my company because we couldn't make food wholesomely.

Well, then I was reading this stuff from Bill Gates, How to Avoid a Climate Disaster by Bill Gates, And so he designed this restaurant as a new kind of restaurant that would need fewer resources to run. Yeah, we can't use any energy and can't use any resources, and we can't use any meat. So what am I gonna do for a restaurant? Oh, I'll open fifteen locations throughout New York City, and I will serve fake chicken sandwiches along with cucumbers and wild rice. Ah. They're going to be beating

a path to this guy's door. It's going to be so good to see this guy squander the money that he's got. Left catered and operated by his skeleton crew with a lot of robots to do the job. Wall Street Journal said that customer orders would be beamed to the kitchen. Isn't that great? You know? This is? They don't just the beam it to beat me up, Scottie. It's going to be beamed to the kitchen, where a

robotic arm will put food laden pans into the oven. A programmed toaster flips a bun into the oven for warming, and while conveyor belts move dishes throughout the kitchen. Workers finish off the dishes, package the food, and slot it into cubbies for pickup. Wow. This sounds like a great place to

eat, isn't it. El's is the guy's name. He assembled a small team to figure out how to use a commissary kitchen and robotics to squeeze into spaces of only a thousand square feet or smaller and to turn out to go orders. Maybe he doesn't realize that, you know, people aren't coming back to New York to work. That's what Gerald Slenty has been talking about.

The commercial real estate collapse's happening here. I guess people are so many companies have been put out of business of the lockdown and all the rest of the stuff. Who's going to buy his food? I don't know. And why would you do it in an area that people are are leaving now. Thomas Massy in reaction to this, you know, he's put out the Prime Act, and we've talked about this before to allow American farmers to more easily sell

healthy food, which the USDA is adamantly opposed to. That. Oh, you can grass feed your beef, but you're going to have to finish them off at the feed lot and let us do the centralized control with meat processing. Can't do it on your farm. If you do, we're going to raide you with a spat as they'd done to several Amish farmers. Now Thomas Massey had this to say in a series of tweets. He said, pastures can convert sunlight, animal waste, and CO two into grass, which is

fuel for self propelled protein generating machinery. We call them cattle, self propelled protein generating machinery, and it's self replicating as well. Self propelled and self replicating. The protein this system generates is eminently digestible by humans with no post

processing other than cutting and optional cooking. You can eat it rare. You know, Grass and cattle, says Thomas Massey, can regenerate and reinforce each other indefinitely in harmony with nature, with almost no human input, as evidenced by existence of this cycle with tens of millions of bison on the planes of North America before our intervention. Be wary of those and here's the key thing.

Be wary of those who tell you this natural arrangement is inferior to a system that uses seed planters, sprayers, harvesting combines, diesel, pesticides, inorganic fertilizers, GMO crops, subsidies, sterile fields as centralized multinational factories to

produce fake meat. Disclosure He says, although grain finished beef operations do rely on grass fed cattle as inputs, they are distinct from grass finished beef operations and that they do require significant use of fertilizer, fuel, infrastructure, and machinery to augment production of real beef. Instead of resigning ourselves to eat fake meat made in foreign factories, we should re examine US government actions that have

made smaller, otherwise sustainable farms unprofitable. He says, past the Primact to allow American farmers to more easily sell healthy food locally. He's good, He's really good. We're lucky to have a man like him. It's too bad that he's only one out of about five hundred thirty five what's whatever the number is. And then you have this fake news. Look at how this company is. This a sports blog is called dead Spin, and I think they may be dead at this point because of the way they spun the news.

It's truly reprehensible. What this guy did a total bullface lie, I should say black face lie. And what he did was he put this up, put up this picture so that kid down there wearing an Indian headdress. He's at a Kansas City Chiefs game, and he's got one half of his face painted black and the other half of his face painted red because that's the team colors, red and black. You can see it on the jersey there right, red jersey with a black collar. Red and black is their color.

Now, he didn't he chose not to show the kid full face, so you can see that clearly. What he did was he painted his face in the colors of the team. And the sports writer and i'll put writer and air quotes, the sports writer who did this character assassination is pushing this DEI racism agenda to the hilt. He's a black reporter and he's talking about blackface.

But let me just say this. You know when you do something like this or you you know, blackface, anytime anybody's got something black on their face. Are freaking out about this, which is absolutely insane. You know, the blackface minstrels, Yes, they were, they were mocking, and I can understand that to some degree. But again, I don't think that any speech, even if you're offended by it, I don't think that you have the right to shut it down. I'll just say it right there.

I don't think they have the right to shut down even the most mocking of the black face minstrel shows. But you know, to freak out over somebody, even a kit who's got some black paint on his face. These people need to get a life, they need to grow up, They need to not be taken seriously. And of course he doubled down on this when people said, once you show the full picture of both sides of his face. And so the guy who did this is a senior writer for dead Spin,

so appropriate name for that. I hope it does die because of the way they spin the stuff. He wrote a piece on Monday saying the NFL needs to speak out against a Kansas City Chiefs fan in blackface and native headdress. He accused the child of being racist towards black and Native American people for wearing the headdress and face paint during a Sunday afternoon game in Las Vegas. The young boy's headdress resembled the logo in the nineteen sixties and early nineteen seventies that

depicted a Native American wearing a large headdress and carrying a hatchet. He painted both sides of his face and the team colors red and black. This writer, whose name is Phillips also targeted the Kansas City Chiefs and the NFL, trying to shame them for allowing their fans to display the so called racism and hate that He said, this is all about that kid. This is racism and hate and that kid. Yeah, see the hate in his face.

Now, I see the hate and the writer. I think the writers fill with hate, not that kid, since they did not change their team name, since they didn't end their traditional tomahawk chop, and they have a practice where team players wear the arrowhead logo on their helmet. Whh we imagine that? And they use a large drum to kick off their games. He said, well, it isn't the league's responsibility to stop racism and hate from being taught at the home. In the home, they are the league that has

relentlessly participated in prejudice. If the NFL had outlawed the chop at the chief games and been more aggressive and changing the team's name, then we wouldn't be here, you know. I remember are the Atlanta Braves. Wasn't it owned by Ted Turner or something? But I remember saying Ted Turner and Jane Fonda doing the tomahawk chop at the Atlanta Braves baseball game, and you know as a cheer, yeah, oh for them and all this kind of stuff.

Is she repented of that? Have they shamed her for that? No? No, it's okay. That's okay. She's made amends for that buy supporting the Vietcong. There's no place for a franchise to be called the Chiefs in a league that has already eradicated the Redskins. He also complained the team has

not released a statement on the fans appearance. He never once mentioned the team's collaboration with local Native American tribes or the history of the team name anywhere in his pace, and instead he doubled down on He said, for the idiots and my mentions who are treating this as if it was some kind of a harmless act, he said, it doesn't make any difference that the other side of his face was painted red. I could make the argument that that makes

it even worse. Just look at how hateful this kid is a red and black face, and it is not. First of all, his red face is not like the red face that Indians would have. It is not that red. But anyway, the Kansas City Chiefs then, instead of slapping this guy down, just like bring back John Wayne for just one day, and instead just slapping this guy silly and throwing him out of the window, definestrating him. Instead, they bowed to this Marxist revolutionary with his fake hate and

as fake racism and all the rest of this stuff. They said, Well, we relied very heavily on Native American culture in a racially insensitive fashion throughout history, and we have sensed to eliminate that. They said, back in twenty twenty, the team banned headdresses from home stadium. This kid was in Vegas, right, so that's how he got snuck in. They weren't looking out for any kids wearing Indian headdresses. Can't have that in any face paint.

The Chiefs had also been in a quote thorough review process of the Arrowhead Chop, and they planned to modify the drum deck to accurately represent the drum's spiritual significance and Native American cultures. The team's name is a homage to former Kansas City Mayor h Roe Bartell, who earned the nickname Chief during his time in office. In their early nineteen sixties. People are saying, you know, Chief is a term of respect of endearment. This is a person who

has head of this stuff. But I guess now, this guy who is so upset about it, he's more like Perry White. Don't call me chief, you know, say that to Jimmy Wilson. Don't call me chief. So he doesn't want anybody called chief. Phillips has accused white sports fans of racism on many occasions, and he's so obsessed with skin color. And this guy needs to get a life, and he needs to be fired if they

want to keep this this sports thing. The day following the mass shooting in Buffalo, New York, he accused white people of white supremacy for being entertained by black athletes. During Game number seven, he said the number of white people in Flint, Michigan is concerning. He said, well, you know, let's play this DEI game to the full extent. Let's play it all the way out. You know, when we talk about NBA, let's start choosing the team players on the basis of skin color and diversity. Right,

there's not enough equity. We got too many tall black guys playing in the basketball league and we don't really care about merit. Right, So instead of tall black guys. Once't you get short, fat white women to play basketball. As a matter of fact, you know, we need to include the disabled as well. It's not enough to have them short. Let's get people who are in wheelchairs and we can you know, do that for the NBA. And let's go complete DEI And then what's going to happen to the sport

that this racist sports writer makes his living off of. Do people want to see that? You know, when it comes to sports, people want to talk about merit, and we have a guess that's going to be coming up. He talks about he set up an organization to help people to get companies and other things funded around the outside of this cancel culture and to do things based on Christian principles because it has gotten so bad that there's a lot of

people, he said, that want to help to create things. A lot of people have ideas, but they can't get the stuff done because nobody wants to compete on merit anymore. It's all going to be about DEI and this Marxism and everything is politicized, and so it's giving rise to organizations like this trying to set up a parallel economy. So we'll be having him in just about fifteen minutes. Jason Barker says, I lived in Nashville, Illinois.

I've never heard of Nashville, Illinois. That is a small town with heavy conservative roots. It's scary that places like that are now breeding people like this tranny killer. Yeah it is. But you know, by nationalizing the educational curriculum with a Department of Education, that's how they've been able to do this stuff. That and along with the media and everything else that's out there now.

I've talked in the past about the school that I went to, Tramline High School in Tampa, and I've talked about how we had the chief was our mascot, and I described it, so I thought I would basically, I thought I would show you this. You know, they set the Kansas

City chiefs up in the nineteen sixties. Well, the high school that I went to was created in nineteen fifty six, and they just had a big back and forth about and this was well it was actually last summer of twenty twenty two, and what they did was they got rid of the mascot. They said it was derogatory and offensive to Native Americans. And you had the school board vote five to one to get rid of it, and they're going

to spend fifty thousand dollars to rebrand everything. That picture that you see there of a guy there. He was somebody who graduated just a little bit before I did, but I didn't know him. But he was brought to tears as he talked to the school board about getting rid of the mascot, and Frank they you know, look, I thought it was a lot of that part of it was a lot of fun. I wasn't really that fond of high school the experience in general, but I did enjoy the band stuff,

and I did enjoy what we did with it. But you know, what he is upset about is that they're trampling on his memories. It's like, you got your memories, you got your photographs. Which you should be upset about is what they're doing to our society. They're trying to erase our traditions, our culture, our history, and that's a Marxist tactic. These people don't really they're reacting to the most superficial aspects of this that you're getting rid

of the Indian head that was on the building. As a matter of fact, this is what it looked like that big Indian head and there's a TV snapshot of TV thing there. They have to get rid of that. They have to have all new uniforms for the sports teams and for the band and all the rest of this stuff. It's going to cost some more than fifty thousand dollars. But they had a lot of people showed up. They had

a petition of sixty eight hundred signatures there. People who were opposed to it even included the Democrat, female lesbian mayor of Tampa who went to Chamberlain and said, no, I don't want to see this happening. But they really didn't care. And as I said, you know, they went back to nineteen fifty six when they chose the the when they got the mascot was chosen. And then when you look at move forward a little bit, this is

what the drum majors actually looked like around my time. And you know, they would put this is not red paint like that kid had in Vegas for the chiefs. This was a thing called Texas dirt. So the guys would not wear a shirt and they would get all rubbed down with us, and then they would put war paint on top of that, and that was a drum major the way the drum majorid set up. And so you know, if that's something's going to push your buttons today, boy, that really did

push your back. And I found when I saw this article, I saw that they had banned that from the band. The band, the band. They don't have a marching band anymore. They have a drum corps, and they don't have a chief anymore. At Chamber they got rid of that. They got rid of the dancers that were part of the band because they also had headdresses. This is an article from two thousand and seven, so as recently as two thousand and seven they did have dancers who wore this head dress

and everything. And in that article they talk about the fact they got these headdresses out that had been used. I don't know if maybe they stopped using them and they started using them again or something, and they said they were all old and smelly and sweaty and they had mildew on them, so we had to get all new ones. And they went to a guy who was an Indian and he said, I can make those, and they got him

to make them and he made them out of turkey feathers. They had white turkey feathers and stuff, and he said he was really honored to be able to do that because you see, they're not mocking them. There's no mockery involved in this. This is not at all like black faced minstrels. And they had a big deal about it with Florida State University. For state University they're the Seminoles, and said now we're going to shut that down. And the Seminole Tribe of Florida said, no, we're honored by that. We

don't want to shut that thing down. And so this guy who spoke there said that he graduated from high school there. He went on to obtain his master's degree in biology medical science. He wrote his thesis on medicinal plants of North America that were used by indigenous people. He said, I am an Iroquois from many generations ago, heritage that is near and dear to my heart, and it meant a lot to me to be a proud chief. Again, he doesn't understand what's going on, you know, he's just reacting to

the surface issues of this, like many other alumni speaking before him. He was a member of the Chamblin High School Legacy Alliance, an organization composed of alumni. But here's what's happened with all this. They were opposed to what was being done by this group that called themselves the Parent Advisory Committee Title six Parent Advisory Committee. The Title six is part of the nineteen sixty four Civil Rights Act. And you may have this kind of stuff happening in your town.

This is a little self appointed group that decided that they were going to go around and they were going to shut down every mascot that had anything that they were offended by. Okay, and a bunch of little petty Marxist tyrants. And he doesn't really address this Marxist tyranny. He doesn't understand that as she Van Fleet did, how this is exactly what Mao and Stalin and all

these Marxists did. He doesn't get it. And so this little Advisory committee is part of a national organization of parents who have taken this Title six initiative. The government gives you money, and then it's going to pull this back if you don't do what they say. And they have used this and by the way, it's not just the federal money. This is created a nineteen sixty four Civil Rights Act discrimination. This is not discrimination. They're not discriminating

against anybody, and they're not mocking anybody either. So how does this apply, Well, it doesn't matter because you've got these squeaky wheels of a bunch of women who've got nothing better to do, and so they're going around doing this all the different schools in the area. And according to the chairwomen of the Hillsborough County Title six Committee, Shannon Durant, and again, it's all women, and everybody on the school board were all women. We now have

a matriarchy. You see, the matriarchy. This opposition to the so called patriarchy was not about having an equality of men and women. It was about replacing men at the top with women at the top. And that's exactly what they this is all being. The committee is all women, the school board is all women, and their feelings are hurt and they're out for blood.

And so they've gotten rid of the mascots of Adam's Middle School, which fed into Chamberlaine went to both of those and then a five different elementary school that had various Indian things. They claimed that these are derogatory, No they're not. That they damaged the self esteem of students of Native American heritage. No, they don't, but they want to get rid of anybody who's got a mascot that's Indian chiefs, warriors, braves, any of that kind of stuff.

And so the only school in Hillsboro County that was allowed to keep this was one called East Bay. They were the East Bay Indians, and they had an election and the student body there unanimously, unanimously decided to keep the mascot. They had an election at this high school at Chamberlain and they had seventy seven percent of the people say we want to keep it, and seventy eight percent sorry, twenty two percent. So they wanted to get rid of

it. And it didn't matter. They got rid of it anyway. The people at the As a matter of fact, they also put up a survey. Look at this. The Hillsboro County School put up a survey, so we would like to know what you think, and so this is online survey. But they never released this survey. We like to know what you think. They got They figured out that by the thousands people didn't like what they were doing, so they made the survey disappear. That's how dishonest this stuff

is. But it gets even more interesting when she talks about this this person who is part of their the Committee of six. It's like something out of the Prisoner right, And she says, one person said, I'm not really happy the way that all this was done. Who was a member of the graduating class back in nineteen fifty eight, the first one. She's eighty two years old. She was a chief at at the time. She said that, she talked, said they had an election and only twenty two percent agreed

to remove the mascot. But again seventy eight to twenty two. So the twenty two wins. When the Marxists are doing the county. This is the way you want to have an election. This is the way the Marxists count votes when they want to get something. And so she has the audacity of when she wants to scrub this one of these titles six members, Jennifer Hart says, these mascots are teaching stereotypical, misleading and often insulting images of indigenous

people. Well, I'll just show this too. Is there anything cartoonish or characteristic about that? No, there isn't. But anyway, she said, she said this was led by students, she said, And if we can't honor what the students want, what are we doing. This is the woman with a committee of six who says this is led by the students. They had an election, seventy eight percent of the students did not want to change. She says, it's led by the election. It was what they did

when they couldn't get a majority. They shut down. They ask people their opinion, they shut it down on the survey, and then they go to have an election. And when they get slammed at that election, and they go to the student council and these are a bunch of kids, as we all know, you know, who've got political aspirations. And they've got a

student advisor who just graduated from college for the student government. And it was a student government who said, yeah, we want to get rid of it because our advisor, who's a little a newly minted Marxist right straight out of college, wants this. These are the people who will control the past. By who control the future and control the past, they will erase the past and they will control the future of that. These are the detlitarians. And

again, in the big scheme of things, it doesn't matter. But it's like the bump stock. This is the way these people operate. And Colorado you have school fires a white Christian principle and so he is now suing them. He had the principal got angry with him because he went to a Christian meeting, and when he got back from the Christian meeting, the principal, he claims in his lawsuit that his status is a Christian and as a white

man, played a role in his decision to fire him. When he got back from the Christian meeting, he said he was brought into the principal's office after he spoke to a Christian student group of athletes, and the principal changed his job evaluation. He'd been given a good job evaluation, he changed it, and they put in negative remarks, including accusations of insubordination, implicit bias, and failure to promote safety and equity. You understand what implicit bias is.

This is one of the tactics that they've used to say, Well, you really aren't consciously racist about people, You don't really hate anybody, but because of who you are, because you've got white skin, you have a bias that is implicit it's implied in the fact that you got white skin. This is what they're doing to everybody. And again they're going back to the title six to try to shut this guy down. Look, we just need

to defund these operations that call themselves schools, their propaganda operations. And one more public school in Michigan. They said they've got a new guy who again just graduated from college, because this is where they're minting these people. These are the seminaries for Marxism. And he comes on board and he says, so, why is Santa Claus always white? Well, he just need to ask Megan Kelly. She knows that Santa Claus is white. You might as

well ask why is Mickey Mouse always black? I don't know, but you know, he comes back and he tells the people in this school that we're going to ban Christmas symbols, decorations, and expressions. We're going to have a winter celebration. And he puts out an FAQ there and the teachers got upset about this. They contacted Liberty Council. These are the same people who

won the court case for hal shirtlift up in Boston. They wouldn't let him fly the Christian flag and I said, well, this is a public area and you can't discriminate against me because you don't like my Christian flag. You let everybody fly flags up there. And he took it all away Supreme Court

and one hal Shirtliffin. He's got camp Constitution up there in Massachusetts. I've interviewed him multiple times, but I interviewed him after he won the Supreme Court case, I think last year, and so Liberty Council were the ones who

won that. Liberty Council was contacted by teachers at these public schools and they said, instead of being inclusive, these directives are rooted in critical race theory, and they promote a hatred for and they discriminate against Christianity and associated holidays such as Christmas. They violate school policy, they violate the First Amendment, they violate Title seven of the Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty four. They are showing hostility on the basis of religion and on the basis of race.

And so there was an email that was sent from this guy, Matt Morales, who just graduated from college, and they put him in as the director of diversity, equity and Inclusion for the school district. And he writes this holiday celebrations email. He says, while this may be an exciting time for many people, others lack a sense of belonging. Well, isn't that too

bad? Find something that you like and do that and leave other people alone instead of demanding that everybody can form to your mental illness, he says, And so we need to create a more inclusive learning community. I asked that you review the meaning of decentering Christmas. See this is this not and have a diverse display of stuff. And so he gives them. He says, We've got to dismantle this hierarchy of religious practices and holidays, and he gives

them a recommended resource list. Listen to this leftist Marxist garbage here. By the way, he wants to dismantle the hierarchy because he wants to establish himself at the top of the hierarchy. That's what the Marxists are doing. And so one of the pamphlets is called Racial Justice Guide to the Winter Holiday Season for Educators and Families. Another one is Christian Privilege, Hegemony and the Winter Holiday Season, and then one of another one Dear white people, the holiday

season is the best time to tell our grandparents to stop being racist. And finally, why is Santa Claus always white? Well, it's all obviously because of Christian white privilege, isn't it. And so when there is a hierarchy. By the way he says in the email, he says, even non religious aspects of a holiday, such as helf on the shelf, Santa decorated

trees, are actually centered on Christian beliefs and practices. And he says even these secular aspects must be eliminated because they promote racism and discrimination based on ethnicity, ancestry, color, and Marxism is what these people are saying, is what he's pushing out. And so he says, Chris and whiteness are problems that have to be remedied. Well, you don't like the hierarchical nature of

this stuff and you want to dismantle it. How's this for hierarchy? Christ is Lord, deal with it and that's the reality you're going to have to deal with. Sooner or later, you're gonna have to deal with that. Do it now while it's not a difficult thing for you. Finally, before we quit and go to our interview, we just had the National Christmas Tree near the White House toppled by wind. You see, these people are so incompetent that they can't even put up decorations and have last But I thought it

was a perfect analogy for what our government has become. The federal government is like you know this dead tree, right, this big dead Christmas tree. So the federal government is like a large dead tree that is just waiting for some wind to come along and knock it over, and as sooner as the better, quite frankly. So we're going to go to again our reporter. It's with an organization called New Found Hunting, and here is their trailer talking

about their organization. Then we'll go right into the interview. Thank you for listening, Thank you for joining us today at this unusual time. Fifty years ago, we worked out of a well founded optimism, a confidence that our products will be the greatest off the line, the last to fail, the first space that we would lead our peers abroad in technology, finance, and manufacturing. Today we'll work over zoom. You're on mute growing, parasitic SaaS

companies and copycat services, while woke ideology it's away at our core. The best of us are at risk of losing our jobs over vax mandates and pronouns, while the worst continue their campaigns for social activism, free salad bars and doggie daycare. You're at meta. It doesn't have to be this way. New Founding is bringing together those who are working to build something better, those who seek excellence of craft, and like minded teams working towards an ambitious end.

We've made hundreds of connections in the last few months, introducing players in tech, finance, media and law. If you want to hire motivated talent dedicated to excellence, not radical politics. If you want to escape brain dead workplaces and help build the great businesses up the twenty twenties, we'll connect you. Come join us in the new Founding Talent network. Joining us now is

Nate Fisher. He is a CEO of a new Founding and this is bringing together people who are entrepreneurs, people who are venture capitalists to fund this. But he's got some very interesting ideas about setting up a parallel society. How do we take back our society. We've had all of our institutions taken over, and when we look at it from the business standpoint or educational standpoint, we all understand the institutions have been taken over, used against us. So

how do we build a society when we have nowhere else to go? Right? We can't immigrate to another place, so we build it parallel here. So joining us now is Nate Fisher. Thank you for joining us, sir, Thanks for having me. Good to be here. It's great to talk about this subject. And you know, when we look at this, as many people pointed out, the Marxists decided that they were going to march to the institutions. They pretty much done that, and they've pretty much taken over

everything. And we have a situation now where we're being canceled left and right. What do we do about this? What are you setting up here to help people essentially transcend what is set up here? In other words, you're kind of oriented more I think when I look at your site, you're more oriented towards solutions that are going to come up with something new that's going to transcend it. Rather than going back and trying to desperately take back these institutions

that have been taken over. We create our own new institutions that are going to transcend it. Am I correct about that? That is that gets to the core and what I'll say is to me, and I use the parallel economy language at times I think is helpful to what a lot of people understand. Ultimately, I think a necessary condition is for us to have institutions that aren't captured by the Left. A winning condition, a desirable one, is

for us to actually gain the power to take back these institutions. But my view is we're not going to do that. It's just it is an absolute grind to do that in spaces where everything is an uphill battle. I mean, you're playing by their rules. The entire design of bureaucracy is something that reflects the rules of the Left. It is a managerial approach to two organizations. So my approach is, either way, we should be doing this.

There's huge opportunities through the business sector and particularly through disruptive technology, so high level. If our enemies control every segment of society, every institution, which to a large extent they do, then rather than playing on a playing field that they control, the place that we should be focused more than anything else is the place where there's the leverage if you succeed reshuffle the deck in important

ways. I mean, think of it like if we were able to get if we were able to build the next Google, or even better, not just the next Google, but something that is to Google as much bigger than Google is than Google was than some of the predecessors that it displaced. And you look at the way technology evolves in there is likely to be a disruptor that is that significant in the future, and then not to just the future,

in the coming decade. So if we were able to get control of things at that scale, then that lets us not only create entire ways of navigating the world that are not under that thumb, but also also really platforms that offer us the leverage to potentially put on the same pressure on those institutions that the Left was able to put on them when they capture them. And of course, you know when we look at that, first thing that comes

to my mind is artificial intelligence. Is people are looking at this saying, well, is this a Google killer? There's going to be something If it's not that, there's going to be something that has the potential to do that, even though they have a great deal of money. And so when you're looking at this and you're coming at it, I should have said from the very beginning, coming at this from a Christian perspective, not just a politically

conservative perspective. You talk about how do we catechize the bots? You know, how do we get they are setting up artificial intelligence, they're training it as you would train up a child, but it's going to be a monster once it grows up. How do we take over that and how do we leverage let's say, for example, artificial intelligence, you know, how do we use that to bolster ourselves rather than become a victim to it? So I think you hit on a very interesting point that I'll elaborate on, which

is Christian not just conservative. And I think a challenge that conservatives have faced, and it's really impeded our ability to deal with technology, is in some sense conservatism. Conservatism sidesteps some of the fundamental questions of where we should go, and it focuses on It allows us to avoid some of what are really pretty serious debates and divides within the movement, are things that need to be hatched out, and it sticks to conserving good things of the past, things

we can all agree are good. The problem with that is that side that gives us a very little vision about what we should be aiming for and it leads to conservatives being naturally negatively disposed toward technology. So if you think about it, if your goal is to preserve good things in the past, technology is inherently your enemy. Technology guarantees that those there is going to be an erosion, a creative destruction of many of the good traditions, good norms that

we all agree are good. That's happened throughout history, and so there's sort of a natural suspicion of technology among conservatives. But what it also leads to is also leads to our just our failure to play in that space, our failure to come up with a vision for what. So technology is going to continue to evolve, there is going to be innovation. The question I would say is what should that be used for? What should be the vision that

we try to create with that technology? And if we're not in that playing field at all, the left is the only one defining that. So it's no surprise that they so surprised that a lot of new technology is built and sort of the left fills that void. They're the only ones even trying to catechize the bots, and they end up taking over the domains disrupted by technology even more than the past ones. But as a Christian we don't have to be limited to that. As a Christian, I do have fundamental answers to

this. I believe that we have a very clear dominion mandate. What does dominion look like? God calls us to that. We have a very clear understanding of the person. What is the right vision of technology that complements the person? The creation of technology is one of the most fundamentally human processes that in many ways sort of parallels God's career of the world. It is a

creating something out of nothing, and I think we can embrace that. And if we embrace that, suddenly we can realize that technology is something that we don't need to be afraid of, something that we actually have. We can develop a positive vision for what we should be aiming for. And it's one of the most powerful levers we have available to to change, reshuffle kind of a world that right now seems stacked against us, to disrupt our opponents in

many ways. So is AI a component of that? I think a I could be a component of that. I'm probably a little more of an AI. I won't say I'm an AI customist. I'm not worried about AI the way some of these people are. I don't think AI is going to be as as transformative as some people assume, Like I don't. I don't believe that AGI is going to is going to come and displace sort of totally replace

humans. That comes back to my view of sort of the special nature of people, as as people made an image of God, not just as sort

of the material being. So I think that I think an understanding of AI and understanding of human nature actually will allow us to develop AI that is actually complementary to humans, which is ultimately going to be a more effective use of the technology than if you believe it's going to just totally replace humans, which is going to lead to all sorts of I think, confusion about what it can be, and probably unfulfilled promises, just like driverless cars remain an unfulfilled,

unfulfilled promise at a large scale. So I think a proper understanding it of technology, well, what it does is absolutely these algorithms do play an enormous role in helping us navigate the world, whether it's sort of what are seen as AI algorithms today or other curation algorithms, whether it's the Google algorithm

whether it's sort of yelped setting where you eat dinner or whatever. They play a role in navigating the world, and we do need to catechize them with our values, like our positive vision should be baked into into the value system that these algorithms help scale. I agree when we look at it fundamentally,

technology as a tool, and it can be good or evil. And I think one of the things that I've noticed, because I come from this from an engineering background, and it always concerned me an engineering because it was so secular. I would see so many engineers who would just simply see it as a puzzle to be solved, and they didn't really care how it was going to be used, who was going to use it, or for what purpose.

And I always had a problem with that, and I guess it kind of came to a head when I talked to Hugo Degaris, who was a developer of artificial intelligence early on. I think he's retired now, but he said he would pose the question to his scientific audiences and say he was not a believer, and so he said, well, I think that we're going to create something that is a godlike intelligence and it may wind up killing us.

Would you do that. And he would ask his audience. It would be scientists and engineers, and they would always the majority of asque majority of

them would say yes. He did that at a Christian conference that I was speaking at, and he said, this was the first time that people said no. And so I think when Christians look at a tool like this, or a technology or a group of companies, and you see where these people are coming from, your reaction is to push back away from it, rather than to say, maybe there's a tool that we could use to transcend this and to instill our values, which is what I think you're talking about.

Well, and I think you can go back to Genesis and you can see that God called us to dominion over the earth. We are called to a great deal of transformation and impact. I think it comes down to the intent. Would you create a godlike intelligence A that's not possible, You're going to fail. It has more power. What they're doing is they're paralleling what was done at the Tower of Babble. They're trying to create something they can raise

them to the heavens. And it was very obvious that God thoroughly frustrated their plans. They have no understanding of the power that they're they're up against. It's a feudal task. They fail. But at the same time, that is that has been an impulse of man since the dawn of time. That's right. And yet you know, when we look at this, if we looked at the Tower of Babel, for example, and say, well, your purpose is evil and I don't want to be involved in that venture.

But we can look at this and say, but I like the way that you braced this. You know, You've got to do construction technique that I've not seen here before. I think I can use that to build something good that is not in rebellion to God. And so I think that's really where we need to be. And I think you know, when Reagan talked about the evil Empire, he would say, well, we're going to transcend them.

And I think that needs to be our attitude, that we're going to build something that is better, that we can build something that is better and rather than just you know, I understand people looking at this kind of arrogant attitude as you talk about kind of a Tower Babbel attitude, this pride, this godlessness that is out there, and our first instinct is Christians is to just totally reject it and walk away, rather than looking at this and saying,

well, this could be dangerous to us, this is a tool that could be used against us. There are things here that we could use that would be good turned to good. And you know they may have meant it for evil, but let's see what we can do to use this for good. And that's a tricky thing to do, but I think that what you're trying to do is apply Christian principles in that space. To do something like that. Is that correct? Absolutely? And I think I think there's sort

of there's a several folds. So one of the one of the projects that I found it is called American Reformer, and it's a nonprofit focused on restoring and revitalizing Protestant thinking and traditional Protestant thought, which has a rich tradition of addressing a lot of these questions. I mean, the Protestant Reformation really built on the printing press, very new technology, very very early, is a

great deal of leverage. So it's certainly a tradition that understands how to use technology, but it's I think a lot of that thought, a lot of the deeper thought there has been lost in the evangelical church today and really just a culture that hasn't emphasized it. It's part of our tradition, just as Catholics have a lot of thinking in that space. So part of it is

and then the goal is to revitalize revitalized Christian institutions. Part of the goal is can we revitalize a church that can lead the way and provide the thought that can help shape and anchor any vision. And then I see venture and a venture firm as a really great platform for sort of articulating this vision or at least taking sort of the first steps of what a positive vision of technology should look like, which includes our focus is particularly on those where there's going

to be sort of a meaningful political difference. Typically, think of something where that the early adopters would be Christian's conservatives, what have you, And there's a lot of cases where that's actually likely to be the case. We are the ones who are the most dissatisfied with the status quote if you think of previous sort of movements where people have exited in mass, which is what you

need to get. Early adopters for a new technology were the first communities to come to America really as coherent communities, and you could say gain a network

effect. Here it was deeply religious, profoundly dissatisfied communities. I mean, you had the sort of got a few people who are economically motivated and such, but a lot of those the Puritans, the Quakers likewise, early adopters of the homeschool movement were Christian. I think there's a lot of situations where if you have something new, there's a very reasonable chance that the most natural users of it. Again, it'll depend a little bit on the design.

Is it built to centrally control or is it built too is it is it built to be a tower of baffle In that case, that case we wouldn't be. But it is actually technology that offers things that we value greater decentralization

that makes it harder for us to be censored. Is the technology that that includes encryption or whatever, things that things that sort of a dissionent minority can be naturally expected to value were the natural early adopters, and as a result, companies that know how to reach that market will have an edge in the competition. If that is the technology that becomes the Google disruptor. Let's say we may have an edge in that competition because we can get the early adopters

first. So going back to what we're doing for Venture, my interest is is businesses where there's a very specific thesis around reaching people like that with a product. It's fine if it's just a product that's always going to be a sort of niche serving our customer base. I mean, we've invested in a pro life health insurance company that's it's not necessarily a second where there's going to

be mass disruption. They do have a superior product in many ways. It has a lot of regulatory reasons that they're able to they're aiming to make it cheaper than many of the other ones there. But it's fine if it's just an available product that provides cost effective insurance that fits your values, includes access to a network of doctors who aren't going to force the vacs on you or

don't try to trans your kids. That's fine. But there's other cases where there's actually going to be a next generation technology that is maybe it's initially serving our needs, but it has the potential to move on and disrupt the disrupt

the incumbent players. So that's that's really our focus. I see venture as the place where we can be ourselves articulating, taking some stabs at some of the ideas we see as potentially transformative, and then working with entrepreneurs who are really drawn to that, and working experts in a particular domain, and working

out an actual business to realize that. Yeah, and I think you know, when we've looked at this, we've seen a great deal of change in the homeschooling movement and educational stuff because we understand how corrupted and controlled the schools

are as institutions and how they become antithetical to education. But you know, we now see over the last three years, it seems to me like there'd be a lot of opportunity within the medical area, as you pointed out just now, because you've got a lot of people who are very dissatisfied with this corrupt medical institution that's run on a very different it seems to me like there's an opportunity and some people are starting to take advantage of this, have a

completely different par nine towards healthcare, and there's a big desire for people to be able to get out of this dangerous, controlled, in many cases, kidnapping type of medical feel that's there. It's overpriced, and it is very authoritarian and centrally controlled and pushing products that many people do not regard as safe

or effective. And so it seems to me like there's a real desperation out there for things to be restructured, as well as a lot of people who refuse to take the vaccine mandate who are trained medical professionals and would like to be a part of that on the service side. So I imagine there's some opportunities in that as well. Now you put together, tell a little bit about how your company operates before we get into some of the other ideas that

you have about parallel society. You have opportunities for people to invest into the venture capital funding. Is that correct as well as you know, investing in companies who have ideas. Tell us little bit about that. Yes, so we really have the fundamental theme is ventured and in some ways the fundamental theme is we fly the flag. We're willing to be very public about a vision that in the private sector a lot of people are drawn to, but far

few are a public about their beliefs. Sign I mean there's many many people in elite levels of the private sector companies who recognize the problems, they recognize something needs to be done, but they're not going to fly that flag very

publicly at this point until the right opportunity comes along. And sometimes that right opportunity is they need to meet someone else, let's say it a potential business partner or potential potential employer, and so by flying that flag we end up just being We get a lot of people coming to It's a lot of private dms on Twitter, a lot of messages LinkedIn Twitter forms, on our website or whatever coming to us, some of whom are people who are are not

public yet but will tell us a lot about themselves, a lot about their interests, a lot about their desires. And then fundamentally, a lot of this comes down to just putting together the matches, figure out what this person has to offer it's often incredibly valuable, and what they need and can we offer that. And so the way we've sort of organized this into a few

business lines. First, we have a fund. We've launched a venture fund on angel List, which is a platform that is become very popular in Silicon Valley for early stage funds. Fairly libertarian its culture too, so it's one that it's one that is not likely to censor us. They were happy with

the very explicitly political vision that we put out there. And it's a it's called a rolling fund where people can come in on a quarter by quarter basis and it's accessible to basically high net worth edit it but not I don't need to be institutional skill investors and raise from that and then invest that into early stage companies with a conventional venture model. But we're going to provide really probably a degree more value at than a lot of investors because we because we have

this network. So we invested in this probably Felt insurance company, where we let their preceed round. We'll probably be investing in another company very soon again leading their preceed round. And in both cases we're able to really do a lot in terms of introducing them to potential partners, advise them on how to reach potential customers in a space where it's just not well. You can't go to a marketing firm and say, hey, I want to I want to

market to Christians and conservatives. I mean, most mainstream marketing firms don't even know how to think about that, or if they do, they'll have a very sort of simplicity I view about that, and it's not easy, partially because the commercial intermediaries have actually blocked it. So in many cases there's not

established like you can't use established ad networks. You can't there's no network to reach to reach most of these people, it ends up being a lot of independent I mean understanding how to reach different independent podcast advertisers, influencers, other partnerships, often creative or earned media efforts. So we're really we'll be able

to work with these people to understand their audience. You mentioned the trends in medicine where people are moving away from away from sort of the current medical system, and it's not just about it's not just about sort of explicitly things that would be seen as sort of traditionally like liberal values. It's a lot of is people recognize sort of the corruption of the whole system, and there's some trends that reshaping how they think about it. We understand those kind of things.

So basically for involvement, people can invest in the fund, we turn around and invest the money in companies in this space, and we've really become the go to desired partner for companies that fit this profile. Then we do a few more things. So we do we do what we call venture studio, where we're actually participants in the founding of the company. So you can make a venture fund, like we write a check to the company our fund to get some ownership stake. We end up splitting. We end up giving

majority of that money back to the investors. We take a split of that venture studio, We as new founding will actually be effectively a co founder of the company. And that's going to be done in a few cases where we have real strategic value to add. Maybe it's maybe it's not a company that requires the same level as the capital intensity, but it's much more about the connections and much more about some of the business acumen, and we'll we'll jump

in there and we'll actually help help launch it. Then we have advisory where we'll work with you can think of this sort of investment banking advisory or fractional

CFO. We actually just helped advise on a deal that closed where it was a seven million dollar acquisition by some people we've been working with previously in other capacities and they had this opportunity to buy this company, and we represented them on the trends action and have investment bankers have been through that process before, and we're able to provide just significant advice and execution throughout the process. And

finally we'll do we'll do talent placements. We have this broader network and part of that is our talent network where people can come to us that can sign up for our network, and we talk to companies that are looking for they're looking for good people who are going to be values aligned, and we can

serve them, we can help fill their roles. So it's really it's ultimately as you can see, for all of them, there's a lot of making matches and there's a lot of providing that business and strategic advisory services to companies and really across the board trying to just accelerate the growth of this sector.

Well, I think that's very important because you know, when we look at where we are right now, as you were saying, when you're describing this, there's a lot of people who whose values are aligned with ours, but

they're afraid to speak out. You know, this is you know, the danger of how extensive the takeover has been of our institutions and everything else in terms of the cancel culture and censorship and that type of thing, and so it's important have some kind of a clearinghouse in a sense what you're doing.

You've already got kind of a parallel structure here, but it's also kind of, you know, even though there's nothing criminal about it, it is still kind of has to be kind of underground in order to get past the censorship and the canceling that is there. It truly is amazing to see how rapidly this has been put in and how it's going to accelerate. I think, so, how do you see the future of business and a digital age like

this where there is a lot of centralized control. You know, when I first started looking, we look at the internet initially the rise of the personal computer. I'm old enough that I began when it was mainframe computers, and I thought, what an amazing liberation now that we have personal computers. And it worked that way for a while, but then through the social media networks and other things like that, they were able to establish the search engines,

they were able to re establish the centralized control. Again, what do we do to get away from this centralizing trend? Very good question, and I think it's hard to know exactly how any disruptive technology plays at That's sort of the nature of it. There's dynamics that are there's dynamics that make it very hard to predict precisely. So what I tend to look at is I tend to look at, sort of at the macro level, what are the sort

of trends, what are the factors that are likely to shape outcomes? And what I would say is, yes, certainly, the web two point zero the social media was a sharp divergence from what was seen as the early promise of the Internet, which was all about liberation and really freeing people to have access to information. I think there's an extent to which that did play out,

right. I think that what Facebook Facebook in particular did during the trumppot during twenty sixteen in playing a role in the election of Trump was shocking to a lot of people in Silicon Valley because it showed that this technology was not

invariably going to lead in a progressive direction the way they imagined it. I mean, Facebook's mission was to make the world a more open and connected place, and lo and behold, what does that do It It opens up channels for a large, very frustrated group in the country that had really been shut out of whose messages have been shut out of mainstream media, and combined with someone who knew how to play that media very well, Trump, it actually

allowed this movement to grow rapidly, just like you saw that with Brexit, and so in many ways, even the sort of even the centralized technologies did actually open things up. What you saw was a sharp reaction where they realized we're a very political group, realized they needed to get control of these and they needed to impose censorship. But then you've had fighting back. I mean, Elon buying Twitter has certainly been a I think a major blow to the

censorship resine. I don't know that. I don't know how long Twitter is going to remain open. I don't know exactly how it plays out. I think there's very good reasons why. I think there's very good reasons why Elon will have to and I believe he realizes this. He will have to go to war with the regime fundamentally, or he will never achieve his goals if he has to impose if he has to impose dei HR policies, he's never

going to get to Mars. And he knows that, So I think there's a reason that there's a reason for optimism, whether or not sort of his vision would fully aligned with minus another question. But there's going to be people who are going to recognize that they need to push back and effectively control of one of these digital platforms is almost sort of monarchical in position. I mean, he is acting as a sort of monarch of Twitter. He took control

of what was essentially a digital government and meaningfully changed its policy. Now what is going to change the direction of things? Here's sort of the fundamental resource that I see when I look at it is we are becoming a low trust society in many ways. I mean, you look at the trend. I

spent a long time outside. I spent a year visiting sixty five countries around the world in twenty fifteen, talking to it, had hundreds of meetings, really trying to get a sense of global patterns, global trends, and what I saw was really, more than anything, sort of what the dynamics you see in low trust societies were. And the distressing thing is you're seeing trends

in America that are in the same direction. So in a world like that, people no longer trust institutions increasingly, that means they don't trust the truth that comes out of universities. It'll be I think, a slower process, but they won't trust the credentials of those universities. Print they certainly don't trust government armorers of truth. Increasingly they honestly even trust the big centralized platforms.

And there's also sort of the collapse of trust at the basic level, like just less confidence that some sort of stranger you do business with is going to follow through, is going to be competent. So what does that mean. It means that trust is going to be scarce. And so the way I look at it is we Christian conservatives particularly have communities often organized around churches.

Church communities there remain sort of distinct higher trust communities where they have a different set of norms, they reject some of the dynamics that are driving this job. In many cases, they just continue to they continue to build relationships and community in a way that is increasingly scarce in anatomized world. And so these communities now have something that is going to become scarcer and scarcer and more valuable

in society. And that is how exactly things play out is harder to predict. But that is an asset that we can recognize is going to become more and more strategically valuable. It's going to become more and more valuable for ourselves. Meaning the more we're able to force away from these mainstream trends, the more we'll be able to continue to do business as you would in a high trust society. Right, Let's say in a low trust society, you could

never call a contractor and just kind of getting the job done. For most of the world, you wouldn't dream of putting down a twenty thousand dollars deposit for one hundred thousand dollars job before the work's been done. I mean, the assumption is you'd never see the guy again. But if you're able to get a recommendation through your church and you know that person as a member in good standing, they value that membership could be very different. That person now

has a lot more incentives to maintain a different set of norms. They have an ethical foundation that's no longer common in society to maintain it, so it lets us preserve our way of life sort of in parallel in these parallel networks. But even more that now serves as the foundation for something that others in

society are going to value more and more. So example I give is back in the seventeenth century, the Quakers were famously high trust in England in a world that was lower trust, so many many people wanted to do business with them as intermediaries. If you're doing a high transaction that requires a lot of trust, you want to do it through people you know can be trusted to follow through on their work. And if it's complex transaction, you really need

sort of multiples of those people involved. And our communities can serve as repositories of trust that I think will increasingly be sought out for these high trust intermediary roles as that becomes scarcer elsewhere. So if I'm thinking of the nature of any sort of disruptive platform that that is a Google buster, it is something or I won't call it a Google buster. I'll say it's something as to Google what Google might have been to the more powerful companies in the past.

It's sort of a new platform that becomes even more powerful, even if it's in a different domain. That's going to be what it builds up. It's going to be building on communities like that it's going to be leveraging that trust, and it's going to be providing them the tools to really leverage that trust to play a broader role in society as more people seek them out. Yeah,

that's very important. I think if they anomize us to it seems like if we look at their strategy to control people, it is to isolate each and every one of us so that we are only connected to them and to keep us from making connections to each other. So it seems to me like that kind of community, that kind of trust, those kind of interpersonal relationships, anything that can facilitate that is anesthetical to what they're trying to do in

terms of centralized control. Right absolutely, And I think the centralized thing is the centralized thing is a key question. If it's highly centralized, then you essentially rely on algorithmic mediation. So it's actually interesting even Facebook has changed the new speed algorithm, So the new speed algorithm looks more like the TikTok algorithm, which is less of a communal social algorithm and is much more of a

sort of individualized entertainment. And I think that's for any platform that breaks down those communities or it doesn't really build on those communities. That's the invariable trend is that they're going to move in the direction of really that computer being your

counter party, being intermediary. Whereas if it's technology, and it can often be simpler technology in some ways that facilitates that serves these people as communities, then you're strengthening you're strengthening that community engagement and the nodes, the centers of power are no longer one giant, centralized algorithm, but they're really the distributed communities that exist, and then you facilitate the sort of the connections needed for

them to engage in larger scale or more sophisticated transactions that necessarily go beyond beyond that community level. But it's sort of as necessary rather than sort of attempting to pull them as quickly as possible into that that broad ether, so to

speak. Yeah, when we would look at this, we need to understand it and we should not be disheartened by the fact that the institutions are controlled by people whose values are anesthetical to ours because their values are inherently self destructive. When you look at ESG and DEI, those are things that don't lead to excellence. They cannot sustain themselves. They're you know, they're they're going

to be those are going to be the seeds of their destruction. And even those types of things, even if we don't pay attention to the fact that as Christians, we've got God on our side who can do anything that he

wants to do. That's that's the key thing. But even when we look at at their values and how they have essentially placed on a pedestal or an altar or made a God out of DEI and E. S. G and things like that, that is really should be heartening to us that that we can take this back, and we can if we strive for excellence and if we work for that and if we have common with that. It's a very

hopeful situation. We've always had in the past Christian organizations that would you know, Christians would come together in a community and they would build hospitals, the build schools and things like that. Alexis Detofol when he came, he said, this is the thing about America that's very different. They don't wait for the government to do an approach. They get together, they see a need, they get together in the community and they build it and that's really the

kind of mindset that we need to inculcate now, isn't it? Absolutely? And I think ultimately we should be hopeful. I mean, in many ways, I think the regime is fragile. The regime is far more fragile than people assume. Yes, they are. They have embraced suicidal ideologies. That is limiting their that is limiting their competence, it's limiting their effectiveness. I also, I mean this is sort of another way of looking at it,

coming from more of a financial angle. But you look at the Arrest of Trump, and you look at other movies like that, and a lot of people would say that a show of force, that is a that is a a regime that is confident enough it can crack down on its enemies, isn't it? I would say, I would say it's much more like desperation. I think that if you think about it, almost from a financial perspective, it's a bigger departure from the past. It's sort of an increase in volatility,

so you think of sort of a change from norms. I mean, they've had a they had what was seen as sort of a steady progressive trend in history sharply interrupted by things like Trump. You could think of that as sort of a higher volatility in politics, a much broader range of of sort of possible outcomes. And there's certainly, in many ways, they seem in control of many things right now, and they're more and more sharply departing from

norms. But when volatility increases, it doesn't mean that it just increases in one direction. Like the range of potential outcomes grows in both directions. And so I look at h I look at things like the arrest of I look at other things like that, and that is a that is a bigger and bigger departure from norms that ultimately just sort of objectively increases the range of possible outcomes in both directions. And that's not the move of a that's not the

move of a stable, self confident regime. A stable self confident regime is not they're going to want to sort of slowly and carefully move in their direction and not do anything that sort of rocks the boat, because if you're in control, you don't want to rock the boat. No, that is that is that is people who feel desperation, and it's people who ultimately I think

are setting the stage for for greater volatility that could very quickly. I think they know their own weakness in some ways, and they're actually accelerating things that could lead to their own demise. You know, when you talk about your on your website, when you say about our firm, you say, we explicitly opposed DEI, E. S. G, and the bureaucetization of American

business culture. And I think again, as we talk about the fact that DEI and SG is about denying merit and sows the seeds of its own destruction, the same thing is true of bureaucracies as well. In central planning. We have always been able in the past. America has been able to transcend these centrally planned economies. If we look at North versus South Korea, one country split, same people, same background, but a different system, one

that is tightly centrally controlled and bureaucratic. The same thing with East and West Germany. And so we know that having something that has decentralized, something that is based on merit, not bureaucracy, and that type of thing, we know that that's a winning position, and so that should be a very hopeful thing. You say you promote a culture of entrepreneurship and excellence, betting on

great companies and products and customers discovered by corrosive ideologies. It's a very hopeful strategy, I think, and talk to us a little bit about what you see in terms of you know, let's talk about a disruptive technology that is teetering. It could go either way, and that is cryptocurrency. You know, we have the CBDC, which is a big specter of complete and total surveillance and control of everything that we do, and they have a targeted cryptocurrency

for extinction. But then there's other aspects of the blockchain that perhaps might be used. How do you see that developing? So it's a good question. I think that is I'm very interested in blockchain. I'm probably in some ways, I'm probably more interested in it than AI because I think that it is it is particularly focused on it's particularly focused on targeting many of the centers of

regime control. I mean, you think a bitcoin and it is directly challenging a control of the currency, which is ultimately probably the strongest source of UH present regime power. And it's uh, I'm optimistic. I think that I think that bitcoin is an incredibly powerful technology. Uh, it's it's certainly one that has I think it doesn't just have the technical promise, and there's obviously always stuff that needs to be worked out in sort of the technology of any

of these things that at an earlier stage. But it also has a culture that I think aligns with intends to draw the sort of people who are who are skeptics of the central control. And it's it's it's by nature international. So the more international something like that is, the uh, the harder it is for it to be stamped out in any one location. So I look at that, and I see that, and I think that a lot of the attacks on it are just spurious. I mean they say that it can

be used for criminal activity or whatever, but it's it's traceable. It's actually I mean, the US bundles of cash are far more effective for money loan than bitcoint is. It's uh, what it really is is it's not about it's not about secrecy or anything. It's about, Uh, it's about not being something that can be arbitrarily shut down by financial institutions that are increasingly politicized, not being something that can be sort of systematically taxed and debased. UH.

So I look at that and I see a lot of potential. I see a lot of excitement in the community. I see a lot of very serious people, serious thinkers, doing very serious things in the bitcoin world and UH and increasingly, UH there's there's evident political UH pressure that pushes back against the UH really against the regulators who want to shut it down. I mean, people know that a CBDC is something that can be a powerful tool for

UH for essentially just increasing increasing the totalitarian capability of the current system. UH. That is not something that's just going to be let in easily in the mood there. So I look at it. I see obviously it could be used. Some of these things could be used for They could be used for harming us. But the vast majority of the space is really culturally aligned and I think technologically aligned with directionally where we need to go. That's true.

Yeah, yeah, it does have some issues with privacy that people don't realize. And but like you said, culturally and technically, you know, culturally they're aligned with us in many ways in terms of decentralization and liberty, and there are some things that we can use in that space. What would you say, to the Christian Right as a movement, what needs to change and the way we approach things in our perspective in order to win whatever that means,

win the culture. I think part part of it is actually try. I mean, I think one big problem, so one big challenge in the Christian Right is they've been politically neutered in many I think, accepted theologies that are intentionally politically neuterting. So you look at a lot of and there's a lot of different things you can tie us to. I mean, I would say a pessimistic eschatology can lead to a mindset where you just put your head

down and kind of expect things are going to get worse. And it's one that ultimately is very undermining a human agency because you don't you don't only have the belief in the effectiveness of your actions. But second of all, even aside from that, I think most Christians intuitively recognize that there's a problem here and then they want it to change, Realize that we can be effective, realize our numbers, realize that ultimately this is a war that we're in.

I mean, you have a lot of people who I think would be very patriotic about signing up increasingly. I think that these people have been alienated by the military, but they wouldn't have hesitated to pick up arms and make great sacrifices to fight for the defense of the country. But otherwise are fairly uninterested in politics. I mean, a lot of Christians really may be aside from the exception of abortion, just really are not very interested in politics, are

not very focused on politics. You homeschool, let's say, or you go to Christian school, so you're not really interested in what happens to the school board. Well, you're paying for it, and it's educating the people who you're who are going to be co workers or employers or whatever, so we should care about it. It's going to shape the culture of the town that someone lives in, So we should care about all of those things. And we should recognize that we have we have real numbers here, and we have

real eye I think, a real foundation. This is what American reformers trying to do is sort of restore the foundation that that makes clear how Christian doctrine speaks to any number of institutions. It has clear visions not just of abortion, but how you should think about all sorts of issues around what government should ideally be doing, and how government should be, how government should be approaching things, So get political would be one of the top ones. And then

second of all, embrace a positive vision. I think this is a big thing is if we're a conservative. I mean, my view is a conservative impulse is a good impulse. It's a prudent impulse in a world where we recognize that man as fall If we recognize we're fallen, we're wise not to sort of recklessly go and try to just constantly change everything from the ground up.

Like that should be there, But we should also have Christians who are part of the vanguard, who are pushing out a positive vision, who are really aspiring for what we should build it. You actually do see a lot of these people in the crypto world, and I think that we need a lot more. I mean, if Christians are some people are I think temperamentally going to be conservative. They are just naturally they want to focus on that type of thing. That's great, but that doesn't need to be the defining

identity of our movement. The defining identity of our movement should be a positive vision for how society should be organized. That is a sharp, very clear, and ultimately I think much more attractive. Alternative to what the left puts out there is their vision of progress. So they defined progress their way. We should be defining what an elevated vision of society. I don't I don't

know that I would embrace the word progress. I think that has a particular uh, there's a particular sort of framework called they've kind of stolen that word,

just like they stole the word liberal liberal used to liberated people. It's an open question whether we whether we believe that, whether it's I don't know that I would think of it even necessarily in terms of progress, because I don't believe that history moves in one direction so much as we certainly have a vision of sort of what an elevated vision of life looks like, what is a higher what is a sort of higher vision of society or a lower vision

of society at the very least, and we should be we should be painting pictures of what the elevated vision looks like and rallying people to uh, to go create that. I agree as one person said, I forget it was that said that you can't win a culture where if you don't have a culture, and we have retreated from this. We are shamed of what our beliefs are because we've been criticized, and we have a very compelling vision, and we should be looking at ways that we can move that forward, that we

could project that out, explain it to people. It is not a threatening vision to people. It's quite frankly, their centralized control vision is a very threatening thing. And I think one of the things that we can learn from the left. Get your opinion on this, seems like the left has a very They've got their set of values and they don't and their values based really I don't agree with their values, but they push those values out, whereas

we say, well, just don't change anything. I just don't want to see any change here. And if we have values, we're not trying to advance those values as the left is. We're just trying to keep things from changing. That's a conservative perspective. Whereas we need to go on the offense and we need to say these are a values, these are why these values are good, and then how are we going to best establish these values? And I think unless we do that, we're going to lose. And we've

been losing because we've not been doing that. I think we have to have that vision, project that vision, work on that vision, and try to push that forward, which is what the left does, but we don't do that as conservatives, and clearly, you know the conservatives, that's really kind

of a political position. That's why I think it's very important for us to look at this from a Christian position because they have principles we have as Christians, we have principles and things that we want to advance, and you have to have that. You have to have some standard that you're going to try to advance. Think of it as a flag or whatever, you know, that type of standard that's going to advance what we want to see our culture

look like and work on that. I think. I think that's what you're doing, absolutely, and it's a self confidence that goes with that. I think that's a huge part of it. I think the self confidence to know that your values are better than the other side, that in many cases we know that it is the truth, We know that we have the truth. And I think education is a great place to look at this. Look at a lot of Christian colleges and they have a sort of palpable inferiority complex.

They covet the endorsement of institutions like Harford. Yeah, and you look at institutions like Harvard, and Harvard does not know. Harvard does not know what truth means. They do not know what an education means anymore. As an institution, they become so disconnected. I mean, Yale has a professor like Jason Stanley in their philosophy department. Totally ridiculous, guy, I mean, just comically ignorant by any standard of history, any sort of standard of education.

And he's in a philosophy to heartment. So why do you want Yale's approval? The right approach would be it could be a small college, but they could express they should be expressing contempt for these institutions and really very self confidently saying if no one else knows how to truth, will define our own standard. We understand truth better than anyone else out here. We understand what

an education means. So we're going to be our own judge. We're not going to brag out how many graduates we get into Harvard grad programs, or how many sort of prestigious degrees our faculty have, when when all that means is you're really submitting to the standards of people who don't even know what an

education means. So I think there's that self confidence is really a an absolutely crucial position, and it comes from knowing that our values, knowing that we are right, knowing that we have the better vision of life, which increasingly all you have to do is look at the left. I think for a while, for a long time, the left did seem to have things that

were more exciting, things that were more more attractive. In many ways, I think part of that was sort of an appdication of the part of conservatives. Part of it was just where they were in their their art. There were sort of some bakeding values. But really at this point, I mean, you look at what DEI is putting out and it's literally ugly. Yeah,

and you look at these people. There's a great deal of hubris that they have, and they act as if they are one hundred percent right, and yet you know that they know that they're not right, because they won't engage you in debate. As you pointed out, you know, it's an act of desperation, you know when you look at politics there and when they try to they don't want to engage in debate. They want to just shut

down and cancel everything. And we see this whenever you go up and engage them at a protest, you say, well, what are you protesting? Please? Are you're racist? You know? They just start throwing fithets at you. They don't want to defend their position. They don't want to debate what you have to say, which is really coming from a position of deep

insecurity and desperation. And so we need to understand that even though the facade that they present is one of arrogance and complete confidence, that on the inside they don't have that at all, and so there is a vulnerability there, and so we need to work on what we need to understand in terms of our foundation, I think, and then once we have, once we are confident unlike them internally, and once we're confident in our position with God,

then that's a foundation on which we can stand and conquer. And we should move from that and project those values out to other people that trying to control them, without making any mandates on them. But we hold it out there as a standard to be achieved. And that's the way that Christian society has always advanced in the past, I believe. Yeah, well, I will say to some extent, there are areas where there's no neutrality, and I

think that's actually that's an important one too. So if you ask me what I would say about Christians, we've been conservative, but we've also sort of, at best thought, bought for a neutral public square in the We bought into a lot of the assumptions in the twentieth century of secularism, which are totally out of stuck with American history, where there was no there was no sense that you'd have a sort of public scare square cleansed of God, for

instance. And what I think is actually happening in the digital age, and this is interesting, is you're starting to see people realize there is no neutrality. The left realized is ahead of us. So this goes to going back to the Facebook example. After the face, let's say the Facebook algorithms played a role in elevating pro Trump content, amplifying pro Trump content that helped elect

Trump. People realize that there's no neutrality. I mean, you have an algorithm that gives people what they want to see, this engagement that's not neutral, that is going to advance a certain type of content. The left certainly wanted to impose their own values. But you particularly you think of the nature of an algorithmic feed itself, and by its very nature, its job is

to rank and curate things for you. If you look at Google, go to Google, you type in a search term, you have a number one search result, you have number two, search result, number ten, et cetera. There must be a value system within Google about why one is better than two. That cannot be the There's no neutrality there. I mean, you go type in the search term is Jesus God, and ultimately a search

engine condenses things. The top result either says yes or no. There's no there's no possibility in the sort of greatest summarized version of it for neutrality there. And I think as people realize, as the left realizes that, they realize you have to catechize the boy, becomes a religious war to catechise the body. So in many cases, I think of the digital algorithms as equivalent to the sort of norms in society where we may have had a strong tradition

of toleration. I think the angle of world has had a very strong tradition of religious toleration, but there's still the sort of norms and customs throughout society that nudge you in certain directions, that normalize certain beliefs as the sort of default or expected belief. And I think the algorithm, in many ways, the algorithmic curation that is going to shape just all aspects of society fits in that and either those norms, those norms cannot be neutral. Either they either

they reflect Christian truth or they reflect some other set of values. So I think I think it'll be helpful actually for Christians to move beyond simply fighting for neutrality and actually realize that in many of these domains we should be fighting for the truth. We should have confidence in the truth well enough to fight for

it. And there isn't going to be neutral. So if we try to leave it neutral, it's just gonna be filled by It's gonna be filled by an ideology that is not ours, and it is invariably going to be hostile to us. I agree, Yeah, I think neutrality is alive when you're talking about education, when we're talking about journalism and that type of thing beyond Google. They take a look at Matt Drudge. He is aggregating the news. And I've said this from the beginning. The whole idea that they keep

trying to sell people. It's like, oh, we're completely neutral. Well, if you believe that in terms of being a journalist, then you're either incredibly naive and ignorant yourself unaware of your biases and prejudice, or you're lying to somebody because you really do have those biases and prejudices, and we can see it. And Matt Drudge, he went from presenting the you know, select he doesn't write anything, but he's got what he selects to show to

you is either from a conservative bent or now from a leftist bent. And this has always been the case, is also the case when you look at religion in the public square. They said, we're going to be neutral by purging religion out of the neutral out of the public square. Well that's not neutrality. What you're now doing is you're pushing a religion of secular humanism.

But I think that you know, when we when we look at this, as you point out, Christianity has had a history of being tolerant of differences but still having very strongly held values that we hold deer and I think that's one of the key things. I think we have gotten to the point where you know, tolerance of different opinions is really not the value that's holding forth. What we're really putting out is the fact that we're apathetic. We don't

really care, and so it isn't that we're tolerant. We just don't care anymore about these fundamental values, and so we have to reclaim those things on a personal basis. And then once we reclaim those things, we will have a very firm foundation. It doesn't necessarily mean we're going to ram those things

down somebody's throat. Now, if you have a situation like, for example, abortion, there is going to be a conflict there, and people who believe that that is murder, as I do, are going to do everything they can to stop that. But in most cases it's going to be a you know, this is our positivision of the world, and if you don't want to join us, you don't have to join us. But we're going

to do this. And I think that's a key part of what you're trying to do with the Venture Fund, is to transcend this kind of decaying society that is there. It really is to me, I look at our society right now, looks like a very big tree that you may not realize it, but the entire insides have been eaten out by a bug and it's just waiting for a breeze to come along and blow the whole thing over on your house. That's kind of where I think where it was society right now.

I agree, and I think that I think that what's interesting is more and more is going to be that soft nudging. It is to be edging in one direction. And going back to Google, my favorite, my favorite example, ranked search terms. That's not that's not coercive in the legal sense, but it certainly nudges you toward a particular uh. One result is ranked higher than the other one, and people go there for a reason because, going to the idea of Matt Drudge, it can't be neutral. Neutral. Neutral

in the age of the Internet is entirely spam. I mean, you're going to be totally inundated by spam. So you're looking for someone to judge by some standard. This is worth my reading, This is worth my seeing. What is that standards that standard of the truth? Is that standard a particular

ideology? Is that standard? Something purely sort of reflexive, like engagement, like the more time you spend on it the better it must be, which I think is that's sort of thing engineers like because it allows them to sort of sidestep the questions they really don't know how to answer. But that points to the vulnerability of these companies. I mean, you go to Google, and Google you go there to see them rank rank websites, presumably looking for

truth or looking for for something good or useful. I would argue Google lacks the foundation, They lack the epistemological foundation to actually know how to answer those questions. They really don't know how to distinguish spam from non spam. Ultimately, if you don't, if you don't know how to define what is good, then then then what is that is what distinguishes spam from non spam ultimately, and people just spammers just get really good at sort of playing to the

algorithm. If you don't have an objective standard, if it just becomes sort of a reflexive one. So I think a big vulnerability is they lack the They lack the ability to actually discriminate in ways that people are looking for.

And so increasingly, as as we have a breakdown of any sort of norms and standards in society, you're just going to see you're going to see a degradation of quality in all sorts of spaces, and that includes a degradation in the quality of the goodness of information out there, the truth value, that the moral value. According to even people who might not see themselves as a Christian, they're looking for that. They still are looking for something that they

sort of intuitively recognize is good in many cases. Obviously some are not. Some are truly looking for evil, and platforms that don't know how to provide that are not going to be able to get people what they look, what they want, and increasingly they're going to be They're going to produce dissatisfaction. And that is an opportunity for us to capitalize on and for us to show

them a better vision, show them better alternatives. Absolutely, New Founding is about building the future, about responding to market signals from a Christian and conservative perspective, about getting around the culture and promoting a culture of excellence and merit. And I think that we need to understand that we are really in a better position than many of us think because of those values that we hold.

The question is how do we implement those values into new businesses, into new systems into new institutions, and I think new Founding has an important role to play in that. Thank you so much for joining us, Nate. I appreciate it. Thank you very much, Nate Fisher, thank you, Thank you for having me. David, thank you. The David Knight Show is a critical thinking super spreader. If you've been exposed to logic by listening to The David Knight Show, please do your part and try not to spread it.

Financial support, or simply tell the others about the show causes this dangerous information to spread. Father people have to trust me, I mean, trust the science. Wear you mask, take your vaccine, don't ask questions using free speech to free minds. It's the David Knight Show. Whether you're feeling like the booze or bluegrass, APS Radio has you covered. Check out a wide variety of channels on our app at apsradio dot com.