Obama DOJ initiative became political de-banking scheme, Netscape co-founder Marc Andreessen tells Joe Rogan



Brexiteer Nigel Farage was de-banked last year for political reasons. While acknowledging he was a commercially viable customer, Coutts bank, part of the NatWest Group, dropped the British politician because of his comparison of Black Lives Matter rioters to the Taliban; his criticism of climate alarmism and his suggestion that "net zero is net stupid"; his "endorsements of Donald Trump"; and other expressions thought unpalatable by the powers that be.

Although Britain has done its best in recent months to clamp down on perceived wrong think, including silent prayer, it is hardly exceptional when it comes to the practice of de-banking.

Marc Andreessen, co-founder of Netscape and general partner at the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, recently told Joe Rogan that scores of tech founders have been de-banked under the Biden administration through a coordinated and politically motivated effort he referred to as "Operation Choke Point 2.0," an apparent update on a scandalous Obama Department of Justice initiative. In the days since the interview, numerous crypto entrepreneurs have gone online with their own de-banking tales.

The 'wrong politics'

After explaining that "de-banking is when you, as either a person or your company, are literally kicked out of the banking system," Andreessen told Rogan that it has hit close to home — his business partner's father was de-banked.

When asked why David Horowitz, a critic of Islamic and leftist extremism, would have been de-banked, Andreessen said, "For having the wrong politics. For saying unacceptable things."

"I mean, David Horowitz is, you know — he's pro-Trump," said Andreessen. "I mean, he's said all kinds of things. You know, he's been very anti-Islamic terrorism. He's been very worried about immigration, all these things."

Other individuals and groups who have been de-banked in recent years were similarly on the right, which may explain why the Southern Poverty Law Center has defended the practice.

'There's no constitutional amendment that says the government can't de-bank you.'

In September 2023, Bank of America de-banked John Eastman, founding director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and one of the attorneys also targeted by the 65 Project for his work with President-elect Donald Trump. Two months later, USAAA Federal Saving Bank similarly de-banked him.

Former Nebraska state Treasurer John Murante (R) noted in an op-ed last year that Chase had de-banked multiple individuals and organizations — including the Arkansas Family Council, Defense of Liberty, and retired general Michael Flynn Jr. — over "mainstream American views."

Months after JPMorgan Chase canceled the checking account for former Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback's faith-based nonprofit National Committee for Religious Freedom, Brownback reportedly received an email from Chase indicating that he was a "politically exposed person."

"Under current banking regulations, after all the reforms of the last 20 years, there's now a category called a 'politically exposed person,' PEP," Andreessen told Rogan. "You are required by financial regulators to kick them off, to kick them out of your bank. You're not allowed to have them."

According to a 2021 Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council document, the "term PEP is commonly used in the financial industry to refer to foreign individuals who are or have been entrusted with a prominent public function, as well as to their immediate family members and close associates." The term has also been applied to domestic individuals similarly entrusted with prominent public functions.

The Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering, an international outfit hosted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, noted in its own definition that due to their position and influence, many PEPs "are in positions that potentially can be abused for the purpose of committing money laundering offences and related predicate offenses, including corruption and bribery, as well as conducting activity related to terrorist financing."

Andreessen suggested that the de-banking of domestic PEPs tends to go only one way, noting, "I have not heard of a single instance of anyone on the left getting de-banked."

A private-public scheme

The tech entrepreneur explained that this politically unidirectional mechanism is wielded by a combination of governmental and private forces.

"There's a constitutional amendment that says the government can't restrict your speech, but there's no constitutional amendment that says the government can't de-bank you," said Andreessen.

The government leans on private banking institutions to do its dirty work, which gives it the benefit of distance, such that "the government gets to say, 'We didn't do it. It was the private company that did it, and of course, JPMorgan can decide who they want to have as customers.'"

Andreessen characterized the political persecution scheme as a "privatized sanctions regime that lets bureaucrats do to American citizens the same thing that we do to Iran: Just kick you out of the financial system."

According to Andreessen, this "regime" has been targeting numerous crypto entrepreneurs since President Joe Biden took office.

'It's just raw administrative power.'

"This has been happening to a lot of the fin-tech entrepreneurs, anybody trying to start any kind of new banking service, because they're trying to protect the big banks," said Andreessen. "This has been happening, by the way, also in legal fields of economic activity that they don't like."

Thanks, Obama

Andreessen suggested that this coordinated effort to crush perceived political adversaries through monetary pressures kicked off in earnest "about 15 years ago with this thing called Operation Choke Point."

Jeremy Tedesco, senior counsel and senior vice president of corporate engagement at the Alliance Defending Freedom, told members of the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government in March:

In the now infamous Operation Choke Point, President Obama's DOJ and FDIC spearheaded a multi-agency initiative to target legal industries like firearms dealers, tobacco sellers, dating services, coin dealers, and payday lenders. After a group of payday lenders sued the FDIC, litigation filings and subsequent federal oversight offered a rare look into the world of financial regulation. The FDIC expanded "reputational risk" to include "any negative publicity involving the third party." It then worked in conjunction with the DOJ and other agencies to pressure financial institutions to deny service to disfavored industries. The DOJ issued over 60 subpoenas; the FDIC and OCC issued related guidance on the reputation risk presented by payment processing for these entities; and the FDIC listed the above businesses as "high-risk businesses," all with the intent to cut off banking access to these industries.

Andreessen suggested that the Biden administration extended the concept to apply to political opponents as well as to crypto and tech entrepreneurs.

"Choke Point 2.0 is primarily against their political enemies and then to their disfavored tech startups," said Andreessen. "And it's hit the tech world hard. We've had like 30 founders de-banked in the last four years."

According to the tech entrepreneur, those he knows who have been de-banked effectively had to reinvent themselves or get creative with where they put their money to "try to get away from the eye of Sauron."

Tyler Winklevoss, co-founder of Gemini, noted after Elon Musk highlighted Andreessen's comments that he was de-banked and suggested that there have likely been far more than 30 individuals de-banked in the burgeoning industry.

"Totally unlawful, evil behavior," said Winklevoss.

Brian Armstrong, co-founder and CEO of Coinbase, responded to Andreessen's claims, noting, "Can confirm this is true. It was one one of the most unethical and un-American things that happened in the Biden administration, and my guess is we'll find Elizabeth Warren's fingerprints all over it (Biden himself was probably unaware). We're still collecting documents via FOIA requests, so hopefully the full story emerges of who was involved and whether they broke any laws."

Konstantin Richter, CEO of Blockdaemon, claimed that Bank of America similarly cut his organization loose.

The nature of de-banking leaves victims with few or no means to seek remedy.

"You can't go sue a regulator to fix this. It's not through any kind of court judgment. It's just raw power. It's just raw administrative power," said Andreessen. "It's the government or politicians just deciding that things are going to be a certain way, and then they just apply pressure until they get it."

To make matters worse, "There are no fingerprints," said Andreessen. Those behind the de-banking are virtually untouchable.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

US-China Tech War Tensions Escalate As Biden Admin Moves To Restrict Chip, Semiconductor Exports

'aggressively safeguard our world-leading technologies'

Will tech bros turn US into man-made horrors beyond comprehension?



There’s no escaping our rapidly advancing technology, especially considering how powerful and excited the “tech bros” are about advancing it — but can we escape the slavery that might accompany it?

“God love them, the tech bros out there who are just adamant that like, ‘No, this is really it, you guys, we are going to escape our humanity, we are going to transcend, it’s going to be a new age, we’re going to leave all of this nonsense behind,’” James Poulos of “Zero Hour” comments, adding, “Some of the smartest people are the easiest to deceive.”

Michael Cernovich, independent filmmaker and author of “Gorilla Mindset,” sees the issue with this as well, but explains that these “tech bros” who are obsessed with technological progress are just like “freshmen in college.”


“You’re not actually advanced; you’re early post-Christ gnostics with a mind-body dualism,” he says. “And you think that you can just unplug your consciousness and put it into a cyborg, and you think that’s smart.”

“Now, they are creating a new consciousness,” he continues, noting it’s with “algorithms and artificial intelligence.”

This is where Poulos gets even more concerned, citing Nikola Tesla’s statement that “you may live to see man-made horrors beyond your comprehension.”

However, Poulos notes that even worse is that we “may live to be man-made horrors beyond our comprehension.”

Cernovich believes Poulos is being “too polemical.”

“I have a certain apprehension about the direction AI is headed,” he explains, “but then I go, ‘You know, they probably, when the first radio [came] out, people were probably saying that was demons talking to them through the radio.’”

“Maybe that’s all AI is,” he adds.

Want more from James Poulos?

To enjoy more of James's visionary commentary on politics, tech, ideas, and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Biden’s AI blockade stalls US progress, but Trump can fix it



China's latest AI advancements highlight the urgency for America to support its open-source community. Chinese companies, such as Alibaba, are driving innovation with projects like the Qwen 2.5-Coder, an open-source model that reportedly outperforms all global open-source models and rivals some tasks performed by the leading closed-source model, GPT-4o.

These achievements stem from a sharp policy contrast. China actively subsidizes its open-source ecosystem, encouraging global collaboration and rapid innovation. It provides indirect funding and supports major open-source AI conferences. Meanwhile, U.S. politicians and policymakers are increasingly at odds with their own open-source community, creating barriers that hinder progress. If this trend continues, America risks surrendering its technological leadership to global competitors.

China recognizes that its primary risk lies in losing technological primacy. America’s risk-aversion, ironically, is its biggest risk.

America has long been the global leader in AI research talent and enterprise, especially in closed-source AI applications. However, the gap in open-source AI leadership is narrowing rapidly — and in some cases, even reversing.

Open source plays a critical role in the diffusion of AI technology. China has recognized this and uses open-source platforms to distribute its AI infrastructure globally. In industries like manufacturing and 5G networks, U.S. policymakers understand the risks posed by China’s dominance in infrastructure. Unfortunately, they have yet to apply the same clarity and urgency to AI.

Open-source AI is uniquely positioned to diffuse both American and Chinese AI models to third-party countries, fostering permission-less innovation. Startups and independent researchers, regardless of location, can build on almost one million open-source models hosted on platforms like HuggingFace. Unlike closed-source AI companies, open-source platforms eliminate many cost, communication, and regulatory barriers.

This accessibility allows researchers in countries like India, Brazil, and Indonesia to use local knowledge to fine-tune and adapt open-source models for their economies.

The most efficient open-source models available in the next decade may permanently determine the AI infrastructure of the world.

Until recently, the American regulatory environment had been largely hostile to AI. The Biden administration’s executive order on AI focused heavily on limiting the technology’s expansion. Meanwhile, a bill that would have effectively banned open-source AI narrowly avoided becoming law after California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed it.

American policymakers claim strict regulations ensure ethical AI development. In reality, even moderate AI regulations have hampered U.S. companies’ ability to innovate. These rules require significant resources and talent to ensure compliance. For example, a Google engineer told Pirate Wires that “probably half of our engineering hours” are spent on diversity compliance in the Gemini model.

China has a different philosophy. While it wields political power strategically, it remains conscious of the cost of overly restrictive policies. As U.S. companies self-regulate to avoid backlash, Chinese AI models are rapidly catching up. China recognizes that its primary risk lies in losing technological primacy. America’s risk-aversion, ironically, is its biggest risk.

At a time when traditional AI approaches are delivering diminishing returns, open-source AI offers a critical platform for academics, startups, and independent researchers to test innovative algorithms and methods. However, open-source efforts remain significantly underfunded compared to closed-source companies.

As the Trump-Vance administration seeks to unleash AI’s potential, it could draw lessons from an unusual exception to the Biden administration’s skeptical stance on open source. A July report from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration revealed overwhelming support for open-source AI in public comments. While the report stopped short of actively promoting open-source AI, it rejected proposals to restrict open-source model weights.

The unpursued recommendations from the NTIA report offer valuable insights for crafting a more innovation-friendly AI policy. Embracing these options could align with the new administration’s mission to foster U.S. leadership in AI while encouraging experimentation and innovation. We simply cannot let China win.

Undersea internet cable possibly severed in Baltic Sea, sparking concerns about sabotage



The 745-mile underwater internet cable linking NATO allies Finland and Germany was apparently severed in the Baltic Sea Monday morning, sparking concerns about possible sabotage.

The cybersecurity and telecoms network company Cinia said in a statement that a "fault" was initially detected in its C-Lion1 submarine cable — the only undersea cable connecting Finland to Central Europe — just after 4 a.m. on Monday, killing the services provided over the line.

According to Cinia, it could take anywhere from five to 15 days for cable repairs and to get a clearer sense of what precisely is responsible.

Telia Lietuva AB, one of the Baltic states' biggest telecommunication companies, told Bloomberg that the incident took place just hours after an undersea cable linking Lithuania to Sweden's Gotland island, nearly 33 feet away from the Finnish line, was cut.

Their allusion to Russian aggression prompted some to speculate that Moscow may have severed the line — possibly in a similar manner to how senior Ukrainian military officers and businessmen allegedly sapped the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines in September 2022.

Elina Valtonen, the Finnish minister of foreign affairs, and her German counterpart, Annalena Baerbock, said in a joint statement, "We are deeply concerned about the severed undersea cable connecting Finland and Germany in the Baltic Sea. The fact that such an incident immediately raises suspicions of intentional damage speaks volumes about the volatility of our times."

After noting that an investigation into the incident is underway, the duo stressed that "European security is not only under threat from Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, but also from hybrid warfare by malicious actors. Safeguarding our shared critical infrastructure is vital to our security and the resilience of our societies."

Their allusion to Russian aggression prompted some to speculate that Moscow may have severed the line — possibly in a similar manner to how senior Ukrainian military officers and businessmen allegedly sapped the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines in September 2022.

A line-cutting in the area would have been risky business for the Russians given that just days before the malfunction, NATO allies took part in an anti-submarine warfare exercise in the Baltic Sea and likely had some assets in the area.

"The Baltic Sea is a challenging operational environment. The local expertise of our regional Allies facilitates success here and rehearsing command and control ensures the effective use of assets," Royal Danish Navy Commodore Thomas Stig Rasmussen said of the maritime exercises that ran from Nov. 11-14. "Training together in Swedish waters offers Allies an important opportunity to enhance interoperability, which is the key to success in real life operations. Our new Allies in Sweden and Finland have redefined how NATO approaches maritime security in the region."

When pressed on whether the Finnish cable showed signs of sabotage, Cinia CEO Ari-Jussi Knaapila indicated there was "no way to assess the reason right now."

"We can say that such damage doesn't happen without some kind of external impact," Knaapila told Bloomberg, citing ship anchors and bottom trawling as possible causes.

Knaapila ruled out seismic activity and suggested sabotage has not been eliminated as a possibility.

Ship anchors have done serious damage to undersea cables in recent years. On Oct. 8, 2023, two telecom cables and a rupture to a Baltic Sea gas pipeline were caused by the Hong Kong-flagged cargo vessel Newnew Polar Bear. After months of investigation and finger-pointing, Beijing finally admitted the error in August.

Samuli Bergström, communications chief of the Finnish transport and communications agency, told Deutsche Welle, "The reasons are under investigation. Disturbances occur from time to time and there can be various reasons. For example, they are susceptible to weather and damage caused by shipping. The essential thing is that the problems are identified and corrective measures are taken."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

How Joe Rogan, Barron Trump, and podcasts led Gen Z’s cultural revolution



Trump's entry into politics nearly a decade ago, marked by his rallying cry of “fake news,” ignited the decline of mainstream media’s credibility. His relentless attacks struck a chord with those fed up with media bias. With support from his base, Trump started building the mainstream media’s coffin. Today, Gen Z, Barron Trump’s generation, is driving in the final nails. They don’t want to listen to Joy Reid (who does?) or Jake Tapper (again, who does?); they want Joe Rogan.

Gen Z speaks for most of America.

The polarization deepens as many left-leaning women refuse to date right-leaning men. Meanwhile, more men are aligning with conservative values, rediscovering religion, and questioning the modern feminist agenda.

Trump’s interview with Rogan has racked up 48 million views on YouTube alone. Meanwhile, Theo Von has drawn 14 million views for his own interview with Trump. The impact of these and other podcasts is clear and convincing. These alternative media giants have amplified political messages in a way that mainstream outlets simply can’t match.

Gen Z values podcasts for their convenience, easy access, and variety. Gen X values the personalities and independence of the hosts. The medium's personal touch forged a cross-generational coalition that was decisive in Trump’s sweeping victory.

Barron Trump undoubtedly played a pivotal role in helping his father secure re-election. He opened his father's eyes to the massive influence of voices like Rogan and Von. As a Gen Zer, Barron belongs to a generation often criticized, sometimes fairly, sometimes not. While they might not always be grounded in reality, they are tuned into podcasts — earning them the nickname the "podcast generation." This group is deeply embedded in audio culture, leading the shift from traditional media to various digital platforms, with nearly seven hours of media consumption each day. Yes, each day.

And Gen Xer stars like Joe Rogan have capitalized on this shift, drawing in young audiences with unscripted, long-form conversations on everything from politics and culture to aliens and sports. His genuine approach builds trust and shapes opinions, holding real power over how young listeners absorb information and view the world. It highlights the influence of podcasts in shaping modern thinking, where a single compelling voice can steer conversations, impact millions, and even sway election outcomes.

Due to podcasters’ revolutionary impact on politics, the belief has spread that a related but much different corner of the new media world — the so-called “manosphere” — was key to Trump's re-election. The manosphere is an online ecosystem shaped by figures like Andrew Tate and the "Fresh and Fit Podcast," which focuses on dating, relationships, and gender dynamics, often from a controversial angle. Thanks to largely left-leaning media, both Tate and the "Fresh and Fit Podcast" hosts have become synonymous with the often-misapplied term "misogyny." This term is slippery, as the left has weaponized it to label anyone who dares to challenge modern feminist narratives — narratives that often assert men are literally trash and celebrate female promiscuity.

To paraphrase Ben Shapiro, many of the voices in the manosphere space are like “terrible doctors.” They are adept at diagnosing the disease but terrible at prescribing the cure. Yet, their appeal persists. The same factors that fuel Rogan and Von’s success — mainstream media’s implosion and a thirst for authenticity — are propelling the rise of the manosphere. You might not agree with what Tate says, but he undeniably knows how to sell a message. Is he genuine? Again, he’s certainly skilled at selling the image of authenticity.

The new mainstream

SYFY/Getty

The appeal of the manosphere space is amplified by what’s known as the diploma divide, where men and women increasingly pursue separate paths shaped by diverging priorities and growing disillusionments. More women are choosing careers over families and focusing on climbing the corporate ladder instead of dating. Trump’s election win has prompted some young American women to discuss boycotting men altogether.

This notion echoes South Korea’s 4B movement, which champions rejecting dating (biyeonae), sexual relationships (bisekseu), marriage (bihon), and childbirth (bichulsan). Interest in this movement spiked after the election, with platforms like TikTok and X flooded by hashtags and conversations embracing the concept. Here in the U.S., the list of boycotted behaviors is, at least judging by some TikToks, rapidly expanding, to include churchgoing and “trad” lifestyle signifiers increasingly favored by younger men.

Slapping the manosphere label — a term often used to imply an online cesspool of bigotry and misogyny — onto figures like Rogan and Von is not only misleading but downright wrong. These men are known more for irreverent humor, eclectic interviews, and thought-provoking conversations than chauvinism. The assumption that their audiences consist solely of men is profoundly disconnected from reality. Joe Rogan’s podcast, in fact, boasts one of the largest followings among female listeners in the United States. Von also has a significant female audience.

Similarly, and no coincidence, over four in 10 female voters chose Trump, with a majority of white women casting their ballots for him. This statistic alone shatters the caricature of the "bad orange man" as universally reviled by women. One might even say it’s surprising more women didn’t vote for Trump, given the superficiality of Kamala Harris’ campaign — full of empty platitudes and performative joy.

The polarization deepens as many left-leaning women refuse to date right-leaning men. Meanwhile, more men are aligning with conservative values, rediscovering religion, and questioning the modern feminist agenda. On the other side, women are increasingly stepping away from religious affiliations. This realignment is creating a cultural chasm, marked by friction and factionalism that extends far beyond political affiliations and reaches into the most personal aspects of life — marriage, family, and community.

The manosphere didn’t necessarily help get Trump elected. The Gen Z and Gen X podcast bros leading alternative media did. Now, debates over reproductive rights, gender roles, and shifting expectations for men and women at work and home are only set to intensify — unless the broad MAGA coalition of younger men and women step up to lead their fellow Americans away from a deeply destructive war of the sexes.

Underwater sabotage: Are global powers targeting fiber-optic cables?



As wars rage on all around the world, the fog of war and accusations of sabotage continue to plague international relations.

According to a Newsweek report, Nikolai Patrushev, a close ally of Putin, recently accused U.S. and U.K. intelligence operatives of past sabotage actions and plans for future attacks. Specifically, he accused the U.S. and U.K. of “intending to sabotage underwater internet cables and planning to destabilize the maritime energy trade.”

Both NATO allies and Russia have accused the other side of maritime sabotage. A September CNN article, citing U.S. officials, alleged that Russia was planning a similar plot to sabotage “underwater infrastructure by order of the defense ministry's Main Directorate for Deep-Sea Research (GUGI).”

Future attacks on fiber-optic cables and other infrastructure would have the aim of causing 'chaos' in global energy markets, 'including by destabilizing maritime transportation.'

However, Crimean Wind, a Telegram channel reporting Patrushev’s comments, posted, "It would be funny, but such statements often sound like a cover for their own intentions."

Nikolai Patrushev, a Putin aide and chairman of Russia’s maritime board, is also one of the main forces behind Russia’s war on Ukraine. On Monday, he told the newspaper Kommersant that U.S. and U.K. intelligence were “behind the September 2022 attacks on the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines.”

Despite several investigations by Sweden and Denmark and an ongoing investigation by Germany, it is still unclear who was behind the Nord Stream pipelines attack.

Regarding speculations that Ukraine was behind these attacks, Patrushev said that the Ukrainian Navy had "neither the equipment nor the trained specialists to carry out a deep-sea terrorist attack" and that "only special forces units of NATO countries could carry out sabotage of this scale."

He went on to tell Kommersant that the U.S. and U.K. would be executing these sabotage operations to “promote their economic interests.” Further, he speculated that future attacks on fiber-optic cables and other infrastructure would aim to cause “chaos” in global energy markets, "including by destabilizing maritime transportation."

Newsweek went on: “Patrushev said this was the intention behind U.S. strikes against the Houthis in the Persian Gulf, which Washington has conducted in response to attacks by the Iranian-backed Yemeni group against shipping in the region.”

While it is difficult and will likely be impossible to discern who was responsible for these attacks, Patrushev is certainly correct about one thing: Attacks on global infrastructure will continue to sow chaos on the world stage during these already uncertain times.

How tech beat woke and elected Trump



As an orange sun rises over a deeply reddened nation, the woke left isn’t out, but it most certainly is down.

And while millions of Americans played a part, responsibility for the death of the woke regime rests in a small set of hands.

Neither conservatism, libertarianism, nor any other -ism killed the woke vibe.

Tech did.

As the woke regime intended to permanently transform America and the American people by spiritually commanding and controlling tech, this fact bears close examination.

If we’re going to move as fast as we need to to make America great again, that means looking, like all the other digital powers in the world must look, toward our deepest spiritual foundations. That’s still Christianity.

Looking for revenge, the left will be tempted to turn on tech instead of trying to take it back over. This is a deadly mistake: Neither our tools nor those who know how to make them are Americans’ enemy.

But some on the right will now be tempted to build a civil religion to the god of tech. This too is a fatal error. Our tools and tool-makers must not become worshiped idols.

Finding the harmonious middle way begins with a look at just how tech beat woke.

Consider one illuminating post-election post from venture capitalist Katherine Boyle. “Silicon Valley doesn’t trust experts,” she says, “because the game changes too fast to weight experience over other factors. In accelerating realignments, ‘the gold standard’ experts and OGs often don’t have an advantage.”

Grasp this, and the events of the past five years snap into focus.

Back when the most powerful technology was the TV, the organized left seized the commanding heights of the culture with an intellectual revolution.

It was easy to do. The academic old guard, which all but worshiped the technology of old books, couldn’t beat back the postmodern swarm that proclaimed the death of the world the printing press made. And the people, who had long since stopped kneeling at the altar of the book, were now, as David Bowie sang, “hooked to the silver screen,” seeing in televisual tech proof that other peoples’ fantasies were more true than their own reality.

Then digital seized the commanding heights of technology — disenchanting the cult of the book as well as the cult of the video.

That sea of change didn’t just put the established experts on the back foot. Instead of simply forcing them to play catch-up, it transformed the psychological and social environment that they thought they had mastered.

Suddenly, the value of intellectual expertise itself began to plummet. The awesome sweep and scope of digital returned humanity to the ultimate questions about who we are and why.

Questions that demanded a return to our deepest memories about the ultimate answers and from whence they came.

Even the heights of expert intellectual experience couldn’t speak to these matters with authority people could trust. Suddenly, people thirsted for expert spiritual experience — not the fun and fantastic simulation thereof that poured forth in gross excess from the likes of George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and Walt Disney.

The civilizational game had changed.

Yet the ruling left wasn’t stupid. Already at the elite level, those on the left had had the chance to react first, and their gambit to shift the ground of the legitimacy of their power from intellectual to spiritual authority unfolded swiftly. Enter “wokeness,” which rebranded intellectual authorities as spiritual ones.

This grand switch-up responded to the thirst for spiritual authority unleashed by digital tech by enforcing a new vision where the smartest didn’t deserve to rule because of their mental merit but because of their purity of heart. The priestly caste of the woke church had a good four years to execute on this crash program.

But instead of soaring, on election night, it crashed. And while the nationwide groundswell of support for Trump obviously played a huge role, the decisive factor was the decision of a handful of technologists led by Elon Musk to bet everything they had against the woke regime. Without them, it’s all too easy to see how Trump and his supporters wouldn’t have been able to defeat the entrenched Borg using Kamala Harris as its latest skin suit.

That’s true going forward, too. The regime still has many lawfare options to derail Trump before the Inauguration, and the main obstacle to their success is Musk’s willingness to spend on flooding the zone with maximally aggressive legal defenses of the popular majority that swept Trump back to power.

That’s why so many on the right — especially given how many notional conservatives have proven so wimpy and ineffectual over the past four-plus years — will be so tempted to make tech their god-emperor in all but name (and perhaps in name, too!).

Yet that, as the neckbeards like to say, ain’t it, chief. An innovation-forward culture may feel like a huge acceleration today, but it’s actually a return to the moral norm of Americans being and feeling comfortable, competent, and confident taking charge of their tools and toolmaking. Long ago, Alexis de Tocqueville taught that the key to Americans ranging so freely and fruitfully across the frontier of human endeavor was the firm anchor of their hearts in humble devotion to God: the fixed, secure point that enabled us to survive and thrive in a world where all was in motion. That’s us today — except now more than ever, we need to restore that fixed point.

That requires spiritual authorities Americans both recognize and can trust — not false priests of an HR-hoe goddess or of some inscrutable cyber deity.

If we’re going to move as fast as we need to to make America great again, that means looking, like all the other digital powers in the world must look, toward our deepest spiritual foundations. That’s still Christianity — not for the sake of establishing an unconstitutional theocracy, but for ensuring our country keeps its head among our its achievements by doing the humble work of the heart.

Game on.

Sweden Warns Parents: Quit Plopping Your Baby In Front Of Brain-Rotting Screens

When screen time is eliminated or reduced, children have more time to be outside, interact in person, and, critically, sleep.

Pure vibes, no substance: Kamala Harris’ campaign and media makeover



Who is running the country? What happened to President Joe Biden? Does anyone know what Kamala Harris is running her campaign on? In the hazy milieu of the mainstream media, these questions are harder to answer than anyone would think possible.

On “Zero Hour,” James Poulos sat down with Jill Savage, host of "Blaze News Tonight," to discuss the state of the presidential race, the media’s influence on public perception, and Kamala Harris’ campaign of “vibes.”

Noting the strange transition of power within the Biden-Harris administration, James Poulos pointed out the media's influence on the public perception of Harris. Jill Savage said, “Nobody actually likes Kamala, but we’re just going to pretend people like her and give her a media makeover. If they can get away with it, they absolutely will.”

They also discussed Kamala’s apparent lack of policy positions: “They know that if they put policies out there, people will attack her,” Savage said.

James Poulos observed at least one instance of fabricated photos regarding Harris’ campaign rallies, questioning whether that was a one-time occurrence: “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. They’re putting out press photos of these events that seem to be overflowing with human beings, but they’re actually humanoids that have been manufactured by AI,” Savage replied, “That’s what’s passing for news these days. If there weren’t independent news sources, this is what would be on the nightly news, and nobody would know any different.”

On the media’s portrayal of Kamala’s campaign, Savage added, “If pure vibes is Pravda, then we are pure vibing it all summer long.”

To hear more of what Jill Savage had to say on media manipulation, Harris’ platform of “vibes,” and more, watch the full episode of “Zero Hour” with James Poulos.

America was convinced tech would complete our mastery of the world. Instead, we got catastrophe — constant crises from politics and the economy down to the spiritual fiber of our being. Time’s up for the era we grew up in. How do we pick ourselves up and begin again? To find out, visionary author and media theorist James Poulos cracks open the minds — and hearts — of today’s top figures in politics, tech, ideas, and culture on "Zero Hour" on BlazeTV.