Don’t let Big Tech WIN by staying connected to Dr Steve and joining the movement to reclaim our freedoms at: https://join.turleytalks.com/insiders-club=podcast
(Note: This is a clip from our Monday night live stream.)
--
Thank you for taking the time to listen to this episode. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and/or leave a review.
Make sure to FOLLOW me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/DrTurleyTalks
Do you want to be a part of the podcast and be our sponsor? Click here to partner with us and defy liberal culture! https://advertising.turleytalks.com/sponsorship
If you want to get lots of articles on conservative trends, sign up for the 'New Conservative Age Rising' Email Alerts: https://turleytalks.com/subscribe/.
*All clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Are we seeing the revitalization of conservative civilization? All over the world has been a massive backlash against globalization, its leftist leadership, and its anti-cultural liberal values. And it's just the beginning. I'm Dr. Steve Turley. I believe the liberal globalist world is at its brink, and a new conservative age is rising. Join me every day as we examine these worldwide trends, discover answers to today's toughest challenges, and together learn to live in the present in life of even better things to come. This is Turley Talks. Exchange between the White House and other federal officials and Facebook in particular, but also some of the other platforms. And I see that the White House and federal officials are repeatedly saying that Facebook and the federal government should be partners. We are on the same team. Officials are demanding answers. I want an answer. I want it right away. When they're unhappy, they curse them out. There are regular meetings. There is constant pestering of Facebook and some of the other platforms, and they want to have regular meetings, and they suggest rules that should be applied, and why don't you tell us everything that you're going to do so we can help you, and we can look it over. And I thought, wow, I cannot imagine federal officials taking that approach to the print media. I represent it as over there. If you did that to them, what do you think the reaction would be? And so I thought, you know, the only reason why this is taking place is because the federal government has got section 230 and antitrust in its pocket and it's to mix my metaphors and it's got these big clubs available to it. And so it's treating Facebook and these other platforms like their subordinates. Would you do that to the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal or the Associated Press or any other big newspaper or wire service? So there's a lot packed in there. I want to give you one very specific answer first, and then step back out to the proper context. So specifically, you mentioned demanding an answer right away and cursing them out. The only time that happens is in an email that's about the president's own Instagram account. It's not about moderating other people. Okay, we'll put that aside. There's all the rest. So, constant meetings, constant emails, we want answers, we're partners, we're on the same team. Do you think that the print media regards themselves as being on the same team as the federal government, partners with the federal government? Potentially in the context of an effort to get Americans vaccinated during a once in a lifetime pandemic. I really think that piece of context, it doesn't change the First Amendment principles, but it's relevant to how they apply here. And I think it's important to understand that at this time, this was a time when thousands of Americans were still dying every week, and there was a hope that getting everyone vaccinated could stop the pandemic. And there was a concern that Americans were getting their news about the vaccine from these platforms and the platforms were promoting, not just posing, but promoting bad information. I understand all that, and I know the objectives were good. But once again, they were also getting their news from the print media and the broadcast media and cable media. And I just can't imagine the federal government doing that to them. But maybe I'm naive. Maybe that goes on behind the scenes. It struck me as, wow, this is not what I understand the relationship to be. That's all I do. But I do. I think this is important because I have the same reaction that you do, that these emails look unusual. I think the idea that there'd be back and forth between the government and the media isn't unusual at all. When the White House press secretary on July 16th has asked about this by the press at the time, what she says is, of course, we talk to the platforms just the way we talk to all of you. When we have concerns about what you're doing, when we have information that you might find helpful. Now, there's an intensity of the back and forth here, and there's an anger that I think is unusual. But the context for that, I think, is that these platforms were saying publicly, we want to help. We think we have a responsibility to give people accurate information and not bad information. And we're doing everything we can to meet that goal. That's where this language of partnership comes from. It's not just from the White House. It's these platforms, which are powerful sophisticated entities saying we're doing the best we can. And the anger, I think, really, most of the anger when you read the emails, and I appreciate that you have because I think you have to look at them in context. The anger is when the officials think that the platforms are not-- You can't shut it off. You can't just hit stop. Thank you. This guy, I'll tell you that. There you go, gang. That was Sam Alito giving at least some semblance of sanity, this insane attack on the First Amendment, and unfortunately, from the arguments that we heard from the majority today, it looks like the court is going to-- if you can believe it, they're going to side with Biden. Let's talk about it. Greetings, everyone. Welcome to our Monday Night Live stream. I am your host, Dr. Steve, your Patriot professor. Good to see everyone here. I'm on in one and all. What an event today at the Supreme Court. I don't know if you know, but according to one US judge, the case before the Supreme Court today really is the single most massive attack on free speech ever in the history of the United States, what the court heard today were arguments over whether the Biden administration had crossed the line when it came to censoring social media accounts on platforms like Facebook and Twitter back during the COVID days, as many of you might remember, a federal judge some months back issued an injunction against the Biden administration, basically forbidding them to have any contact with social media companies, so as to pressure them to censor and suppress speech that the government didn't like. Well, that injunction is now as of today in front of the Supreme Court. And again, gang, you know, I'm sorry, I know I'll be getting a little black pill of late, but here again, we got another reason to be pessimistic. It just seems we're seeing our institutions implode right before our very eyes. Now, to understand what's at stake here, what happened today, I want to take you back to 2016 to November 8th, 2016, the night of Trump's election. Over the years, especially thanks to Twitter, Twitter gate, we have been learning more and more just how panicked permanent Washington really was on that night. And in fairness, we have to remember that November 8th was actually the second political earthquake that stunned our world's ruling elite, right? Just a few months earlier back in June of 2016, what happened? Right? More Brits came out to vote to leave the European Union that had ever voted for any political party in Britain's history. So with back-to-back victories of Brexit and June and then Trump in November, the globalist powers that be suddenly realized to their horror, that these persistent populist movements that had previously just merely disrupted mostly local elections, regional elections, they were no longer mere nuisances. They were no longer fringe peripheral movements. The rising populist tide, both in Europe and in the United States, had respectively dismantled, at least in part, the European Union, and was now as of that November in the process of dismantling globalism itself. And we now know that something happened inside D.C. that night. It became widely accepted among the unelected bureaucrats in D.C. that the consent of the government can no longer be trusted. This has nothing to do with COVID. This goes back to Brexit and to Trump. And again, we know that from the Twitter files. This was particularly November 8th, or I guess the early morning hours of November 9, 2016. We saw permanent Washington, the unelected bureaucrats that make up permanent Washington take proactive measures to ensure that the consent of the government could be managed. It could be controlled and if necessary, even thwarted. Now, we know, and I know you know, being the sophisticated audience members that you are for this channel, you know that there was already a model for that kind of sweeping political project of control and constraint. It was a model proposed a few decades earlier back in the 1970s, actually in 1970 itself by what was then rather obscure German mechanical engineer by the name of Klaus Schwab. And he wrote a book called Modern Enterprise Management, where he introduced a concept known as stakeholder capitalism. It's a very important concept for his founding of the world economic form the following year in 1971. And basically stakeholder capital, like if you look it up on Google, it's presented as just this very benign system in which corporations are supposed to be oriented to serve the interests of everyone in the general population at large, not just their investors, right? Not just their stockholders, but their stakeholders. In other words, we're all stakeholders. We all have a common interest or concern in more than just in a more just fair and equitable society. And to that end, Schwab argued that billionaires and bureaucrats corporations and states must team up to work together to forge a more sustainable society. And that model of stakeholder capitalism overlapped perfectly with the political and economic orchestrations thought necessary to ensure that inconvenient disruptions like Brexit and Trump would never happen again. We now know, thanks to Twitter files, that they're emerged a public private partnership. This was not, this is not simply, this is not simply the government telling or demanding social media outlets to censor suppress certain material. This is an actual public private partnership between national security agencies in DC together with big tech social media outlets that together formed a corporate state hybrid that bypass first amendment protections that we were being told this partnership was somehow up holding it up to understand is as of more or less that night November 8, 2016 corporations began being in effect, deputize to do what politicians being restrained by the will of voters simply could not politically pull off. We began to see corporate boardrooms deliberately and dogmatically restrain the freedoms of citizens, particularly our freedom of speech, our freedom of information, so as to maximize centralized control over the totality of political and economic life. That is what we're up against. A union between big business and big government right billionaires and bureaucrats who enforce compliance through suppression and censorship. And what we just heard today, and the arguments presented on behalf of the bumbling Biden administration was a defense of this arrangement know they didn't say it out loud as it were they didn't say it. They didn't say it out loud as it were they didn't say it explicitly. That of course they kept going back to all those just it was just for COVID. It was just for a just an emergency situation that's a, and what I'm trying to say to you is no it was not what happened in COVID was already four years in the that was just the culmination of the apparatus the, the infrastructure that had been set up between billionaires and bureaucrats to silence speech they didn't like. In the end, what we heard today was a rabid defense of the government deputizing social media platforms to censor your speech and mine. Unfortunately, we have the likes of Cantonji Brown Jackson who appeared rather enamored by those arguments. Take a listen has the first amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods. I mean, what would you have the government do? I've heard you say a couple times that the government can post its own speech, but in my hypothetical, you know, kids, this is not safe, don't do it is not going to get it done. And so I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country and you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information. So can you help me, because I'm really, I'm really worried about that, because you've got the first amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government's perspective and you're saying that the government can't interact with the source of those problems. And you're on. I understand. Yep, threats. Yep, you're, you're, you're under threat. It's your safety that we're really concerned about. Again, they keep going back. What about threats? What about safety. The threat that they're worried about is Trump. That's the threat. That's where this all started. Yeah, and you heard her said, Kataunji Jackson herself, she's worried about the, the Complaintants case these are two attorney generals from one from Missouri, the other one from Louisiana, who were, who are arguing on behalf of. Of complaints against the, these blatant censorship tactics. She's worried that the Complaintants case would mean that the first amendment would make it too hard for the government to censor. I mean, you can't make this stuff up. Unfortunately, Alito, who you heard at the beginning, he does appear to be in the minority gang. Just, I'm just going to be straight with you. Most justices thought the case against the government speaking with social media outlets. The case that they're bringing up there is too broad. It's too absolute. They're also concerned about standing. In other words, these attorney generals from Louisiana, Missouri don't have the right to sue because they're not being personally affected by the censorship. Anyway, we'll see. We'll see what their decision is, but my concern is, is that the Supreme Court is turning a blind eye to this very, very dangerous partnership between bureaucrats and big tech. And if they don't break that partnership up, then we may be seeing another massive social media purge of dissenting voices if things don't go our way in November. If they, if they pull out all the 2020 stops and they're successful in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan. If there's success, they pull out all the shenanigans and they're successful, and we call them out on it, that partnership of bureaucrats and big tech is going to purge dissenting voices just like they did after J six. I'm black pill to get gang. I'm sorry. I thought I was cured. I thought I was cured, but I got, I got to be straight. You know, Hannah, I'm sorry, Hannah, our producer, she can come on in here. I got, I'm sorry, I'm black pill to get. But, but I got to be honest with everyone, you know, but, but this is also a good reason for why everyone needs to click on the link below and head on over to our virtual studio our virtual platform. You want to talk to him about that? Yeah, Steve, I was going to say that this is a personal issue. I think everyone here needs to realize this that it is serious and it is real for every single one of you watching right now. And they're doing this exact thing to us. They're trying to stop you from hearing what Dr Steve has to say. Seriously, seriously. So, we are not just going to sit around and complain. We've actually done something so that we can fight back. And that is our courageous patriot movement. And I have so many of you I'm watching here in the virtual studio that are declaring right now that they're not going to be watching on YouTube. They're going to be in this movement once and for all watching and supporting what we're doing without giving a penny to big tech and not worrying what they have to say because you're here in the movement. So, if this is bothering you just like it's bothering Dr Steven you want to come join the resistance here. Please click the link in the description just go to join that Turley talks calm and seriously seriously if something happens. We're already demonetized. Something could happen next. Just go to join that Turley talks.com please. There are millions of you who are subscribers. We have hundreds of thousands of you that have gone through but please just put your name in your email in. That is being contact with you. That is just the first step but that is so important. That's so huge right there. It's so so important if we cannot contact you. You cannot get the truth of what's going on. So please at least go to join at Turley talks calm but your name and your email in. And if you want to join us for the rest of the show, join our movement go all in declare once and for all that this is annoying to you but you're not just going to sit around and complain. You're actually going to do something about it by joining the Turley talks movement. It's just five bucks a month y'all. That's it. Nothing crazy big. Come over into our virtual studio with us and we're going through all kinds of stuff today including the boy cotton by caught latest which we do every week and questions with Dr Steve so yes Steve I see comments here people are like what's happening to Steve he's upset. I think this is personal you guys. Yeah, this was very very personal when I saw those when I was hearing those arguments and then they were coming out and they were and they kept saying but what about an emergency but what about an emergency and go this didn't start in 2020 this goes back to 2016 the emergency was Trump who gets to define what the emergency is that I'm sorry I'm just gang. I we are we are they are pulling out everything this year and I we do have to be prepared you know I'm optimistic you know I'm I know we're going to crush it. I know that but they're going to do everything they can to thwart it and that's we're going to have to have both remember we call it the stockdale principle. You have to be absolutely hopeful that you're going to do that you're going to prevail but you also have to be radically realistic about the dire situation that you're facing and those two have to stay together. Yeah, as of Friday and as of today I'm focusing on the dire. Well and it's so easy Steve to just hear all this get upset sit there and just wait for new news to come across the screen but listen we will not win everyone if we don't take action we cannot just sit there and listen to what's happening. If you want to come join us on the inside we're going to answer questions going into more of it then just come join us at least with your name and email and so we can email you. And that link below it's a be a just a privilege to have you in personal contact so that will will never ever have our relationship severed. Yes so with that you can just go to the link on your screen and we're going to switch over here and be with our virtual are too hot for YouTube virtual studio. And is there stuff to get into tonight my goodness lots of boycott and by cop stuff it's great guys come on and join us over in our virtual studio. Yes so with that we'll see you guys over here in the virtual studio if you're already in here stay tuned. We'll see you in a second. Thanks so much for listening to this episode of the Turley Talks podcast. Don't forget to subscribe leave us a five star review and share this episode with your friends help us defeat the fake news media and rank us the number one news and commentary podcast all over the world. Come back again tomorrow for another episode celebrating the rise of a new conservative age. [Music]
