Election year pressures are pushing the fight to control information to the US Supreme Court, slowing the money flow to Ukraine, and causing failed leaders to panic.
Show notes:
Homework:
Music:
Show notes:
Section 230 embodies that principle that we should all be responsible for our own actions and statements online, but generally not those of others. The law prevents most civil suits against users or services that are based on what others say.
- For more than a decade, the United States has nurtured a secret intelligence partnership with Ukraine that is now critical for both countries in countering Russia.
- But the partnership is no wartime creation, nor is Ukraine the only beneficiary.
- It took root a decade ago, coming together in fits and starts under three very different U.S. presidents, pushed forward by key individuals who often took daring risks.
- It has transformed Ukraine, whose intelligence agencies were long seen as thoroughly compromised by Russia, into one of Washington’s most important intelligence partners against the Kremlin today.
- The listening post in the Ukrainian forest is part of a C.I.A.-supported network of spy bases constructed in the past eight years that includes 12 secret locations along the Russian border.
- 📡 Spy Network Expansion: CIA-backed spy bases, developed over eight years, span 12 covert sites along the Russian border, aiding in intelligence gathering and strategic planning.
- 🛩️ Training and Support: CIA’s involvement extends to training elite Ukrainian commandos, Unit 2245, and nurturing a new generation of Ukrainian spies operating globally.
- 🤝 Deepened Partnership: The partnership, initiated in 2014, evolved through mutual trust and shared objectives, with Ukraine proving its value through intelligence contributions.
- 🚀 Critical Intelligence: The alliance played pivotal roles in confirming Russia’s involvement in incidents like the downing of MH17 and combating Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election.
- 🤔 Misjudged Dynamics: Despite initial hesitancy from US officials fearing Russian backlash, the CIA-Ukraine collaboration grew steadily due to Ukraine’s proactive efforts and mutual benefits.
- Clandestine on X: "In case you didn’t hear, the MSM are now admitting that Ukraine is a CIA proxy.
- EnforceTheTruth on X: CIA = 2014 Maidan color evolution. Victoria Nuland. Geoffrey Pyatt. John McCain. Lindsey Graham. Amy Klobuchar. Marie Yovanovitch.
- Prevailing on Ukraine Funding, McConnell Took Political Hits - The New York Times
Mr. McConnell’s main arguments in support of Ukraine funding: that much of the federal money ultimately finds its way to U.S. companies that manufacture weapons and ammunition.“I find it really disturbing that there are people out there making the argument on both sides of the aisle, ‘No big deal, it’s helping our defense industrial base.’”
- Navalny aide asked alleged British spy for millions in funding
- HUR Chief Budanov Says Seems Navalny Died of Detached Blood Clot
“I may disappoint you, but as far as we know, he indeed died as a result of a blood clot. And this has been more or less confirmed,” Budanov told journalists on the sidelines at the “Ukraine. Year of 2024” forum on Sunday."This wasn’t sourced from the internet, but, unfortunately, natural causes,” he added.
- Ukraine-Russia war: Nato and EU members ‘considering sending troops to Ukraine’
- Nord Stream: Denmark closes investigation into pipeline blast
- 🔍 Danish authorities conclude Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines were sabotaged in September 2022.
- 🚨 Swedish investigation closed due to lack of jurisdiction.
- German authorities are still investigating the incident.
- 💣 Traces of explosives found on objects near gas line leaks.
- 🛢️ Nord Stream 1 operational from 2011 to 2022; Nord Stream 2 completed in 2021 but not used.
- 🌊 Russian ships involved in suspicious movements before the blasts according to a 2023 report by Nordic broadcasters.
Homework:
Music:
[00:00:00]
Unknown:
This morning, a crucial question takes center stage at the Supreme Court. How far can the government go in regulating political content on social media? The justices will hear arguments today about whether two laws passed in Republican-run states are constitutional. One from Florida, the other from Texas. The Florida law bans tech companies from suspending the accounts of political candidates. The Texas law makes it illegal for tech companies to remove political content based on someone's viewpoint. viewpoint, even if it's hate speech. Supporters of these laws say social media platforms have been censoring users, especially those with conservative or religious views.
But tech companies argue they have a right under the First Amendment to set their own standards to prevent misinformation. This case could have far-reaching implications from what you see about the presidential election to even how spam is regulated. Music. Oh, hello, friend, and welcome in to Unfilter, episode 380. As the election season seems to officially be moving into high gear, you've probably been getting the sense that the drive to control information and the distribution of information, the war machine and the situation in Ukraine, and even the fight for which stupid ideology wins the election stage, they all feel connected somehow. somehow.
But maybe you haven't quite put your finger on it. Well, that's what I'm going to try to do today. As you just heard there, the fight to control how and what information is managed has gone all the way to the Supreme Court here in the States. And I think you should ask yourself one question as we kick this off. If this problem of misinformation and information control is so dire, such a big problem with AI and everything that we're told. Would we not want to take a science-based, measured, sustainable approach to solving it? And wouldn't it be rational to wait until after the election to implement any major changes that would affect public discourse if we were going to do this rationally, scientifically, and measured?
So in this episode, it'll be made clear how you can draw a line from the Supreme Court case to the war machine to the elections. So boost your thoughts along as we go and we start with that court case that's happening today. To hear two cases today regarding what Americans can see on social media. The key question is whether states can limit how social media companies remove content on their platforms. ABC's Aika Jachi is in Washington. The nation's highest court hearing two arguments Monday about whether two laws passed in Republican run states are constitutional, one from Florida and the other from Texas.
The issue at hand started with the January 6th attack on the Capitol and the subsequent decision by Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Instagram and others to ban President Trump from their platforms. The Texas law prohibits social media companies from taking down political content based on on someone's viewpoint even if it's considered hate speech the florida law makes it illegal for tech companies to ban candidates on the ballot in the state from their social media sites i have to say none of this sounds particularly egregious to me um if somebody's made it all the way to be on the ballot they probably shouldn't be censored and the issue with saying that hate speech can be justification is hate speech is defined by the platform well that doesn't really make a lot of sense because the platform could be bias the platform could be acting as an editor and as a publisher which they're really not supposed to do under section 230 so i'm not really clear on what the problem is there i guess if we had a common set of laws that defined clearly the parameters of hate speech and then we all operated from that defined parameter then i could see that being effective perhaps i don't know if i would agree with it the florida law makes it illegal for tech tech companies to ban candidates on the ballot in the state from their social media sites.
Supporters of these laws say social media platforms have been censoring users, especially those with conservative or religious views. The state has an interest, a First Amendment interest, in promoting. In ensuring the free dissemination of ideas. But tech companies are arguing they have a right under the First Amendment to set their own standards to prevent misinformation. It's about government, in this case Republican government, government forcing a private platform to say something it doesn't want to say it would be like the government going into chipotle and telling them that they have to serve hamburgers because people want hamburgers now this is an interesting argument because what he said there is it's like the government forcing these platforms to say something they don't want to say, but yet again i go back their their protection under section 230 which i have that information linked in the show notes, That whole protection is dependent on them not being responsible for what their users publish, that the users are responsible for what they publish, and that the companies are not.
That's how we avoid like, you know, Slashdot from getting sued when somebody leaves a comment on there and then, you know, move that forward to today's websites. Not that Slashdot isn't, but you get my point. So it's kind of a funny argument to be making to use the First Amendment in the sort of reverse logic way to say that their First Amendment rights are being violated by them not being allowed to suppress speech. Do you see what I'm saying? It's kind of a weird reverse argument, and I don't think it's a very analogous one. For one, it violates their Section 230 protection.
But for the second reason, I think when you think about it just for a moment, they're not making an apples-to-apples comparison. comparison. Restaurants don't have an expressive right to exclude Black people or Jewish people from their restaurants because they want to make a point. Similarly, the platforms can't exclude people they don't like to make some obscure and not quite clear expressive point. The Texas and Florida laws would allow tech companies to be sued for violations. Lawmakers in both states say they're trying to regulate the business actions of tech companies, not their freedom of speech. I think what this really clearly comes down to is the control of information and what information is allowed.
And in this weird lawsuit, Texas and Florida are trying to ensure that certain people have the ability to speak. And the companies are fighting that by using their First Amendment rights to say that they have the right to suppress speech. The problem, though, I think isn't really information or misinformation. I think that's a red herring. I think the real problem is information control. We are in a season of information control because it is an election year and I think a bunch of other points that I'll get to after the music break that I think people need to consider.
But here I have a demonstration for you, how information selectively used can deceive you or at least frame a story in a way that makes it clear there's a bias or wants you to assume some sort of bias. They'll sort of lead you down a path with selective information. ABC has done this with reporting around the war in Ukraine many, many times. Here's an example. And former U.S. officials and cyber experts say that Russian President Vladimir Putin is at it again, trying to influence the U.S. Elections. Did you catch it there? Now, of course, yes, it's the Russia playbook. So obviously, that's a little distracting because unbelievably, they're pulling this one out again.
And it's remarkable because if you back this up, they are playing it exactly the same. Former U.S. officials. Well, the last time we went around, all of those former U.S. Officials that signed letters every time have all been discredited, either around the Russian threats or around Hunter's laptop. They've all been discredited. Yet here we go one more time. We're doing it again because it's an election season, and it's the same playbook. Former U.S. officials. People tell us, familiar with the matter. Former U.S. officials and cyber experts. Oh, and cyber experts. Remember the same cyber experts that were warning us about Russia hacking Trump's bank accounts.
Say that Russian President Vladimir Putin is at it again, trying to influence the U.S. election. The other reason why this is incredible is because it's provable with numbers that Russia, while yes, they did have activity on social media, really had no reach. And if you look at the money and the reach of the Trump campaign and the Clinton campaign, if you go back another election cycle, they astronomically outspent and outreached any kind of Russian advertising campaign. Astronomical number difference. But we don't talk about that. You know, the Russian reach could be measured in the tens of thousands at the max.
And the Clinton reach could be measured in the hundreds of thousands and millions. Right. The Trump reach was less, but still, I think it was somewhere like half a million. And then we're talking like tens of thousands for the Russians with their crappy little meme ads. And the ads that Facebook could identify were just that. They were crappy little meme ads. So we've never really proven that they influenced via bots. It's never actually been proven. It's always just somebody's throwaway argument when they don't have like some other explanation. And we don't, we don't have any proof that anybody actually knows this because we're We're just using the former's intelligence and the former officials, the same crap.
This is selective information. But when they just skip right over it and they just lay it down there and or maybe if you're not familiar with the context and background of this playbook, you start to receive, oh, Putin's interfering with the election again. Message received. Former U.S. officials and cyber experts say that Russian President Vladimir Putin is at it again, trying to influence the U.S. elections. This is how the media presents information to you. This is the platform that the establishment does control, because they are the establishment. I'm not saying that they are having calls from the White House or they're in smoky rooms plotting plans.
I'm saying they are the people in power. They are the rich. The people reporting are rich. The people that own these companies are rich. They're rich. which the existing system has worked really well for them. So they all have a bias towards the existing establishment. This is the information they're okay with getting out there. And these are the same people that are criticizing social media for all the crazy information that gets published, all the misinformation that gets published. You see, it's not about misinformation because this is misinformation right here. It's about control of the information. Using fake accounts and bots to disparage President Biden and also to weaken support for Ukraine and NATO.
All right, Richard, thank you. Fascinating interview. I want to mention there's a report that there possibly was a plan to free Navalny in a prisoner swap. What can you share about that? Now, we know about you probably you've probably heard about this individual who died in prison supposedly right before he was about to be freed. Now, Navali, it's a sad story there. It's a complicated story and it's a sad story either way. So I don't think it's really worth arbitrating. You know, was he a spy? Was he a journalist? Was he a tourist? I think what is what's important to recognize is that somebody died in prison, which is horrible.
What ABC does here is capitalize on that event. And they once again, they give you very one-sided information and they're clear about it. But the way they frame it, the way they discuss it, it works. And so we just watched him do it with Russiagate 2.0. And now we're going to watch him do it with Navalny. So this is a very intriguing report. It has come from Navalny's camp. So Navalny's camp, number one. His associates were still looking into what they firmly believe was his murder. And they say that there was a prisoner swap in the works, that Russia wanted one of its operatives and was potentially talking about freeing Americans and Navalny, and that this swap was in the last stages right before Navalny died suddenly in the penal colony.
This is just making the story even more dramatic. This hero who was a Putin critic, who was perhaps the key, the last remaining key figure that could take out Putin, who just happened to die in prison, he was just about to be exchanged. Now, a German official was just asked about this, was not able to confirm it. Oh, well, what would they know? We have not been able to confirm it. Oh, well, what would they know? And the Kremlin has dismissed it out of hand. Well, what would they know? But it is something that the Navalny... Now a german official was just asked about this was not able to confirm it we have not been able to confirm it right and the kremlin has dismissed it okay so you got that played it twice make sure you got it but but you know still we're reporting on it even though even though out of hand but it is something that the uh navalny uh navalny's camp is certainly looking into worth following up on that one for sure richard thank you oh yeah i'm sure they're going to follow up on that one Now, what's frustrating about that is they've had multiple hours.
That report came out this morning. Overnight, Ukraine's intelligence chief, Budanov, I'm not exactly sure how you say his name, of course, he was asked point blank by reporters what he thought the cause of death was. And here's what he says. Says, I may disappoint you. We know that it is. He actually died from a blood clot. And he goes on, I think, later to make a joke about how I know that's not what you've heard on the Internet. So the Ukraine's intelligence chief says that he died from a blood clot. Now, perhaps he was murdered in a way that invoked a blood clot. I'm not here to really arbitrate that.
My point is ABC has not reported on that bit of information. They will report on speculation from a group of people that are obviously biased, but they will not report on information that seems like it would come from a reliable source in the situation, which would be Ukraine's intelligence chief. Again, it's the control of information, and that's vital in a war. Zelensky sat down with NBC's Richard. Richard. Thank you. I just returned from several areas along the front line in the south and in the east. And soldiers there told me they have to ration their ammunition.
What happens to your country if this American aid doesn't arrive? And I don't really I don't really think this question makes a lot of sense because the aid isn't going to be able to magically increase our ammo production. We just simply cannot provide them with enough ammo. We will lose a lot of people. We will lose territories. Do you think the United States wants Ukraine to win this war? So if we don't help, they're going to lose a lot of people. That logic doesn't hold up either. Because if we do help, it only prolongs the war and it kills more Ukrainians.
Now, you could double check this, but the last stat that I read is that the average Ukrainian soldier is in their 40s, which means there's some old men in there. Because that's the average. So if they're running low on ammo and they're running low on soldiers, it seems like prolonging the war is only going to increase deaths and the likelihood that you'll have to surrender more territory. Then he asked, does the U.S. want you to win? Well, what is Zelensky going to say? Of course, he's going to say yes. He wants the money. People, we will lose territories.
Do you think the United States wants Ukraine to win this war? Or do they just want you to weaken Russia and contain Russia? I hope so. We count on our partners. and I hope that it's not only words. In Washington, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan on Meet the Press. Of course Ukraine can win. Of course. He doesn't provide any substantive way they could actually do that, but of course, how could you ask that? How could you ask that? Jake says, how could you ask that? In Washington, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan on Meet the Press. Of course Ukraine can win, but it can only do so if it has the tools that it needs.
And that is why the United States needs to deliver the aid package. The House needs to step up and pass that bill. Boy, the Biden administration just loves war so much. And of course, if we just got them some more tools, that's all it takes. They just need a few more tools, not bodies or landmass or money. They just need tools. Oh, what's that? Tools are money and bodies? Oh. President Zelensky warning against appeasing President Putin. The world will not stop him. He will do it till 2030. So this is the entire premise of why we must continue to support Ukraine. It's vital we support Ukraine because if we don't stop Putin in Ukraine.
He will spread out everywhere until 2040 and take over all of Europe. You know, I don't know if many people listening to the show will actually remember this, but this was actually the same argument that kept us in the Vietnam War for way, way too long. And I just don't simply see a path to success for Ukraine. I never have. And I don't think you're being told how bad the situation is. The BBC has reported on it, but we don't see it reported here. These are the patrols many Ukrainian men now dread. Conscription officers like Pavlo hunting for draft dodgers.
Ukraine needs a lot more soldiers, but they're not flooding to the front lines anymore. So some have to be caught and cajoled. Pavlo lost his arm near in a mortar attack. But he wanted to go on serving his country. So now he looks for other men who can still fight. There's a full-scale war, but it's still like people don't care. We need everyone to come together like they did on the first day. Everyone was united then, like brothers. But when I ask about friends who've served with him, Pavlo tells me there's almost no one left from his company. Everyone's either injured like me or dead. Yikes.
Yikes. Mark my words, the only way this war continues, and I hate to say this, European countries are going to have to start sending soldiers. And other countries besides the U.S. Are going to have to take a more active role, and they have been. During an election year, the Biden administration has to back off a little bit. You'll see his surrogates out there. My governor is one of them. I'm so proud, so proud of my little governor who's going out there and just campaigning for more war on behalf of Biden. And apparently his surrogate up in Canada, Justin Trudeau, is preparing to send more money and weapons to Ukraine because Canadians are doing so well.
As Russia's invasion approaches its second grim anniversary, Ukraine continues to struggle. The latest loss, the city of Avdiivka falling to Moscow. Canada has a responsibility to help Ukraine win back its territory. The defence minister announced what Forum Ottawa's new help will take. Some 800 drones worth nearly $100 million from a previously announced assistance package, capable of surveillance as well as carrying small payloads of munitions. We work very closely with Ukrainian industry, Ukrainian military and their government to determine what they need.
But Ukraine needs more than just drones. It was forced to ration ammunition as Russia swept through Avdivka. It just seems so pointless. So Canadian listeners, boost in and tell me what you think about your government doubling down as the U.S. begins to slow down a little bit. And if you could explain something to me, I'm very sincere about this, please do. Because the line that we're being sold right now to try to get us all on board one last time with supporting Ukraine with one last really big bill is that we should all calm down. Don't worry so much because all of this spending on Ukraine is just going to benefit the United States.
It all goes back to the war machine here in the United States. So is that true for Canadian contributions or is it going to your military industrial complex somehow? If anybody has any insights on that, boost in and share that with me. But I want to play this clip. This is Mitch McConnell. Eight months ago, he said this multiple times, but he talked so slow. This is the tightest I could get it. He's not doing so well, guys. But eight months ago, he made it clear why we should all be on board with spending in the Ukraine. Russia. Third, most of the money that's been appropriated for Ukraine's security assistance, doesn't actually go to Ukraine. Oh?
It gets invested in American defense manufacturing. It funds new weapons and munitions for U.S. Armed forces to replace the older material we provided to Ukraine. Show me the money! I mean, just this week. Vicky Newland, the old F the EU champ herself and Biden's war hawk showed up on CNN to not only really reaffirm how committed we are to Ukraine, but how all the money coming right back to us is great. It is. And I do hear you and the others in the administration and supporters talking about the vital necessity to do this. But as people say, hope is not a strategy. And do you have any actual belief or reason to believe that eventually this bill will be paid?
And if not, how are you going to make sure Ukraine gets vital weapons and ammunition? Christian, I have strong confidence that when the House comes back after they've been out in their districts hearing from the American people, after they have heard from Ukraine, they have heard from Europe. Why would our representatives care what Ukraine and Europe say? I mean, everyone should care about the global community to a degree. But these representatives are literally hired to represent a specific area of the country. So why? Why are they taking in what Ukraine has to say at all about their war?
The entire premise is silly. And I maintain that the Democrats don't really want you to know how war hawkish they've become. And when you listen to Vicky here, you can hear the thirst for war. If you didn't know who she was and I told you that she was a Dick Cheney surrogate, you would believe me. Because these might as well be the words of Dick Cheney himself. Districts hearing from the american people after they have heard from ukraine they have heard from europe which by the way just passed 54 billion in additional aid itself that we will do what we have always done which is defend democracy and freedom around the world not just for victims of tyrants like putin but in our own interest in preserving a free and open international order that's what what we need to do. We've done it before.
And by the way, we have to remember that the bulk of this money is going right back into the U.S. economy. Yeah, so it's great. It's great. And they actually are not wrong. If you look at the source of GDP growth for the last couple of years for the United States, it's primarily government and military-industrial complex and medical. But a big portion of it is government jobs related to the war in Ukraine and the military-industrial complex and their related industries and companies like Raytheon, Boeing, et cetera. We all know the names. That's where our GDP growth is coming from. And the overall fact that the cost of goods is just more because of inflation. So people are spending more.
So it kind of kind of screws with the GDP as well. But she's right. She's right in a sense. Now, that doesn't justify the mass killing and all of the money laundering that happens and no doubt the types of political influence games that get played and the mass corruption that this generates and causes and the fact that. John Kerry's family and Nancy Pelosi's family and Joe Biden's family and others all have business ties to Ukraine. You know, none of that really changes. But she's right that, you know, a good portion of the money comes back to us eventually after we squeeze it away. We have to remember that the bulk of this money is going right back into the U.S. economy to make those weapons, including good paying jobs in some 40 states across the United States. Yeah, man.
What? You want people to lose their jobs? What are you, a monster? We can't stop this war now. These are good jobs. Who cares about lives? Who cares about lives? Wait a minute. Wait a minute. The same political party that was arguing during COVID that we should shut up about business and money and protect lives at the cost of the economy and screwing over the Western economy now for the last two to four years, whatever it's been, three years. The same people that told us lives were more important than anything else, that we all had to mandate a vaccine that you needed to take, a vaccine that was under an emergency use authorization that hadn't been tested at mass scale. you need to take it immediately to protect lives.
But now we're being told, but jobs are at stake. Who cares about the lives? Jobs are at stake, bro. It's funny how you just wait a couple of months or a couple of years or whatever. You can wait just long enough if you're patient and watch them flip and realize they actually have no moral compass. They're just taking whatever side is politically convenient for them. So it's very important that they control the information that you get. And by the way, and by the way, it's great for us. It's just great for us. So go vote for Democrats. And the funny thing is, and not that I'm really, I'm not really saying the situation would actually be any better under Trump.
I don't, I'm not a person that believes that the war didn't kick off in Ukraine because Trump was in office. Trump actually helped militarize Ukraine and got them ready. The issue was that Ukraine wasn't ready. Lindsey Graham, John McCain, they were ready to go in 2013, 2014, 2015. They were ready to go, but Ukraine wasn't. That's one of the things Zelensky said in an interview recently, is that they needed time to prepare for war, to get the people psychologically prepared, he said that, and to get themselves, you know, organized. Not to mention he won as a pro-peace candidate, so he needed time to pivot politically himself.
See, I'm not really so sure we wouldn't have ended up in the same exact situation with Trump. I think it's worse with Biden, to be honest with you, because he's incompetent and it's being run by a committee that doesn't know what the hell they're doing and is being advised by war hawks like Vic Newlin there. So I think it's probably worse with Biden. But whoever is in power. They like to cloak the blame for their failures as if it's an attack on the establishment. So, while I hold individual leadership responsible for the decisions they make, as we all should, and as these idiotic decisions stack up over time, the anger and the vitriol from the people that vote grows.
It seems obvious. But, of course, if you're in power, you can't admit that you're a failure and you're a disappointment, so you have to pivot the blame. And so this is something, again, that is absolutely critical for information control. I'm not going to talk about internal European dynamics, but I will say that in all of our democracies, in every democracy around the world. This is your buddy, Justin Trudeau, the surrogate for Joe Biden up in Canada. We are seeing a rising movements of either authoritarian populism or skepticism about democracy itself.
He touches on it there just for a moment. Skepticism for democracy itself. Well, what he's really saying, but he's using it in sort of newspeak language. We are seeing across the board historical lows in trust for every major institution. From private institutions to government institutions, across the board, because we have seen, day after day, reasons to distrust all of these things. Some people spin out of control. Others refuse to look at it. Some people, I like to think like myself, are somewhere in the middle there. And it's completely reasonable to be skeptical of the medical industry.
It's skeptical of the White House. Look at how they run everything. Skeptical of the Canadian government. Look at inflation. What's happened in the West with inflation alone is enough for all of us to be skeptical of our governments right now. But they twist it because it would then be an indictment on them. So Justin sees it as an attack on all of our institutions. It's skepticism, as he puts it, not bankrupt trust. Authoritarian populism or skepticism about democracy itself. For just as a mental exercise, when he says populism, replace that with the people. Populism, the word is being charged to mean right-wing, but populism really is just the people and what the people want, what their interests are. That's populism.
It gets called a bad thing now because they have no representative. A rising movements of either authoritarian populism or skepticism about democracy itself. And we all need to recommit ourselves to standing up not just for ukraine but through standing up for ukraine to the very principles that make our countries strong and free and how sick and twisted is this he's saying by committing more ukrainians to die by committing another country's people to die we protect democracy back here at home it's this twist and perversion that undermines our our trust and our faith in him and the very institutions.
He is the one that is attacking the trust and the faith, but he turns it around back on you, and then he immediately uses his split tongue to undermine the faith in his very office. So he slams populism for it, and then he does it, within the span of a few seconds. Not just for Ukraine, but through standing up for Ukraine to the very principles that make our countries strong and free. It is a time where citizens cannot take their democracies for granted, need to continue to be there, to lean in, not just on being worried about their daily challenges. I love it when somebody tells you you should lean in on being worried about something. That's always a great sign.
Which are significant everywhere around the world right now. I wonder why our daily challenges are significant everywhere around the world right now. I wonder who's been in power for the last few years that has made a string of decisions that have led to policies that have caused housing to explode exponentially in Canada. I know that they've made some chicken shit moves to try to cool that down, but let's be real. It's policy stacked on policy over years that have caused that very problem, led by that office. Not just on being worried about their daily challenges, which are significant everywhere around the world right now, but making sure we are building peace, stability and prosperity for future generations as well.
And that means standing up unequivocally for the international rules-based order, standing for democracy, against authoritarianism, against illegal invasions. So let's back up. Let's back up. So it's interesting how he keeps blurring Ukraine and populism and the lack of support as sort of the same as being against democracy, which is so silly. It's so, so, so silly. For democracy, against authoritarianism. Authoritarianism being populism, populism being the right. That's what he's saying. Authoritarian, he already said it earlier, authoritarian populism, which is a charged code word for the right, for the conservatives.
So in order to save democracy, you cannot vote for the conservatives. You can only vote for his party. That's the same argument Joe Biden is making down here. In order to save democracy, we must only vote for one party going forward, which is bonkers. It's it's an argument that this is is circularly illogic on its face it's not going to hold up but yet trudeau's making that argument and biden's making that argument that the only way to save democracy is to only vote for one party to have a uniparty it's silly national rules-based order, standing for democracy against authoritarianism against illegal invasions of another country's sovereignty.
These are principles that are under discussion in every country around the world. God, what has happened to Canada? My goodness. My goodness. Canada is the war hawk. What part of the war hawk crew now? I wonder how folks up there feel about that. It just feels like just Canada just doesn't need to be involved at all. And to draw a comparison that if you You don't support the war in Ukraine. You don't support democracy. It's so gross. It's gaslighting. And it's not even very good gaslighting. And I think maybe that's what offends me the most at the end of the day is that the type of bullshitting that Trudeau does isn't even very good.
It's not very good. And so it's not even like I feel like I can't believe he thinks this works. Let's take a break. I want to share my thoughts on all of this but I want to take a little bit of a music break first, and to have time to process if you boost in during this track 90% of the sats will go to the artist who created the track this is rub you raw by chore boy. Music. All right, I wanted to share some thoughts on why I think we're in what I'm calling a season of information control. And I think it really starts politically. No one actually represents the people. There are powerful politicians that represent plenty of special interest groups, but there's nobody in there lobbying for everyday folks.
Small business people know how this feels, and now the middle class is really learning how it feels. And the reality is the people in power don't do anything for the people as a result they don't have to they can spin us up about issues that could never really fully be solved that will always be perma problems while they will jointly agree on issues that really debase our country, you know where they agree is always where it screws the people again because they don't represent us anymore. Additionally, I think that's a result, and I say additionally, and it is a result of 40 years of fiscal policy that have just destroyed the middle class.
We have been getting absolutely destroyed by policies, by trade policy, by fiscal management policy, and we haven't really noticed as an average citizenry because while this was happening, things were getting outsourced to cheap labor. Things were getting cheaper to ship, cheaper to make. And so things felt all right for the middle class. We could buy pretty much everything we needed. But the luxury is fading. and we don't have the tools to get back there right now. But we can't have the people getting upset. You can't have the people getting upset. And then, tied in with all of this is inflation.
And I think if you really understood how badly the management class has fucked you with inflation, you'd be practically radicalized. If you're not furious, then you don't understand what's been going on. And they don't want you to know. What I have realized in the last two years as I've become more financially literate, is that the vast, vast, vast majority of the people are financially illiterate. Here, in the UK, in Europe, I'm shocked. Very, very few people are financially literate. And the ones that are, if they were at a younger age, are rich. I mean, it's especially when you understand what's been going on since 2008.
And then lastly, this country is addicted to war. We can't own it, though, because we have this narrative about, you know, being the best in the world and the land of the free. But the system's addicted to war and the war machine owns many of the politicians. So all of this comes together to create an environment where mediocre establishment candidates need to be continued to be reelected like Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton. And on the right, they don't quite have the organization that the left does. The DNC has a tight control over the elections for the Democratic Party. The right doesn't really have that same thing for the Republican candidate.
And this all goes back to 2016's election. People who know me know that I say this quite often. The left made a choice to sabotage Bernie Sanders. To make sure that Hillary was their candidate, a candidate the people didn't want, an established pro-war candidate that the people just don't want. They don't want a pro-war establishment candidate. And the Republican Party tried to run every candidate they could but Trump. And the media laughed at him every step of the way. But they didn't have the organization behind the scenes to sabotage him like they did at the DNC with Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
And John Podesta. Unfortunately, they seem to be just running a little bit of a more, I guess, legit ship over there, or less organized is probably what it is at the Republican Party. So a populist candidate got on the ticket, Donald Trump. Bernie was the less populist candidate, but they destroyed him, and now he's just their lapdog. Totally ineffectual. Embarrassing. Embarrassing. But the result is that only one party in the united states allows for a populist candidate and it is the right and so you're always going to get a populist candidate that leans right you always will if they would have let bernie run you would have had one that leaned left, i i think rfk is probably a populist and he would have ran as a democrat happily but they didn't want rfk they do they're doing it again they're too scared of these fringe as they would put it candidates because they need the system to continue as it is they, they need things to stay established if you will like they can't have somebody coming in and screwing up a good deal which is part of the reason why they hate trump so much amongst all the other reasons so this is why we have to control the information i have some homework for you it's easier than reading broken money but if you have not read broken money yet please do, but i have some homework for you i have a link called media misses or media miss from full measure in the show notes i'd like you to spend 10 minutes watching this.
I won't argue it probably is a little bias, but they bring the receipts and they really do a fan. The best one of the best comparisons I have done I have seen yet. And I've tried to do some myself of how the media covers Biden versus Trump. And they really bring a lot of the receipts. And it's fantastic to help you kind of frame your mind and be a little more critical about how things get covered as we get into the election, because it's like they're just going right back to that playbook. We did get some fantastic boosts into the show. Thank you, everybody who boosts in. You know, I think when I talk about the media landscape, it's so clear podcasts have a role here.
As clearly one of the free distributed platforms for information. You know, there isn't an AI yet that's controlling RSS feeds. And I don't see how it could be possible as long as an initiative like Podcasting 2.0 is successful, you know, because the core tenet of Podcasting 2.0 is to keep podcasting decentralized. And that's why I think there is a role for you to play here, too, in information distribution. You need to adopt an application that uses Podcasting 2.0. You need to figure out how to boost. You have to keep the information flow free. And this is a moment where each individually, each of us, can take action and ensure that this happens.
This is a really rare moment where boots-on-the-ground adoption to keep information flow free can just happen by adopting a podcast client and supporting a content creator who's distributing information that you think is worth supporting. Because information does change minds over time. time. Understanding how all this works, especially what they've done with the dollar, it undercuts all of their gaslighting. It does take time, but reality eventually returns to the baseline. It will happen. It happens by freely sharing information. And I think podcasts are our best bet here. So please go get a new podcast app at podcastapps.com.
I think if you're just getting started, the integration of Fountain and the Strike app, those are two different apps, but the integration makes it really straightforward. If you like the GPL and you think the freedom thing is something that you want to keep going and supporting, I understand, brother. Podverse could be the way for you to go. And if you're on iOS, Cast-O-Matic is fantastic. Either way, I'd like you to consider there's a way you can directly contribute. And you also can keep this show going with boosts. It's how I would like to get feedback into the show, too. Constructive criticism as well.
Your take on things that I talk about. All of that in here. And JJ Jammer J comes in as our baller booster this week. So he is our Rich Lobster. Hey, Rich Lobster! He says, thanks for bringing Unfilter back. The show was sorely missed. I appreciate your viewpoint on current events, especially when framed through your lived experiences. Also grateful in general for the app picks, workflow suggestions, and other resources you have linked over the years. I'm going to try to do that more. I'm going to try to do that more. I have the Media Miss YouTube video just because I think that's a mental framework that will help you form when you watch news coverage, but tools and workflow, that is on my mind a lot, JJ.
Thank you, though, for that big boost. I appreciate that very much. You are a baller this week. Renegade MMXV. That's probably Roman numerals, huh? You're not doing too bad yourself with 200 sats. This is your show is absolutely. Required for these times. When I started listening years ago, your voice of reason was the biggest reason I moved from one side of the political spectrum to the middle. And then I started seeing the bigger picture. I've been consuming 20 to 40 hours a week of political commentary podcasts from all sides for the last few years, and this show is still among the best.
Wow. Let me know if there's anything I can do to make it easier. Wow. Wow. Renegade, maybe we should talk. You know, I'm kind of shopping for co-hosts. I mean, that's a big responsibility. But if you're consuming that much media, I think you should put it to good work or you should stop it because it's not healthy, man. I have been there. I bring in quite a bit of media myself, and I have to sometimes make sure that I'm keeping my mental health in check because they'll just wear you down. Thank you for that boost. Bitcoin Lizard comes in with 100,000 sats. I'm a duck. D-U-K duck. Loaded with talent. Oh, thank you, Bitcoin Lizard. He says, I was very happy to see a new episode of him filter in my feed.
I think you've returned just in time. Welcome back, Chris. You know, I hope. I'm trying to not overdo it. I don't want to just crank out episodes. I mean, I could make one every day with what's going on. But I'm trying to contribute where I think I have a unique perspective. I'm specifically trying to hone in on topics that maybe people are close to kind of putting their finger on or people aren't talking about. Out. Like, I still don't think people are talking about the fact that the U.S. Through many administrations and now particularly under the Biden administration is essentially having a little Cold War with the EU.
I think that's getting missed still. And I'm still standing by that call. But, you know, there's other things. There's so much there's so much media out there now. There's other things that just get covered to death. And so I don't really I don't really plan to talk about that much. But I imagine as the election gets closer, Things are just gonna get cranked up in general. And when I get through the spring travel season, I can see that all kind of landing around the same time and perhaps the frequency of the show. Will kick up when that when that occurs that's kind of what i suspect right now i'm just kind of moderating it to where i think i can uniquely contribute uh but the boosts are a big part of what keeps the momentum going as well i know it's silly but as somebody who puts a lot of, heart and soul into this work and creative energy into it the boosts are an affirmation of your that work is worth your time people appreciate it and so when you see the boost come in it's a motivator to keep on going so i appreciate every single one and our next one comes from listener Jeff with 40,000 sats.
Alright. It's just great to see Unfiltered back. I think the show would do well without a weekly due date. Oh, good. I was just talking about that. I can see you somehow pumped a few more episodes out before I could even boost this one. Don't go into neural debt, though, since I'm making those mental purchases and bringing back the receipts. I would be happy to only hear from you when they're ready with receipts in hand. Thanks for the killer show. Well, Jeff, That's just what I was thinking. I honestly had not – I saw like the first sentence about great to see the show back. I had not read the rest yet before I went into that whole thing.
Well, that's kind of what I'm thinking. It does mean every now and then I'll hit a couple out back to back. That might just be because there's a couple of topics that land. And then I think there's also – it will be if this strikes my fancy I suppose or you – somebody boosts with a really great idea. A lot's gone down over the last two years. I could always revisit, too. But I imagine we'll probably be too busy with current events right now. Karamedo comes in, I think maybe, with 20,000 sats using Fountain. And he writes, I didn't realize this podcast existed until I noticed people boosting on Fountain.
That started to spark my interest. Didn't take long to recognize the familiar voice of Chris. Sounds a bit different, though. Long story short, I'm hooked on yet another show from my absolute favorite podcaster. Oh, my gosh. Gosh, Carol Mado, that is so sweet. Thank you. So if you're new to the podcasting 2.0 and the boosting stuff and all this, I know I'm throwing a lot of terms at you. Stick with me. Like osmosis, you'll pick it up over time. And what Carol here is saying is that when you boost into the show using the Fountain app, it puts us on a leaderboard.
And last episode got to like number two or three on the top episodes of Fountain, and we found a bunch of new audience that way. So it's a fan not only are you financially supporting the show and you get to send a message in that i'll read but you'll also help with discovery in the fountain charts which brings in quite a bit of listeners and there's a lot of like-minded listeners over there so that really actually moves the needle for the show, And it's great to kind of get that established as the election warms up. Stigley, S-D-I-G-G-L-Y, Stigley, comes in with 5,000 sats, is so pumped to have unfiltered back.
And yes, this prompted me to learn Fountain. Heck, yes, yes. Good for you. You know what? This is what you get. You get a pew, pew, pew for your work right there. I appreciate that. Sir Sean McCune of Alagalley Valley. I love that. Oh, came in with 10,000 sats, boosting for the return of Unfilter. You're doing a good job. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that. Sir Lurksalot comes in with 2,674 sats. Hey, Lurks. Nice to see you. B-O-O-S-T. He likes the song choice from last week. He says, but you're going to make a poor man out of me if you keep putting out such great content.
Hey, boy, that would be a good problem to have for both of us. Thank you for the book recommendations. You and the Bitcoin dad have been must listens, real educations. I always pause it at the show when one comes out so I can catch it. Well, thank you. The Bitcoin dad's going on a bit of a hiatus. But there is a big back catalog. And if financial literacy is high on your list, skim through that back catalog because a lot of macroeconomic discussion happens there. Not just from a Bitcoin perspective, which might be useful for you, but just in general because the Bitcoin dad has an economics background.
So it makes for a really interesting discussion because we are living. In fascinating times. Thank you, Lurks. Anonymous podcast guru user comes in with 10,000 sats to say thanks. It's over 9,000! And user 298, you can always set your username in fountain, comes in with 10,000 sats. It's over 9,000! And he writes, or they write, so glad to have the show back. It's the only source I ever found that allows me to truly be informed. I was just about to email and ask for help with podcasting 2.0 and boosting when you started talking about it yourself. yourself.
So I did. About doing it yourself. So I did. Oh, yeah, I did go on a little rant. I was tired or something. I'm really impressed. You figured it out, actually. You know, I know. I said, go figure it out, man. Go do the work. I know. I don't mean to sound like a dad, but sometimes you do. You know what? I can't help it. I've been one for 15 years. So sometimes. I really appreciate that boost. Thank you for coming in with that nice, generous boost, too. Southern Fraud Sassafras comes in with 2,222 sats, also known as a road ducks. Sassafras says you know i was a little worried about trying out this show oh did i i might have read this one before i'm not sure because i didn't have my list it says i was worried it would just be uh confirmation biases but uh maybe it'd even get me upset at chris's politics that could always be a danger but i was pleasantly surprised on uh on on how it went um he said also uh i would love to have a couple more books to add to the reading list so thanks for that well good i'm glad that that you were pleasantly surprised with how it went.
DPG comes in with 4,444 sats. Quacka quacka, it's a treasure. Yippee! I was so excited when I heard Unfilter was back on Coder way back in 2013. Eric Kroll using a clip from the archives for a school presentation. Oh, he used it for the school presentation. Love the show. Thank you very much, DPG. Todd Banner came in with 10,000 sats to say, glad you're back. You've got a committed listener, and I just have to figure out this boost thing. Oh, I just figured it out this week. I'm glad I could share some here and with Coder. Todd, you're on fire, buddy. Great job. Thank you very much. Boost!
I really appreciate that. You get a Janeway boost. There's coffee in that nebula. KP comes back with a Spaceballs boost, which is 12,345 sats. So the culmination is one, two, three, four, five. That's the stupidest culmination I ever heard in my life. He writes, dang it, Chris. I was trying to save some sats up for Coder, but I cannot not give you some value back for this one. One of the most informational episodes I've ever listened to in any podcast. Whoa. Unfilter has been sorely missed. I will shoot higher. Jesus. I'm going to delete this one now. I feel like maybe I peaked.
Saints and Sats no probably not Saints and Sats comes in with a thousand Sats says as a veteran I really feel for the soldiers stationed in these tiny poorly defended bases and tasked with small scale invading of a sovereign country Syria wants them out Israel wants them dead and their civilian leadership is criminally incompetent talk about a no win situation. Yeah yeah absolutely we also had other folks boost this week saying that they found us on Fountain thanks to the boosts and showing up on the charts because we had 28 boosters which is really, really incredible and we managed to stack an incredible 754,857 sets!
That is fantastic and I really appreciate that number because the show is a ton of work so that does feel like value for value. That's the idea here with the show is never going to try to get it sponsored. I always think this type of discussion should be for the people that are listening to it only, not for a sponsor audience. You know, not for a YouTube audience where I need to be YouTube friendly and not get demonetized. Like that just is never going to work for this show. The idea with value for value is that if you got some value from a conversation that happened in this episode or some information or something I said, if you want to hear more episodes, you contribute a little bit value back.
It keeps everything going. And then I, as a small business person, like, hey, you know what? I'm getting value for the time I spend there because that is part of – there is that element to it. But all in all, I also just love the messages. They're just so great. It's something about it. It's something about the whole system. and the podcasting 2.0 initiative itself to keep podcasting decentralized is something i'm really passionate about i think that's really super important i want to wrap it up on a value for value song that's part of all of this too which i think is really unique podcasting hasn't had access to music like this before just haven't really had this as an option but now thanks to the podcasting 2.0 spec we can do what's called magic wallet switching technology and when the song plays we can switch the boost over to the artist to compensate them and they get a few sats That's for coming here and letting me play it on the show. And I get to play their music.
And it's also helping with discovery for them. It's helping these independent artists get discovered. And assuming everything works with the system when I publish, the name of the track should be in the chapter. So if you have a new podcast app, it'll show you their album art. And the chapter name will change to the name of the song. And in most cases, you should be able to tap that and it'll actually take you to a webpage where you can get the song. Isn't that cool? So I'm going to wrap it up here with Burning Room by Oli, one of my favorite Value for Value artists.
Thank you so much for joining me on this episode of Unfilter, and I'll see you next time. We can't be over. Music.
This morning, a crucial question takes center stage at the Supreme Court. How far can the government go in regulating political content on social media? The justices will hear arguments today about whether two laws passed in Republican-run states are constitutional. One from Florida, the other from Texas. The Florida law bans tech companies from suspending the accounts of political candidates. The Texas law makes it illegal for tech companies to remove political content based on someone's viewpoint. viewpoint, even if it's hate speech. Supporters of these laws say social media platforms have been censoring users, especially those with conservative or religious views.
But tech companies argue they have a right under the First Amendment to set their own standards to prevent misinformation. This case could have far-reaching implications from what you see about the presidential election to even how spam is regulated. Music. Oh, hello, friend, and welcome in to Unfilter, episode 380. As the election season seems to officially be moving into high gear, you've probably been getting the sense that the drive to control information and the distribution of information, the war machine and the situation in Ukraine, and even the fight for which stupid ideology wins the election stage, they all feel connected somehow. somehow.
But maybe you haven't quite put your finger on it. Well, that's what I'm going to try to do today. As you just heard there, the fight to control how and what information is managed has gone all the way to the Supreme Court here in the States. And I think you should ask yourself one question as we kick this off. If this problem of misinformation and information control is so dire, such a big problem with AI and everything that we're told. Would we not want to take a science-based, measured, sustainable approach to solving it? And wouldn't it be rational to wait until after the election to implement any major changes that would affect public discourse if we were going to do this rationally, scientifically, and measured?
So in this episode, it'll be made clear how you can draw a line from the Supreme Court case to the war machine to the elections. So boost your thoughts along as we go and we start with that court case that's happening today. To hear two cases today regarding what Americans can see on social media. The key question is whether states can limit how social media companies remove content on their platforms. ABC's Aika Jachi is in Washington. The nation's highest court hearing two arguments Monday about whether two laws passed in Republican run states are constitutional, one from Florida and the other from Texas.
The issue at hand started with the January 6th attack on the Capitol and the subsequent decision by Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Instagram and others to ban President Trump from their platforms. The Texas law prohibits social media companies from taking down political content based on on someone's viewpoint even if it's considered hate speech the florida law makes it illegal for tech companies to ban candidates on the ballot in the state from their social media sites i have to say none of this sounds particularly egregious to me um if somebody's made it all the way to be on the ballot they probably shouldn't be censored and the issue with saying that hate speech can be justification is hate speech is defined by the platform well that doesn't really make a lot of sense because the platform could be bias the platform could be acting as an editor and as a publisher which they're really not supposed to do under section 230 so i'm not really clear on what the problem is there i guess if we had a common set of laws that defined clearly the parameters of hate speech and then we all operated from that defined parameter then i could see that being effective perhaps i don't know if i would agree with it the florida law makes it illegal for tech tech companies to ban candidates on the ballot in the state from their social media sites.
Supporters of these laws say social media platforms have been censoring users, especially those with conservative or religious views. The state has an interest, a First Amendment interest, in promoting. In ensuring the free dissemination of ideas. But tech companies are arguing they have a right under the First Amendment to set their own standards to prevent misinformation. It's about government, in this case Republican government, government forcing a private platform to say something it doesn't want to say it would be like the government going into chipotle and telling them that they have to serve hamburgers because people want hamburgers now this is an interesting argument because what he said there is it's like the government forcing these platforms to say something they don't want to say, but yet again i go back their their protection under section 230 which i have that information linked in the show notes, That whole protection is dependent on them not being responsible for what their users publish, that the users are responsible for what they publish, and that the companies are not.
That's how we avoid like, you know, Slashdot from getting sued when somebody leaves a comment on there and then, you know, move that forward to today's websites. Not that Slashdot isn't, but you get my point. So it's kind of a funny argument to be making to use the First Amendment in the sort of reverse logic way to say that their First Amendment rights are being violated by them not being allowed to suppress speech. Do you see what I'm saying? It's kind of a weird reverse argument, and I don't think it's a very analogous one. For one, it violates their Section 230 protection.
But for the second reason, I think when you think about it just for a moment, they're not making an apples-to-apples comparison. comparison. Restaurants don't have an expressive right to exclude Black people or Jewish people from their restaurants because they want to make a point. Similarly, the platforms can't exclude people they don't like to make some obscure and not quite clear expressive point. The Texas and Florida laws would allow tech companies to be sued for violations. Lawmakers in both states say they're trying to regulate the business actions of tech companies, not their freedom of speech. I think what this really clearly comes down to is the control of information and what information is allowed.
And in this weird lawsuit, Texas and Florida are trying to ensure that certain people have the ability to speak. And the companies are fighting that by using their First Amendment rights to say that they have the right to suppress speech. The problem, though, I think isn't really information or misinformation. I think that's a red herring. I think the real problem is information control. We are in a season of information control because it is an election year and I think a bunch of other points that I'll get to after the music break that I think people need to consider.
But here I have a demonstration for you, how information selectively used can deceive you or at least frame a story in a way that makes it clear there's a bias or wants you to assume some sort of bias. They'll sort of lead you down a path with selective information. ABC has done this with reporting around the war in Ukraine many, many times. Here's an example. And former U.S. officials and cyber experts say that Russian President Vladimir Putin is at it again, trying to influence the U.S. Elections. Did you catch it there? Now, of course, yes, it's the Russia playbook. So obviously, that's a little distracting because unbelievably, they're pulling this one out again.
And it's remarkable because if you back this up, they are playing it exactly the same. Former U.S. officials. Well, the last time we went around, all of those former U.S. Officials that signed letters every time have all been discredited, either around the Russian threats or around Hunter's laptop. They've all been discredited. Yet here we go one more time. We're doing it again because it's an election season, and it's the same playbook. Former U.S. officials. People tell us, familiar with the matter. Former U.S. officials and cyber experts. Oh, and cyber experts. Remember the same cyber experts that were warning us about Russia hacking Trump's bank accounts.
Say that Russian President Vladimir Putin is at it again, trying to influence the U.S. election. The other reason why this is incredible is because it's provable with numbers that Russia, while yes, they did have activity on social media, really had no reach. And if you look at the money and the reach of the Trump campaign and the Clinton campaign, if you go back another election cycle, they astronomically outspent and outreached any kind of Russian advertising campaign. Astronomical number difference. But we don't talk about that. You know, the Russian reach could be measured in the tens of thousands at the max.
And the Clinton reach could be measured in the hundreds of thousands and millions. Right. The Trump reach was less, but still, I think it was somewhere like half a million. And then we're talking like tens of thousands for the Russians with their crappy little meme ads. And the ads that Facebook could identify were just that. They were crappy little meme ads. So we've never really proven that they influenced via bots. It's never actually been proven. It's always just somebody's throwaway argument when they don't have like some other explanation. And we don't, we don't have any proof that anybody actually knows this because we're We're just using the former's intelligence and the former officials, the same crap.
This is selective information. But when they just skip right over it and they just lay it down there and or maybe if you're not familiar with the context and background of this playbook, you start to receive, oh, Putin's interfering with the election again. Message received. Former U.S. officials and cyber experts say that Russian President Vladimir Putin is at it again, trying to influence the U.S. elections. This is how the media presents information to you. This is the platform that the establishment does control, because they are the establishment. I'm not saying that they are having calls from the White House or they're in smoky rooms plotting plans.
I'm saying they are the people in power. They are the rich. The people reporting are rich. The people that own these companies are rich. They're rich. which the existing system has worked really well for them. So they all have a bias towards the existing establishment. This is the information they're okay with getting out there. And these are the same people that are criticizing social media for all the crazy information that gets published, all the misinformation that gets published. You see, it's not about misinformation because this is misinformation right here. It's about control of the information. Using fake accounts and bots to disparage President Biden and also to weaken support for Ukraine and NATO.
All right, Richard, thank you. Fascinating interview. I want to mention there's a report that there possibly was a plan to free Navalny in a prisoner swap. What can you share about that? Now, we know about you probably you've probably heard about this individual who died in prison supposedly right before he was about to be freed. Now, Navali, it's a sad story there. It's a complicated story and it's a sad story either way. So I don't think it's really worth arbitrating. You know, was he a spy? Was he a journalist? Was he a tourist? I think what is what's important to recognize is that somebody died in prison, which is horrible.
What ABC does here is capitalize on that event. And they once again, they give you very one-sided information and they're clear about it. But the way they frame it, the way they discuss it, it works. And so we just watched him do it with Russiagate 2.0. And now we're going to watch him do it with Navalny. So this is a very intriguing report. It has come from Navalny's camp. So Navalny's camp, number one. His associates were still looking into what they firmly believe was his murder. And they say that there was a prisoner swap in the works, that Russia wanted one of its operatives and was potentially talking about freeing Americans and Navalny, and that this swap was in the last stages right before Navalny died suddenly in the penal colony.
This is just making the story even more dramatic. This hero who was a Putin critic, who was perhaps the key, the last remaining key figure that could take out Putin, who just happened to die in prison, he was just about to be exchanged. Now, a German official was just asked about this, was not able to confirm it. Oh, well, what would they know? We have not been able to confirm it. Oh, well, what would they know? And the Kremlin has dismissed it out of hand. Well, what would they know? But it is something that the Navalny... Now a german official was just asked about this was not able to confirm it we have not been able to confirm it right and the kremlin has dismissed it okay so you got that played it twice make sure you got it but but you know still we're reporting on it even though even though out of hand but it is something that the uh navalny uh navalny's camp is certainly looking into worth following up on that one for sure richard thank you oh yeah i'm sure they're going to follow up on that one Now, what's frustrating about that is they've had multiple hours.
That report came out this morning. Overnight, Ukraine's intelligence chief, Budanov, I'm not exactly sure how you say his name, of course, he was asked point blank by reporters what he thought the cause of death was. And here's what he says. Says, I may disappoint you. We know that it is. He actually died from a blood clot. And he goes on, I think, later to make a joke about how I know that's not what you've heard on the Internet. So the Ukraine's intelligence chief says that he died from a blood clot. Now, perhaps he was murdered in a way that invoked a blood clot. I'm not here to really arbitrate that.
My point is ABC has not reported on that bit of information. They will report on speculation from a group of people that are obviously biased, but they will not report on information that seems like it would come from a reliable source in the situation, which would be Ukraine's intelligence chief. Again, it's the control of information, and that's vital in a war. Zelensky sat down with NBC's Richard. Richard. Thank you. I just returned from several areas along the front line in the south and in the east. And soldiers there told me they have to ration their ammunition.
What happens to your country if this American aid doesn't arrive? And I don't really I don't really think this question makes a lot of sense because the aid isn't going to be able to magically increase our ammo production. We just simply cannot provide them with enough ammo. We will lose a lot of people. We will lose territories. Do you think the United States wants Ukraine to win this war? So if we don't help, they're going to lose a lot of people. That logic doesn't hold up either. Because if we do help, it only prolongs the war and it kills more Ukrainians.
Now, you could double check this, but the last stat that I read is that the average Ukrainian soldier is in their 40s, which means there's some old men in there. Because that's the average. So if they're running low on ammo and they're running low on soldiers, it seems like prolonging the war is only going to increase deaths and the likelihood that you'll have to surrender more territory. Then he asked, does the U.S. want you to win? Well, what is Zelensky going to say? Of course, he's going to say yes. He wants the money. People, we will lose territories.
Do you think the United States wants Ukraine to win this war? Or do they just want you to weaken Russia and contain Russia? I hope so. We count on our partners. and I hope that it's not only words. In Washington, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan on Meet the Press. Of course Ukraine can win. Of course. He doesn't provide any substantive way they could actually do that, but of course, how could you ask that? How could you ask that? Jake says, how could you ask that? In Washington, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan on Meet the Press. Of course Ukraine can win, but it can only do so if it has the tools that it needs.
And that is why the United States needs to deliver the aid package. The House needs to step up and pass that bill. Boy, the Biden administration just loves war so much. And of course, if we just got them some more tools, that's all it takes. They just need a few more tools, not bodies or landmass or money. They just need tools. Oh, what's that? Tools are money and bodies? Oh. President Zelensky warning against appeasing President Putin. The world will not stop him. He will do it till 2030. So this is the entire premise of why we must continue to support Ukraine. It's vital we support Ukraine because if we don't stop Putin in Ukraine.
He will spread out everywhere until 2040 and take over all of Europe. You know, I don't know if many people listening to the show will actually remember this, but this was actually the same argument that kept us in the Vietnam War for way, way too long. And I just don't simply see a path to success for Ukraine. I never have. And I don't think you're being told how bad the situation is. The BBC has reported on it, but we don't see it reported here. These are the patrols many Ukrainian men now dread. Conscription officers like Pavlo hunting for draft dodgers.
Ukraine needs a lot more soldiers, but they're not flooding to the front lines anymore. So some have to be caught and cajoled. Pavlo lost his arm near in a mortar attack. But he wanted to go on serving his country. So now he looks for other men who can still fight. There's a full-scale war, but it's still like people don't care. We need everyone to come together like they did on the first day. Everyone was united then, like brothers. But when I ask about friends who've served with him, Pavlo tells me there's almost no one left from his company. Everyone's either injured like me or dead. Yikes.
Yikes. Mark my words, the only way this war continues, and I hate to say this, European countries are going to have to start sending soldiers. And other countries besides the U.S. Are going to have to take a more active role, and they have been. During an election year, the Biden administration has to back off a little bit. You'll see his surrogates out there. My governor is one of them. I'm so proud, so proud of my little governor who's going out there and just campaigning for more war on behalf of Biden. And apparently his surrogate up in Canada, Justin Trudeau, is preparing to send more money and weapons to Ukraine because Canadians are doing so well.
As Russia's invasion approaches its second grim anniversary, Ukraine continues to struggle. The latest loss, the city of Avdiivka falling to Moscow. Canada has a responsibility to help Ukraine win back its territory. The defence minister announced what Forum Ottawa's new help will take. Some 800 drones worth nearly $100 million from a previously announced assistance package, capable of surveillance as well as carrying small payloads of munitions. We work very closely with Ukrainian industry, Ukrainian military and their government to determine what they need.
But Ukraine needs more than just drones. It was forced to ration ammunition as Russia swept through Avdivka. It just seems so pointless. So Canadian listeners, boost in and tell me what you think about your government doubling down as the U.S. begins to slow down a little bit. And if you could explain something to me, I'm very sincere about this, please do. Because the line that we're being sold right now to try to get us all on board one last time with supporting Ukraine with one last really big bill is that we should all calm down. Don't worry so much because all of this spending on Ukraine is just going to benefit the United States.
It all goes back to the war machine here in the United States. So is that true for Canadian contributions or is it going to your military industrial complex somehow? If anybody has any insights on that, boost in and share that with me. But I want to play this clip. This is Mitch McConnell. Eight months ago, he said this multiple times, but he talked so slow. This is the tightest I could get it. He's not doing so well, guys. But eight months ago, he made it clear why we should all be on board with spending in the Ukraine. Russia. Third, most of the money that's been appropriated for Ukraine's security assistance, doesn't actually go to Ukraine. Oh?
It gets invested in American defense manufacturing. It funds new weapons and munitions for U.S. Armed forces to replace the older material we provided to Ukraine. Show me the money! I mean, just this week. Vicky Newland, the old F the EU champ herself and Biden's war hawk showed up on CNN to not only really reaffirm how committed we are to Ukraine, but how all the money coming right back to us is great. It is. And I do hear you and the others in the administration and supporters talking about the vital necessity to do this. But as people say, hope is not a strategy. And do you have any actual belief or reason to believe that eventually this bill will be paid?
And if not, how are you going to make sure Ukraine gets vital weapons and ammunition? Christian, I have strong confidence that when the House comes back after they've been out in their districts hearing from the American people, after they have heard from Ukraine, they have heard from Europe. Why would our representatives care what Ukraine and Europe say? I mean, everyone should care about the global community to a degree. But these representatives are literally hired to represent a specific area of the country. So why? Why are they taking in what Ukraine has to say at all about their war?
The entire premise is silly. And I maintain that the Democrats don't really want you to know how war hawkish they've become. And when you listen to Vicky here, you can hear the thirst for war. If you didn't know who she was and I told you that she was a Dick Cheney surrogate, you would believe me. Because these might as well be the words of Dick Cheney himself. Districts hearing from the american people after they have heard from ukraine they have heard from europe which by the way just passed 54 billion in additional aid itself that we will do what we have always done which is defend democracy and freedom around the world not just for victims of tyrants like putin but in our own interest in preserving a free and open international order that's what what we need to do. We've done it before.
And by the way, we have to remember that the bulk of this money is going right back into the U.S. economy. Yeah, so it's great. It's great. And they actually are not wrong. If you look at the source of GDP growth for the last couple of years for the United States, it's primarily government and military-industrial complex and medical. But a big portion of it is government jobs related to the war in Ukraine and the military-industrial complex and their related industries and companies like Raytheon, Boeing, et cetera. We all know the names. That's where our GDP growth is coming from. And the overall fact that the cost of goods is just more because of inflation. So people are spending more.
So it kind of kind of screws with the GDP as well. But she's right. She's right in a sense. Now, that doesn't justify the mass killing and all of the money laundering that happens and no doubt the types of political influence games that get played and the mass corruption that this generates and causes and the fact that. John Kerry's family and Nancy Pelosi's family and Joe Biden's family and others all have business ties to Ukraine. You know, none of that really changes. But she's right that, you know, a good portion of the money comes back to us eventually after we squeeze it away. We have to remember that the bulk of this money is going right back into the U.S. economy to make those weapons, including good paying jobs in some 40 states across the United States. Yeah, man.
What? You want people to lose their jobs? What are you, a monster? We can't stop this war now. These are good jobs. Who cares about lives? Who cares about lives? Wait a minute. Wait a minute. The same political party that was arguing during COVID that we should shut up about business and money and protect lives at the cost of the economy and screwing over the Western economy now for the last two to four years, whatever it's been, three years. The same people that told us lives were more important than anything else, that we all had to mandate a vaccine that you needed to take, a vaccine that was under an emergency use authorization that hadn't been tested at mass scale. you need to take it immediately to protect lives.
But now we're being told, but jobs are at stake. Who cares about the lives? Jobs are at stake, bro. It's funny how you just wait a couple of months or a couple of years or whatever. You can wait just long enough if you're patient and watch them flip and realize they actually have no moral compass. They're just taking whatever side is politically convenient for them. So it's very important that they control the information that you get. And by the way, and by the way, it's great for us. It's just great for us. So go vote for Democrats. And the funny thing is, and not that I'm really, I'm not really saying the situation would actually be any better under Trump.
I don't, I'm not a person that believes that the war didn't kick off in Ukraine because Trump was in office. Trump actually helped militarize Ukraine and got them ready. The issue was that Ukraine wasn't ready. Lindsey Graham, John McCain, they were ready to go in 2013, 2014, 2015. They were ready to go, but Ukraine wasn't. That's one of the things Zelensky said in an interview recently, is that they needed time to prepare for war, to get the people psychologically prepared, he said that, and to get themselves, you know, organized. Not to mention he won as a pro-peace candidate, so he needed time to pivot politically himself.
See, I'm not really so sure we wouldn't have ended up in the same exact situation with Trump. I think it's worse with Biden, to be honest with you, because he's incompetent and it's being run by a committee that doesn't know what the hell they're doing and is being advised by war hawks like Vic Newlin there. So I think it's probably worse with Biden. But whoever is in power. They like to cloak the blame for their failures as if it's an attack on the establishment. So, while I hold individual leadership responsible for the decisions they make, as we all should, and as these idiotic decisions stack up over time, the anger and the vitriol from the people that vote grows.
It seems obvious. But, of course, if you're in power, you can't admit that you're a failure and you're a disappointment, so you have to pivot the blame. And so this is something, again, that is absolutely critical for information control. I'm not going to talk about internal European dynamics, but I will say that in all of our democracies, in every democracy around the world. This is your buddy, Justin Trudeau, the surrogate for Joe Biden up in Canada. We are seeing a rising movements of either authoritarian populism or skepticism about democracy itself.
He touches on it there just for a moment. Skepticism for democracy itself. Well, what he's really saying, but he's using it in sort of newspeak language. We are seeing across the board historical lows in trust for every major institution. From private institutions to government institutions, across the board, because we have seen, day after day, reasons to distrust all of these things. Some people spin out of control. Others refuse to look at it. Some people, I like to think like myself, are somewhere in the middle there. And it's completely reasonable to be skeptical of the medical industry.
It's skeptical of the White House. Look at how they run everything. Skeptical of the Canadian government. Look at inflation. What's happened in the West with inflation alone is enough for all of us to be skeptical of our governments right now. But they twist it because it would then be an indictment on them. So Justin sees it as an attack on all of our institutions. It's skepticism, as he puts it, not bankrupt trust. Authoritarian populism or skepticism about democracy itself. For just as a mental exercise, when he says populism, replace that with the people. Populism, the word is being charged to mean right-wing, but populism really is just the people and what the people want, what their interests are. That's populism.
It gets called a bad thing now because they have no representative. A rising movements of either authoritarian populism or skepticism about democracy itself. And we all need to recommit ourselves to standing up not just for ukraine but through standing up for ukraine to the very principles that make our countries strong and free and how sick and twisted is this he's saying by committing more ukrainians to die by committing another country's people to die we protect democracy back here at home it's this twist and perversion that undermines our our trust and our faith in him and the very institutions.
He is the one that is attacking the trust and the faith, but he turns it around back on you, and then he immediately uses his split tongue to undermine the faith in his very office. So he slams populism for it, and then he does it, within the span of a few seconds. Not just for Ukraine, but through standing up for Ukraine to the very principles that make our countries strong and free. It is a time where citizens cannot take their democracies for granted, need to continue to be there, to lean in, not just on being worried about their daily challenges. I love it when somebody tells you you should lean in on being worried about something. That's always a great sign.
Which are significant everywhere around the world right now. I wonder why our daily challenges are significant everywhere around the world right now. I wonder who's been in power for the last few years that has made a string of decisions that have led to policies that have caused housing to explode exponentially in Canada. I know that they've made some chicken shit moves to try to cool that down, but let's be real. It's policy stacked on policy over years that have caused that very problem, led by that office. Not just on being worried about their daily challenges, which are significant everywhere around the world right now, but making sure we are building peace, stability and prosperity for future generations as well.
And that means standing up unequivocally for the international rules-based order, standing for democracy, against authoritarianism, against illegal invasions. So let's back up. Let's back up. So it's interesting how he keeps blurring Ukraine and populism and the lack of support as sort of the same as being against democracy, which is so silly. It's so, so, so silly. For democracy, against authoritarianism. Authoritarianism being populism, populism being the right. That's what he's saying. Authoritarian, he already said it earlier, authoritarian populism, which is a charged code word for the right, for the conservatives.
So in order to save democracy, you cannot vote for the conservatives. You can only vote for his party. That's the same argument Joe Biden is making down here. In order to save democracy, we must only vote for one party going forward, which is bonkers. It's it's an argument that this is is circularly illogic on its face it's not going to hold up but yet trudeau's making that argument and biden's making that argument that the only way to save democracy is to only vote for one party to have a uniparty it's silly national rules-based order, standing for democracy against authoritarianism against illegal invasions of another country's sovereignty.
These are principles that are under discussion in every country around the world. God, what has happened to Canada? My goodness. My goodness. Canada is the war hawk. What part of the war hawk crew now? I wonder how folks up there feel about that. It just feels like just Canada just doesn't need to be involved at all. And to draw a comparison that if you You don't support the war in Ukraine. You don't support democracy. It's so gross. It's gaslighting. And it's not even very good gaslighting. And I think maybe that's what offends me the most at the end of the day is that the type of bullshitting that Trudeau does isn't even very good.
It's not very good. And so it's not even like I feel like I can't believe he thinks this works. Let's take a break. I want to share my thoughts on all of this but I want to take a little bit of a music break first, and to have time to process if you boost in during this track 90% of the sats will go to the artist who created the track this is rub you raw by chore boy. Music. All right, I wanted to share some thoughts on why I think we're in what I'm calling a season of information control. And I think it really starts politically. No one actually represents the people. There are powerful politicians that represent plenty of special interest groups, but there's nobody in there lobbying for everyday folks.
Small business people know how this feels, and now the middle class is really learning how it feels. And the reality is the people in power don't do anything for the people as a result they don't have to they can spin us up about issues that could never really fully be solved that will always be perma problems while they will jointly agree on issues that really debase our country, you know where they agree is always where it screws the people again because they don't represent us anymore. Additionally, I think that's a result, and I say additionally, and it is a result of 40 years of fiscal policy that have just destroyed the middle class.
We have been getting absolutely destroyed by policies, by trade policy, by fiscal management policy, and we haven't really noticed as an average citizenry because while this was happening, things were getting outsourced to cheap labor. Things were getting cheaper to ship, cheaper to make. And so things felt all right for the middle class. We could buy pretty much everything we needed. But the luxury is fading. and we don't have the tools to get back there right now. But we can't have the people getting upset. You can't have the people getting upset. And then, tied in with all of this is inflation.
And I think if you really understood how badly the management class has fucked you with inflation, you'd be practically radicalized. If you're not furious, then you don't understand what's been going on. And they don't want you to know. What I have realized in the last two years as I've become more financially literate, is that the vast, vast, vast majority of the people are financially illiterate. Here, in the UK, in Europe, I'm shocked. Very, very few people are financially literate. And the ones that are, if they were at a younger age, are rich. I mean, it's especially when you understand what's been going on since 2008.
And then lastly, this country is addicted to war. We can't own it, though, because we have this narrative about, you know, being the best in the world and the land of the free. But the system's addicted to war and the war machine owns many of the politicians. So all of this comes together to create an environment where mediocre establishment candidates need to be continued to be reelected like Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton. And on the right, they don't quite have the organization that the left does. The DNC has a tight control over the elections for the Democratic Party. The right doesn't really have that same thing for the Republican candidate.
And this all goes back to 2016's election. People who know me know that I say this quite often. The left made a choice to sabotage Bernie Sanders. To make sure that Hillary was their candidate, a candidate the people didn't want, an established pro-war candidate that the people just don't want. They don't want a pro-war establishment candidate. And the Republican Party tried to run every candidate they could but Trump. And the media laughed at him every step of the way. But they didn't have the organization behind the scenes to sabotage him like they did at the DNC with Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
And John Podesta. Unfortunately, they seem to be just running a little bit of a more, I guess, legit ship over there, or less organized is probably what it is at the Republican Party. So a populist candidate got on the ticket, Donald Trump. Bernie was the less populist candidate, but they destroyed him, and now he's just their lapdog. Totally ineffectual. Embarrassing. Embarrassing. But the result is that only one party in the united states allows for a populist candidate and it is the right and so you're always going to get a populist candidate that leans right you always will if they would have let bernie run you would have had one that leaned left, i i think rfk is probably a populist and he would have ran as a democrat happily but they didn't want rfk they do they're doing it again they're too scared of these fringe as they would put it candidates because they need the system to continue as it is they, they need things to stay established if you will like they can't have somebody coming in and screwing up a good deal which is part of the reason why they hate trump so much amongst all the other reasons so this is why we have to control the information i have some homework for you it's easier than reading broken money but if you have not read broken money yet please do, but i have some homework for you i have a link called media misses or media miss from full measure in the show notes i'd like you to spend 10 minutes watching this.
I won't argue it probably is a little bias, but they bring the receipts and they really do a fan. The best one of the best comparisons I have done I have seen yet. And I've tried to do some myself of how the media covers Biden versus Trump. And they really bring a lot of the receipts. And it's fantastic to help you kind of frame your mind and be a little more critical about how things get covered as we get into the election, because it's like they're just going right back to that playbook. We did get some fantastic boosts into the show. Thank you, everybody who boosts in. You know, I think when I talk about the media landscape, it's so clear podcasts have a role here.
As clearly one of the free distributed platforms for information. You know, there isn't an AI yet that's controlling RSS feeds. And I don't see how it could be possible as long as an initiative like Podcasting 2.0 is successful, you know, because the core tenet of Podcasting 2.0 is to keep podcasting decentralized. And that's why I think there is a role for you to play here, too, in information distribution. You need to adopt an application that uses Podcasting 2.0. You need to figure out how to boost. You have to keep the information flow free. And this is a moment where each individually, each of us, can take action and ensure that this happens.
This is a really rare moment where boots-on-the-ground adoption to keep information flow free can just happen by adopting a podcast client and supporting a content creator who's distributing information that you think is worth supporting. Because information does change minds over time. time. Understanding how all this works, especially what they've done with the dollar, it undercuts all of their gaslighting. It does take time, but reality eventually returns to the baseline. It will happen. It happens by freely sharing information. And I think podcasts are our best bet here. So please go get a new podcast app at podcastapps.com.
I think if you're just getting started, the integration of Fountain and the Strike app, those are two different apps, but the integration makes it really straightforward. If you like the GPL and you think the freedom thing is something that you want to keep going and supporting, I understand, brother. Podverse could be the way for you to go. And if you're on iOS, Cast-O-Matic is fantastic. Either way, I'd like you to consider there's a way you can directly contribute. And you also can keep this show going with boosts. It's how I would like to get feedback into the show, too. Constructive criticism as well.
Your take on things that I talk about. All of that in here. And JJ Jammer J comes in as our baller booster this week. So he is our Rich Lobster. Hey, Rich Lobster! He says, thanks for bringing Unfilter back. The show was sorely missed. I appreciate your viewpoint on current events, especially when framed through your lived experiences. Also grateful in general for the app picks, workflow suggestions, and other resources you have linked over the years. I'm going to try to do that more. I'm going to try to do that more. I have the Media Miss YouTube video just because I think that's a mental framework that will help you form when you watch news coverage, but tools and workflow, that is on my mind a lot, JJ.
Thank you, though, for that big boost. I appreciate that very much. You are a baller this week. Renegade MMXV. That's probably Roman numerals, huh? You're not doing too bad yourself with 200 sats. This is your show is absolutely. Required for these times. When I started listening years ago, your voice of reason was the biggest reason I moved from one side of the political spectrum to the middle. And then I started seeing the bigger picture. I've been consuming 20 to 40 hours a week of political commentary podcasts from all sides for the last few years, and this show is still among the best.
Wow. Let me know if there's anything I can do to make it easier. Wow. Wow. Renegade, maybe we should talk. You know, I'm kind of shopping for co-hosts. I mean, that's a big responsibility. But if you're consuming that much media, I think you should put it to good work or you should stop it because it's not healthy, man. I have been there. I bring in quite a bit of media myself, and I have to sometimes make sure that I'm keeping my mental health in check because they'll just wear you down. Thank you for that boost. Bitcoin Lizard comes in with 100,000 sats. I'm a duck. D-U-K duck. Loaded with talent. Oh, thank you, Bitcoin Lizard. He says, I was very happy to see a new episode of him filter in my feed.
I think you've returned just in time. Welcome back, Chris. You know, I hope. I'm trying to not overdo it. I don't want to just crank out episodes. I mean, I could make one every day with what's going on. But I'm trying to contribute where I think I have a unique perspective. I'm specifically trying to hone in on topics that maybe people are close to kind of putting their finger on or people aren't talking about. Out. Like, I still don't think people are talking about the fact that the U.S. Through many administrations and now particularly under the Biden administration is essentially having a little Cold War with the EU.
I think that's getting missed still. And I'm still standing by that call. But, you know, there's other things. There's so much there's so much media out there now. There's other things that just get covered to death. And so I don't really I don't really plan to talk about that much. But I imagine as the election gets closer, Things are just gonna get cranked up in general. And when I get through the spring travel season, I can see that all kind of landing around the same time and perhaps the frequency of the show. Will kick up when that when that occurs that's kind of what i suspect right now i'm just kind of moderating it to where i think i can uniquely contribute uh but the boosts are a big part of what keeps the momentum going as well i know it's silly but as somebody who puts a lot of, heart and soul into this work and creative energy into it the boosts are an affirmation of your that work is worth your time people appreciate it and so when you see the boost come in it's a motivator to keep on going so i appreciate every single one and our next one comes from listener Jeff with 40,000 sats.
Alright. It's just great to see Unfiltered back. I think the show would do well without a weekly due date. Oh, good. I was just talking about that. I can see you somehow pumped a few more episodes out before I could even boost this one. Don't go into neural debt, though, since I'm making those mental purchases and bringing back the receipts. I would be happy to only hear from you when they're ready with receipts in hand. Thanks for the killer show. Well, Jeff, That's just what I was thinking. I honestly had not – I saw like the first sentence about great to see the show back. I had not read the rest yet before I went into that whole thing.
Well, that's kind of what I'm thinking. It does mean every now and then I'll hit a couple out back to back. That might just be because there's a couple of topics that land. And then I think there's also – it will be if this strikes my fancy I suppose or you – somebody boosts with a really great idea. A lot's gone down over the last two years. I could always revisit, too. But I imagine we'll probably be too busy with current events right now. Karamedo comes in, I think maybe, with 20,000 sats using Fountain. And he writes, I didn't realize this podcast existed until I noticed people boosting on Fountain.
That started to spark my interest. Didn't take long to recognize the familiar voice of Chris. Sounds a bit different, though. Long story short, I'm hooked on yet another show from my absolute favorite podcaster. Oh, my gosh. Gosh, Carol Mado, that is so sweet. Thank you. So if you're new to the podcasting 2.0 and the boosting stuff and all this, I know I'm throwing a lot of terms at you. Stick with me. Like osmosis, you'll pick it up over time. And what Carol here is saying is that when you boost into the show using the Fountain app, it puts us on a leaderboard.
And last episode got to like number two or three on the top episodes of Fountain, and we found a bunch of new audience that way. So it's a fan not only are you financially supporting the show and you get to send a message in that i'll read but you'll also help with discovery in the fountain charts which brings in quite a bit of listeners and there's a lot of like-minded listeners over there so that really actually moves the needle for the show, And it's great to kind of get that established as the election warms up. Stigley, S-D-I-G-G-L-Y, Stigley, comes in with 5,000 sats, is so pumped to have unfiltered back.
And yes, this prompted me to learn Fountain. Heck, yes, yes. Good for you. You know what? This is what you get. You get a pew, pew, pew for your work right there. I appreciate that. Sir Sean McCune of Alagalley Valley. I love that. Oh, came in with 10,000 sats, boosting for the return of Unfilter. You're doing a good job. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that. Sir Lurksalot comes in with 2,674 sats. Hey, Lurks. Nice to see you. B-O-O-S-T. He likes the song choice from last week. He says, but you're going to make a poor man out of me if you keep putting out such great content.
Hey, boy, that would be a good problem to have for both of us. Thank you for the book recommendations. You and the Bitcoin dad have been must listens, real educations. I always pause it at the show when one comes out so I can catch it. Well, thank you. The Bitcoin dad's going on a bit of a hiatus. But there is a big back catalog. And if financial literacy is high on your list, skim through that back catalog because a lot of macroeconomic discussion happens there. Not just from a Bitcoin perspective, which might be useful for you, but just in general because the Bitcoin dad has an economics background.
So it makes for a really interesting discussion because we are living. In fascinating times. Thank you, Lurks. Anonymous podcast guru user comes in with 10,000 sats to say thanks. It's over 9,000! And user 298, you can always set your username in fountain, comes in with 10,000 sats. It's over 9,000! And he writes, or they write, so glad to have the show back. It's the only source I ever found that allows me to truly be informed. I was just about to email and ask for help with podcasting 2.0 and boosting when you started talking about it yourself. yourself.
So I did. About doing it yourself. So I did. Oh, yeah, I did go on a little rant. I was tired or something. I'm really impressed. You figured it out, actually. You know, I know. I said, go figure it out, man. Go do the work. I know. I don't mean to sound like a dad, but sometimes you do. You know what? I can't help it. I've been one for 15 years. So sometimes. I really appreciate that boost. Thank you for coming in with that nice, generous boost, too. Southern Fraud Sassafras comes in with 2,222 sats, also known as a road ducks. Sassafras says you know i was a little worried about trying out this show oh did i i might have read this one before i'm not sure because i didn't have my list it says i was worried it would just be uh confirmation biases but uh maybe it'd even get me upset at chris's politics that could always be a danger but i was pleasantly surprised on uh on on how it went um he said also uh i would love to have a couple more books to add to the reading list so thanks for that well good i'm glad that that you were pleasantly surprised with how it went.
DPG comes in with 4,444 sats. Quacka quacka, it's a treasure. Yippee! I was so excited when I heard Unfilter was back on Coder way back in 2013. Eric Kroll using a clip from the archives for a school presentation. Oh, he used it for the school presentation. Love the show. Thank you very much, DPG. Todd Banner came in with 10,000 sats to say, glad you're back. You've got a committed listener, and I just have to figure out this boost thing. Oh, I just figured it out this week. I'm glad I could share some here and with Coder. Todd, you're on fire, buddy. Great job. Thank you very much. Boost!
I really appreciate that. You get a Janeway boost. There's coffee in that nebula. KP comes back with a Spaceballs boost, which is 12,345 sats. So the culmination is one, two, three, four, five. That's the stupidest culmination I ever heard in my life. He writes, dang it, Chris. I was trying to save some sats up for Coder, but I cannot not give you some value back for this one. One of the most informational episodes I've ever listened to in any podcast. Whoa. Unfilter has been sorely missed. I will shoot higher. Jesus. I'm going to delete this one now. I feel like maybe I peaked.
Saints and Sats no probably not Saints and Sats comes in with a thousand Sats says as a veteran I really feel for the soldiers stationed in these tiny poorly defended bases and tasked with small scale invading of a sovereign country Syria wants them out Israel wants them dead and their civilian leadership is criminally incompetent talk about a no win situation. Yeah yeah absolutely we also had other folks boost this week saying that they found us on Fountain thanks to the boosts and showing up on the charts because we had 28 boosters which is really, really incredible and we managed to stack an incredible 754,857 sets!
That is fantastic and I really appreciate that number because the show is a ton of work so that does feel like value for value. That's the idea here with the show is never going to try to get it sponsored. I always think this type of discussion should be for the people that are listening to it only, not for a sponsor audience. You know, not for a YouTube audience where I need to be YouTube friendly and not get demonetized. Like that just is never going to work for this show. The idea with value for value is that if you got some value from a conversation that happened in this episode or some information or something I said, if you want to hear more episodes, you contribute a little bit value back.
It keeps everything going. And then I, as a small business person, like, hey, you know what? I'm getting value for the time I spend there because that is part of – there is that element to it. But all in all, I also just love the messages. They're just so great. It's something about it. It's something about the whole system. and the podcasting 2.0 initiative itself to keep podcasting decentralized is something i'm really passionate about i think that's really super important i want to wrap it up on a value for value song that's part of all of this too which i think is really unique podcasting hasn't had access to music like this before just haven't really had this as an option but now thanks to the podcasting 2.0 spec we can do what's called magic wallet switching technology and when the song plays we can switch the boost over to the artist to compensate them and they get a few sats That's for coming here and letting me play it on the show. And I get to play their music.
And it's also helping with discovery for them. It's helping these independent artists get discovered. And assuming everything works with the system when I publish, the name of the track should be in the chapter. So if you have a new podcast app, it'll show you their album art. And the chapter name will change to the name of the song. And in most cases, you should be able to tap that and it'll actually take you to a webpage where you can get the song. Isn't that cool? So I'm going to wrap it up here with Burning Room by Oli, one of my favorite Value for Value artists.
Thank you so much for joining me on this episode of Unfilter, and I'll see you next time. We can't be over. Music.
Welcome into 380
Introduction to Information Control
Social Media Content Regulation Arguments
Challenges with Defining Hate Speech
Private Platform Rights vs. Preventing Misinformation
Implications of Information Control
Selective Information and Bias in Reporting
Allegations of Navalny's Murder and Prisoner Swap
Ukraine's Struggle for Ammunition and Aid
The Rationale for Continued Support for Ukraine
Canadian Assistance to Ukraine and Military Aid
Use of Aid for American Defense Manufacturing
Critique of War Justification and Corruption
Impact of Information Control on Political Narratives
Distrust in Institutions
Season of Information Control
The 2016 Election Fallout
Populism and Political Organization
Boosts and Listener Feedback
