View this post on the web at [link removed]

A man you have probably never heard of is openly advocating a system of control that most Americans would reject on sight. You may never hear his name again, but you will live under the consequences of ideas like his if they go unchallenged.
So, please pay attention. Because this is how it begins.
In this article, I will explain what this system really is, how it is already being quietly built, and why its logic is spreading far faster than most people realize.
And I will show you the biblical implications behind it, because this is not just a political threat. It is a spiritual one.
What makes this moment dangerous is not the man who said it. It is the fact that he said it plainly, in public, and inside a respectable forum, without being laughed out of the room.
The idea he floated was not framed as a form of tyranny. It was framed as a necessity.
Speech, he argued, can no longer be left free. It must be ranked, weighted, authenticated, and suppressed when deemed destabilizing.
He’s not talking about an outright ban. Instead, he’s talking about speech being managed, optimized, and stabilized.
If that language sounds familiar, it should.
Because this is not the language of law or liberty.
It is the language of machines, AI machines.
Who Is Actually Saying This
This is not a fringe voice or an anonymous online commentator.
The proposal to rank, weight, and suppress speech came from Shlomo Kramer [ [link removed] ], a prominent figure in the global cybersecurity industry and the co-founder and CEO of Cato Networks.
This is not a fringe voice, a political activist, or an anonymous online commentator.
He is a serial technology entrepreneur who previously helped found major cybersecurity firms used by governments and large corporations worldwide.
His companies operate at the infrastructure level, securing networks, data flows, and digital platforms that underpin modern society.
When someone in that position speaks publicly about limiting free speech, controlling platforms, and ranking the authenticity of individuals online, it matters. Not because he holds public office, but because he operates in the layer where ideas become systems.
Kramer made these remarks in a mainstream business media interview, arguing that democratic societies must restrict speech to survive the age of artificial intelligence.
This is important to understand.
He was not speaking hypothetically. He was not warning about a distant future. He was describing a framework that closely aligns with how modern digital systems already function and would directly benefit centralized, platform-level security models like those his company provides.
This article is not about demonizing one man.
Instead, it is about recognizing what it means when influential figures in critical infrastructure industries openly argue that free speech itself is a vulnerability to be managed.
The AI Logic Being Applied to Human Speech
Modern artificial intelligence systems do not reason about truth. They do not weigh morality. They do not honor conscience.
Here’s what you need to understand, and if you don’t, read it twice, three times, or more.
AI functions by ranking possible outputs, assigning weights based on prior feedback, and suppressing responses that fall outside approved parameters.
Here’s an example:
Imagine you type a prompt into an AI:
Prompt: “Does God exist?”
The AI does not search the heavens. It does not consult philosophy. It does not pray. It does not even “think” in the human sense.
It generates a list of possible next responses, using rankings it learned from humans during training.
Inside the system, it is more like this:
Possible Response A: “No, God does not exist.”
Possible Response B: “Some people believe God exists, others do not. Here are the arguments on both sides…”
Possible Response C: “I can’t verify God’s existence, but I can describe religious and philosophical perspectives.”
Possible Response D: “Yes, God exists, and here is why.”
The model assigns each option a probability score. Think of it as a confidence meter for what response best matches its training patterns and its safety rules.
Now comes the key.
Those scores are not fixed. They are shaped by feedback.
During training, humans and automated systems label outputs as helpful, harmful, misleading, unsafe, or acceptable. Over time, the AI learns which kinds of answers get rewarded and which get punished.
That training creates “weights.”
Weights are invisible settings inside the model that push it toward certain kinds of responses and away from others. The model is not told, “Never say X” in a simple way. It is trained so that X becomes less likely to appear.
So after enough feedback, the system quietly shifts:
Response B and Response C rise to the top.
Response A and Response D get downranked.
Not always. Not in every case. But in general.
This is what people mean when they say AI is “aligned.”
It is aligned by changing the rankings.
And once the rankings are changed, suppression happens without anyone needing to say the word censor.
The AI can still technically generate Response A or Response D, but they become less likely, less common, and sometimes blocked entirely if they trip a policy filter.
That is the mechanism.
Ranking. Weighting. Suppression.
And now you can see why Kramer’s proposal should raise alarms. He is describing a society where human speech works the same way.
Not banned outright. Just downranked. De-amplified. Made harder to find. Treated as a risk to stability.
In other words, controlled by design.
The system does not silence ideas because they are false. It silences them because they score poorly.
Kramer suggests that the same logic be applied to human speech. He is far from isolated. Similar proposals have been discussed at the World Economic Forum in Davos, promoted by thinkers like Yuval Noah Harari, and echoed in successive World Economic Forum Global Risks Reports.
Under such a system, expression is no longer a right. It is an output. Voices are no longer equal. They are scored. Influence is no longer earned through persuasion. It is allocated by infrastructure.
This is where the danger becomes clear.
Once speech is treated as data, someone must decide what qualifies as an acceptable signal and what is dismissed as noise. Once authenticity is ranked, someone must define what authentic means. And once stability becomes the goal, anything that disrupts consensus becomes a threat.
America was never designed to be stable in that way. It was designed to be resilient in the face of conflict, truthful through debate, and free through the restraint of power. The friction was the feature.
Scripture warns us that the most dangerous systems do not arrive announcing oppression. They arrive promising order. They promise safety. They promise protection from deception. They promise peace.
And all they ask is for just a little control.
The rest of this article explains how this AI-style logic is already being quietly implemented, why it poses a direct threat to free expression and religious conviction, and how Scripture warned us that systems like this would emerge disguised as protection.
This section is for paid subscribers who want to stay ahead of these developments, not after they are normalized...

Unsubscribe [link removed]?